RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter
Over the weekend, Kevin and Nathaniel both sent me an article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that tells the story of Jane M. Buri, an 84-year-old social worker who quietly amassed a $1.4 million fortune. How did she do it? She practiced the art of thrift. From the article:
In retrospect, friends say Buri’s savings made sense. They say she drove a 30-year-old car, watched an ancient TV, lived four decades in a house bought with cash in 1969, and just kept stacking charity donation envelopes in her sun room, until, once a year, she sent them all in.
They say she gave of herself and asked little in return. Nobody’s disputing that generosity. But it’s not the whole story. Because this isn’t about someone who selflessly saved so others could have. It’s about someone who saved because spending more just didn’t occur to her.
I love these sorts of stories, but when I share them, I invariably hear from readers who say they would hate to live the frugal lifestyle necessary to build so much wealth. Yet the article makes it clear that although Buri pinched pennies, she also spent on the things that were important to her:
Nor did she deny herself small indulgences. Some weeks, she ate out three meals a day, friends said. She traveled to Europe, and to the Rose Parade in California. She bought a baby grand piano.
There was nothing she wanted and didn’t buy, said [a] co-worker. “She was frugal because she didn’t need anything else,” she said. “She wanted that old car. She dressed the way she wanted to dress.”
It’s not having what you want that’s important — it’s wanting what you have.
In recent years, I’ve had the privilege to meet several people just like Buri (including my real millionaire next door, who has agreed to let me interview him). Their stories are always the same. They’ve amassed wealth on modest salaries by living lives of thrift, and by choosing to spend only on the things that make them happy.
[St. Louis Today: How social worker Jane M. Buri saved $1.4 million, then gave it all way]
This article is about Frugality, News, Real-Life Tuesday, 14th April 2009 (by J.D. Roth)
April 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Great story. She lived near where my wife lived when we met. Although definitely middle-class, it’s a very nice area. There’s a nice park within walking distance, and you can walk to the grocery store if you feel like it, and a world famous frozen custard joint is a reasonable walk away too.
See what you have for what it is (many people would look right past that neighborhood despite its niceties), want what you have, and spend carefully–wait for sales, stuff like that.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
OK, so she has $1.4 million. At the age of 84. Now what?
She likely won’t be able to enjoy the money, because, well, she’s old.
She can give it to charity, and it seems like that’s exactly what she’s doing. Very admirable. But most nonprofits have problems with day-to-day cashflow - making payroll, buying supplies, that sort of thing. There’s a reason that most fundraisers encourage planned giving. Not to mention the fact that inflation has surely eaten into the value of her savings considerably. So, she’s doing right in giving the money away, but she’s not having nearly the impact she could have had if she had taken her monthly surplus and given it away then.
Again, your main point of living simply and spending on the on the things you enjoy is well taken and relevant. But irrationally squirreling away money that could be put to better use somewhere else?
April 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
It’s a simple story that works (much like eating healthy and exercise) but it doesn’t sell books.
I like to think of my parents as frugal (more like cheap), but then I realize they do all the things they love to do and they did it on modest college salaries. Dad buys all the good wine he wants, they both travel internationally, they sent both of us kids to good schools, and mom never wants for nice clothes. But they paid off their house in 5 years, keep cars at least 10 years, and have only remodeled the house when things break.
They started saving early, took advantage of retirement matching, lived well below their means and today they are retired millionaires. And they still don’t spend more than they ever did. They are my role models.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Great story. My parents have a comfortable nest egg, not with brilliant insight into the stock market, but by saving more than they spent. Neither of them have college degrees. They bought a house, paid it off in 15 year, and still live in it 15 years later. They never financed a car - they paid in cash. They never carried a balance on their credit cards, never paid an extra dime of interest. They are retired comfortably now, even in this economy. Like Ian, they are my role models.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@Corey, that’s exactly how I would do it, keep a good chunk until I died and was sure I wasn’t going to need it. It sounds like she DID give her money away, just not all of it. I would rather this woman have saved the money just in case she needed medical care or a nursing home as she aged than give it all away via “planned giving” and be a burden on the rest of us because she didn’t have anything left.
I find myself frequently in the “enough” mindset. Sure there are things I would like but I don’t get the gimmes that often. When I think of getting a windfall and ask myself what I would spend it on I come up blank, so I save it.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Hi J.D.,
You got me thinking about this statement:
“It’s not having what you want that’s important — it’s wanting what you have.”
If you mean “wanting what I have” as in appreciation and being thankful for what I have, then I would say you’ve nailed it…. what happens is that most people have it reversed and therefore think…
“I’ll be happy when I get what I want.”
….so I’m starting to see your point;
just be happy with what you have or in your own words,
“wanting what you have”…. is more important than…”having what you want.”
April 14th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
@ Corey, Post # 2.
But irrationally squirreling away money that could be put to better use somewhere else?
Would you rather she waste her money by impulsively buying things she doesn’t need in order to “stimulate the economy”? That’s just stupid.
Kudos to her, and anyone else who doesn’t buy into that nonsense.
@ JD, when can we expect to read that interview with your neighbour next door? I check every day, waiting anxiously to read that post. I love reading stories like that, and the one you posted today. Thank you!
April 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@Mike, post 7 - that’s not at all what I said. I agree with the lady in question and J.D. that one shouldn’t spend money on unnecessary things. But since she clearly has a proclivity toward charitable giving, it’s worth noting that the value of her contributed dollar, because of inflation and the vagaries of the nonprofit sector, was much higher in 1977 or whenever than it is now.
I’ll reiterate that it’s ridiculous to let money pile up if there’s a better use for it somewhere else. “Better use” doesn’t mean unnecessary spending.
April 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Yeah..
That’s all very nice but I would honestly consider it pretty extreme.
Time = money
I much rather be young and live comfortably all of my life, with great experiences (not things) with my family (and I mean all of my life by being a more wise spender) then amassing a small fortune and not really doing anything with it.
My goal is to leave this earth with a spent body (naturally) not looking like a ken doll, great memories, and enough money to pay for my funeral and enough to help a great-niece or nephew with college.
I know, she lived how she wanted. Kudos to her!..and it’s a good lesson in loving what you have and not being over materialistic
but IMO, I feel that this is taken a little too far..
April 14th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I still think people are missing the point. She lived EXACTLY AS SHE WANTED TO. She was careful - and fortunate - enough to have a lot left over when she was done, and she left it to those who mattered to her. Though I might not duplicate her life, I admire it.
And Corey, she DID give money away, every year. Not knowing in advance the exact moment or means of her death, she gave away what was right for her at the time, and the rest when she was sure she wouldn’t need it. I think that’s the best possible way to do it, lacking psychic vision.
I love these stories, JD - bring ‘em on!
April 14th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Now that is a life to aspire to! She enjoyed indulgences that made her happy but didn’t waste her money on things that didn’t and she ended up saving an impressive sum!
April 14th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Happiness doesn’t come from chasing and/or getting things . The “he who dies with the most toys wins” mentality is one reason why this society is so screwed up.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
My dad is classic baby boomer, “he who dies with the most toys wins,” but he’s been unhappy and dissatisfied for most of his life. He’s spent, spent, spent and is staring at retirement with nothing to show but a garage full of expensive “toys” that are now worth next to nothing. Clearly, these possessions are what makes him feel worthwhile, which makes me sad; he’s spent so much time on them, and so little on the things that matter.
It’s hard to go against the flow, to drive the old car and not buy the flashy clothes when there is money in the bank. This woman showed courage in her choices as well as thrift. Sure, she could have tried to predict the future and sent an additional 20% of her earnings to charity every year, but how was she to know? Besides, that isn’t the point: the point is that she lived life on her terms, buying what SHE wanted and not what others thought she needed to have.
Now that’s a success story, and one I’d like to follow.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Wow, those two bolded comments put shivers down me a bit.
Very good story. I agree she should have definitely have kept a fair chunk of it in case she encountered some type of medical problem or something. Also, if I accumulated 1.4 million dollars and had nothing to do with it I would definitely help out family rather than give it all to charity.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“Besides, that isn’t the point: the point is that she lived life on her terms, buying what SHE wanted and not what others thought she needed to have.”
Playing devil’s advocate, but that advice sounds like it could also be used in your case.
Switch out the ’she’ with a ‘he’ and ‘needed to have’ to ‘didn’t need’.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Corey sort of totally misses the point: “She likely won’t be able to enjoy the money, because, well, she’s old.”
Guess what? She has already enjoyed the money! It has made her feel safe and satisfied at her ability to take care of herself, pretty much whatever comes along, and it has given her the opportunity to contribute to charity when she is able, without denying her own needs. Sounds pretty good to me.
As an addition, and I have no reason to believe that this applies to Corey him or herself (I know Coreys of both genders), there is a tendency for those of us in the not-for-profit world to believe we are owed support because we work so hard and our cause is so important. Wrong. We have to earn the support of our contributors just as we would earn the support of venture capitalists in a for-profit-setting: by doing good things really, really well.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
The shocking part of this story is that it IS a story. Most people with any decent type of job should be able to accumulate that much wealth in their lifetime. But most people don’t because they frivolously spend it away. So when someone does save that much, it makes headlines.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
It’s an interesting story, precisely because she was able to save all that money *after* she bought everything that she wanted. It’s easy to save money if you’ve already fulfilled all your desires. If you can only think of $50,000 worth of purchases you care to make every year, but you bring home $60,000 a year, then saving $10,000 doesn’t take a massive feat of willpower.
Unfortunately, this same thing is what, in a way, makes this story irrelevant for a lot of people. What do you do when you *can’t* afford all your desires? You have to pick and choose, you have to make sacrifices. It’s a lot harder that way, and that’s the challenge that so many of us face. If we want X and Y. (where X or Y might be a car, or a vacation, or a TV), but we only have enough money for one of them, how do we choose? How do we control ourselves so that we don’t borrow money for the second item?
Those are the hard questions. When you buy everything you care about and still have money left over, saving is the easy choice. If we were all content with what we already have, personal finance would be easy. You (hypothetically, of course) wouldn’t need to worry about saving for a Mini Cooper, you’d just keep driving a Ford Focus until it actually stopped working, then you’d buy another one for $1000. Meanwhile, you’d b $15,000 closer to having $1.4 million in the bank.
How do you curtail your desires, and is that even something you’d want to do if you could?
April 14th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Great story! Someone like that could be my role model.
One crucial point, though: she never had children (and therefore grandchildren) to spend money on.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Tyler, I think you bring up a good point, the difference between having everything and having enough. There is always more to want. I could be a billionaire with my own private island and could still want a bigger island with a bigger house and my very own gorilla habitat, and maybe my own currency with my picture on it…
you’re right. It’s healthy to want. But can you be satisfied with not having? Do you have enough and are you happy with it?
My husband asked me if I want an “X” (doesn’t matter what and I don’t remember) for Christmas. I had been admiring it from all angles for a while. But I pointed out to him that the reason I didn’t buy it wasn’t because I didn’t have the money, but because what it cost wasn’t worth the price to me. To me that is when your wants meet “enough”. You won’t pay $100 for something if it’s only worth $50 to you. It’s part of a mindset.
I hope this makes sense, and I know this only covers part of your question, but it’s a really big question. And one worth exploring.
April 14th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Stories like this make me grin ear to ear. She definitely had the last laugh! Hardly sounds like she was miserable with deprivation. No mention that she did any investing, which makes it all the more remarkable.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Regardless of the intentions of the article or the social worker, placing the amount she’s saved beside her age projects the idea that her behavior is something to aspire to. I don’t really see it that way. If I live to 84, I’m sure there will be other things to think about besides my bank account.
Personal finance is well and good, but I’m never impressed by articles suggesting really old people with really big bank accounts are examples of lives well lived.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
This is a great story because it sounds like she had everything she wanted and is happily donating to causes she believes in. Those godawful stories that come up every so often of people dying with millions and living lonely and in squalor, which I initially thought this was, make me sad.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
To clarify my above post, I’m not implying there’s anything wrong with the woman or with how she’s lived her life. However, navelgazing at the wealthy elderly is something almost exclusively done by younger people who miss the crucial fact that the money matters much less by that stage of life.
The lady in question would likely be the first to tell you that her bank account hardly affects her sense of who she is; the fact that she has $1.4 mil is probably of far less importance than the fact that she’s seen 84 years on this earth. This is why it irritates me when pop journalists tell us to gasp! at how much she’s saved over a lifetime. *By the time you’re her age, the money doesn’t matter.*
April 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
She was able to take advantage of incredibly low median house to median income ratios, something that has all-but-vanished over the last couple decades. Even with the implosion and resulting collapse of the housing market in America it is still considerably higher than it was for her in the 60s.
Once a person no longer has to worry about house payments (the largest investment they will ever have), it’s all coasting.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
As an addition, and I have no reason to believe that this applies to Corey him or herself (I know Coreys of both genders), there is a tendency for those of us in the not-for-profit world to believe we are owed support because we work so hard and our cause is so important. Wrong. We have to earn the support of our contributors just as we would earn the support of venture capitalists in a for-profit-setting: by doing good things really, really well.
I don’t think anyone *deserves* this woman’s hard-saved money - but clearly she wanted to give it to someone. Someone earned that dollar. The only question is when they got it and what it was worth when they received it. $20 twenty years ago was worth significantly more than it is now. I don’t know how else to say that.
Yes, it’s good to take stock of your own needs and budget accordingly. But by any reasonable standard, she did a terrible job of it - after all, she ended up with almost $1.5 million more than she started with, money that simply sat idle for most of her life.
If you believe, like I do, that money is simply another resource (just like brainpower, talent, or anything else) you’ll understand why I find a $1.5 million surplus over the course of your life simply unconscionable. Charities, business startups, grants to local artists - there are so many things that money could have been doing other than sitting in envelopes in her sun room. If everyone acted like her, our economy would grind to a halt - and I don’t mean from a lack of consumer spending, but of business and charitable investment.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Accumulating that much money is not that difficult if you aren’t a materialistic person. You can afford small luxuries and still save a lot. Is it wrong to be a materialistic person? I’m going to write a post about this on my blog later today.
April 14th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
@Mike (#7)
I just conducted the interview with my neighbor this morning. It was fun! It’s here next to me on my yellow legal pad, and I hope to get it transcribed soon. I may post it next week, but it’s probably going to be the week after…
April 14th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Hey thanks JD for posting it.
@ Michele - I think part of the reason it is news is because of her profession. I don’t know about you, but when I hear the words “social worker” I don’t think about millionaires.
I think it’s a great lesson, not only to do what fulfills you in life, but that we can all achieve great success with our finances regardless of our vocations.
April 14th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
It seems that the three central tenants of this woman’s frugality were:
1. No spouse
2. No Children
3. No Mortgage
These are also my own three central tenants of frugality. Most people ruin their lives early on by getting one or more of these things, causing their financial life to a trainwreck, and tying them onto such a tight leash making it irrelevant really how much money they ever have.
Normally stories like this bore me. Kicking the bucket with $1.4 million probably means you lived an imbalanced life, either spent too much time working/saving, and not enough time living/spending. But seems she was planning all along what she wanted to do, and got what she wanted in the end. More power to her; my hat is off.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
It sounds like she lived her life right. She was frugal, but didn’t deny herself the things she really wanted. One person commented she should have spent her money all along rather than accumulating it and reducing its value with inflation. I think she was wise to save the money in case she needed hospitalization for an illness, or long-term nursing care. It was very responsible of her to save for these eventualities herself, rather than burdening society financially. I’m sure charities can use the money just as much today as they could if they had received more each year.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
My grandparents enjoyed similar financial success, on the salary of a Navy helicopter mechanic and hospital food service worker, and despite raising six children.
Before my grandmother died, they were among the first tourists to visit the Soviet Union and China, and they travelled throughout Europe and the US. They also owned a lovely home, two well-maintained vehicles and a modest vacation home on Cape Cod. My grandfather has made significant contributions to the college educations of several of his grandchildren, and contributes to the support of his developmentally disabled daughter. So my grandparents did enjoy the fruits of their labor.
I do see a few areas of difference which will make this feat more difficult for his grandchildren: We will not have pensions, and we will feel obligated to make significant contributions to put our children through college. (His kids have been able to live middle class lives without all having college degrees.) OTOH, we have only 2 or 3 children each.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Wow. I don’t want kids either, but, dude, harsh.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
@ Corey, Joey, etc. I can tell that none of you has put a relative in a nursing home recently. That 1.4 million will keep that lady independent until her death. She will be able to hire round the clock caregivers, if she needs to, as well as afford any home modifications or safety equipment.
So you don’t think she’s wise? Go visit some nursing homes. That’s where all of us who “enjoy our money now” are going to end up. (If we’re lucky and nursing homes are still paid for by Medicaid in 40 years.)
April 14th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
@Frugal Bachelor
To each his own, but I would never trade my spouse, my children, or our home for 1.4 million dollars. I wouldn’t trade them for 1.4 million a piece. I’d rather have a lifetime of love and caring then a hefty bank account when I’m dead.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
bottom line is: if a social worker can save over a million, why can’t u, and why can’t all of us?
the answer is we all can. one chooses to be rich and financially secure. i chose to study hard in school, get good grades, to get into a good college, so i could get a good job. i choose to work hard at work, get a promotion, and make investments.
it’s so simple, and this woman is it.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
@ Valerie: I don’t plan on putting any relatives in nursing homes. I find that a filthy part of American culture that I’ll never subject my parents or siblings to. The fact that this country has become so selfish (oops…individualistic) that seniors have to cower in fear of being abandoned to abuse and neglect in “nursing homes” is one more sign of how pathetic things are here beneath our wealthy veneer.
April 14th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
This is a great story! I like the part that this woman lived frugally, but still had the things that were important to her. I think that’s the key. Yes, she has $1.4 million at 84, but that doesn’t mean she hasn’t spent her life doing the things she’s always wanted to do. Just means she planned carefully when she was younger and now has plenty of money left over to see her through the rest of her days.
I don’t think having a nest egg - even at 84 - is letting money pile up and not using it for “better use.” First of all, she’s given to charity. And while I see the point about inflation and other factors affecting those dollars’ buying power, the fact still remains that this is her money. Her choices. She may leave all of that money to a charity of choice when she’s gone, and if the charity is smart, they can invest it in such a way as to have that money grow and meet their needs for a longer period of time. But, she will remain completely independent for the rest of her life.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“One person commented she should have spent her money all along rather than accumulating it and reducing its value with inflation. I think she was wise to save the money in case she needed hospitalization for an illness, or long-term nursing care. It was very responsible of her to save for these eventualities herself, rather than burdening society financially. I’m sure charities can use the money just as much today as they could if they had received more each year.”
‘Spent’ isn’t the right word. ‘Invested’ probably is better - whether in the community, via charities or paying for young relatives’ college educations, or in businesses that would have gladly put that surplus to use. And no, my larger point was that all but the largest non-profits are run on shoestring budgets and have continual cash needs - and $20 a week, starting in 1968 or whenever she started saving, would have been preferable to the $1.4m lump sum she’s about to give them.
As for long-term/nursing care - point taken. But $1.4m?? Not to mention that the United States has a social safety net for a reason - it’s not a burden to society to take advantage of that net. That’s a whole other can of worms, though.
If you think of money having a multiplier effect, you understand exactly why this kind of hoarding is irrational. Consider this - her savings could have paid for at least 10 college educations, with plenty left over for her own retirement and long-term care. Each of those college graduates would have gone on to make, on average, $1m more throughout the course of their lives. That’s over 1000% ROI! Instead, it sat in envelopes in her sun room.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Kudos to Jane Buri for a life well lived! It just goes to show how much of what we think are needs are really wants.
@Corey, that’s a bit silly. If her money was in a bank, it was already being spread out into the community through bank loans. As long as she was earning a reasonable rate of interest, none of that money was “lost” to inflation.
Since $20 a week since 1968 only adds up to $42,000 I think most charities would prefer the $1.4 million.
Her savings can still pay for all those college educations, so nothing is lost. At worst, they might have been deferred.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
If you think old people get abandoned in nursing homes just because no one will take care of them you need to educate yourself about nursing homes. Unless one is paying out of one’s own pocket, one must need skilled care from a nurse (not a nurse aide) every day.
Most people who go to nursing homes now go to recover from an acute health problem, then return to their home.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
It’s not entirely clear from this post that Ms. Buri is deceased. The linked story clarifies that, but I gather from some of the above comments that not everyone read the story.
@ Frugal Bachelor, our own JD has made two of the “negative” life choices you mention (a spouse and a mortgage), but he’s managing to save wisely now, and neither the spouse nor the mortgage were the cause of his earlier difficulties. As someone who has one of those (a spouse), and may some day have all three, I take issue with your blanket assessment of people who marry, procreate, and take out home loans. That’s a lot of people you look down on, man.
@ Corey - the envelopes in the sunroom were just her annual charitable donations. She mailed them out. Annually.
I think it’s a little weird that people want to malign this woman. She sounds kind of like a local saint to me.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I guess I need to stop buying stuff!
April 14th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I love these stories…I’ve discovered that it’s amazing how little we can have and still be happy.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I love this story…it makes you feel like life is about priorities and to each his own. She had what she wanted, nothing more and nothing less. Although she was frugal she was very generous. She did what she wanted when she wanted how she wanted…We could all learn something here.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:09 am
I’m concerned that this is what we celebrate and insert as anecdotal stories in books with tag line of “if this parking clerk saved 2 million over his life, you can too”. Don’t get me wring, it’s inspiring, but also a little sad. There is nothing wrong with wanting a newer used car or some other material thing in life. I want to enjoy my life and balance that with some financial security.
Aren’t extreme amounts of selflessness and frugality are just as bad extreme selfishness, materialism, and avarice?
April 15th, 2009 at 4:03 am
The neighbor who lives next to my father in-law is 93 years old, and is pretty much a millionaire next door. I know this because he has told us how many 100k bank accounts he has. He was given his house to live in and never had a mortgage, never really bought any new furniture or updated anything in the house, and never had any kids with his wife who passed away last year. The man buys stocks now ‘for fun’ and he buys the shares by the thousands.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:05 am
Hooray for the ancient T.V.!! We also have an ancient T.V. that was a hand-me-down from my grandfather, the T.V. was probably bought at Sears in the early 80s. It works just fine and since we don’t care about T.V. we have not upgraded.
I think the ancient T.V. stands as a testament to spending on things that are important to you and saving on things that you don’t care about. Why buy an expensive flat screen T.V. just to keep up with the neighbors?
April 15th, 2009 at 4:55 am
She should have enjoyed some of the money. I understand saving, but if you never spend any of it, why bother?
April 15th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Great story, but let’s at least be honest about HOW she was able to accumulate so much money. She spent her entire life in a house her parents paid for and left to her upon their death, and she never had children. If you cut “housing” and “children” out of pretty much ANYONE’s budget, they should easily be able to accumulate $1.4 million in 84 years, even without clipping coupons and watching an ancient, fuzzy TV.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:10 am
So true. Often when we quit spending on commercialized crap we realize that it was really holding us back from living and enjoying our lives. When we save and only indulge in a few things we enjoy them much more than if we’re constantly buying crap for ourselves because we “deserve” it and never have anything left for the things that we actually do enjoy and love doing.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:12 am
@Frugal Bachelor (#30):
“It seems that the three central tenants of this woman’s frugality were:”
I think you mean “tenets.” Tenants are people who rent housing.
“1. No spouse
2. No Children
3. No Mortgage”
I agree on the no children and mortgage, but having a spouse is huge HELP in accumulating wealth. Two people can earn twice as much as a single person, but can share housing expenses that are only slightly higher than similar expenses for a single person. Sharing housing costs, while doubling the household income, is a very large part of how my wife and I have been able to accumulate as much as we have in such a short period.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:20 am
@Joey (#37):
Wow, people who put their relatives in nursing homes are “selfish?” Let me tell you a little story my wife’s grandfather.
Bob was a widower who lived by himself. His daughter lived next door. As Bob got older, he wasn’t able to live by himself, so his dauther invited him to live with her. He moved in. His daughter and her husband were both retired from their regular careers, but both kept very busy with retirement careers in real estate. Bob spent most of his time home, alone, watching TV. Bob had a stroke and lost his peripheral vision. He needed help going up and down the stairs, but still spent most of his days alone (sorry, “independent” as people like you would prefer to say).
Eventually, Bob’s daughter and son-in-law decided they couldn’t continue to provide Bob with the care he needed, so they moved him into a home.
Suddenly, Bob had expert, professional, round-the-clock health care. He had organized activities to participate in, with other friends of his own age. He socialized with other seniors, went to game night, movie night, and even strolled around the paths on the property to get some fresh air (monitored by health professionals, of course). Bob was happier than he’d been in years.
That’s it. That’s the end of the story. Bob is my wife’s grandfather, he’s a real person, and that’s a true story. He’s in that “home” right now, and has more colour and life than he’s had in a decade. I’m struggling to understand who the loser is in this scenario.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Sam, I second that. MrP and I have a collection of other people’s cast-off tvs stored in our basement. When one of our tv’s dies, we have another free tv just waiting to take its place!
April 15th, 2009 at 6:57 am
@Joey #37,
Here’s another nursing home scenario. My grandparents lived in the house they raised their children for 60 years. About five years ago, Grandpa was diagnosed with dementia. By Christmas 2007, he didn’t know who anyone was, including his wife of 70 years. He kept wanting to go “home” (in the middle of the night in a Michigan winter) and the doors had to be physically guarded during the night (someone slept on a cot in the kitchen). Then he’d get very angry, belligerent (not part of his usual personality) because we wouldn’t let him leave. Eventually, we couldn’t handle him and he went to a nursing home. He died 10 months later at age 93.
Grandma is still living in the house at age 91.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:27 am
@Chris,
Our family story is similar with my grandfather living with my mom until she just couldn’t take care of him any more. He lived in a group home for two and a half years before he died.
To those who don’t know those homes are many thousands of dollars per month. $1.4M is a lot of money, but for good care she could easily have had to pay $200k per year for services (nursing and medical). And since this woman didn’t have kids to take some of the burden if she wasn’t able to live independently she needed the money to pay someone to help her live (not to mention the price of medical services).
@Corey, I’m not sure what you mean by your comments about her not being a burden on society because we have a social safety net. Society IS the social safety net, we all pay for it out of our taxes and if more people were able to pay for their own care our taxes would go down. Giving her money away so that we can pay for her medical care just means that she gave all of OUR money away, she just transferred the payments. Part of the reason the cost of social services has increased our taxes to the point is has is because many services have changed from last resort for people who can’t take care of themselves to a matter of course for people who won’t.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:43 am
I too was struck by the mention of the “ancient tv” since we have three cathode ray machines in the house — they aren’t “fuzzy,” and they aren’t too small, and just this morning I learned that they use less energy than the new flat panels, so I think we’ll keep them!
April 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Thanks JD, I’m really looking forward to reading that.
And by the way, thank you for this site and all your hard work and sacrifices. Enjoy your Mini without reservation or guilt, you deserve it!
April 15th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Well, if I didn’t have a mortgage or rent payment, I would be rich too.
April 15th, 2009 at 7:57 am
An addendum…
The reason I love reading stories like the above, and your soon to publish interview with your neighbour, is that it reminds me of my grandparents.
Born in the 1920s, they grew up through the depression, WWII, etc. They retired from farming in the 1990s, still living in their trailer they bought in the 60s. Long since paid off, about the only thing they splurge on is a new truck every 5 years.
I love hearing stories of how Grandma, as a little girl, would go into the bush looking for dandelions to pick. She’d then take them home and help her mom make a salad for supper for the family.
Stories of how they’d trap gophers and sell the tails for a penny or 2 each. When the fair would come to town, they’d have $2 in their pockets and would buy an ice cream cone for a nickel or a dime. That was the one time throughout the year that they’d have ice cream.
All while telling these stories, they always always said how hard the times were and how little they had, but also how happy and thankful they were for what they did have.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I don’t think some people read the article. They’re talking as if she’s still alive.
From the article..
The last checks from her savings — willed to more than 50 friends, cousins and charities — should be arriving soon in mailboxes.
…
On March 18, 2008, Jane Marie Buri died.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am
INSPIRATION!
April 15th, 2009 at 10:43 am
It’s a very lucky person who knows so precisely what they want, and that the expensive things on that list are few and far between.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
“She never married, never had children, never missed a day of work.”
Well I see how she can be frugal. She missed out on a lot
April 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
@Moneymonk
Despite what you (and many others) think, it IS possible for a human being to have a very happy and fulfilling life without a spouse or children. I know–I’m one of them.
It sounds like what this lady lacked in immediate family, she more than made up for in friends. Combine that with a life lived the way she wanted, and I call that a win-win situation.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“Well I see how she can be frugal. She missed out on a lot”
We all end up missing out on a lot. I never want to bungee jump, go sky diving, race car driving, etc. I’ll never be able to complete in the olympics, win a nobel prize, etc.
I’ll have missed out on a lot. You’ll miss out on a lot. But will you care?
She obviously didn’t. But she still had friends, a social life, she still got a chance to travel, had a fulfilling career. She missed out on the richness that is a part of other people’s lives, but we have missed on the richness in her own life.
“She should have enjoyed some of the money. I understand saving, but if you never spend any of it, why bother?”
She has spent all of it. The thing that seems to bother you is that a large part of it was spent after her death when no one could come to her and thank her for what she had done. Its like asking why bother doing good when no one is looking. For some things, you derive your own internal satisfaction.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
>>”She never got married, never had a boyfriend”
That says it all. Easy to pinch without demands of family.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I hear these stories all the time - like the factory worker who never made over $11/hour, yet saved millions. They are inspiring, but the common thread is no spouse or children. There’s nothing wrong with not having a spouse or children, but it changes the equation (and the life the equation is applied to).
April 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
That’s a beautiful story!
She kind of reminds me of myself. I’m lucky enough to have moderately rich parents… but I don’t spend that much.
For example, for my 18th Birthday, I got the control of a bunch of money my parents saved up for me. When my (3 years older) brother got control of his money, he immediately went and spend most of it on a car.
I simply put it in a bank and just spend it on little things that I want. Some books of Amazon here, a bunch of neodymium supermagnets there, I’ve only made one big-ticket spending so far.
I often wonder how lucky I am to have rich parents. Maybe I don’t wonder often enough how lucky I am to be happy with spending little. (my brother always seems to be short on money)
April 20th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Great story. Frugality can work magic.
A related story– I meet many teachers with more money than dentists and lawyers that I know . . . there is much truth in the Millionaire Next Door book– I see it all the time.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
It is a great story. However there’s one glaring theme that nobody really mentioned (unless I missed it). She was able to accumulate and save that money since she didn’t have any children which eats up whole heck lot of your income. I also think she was much happier knowing she could have that money to donate to charities. That was her source of happy, to serve others, and not to “buy a new car/shoes/clothes etc”
May 1st, 2009 at 12:08 am
I am fascinated by your comment about people emailing you to say that the frugal lifestyle required to amass a good nest egg is just too hard!
However, I am not surprised! I am a stay-at-home mom. My husbands does contract work from home (software development). We are a single income family not earning badly, but not earning as much as if my husband got a ‘normal’ corporate job.
We live rather frugally. We could definitely still spend less - for example we drive a truck that is expensive on fuel and insurance, and we have satellite TV. However, I spend a fraction on groceries and clothing for the family compared to friends in our age/stage and, here in South Africa where there is no free education, most of our friends spend up to 30% of their earnings on schooling, while we homeschool.
We are very thrifty on power and water usage, grow some of our own food, keep hens for eggs and clean our own home instead of paying a maid (most people in our suburb have a maid AND a nanny, fulltime, not unusual in South Africa!). We live in a very humble home and, in this credit crazy society, save 20% of our earnings and tithe 10%.
Over the past 2 years, my husband has spent a few hours most days cycling (while his contempories sit in the traffic on the way to their office jobs). We enjoy extended weekend trips around the country approx once every 6 weeks and have been on 2 international holidays over the past 8 months. We also enjoy frequent trips to the theatre, nearby day resorts and the occasional meal in a restaurant.
However, I have often received comments like “I don’t get it - if you have to spend an hour each week planning your meals and shopping trip with the sales flyers, how can you afford to go on vacation so often?”
They don’t make the connection that I shop so frugally because I choose to, not because I have to, and that doing so allows spending freedom in other areas.
We are also asked frequently why my husband doesn’t get a “normal” job because it would pay much more? However, these same folk who ask that question will comment in the next breath about how “lucky” he is to be able to spend so much time on vacation and pursuing his interests (he is a musician, cyclist and loves to read and watch movies).
They just don’t get it!
For us, being frugal is about spending as little as we can in order to DO as much as we can.
It works very well for us. It didn’t just happen and it certainly wasn’t all about luck - we made the decision to live differently and set up our life to suit our dreams and goals. Its a active thing! Life is not a spectator sport - jump up, get in the game, and wonderful things can happen!
June 1st, 2009 at 5:15 am
Adrian discusses using a spreadsheet to work out whether this is indeed achievable at:
http://7million7years.com/2009/06/01/how-much-money-can-you-amass-living-frugally/
I know many of your readers like spreadsheets so I’ll mention the one I did in connection with assessing how easy it would be to amass that much money in that period of time - after reading the 7mill7years posting mentioned above for background, see:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rhBmrF12JzQoery1G9aqcWw&output=html
Thanks for bringing this lady’s remarkable life to our attention.
KC
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
While this is an admirable woman, unless readers out there are aspiring to save up as much money as possible to give to charity, there’s little point in waiting until your 84 to cash in on a 1.4 million dollar fortune.
It’s important to clarify end objectives here. If the goal is to ultimately live an affluent life by the time one is approaching retirement–that’s one thing. If the goal is to stash away as much money as possible by the time you die, to ultimately give to someone or something else, that’s something totally different.
Again, the latter goal may be a fine motive, but not necessarily a great motivator for all people to be frugal.