Polyphasic Sleep and Better Thinking

Maybe Homeowners Wouldn't Strategically Default If Lenders Cooperated

Will a Human at B of A Please Modify My $160,000-Underwater Mortgage

Blatantly Racist Subprime Loans

Slothful Loan Modifiers Earn More Money When You're Delinquent

Bank Told Homeowner to Skip Payments, Then Foreclosed

Asymmetrical Norms: Why Homeowners Aren't Walking Away

Rich Investors "Walk Away" from $5 Billion Mortgage

…I just wanted to put up those articles (from The Consumerist, all relatively recent), and weigh in with my Hi-I-Was-A-Foreclosure-Prevention-Counselor-In-Recession-Central opinion…mostly because I would feel really bad if I left the field (which I have) without ever saying it really, really loudly:

THE MAJORITY OF FORECLOSURES COULD HAVE BEEN EASILY PREVENTED BY THE BANKS MAKING EVEN A TINY AMOUNT OF EFFORT TO STOP THEM.

THAT EFFORT IS NOT THERE.  FROM ANY OF THE BIG, BAILED-OUT BANKS.  STORIES LIKE THE ONES ABOVE ARE THE NORM, AND LAZY OR SHADY HOMEOWNERS WALKING AWAY IS ALMOST 100% A BANK-CREATED FICTION.  (Please don't be surprised that huge mega-banks can influence the media in this country.  I will have to punch you.)

DO YOUR PART and STOP HELPING TO SPREAD THE LIES.  THE BANKS CAUSED THIS PROBLEM BY ALLOWING THEIR OWN PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TO SELL UNSUSTAINABLE LOANS, AND THEY ARE PERPETUATING IT BY FAILING TO TAKE EVEN THE MOST BASIC STEPS TO TRY AND HELP HONEST FAMILIES WHO WANT TO PAY (often who want to pay on exorbitant terms that they really should walk away from) MAKE REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR LOANS.

I saw it; hundreds of times.  I met maybe five–maybe?–actually stupid homeowners, and one shady jerk, in three years of counseling; but I lost track of the number of times I personally witnessed:

• banks telling people they needed to miss payments before they could receive help; then foreclosing once the payments were missed;
• banks setting deadlines and then forcing people to miss them, and then foreclosing;
• banks "losing" paperwork over and over again, and refusing to extend deadlines because of it;
• banks offering "help" in the form of a modification that raised the homeowner's payments, often also making their loan terms worse (and how many sad, sad times homeowners accepted that modification, assuming that since they'd asked for help, they'd get it, and not wanting to be "rude" by reading the fine print and demanding a better deal) — and then foreclosing if the modification isn't accepted, or if it is and the new, higher payments can't be made.

I'm counting on you, Internet.  Don't let this whole foreclosure mess go down in history as a problem with consumers:   That was NEVER true.

Thank you.

(Bonus Happy Link:  Americans for Fairness in Lending)

Hey, Internet…most of you are probably aware how crazy things have been lately (and in saying that I mean no offense to crazy people; they are generally nowhere near as unpleasant as the recent rollercoaster).  I haven't been able to talk about a lot of it in any public forum (like this one), since it involves The Man, and The Man has a fragile ego; but you know how life can get.  I hate to ask for your sympathy without offering details, but I suppose that's exactly what I'm going to do anyway.  ;)  When things change so that I can say more, I will (in a way that doesn't force it down the throats of those who don't give a crap, of course). .

The reason this merits an Announcement is that I think it's no longer fair to call me polyphasic.  My once-predictable work schedule has dissolved into something, not unstructured, but structured in a different way almost every day.  It's also (still) very stressful.  That stress keeps me from sleeping well, and the random scheduling makes getting regular naps nearly impossible.  I don't think I've kept the same sleep-schedule for more than three days straight since the holidays, to be honest, and I miss so many naps that when I can sleep at night, I tend to sleep all the way through, because I'm making up for other lost sleep.  It's safe to say that I've been off my schedule since December (since that's when it really started to crumble), which would mean that my total "run" on Everyman 3 was from July 2006-Dec 2009, or 3 years, five months.  Which is not half bad, right?  Right!  \o/

…But that certainly doesn't mean polyphasic sleep, as a subject, is over for me.  Actually, my perception of it is that it's getting really interesting lately!  I've gotten more requests for interviews, I hear from a ton of people by email (and I will get a system in place so I can stop falling behind on that, darnit), and I'm more than halfway done with the Second Edition of the book — which I'm really excited about.  There's a lot of new information out there now, and I'm finding as much of it as I can.

My schedule-implosion will, if things go as I hope, resolve itself by August (at the earliest), and I am keeping all relevant body parts crossed in the hope that my new situation (which may not be settled until next Xmas, eek!) allows me to do at least a three-hour Everyman schedule.  It's possible I could have stable-r periods before then, too, and if that's true I'll probably re-adapt again…though, my "re-adjustments" when I fell off the schedule for a few days or even weeks only took 2-3 days (for the last 2 years or so); I don't know if that'll still be true in a couple months, so I'll have to plan for that.  Anyway, what I'm saying is that heck yes, I'll be re-adjusting eventually — to Uberman if somehow life magically lets me, but I'll be honest, full-time work is going to be my order-of-the-day for a while, so that's probably a ways off — and heck no, I'm not done with the whole polyphasic thing.  I've just been thrown into one of those life-situations that flat forbids the kind of sleep-schedule I'd like to have.  ARGH.

What I'm back to, for the most part, is the ol' uncomfortable-adult-5-to-8-and-10-on-weekends schedule, the one I like least, but also the one that takes the least planning and cooperation from the rest of the world.  BUT, on days that I know I'll be able to catch one nap (which is most days; I can usually get *one* nap somewhere), I'll sleep 6 hours at night, because I find that equally tolerable to sleeping 8 hours, and they both make me feel the same:  "Eh."  If I don't have to get up in the morning and I was tired the day before, I'll sleep 9 hours, and wake up rested but really, really sore.  This utilization of 6-1 Everyman-style-sorta-like-siesta napping has surprised me by cutting 1.5 hours off the total sleep-time I need at no cost to how I feel.  (Mind you, I don't feel great; but I don't feel great on 8 hours, either, and regardless of whether I get 6-and-a-nap or 8, I still catch up on "free days" just the same.)  So that's an unexpected win!

One upside is that, probably not long after the release of Ubersleep, Second Edition (oo! Can we call it "Mark II"?), I'll be doing a big really-from-scratch readjustment, and I'll be able to really do a nice walk-through of one, maybe even with video (depending on where I'm working & how they'd feel about that). 

Weekly posts will continue; I probably have enough material "saved for later reading" to do posts on for a year anyway!  Things around here (on this blog) will be getting re-focused and brushed up over the next year, too; I HAS PLANZ.  Surprisingly well-thought-out ones, even.  ;)

Now, a call-out:  If you're polyphasic, and you have a thought on the topic that seems worth sharing, send it to me, will you?  My email is the shockingly-hard-to-decipher "mynickname@mynickname.com", OR you can leave a comment here.  If you're the verbose type, I'm up to being asked about you posting your own article here; having some guest-bloggers would be neat.  Also, this is a good time-period to toss me suggestions for how to make this site more user- and community-friendly, if you have any burning a hole in your skull.  Thank you in advance!

pd

P.S.  Bonus awesome picture, for reading this far:

…Yeah, that's the signal I'm getting lately, too.  ;)

A tool that's really helped me out lately is Wakerupper.com. 

This simple, no-registration-required free service does exactly what it ought to do:  It rings your phone at a certain time.  It's very accurate and hasn't missed for me yet.  I like it much better than the other services I've found, which are either insanely full of ads, or aren't really free, or make you jump through a ton of hoops and pages to get your call set up.  This one can be done literally in the last five minutes before bed!  It makes a great backup alarm, especially if the phone gets you hustling, like it does me.

Backup alarms aren't just for adaptation, by the way.  I've been through many times–including recently–when things got crazy enough and missed naps and lost sleep were common, and a backup alarm or three can be a huge help, then.  Ones that can be set for odd times, especially, if you're having to catch up naps off-schedule.

By the way, has anybody ever read the essay On Bullshit, by Harry Frankfurt?  It's one of my favorite philosophy papers ever.  I was thinking the other day that someone should do one about the value of swearing as a nonviolent form of self-defense.  Really, I wish more people would consider and teach the valuable skill of verbal control of a pre-violent situation.  A well-placed scathing cuss can back off a surprising number and variety of people, and the technique sometimes works even better for women, children, the elderly, etc.  If you're concerned with avoiding fights, I think, you'd do well to learn how to win at confrontation. 

So anyway, someone should write that up.  It could be called On Fuck Off, yeah?  ;)

(Completely unrelated picture I happened to like courtesy of Mr. Ducke and Creative Commons.)

Martin Luther King Day was first proposed by Michigan Representative John Conyers in 1979.  It failed in Congress by five votes, and a huge petition was begun, which finally got the holiday approved in Congress in 1983.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd in Detroit used to be Twelfth Street, until that's where the riots were in 1967.  "Twelfth Street Rebellion" or "Twelfth Street Riot" was the popular name for the event at first.  And so they made it so there literally was no Twelfth Street.  The event became "the 1967 riots" for the most part; or if they retained a sense of place, it was as the "Detroit riot" (which is inaccurate, as there's been more than one).  They also worked hard to replace the word "rebellion" with "riot" — I remember adults correcting each other when I was a kid — because "riot" sounds like a bunch of unruly colored people, whereas "rebellion" sounds a bit more like an oppressed and segregated neighborhood getting fed up with the racist cops who made their lives hell.

I always wondered how MLK would feel, about his name being used that way.  Maybe if the city had made progress on its racial issues since that time, it would have been a nice sendoff, his name representing the peaceful change he hoped to see for African-Americans.  But it didn't get better, not at all.  So what, he goes down in local history as a cover-up?

I think I might start calling it the Twelfth Street Rebellion, though.  Just because.

Here's an odd tip out of the blue, that I've actually been doing for years and just realized (at 4:30 a.m.) was actually a tip!

Need help teaching your mind/body what is sleep-time and what isn't?  Use your shoes!

It's quite hard to fall asleep in your shoes.  It feels "wrong" to pass out while fully dressed.  It's easier to get up and walk around, go outside for a second, or pop into a non-sleep-friendly area (like a basement) when you're wearing shoes; and it's almost impossible to go to bed without taking them off first.

So use your shoes!  When your alarm goes off, put them on right away (and anything else you have to put on in order to wear them, like pants or socks), and leave them on until it's time to go to sleep again.  Use street-shoes or boots for the best effect, as opposed to tennies or slip-ons.

UberTip:  Clothes in general are helpful clues for your body about waking/sleeping times, so feel free to incorporate changing clothes into your routine however much it helps you.  However, people on "Uber" schedules (Uberman/Dymaxion/Tesla) often eschew the concept of "sleep clothes" altogether, since changing in and out of jammies six times a day gets a little tiresome!  …But if that's you, remember it's still helpful to develop some ritual for changing your clothing to indicate sleep-time — even if it's only to take off your shoes while you nap. 

Er, don't do what I did at first, and wear the same clothes for three days straight, though!  If you're on Uberman/etc., it's a good idea to change all your clothes every time you shower — remember, you put 20 hours of living (and possibly also six naps) into them a day!

(Got other tips?  Send them to puredoxyk@[samething].com and receive public gratitude for them!  ;)

Awesome creative-commons-licensed shoe image by Paul Stevenson.

Feminism and the 2008 US Vice Presidential race

For the first time in a long time, an honest feminist ran for Vice President of the United States. No, not her; ironically, perhaps, it was the man running for the position, Joe Biden. Biden has already spent 20 years fighting for women's rights. He fought to make marital rape as heinous a crime as non-spousal rape; when he found out that his home state treated date rape as a lesser offense, he fought that; and he worked his ass off on the Violence Against Women Act, specifically the section on Civil Rights for women.[8] Biden's victory makes him arguably the most politically-powerful women's rights advocate in American history.

via Feminism – RationalWiki.

Wow.  Who knew?

"If your martial art was the best martial art, nobody would be able to beat up your master."

"Well, we win, then, because my master is WAY too smart to get in that ring."

–Unknown

Ken Gullette is a pretty big name in the Internal Martial Arts, but that and his blog are all I really know about him.  However, it was nice to see someone "bigger than me" take on the topic of MMA (Mixed Martial Arts, the usually full-contact, anything-goes tournaments that are really popular on TV and around the world right now) — at least because he gave me an opening. 

Here's what Sifu Gullette says, after making the rather obvious observation that the MMA tournaments are mostly about violence:

…But there are other reasons some people want to go "ultimate." Perhaps its part of the video game culture of the past 20 years as kids have grown up hurting people on video screens. Have we desensitized ourselves to the point where we're returning to the days of the Roman Coliseum? Have we gotten to the point where we have a sociopath's lack of empathy when we see someone getting hurt?One hilarious scene from the recent comedy "Bruno" was a scene near the end where Sacha Baron Cohen pretends to be an homophobe and gets into an MMA ring. It's a real crowd of MMA fans who aren't aware of the joke. Shots of the crowd show a lot of angry people who want to see violence. As the scene progresses and Cohen ends up making out with a guy in the cage, the crowd goes nuts and the ugliness of the people attracted to the MMA event is revealed.

via Ken Gullette's Internal Martial Arts: Okay I'll Say It — MMA Gets the Adrenaline Pumping but There's Something Ugly that Lies Beneath.

Ah, the same old tired "video games must be causing it!" argument — utter bollocks, of course; and as he notes, this impulse to injure each other in public for Boner Points has been around (and more acute) since long before Grand Theft Auto was an itch in a designer's pants.  So I'm going to simply ignore that oft-spread urban myth, if you don't mind, and move on to the core of the matter:  Is this showcasing of martial arts in a fighting arena, where people get hurt and the crowd cheers for blood, "okay"?

I guess, for me, the interesting thing is how much reasonable, nonviolent people want it to be okay.  Assuming for the moment that it's wrong to hurt people, especially for no good reason (we don't have to argue that looking cool in front of a bunch of slavering fans is a good reason, do we?), isn't it fascinating how strong our drive is to do it, or at least allow it, if not maybe watch it just for a few minutes, anyway?

I think the reason we generally feel a pull to make it "okay" is that it's natural, i.e. it's normal for us, because we're animals, to want to face off, show our skills, stomp each other in public for reputation-points.  It's no more serious than when dogs submit each other (teeth on throat) for the benefit of others watching; and really, no different.  But we ARE animals, and we are pack mammals to boot, so as far as I see it, this behavior makes perfect sense.

SIDE-NOTE:  Also like most pack mammals, we leave it largely to the males to do this showing-off.  They have the drive, for one thing; males in packs are there not just to fight, but also to look scary and to keep fights from happening by scaring off enemies with their shows of scary scariness.  Female fighting, while certainly done, is generally reserved for when it's really necessary–when you're the last line between your kids or kin and starvation, or an enemy.  Though in cultures where women fighting rarely is actually necessary, women sometimes join in the show-off fights too.  Which is too bad, if you ask me, because the females of the species are almost always the best fighters in kill-or-die situations (evolution knows what a mother bear might need in reserve), but put in an MMA ring, we're not as impressive, and I think it waters down the Fear of Angry Women that people ought to rightfully have.  (Your gut knows:  If you've got to beat someone up and your choice is a Marine or a woman protecting her child, pick the Marine — he won't suddenly develop the power to throw a car at you, or rip off his own arm to beat you to death with it.  A cornered mom will.) 

If I had my choice, women would train their butts off but never fight in competitions.  Oh, and we would all dress like Sardaukar and spread rumors constantly about how much weaponry we might be hiding.  (Can you see that I've got lots of ideas on how to end the rape culture?  ;)

So, MMA tournaments and Ultimate Fights are natural things for human animals to do, and as such I don't see them as dangerous, or as signifiers of the downfall of humanity.

I don't think that means it's right, mind you.

I think "right" is a judgment of what we should be doing, and really, should we be acting like animals just because it's fun?  Maybe, yes, sometimes we all need to explore that part of ourselves, even if it's just with some primal screaming or a bar-fight or skiing way too damn fast and seeing if we survive.  We're all animals, and I don't think that's something to be ashamed of…but we're also more than animals, and I think it is shameful to ignore that, and not to strive to be better than your average critter-that-pees-on-things-to-show-ownership. 

But there's a special normative force at play here, too:  The "shoulds" of martial arts.  And here's where I have a problem with MMA fights:  Because they're used to showcase martial arts, and to compare and "represent" different styles, and because they make absolutely no apology for their claim (sometimes stated, sometimes not) that what makes a martial art "good" is how useful it is in hurting people.

THAT makes me go UGH, PEOPLE!  It doesn't take ten seconds of study to realize that beating people up (or "self-defense" as it's politically re-labeled) isn't even in the top three things that martial arts is for. 

Here are those three things, as I see them:

1. Becoming enlightened through mastery of the body and mind
2. Learning discipline, balance, acceptance, detachment, and other skills that you can use, and teach to others
3. Being physically and mentally healthy, and learning spiritual awareness

   .
   …and here's some more, that apply specifically to the internal arts:
    

4. Learning how energy flows, within and without, as this is a critical component of physical and mental mastery
5. Learning how energy flows between people, and between you and the world
6. Learning to control the energy in and around you, which will keep you healthy, let you heal others, and oh yeah, as a side effect, make you impossible to physically beat up.

I realize that people who want to fight get frustrated at the ancient (Traditional) Chinese arts for saying things like, "Why yes, self-defense is important.  How do you defend yourself better than not getting into a fight?", and for being really, really unforgiving when it comes to unnecessary violence.  (Oddly enough, in those arts you're more likely to see extreme violence condoned than un-extreme violence…if Bad Guy X is so very bad that you absolutely have to fight him, that he's threatening even to someone like you who has training, then what's your excuse for not killing or permanently disabling him to protect others?  Fighting is not about glamour or fun or your reputation — it's about causing one person harm in order to protect others from it, and once you cross the line and start causing harm, you'd better make sure you get a LOT of protection out of it.)

Self-defense and fighting are two different things.  Ninety percent of self-defense is done with the brain and the voice.  If you're truly interested in avoiding violence, then guess what?  You will probably not encounter any that you can't avoid, especially if you've been studying how to avoid it for years! 

And guess what else?  If you've mastered energy-flow, then you can literally stand there all day while people come at you, and just toss them aside.  You know what a real master fighting looks like?  It looks like a bunch of guys hitting the ground.  And 99% of the time, the only reason you'll see it is for educational purposes — my master, who throws a punch like a cannonball, says that in over 40 years of practice, travel and living (in Detroit, for a while), he's never had to actually punch anyone, and never plans to.  He didn't learn to do it so that he could hurt people.  And most of the time, he told me, he can avoid all future violence simply by smiling into someone's eyes as he shakes their hand, letting them feel his ungodly grip and the weight of that cannonball fist.

That's self-defense, at least in regular-people terms.  When you're talking about real masters, people who've gone exceptionally far with it to the point where Normal Human behaviors no longer make sense, well, you won't see them in a ring anywhere, but sometimes you get stories like this:  "Two masters of taiji agreed, at the behest of their students, to face off in a tournament.  There was great excitement beforehand, and a huge crowd.  The two masters got in the ring and bowed to each other.  They stood quietly for a moment, and then, to the astonishment of the crowd, they declared one of them the winner.

"What happened?' asked a student.

"'We assessed each other's energy, and determined which of us would overcome the other," one Master said simply.  "He won."

…I don't remember where that story's from, but it's always stuck with me.  In a similar vein, the Master who created the martial art Aikido said in one of his writings (I paraphrase), "No-one can win a fight against a Master, because the Universe is on the Master's side.  The fight is over before it has even begun."  –And that's probably the best short description of what "self-defense" in martial arts is really supposed to mean:  It means that you've studied yourself and the world, you've learned how to feel and judge and act in concert with the underlying state of things, and therefore, you've got the world on your side, and anyone opposing you is opposing not just you, but the whole natural order.  This leads, not even "just" to guaranteed physical victory, but to a truly Obi-Wan-Kenobe type situation, where even if the Master "loses", he still wins.  (Yeah, I could go on all day.  But look!  I'm about to get back on-topic!)

In closing, there's probably no horrible harm caused by the occasional good-natured sports-fight, though as people we should be striving to be better than that, overall. 

But there IS harm in the MMA's reduction of martial arts to "fighting arts" (which to be fair, some styles are explicitly about; but many aren't) and especially in the corruption of the term "self-defense" to mean "fighting", which is doesn't.

I'll close with one of my favorite quotes by Confucius (who as a Taoist, I don't always agree with, but he does have some gems):

A wise person NEVER competes.
                                                    --Confucius

[awesome Creative Commons picture by Clemson]

Here's an awesome-looking find over at Lifehacker: HabitForge is a site that you can configure to send you daily emails that ask you to note your success or failure at something — for 21 days. (I'll confess I don't know why they chose 21; I always thought it was 28, and that works for me. Maybe there was a new study or something?)

Anyway, polyphasers are already thinking what I'm thinking: Having to check "were your naps PERFECT?" every day might be really helpful while adjusting to a new sleep schedule. And of course, it could have a ton of other uses, depending on how good you've gotten at ignoring daily emails…. ;)

HabitForge Helps You Form New Habits in 21-Day Blocks – Resolutions – Lifehacker.

America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves.  To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, "It ain't no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be." 

It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor.  Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold.  No such tales are told by the American poor.  They mock themselves and glorify their betters.  The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question:  "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?"  There will also be an American flag no larger than a child's hand–glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue.  Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money.  They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves.  This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times.

–monograph by Howard W. Campbell, Jr., discussing the behavior of American prisoners in German camps in WWII.*

*as quoted in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five or, The Childrens' Crusade which if you haven't read, you really really oughtta.  It's amazing.  ;)

7 lies we tell ourselves about money | I Will Teach You To Be Rich.

I like the "I Will Teach You To Be Rich" blog, for several reasons:

• It defines "rich" as the balance between financial independence and lifestyle freedom that works for you
• It's competently and clearly written, and well-organized
• It focuses on non-sensationalist tips that really work, changing things you can actually control, making decisions that will improve your whole life (not just your pocketbook), and being conscious of your problems and "Knowing Thyself" as essential steps towards forging financial solutions.

And if you were only ever going to read one post on finance, or on that blog, I would probably recommend the "7 Lies We Tell Ourselves" one.  Not only does it list seven fantastic "Know Thyself" jumping-off points, but by reading them in in this format, you should learn what it is that you need to focus on about finances, whether it's planning or investing or working on behavioral fixes. That method — to pin down what your individual weakness is, and address it realistically — is the fastest way *I* can think of to effect good change.

I have one complaint about the article, however:  In Tip #1, they discuss negotiating for a salary. 

Negotiating a salary is a good idea, and it's a good idea to learn how exactly to do it, because it can make you a lot of money without changing anything else about what you're doing, and how to do it is not really obvious to most people.  So not only am I glad Ramit mentions it in this article; I think his including a video with detailed instructions for negotiating a salary is a great lagniappe.

However, as a former financial counselor and a frugal person, I've seen videos and other instructions of this type quite often, and this one makes one of the common mistakes that makes me go yyyrrrrrggggggghhhhAAAAAAAAAYOUIDIOTS! and foam rabidly all over my keyboard.  (It's not pretty.)

The mistake?

The woman in the video (and it is almost always a woman who says this, even when the material isn't explicitly aimed at women) just has to point out that women make less money than men, and that women are not very good negotiators ("by nature" is assumed even if not said) and often aren't shown how to do it…so obviously, you know, that leads to the completely logical conclusion that if women were better negotiators, we wouldn't have such a problem with wage disparity.

::FACEPALM::

Of course, it's no accident that the woman in this video is younger than me, recently graduated from Stanford and got 60K/yr at her last, poorly-negotiated job.  So if I, or someone else, were to say to her, "YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.  LET'S TELL ALL THE WOMEN WHO WORK AT WAL-MART TO NEGOTIATE BETTER SALARIES, AND MAYBE WAL-MART WILL AGREE TO PAY THEM THE SAME AS MEN," I'm sure she would be genuinely shocked to ponder that, for the vast majority of women, being fresh out of Stanford and needing to pull better than 60K out of your next round of "recruiter" interviews is not, in fact, the main problem.

(Note:  It may be that Ramit's audience for his blog is simply this group, of very-upper-middle-class rather-clueless young-ish people…but he doesn't explicitly narrow his advice to them, or say anything to that effect that I'm aware of.  And for the most part, I think his advice is very good no matter where you are on the economic treadmill.)

I'm not saying that salary-negotiating advice would not be useful to lower-income women, not at all.  But be serious — if most women in this country tried "negotiating" a salary at the kind of jobs they work (which are more often low-wage or crappy to begin with), they simply wouldn't get hired.  It's actually been shown quite clearly that just demanding wage parity can get you fired.

Now, if MOST of the women in this country suddenly demanded parity, that would probably change something — I imagine we're too much of the workforce now, for society to tolerate a general strike.  But we have families to feed, too; and one stereotype that is correct is that most women would rather suffer some indignity or lack than put their childrens' food supply in danger.  So Wal-Mart can probably rest easy on that one.

The next woman in a hundred-dollar suit to tell me that "if we were better negotiators…" though, is getting foamed on.  Ugh!