Author Topic: Lady troubles:women who are in debt but spend on... (sorry public bitchy moment)  (Read 26180 times)

Pinkie Mustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Location: Israel
Though I didn't want to modify the original message for the sake of the integrity of this thread, I thought it best to apologize upfront to anyone offended by the gender stereotyping here.  So, I'm sorry, and next time I will take more care in being sensitive and thinking through the exact point I'd like to make. Obviously all people are capable of spending money on things that could have been easily substituted at a lesser cost - but don't - and then moan about how they don't have enough $$ for other things.  That is what irks me.  The original comment was an experience I've encountered numerous times, and is to be taken in the spirit of this http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/06/05/mrs-money-mustache-eliminating-lady-temptations/ .

Sorry to be sexist, but I don't know any guys who spend on these things (maybe cleaning help?)... while they're in debt... and then COMPLAIN about how money is tight or they can't afford [_]!

Specifically:

cleaning ladies
getting a mani/pedi
going to a salon for haircuts
going to a salon for hair coloring/highlights
waxing of various body parts by a professional

But, after all, this insanity can inspire more ways to save.  What else do you see or hear people spending loads on that they consider regular essentials but are really luxury services? (I estimate that over the course of 10 years, I've saved about $50,000 not indulging in these things).
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 11:14:58 PM by Pinkie Mustache »

curlycue

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Men have their own ways to waste money including expensive gadgets, traveling to and attending sporting events, flashy cars, not wanting for grocery shop or cook so eating out, gaming...I could go on.

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Boulder, CO
Sorry to be sexist

too late!

Sure, there aren't many guys who spend on mani/pedis while in debt (although some surely do), but there is an equally long list of things men buy that everyone here would be judgey about. And there's plenty of overlap between the two.

also inb4 the "women are the devil, marriage is for idiots" grumps

RFAAOATB

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
Could it be considered an investment if they want to land a rich husband?

Cromacster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Location: Minnesnowta
also inb4 the "women are the devil, marriage is for idiots" grumps

Thanks for summing it up Russ!

But yea, overall these activities could be added to a long list of things (like eating out, gadgets, sporting events) people do while they are in debt and and then complain about tight budgets.

Men have their own ways to waste money including expensive gadgets, traveling to and attending sporting events, flashy cars, not wanting for grocery shop or cook so eating out, gaming...I could go on.

And not to be argumentative (although I am) I would say by percentage of population the OP's list would lean more heavily towards female activities, whereas your list would lean more toward the middle.

I think we can all agree anyone who is in debt not sleeping in a tent and eating cans of beans, has no right to complain about money being tight :-P

Pinkie Mustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Location: Israel
Men have their own ways to waste money including expensive gadgets, traveling to and attending sporting events, flashy cars, not wanting for grocery shop or cook so eating out, gaming...I could go on.

That's interesting - the gaming observation - I wouldn't have thought of that.

LalsConstant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
I think it's a very fair and accurate observation to point out that there's going to be differences in the way the genders waste money.  Having a Y chromosome myself I know such stupidity is plentiful and equal opportunity, but the way it manifests probably is quite different.

Unfortunately I have the wrong primary and secondary sexual characteristics to speculate on the matter and have it be socially acceptable, even if I had the expertise.

also inb4 the "women are the devil, marriage is for idiots" grumps

I have to admit I'm intrigued, I was not aware that was a significant faction here.

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Boulder, CO
also inb4 the "women are the devil, marriage is for idiots" grumps

I have to admit I'm intrigued, I was not aware that was a significant faction here.

Only a few. "Small but vocal" I think is the phrase

Pinkie Mustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Location: Israel
also inb4 the "women are the devil, marriage is for idiots" grumps

I have to admit I'm intrigued, I was not aware that was a significant faction here.

Only a few. "Small but vocal" I think is the phrase

Hi Russ - I apologize if I offended you.  The above is just my personal experience, which has frustrated me.  I certainly don't think "women are the devil or marriage is for idiots"!

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Boulder, CO
I didn't mean to imply that you meant that, just that certain other posters here do. I did mean to point out how ridiculous it is to think that women categorically spend more frivolously than men. I understand that having dissimilar values to people that are close to you can be frustrating, but there's a big difference between "it's frustrating that the people I know spend money when I think they shouldn't" and "thank goodness men never do that!"

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4775
I didn't mean to imply that you meant that, just that certain other posters here do. I did mean to point out how ridiculous it is to think that women categorically spend more frivolously than men. I understand that having dissimilar values to people that are close to you can be frustrating, but there's a big difference between "it's frustrating that the people I know spend money when I think they shouldn't" and "thank goodness men never do that!"
I remember reading an article that said, when excluding costs spent for the rest of the family, ei clothes for children/spouse, women and men spend the same amount, but on different things.  I am in the middle of a paper and refuse to do anymore "research" but could find the article later this week if anyone is interested in it.  And side note, I know guys who pay someone to clean.

Pinkie Mustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Location: Israel

I think we can all agree anyone who is in debt not sleeping in a tent and eating cans of beans, has no right to complain about money being tight :-P

What he said. :0)

B L I S S

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Location: North Carolina
Sorry to be racist,

I wonder if this topic would stay open if it had began just slightly differently..
But no, this is okay >.>

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Boulder, CO
If you take issue with a thread, please take the time to report it instead of just complaining here. thanks.

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Could it be considered an investment if they want to land a rich husband?

Pretty high ROI if done right, too.

But in all seriousness, I know guys who have student debt and mortgages and buy brand new porches every seven years. We're not immune. Less spending on our bodies, more on big pieces of metal.

VillageIdiot

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 8
I didn't mean to imply that you meant that, just that certain other posters here do. I did mean to point out how ridiculous it is to think that women categorically spend more frivolously than men. I understand that having dissimilar values to people that are close to you can be frustrating, but there's a big difference between "it's frustrating that the people I know spend money when I think they shouldn't" and "thank goodness men never do that!"
I remember reading an article that said, when excluding costs spent for the rest of the family, ei clothes for children/spouse, women and men spend the same amount, but on different things.  I am in the middle of a paper and refuse to do anymore "research" but could find the article later this week if anyone is interested in it.  And side note, I know guys who pay someone to clean.

I think I read that as well, if I recall correctly it identified some differences in size and number of purchases between the genders on average; women tended to buy more small purchases, and men tended to blow more cash on a few big items. Although how much of this is inherently gender specific vs. marketed and socially trained ("go shopping to deal with stress!", "buy a truck to prove your manliness!") I'm not even qualified to hazard a guess.

The important thing overall is that both genders tend to waste the same amount in consumerist households.

MrsPotts

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
In defense of my gender, some professional waxing is NOT a luxury...unless we want Mustachianism to morph from the metaphorical to the literal?  ;)

welliamwallace

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Eastern PA
  • Trying to squeeze out those whiskers
Dated a girl in college who did all her own waxing. Seemed to be relatively easy, and much cheaper than a professional job.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6526
  • Location: BC

getting a mani...


LOL. I read this getting a man....

And thought, no wait, that is exactly the same as what broke men do...  Spend on getting a woman....

chouchouu

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
In defense of my gender, some professional waxing is NOT a luxury...unless we want Mustachianism to morph from the metaphorical to the literal?  ;)

Veet actually make good wax strips for the face. They're about $5 for a 12 pack here but would be cheaper in the states. It's faster and simpler than getting a professional to do it with the same result.

EricL

  • Guest
I've generally noticed potential character weaknesses for men and women are identical.  But how they manifest those weaknesses can be very different indeed.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4742
  • Location: Avalon
All the 20-somethings at work get everything waxed.  And I mean everything.  And fake eyelashes which need to be "filled" every month.  And boob jobs and hair extensions.  So apparently we should be completely hairless reptiles with hair to our butts and eyelashes so thick you literally struggle to see their eyes.  These are girls making $12/hr.  I'm a 40-something, so I just must not get it.

I suspect that you don't get it because you are not trying to attract a generation of men who have been conditioned in sex and sexual attraction by internet porn.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
  • Location: MA
While I think it could have been worded waaaaaay better, I can get into the spirit of what you are saying.

I get angry, not at women especially, but the ridiculous beauty standards  they are held to that not only cost money but hobble women physically and restrict their movement all for the sake of a completely arbitrary beauty culture.  Skirts, dresses, and especially high heel shoes are clothes that are designed to show off the female form, but they aren't particularly practical or comfortable.  High heel shoes slow you down, and force all the pressure to the front part of your foot which causes all sorts of back problems as well as atrophying your calf muscles.  When you really think about it, it isn't all that much better than japanese foot binding or whale boned corsets.  Skirts force you to sit with your legs crossed uncomfortably ( and I personally hate the feeling of my bare legs sticking together on a hot day, but I know that is subjective). 

I personally don't understand spending $75-100 to highlight your hair to give it stripy looking highlights, or pay money to sit inside of a booth to give yourself melanoma so you can look tan, or even spray yourself with chemicals to make your skin turn colors when you could just take some time and go running, biking or hiking outdoors and get a beautiful natural tan and highlights for free!  And don't get me started on the weight loss industry....

Men certainly have gender specific frivolous stuff that they waste time on, but a lot less of it is on useless "beauty" crap. 

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3519
I estimate that over the course of 10 years, I've saved about $50,000 not indulging in these things
Wow, you should not go to Paris and save even more!  Today I didn't go to the mall, and I saved $1000.  I think I won't go again tomorrow, and then my savings'll be up to $2000. 

Seriously, this is one of my pet peeves.  When you don't spend on something, it doesn't equate to saving -- especially when it's something you weren't inclined to buy anyway.  If someone else is spending frivolously, they're wasting money -- but it doesn't mean you're saving what you aren't spending. 

Threshkin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1040
  • Location: Colorado
    • My Journal
But in all seriousness, I know guys who have student debt and mortgages and buy brand new porches every seven years. We're not immune. Less spending on our bodies, more on big pieces of metal.

He who dies with the most tools wins........right?

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
All the 20-somethings at work get everything waxed.  And I mean everything.  And fake eyelashes which need to be "filled" every month.  And boob jobs and hair extensions.  So apparently we should be completely hairless reptiles with hair to our butts and eyelashes so thick you literally struggle to see their eyes.  These are girls making $12/hr.  I'm a 40-something, so I just must not get it.

um, I don't think it's a 20-something thing, I think it's a "particular subset of women you work with" thing.

I suspect that you don't get it because you are not trying to attract a generation of men who have been conditioned in sex and sexual attraction by internet porn.

ha, also a sad but good point.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
also inb4 the "women are the devil, marriage is for idiots" grumps

*picks up bait*

Heh....I mean....women.....amirite?

Reepekg

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
  • Age: 34
All the 20-somethings at work get everything waxed.  And I mean everything.  And fake eyelashes which need to be "filled" every month.  And boob jobs and hair extensions.  So apparently we should be completely hairless reptiles with hair to our butts and eyelashes so thick you literally struggle to see their eyes.  These are girls making $12/hr.  I'm a 40-something, so I just must not get it.

I suspect that you don't get it because you are not trying to attract a generation of men who have been conditioned in sex and sexual attraction by internet porn.

That's true, and also sad of that generation. The only man I'm trying to attract is my husband of 22 years, and he (thankfully) doesn't look at that crap!

I hate to break it to you, but statistics are seriously not in your favor on this no matter what he says...

The Borgs

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 80
All the 20-somethings at work get everything waxed.  And I mean everything.  And fake eyelashes which need to be "filled" every month.  And boob jobs and hair extensions.  So apparently we should be completely hairless reptiles with hair to our butts and eyelashes so thick you literally struggle to see their eyes.  These are girls making $12/hr.  I'm a 40-something, so I just must not get it.

I suspect that you don't get it because you are not trying to attract a generation of men who have been conditioned in sex and sexual attraction by internet porn.

That's true, and also sad of that generation. The only man I'm trying to attract is my husband of 22 years, and he (thankfully) doesn't look at that crap!

I hate to break it to you, but statistics are seriously not in your favor on this no matter what he says...


My husband looks at internet porn, but realises that what he sees on there, much like what he sees in science fiction and action films, is not real. He no more expects me to look like that than I expect him to develop powers of levitation or shoot webs from his hands.

In any case, from my experience, if you wave your boobs enthusiastically in a mans face he is not at that point wondering if your eyebrows were expertly done or if your lashes are long enough.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 12:53:28 AM by The Borgs »

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
All the 20-somethings at work get everything waxed.  And I mean everything.  And fake eyelashes which need to be "filled" every month.  And boob jobs and hair extensions.  So apparently we should be completely hairless reptiles with hair to our butts and eyelashes so thick you literally struggle to see their eyes.  These are girls making $12/hr.  I'm a 40-something, so I just must not get it.

I suspect that you don't get it because you are not trying to attract a generation of men who have been conditioned in sex and sexual attraction by internet porn.

That's true, and also sad of that generation. The only man I'm trying to attract is my husband of 22 years, and he (thankfully) doesn't look at that crap!

I hate to break it to you, but statistics are seriously not in your favor on this no matter what he says...


My husband looks at internet porn, but realises that what he sees on there, much like what he sees in science fiction and action films, is not real. He no more expects me to look like that than I expect him to develop powers of levitation or shoot webs from his hands.

In any case, from my experience, if you wave your boobs enthusiastically in a mans face he is not at that point wondering if your eyebrows were expertly done or if your lashes are long enough.

hahaha! +1 for sure.

fubared

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
My guy friends do it with cars and video games. They seem to have trouble equating their money troubles with their vehicles or gaming collection.
My ex wife and I got caught up in life style inflation for a little while. When I was trying to work out a budget with her to grow our savings and stop them from shrinking the way she reacted really shocked me. She had a closet full of clothes and shoes. We could afford to eat out all the time and were very comfortable with a very nice apartment. When I started going over the budget with her, she treated new clothes, shoes, beauty products, a hundred dollar costume, going out to bars 3-4 times a week etc. as necessities that she was outraged I even brought up in our budget conversation.
This happens for both sexes though. My buddy that is on the verge of bankruptcy with consumer debt to the point that he moved back in with his mom. This guy just went and bought a gaming laptop to play one computer game.
I'm starting to think that access to money/debt flips a switch in some peoples brains that changes their wants into needs. At least here in Vancouver people treat portraying a certain status as a need. Men with cars, steroids, watches, etc. Women with clothes, shoes, handbags, travel, etc. It's a surreal experience walking around watching these people pretend.

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
I guess we've gone off topic, but with two teenage boys in the house we monitor internet usage closely.

You're doing a great job in teaching them about computers. Now they know way more than you, to avoid your monitoring. Thanks for adding two future engineers / programmers / people who at the very least don't bother IT with stupid shit to the world.

Apart from that, good luck.

eyesonthehorizon

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Location: Texas
I'm really sorry for how you view the world.  I hope you get to meet some genuinely kind, honest, and upright people with someday to change your world-view.
+1 for civility and general benevolence. If anyone could cultivate an honest relationship it's someone who reacts this way; it sounds like you have a pretty exceptional household. Gimp, I totally get what you're saying and there's a lot to be said for honesty, but she's a big girl and she can figure things out herself; is there a reason you need her to be wrong about this? The statistics may not be stacked against porn in predominant culture, but individuals make individual choices. Furthermore, there's a growing movement mostly of young nonreligious men pushing back against porn culture because they find themselves pretty horrified at being 24 years old with ED issues, and realizing that it's no longer 'fun' as much as compulsory. They realize it's rewiring them, physically and chemically. They realize they don't want to be controlled.

This is exciting, because I've talked to far too many young men and women who felt they were having desires and inadequacies dictated to them, by both explicit and nonexplicit media. Which brings me back to the original topic:

Most of the spending the OP mentions, and the counterexamples responding posts have brought up, is focused on conforming to a certain definition of attractive and successful. We're getting more and more of that shorthand for 'attractive and successful' in a consumerist way, because we spend more and more of our leisure time examining what more and more disproportionately rich people do with theirs in increasingly artificial settings, e.g. Entertainment Weekly.

The thing that would help with ALL of the above, from where I'm standing, is to actually converse about our values the same way we do about 'stuff,' reinforcing the importance of those values. It's preaching to the choir at a lifestyle blog forum, but this kind of talk isn't happening out in general culture where messages about what actually matters might spread. People buy silly status-symbol THINGS because other people ascribe value to them; what if the exceptional few were just a little more vocal and presented the suggestion that buying into popular expectation is a CHOICE?


Pinkie Mustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Location: Israel

Most of the spending the OP mentions, and the counterexamples responding posts have brought up, is focused on conforming to a certain definition of attractive and successful. We're getting more and more of that shorthand for 'attractive and successful' in a consumerist way, because we spend more and more of our leisure time examining what more and more disproportionately rich people do with theirs in increasingly artificial settings, e.g. Entertainment Weekly.

The thing that would help with ALL of the above, from where I'm standing, is to actually converse about our values the same way we do about 'stuff,' reinforcing the importance of those values. It's preaching to the choir at a lifestyle blog forum, but this kind of talk isn't happening out in general culture where messages about what actually matters might spread. People buy silly status-symbol THINGS because other people ascribe value to them; what if the exceptional few were just a little more vocal and presented the suggestion that buying into popular expectation is a CHOICE?

This is right on.  In the past few days since I posted this, something that keeps wandering across my mind - especially since a lot of the comments touch on objectification of people - is to what degree do people choose or wanted to become objectified and how we attempt to define ourselves, for ourselves and for others' interpretation, based on what we're wearing, holding, etc. and how much do and should these perceptions matter... much to ponder... 

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4742
  • Location: Avalon
I think it is much more likely that girls/women are compared to models, actresses, and singers than porn stars. Just my two cents.

I would tend to agree with you, were it not for the fad among younger women for waxing the "lady garden".  I can't see that coming (directly or indirectly) from anything except porn.

eyesonthehorizon

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Location: Texas
Just because Gimp has a different view of porn doesn't mean his needs to be changed or that people who are ok with porn aren't kind, honest, or upright.

The only thing I was trying to change about Gimp's view was the notion of unspoken universal use, and the implication that anyone who says they don't is lying. It seems pretty aggressive to tell a stranger their loved ones are deceitful with them - even if you're right, they'll figure it out on their own; do you need to rub their face in that specter of pain?

I don't have any problems with porn the way I don't have any problems with alcohol or recreational drugs -- I do see a lot of people hurt by the use of these activities in conjunction with dishonesty, either with self or others. But that same dishonesty often comes from shame, which we ought to be trying to demolish. I'm glad your experience has been positive. I've seen a lot from both ends of the spectrum, which is why I think it's so important that people have choices, and awareness of those choices, and not be expected to conform to someone else's standard. Other people choosing to do or to not do something does not take away your own choice.

... the fad among younger women for waxing the "lady garden".  I can't see that coming (directly or indirectly) from anything except porn.

When else do we see people's nethers? If we had a more body-positive, less nude-phobic society and this caught on, well, sure -- but I think you are EXACTLY correct here. This isn't an 'organic' trend - it caught on specifically from media, an artificial experience of life (in this case, of sex, but is that really that important?). And because of that very same ubiquity of porn (artificial experience) in the absence of sex-positive society (real experience), there's even less of a sense of CHOICE there than in other media; if you aren't actively modifying yourself a certain way you're automatically relegated to a specific other fringe group - there's a label out there for everybody, but you won't fit into that perfectly, either.

When trying to conform to an external standard, there's no winning; nobody can ever be good enough, and the only thing more derisible in the public eye than failing is failing after trying, heart and soul. There's no way to win that game. Let's not play.

Most of the spending the OP mentions, and the counterexamples responding posts have brought up, is focused on conforming to a certain definition of attractive and successful. ...
People buy silly status-symbol THINGS because other people ascribe value to them; what if the exceptional few were just a little more vocal and presented the suggestion that buying into popular expectation is a CHOICE?
...to what degree do people choose or wanted to become objectified and how we attempt to define ourselves, for ourselves and for others' interpretation, based on what we're wearing, holding, etc. and how much do and should these perceptions matter... much to ponder... 

These perceptions absolutely matter IF YOU LET THEM. I say we make a decision NOT TO. We talk so often of society and culture and completely erase all signs of individual identities and individual choices; we say "that's how things are" as if we have no agency and no influence. People are horrifically stupid about money and consumption, it's just how things are, nobody can even THINK to make their own choices or escape the credit/debt cycle... EXCEPT EVERYONE HERE, everyone who stood up and said "enough with this bull****" and decided they could LIVE BETTER than by following someone else's prescribed script. Even if you aren't confident enough or ready to cut your own trail or go it alone, isn't it meaningful to have more than one beaten path ahead of you?

And it's so, so important to distinguish between having an opinion people disagree with and using conflicting opinions as weapons against the individual. Maybe the reason majority opinions are majority is that they work for more people; that never means another method couldn't surpass it. Anytime someone tries to back themselves up with being in the majority, it bears careful examining to see they aren't trying to eliminate other ways of thinking - that the tail's not wagging the dog. Maintaining, supporting, and encouraging that freedom of ourselves and others to choose differently is how we make progress of any kind.

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 605
I estimate that over the course of 10 years, I've saved about $50,000 not indulging in these things
Wow, you should not go to Paris and save even more!  Today I didn't go to the mall, and I saved $1000.  I think I won't go again tomorrow, and then my savings'll be up to $2000. 

Seriously, this is one of my pet peeves.  When you don't spend on something, it doesn't equate to saving -- especially when it's something you weren't inclined to buy anyway.  If someone else is spending frivolously, they're wasting money -- but it doesn't mean you're saving what you aren't spending.

Wait, what?
So I never saved millions by not taking up a coke habit......
   

Pinkie Mustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Location: Israel
To ye who have knocked that statement of how much I saved by not spending on something:

Sure, I used to think the same way, but I said I saved money, not earned money.  The items on the list I referenced are, in theory, things I could have spent $ on, but instead, I've opted for cheaper substitutes - it's not that my legs are hairy and that I trip over my insanely long mane of hair.  I've found ways of getting the same results as one would from professionals but in a less expensive fashion.  (It is not out of the realm of general normalcy for people to go get haircuts at a salon - I was certainly taken on a regular basis to as a kid and teen.)  And the money that wasn't spent, happens to have gone into paying off mortgage debt. This idea is a basic idea in MMM articles, so, enough with the quibbling.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8827
  • Registered member

blue mutant

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Red Deer
I estimate that over the course of 10 years, I've saved about $50,000 not indulging in these things
Wow, you should not go to Paris and save even more!  Today I didn't go to the mall, and I saved $1000.  I think I won't go again tomorrow, and then my savings'll be up to $2000. 

Seriously, this is one of my pet peeves.  When you don't spend on something, it doesn't equate to saving -- especially when it's something you weren't inclined to buy anyway.  If someone else is spending frivolously, they're wasting money -- but it doesn't mean you're saving what you aren't spending.


+1

Or these variants.
"I got these shoes for $60 but they're usually $100, so I saved $40"
"You should be thankful we only bought one brand new car; by not insisting on having 2 cars , which is very normal, I've saved us a ton of money"
"I bought $200 of clothes and assorted trinkets at Value Village. Think of how much I saved"

Microeconomics 101 says Income (Y) is equal to Consumption (C) + Savings (S). They are substitutes for each other. Ahhhhhhh!

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8827
  • Registered member
I estimate that over the course of 10 years, I've saved about $50,000 not indulging in these things
Wow, you should not go to Paris and save even more!  Today I didn't go to the mall, and I saved $1000.  I think I won't go again tomorrow, and then my savings'll be up to $2000. 

Seriously, this is one of my pet peeves.  When you don't spend on something, it doesn't equate to saving -- especially when it's something you weren't inclined to buy anyway.  If someone else is spending frivolously, they're wasting money -- but it doesn't mean you're saving what you aren't spending.


+1

Or these variants.
"I got these shoes for $60 but they're usually $100, so I saved $40"
"You should be thankful we only bought one brand new car; by not insisting on having 2 cars , which is very normal, I've saved us a ton of money"
"I bought $200 of clothes and assorted trinkets at Value Village. Think of how much I saved"

Microeconomics 101 says Income (Y) is equal to Consumption (C) + Savings (S). They are substitutes for each other. Ahhhhhhh!

I'm pretty sure not spending money is the definition of saving.  If I save $1000/mo it's absolutely because I didn't go to the mall and spend it.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Saving:
1. Spending less money than you could have.  Or paying less than retail.
2. Putting money in your savings account.

Isn't it fun how much time you can spend arguing when a word has two definitions that can be conflated?

For the purpose of FI, we are mostly interested in #2.  So if the OP literally has $50k extra in a savings account as a result of not having bought these things, yay. 

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8827
  • Registered member
Saving:
1. Spending less money than you could have.  Or paying less than retail.
2. Putting money in your savings account.

Isn't it fun how much time you can spend arguing when a word has two definitions that can be conflated?

For the purpose of FI, we are mostly interested in #2.  So if the OP literally has $50k extra in a savings account as a result of not having bought these things, yay.

If you don't do #1, you can't do #2.  Plus, most of us put money in brokerage accounts.

SpendyMcSpend

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
There is ridiculous pressure on women to be young looking well dressed waxed and beautiful in order to not be lonely

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Saving:
1. Spending less money than you could have.  Or paying less than retail.
2. Putting money in your savings account.

Isn't it fun how much time you can spend arguing when a word has two definitions that can be conflated?

For the purpose of FI, we are mostly interested in #2.  So if the OP literally has $50k extra in a savings account as a result of not having bought these things, yay.

If you don't do #1, you can't do #2.  Plus, most of us put money in brokerage accounts.

Right, but you could do #1 without necessarily doing #2.  Thus, hilarity ensues.  "I had $100 to spend on a widget.  This one was marked down to $75 from $300!  So I saved $225!"

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8827
  • Registered member
Saving:
1. Spending less money than you could have.  Or paying less than retail.
2. Putting money in your savings account.

Isn't it fun how much time you can spend arguing when a word has two definitions that can be conflated?

For the purpose of FI, we are mostly interested in #2.  So if the OP literally has $50k extra in a savings account as a result of not having bought these things, yay.

If you don't do #1, you can't do #2.  Plus, most of us put money in brokerage accounts.

Right, but you could do #1 without necessarily doing #2.  Thus, hilarity ensues.  "I had $100 to spend on a widget.  This one was marked down to $75 from $300!  So I saved $225!"

In this case you "could have" spent $100, so you did in fact save $25.

People here are happy all the time when they switch to republic wireless (or whatever) and "save" money.  Nobody seems to take exception to that.

solon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1663
  • Age: 1819
  • Location: CO
If you don't do #1, you can't do #2.  Plus, most of us put money in brokerage accounts.

I usually do #1 at the same time I do #2. Although my brokerage accounts have nothing to do with it.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Saving:
1. Spending less money than you could have.  Or paying less than retail.
2. Putting money in your savings account.

Isn't it fun how much time you can spend arguing when a word has two definitions that can be conflated?

For the purpose of FI, we are mostly interested in #2.  So if the OP literally has $50k extra in a savings account as a result of not having bought these things, yay.

If you don't do #1, you can't do #2.  Plus, most of us put money in brokerage accounts.

Right, but you could do #1 without necessarily doing #2.  Thus, hilarity ensues.  "I had $100 to spend on a widget.  This one was marked down to $75 from $300!  So I saved $225!"

In this case you "could have" spent $100, so you did in fact save $25.

People here are happy all the time when they switch to republic wireless (or whatever) and "save" money.  Nobody seems to take exception to that.

Exactly, that's why I didn't say it was on sale for $100, so the quiz would have better answers.  Anyway, you would reject the idea that the person saved money they didn't have to begin with.  That's what people are arguing about, whether the person saved $225 or $25. To paraphrase your mall quote, if the person saved $25 it's fifty percent because they didn't spend it and fifty percent because they had it to begin with.  Thus the drollery about moving to Paris to save more or saving a fortune from never doing cocaine.

Then there's the "then where's your ferrari" joke.  People saving money in one area often causes them to neglect to save in other areas or outright splurge on other things, or make trade-offs, e.g., paying y more for an apartment near work so you save x on commuting costs.  You didn't save x; you saved x - y.  So actually...it's 33.3% having it to begin with, 33.3% not spending it on one thing, and 33.3% actually banking it.  People are guessing that the OP didn't actually save 50K in this sense, tho we don't have enough info to be sure.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8827
  • Registered member
Saving:
1. Spending less money than you could have.  Or paying less than retail.
2. Putting money in your savings account.

Isn't it fun how much time you can spend arguing when a word has two definitions that can be conflated?

For the purpose of FI, we are mostly interested in #2.  So if the OP literally has $50k extra in a savings account as a result of not having bought these things, yay.

If you don't do #1, you can't do #2.  Plus, most of us put money in brokerage accounts.

Right, but you could do #1 without necessarily doing #2.  Thus, hilarity ensues.  "I had $100 to spend on a widget.  This one was marked down to $75 from $300!  So I saved $225!"

In this case you "could have" spent $100, so you did in fact save $25.

People here are happy all the time when they switch to republic wireless (or whatever) and "save" money.  Nobody seems to take exception to that.

Exactly, that's why I didn't say it was on sale for $100, so the quiz would have better answers.  Anyway, you would reject the idea that the person saved money they didn't have to begin with.  That's what people are arguing about, whether the person saved $225 or $25. To paraphrase your mall quote, if the person saved $25 it's fifty percent because they didn't spend it and fifty percent because they had it to begin with.  Thus the drollery about moving to Paris to save more or saving a fortune from never doing cocaine.

Then there's the "then where's your ferrari" joke.  People saving money in one area often causes them to neglect to save in other areas or outright splurge on other things, or make trade-offs, e.g., paying y more for an apartment near work so you save x on commuting costs.  You didn't save x; you saved x - y.  So actually...it's 33.3% having it to begin with, 33.3% not spending it on one thing, and 33.3% actually banking it.  People are guessing that the OP didn't actually save 50K in this sense, tho we don't have enough info to be sure.

Plenty of the examples above that I was responding to are bona fide savings.  Like not going to the mall to spend the $1000 in your pocket. That is all.