How are older, laid-off workers faring?

About 10-15 years ago, I remember when banks charged its customers small monthly fees to maintain savings and checking accounts. Today, my bank charges me nothing to maintain my accounts as long as I have direct deposit. How can banks, today, service checking and savings accounts for free?  
-- J.T.,  Columbus, Ohio

When was the last time you reordered fresh checks?

My bank charges $25 for a pack of 150 (plus shipping and handling), which works out to nearly 20 cents a check — for a "free checking" account. And if one of those checks is presented for payment before the bank decides the clear a deposit, the bank charges $30 — per check. For the virtually costless service of accepting a wire transfer, expect to pay another $25. And don’t forget the $1.50 you get clipped every time you use an ATM machine — a device that saves the bank money by reducing the need for tellers.

Though they may call it “free checking” when you sign up, there are plenty of fees out there and they're getting bigger all the time. Bankrate.com — which tracks a wide variety of consumer interest rates — recently found that the average fee for a bounced check is now a record $27.40, up from $27.04 last spring. ATM fees are up to a record $1.64, on average, from $1.60 in the spring and $1.54 a year ago.

Some banks will also tout their “interest-bearing” checking accounts that pay a dividend on money left in the account — as long as you maintain a minimum balance. (That minimum rose 43 percent in the latest survey — to about $615.)

But, according to Bankrate, that interest rate averages just 0.34 percent. By comparison, the so-called federal funds rate that banks charge each other is 5.25 percent.  So, by lending your money around, your banker can make nearly a nickel on every dollar you leave in the account.

Here’s more on what you’re paying in checking fees.

I'm a third-year college student and am a little confused about which way I should go regarding investments. I work for a company that offers a 401(k), but I do not plan to be with the company long I plan on leaving when I graduate. However, I was thinking about setting up a Roth IRA. Is this the road to take, or am I making the wrong decision to not take advantage of the 401(k)?
Kay, Chicago, Ill.

For someone just getting started — especially if you’re in a low tax bracket — the Roth IRA is a good way to go. The main difference is that while a traditional IRA lets you take a tax deduction for money you contribute, you’ll pay taxes on the money when you withdraw it. With a Roth IRA, you pay tax before you put it in the account, but you won’t owe taxes when you withdraw it. Since you’ll have a lot more money to withdraw when you retire — and could be in a higher tax bracket — you end up paying less tax in the long run.

As for the 401(k), that's a no brainer. Even if you’re there for a short time, you can always roll it over into an IRA when you leave. And you should always take advantage of any employer matching of your contributions — to the fullest.

Think of it as your boss leaving $20 bills lying around on the floor — but the only way you can pick them up is by sticking a $20 bill of your own onto each one.

That’s pretty easy money.

MORE FROM ANSWER DESK View the archive Check out answers to earlier reader questions. Or click on a topic below for more specific questions and answers: Accounting 101 Credit and debt Economic explanations Energy enigmas Home sweet home Miscellaneous mysteries On the job Saving and investing Small business Taxes

MORE FROM ANSWER DESK

Answer Desk Section Front

Who cares about Fannie, Freddie? Is it better to save or pay off debt? Placing a heating oil bet How far will gas prices fall? When nest eggs get fried Is my money safe in a bank? Is it time to tap U.S. oil reserves? Is this economy worse than past recessions? Who owns my mortgage? How bad are consumers getting squeezed? Answer Desk Section Front   Add Answer Desk headlines to your news reader: