Wedding Examiner

Once a lady with a huge rock on her finger was signing as a witness for a county civil ceremony I performed and asked how much the wedding cost. In Los Angeles County, a marriage license is $70 and the ceremony is $25, so for $95 you’re legally married and out the door. The lady sighed and confided, “Gee, I wish I’d known about you for my wedding. It’s been two years and we’re still paying it off.”

Thus we conveniently arrive at the second of the Five Ways To Screw Up Your Wedding:

Go Heavily Into Debt.

Nowadays couples frequently pay for their own weddings without the traditional boost from the folks, since they’re marrying a little older and sometimes the folks just don’t have it to spare. Supposedly the cost of the "average American wedding" keeps spiraling up and up, and this year (according to the Wedding Report Inc.) the average is currently just below $29,000.

But I’d be a bit skeptical of this statistic. What is meant by “average?” Is it a mean, a median, a true average? Just one $4 million celebrity wedding can lift hundreds of $25 civil county weddings into “average” territory, depending how you chew up and spit out the numbers.

And who was sampled to arrive at this “average”? The Wedding Report methodology page says it electronically surveys about 3700 participants--which would eliminate anyone who isn’t wired into a computer. That’s 3700 people surveyed out of over two million weddings in the U.S. last year--their estimate, based on a proprietary blend of data from state and county sources--so that’s a pretty small slice of the overall wedding cake. Maybe not so average, huh?

So perhaps $29K doesn’t accurately portray a true average of all American weddings, but rather just the average for the weddings of those on the right side of the Digital Divide who are spendy about their weddings. It seems we don’t have a number comparing Spendies to the other one million nine hundred and ninety-six thousand-odd couples who hitched up, so I don’t think we really know how economically “average” the Spendies are. My guess is, if they have computers and can drop almost thirty grand for one day’s show (or get enough consumer credit to do so) they’re doing a whole lot better than many a truly average American, especially in our days of foreclosure crisis and record lows in saving.

That won’t stop the Marital Industrial Complex from touting the number, however. Why would they do that, if it’s not a true measure of the average cost of American weddings? Because pushing this figure onto the public serves The Complex in two ways: first, it is a means to persuade prospective advertisers that they should come into the bridal market with a big splash, as the wedding water’s fine.

And the second objective? To make the NotSpendies and the Spendies-But-Not-With-$30G-To-Blow feel bad that they aren’t keeping up with all those other newly-minted Mrs. Joneses.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It’s critical you understand Reason Two before you start planning your wedding, because it’s part of a marketing strategy called “aspirational marketing” and it is not your friend. There are many fine books you can consult on this, but to cook it down: aspirational marketing is about persuading you to murder your budget by convincing you that you DESERVE better than you can afford. In wedding terms, this means they don’t care if you’re working class, sick, struggling, heavily in the red, and unable to stay financially afloat in your living situation; the Marital Industrial Complex will tell you that you DESERVE to have all the trappings of royalty on your wedding day--or you should spend like your bride is a princess, in the case of diamond ads targeted at men--even if it ruins your life. They’re happy to make you want more than you need, they’ll direct you to where to buy it right now, and will even offer you credit (wedding loans!) to "help you out."

Don’t listen! It’s hard, because The Marital Industrial Complex is everywhere--magazines at the checkout stand, sponsored ad segments posing as reality television shows, postcards, websites, books, you name it. Their influence is huge and hard to avoid, and they make everything SO PRETTY!

Now before those of you who have a stash of wedding money get your consumer dander up, I’m not saying every wedding has to be modest. In fact, if you have scads of disposable income, by all means throw your thirty grand (and more!) into the economy and make yourselves and lots of wedding vendors very happy. I love working at lavish affairs and I enjoy their design sense and trendiness just as much as the next officiant. But I’m certainly not going to encourage people who are already in trouble to make a greater misery of their money situation so they can live up to a questionable “average.” If you can pay for your shindig without running up your credit cards or borrowing from friends or taking out an unsecured wedding loan on which you'll be making payments for years--maybe even longer than the marriage itself will last , and that’s a sad thought eh?--then by all means: SPEND. And enjoy your bounty with a clean conscience.

However, for those of you who are on the fence about joining the Spendies, imagine what you would do if someone just plopped thirty grand in cash onto your lap TODAY and you didn't have a wedding to plan. Would you:

Pay off your credit cards? (aaah, what a good feeling that would be!)

Put a down payment on a home, or put it into the mortgage?

Put it into an education fund?

Maybe you could use a new car? Do you have health insurance? Do you need a chunk of savings to cover you in case you become ill or unemployed or want to travel or invest or ????

Or would you feel an overwhelming urge to blow it all--thirty thousand dollars, almost enough to buy a brand new 2008 mercedes c-class sedan--on a dress, dinner, and cake?

Think that over carefully before you decide to Uphold The Average.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It’s held as a cultural fact that money woes are one of the chief causes of divorce. Whether that’s true or not, debt’s a huge cause of anxiety for many people, so do you really want to make it worse by going in almost thirty grand deeper?

One of my favorite money columnists (Michele Singletary over at the Washington Post) often answers questions like these; if thinking about money before your wedding makes you suddenly nauseated, you can sign up for her wonderful emails on personal finance, and they might help you get your act together. Read her columns about weddings and finances for newly-marrieds too, they're great. You can check her out here, and may your tummy finally find some peace.

Finally, ask yourself (and be honest): am I really going to be able to enjoy this extravagant day, knowing that nothing is actually paid for and interest is accruing even as I say “I do?” Or will I choke on that $1200 custom cake we just HAD to have? It might be better to put down the aspirational marketing magazine and plan something that won't break the bank, so you can think more about your loving spouse than say, a collection agency. Who would you rather have own you?

There are plenty of affordable ways to have a great wedding--we’ll go into some of those in future posts, and how to have Spendy big ones too!--but for now just remember: going into debt for Your Special Day will not only ruin your wedding, it’s likely to wreck a good long chunk of your life and credit rating and relationship. Mortgaging your future is no way to start a marriage.

And who wants to be average, anyway?



Elizabeth Oakes can be reached at weddingexaminer@gmail.com

Labour agreements build productive businesses

HCM CITY — More than 70 per cent of HCM City’s 2,743 enterprises have signed collective labour agreements with their workers, according to statistics provided by the city’s Labour Federation.

Collective labour agreements specify things such as salaries and bonuses, health and safety, working hours and breaks, social insurance, and employees’ rights to strike.

The Government’s Labour Code states that a collective labour agreement must be signed by a trade union official and the head of a company or organisation. Negotiations between these two parties set down the rights of workers in the collective agreement.

This process often proves more effective in establishing workers’ rights than labour contract negotiations between individuals and their employer.

Each enterprise must set up its own trade union, which is in charge of protecting that enterprise’s workers’ rights.

Employer stake

"We signal a collective labour agreement with our workers because we are aware of its importance," Alexandre Lemoalle, chairman of Sanofi Aventis Viet Nam told Viet Nam Net. "Our employees work hard and contribute to the development of the company, so they deserve to be treated well."

The company’s agreement gives its employees family health insurance and up to 30 months paid absence in the event of an accident. The employees have also recently had their meal allowances increased.

Long-term relationships between our employees and the company are created by treating them well, said Lemoalle.

"Collective labour agreements establish workers’ rights and benefit enterprises," said Truong Lam Danh, vice chairman of HCM City’s Labour Federation. "They’re core for enterprises’ stability."

Workers only go on strike if their rights are violated or their needs are not met. Enterprises that sign and respect collective labour agreements are less likely to see worker discontent mushrooming into strike action.

Conflict between workers and their employers will still arise, however, if an enterprise fails to fulfil its obligations specified in a signed agreement, or if it will only agree to provide the minimum Labour Code requirements.

Collective agreements require a huge effort by trade union staff. The trade union has to convince an enterprise of the benefit of such agreements, said Danh.

As of the end of May, 330 collective strikes had broken out across the country this year, of which 118 were in HCM City.

To deal with the problem, the Labour General Federation’s chairman Dang Ngoc Tung has asked enterprise trade unions to push for the implementation of the Labour Code and union regulations. In particular, trade unions should focus on raising wages and developing insurance coverage.—VNS

It sounds like heresy but we've got to stop treating the NHS like a national religion

Every healthcare system throughout the world is currently in the middle of a perfect storm.


The deepening crisis engulfing all health services has been caused by three crucial factors: ageing populations, mounting costs in advancing technology and treatment, and well-informed service users who are used to making sophisticated consumer choices.

Yet the problems are perhaps more acute in Britain than anywhere else in Western Europe, not least because our monolithic National Health Service is proving too inflexible, bureaucratic and outdated to meet the challenges of the new era.
Sixty years old this month, the NHS was designed for an entirely different age, when life expectancy was far lower, medicine was less complex and the British population, having emerged from six years of gruesome war, was much more subservient to state authority.

The Labour Government, while adopting an increasingly proprietorial air towards the NHS in the run-up to the 60th anniversary, has recognised the system is in dire need of reform.

The strategy adopted during the years of Tony Blair's rule was to throw vast mountains of cash at the system. Since Labour came to power, NHS spending has more than trebled, topping ?100billion annually.

But real change was not delivered, so the usual problems have persisted, particularly in the rationing of treatment, the differing standards throughout the country and the increasing costs of a top-heavy bureaucracy.

When Gordon Brown arrived in Downing Street last summer, he appointed a leading and very capable surgeon, Lord Darzi, as one of his health ministers and ordered him to conduct a fullscale review of the NHS.

The result is the document launched yesterday under the optimistic and slightly Soviet-sounding title High Quality Care For All.

But it would be wrong to be too cynical. Lord Darzi is a dedicated healthcare professional, not a calculating career politician, and there is much to admire in his document.

For a start, the idea of creating polyclinics in every town is an excellent one, vastly improving access to healthcare, especially for those who have busy working lives and cannot easily get to GPs surgeries during the day.

These new-style polyclinics have been given a bad press by the doctors' professional union, the British Medical Association. As a result of this negative campaign, they have been presented as a destructive alternative to the trusted GP.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Polyclinics are a complement to current services and, if run properly, they will expand the range of the treatments available, thereby reducing the pressure on hospitals and delivering care far closer to patient's homes.

Mind you, for all the benefits of polyclinics, it was this Government that shattered the tradition of GPs providing 24-hour cover through its disastrously botched negotiations of the last GP contract, which allowed doctors to reduce drastically their hours and yet receive more money.

In part, therefore, polyclinics are a solution to a problem created by ministers.

There are other aspects of the Darzi report to be welcomed. The proposed NHS constitution, which legally enshrines patients' rights, should act as a restraint on authorities trying to block certain types of treatment.

Lord Darzi's call for closer working between the various branches of the NHS is common sense, though too often ignored by empire-building bureaucrats who jealously guard their own territories.

Speeding up the procedures by which the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) decides whether to license a certain drug will also benefit thousands of patients.

But there is also a serious downside. As with so many statist plans, the expansion of bureaucracy becomes a substitute for real action.

Sadly, in failing to learn the recent lessons of history, Lord Darzi has allowed his plan to become littered with yet more extensions of the corporate state.

So we read that he wants a National Quality Board, a new Care Quality Commission, a new NHS Medical Education Service and a new Fit To Work service, as well as vast amount of new paperwork contained in the demands for 'quality accounts' - audits of how well patients are treated - as well as a host of other indicators, targets and box-ticking exercises.

Just as worryingly, there seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of his document. On the one hand, he says he wants to end the ' postcode lottery'.


On the other, he argues that, to improve efficiency, better performing trusts and health centres should be rewarded with extra funding, while poor performers should be penalised.

But in practice, such an approach will only worsen the variation in the provision of treatment. In effect, patients will be hit twice over for living under an inadequate trust. The key is the lack of tangible incentives to drive efficiency.

So we need to admit - and this is almost heresy - that the NHS just can't do everything. We like to be sentimental about it as though it was a religion. It's simply a core service on which to build our own responsibility for health. Service users must make the transition into welcomed customers.

This brings us to the greatest weakness of Lord Darzi's scheme. For all Gordon Brown's talk yesterday of 'the bold vision' of the ten-year plan, in practice it is only perpetuating the failed structure of the NHS.

The fact is that the continuation of the state healthcare monopoly can never meet the needs of the British people in the 21st century.

This is partly because we have reached the limits of taxation on job-holders. Those in work would simply not put up with a further 5 or 10 per cent increase in their income tax to pay for the NHS.

But more importantly, the very existence of a massive bureaucratic monopoly breeds its own chronic inefficiencies, leading to widespread waste, mismanagement, low productivity and lack of pressure on suppliers and contractors.

In my own field of cancer treatment, for instance, many leading drugs are far more expensive in Britain than in continental Europe, for the sole reason that the absence of any commercial competition here means that the big companies can keep pushing up their prices, knowing that the Government will have to pay.

What we really need in healthcare is more competition, with the Government acting as the guarantor of a basic level of treatment for all patients. The NHS should be regarded as a private health insurance company, not a national religion.

Far from leading to injustices, the introduction of a proper market would actually lead to real reform, driving up standards and lowering costs, just as happens in most other Western countries.

A truly radical reform would be to give every individual a health insurance voucher, enabling them to choose to buy their treatment wherever they wanted. That would transform healthcare in this country far more than all the fine words of the NHS constitution.

• PROFESSOR Karol Sikora is a leading cancer specialist and former chief of the World Health Organisation Cancer Programme.

1,600 British early retirees lose their health cover in the Valencia region

The Valencian Regional Health Service say they will no longer treat those British retired residents who have not reached pensioner age.
Spanish newspaper El País has picked up on the policy change from the regional health service in Valencia which means that thousands of pre-retirement foreign residents in the region will no longer be able to obtain free health care.

Until now the Valencian public health service had an open-door policy for the hundreds of pre-retirement British residents in the region who were thus attended to in the region under a category of ‘extensión o demada’.

The Generalitat regional government said that some 3,000 foreigners have been benefitting from the arrangement, 1,600 of them British residents, and that it explained a high number of operations for problems such as cataracts, angina or other heart problems. The costs of these treatments was being met by the regional health service in Valencia which has said ‘no more’.

Pensioners are not affected as the Valencia health service can claim back the cost of their treatment from the British Government, and tourists also have no problems as the E-111 card covers their needs in Spain for as long as a year.
However those who retire early to the Costa Blanca are not covered unless that retirement has been forced by an accident or illness.

Now such British early retirees are obliged to take out private health insurance. The change in practice in Valencia was supported by both the Partido Popular and the Socialists in a move to better control access to health resources.
The move could well be followed by other regional health services in Spain.

Knowlton joins insurance agency

LEWISTON - Allstate Insurance Co. announces that agent Jon Knowlton is expanding an existing agency.

Knowlton has purchased former agent Gerry Dutil's book of business and is now meeting the insurance and financial needs of families in Androscoggin and surrounding counties. Knowlton worked for agent Patti Gagne as a sales producer, and brings solid industry experience with him. He holds his P&C, Life and Health and Series 6 & 63 securities licenses.

The Jon Knowlton Allstate Insurance Agency, located at 400 Sabattus St., is a full-service agency providing insurance and financial service assistance. The agency is open Monday through Friday, with evening and Saturday appointments available by calling 783-7555.