ZiZi Zhang, a Harvard-educated former Wall Street banker, is better known to thousands of people on Instagram as “Ratz-Carlton” – where she offers smart, scrappy personal finance tips for living a full life within your budget.

Zhang, 29, is originally from San Francisco but moved to New York to work in finance and venture capital after graduating with a computer-science degree.

She started Ratz-Carlton as a creative outlet and to share thoughts on financial wellness. Or, in her words, how to enjoy a “Ritz-Carlton” life of luxury but minus the unchecked spending, aka staying “ratty.”

Zhang earns a low six-figure salary, but growing up as one of four daughters of first-generation Chinese immigrants made her cost-conscious and focused on squeezing the value out of every dollar. As an adult, she still heeds some of her parents’ wisdom – but has discarded other beliefs – to come up with a strategy for financial success.

The interview below has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Education, education, education

My parents immigrated to the U.S. from China in the Nineties. They came here for graduate school in Oklahoma, where I was born. By the time I was five in 2001, we had moved to the South Bay area of San Francisco, California. By then, we were a family of six living on only my dad’s income as a quality control employee at a pharmaceutical firm.

Our parents made us recognize that our financial resources were scarce and limited, and, as kids, that shaped how we viewed spending and being frugal. My parents did an incredible job with what they had; they were able to save up enough money to send me to college.

Education, financial stability, going to a great school and getting a great job were the top-tier priorities in our family. To accomplish those things, we really had to fight through life in survival mode. Part of that survival mentality was saving money at all costs to achieve financial stability.

Investing in me

My upbringing really instilled in me values of investing in myself through a good education, professional development, and even therapy. I think about therapy as an investment in more deeply understanding myself and my upbringing.

Therapy can be expensive, but it’s one of those things that you can’t really put a dollar value on. Self-knowledge serves me in my personal and professional life, and in all my relationships, all of which are more valuable than money.

In my career, I’ve given myself stability and financial security – two things my parents really valued – by choosing safer jobs.

Lessons from mom and dad

As I decided whether to adopt the financial habits I learned from my parents, I asked myself two questions:

There’s always that tension between ingrained learning and how I choose to live my life now. For example, I’ve very consciously tried to unlearn a major theme from my upbringing: the scarcity mindset (the idea that money is limited, influencing buying decisions and financial planning, and often leading to stress and anxiety).

In fact, I switched my view from money being limited, to time being limited. I take advantage of the time I spend with my family, friends and partner. That’s something that I can’t pay any amount of money to get back. I’d rather spend my money to buy time back – that’s a very different mentality from how I was raised.

Making that mental change has a lot to do with the fact that I’m privileged now to be in a position where money isn’t as scarce as it was. I’m able to make financial decisions based on multiple options. When you’re focused on survival and providing for a household of six, that’s not even a consideration.

In that sense, it was a privilege to grow up in a family that was fighting to survive financially as opposed to something that I look down on or wish my parents had done differently.

Value propositions

There are other lessons that I learned from my parents that I’ve kept with me and use all the time, and they’ve contributed to the “Ratz-Carlton” mindset.

One of those lessons is having a very clear sense of the value of what it is I’m buying. For example, a basket of strawberries that’s $3 in one store might be $7 in a different store. For me, it’s about the effort and thought to intentionally go to the place where I know that it’s going to be half the cost. That’s something that I retained from my parents and continue to live by to this day.

The lessons from my parents about value play out in many ways. I’m always talking to my [Instagram] followers about cost-per-use and how much quality an item provides compared to its price.

Having that mentality drives me to shop resale stores for new-with-tags, high-end items. I never pay the regular price for designer items. For household items and makeup, I use them until they’re empty or gone, and then replace them.

If I’m splurging, I’m buying expensive jewelry that I know I’ll wear daily instead of a piece of clothing I may only wear once or twice a year.

The comparison trap

When I showed up at Harvard, I think that was the first time I had been exposed to such generational wealth and privilege.

I developed this consciousness of, ‘Wow, there are really different ways that people live and exist, and it’s shaped so much by their upbringing.’

My upbringing has deeply shaped who I am, and other people’s upbringings have deeply shaped who they are. In light of that, I focused on how to communicate across those varying backgrounds.

No one chooses the financial situation that they come into this earth with. Knowing that, I tried to focus on what I could control, not compare myself to the things that are out of my control.

It definitely is a daily practice, because I think it’s just human nature and almost biologically ingrained in us to compare.

Release from the rat race

New York is a pretty open city about keeping up with the Joneses and putting what you have on display.

Something that I realized early on, when I was working on Wall Street and surrounded by high earners, is that just because you earn a lot and work in finance doesn’t mean you’re automatically good with money.

Many people in finance that you would think have a huge safety net are living paycheck to paycheck. A lot of that is because of wanting to keep up with your peers and colleagues. That may have been me if I hadn’t grown up learning what I did from my parents.

At the same time, I think having a deep sense of who I am, where I came from and what my values are helps me step out of the keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mindset.

Time > money

One of my main values is that time is more important than money. I’ve taken my sisters on vacation to show them that time together is important, and that, despite the scarcity mentality we all grew up with, you can spend money on what matters and enjoy it without feeling guilty over how much you spend, provided it’s within your means.

I’m very willing to spend on relationships and invest in them. I’m not as willing to spend on things that would only serve myself, such as buying a coffee, matcha or smoothie, for example.

I would rather save that money, not because I can’t afford those things, but because it’s not necessarily in line with my values of how I want to allocate the resources that I do have.

What matters to you?

Get really clear on your personal values and make them tangible. I started with these questions:

Writing down the answers is super helpful because I can always go back and look at them. Sometimes it’s hard to remember those values and opt for the path of least resistance or what’s most convenient.

But having it documented brings this level of foresight, intentionality and planning into my life. It helps me spend based on those values versus going with the flow and reacting to what happens.

We surveyed 1,022 Telegraph readers across the UK* to find out who provided their mobile network and what they thought about the service. Readers provided their verdicts for the three master brands (EE, O2 and VodafoneThree), as well as virtual networks (MVNOs): Tesco Mobile, Lebara, Sky Mobile, BT Mobile and Giffgaff.

We excluded any provider used by fewer than 20 per cent of our readers. In addition, we categorised providers with an average rating of three stars or lower as “below average”.

As well as speed, reliability, value for money and ease of contact, we asked our readers how helpful their providers were once they got through to them, as well as their experiences using data roaming while abroad.

Score: 3/5

As mentioned previously, Vodafone isn’t the cheapest network. Certainly, if you’re the kind of person who only has a mobile phone for emergencies, you’ll want to look at rivals such as Lebara or Tesco Mobile for far cheaper entry-level deals.

That said, some of Vodafone’s pay-as-you-go SIMs are competitively priced, and the ‘Unlimited Plus’ deal is right up there with the cheapest unlimited data deals. However, that brings us to a gotcha to watch with Vodafone’s contract deals: varying speeds and features.

That Unlimited Plus deal is limited to 100Mbits/sec download speeds. In the real world, that’s unlikely to cause you any problems, but other more expensive tariffs have their speeds uncapped. Other tariffs have device care, extra roaming destinations, unlimited picture messaging (is this still a thing in 2026?) and entertainment subscriptions thrown in. In other words, you need to pick carefully through Vodafone’s huge range of tariffs.

Telegraph readers weren’t blown away by the value on offer. A satisfaction score of 67 per cent was the worst of any network in our round-up. Note: BT Mobile scored lower, but the network is no longer available for new customers.

Speed

Score: 3/5

Vodafone also recorded the worst speed satisfaction score of any network in our test, with only 69 per cent of customers happy.

It’s worth noting that customers of Lebara, which also uses Vodafone’s network, gave a speed score of 85 per cent, so it may be Vodafone customers’ perception of speed is being clouded by cost. It might also reflect that not all Vodafone tariffs offer the fastest possible speeds.

Ofcom’s latest figures put Vodafone’s outdoor 5G coverage at between 51 per cent and 64 per cent of UK premises, so there is also a large chunk of the country that has no access the top speeds yet.

Reliability

Score: 3.5/5

A reliability satisfaction score of 76 per cent is by no means disastrous, but it is again the worst of any of the networks on test. For context, Lebara customers were 94 per cent satisfied, so it may again be a case of customers expecting more for their money when prices are higher.

Customer service

Score: 2.5/5

Vodafone’s customer service scores are pretty dismal, the worst of any provider. Only 58 per cent of the Vodafone customers we surveyed were happy with the ease with which you can reach customer support and the same percentage were satisfied with the quality of the support when you do finally get through. For context, Tesco Mobile scored 94 per cent and 93 per cent on those two metrics.

Roaming

Score: 3/5

Roaming is not a given on Vodafone, as it is with some other networks. The Pay As You Go Plus plans don’t include roaming, for example, meaning you’ll need to pay for “Roaming Extra” add-ons when travelling. On those tariffs, an eight-day pass offering 3GB of roaming data in 52 European destinations costs £9.60. To include countries such as the US and Canada, you’re looking at £18 for only 2GB.

Some of the more expensive pay monthly contracts do include roaming, but you’ll need to check your tariff carefully before signing up. Telegraph readers aren’t exactly blown away by the roaming deals, with 64 per cent satisfied with the value on offer.

The Pupil Equity Team from Southdale Primary School in Armadale have developed the school’s preloved uniform shop to help with the cost of the school day for families.

Pupils from a West Lothian primary have handed over cheques to two charities after working hard at the school’s uniform shop.

The Pupil Equity Team from Southdale Primary School in Armadale have developed the school’s preloved uniform shop to help with the cost of the school day for families.

The children work in the shop after school and have worked hard selling all of their products.

READ MORE: West Lothian councillor calls for ‘vape law’ after devastating Glasgow fire

A school spokesperson said: “We presented at Dragons Den in 2025 and won money to help us with the shop. The children have chosen two local charities to give back to the community.

“They were Jaks Den and RiverKids and they came to visit the school to receive the money that we have chosen to donate to them.

“The two local charities were really happy to receive the donation.”

READ MORE: POLICE COLUMN: Chief Inspector Dougie Grieve

Don’t miss the latest news from the West Lothian Courier. Sign up to our free newsletter here.

New UK government guidance recommends that screen time for children under two should be avoided, except for shared activities such as video calls. For children aged two to five, a maximum of an hour a day is suggested. The guidance also outlines that watching screens together is better than children viewing alone.

This echoes guidance from the World Health Organization recommending no screen time for infants under two, and no more than one hour per day for older children aged four and under.

The early years, especially from birth to age six, are a critical period for developing social and communication skills. This is when children are learning how to connect with others, communicate their needs and understand the signals people give them. Given the increasing presence of touchscreen technologies in young children’s environments, understanding how these tools influence early developmental trajectories is essential.

Touchscreen technology offers new opportunities for learning and play. But there are also questions about its impact on children’s social development, communication and school readiness. Researchers and health organisations have been working to consider how digital media interacts with children’s development and shapes their early experiences.

Excessive touchscreen use has been associated with delays in expressive language, reduced attention spans, and poorer interactions between parents and children.

Yet the picture is not one-sided. My research with colleagues highlights that early exposure to multi-modal technologies – tools that combine sound, images, touch and movement – can shape children’s social development in both positive and negative ways.

Language skills and collaboration

On the positive side, interactive and engaging uses of technology can foster language development. Studies show that digital platforms encouraging storytelling, role play and collaborative activities can enhance children’s competence in communication.

Touchscreens can also help children to work together on shared tasks. Multi-touch interfaces promote joint problem-solving, turn-taking and dialogue. This can strengthen cooperation and peer relationships.

In classrooms, tablets often become focal points for group activities. Children share knowledge, assist one another and collaborate on projects, which can enhance social interaction skills and confidence.

Touchscreens also create opportunities for social play and communication across distance. Video-communication apps such as Skype and FaceTime allow children to maintain relationships with family and friends, supporting emotional bonds and social connection.

Creative expression is another area where digital tools can shine. Drawing, animation, and storytelling apps encourage children to share ideas and collaborate. This can promote cooperation and social bonding.

Passive use

However, these benefits coexist with significant challenges. Excessive screen time can reduce opportunities for face-to-face interaction, limiting children’s practice of conversational skills and emotional understanding. When children use screens passively or in isolation, they may become less engaged in socialising with others.

Parents’s use of screens is another concern. When parents are absorbed in their own devices, they talk less with their children. This reduces opportunities for educationally meaningful conversations.

Touchscreen use can also affect communication more directly. Studies show that electronic books may shift parents’ attention toward the device rather than the story, displacing meaningful conversation and reducing the quality of shared reading experiences. Some research suggests that heavy touchscreen use may make it harder for children to pick up social and emotional cues. This may affect their ability to decode social situations.

Importantly, the impact of touchscreen use is shaped by several mediating factors. Children learn more effectively when adults or their classmates model how to use touchscreen devices. As the government guidance states, it’s also better if adults watch screens together with their child, rather than their child watching alone.

Parents’ views and wider culture matter too. In research I carried out with colleagues, we found that cultural perceptions about what makes a good childhood shaped parents’ choices. In Portugal and Norway, strong cultural emphasis on outdoor play, social interaction, and connection with nature led parents to prioritise these activities over touchscreen use.

These cultural expectations influence how parents interpret and regulate young children’s digital practices, showing that attitudes toward technology are closely tied to wider national discourses about childhood. Educational settings further influence this. The way technology is integrated into classrooms can reinforce social behaviour.

These findings have important implications for school readiness. Social communication skills, such as turn-taking, listening, expressing ideas, and understanding others, are foundational for success in early education. Touchscreens can support these skills when used interactively and collaboratively. But when screen use replaces conversation, imaginative play or peer interaction, it may hinder the development of the very abilities children need for school and their social lives.

The evidence suggests that the question is not whether children should use touchscreens, but how. High-quality, interactive, and socially supported digital experiences can enrich development. Passive or excessive use can undermine it.

However, it’s vital to recognise that not all digital content is created equal. The quality and context of technology use can have a significant impact. As digital technologies continue to evolve, ensuring that young children’s screen experiences are balanced, meaningful, and socially engaging will be essential.