Vetting your sweetheart

January 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With Valentine’s Day just around the corner, a Purdue University expert recommends the marriage-minded conduct some pragmatic due diligence before engagement rings find their way onto fingers.

It’s widely known that financial problems undermine many a marriage. To that end, Sharon Burns, an associate professor of consumer sciences and retailing, suggests looking for bad habits before they wreak havoc. Not easy to do during such a passionate time, maybe, but still wise. Here they are:

--Your sweetheart has borrowed lots of money from you once or has borrowed from you more than once. This can signal they’re living above their means or managing money poorly.

--He or she buys lots of the latest clothes, gadgets, cars and other luxuries. Big spending can reveal their needing a crutch to make them feel better and, ultimately, personal insecurity or lack of discipline.

--Your love needs financial help from family or friends. “Mature adults support themselves,” Burns says.

--They pay for normal living expenses with credit cards and then don’t pay the bill in full at the end of the month, a “sure sign of disaster ahead."

--They can’t hold down a job. In a normal economy, you should wonder if they’re lazy or lack self discipline.

Love is great, Burns says; blind love isn’t.

What are your thoughts on her advice? Anything you wish you’d known before tying the knot?

 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Do your Due Diligence
    Conducting due diligence on your mate is similar to the due diligence you should do on hiring employees. The more you know and understand about the person, the better your decision will be!

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT