April’s post this morning about renting designer purses and other luxury items raised a few eyebrows. Because the focus here at Get Rich Slowly is on frugality, it’s not often that we delve into the world of high fashion.
In the comments, for example, Ami wrote:
I thought this was the Get Rich Slowly site, not the fritter your money on fripperies site. For me, Getting Rich Slowly is about changing your mindset about what’s necessary and important, which reduces your list of financial needs.
I think Ami’s comment is spot-on. Smart personal finance is about changing your mindset about what’s necessary and important, about reducing your list of financial needs. But I’ve learned that part of this is finding a balance so that you aren’t ignoring your Wants entirely. As Ramit at I Will Teach You to Be Rich says, there’s a place in every budget for conscious spending.
The basic law of frugality
Last summer, Kris and I had dinner with some of her old teacher friends. (My wife taught high-school chemistry and physics for eight years. She’s been out of the field now as long as she was in it, but we still get together with her former colleagues several times a year.)
During the conversation, one of the women — Linda, who teaches history — revealed that she doesn’t own a computer. She didn’t even have a functional TV until her siblings bought one for her. She’s never felt the need for these things, and she’d rather spend her money on something more important to her, like world travel.
Which is the “better” way to spend your money: world travel, an expensive handbag, or an HDTV? Or should you simply tuck your money into a high-yield savings account? This will come as no surprise, but I don’t think there’s any one right answer.
We each have things we spend on that others think are crazy. Linda is willing to live without a TV or a computer so she can fly to China and Belize and Nepal. Other folks are willing to cut corners on housing so they can afford four surfboards. I buy comic books, but I don’t spend much for clothes.
Are these things frugal? If your goal is to pinch every penny, then no they’re not. But if your goal is financial balance, spending on the things that make you happy is perfectly fine. To me, the basic law of frugality is: Decide what’s important to you. Give yourself permission to spend on these things. Pinch pennies on everything else.
Sometimes you CAN get what you want
I have no concept of fashion. I don’t care about name-brand watches, purses, shoes, jackets, or jewelry. For better or worse (and some would say it’s worse), my style is thrift-store chic. All I want to do is pay as little as possible for basic clothes. But I’m not about to condemn those folks who do like fashion.
If you can afford it — by which I mean you’re not sacrificing your financial goals — and if you’re spending consciously and if you’re comparison shopping and if you’re buying quality…If you’re doing all of these things, then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with buying an expensive purse, if that’s what’ll make you happy.
Frugality doesn’t have to mean sacrificing quality. And it doesn’t have to mean you never buy anything you want ever again. You can’t always get what you want — but you can sometimes!
This article is about Choices, Frugality Tuesday, 22nd December 2009 (by J.D. Roth)


RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter




December 22nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Thank you for posting this. I also think it’s important to note that we are all on different stages in our financial journey. If someone is debt free and has made some smart investments, why shouldn’t they occasionally splurge? On the other hand, if you are struggling to make ends meet, buying an expensive purse (or game console, or car, or whatever) isn’t a practical move for you at this time.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Exactly. I’ve said this before on this site’s comments, frugality is spending money on what you care about, not spending on things that you don’t care about, and generally not spending money that you don’t have.
Yes, some debt is “good debt” (housing, student loans… though some disagree even on those). Yes, you should make sure your basic future needs (saving for emergencies, retirement) are taken care of before spending on wants. But there’s nothing wrong with spending on wants once you’re financially secure. And it’s ok that I spend money on books and fancy food and other people have fancy clothing, as long as we value these purchases. It’s good that we all don’t love the same things– used books would probably be a lot more expensive for me if we did.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
J.D., you’re right. Asceticism is for monks. The rest of us should just find balance.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
When I saw April’s post this morning I knew it would get some negative feedback….That said, I’m glad you posted it, and I’m glad the staff writers are shaking it up a little. I am a daily reader, I have no interest in handbags, and I think that $300 is too much to spend on accessory (personally).
But the post was a good reminder that we all have different priorities, and we’re all figuring out how to combine responsible money management with our values. The blog is great in part because it appeals to a diverse group of people…Again and again posts here have made me rethink my assumptions about money and its role in my life and the lives of people around me…Today’s post was another example of that. Thanks.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Ah, but that misses the point of the small house almost entirely. I have a small house because I don’t need (or want) a big house, not because I’m trading a big house for other things (besides, the cost of four surfboards would barely be one month’s rent at a fancier place).
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“I buy comic books, but I don’t spend much for clothes.”
I really did not need that mental image, J.D… Please just keep the curtains drawn so you don’t disturb the neighbors.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Thank you! I’m willing to forgo cable, high-speed internet, and flashy cars for PRETTY gaming consoles, PRETTY purses, snowboarding, and martial arts classes.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I think April’s post was fantastic, all the more because it’s one that JD never would have written himself. If people have the discretionary income, and fashion is important to them, and don’t overspend in other areas so that they can rent (or buy) the latest bag, then it goes against everything this site is supposed to stand for to criticize people for that decision.
Personally, my Dooney & Burke wallet and purse make me happier than any of my other material possessions. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I have thought seriously about a Bag, Borrow, or Steal membership, but can’t afford that right now (as April and some of the commenters point out, buying one great bag can be a better deal, and it certainly is for me at the moment).
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Tyler, please elaborate.
You have a small house because, as you said, you don’t want one. So obviously you aren’t willing to pay for it. What does that have to do with things you DO trade for? What does it have to do with people who DO want it?
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Shara:
J.D. said “Other folks are willing to cut corners on housing so they can afford four surfboards.” He was referring to me (unless I’m mistaken, but that’d be quite a coincidence).
I’m not cutting corners on housing. I love my house. Living in my little house does make it easier to afford other things, like the four surfboards I own, but *that’s not why I live here*. It’s a bonus, a nice side benefit, not an intentional compromise.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Thank you also for posting this update. We are all different in what we value, and there are people who think those who budget, restrain their spending, and hoard their money, are the crazy ones - for not enjoying themselves right now (the “you could be dead tomorrow!” argument). And the “too much to pay for a handbag” is a pretty empty statement - all it says is “I don’t want to spend that”. People who are fans of an item (a handbag, a car, a pram, a location) will always be able to justify the expense. As you’ve all said - it’s about justifying the expense while still having a balanced financial outlook.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
@Tyler (#10)
Yes, that’s an intentional reference to your situation, but I intentionally did not name you specifically so that the example could be general. I didn’t want people to get hung up on a specific instance, but look at the general idea instead.
This was a last-minute edit meant as an inside joke. Don’t let it distract from the point of the post, Tyler. Pretend it doesn’t refer to you, but pays homage to you instead.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Well, yes, it’s nice to see a diversity of opinions.
But what if everyone else has got it wrong?
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
One thing I’ve been thinking about too… sort of on a tangent…
I think it’s really interesting the variety of different methods there are to personal finance. And one of those methods is Dave Ramsey… I LOVE the way he just tells you what to do (especially in TMM). You don’t have choice in his method, you just do what he says in the order he says it until you have a house and that’s paid off along with all your debts and fully funded retirement and emergency accounts. And that works really well for some people. Too much choice can be confusing.
What I’m trying to say is that there’s a ton of choice and a ton of different options. But even for people who don’t want the choice or options… well, there’s an option for that too. And that is really cool.
Personal finance is a lot like parenting– there are a ton of “right” ways to raise a kid or to find financial balance/independence and that is OK.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The reason I view these items negatively is because of a very clear case of diminishing returns.
I can spend $1,000 for a haircut and it will be the best one I ever had, but for only $15 I can get one that is 98% as good.
It is the same thing with purses, bicycles, watches, etc. The purses get even more heat because unlike other intricate mechanical and technological devices they are just a bag to hold stuff.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:50 pm
What was most interesting to me was that in the comments some justified spending money on *their* wants, but dismiss others’ wants as frivolous.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what our wants are, so long as we’re spending responsibly. One person’s isn’t more justifiable than another’s. Both are wants, not needs.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Alright, sorry J.D., I guess I misinterpreted the reference. Somewhat unrelated, but I feel kind of stupid realizing I spent half the afternoon participating in a debate about how much money is reasonable to spend on a purse — if you can afford it, do whatever you like.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm
But Adam (#15) — if you have a ton of money, the $985 difference may be worth the 2%, because of the diminishing marginal return of money itself. On the haircut quality/money chart, the tradeoff is different depending on how much money we have. The tradeoff is probably not that great for most people, but who are we to judge… some people have the means and really value hair over anything else they could get with $985.
This diminishing returns to money is the same argument for marginal income tax increases– $1 is worth more to my students than to me and more to me than to Bill Gates, so we get less disutility from giving the same amount of money in tax. That’s why I pay a higher percentage tax on my last dollar than most of my students, and hopefully a lower percentage tax than Gates.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“What was most interesting to me was that in the comments some justified spending money on *their* wants, but dismiss others’ wants as frivolous. ”
This is the part that bothered me. It’s ok to drop a lot of money on a certain car or tool (and this is why some of us think that some commenters think stuff for men is ok, but stuff for women is stooopid), but if someone wants to spend *their* money on something else, it’s wrong.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
@ Adam (#15) - I also forgo expensive haircuts. My mother cuts my hair for love and affection.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
First for full disclosure I am a financial planner and hold a MS in Financial Planning. 90% of my work is with the working poor but I occasionally provide financial coaching services for high net worth individuals. The reason articles like the one April posted (and frankly, the reason that this blog is the only financial blog I read with any consistency) is that it addresses the true issue behind what we do with our money. Many authors from Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin (Your Money or Your Life) to Brad and Ted Klontz (Wired for Wealth) have presented us with models for understanding our brain as it relates to money. Deprivation and “financial knowledge” alone are insufficient to create behavior change. It is important to determine what matters most to you and align your financial resources with your life goals. The benefit of working with a professional (a good one) is that we look at EVERYTHING. In financial planning we recognize that every dollar you make (from whatever source) affects your ENTIRE life. So, when you say “yes” to something you are saying “no” to something else…are you satifised with the choices you are making and are they getting you what you want? If so, great (even if it is a rented luxury) if not, what steps do you want to take to do something different? It is all a matter of choices.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
well, i am on the advanced dave ramsey baby steps. I have a lot of luxuries.
i am sooo cheap on certain things, haircuts and jeans from walmart, for example, but i do not cheap out on purses and shoes. i have a coach purse and pliner shoes. birkenstocks for work.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
…oh yeah, and J.D. you are correct; the right answer in financial planning is ALWAYS “it depends…”
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
We have this problem a lot with friends - they can’t understand why we don’t have cable (don’t want it) or even own a television (what’s the point?). They’ve offered to buy us a television and pay for cable… but we’re happier without it. So they’ve gone back to mocking us for being “too cheap to buy cable.”
I bite my tongue and try not to make remarks when it happens. Who am I to judge? Maybe television is a REALLY important part of their lives, but does it need to be part of ours? You’re free to do what you want with *your* money, and I’ll do what I want. Stop judging, people.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
@ Meg
I can KINDA see where they come from. Not because they are necessarily right, but more of the financially irresponsible people I know are women. And the women I know are more likely to make a financial decision based on emotion. Those are by no means hard and fast rules, but I have a sympathy for the stereotype.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I always get a kick out of those who display enthusaism because of what they don’t do, or don’t need, or don’t want.
Like from “office space”
“What would you do if you had a million dollars”
“I would do nothing”
“nothing?”
yep, nothing”
“you don’t need a million dollars to do nothing, man”
Same with not doing, needing, or wanting.
Not spending alot of money on a house. So what. Lots of people don’t spend alot of money on a house. And lot’s of people have small houses.
No credit card debt. So what. lots of people don’t have CC debt either
My 5 year old doesn’t have any debt, or a house payment for that matter.
What is impressive is what you do want. What you have accomplished, what you do need.
When you have nice things, and a nice life, and you don’t have to make tradeoffs. That is an accomplishment.
Understanding the purpose for your money is nice, and understanding what is important is nice, but understanding that the purpose for your money isn’t that important is the nicest.
It is not in prioritizing that matters, but when you find you don’t need to.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“When you have nice things, and a nice life, and you don’t have to make tradeoffs.”
Wealth is being happy with what you have. You might think someone is making trade-offs, but that person might truly be content.
This constant need for better purses, bicycles, and the like is the reason why lifestyle inflation is so rampant in our society, and why more people are not rich.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“Decide what’s important to you. Give yourself permission to spend on these things. Pinch pennies on everything else.”
This is an incredibly important point. I used to buy nothing for myself, ever. At one point, I gave myself permission to buy things for myself, and immediately went crazy. I made all kinds of unimportant purchases that I later regretted. And then I found balance.
Now, I am willing to spend $200 on a pair of shoes for dancing tango. Some people think I am crazy, but I dance tango 8-10 hours a week and need solid shoes for it. I save in other areas of my life that are less important to me. It took me a long time to find that balance, but now that I have my priorities straight it makes sense—and makes each purchase a considered decision rather than a rationalization.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
LOL, great post. I love the thrift-store chic comment. Some people get carried away with materialistic BS, but if it makes them happy all the power to them. I think they are likely in over their heads though.
Decide what’s important to you. Give yourself permission to spend on these things. Pinch pennies on everything else - this about more than just frugality; it’s about maximizing your Utility for lack of a better word.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
@Adam 27
On the other hand lifestyle inflation has made a great deal of people rich. No consumerism for all = no jobs for many = still not rich.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
April #16 wrote:
“What was most interesting to me was that in the comments some justified spending money on *their* wants, but dismiss others’ wants as frivolous.”
I totally agree. Pot meet kettle.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“If you can afford it — by which I mean you’re not sacrificing your financial goals — and if you’re spending consciously …”
Well said JD. I use slightly different words (spend your money with purpose) but the point is the same. Spend money on the things that you value, but make sure that such spending does not compromise your higher financial goals. [For me these goals are quite simple: retirement savings, elimination of all debt, and giving a portion of my income to charity.]
Being frugal is definitely not *just* about denial, although there is a certain element of sacrifice. But since you’re sacrificing so that you are spending on the things *you* truly value, on balance you should be content.
JS
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
JD -
I think what you’re saying here in response to the comments to April’s post is “You can have anything you want, but not everything you want.” GRS is about learning to make those decisions/sacrifices for what we want most.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Thank you chiefcaba #30… you said exactly what I was thinking
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
That whole thread reminded me why I stay away from a lot of personal finance blogs these days: it makes it hard to enjoy the money that I do earn, save, and yes, spend. It doesn’t matter that I HAVE succeeded in getting rich slowly by being frugal so that I CAN buy something I enjoy. Apparently, people are willing to ass-u-me all sorts of things simply because they don’t understand why someone would buy a particular luxury item. I used to be like Rachel (#28), never buying anything nice for myself, wearing clothes and shoes until they had holes in them (even for work), etc. The negative comments remind me of the negative comments I used to tell myself whenever I wanted to loosen the purse strings even a bit, and it still feels like crap. Naomi Eve (#11) nailed it.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
@#6 Dar said it well. I hope J.D. isn’t as bad as my husband, who was pissed that I threw out his jeans with the entire crotch a giant hole. The back pockets were still okay, you know.
I don’t care what label is on your clothes, as long as your business is covered up. :p
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Good post, JD, with a good point. I have to say I thought Ami’s comment a little ridiculous. What makes her the police of what’s frittering away money and what is not? For someone like myself, the idea of renting bags might seem silly - as April says, you can soon make up the cost in a few months. BUT if you are someone who loves fashion and bags and wants to be able to have multiple different bags in a year then it could be great.
And who knows - maybe that person got into debt by buying too many bags which she then didn’t use? In that case April’s post was a great one for frugality!
I think it’s ridiculous to judge people for liking this sort of thing. We all have different passions and different things that we love to spend money on. Our money isn’t just for saving so you can have a nice retirement someday (which might never come) it is also about enjoying some things now. Like comic books. Or purses. Or meals at really good restaurants.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Adam said “The reason I view these items negatively is because of a very clear case of diminishing returns.
I can spend $1,000 for a haircut and it will be the best one I ever had, but for only $15 I can get one that is 98% as good.
It is the same thing with purses, bicycles, watches, etc. The purses get even more heat because unlike other intricate mechanical and technological devices they are just a bag to hold stuff.”
But don’t you see this is the case with ANY luxury? The only reason you’re ok with it for “highly technical” devices is because that is something YOU personally value. Why do you think everyone should value exactly what you do?
A $15 painting may be 98% as good as a $1,000 painting (after all, they both just hang on the wall), but to someone who values and appreciates fine art it is worth the extra $985 for the 2%.
A $2,000 beater will do 98% of what a $20,000 car will do, but to many it is worth the extra $18,000 for the 2%.
A $100k house will do 98% of what a $250k house will do, but many are willing to pay the extra $150k (plus interest and taxes) for that 2%.
The whole point is not that 2% is never worth it, but that you have to prioritize your own values. I will never buy a luxury car, but I would rent a nice dress for a formal occasion. I will keep my $18,000 and pay the $50 for the evening in the nice dress.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I have to say I have some weird priorities. LOL. I am a horse person, and as such have an very expensive hobby. I pay $500 a month for board for my horse, and another $360 for lessons for myself every month. That doesn’t include all the other things like occassional vet bills, blankets, supplements, shoes, etc that inevitably come up when owning a horse. I have a horse budget each month, and I keep an eye on it. We have enough passive income coming in to pay for the horse stuff, and I worked very hard to get that money coming in. I didn’t own a horse for several years, or do much of anything but work full time, to save and invest for that right to have my horse. Since my hobby of choice is very physically demanding, I found it prudent to partake in it while I was young enough to still have hips and knees capable of the demands of riding. So when it comes to a time in my life where I can’t do that anymore, my horse budget will go down and I will find a new hobby. I really had to struggle with balance, and still am tempted to buy all kinds of horse stuff I don’t need but would be nice to have. That’s where it is handy to have a non-horsey husband to set me back on track. Got to love that man. LOL.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Everyone deserve to have fun some kind of fun. If you not treating yourself in any kind of way then you are out of your mind. However, It is only a treat if you really can afford it. Buying a $300 bag on credit card just to keep up with the jones is nuts. I became a fan of Sue Orman because of her segment ‘Can I afford it?’. Now show me the money people
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Des Says:
“But don’t you see this is the case with ANY luxury? The only reason you’re ok with it for “highly technical” devices is because that is something YOU personally value.”
Please note from my post:
“It is the same thing with purses, bicycles, watches, etc.”
I am not “ok” with any of those things. I’m unsure why you are trying to put words in my mouth.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
@Adam - I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. I was referring to what you said after that: “The purses get even more heat because unlike other intricate mechanical and technological devices they are just a bag to hold stuff.”
I apologize if I inferred too much from that comment. May I assume that you are “ok” with $15 haircuts? If so, we can run the same analogy there: A $0 home hair cut will get the job done - your hair will be shorter. But, if my assumption is correct, you are willing to pay the extra $15 to look a bit nicer. That serves the same purpose as a nice handbag: you look a bit better, feel a bit better, and don’t look out of place. It is an unnecessary expense in the name of vanity.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I think the real issue with Adam’s argument is that the diminishing returns is his perception of the item. For me, my $200 wallet is NOT an item of diminishing returns. Yes, I could get a wallet at, say, Goodwill, for 2% of the cost of that wallet, but I would not be 98% as happy with it. Actually, I would be actively UNhappy. So if I am reaching all my other financial goals slowly but surely, why should I be unhappy about not having something I can easily afford?
I think that for those items where (for me) diminishing returns are reached rather quickly, then those are the items that I don’t need to splurge on and can save my money (which is JD’s point). However, for items where I do not reach that point of diminishing returns and only the very best will do, then if I can afford it I should go ahead and make myself happy. Just because it’s something different than what would make someone else happy doesn’t mean it’s some sort of financial heresy.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
@43 Honey
Technically you’re still diminishing returns, but not as fast a rate. Adam’s assuming you’re on the flat of the curve (Y axis is happiness, X is quality of item, curve slopes up and flattens out over X), but you may very well still be on the steep part. You’re still getting more pleasure, but at a decreasing rate.
In his earlier argument, I was assuming the 98% was some objective quality measure (and then you put that number in your utility function to calculate your subjective happiness), but you’re absolutely right that it could be a measure of your subjective happiness, in which case it’s totally true that Adam’s 2% better will probably not be 2% for you.
Each one of us has a different set of these curves, each one of us has a different total consumption constraint.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Great point. We want to buy what is really important to us. It is so easy to get sucked into Gucci consumerism and forget things that actually create value in our lives.
By the way, amazing how popular the handbag post is. Already has hundreds of comments.
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I think the main difference between a lot of the items you listed and super expensive purses, is that the primary purpose of these purses is so people can show off their wealth and feel like they are better than others–whereas a sports car provides an exhilarating drive, a nice entertainment system provides a nice movie-watching experience, or a nice bicycle provides a better ride. These items provide an improved experience/function while a purse does not.
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
You know, the idea of exquisitely fine handbags reminds me of my hobby. I play classical music. Over time, I have gotten relentlessly pickier over what is satisfying. It takes a lot more to make me happy with what I hear. Most people could not tell much of a difference at all between different orchestras that I might listen to. However, I derive significantly more pleasure from listening to a more talented orchestra or more talented musicians. This is a tangible example. The people who buy the nice purses may like their workmanship or their fabrics and may notice it more than “98%” of people out there, and thus value it more or appreciate it more. Their curve has shifted.
Vice versa, the people who think these purses are frivolities I’m sure have areas where they notice the difference between fine and average… maybe cooking/food, maybe a truly amazing vacation/a roadtrip to a state away, maybe *gasp* bottled water/tap water. It doesn’t really matter in the long run. It’s simply a difference in perception, with neither being superior to the other.
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
@Will
Sports car’s aren’t for people to show off their wealth and feel like they are better than others? hmmm…
And that entertainment system, that wouldn’t be one of those with resolution beyond what the human ear is capable of differentiating, would it?
And the bike…I don’t know how many racers are out there, but most of the people I know who ride bikes couldn’t tell the difference between a $500 and $5000 bike. They only know because a salesman pointed out all of the feature differences and they remember writing the check. And only a handful of bike racers actually notice the difference. In fact most of the amateur bike racers I know often prefer their older and cheaper bikes.
You can’t discern the difference, but some people can. And the designer purse does provide an improved “experience/function” by doing what it does better: making the user look good.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Des, you failed to mention that a monkey has 98% of the genes of a human…
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I’m with Rachael #28. It took me a while to learn that it really is okay to spend money on some things that are worth it to me. I get the $200 haircut, the $28 mascara, and the $50 tinted moisturizer. I have tried cheaper alternatives, and they just make me miserable. As long as I’m not paying for these on credit, what does it matter to anyone else?
OTOH, my laptop is a POS that I can barely use. My boyfriend wants me to upgrade it, but I don’t see the point. I’d rather spend my money on my priorities.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Ha I browsed through these comments but when I saw #50 kaitlyn “laptop… boyfriend wants me to upgrade… I don’t see the point” I nearly bust a gut
I’m one of those guys always urging the girlfriend (brother, aunt, neighbor, guy at the supermarket…) to upgrade their computer. Sure it’s something I enjoy (I think I like the process of installing the hardware more than using it) but others don’t see value in it. It’s pure entertainment value. An experience. One I value that others do not. Just as they value other things that we do not. I think it is funny how some of us try to make hand bags or sports cars or any other item “less valuable” on some universal level but unless we’re talking about food and shelter, every one of those things is a luxury that has value for some, no value for others.
I have lots of things I could live without, and live happily, but I made my mistakes, and I justified the purchases. Now I just work hard to recover from mistakes, and focus on positive successes and where I’m headed next.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
yikes! lots of latent sexism going on here.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Wow: “Decide what’s important to you. Give yourself permission to spend on these things. Pinch pennies on everything else.”
This is an epiphany for me, because I recently wrote that one of the most important things for me is to live somewhere quiet and aesthetically pleasing, yet I’ve always agonised over paying more rent for a nicer place. (I’ve just leased a studio apartment, so by ‘nicer’ I don’t mean bigger, just something with good bones.)
My home is what’s important to me.
I’ve cut back my budget in many other areas: started using the library and cooking at home a lot more, and have made a commitment to buy at least a third of my wardrobe secondhand next year (and to pay less than retail for another third)… None of that has been a sacrifice. But I won’t feel guilty now about spending a bit more on housing. Hooray!
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
@Will & all the men who are unable to see the value in a quality purse: Just because you can’t appreciate it doesn’t mean there isn’t a discernable difference in quality between a department store purse and a designer one. Please, do us all a favor and stop making assumptions about the motives of women who *are* able to appreciate such quality. ANY luxury item can be purchased to show off: cars, clothes, houses, fine dinners, etc. Just because SOME people have such motives does not mean that is the “primary purpose” of the item. One person can appreciate a well-made sports car, another a well-made handbag. They are both just things. It is not shocking that the men here can’t understand a woman’s desire for a beautiful purse. It *is* surprising that they would make such gross generalizations about their motives.
(For the record, I am not one who is able to appreciate the difference. But that does not mean I have the right to go around assuming the motives of those with more expensive tastes.)
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 am
@Will–Buddy, I have to disagree with you. Not all women buy expensive handbags soley so they can look “rich”. I have a friend that used to go through (wear out) a department store purse every six months. Five years ago, she bought a Coach purse…it doesn’t even look worn! There generally is a quality difference between the high-end stuff and the economy stuff. Don’t be so judgy.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 am
Loved the post. Sent it to a sister who is on the rise and loves to carry a nice bag. I laughed to find out she already rented her bags!
Hated the comment that someone judges all people by their shoes, purse and glasses. That judgement is the part that drives our society wild with greed!
Saving for nice things is great. Judging people by your nice things standard is not so great!
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 am
I was glad to see this post too. I find it hard to give myself permission to spend on things
I think it’s a great point though to remember — especially when we’re tempted to judge others’ spending. I think sometimes communicating a goal — like “I’m not eating out as much to save money for a new couch” — goes a long way.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:25 am
Thank god for video games and the internet. I can pretty much skimp on everything else as long as I have my PS3, XBOX360, and my MAC laptop.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 am
I think this is a fascinating area of discussion, and JD nailed it. I love the quote, “You can have anything you want, you just can’t have everything you want.”
I know in my own life, it took me a while to find a balance. Like most everyone else, in the beginning, I was buying whatever I wanted, and I ran up a fair amount of debt in doing so. Then I began prioritizing, and cutting back on the things that I realized I didn’t care as much about. I would imagine that to most observers, my life must look pretty odd.
I have $8,000 worth of Magic the Gathering cards. I play at least once a week with several friends, and I enjoy it. We travel on road trips to big tournaments in other cities. But it’s completely a luxury, and has no useful, functional purpose whatsoever.
I have $10,000 worth of camera gear. Why? Are my photos really that much better than I’d get from a $300 camera? Maybe 2% better, to use a reference from further up this thread?
I have an enormous house. My wife and I live alone (no children) with our 2 cats in a 2600 sq. ft., 4-bedroom, 4-bath, $450,000 home. I love having the space, but we certainly don’t need it.
Then there are the “frugal” aspects of our lives. I haven’t bought any new clothing items in over a year. My wife and I just have one car - an ‘05 Mazda 3 with 200,000 km on it. I take the bus home from work. We cook almost all of our own meals. Much of our furniture is from Ikea. We haven’t been on a vacation out of the country (Canada) in 3 years.
We’ve focused our energies on the aspects of our lives that are most important to us. The only reason we can enjoy our luxuries guilt-free is by having the rest of our financial lives under control (we’re debt-free, other than the mortgage, and we have a 3 month emergency fund). I like to think we’re living in the same spirit JD preaches, focusing our spending on what we value, and showing ruthless restraint toward things we don’t value as much. I don’t care if I drive a flashy car of have the latest clothes or hang out in clubs every weekend. But I love what I can do with my camera gear. I love the comraderie I get from traveling for a day-long Magic tournament. I love having a dozen friends over for Thanksgiving dinner and not having it feel crowded.
I think there’s a lot of unexplored topics to be covered in this area, and I’ve got to say, I like that JD is willing to host these kinds of discussions, even though they might appear to contradict some peoples’ idea of “frugality.”
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 am
Adam #27 said, “Wealth is being happy with what you have. You might think someone is making trade-offs, but that person might truly be content.”
When I wrote about paying off my student loan on this blog, one response was, what was the trade-off. What did I have to give up to do it? Absolutely nothing. There was no trade-off. There was nothing else that I wanted to do any more than paying off that loan. It simply made me happy to do so.
Thank you for this great post.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
What about giving? Where does that fit into the discussion about satisfying one’s desires?
Not lecturing - just sharing my personal experience. We became comletely debt-free in order to free up our income to spend on what’s important to us. At the time (14 years ago) we thought that would be travel but discovered that giving money away is just as rewarding.
For us, buying *stuff* is like snacking on a candy bar. Donating money feels like a five star meal.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 am
I was uncomfortable when I first read April’s post as well (I haven’t read all the comments), but I realized the truth in what she wrote. It would be a great idea to be able to rent such expensive luxury items. The mentality that goes with such items is often what people struggle wtih–but each of us probably have our “areas of specialities”.
My mom, who is one of the most “tight-fisted” people I know, still has her weakness and that is German and/or English bone china. She wears yard sale clothing and rarely takes a vacation, but she owns, I think, 12 sets of fine bone china.
So, as long as your spending is under control, there really shouldn’t be a problem with your having splurge items. What would it be like if all of us were similar to JD and my mom and fighting over the same “used clothing items”? (I’m pretty similar in this area as well). But the comic stores would all go broke if they depended on my business since I’ve not bought a comic book in years and years.
On the other hand, we don’t have cable or a nice tv, but we do have high speed internet and I went to Crete for a holiday with my daughters this year (paid for by cash).
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
I don’t understand the purse label thing, but I do understand how some things have more value to others. Just as long as your spending aligns with what you value and you have your financial ducks in order, why should you feel any guilt for spending money? The end game is not to just accummulate wealth, but to have a fulfilled life.
Like one of the previous commenters, we have a big house because we like our space. We like to travel often. But we don’t have cable and only eat out once or twice a week. And I do not even remember the last time I went to a movie. The difference in people is what makes us interesting. We cannot all be bots with pre-programmed hobbies and values.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:15 am
I feel that as a person who loves expensive purses, among other things, I should comment here. For someone like me, these things are beautiful. I don’t love a purse because of the price tag. I love it because the leather is exquisite to the touch, the detailing is stunning, the shape is interesting, the hardware is gorgeous and intricate, the color is fascinating, and so on and so forth. I have looked at A LOT of purses and nine times out of ten, you get what you pay for. I have cheap purses (most of my purses fall into this category) and they deteriorate and fade and whatnot but they’re trendy or serve a specific purpose. However, the few luxury purses I have are absolute classics that have taken their fair share of beatings with flying colors. You might blow milk out your nose reading this but to some people, fashion and all of its accessories are akin to living breathing art so it’s just not as simple as buying “a bag to hold stuff” (my hairs are on end).
As with anything else, be careful making assumptions and pronouncements about things you know little to nothing about.
@ Adam #15
“The reason I view these items negatively is because of a very clear case of diminishing returns.”
This is simply not always true with luxury items. Vintage luxury is often just as expensive if not more than new luxury. Many luxury items are high-quality items that last through the years and are even passed down. As a matter of fact, I can tell you from personal experience that the diminishing returns are not as drastic as you suggest. Using purses for example, sure you’ll get a discount if you wait a season or two but wait a bit more than that and good luck getting the purse at all–especially at a discount. Not to mention, I can guarantee you that a ten year old Chanel bag retains its worth much better than a ten year old Apple computer for instance (you mentioned technological things so that’s why I’m using that).
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
Aye aye, great post. As far as the “frippery” comments in regard to pricy handbags specifically, I’m not into them but my sister is - she gets a lot of pleasure out of them, enjoys the materiality/design and the “collectable”/vintage aspects of some of them (a la comic books!) and perhaps most importantly uses them constantly rather than leaves them gathering dust. And she can afford them! What harm?
I mean, cars is one of the counter examples in the other thread but I’m sure we’ve all met the guy who “needs” a $40,000 truck because he, um, “does a lot of home maintenance” but ends up with it parked outside the train station 60 hours a week. And again, if he gets a kick out of it, what harm?
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
@64 I think he was using the term “diminishing returns” in the economic jargon sense (diminishing marginal returns) rather than the regular American English sense.
Basically what it means is that the first unit of improved quality or the first unit (like the first purse) is valued less than the nth unit which is valued less than the n+1 unit. You still value the nth unit or n+1 unit, but not as much as you did the first unit. The more you have the less happiness you get from each additional piece.
The common college textbook example is with pizza (authors like to use pizza and beer as examples for some reason)… you value the first slice a lot more than the 2nd slice and by the 8th slice you’re wondering what you were thinking. Eventually you stop eating. Since quality is usually subjective, it is more difficult to come up with an example for that, but if you can think of units of quality, it’s the same kind of idea.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
JD
I really was upset when I read the article “Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous…on Lease”. I really really appreciate the articles written by you and this website. I think the article above does not live up to the ideals of this website. This is a getrich slowly website. Not a website on how and where to get good deals on household items. There would be millions of other websites for that purpose.
Hope you understand our concerns and not let others post such articles.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I think JD’s post makes great sense, because why live frugally and “get rich” if you are never going to spend the money on anything. Unless of course you just love having the money pile up in the bank, but then that is your enjoyment/”thing” and more power to you.
This website is all about how to save and improve your finances so that you can do whatever is important to you. Really, doing what is important is what makes you “rich” in the first place. Why would you want to have tons of money if you are miserable.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
@Raghu
I’m a guy so I don’t buy purses, but I liked the article. Heck, why do guys rent tuxes but women have to buy wedding dresses?
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
@ Vanessa #53, good for you on making the choice to invest in quality of life! And may you long continue to enjoy it.
DH and I chose to allocate a large amount of our monthly budget to rent, just so that neither of us has a long commute, we’re secure, we have space to entertain, utilities are low, and the space is attractive & peaceful. We made this choice because we know we’ll be in this area a long time and we don’t want to buy (buying the same square footage would cost 2 to 3 times more per month).
Our exchanges: we drive efficient, paid-off vehicles, don’t make a habit of eating out, vacation at drive-to destinations, and don’t overspend on clothes, etc.
Some people choose to drive three hours a day so they can have a house in the suburbs. To us that’s madness. We want that three hours to live our lives.
It’s all about the balance, and what each INDIVIDUAL finds of value.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@ Dan #69 sorry to double comment but I had to p.s.
My DH bought a custom dance tuxedo for our wedding … around $2K with trimmings. I got my dress on eBay for $150 and altered it myself. Again, the individual!
But yeah, why bust on purses? Do guys just not like the *word*?
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
@Madeline (#64) - Your comment about clothing being “akin to living breathing art” was right on target. I wonder if the differences in opinion on the value of designer accessories is based in a large part on one’s value of aesthetics. In a very gross generalization, I find that women tend to value aesthetics more than men do.
As an example, I like things that are “pretty”. Pretty house, pretty yard, pretty clothes. I value beauty for itself, not because it serves any function beyond being pretty. (Meanwhile my husband would say, “An inverted 5-gallon bucket makes a perfectly serviceable footstool…”). Sometimes you can get prettiness in a frugal way, but other times it comes at a price (as you point out, the high-end designer goods tend to be more unique, use better fabrics, incorporate more interesting details, etc). To me, the visual and tactile enjoyment I get is often worth the extra cost.
A good male-centric analogy is music. From my perspective, listening to a halfway decent U2 cover-band is just as good as going to an actual U2 concert. To me, the cover band is “98% as good,” so why bother paying hundreds of dollars for the real thing? But some people appreciate and value that 2% difference. The aural enjoyment they get is worth the extra cost.
In both examples, though, it comes down to how much you value a particular art form, and what you’re willing (and able!!) to pay to experience it.
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
We are material creatures living in a material world… different creatures like different material things, often falling along male/female lines.
first of all, should make a disclaimer this is all in the “wants” section, after needs and saving are taken care of. The question is, what is “appropriate” to spend in their “wants” section of their budget. Are some things wrong, other things right, considering the rest is taken care of?
So what’s with all the hating? If anything maybe you should have sympathy for those who can detect and care about the differences between an expensive and inexpensive purse, since they will be spending buku money on a purse that you can save, or spend on say on 500 comic books or 1/4 of a cool car, or 3 gaming consoles, or 400 flip flops. Seems like there is a value judgment about the person simply because it is a “purse”. Is your enjoyment any better or more correct than her satisfaction? At any rate from the descriptions of the purse lovers out there, even if she ended up not getting as much satisfaction from it as she thought, sounds like she could recoup much of her money by re-selling it, which one would think the personal finance people would like (can be considered an asset).
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Been reading GRS for more than 4 years and it has pointed in me in the right direction. The post about designer purses, however did turn me off for one reason.
J.D. can talk about balance but most of us are trying to get balanced.
If you rented a $17,000 purse, would you be wearing a expensive dress or a $50 or a $1000 dress or would you be renting that as well ?
Let me quote from Stanley and Danko’s, Millionaire Next Door “Take for example the affluent parents who gave their son Bill and daughter-in-law Helen a $9,000 rug that we were told contained millions of hand tied knots…….he earns $55,000 a year….the expensive rug looked out of place in a room filled with hand me down furniture…so Bill and Helen felt compelled to purchase expensive walnut dining …”
A gift of $9,000 rug starts Bill on the way to financial ruin.
Will a rental of a $17,000 purse put you in the same direction of financial ruin of living beyond your means ?
Yes, Definitely !
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
To my husband, a purse is a purse is a purse…
But *I* can tell the difference between a $20 purse and a $200 dollar purse.
To me, a drill is a drill is a drill…
But my husband can tell the difference between a $20 drill and a $200 drill.
To us, a bottle of wine is a bottle of wine…
But our best friend can tell the difference between a $20 bottle of wine and a $200 bottle of wine.
It’s all about who you are and what you love.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Great post again! Like others here, I’m slowly learn when to splurge and not splurge. I’ve spent a lot of years not making a ton, and I often will buy the cheapest option or go with something that works. Since I have a great savings cushion, I’ve slowly been working on buying things that are nice and will make me happy.
For example, I used to have an old wallet of my dad’s. It was free, and it got the job done. But it didn’t look very girl-appropriate, and it was old and dirty. Finally, after my boyfriend said something about it, I allowed myself to get a new wallet. It was $25 at REI but is my style and really pretty. Whenever I pull it out, it makes me happy. It’s just adorable, and I’m not embarrassed to own it.
It’s a slow process, and I love that you’re touching on it. You really can’t take it with you, so it’s important to find a balanced way to responsibly enjoy *all* that we have in this life.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:43 am
“Sports car’s aren’t for people to show off their wealth and feel like they are better than others? hmmm…”
Different people, with different priorities, quite often have different reasons for liking things. A status-obsessed person, certainly, will buy a sports car mostly to show off that he has a sports car. A person who appreciates speed and power and beauty and a good drive, on the other hand, will buy the same sports car to enjoy the car and the experience of driving it.
For me, it’s about ME enjoying a beautiful and powerful and responsive sports car . . . other people seeing it as the same thing actually falls into the negative category to some degree. Whether it’s potential carjackers, cops who cut a bit more slack on speed-limit enforcement to minivans than they do to Mustangs, greedy (soon to be ex) boyfriends who try to hog the driver’s seat, or family members who are vocal and repetitive about considering it wasteful spending, sometimes I’d prefer to have a sports car that everybody else saw as a used sedan.
December 24th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Meg Says:
It’s ok to drop a lot of money on a certain car or tool (and this is why some of us think that some commenters think stuff for men is ok, but stuff for women is stooopid), but if someone wants to spend *their* money on something else, it’s wrong.
Exactly. Unfortunately we - women of course - have this stigma of loving things which, not being for immediate practical purposes, must be stoopid.
But hey, people judge in any case, even if you spend on books…
December 24th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@77 Kyra:
Wouldn’t it be great if we could have the item we wanted, and what other people saw was the responsibility of the purchaser - you could drive your sports car and everybody else got to see the sedan? There’s little that frustrates me more than people passing judgement - in many cases, not quietly - about how my decisions are irresponsible because “that money would be much better spent on (insert something here that they love but I don’t)”. There’s no consideration given to the fact that I don’t value the same items they do - as far as they’re concerned, they live in the one true “value reality” and understand that distinction between what’s important and what’s frivolous better than anybody else.
To each their own - I used to get incredibly frustrated that my wife spent $250 cutting and coloring her hair until I realized that it’s just what she valued. It’s not about what you buy and what’s important - as Dave Ramsey says, it’s about “giving every dollar a name”. As long as you’re living within your means and you’ve chosen to forgo other opportunities so that you can afford this one, then others have no right to comment about the legitimacy of the things that make you happy.
Enjoy your sports car - after all, you’re the one who earned it.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Another point to consider (although it should, given respect for people’s priorities, be superfluous): sometimes the extra features gotten for the extra money make it a vastly different usefulness curve than 98%/2%.
I have, at present, a point-and-shoot digital camera that cost maybe $200 if you include batteries and memory cards. I’m looking at purchasing in the near future a digital single-lens-reflex camera with interchangeable lenses that will run around $1000 to $1500. The extra features in terms of macro, wide-angle, zoom, etcetera, lenses will result in a HUGE increase in my ability to take the sorts of pictures I generally want to take, and a higher megapixel rating will let me make larger high-quality prints (another important factor to me). After a year and a half of getting to know my current camera’s uses and limitations, and having a good idea of what an SLR with interchangeable lenses can do due to having a film camera with similar properties, I make the calculation that the point-and-shoot does perhaps 10% of what I want to do and would be able to do; thus it would be in simple mathematics the same investment-return for me to spend $2000 on that new camera (which I won’t be doing because the ones in the $700 range for the camera body (plus a few hundred dollars worth of lenses) provide pretty close to $100% of what I want).
The math for the film SLR camera is harder to do—it takes the pictures I want (most of them; I don’t have a wide-angle lens or as much zoom as I want)—but I can’t switch film to a different light-sensitivity, or color to black-and-white, mid-roll, I hate how every shot I take irrevokably uses film, it’s expensive to develop, I am hesitant to take risks with a shot because I don’t like to waste film, I can’t see the finished shot right away to see if I can correct/improve something and redo the shot, and I find it exceedingly slow and annoying getting them scanned into the computer where I prefer to do my editing.
All this makes spending a thousand dollars or more on a camera and lenses provide a different set of rewards for me than it would for, say, my uncle, who has a point-and-shoot that is used mostly for taking family photographs and who has never pulled over to the side of a winding bluff road to get a macro shot of a tiny white flower growing ten feet up the hill.
Not only is it “different priorities, different wants,” it’s very definitely “different priorities, different needs.”
December 24th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
I was about to make a judgmental comment on that post about how stupid it is to spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars on a purse. I consider that a ridiculous waste of money. But then I realized that a lot of people consider it a ridiculous waste of money to lease a luxury car, but that’s something that is worth it to me, and I can afford it. I guess if someone who is in the same financial situation decided to buy a cheap used car and spend the difference on expensive purses or designer shoes or eating out frequently (all things I consider a waste of money), who am I to judge?
Of course, the key is being able to afford it. Just because you cut back on housing, cars, and clothing doesn’t necessarily mean that you can afford to splurge on purses (or anything, for that matter). If you’re in credit card debt, for example, you should probably think long and hard about splurging on anything — especially things most people view as luxuries.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Here’s what I think - if you’re looking after yourself financially in an ethical way and not killing, extorting or blackmailing your way to wealth, then you can spend your money in any way you wish and you don’t have to justify it to ANYONE!
Happy New year, all!
December 28th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
>74 Will a rental of a $17,000 purse put you in the same direction of financial ruin of living beyond your means ?
Yes, Definitely !
No, not definitely. Like everything else here, it depends on the individual and their motivations. After I bought my own semi-luxury purse, my urge to buy other clothing actually went down, not up. And the sort of people who are interested in such things are also often both familiar and comfortable with high/low mixing.
I remember that rug story quite clearly, and it was never a universal truth either. One of the least realistic parts of a generally good book, in fact. That couple was already on the edge. If not the rug, it would have been something else.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Being frugal means being thrifty on things that don’t matter to us so that we can afford to spend on things that do.
December 30th, 2009 at 9:10 am
JD . . . this post (and this dicussion in the comments) is EXACTLY why I love your blog. Keep up the great work!
“Decide what’s important to you. Give yourself permission to spend on these things. Pinch pennies on everything else.” Amen to that!!!!
Laura
December 31st, 2009 at 3:47 am
It’s crucial to know yourself and try to figure out why you’re drawn to particular kinds of merchandise. What is the dominant emotion you’re trying to satisfy with a purchase? Will you truly enjoy owning it, or will it simply take money from your wallet and add clutter to your life?
Years ago when I was deeply depressed, I got sucked into toy collecting as an investment. It took thousands of dollars to realize that giving myself a second childhood would not erase pain from the past or guarantee good times or securtiy now. I ended up selling everything for far less than I paid, but I haven’t been tempted to buy a toy since.
Living off Social Security, there’s no way I could afford or justify a $500 designer purse. But it might be smarter to spend $30 for a genuine leather bag that lasts than to keep replacing $10 vinyl ones every time a strap or zipper breaks. I’ve learned to search my soul before opening my purse to buy anything, and someday that restraint may allow me to upgrade to a better one.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:12 pm
This post is great! Frugal living is always tough especially with the stress the world can bring. I know when I am stressed, I take a day off and go see a movie, get an ice cream cone and relax for the rest of the day. It not expensive and the best thing is, I stay happy and keep at my peek performance. Spending money on your happiness is one of the greatest investments, ever.
Happy New year!!
- Matt
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:36 am
I like your line: Decide what’s important to you. Give yourself permission to spend on these things. Pinch pennies on everything else.
It’s interesting how everyone defines frugality differently. I wrote an article about using the Marginal Utility Principle from economics to define frugality. http://thethriftylifestyle.com/2010/02/the-marginal-utility-principle/
It would be an interesting article idea to compile all the different ways people define frugality!
February 17th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I think Frugality can Defy Common Sense. Seriously. Take for example, my husband’s car. In his mind,it doesn’t matter what it looks like, as long as it runs and gets good gas mileage. And if you get it for a bargain, that’s the best. It doesn’t matter that his car’s engine broke in half within 6 weeks of ownership. It just got soldered together and presto! Fixed! Or even that the power windows don’t go down anymore. Did I mention that the car was totalled by a freak hailstorm one year and even the trim and rims are dented? How about the fact that it’s at 300,000 miles and he says he’ll push it to 500,000? The passenger door can’t open/close on command anymore. He gets pulled over by a cop but can’t roll down the window, so he jumps out of his car to greet the officer. Nice.I think he’s driving a safety hazard and he claims he’s getting his money’s worth. All in all, he paid $4000 for it and the freak hailstorm totalled it, so he got $3500 back from the insurance company. Basically, he’s been driving around in a $500 car for 6 years. I told him to have the electrical system looked at and he refused, stating that he won’t pay $100 to get the windows/door fixed as it’s “only a sensor” causing the problem. I told him that to have it checked costs only $55. It’s called basic maintenance. He said he won’t pay that either. I think Frugality can be taken waaayyy too seriously. Don’t even get me started on our oven….