NYT: "Wait a Minute. How Can They Afford That When I Can’t?"

[charis]

Personally, when I see someone wearing an obviously expensive watch, I see it as a red flag (that they make poor financial decisions in general).

This may be true generally but it may not

As a wealthy person once told me, “If you have stupid money, you can buy stupid things. Problems happen when you don’t have stupid money and you buy stupid things”

I know a guy who has a lot of expensive watches. Last time I saw him, he was wearing a Rolex Skydweller, an 18k gold model that goes for at least $40,000.

The thing is, he makes so much money that spending $40k on a watch is meaningless. And yes, he has donated millions to charity, etc, so it's not like he spends it all on himself.

He would tell you that the financial decisions he made when he was young are what allow him to do and buy whatever he wants at this point in his life.

I think that the "if someone's wearing a nice watch/driving a nice car, he's probably one pay cheque away from being broke" assumption is an example of wishful thinking. Maybe if the nice car is just a typical brand new Honda you might be onto something. If the guy's wearing an IWC or driving a Bentley I'm fairly sure he's not one pay cheque away from being broke. That doesn't mean the car or watch was a good financial decision, but as you say, some people earn enough that they can get away with making "bad" financial decisions.

My own car is not a Bentley, but it is a lot more than what most here would consider reasonable, but once you take into account the low depreciation, the tax advantages of having a "business" vehicle which means I get to write off most of the running costs [even though it's only very nominally a work vehicle], and the joy it gives me, I think it was a great purchase. Everyone can make his or her own decisions.

If you are referring to me who said one paycheck away from a crisis, as stated, I was referring to actual knowledge.  I don't assuming anyone with an expensive car is almost broke - I do assume that they like to waste their money (borrowed or otherwise) on expensive cars.  Of course that's their prerogative.  And of course you think you made a great purchase (though not suggesting you didn't) - post-purchase bias naturally occurs after the decision is made.

Just as much as people are entitled to buy luxury items that bring them "joy," others are entitled to judge that the former don't share their values.  They may decide to overlook those differences or not, usually factoring in other considerations.  And vice versa.  I don't think anyone should be overly concerned about if/how they are being judged for owning a Bentley, or whatnot.  But this is the MMM forum, so you already know where most of us stand on the topic.

[Laura33]

It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.

  If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.

You might just like certain nice things. Unless everything in your life comes from Goodwill, there is a degree of 'niceness' to most people's spending. True, you'd have to look at surrounding circumstances to see if the spending is proportionate to the earning.

Someone who spends $10k on a watch might be said to have made a bad financial decision...but what if she really loves watches? Or what if she is good enough at being a surgeon or investment banker that she earned $400k that year? I'd say she overall would have made a good financial decision - if the watch brings her a lot of joy - as long as her overall finances meet whatever savings/retirement goals she has.

Yeah, no.  We make a lot of money.  We are already FI.  I used some of that extra money to buy a StupidCar.  It's the best decision I've ever made in terms of fun.  But it is in no way justifiable as a good financial decision, in any universe.  It was a giant, dumb-ass financial decision.  I took a big fat chunk of cash and put it in an asset that not only depreciates, but that costs me multiple times what my old car did in terms of insurance, maintenance, and repairs.  I can practically hear the giant sucking sound coming from my garage.

And that's ok.  IMO, part of the fun of being FI and saving my money for 25 years is being able to do whatever stupid-ass thing I want to with my extra money without having to justify a damn thing to anyone.  But that doesn't make it a good financial decision.  And telling yourself otherwise is just part of the self-delusion mindset that enables people to rationalize making stupid decisions to buy the ShinyPretty that they can't afford.  Sure, maybe I'll have lucked into something that's "collectible" 20 years down the road, and someone who's even more stupid than I am will pay me even stupider money to have it.  But that's not why I bought it -- and if it were, that would have been even stupider of me, because that's speculation, not investment.

Tl;dr:  An "investment" is something that puts money in your pocket on a regular basis by throwing off cash, such as corporate profits or rent.  Buying other things hoping they'll go up in value is at best speculation, and at worst self-delusion.  As Michelle Singletary says, if it's on your ass, it's not an asset.  So buy whatever the hell you want -- just don't bullshit yourself about how it's an "investment" instead of flat-out, unadulterated consumption.

[Bernard]

Personally, when I see someone wearing an obviously expensive watch, I see it as a red flag (that they make poor financial decisions in general).

True, I can only go on my personal experience, which is that the person with the fanciest watch is usually one paycheck away from a crisis.  And the actual wealthy folks are much less flashy (the aspirational class I guess).

An "obviously expensive" watch . . .  or "fancy watch" . . .  would be something like a (1) diamond-crusted Rolex or a (2)  18K Cartier Tank. Something (1) a black rapper or ballplayer would wear, or (2) Kim Kardashian. Yep, they certainly make poor financial decisions, but I'm not sure they are one paycheck away from a crisis.
I dare to guess that most folks would not have a second look at a Patek Philippe Calatrava, to name one example watch afficionados lust for:

https://www.chrono24.com/patekphilippe/calatrava-5227g-001-new-white-gold-black-strap-white-dial--id11638069.htm

To the casual observer, it looks like a cheap Timex, but it costs hundreds of times as much.

[Bloop Bloop]

Charis - what to you might be a 'waste' might to others be a 'spend'; my point is that different people have different values. And even though this is a MMM forum, blanket statements about other people's approaches based on one data point are not always accurate. And even if accurate, they are not always useful. Very few people on this forum would say of someone, "Oh, he settled for a 9-5 job in IT earning $60k a year instead of busting his arse to become a specialist on $250k." But if you're going to judge others' spending, what stops you from judging others' earning? My approach is to only assess one in the context of the other, and to not usually judge in either case.

That said, I agree a lot of luxury spending is entirely un-gratifying even for the buyer, but it varies by the individual.

Laura - yeah, I shouldn't have said it was a good 'financial decision', since on a financial basis any luxury spending is a bad decision. I meant that it was a good life decision in the context of their particular finances.

[LennStar]

If I were content for my savings rate to be 0% rather than 70% I could live like a frickin' king. Hookers and cocaine and first class flights and hatted restaurants.

What exactly does "hatted restaurants" mean? A quick search only turned up the not unsuprising description of ~"best", but such an idiom must have a meaning it comes from.

Surprisingly, the lobby staff and the account supervisor were both super gracious to me right from the start despite my shabby appearance.   When I complimented the account super on their customer service, he said a decent portion of their customers with significant assets come in looking differently than you might expect.  He was quite charitable about it...windblown and threadbare was how I think he put it.

That sounds like you don't know the MMM standard book "The millionaire next door"??

In short, the middle class people can now use credit to buy what used to be upper middle class symbols, and the upper middle class can't necessarily inflate their consumption to multimillionaire level because that is one hell of a threshold so they invented this whole culture of moral superiority through conscious consumption that is difficult for an outsider to understand.

I read: Starbucks
"See that logo on my overpriced coffee mug? I can afford to pay a ton of one for bad coffee!"

The people I have known who were Really Rich all had family trusts dedicated to education. They didn’t spend their income on that, but when they die some of their capital goes back into the trust. It’s like not buying your own furniture - some earlier person in your family did that, and you just have it reupholstered. Then you wear your grandfathers dinner jacket until it literally falls apart.

Good ol' Vimes Boots Theory!
https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness

[Davnasty]

To everyone arguing that a purchase can be justified if it brings the purchaser enough joy, you're not wrong, but consider this: Anyone who decides to purchase anything has decided that the personal value of the item they buy is equal to or greater than the cost. Otherwise, why would they have bought it?

Does this maybe shed some light on why other posters are reluctant to accept that reasoning? The theory is sound but in practice it's not quite so simple.

The trouble is, humans tend to be quite bad at predicting what will make them happy in the future. The questioning of these decisions you see on the forums isn't about judging or shaming*, it's a reminder to question your feelings and be honest with yourself. Why will this purchase make me happier? Will the happiness be long term or short term? Am I upgrading something that made me perfectly happy last year? Is this something that I see advertised often? Are my feelings influenced by what the people around me are doing? And so many more to consider.

*ok, maybe sometimes. I can't speak for everyone :)

[big_owl]

It depends on whether you view the utility of a watch as only its timekeeping function or whether you see it as a piece of jewellery or even an heirloom, like a nice rug or sofa. If the latter, then the "real value" is far greater than a dollar store watch.

  If your buying an expensive watch, it's to put your wealth/status on display.
However, it could be fake news. No way to know without knowing what their debt is.

You might just like certain nice things. Unless everything in your life comes from Goodwill, there is a degree of 'niceness' to most people's spending. True, you'd have to look at surrounding circumstances to see if the spending is proportionate to the earning.

Someone who spends $10k on a watch might be said to have made a bad financial decision...but what if she really loves watches? Or what if she is good enough at being a surgeon or investment banker that she earned $400k that year? I'd say she overall would have made a good financial decision - if the watch brings her a lot of joy - as long as her overall finances meet whatever savings/retirement goals she has.

Yeah, no.  We make a lot of money.  We are already FI.  I used some of that extra money to buy a StupidCar.  It's the best decision I've ever made in terms of fun.  But it is in no way justifiable as a good financial decision, in any universe.  It was a giant, dumb-ass financial decision. I took a big fat chunk of cash and put it in an asset that not only depreciates, but that costs me multiple times what my old car did in terms of insurance, maintenance, and repairs.  I can practically hear the giant sucking sound coming from my garage.

And that's ok.  IMO, part of the fun of being FI and saving my money for 25 years is being able to do whatever stupid-ass thing I want to with my extra money without having to justify a damn thing to anyone.  But that doesn't make it a good financial decision.  And telling yourself otherwise is just part of the self-delusion mindset that enables people to rationalize making stupid decisions to buy the ShinyPretty that they can't afford.  Sure, maybe I'll have lucked into something that's "collectible" 20 years down the road, and someone who's even more stupid than I am will pay me even stupider money to have it.  But that's not why I bought it -- and if it were, that would have been even stupider of me, because that's speculation, not investment.

Tl;dr:  An "investment" is something that puts money in your pocket on a regular basis by throwing off cash, such as corporate profits or rent.  Buying other things hoping they'll go up in value is at best speculation, and at worst self-delusion.  As Michelle Singletary says, if it's on your ass, it's not an asset.  So buy whatever the hell you want -- just don't bullshit yourself about how it's an "investment" instead of flat-out, unadulterated consumption.

I'm calling BS on your bolded.  If you're rich and FI and you spend extra money on something that brings your life joy and doesn't hurt others then it's a good financial decision for you.  By your definition above anything above pure life-sustaining sustenance is a stupid financial decision, which makes no sense. 

If the lady makes a 7-figure+ income, has a stash of multiple millions with no debt...and loves her watch, she made a good financial decision. 

[Bloop Bloop]

A hatted restaurant is one that received a Good Food Guide chef's hat, similar to Michelin stars. It means a good restaurant.

As for the question, "Anyone who decides to purchase anything has decided that the personal value of the item they buy is equal to or greater than the cost. Otherwise, why would they have bought it?" the answer is that a purchase might be driven by:
- compulsion
- keeping up with the Joneses
- need need or perceived need
- retail therapy
etc

So the approach would be to try to ascertain what joy you would get from the item itself and not from extraneous things. That said, there is a grey area. Your intrinsic appreciation of craftsmanship can be influenced by what others and reviewers say. So you have to think critically about which opinions you take into account. And of course you have to try to honestly evaluate whether you're getting enough out of your toy to justify ongoing costs.

Whilst in practice it's not simple, neither is it simple to evaluate the time/money equation (when working/seeking FI), nor is it easy to evaluate the work/money equation when deciding how far you want to push your career and advance your earnings. It seems that some on this forum will critique spending somewhat cynically, fair enough, but they don't take the same critical view when it comes to, say, career advancement.

[Metalcat]

Man...it's almost like this whole personal finance and happiness thing is deeply personal...

Hmm...

The thing about copious consumerism is that it doesn't usually make people happy, it usually actually makes them less happy. There is a distinct and important difference between desperately wanting to own something, and something making the person happier to own it.

Buying things is usually more akin to addiction, where purchasing something alleviates the craving to own it.

If spending on something *truly* does add to a person's happiness, then yes, they should spend on it. The key is in recognizing what actually makes you happy.

Happiness being the elusive and tricky thing that it is, that isn't always so easy.

[big_owl]

Man...it's almost like this whole personal finance and happiness thing is deeply personal...

Hmm...

The thing about copious consumerism is that it doesn't usually make people happy, it usually actually makes them less happy. There is a distinct and important difference between desperately wanting to own something, and something making the person happier to own it.

Buying things is usually more akin to addiction, where purchasing something alleviates the craving to own it.

If spending on something *truly* does add to a person's happiness, then yes, they should spend on it. The key is in recognizing what actually makes you happy.

Happiness being the elusive and tricky thing that it is, that isn't always so easy.

You actually do lead to a good point.  Neither of us were born rich, and many years ago we were actually in pretty steep debt and had only our 401ks when we discovered MMM 5 years ago.  We turned our shit around and the income level also went up a couple orders of magnitude.  Now we find ourselves on the opposite end of the income spectrum.

I have found over and over again, with virtually every purchase, that buying something that is well made and is of quality makes my life much more enjoyable.  It's not so much just buying more shit, it's that what we do buy is much higher quality.  I'm always going to have a watch in life, have since I was a little kid.  Instead of buying my umpteenth ironman triathlon cheap ass watch that gets scratched up in a year and has dust under the crystal and a broken band...I received a Breitling.  It's beautiful, well made, functional, has lasted forever.  It just improves my life.  It was a good financial decision, its ROI for my life happiness is very positive which is about all you can ask from a financial transaction once you have the basics covered.

Laura apparently made a stupid financial decision buying her car.  Maybe in her case she did, but that's her own situation and her own opinion, and clearly doesn't apply to the watch owner. 

[biggrey]

The people I have known who were Really Rich all had family trusts dedicated to education. They didn’t spend their income on that, but when they die some of their capital goes back into the trust. It’s like not buying your own furniture - some earlier person in your family did that, and you just have it reupholstered. Then you wear your grandfathers dinner jacket until it literally falls apart.

I think I am too "low class" to understand the furniture statement. When someone else here mentioned that a MP referenced a colleague who "bought his own furniture," I thought the person who said it meant that the truly rich would hire other people to buy furniture *for them*. But did he mean that you would **already** have inherited furniture so you would not need to buy any unless of a lower class?

This is a rather fascinating little detail.

I'm guessing it's about buying such high quality that it lasts forever, unlike cheap throwaway stuff like IKEA.

That's a very unfair Ikea comment!  We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class.  With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong.  Like new, looks great.  I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids.  I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!

[Bernard]

That's a very unfair Ikea comment!  We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class.  With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong.  Like new, looks great.  I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids.  I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!

The founder of IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad (he died last year), was a Mustachian. Although his net worth was about $58,700,000,00.00 (!), he drove a 1993 Volvo 240 wagon 'til the very end.

[Milizard]

The people I have known who were Really Rich all had family trusts dedicated to education. They didn’t spend their income on that, but when they die some of their capital goes back into the trust. It’s like not buying your own furniture - some earlier person in your family did that, and you just have it reupholstered. Then you wear your grandfathers dinner jacket until it literally falls apart.

I think I am too "low class" to understand the furniture statement. When someone else here mentioned that a MP referenced a colleague who "bought his own furniture," I thought the person who said it meant that the truly rich would hire other people to buy furniture *for them*. But did he mean that you would **already** have inherited furniture so you would not need to buy any unless of a lower class?

This is a rather fascinating little detail.

I'm guessing it's about buying such high quality that it lasts forever, unlike cheap throwaway stuff like IKEA.

That's a very unfair Ikea comment!  We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class.  With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong.  Like new, looks great.  I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids.  I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!

I was just referring to furniture made from mdf or particle board vs solid wood.  Sorry for insulting your Ikea. (jeesh)

[87tweetybirds]

For what it's worth, I graduated two years ago and didn't pay a dime for school. In fact, I received extra money on top of my tuition being paid. It's certainly possible to graduate debt-free still. Anyone who wants to get a degree without going into debt can. But they aren't willing to put in the work for that, and I don't think we should subsidize their laziness.

Not necessarily laziness, but also ability.

Not everyone can work full time and go to school full time.  Or work part time, live at home, and go to school full time.  Or afford to live for the 10 years it takes to work and save up enough money to go to college.  Everyone has different levels of health, brain function, energy, family obligations, family support, etc.

Aka, just because you did it doesn't mean everyone can do it.

Or do 3 years of military service. Or apply for scholarships as a full time job.

Also, anyone (who isn't disabled) can work full time while going to school.

I am not disabled, and would never have passed my nursing program had I been trying to work full time while going to school. I dedicated almost all my time to classes and studying and testing and was rewarded with a good GPA discount. I worked part time to full time when I was out of school for breaks, and I worked as a CNA, that paid higher than minimum wage I picked up a shift at a few times a month(12 hour shifts). Owing to this dedication(pretty much my life for 3 years consisted of classes, studying and tests, almost no social life), several scholarships and the good GPA discount, years of savings mandated by my parents when I was working summer jobs before I graduated High School, and attending a university that was comparatively inexpensive, I was able to graduate debt free. My dedication to getting a great GPA started as requirements for my program, less than a 75% in any class and you failed out of the program with no option to repeat, and when I realized the university offered a good GPA discount for those who maintained GPA levels at a certain percentage, and carried a certain number of credits it became even more motivation to study instead of play.

[habanero]

The founder of IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad (he died last year), was a Mustachian. Although his net worth was about $58,700,000,00.00 (!), he drove a 1993 Volvo 240 wagon 'til the very end.

The most telling story about him is when his son's soccer team needed new shirts and Mr. IKEA reluctantly agreed to fork out the money. He only bough 11 of them as in his reasoning "the substitutes don't need a shirt"

(for those not into soccer, a team has 11 players on the field at the same time and anywhere from 3-10 substitutes on the bench).

[DadJokes]

The founder of IKEA, Ingvar Kamprad (he died last year), was a Mustachian. Although his net worth was about $58,700,000,00.00 (!), he drove a 1993 Volvo 240 wagon 'til the very end.

The most telling story about him is when his son's soccer team needed new shirts and Mr. IKEA reluctantly agreed to fork out the money. He only bough 11 of them as in his reasoning "the substitutes don't need a shirt"

(for those not into soccer, a team has 11 players on the field at the same time and anywhere from 3-10 substitutes on the bench).

Okay, that might border onto being cheap.

[KBecks]

That's a very unfair Ikea comment!  We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class.  With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong.  Like new, looks great.  I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids.  I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!

Eight figures?  Good for you!

No real opinions on IKEA, we didn't have it in our area for a long time, but we certainly got by with inexpensive furniture basics when starting out.  I have read that some of the IKEA stuff does not survive moving and re-assembly very well.  We put an IKEA vanity in a bathroom remodel because we like the drawer design and it was a good deal.

[Panly]

https://youtu.be/r0HX4a5P8eE


There's the answer to the question posed.

[GodlessCommie]

Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.

[GodlessCommie]

IKEA is definitely hit and miss. Its solid wood items are usually... solid. The rest - less so. But even the really cheap stuff can perform admirably: we used a particle board/honeycomb cardboard piece as a stand for a fairly big fish tank, and it served for over a decade despite being periodically flooded.

Having said that, more expensive furniture is also often hit and miss. Our kids broke a made-in-Italy, custom-built, ordered in an upscale store sofa. I set to repair it and found that the materials composing a frame of it were inferior to those Ikea uses (turns out, it is possible), and it was assembled with little more than chewing gum and duct tape. The upholstery was top-notch, though, and we were really happy until the repair. Astonishingly, someone hand-written "Italia" on the inside - people were clearly proud of their work...

[Metalcat]

Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.

Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.

A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.

[Laura33]

Laura apparently made a stupid financial decision buying her car.  Maybe in her case she did, but that's her own situation and her own opinion, and clearly doesn't apply to the watch owner.

Uhhh, I think you missed my point.  I made a great decision for my daily happiness; it's the only car I've owned that literally makes me smile every time I drive it.  But it's still a dumb-ass financial decision. 

A good financial decision is one that hits the knee of the curve for your own needs -- one that maximizes utility and value for the price you pay, and that is within your budget.  It's not about buying the cheapest of everything -- unless you have no money at all -- but about paying more when it actually gets you better longevity and cheaping out when it doesn't.  E.g., we paid more money for our bedframe, because we sleep on it every night, and the cheap one we had broke in the middle support seam after a couple of years.  OTOH, we have a cheap bedframe in the guest room, because it gets slept on a few times a year.

The "need" that a car serves is reliable transportation; the need a watch serves is telling time.  So, yes, unless you have a huge number of kids or haul stuff every day, there's no financial justification for spending more than about $10K on a reliable, used sedan,* just like there's no financial justification for buying anything beyond a simple Timex.  Yet many, many people choose more expensive versions, for comfort, or style, or prestige, or whatever.  Personally, DH chose a vehicle with three rows of seats, both because he likes the feel of a larger vehicle, and because it made carpooling easier.**  That doesn't make it a good financial decision -- that makes it a lifestyle choice that can be either good or bad based on how well the extra money serves those needs, and how well you predict the extent to which that extra money will improve your life. 

Here's the thing:  there's nothing bad or wrong about making a lifestyle choice.  We all have areas where those "extras" matter to us, and areas where they don't.  Just don't justify those extras as awesome financial decisions.  Because every single time we choose more than what we need, there is a tradeoff in personal freedom.  We trade days, weeks, or even years at a paying job for the beauty of rich Corinthian leather.  The balance point for a happy life is when you have sufficient extras to be willing to work as long as you need to to fund them, but no more. 

Now, as to collectibles:  IMO, that's still a stupid financial decision.  It is not a "smart" financial decision to buy something with no intrinsic value, in the hope that someone else will be willing to pay you more for it tomorrow.  That's pure speculation.  Even if it hits, that just means you're lucky, not smart.  My car may well be a collectible in 20 years; it's the last model before they started putting mini-turbos in everything, and it's more performance-oriented than your normal version.  Still doesn't mean it was a smart financial decision.  A smart financial decision would have been putting the money in stocks or rental real estate instead of into a probably-depreciating asset that shoots dollar bills out of my tailpipe every time I drive it.  But life isn't just about finances, and I consider that car the smartest stupid financial decision I ever made.

I just refuse to justify a luxury purchases as being financially "smart" as well.  Why not just be straight and admit that you bought it because you liked it, and the financial hit was worth it to you for the value it brings to your life? 

*Actually, I'd go up to maybe $15K if that's what you need to spend to find active crash-avoidance features.

**That could be a good financial decision if you carpool enough that you drive significantly less with a bigger vehicle than a smaller one.  But that wasn't our situation -- for us, it was a luxury.

[Kris]

Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.

Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.

A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.

In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.

[Metalcat]

Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.

Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.

A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.

In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.

Yep

The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"

The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"

The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell

Ugh...still angry about those heels

[Davnasty]

Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.

Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.

A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.

In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.

Yep

The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"

The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"

The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell

Ugh...still angry about those heels

Makes sense. In other words, value is inversely related to number of expletives used to describe a product.

[Metalcat]

Makes sense. In other words, value is inversely related to number of expletives used to describe a product.

Sounds accurate

[OtherJen]

Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.

Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.

A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.

In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.

Yep

The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"

The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"

The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell

Ugh...still angry about those heels

To carry it further: the cute black T-strap heels I bought at Target on clearance for $7.99 and proceeded to wear for more than a decade of concerts and other dressy events until the heel on one finally cracked beyond repair = cheap but not cheap ass. I still miss those shoes. The $60 replacements I bought in 2017 are not as comfortable.

[Kris]

Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.

Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.

A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.

In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.

Yep

The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"

The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"

The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell

Ugh...still angry about those heels

To carry it further: the cute black T-strap heels I bought at Target on clearance for $7.99 and proceeded to wear for more than a decade of concerts and other dressy events until the heel on one finally cracked beyond repair = cheap but not cheap ass. I still miss those shoes. The $60 replacements I bought in 2017 are not as comfortable.

The Frye boots I got on Poshmark for $55 (retail new for $388) were cheap, but they are freaking awesome and will last me probably until I die: cheap.

The shitty boots I bought for probably twice that price, which fell apart after less than two seasons: cheap-ass.

[StarBright]

Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.

Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.

A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.

In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.

Yep

The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"

The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"

The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell

Ugh...still angry about those heels

oh no! were they FiFilles? I've heard that those have had issues with heel snaps. Also, my understanding is Nordstrom will take them back (even if you don't buy them from Nordstrom) as long as they sell that shoe.

I may have it wrong, but I've heard that is part of the deal Nordstrom makes with certain brands. I tried to exchange a pair (of a different brand) once a few years ago and the brand's customer service rep told me to go to Nordstrom, sure enough they exchanged it for an shoe of that brand that was within $20 of retail price.

In any case - I was so blown away by Nordies customer service that I always try to buy my nice shoes there now.

[OtherJen]

Just wanted to point out that if one is using emotionally loaded terms like "cheap ass", they may not be having expensive stuff for the sole reason of enjoying its intrinsic qualities.

Point taken, but it also depends on what they actually mean by "cheap ass", whether it's a reference to the cheapness of the price or the quality of the item.

A lot of expensive items are IMO "cheap ass" proto-garbage just waiting to be thrown out in short order after purchase.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. I don't think I'd ever use the term "cheap-ass" except to reference something that is junky and doesn't last. The price would not be my designating something as "cheap-ass" -- except insofar as it's even more outrageous when something is expensive but still junky.

In other words, "cheap-ass" =/= cheap.

Yep

The bargain bin slip on shoes I bought for $15 when a heel broke and they fell apart after a half dozen uncomfortable wears= "cheap ass"

The 'old lady's orthotic, waterproof, leather walking shoes that I paid ~ $200 for and seem indestructible = not "cheap ass"

The $1000 Louboutin heels that broke after 3 very uncomfortable wears = DEFINITELY fucking "cheap ass" as all hell

Ugh...still angry about those heels

To carry it further: the cute black T-strap heels I bought at Target on clearance for $7.99 and proceeded to wear for more than a decade of concerts and other dressy events until the heel on one finally cracked beyond repair = cheap but not cheap ass. I still miss those shoes. The $60 replacements I bought in 2017 are not as comfortable.

The Frye boots I got on Poshmark for $55 (retail new for $388) were cheap, but they are freaking awesome and will last me probably until I die: cheap.

The shitty boots I bought for probably twice that price, which fell apart after less than two seasons: cheap-ass.

I paid $260 for a new pair of Frye boots 6 years ago and have no regrets. Although I need to have them resoled, I can't imagine that I won't be wearing them regularly a decade from now. They are that sturdy and comfortable.

[havregryn]

I have a pair of beautiful looking Frye boots that I got from a friend for free...turns out it's because they are almost impossible to put on and off. Can only put them on if sliding my foot in with a plastic bag. What is up with that?  They were also ridiculously slippery and I figure they definitely need better soles if they're to be worn but I am not sure I can do the bag thing all the time. I never had that problem with my cheap boots bought on random sales with no real intent to wear them forever (only now I can think about being more sustainable, up until now I was moving a lot across countries all alone without a car, my whole buying philosophy had to be the literal opposite of buying for life, it had to be stuff I can give away guilt free before a move and buy again on destination).

[Fomerly known as something]

I might have to check out Frye boots after my current Mephisto one's die in 2-4 years of constant use. 

[Kris]

I have a pair of beautiful looking Frye boots that I got from a friend for free...turns out it's because they are almost impossible to put on and off. Can only put them on if sliding my foot in with a plastic bag. What is up with that?  They were also ridiculously slippery and I figure they definitely need better soles if they're to be worn but I am not sure I can do the bag thing all the time. I never had that problem with my cheap boots bought on random sales with no real intent to wear them forever (only now I can think about being more sustainable, up until now I was moving a lot across countries all alone without a car, my whole buying philosophy had to be the literal opposite of buying for life, it had to be stuff I can give away guilt free before a move and buy again on destination).

Fryes — at least the harness style ones I have — can be a challenge to get on and off, but you get used to it and learn to just jam your feet in there. Or at least I did. And once they’re on they’re super-comfy.

As far as the soles go, I’ve never had that problem — even new, I’ve found they rough up quickly just walking on the sidewalk.

[OtherJen]

I have a pair of beautiful looking Frye boots that I got from a friend for free...turns out it's because they are almost impossible to put on and off. Can only put them on if sliding my foot in with a plastic bag. What is up with that?  They were also ridiculously slippery and I figure they definitely need better soles if they're to be worn but I am not sure I can do the bag thing all the time. I never had that problem with my cheap boots bought on random sales with no real intent to wear them forever (only now I can think about being more sustainable, up until now I was moving a lot across countries all alone without a car, my whole buying philosophy had to be the literal opposite of buying for life, it had to be stuff I can give away guilt free before a move and buy again on destination).

Fryes — at least the harness style ones I have — can be a challenge to get on and off, but you get used to it and learn to just jam your feet in there. Or at least I did. And once they’re on they’re super-comfy.

As far as the soles go, I’ve never had that problem — even new, I’ve found they rough up quickly just walking on the sidewalk.

Yeah, I have the Harness 12R style and my experience putting them on was like yours. The original soles were fine, but I might see if the local shoe repair can replace them with a lug sole because that would be even better on snow/ice.

[KBecks]

I might have to check out Frye boots after my current Mephisto one's die in 2-4 years of constant use.

Yeah, these threads can get spendy.  I have three pairs of LaCanadiennes, bought 2nd hand and I'm sticking with them.  No need to shop.

[Kris]

I might have to check out Frye boots after my current Mephisto one's die in 2-4 years of constant use.

Check Poshmark -- it's definitely possible to find them for a great price. And again, Fryes basically never wear out (except, of course, for soles needing to be replaced now and again). They tend to run true to size, but if you aren't used to them, trying them on the first time you might be tempted to size up because of the aforementioned difficulty getting them on. Pro tip: don't.

[trashtalk]

Anyway to be honest I think really fancy trappings (car, holidays, lifestyle etc) are now seen as déclassé if you post about them on Instagram, or show off about them etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't indulge - by all means do so  - but it's one thing to enjoy something and it's another to show off about it. As the article posted above states, it's mostly inconspicuous consumption now that is practised by the rich, and conspicuous consumption is something that the "new middle class" do.

I’ve noticed that as well. Seems like a lot of folks are suddenly being very inconspicuous in their consumption habits. A fun people watching exercise is “spot the millionaire” at Aldi.

This surprised me the other at Aldi (arguably the "worst" one in our city but most convenient during the week) when I looked up and saw an older man in well worn but well made/cared for clothing who had that look about him.  We exchanged a brief look that could be described as recognition, maybe of common purpose, maybe class.

I find eyeglass frames to be a surprisingly common signifier. The wearers look pretty normal, might just be wearing sweatpants and flip-flops, but they are wearing very high-end stylish eyeglass frames. They can afford excellent ophthalmological care and purchase well-made frames at the associated glasses boutique, which suit their face shape and/or are not made of plastic by Zenni dot com.

And then they get on the plane and take their seat in first class or in the upper cabin on that 777 or whatever.

*Please note we get my kid's glasses from the excellent online glasses company Zenni dot com.

[Exflyboy]

Friends of ours are spenders.. Have a fabulous house, 2 new SUV's and earn about the same as what we used to.

A while ago the Hubby points out to me that "it really pisses him off that I'm retired"..

So I asked him.. Without telling me any numbers..

1) Do you know what is your current net worth?
2) Do you know What are your 401k's invested in?
3) Do you know What fees are you paying on your investments?
4) Do you fix your own cars? (He is a mechanical engineer BTW).
5) Do you max out your 401k contributions?
6) Have you paid off all consumer debt including your cars and school loans?

Answer to all of the above was "No"... My answer before I FIRED was "yes"... plus a lot more besides as it relates to #5.

So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?

Then his Wife went on this mini rant about how she thinks they are doing pretty well because they earn so much...

Ok then, We are multi millionaires who earn basically no income at all.. OK i didn't say that last part.

[frugalecon]

Friends of ours are spenders.. Have a fabulous house, 2 new SUV's and earn about the same as what we used to.

A while ago the Hubby points out to me that "it really pisses him off that I'm retired"..

So I asked him.. Without telling me any numbers..

1) Do you know what is your current net worth?
2) Do you know What are your 401k's invested in?
3) Do you know What fees are you paying on your investments?
4) Do you fix your own cars? (He is a mechanical engineer BTW).
5) Do you max out your 401k contributions?
6) Have you paid off all consumer debt including your cars and school loans?

Answer to all of the above was "No"... My answer before I FIRED was "yes"... plus a lot more besides as it relates to #5.

So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?

Then his Wife went on this mini rant about how she thinks they are doing pretty well because they earn so much...

Ok then, We are multi millionaires who earn basically no income at all.. OK i didn't say that last part.

Well, you do earn income...off of all of your little green soldiers!

[clarkfan1979]

I really do not spend my time trying to guess how much other people make and how they fund their lifestyle. However, I have definitely received comments from other people directed at me.

Most of the comments are negative implying that I'm cheap. "Why don't you buy a new car? It's time."

Then I buy a rental house and it's negative again. "Must be nice."

I bought a house in 2012 and a co-worker questioned my ability to purchase a home because I had a lower ranking title than him. "How can you buy a house? You are only a ...."

It turns out that banks only care about income and debt. They do not give loans based on the social status of a position.

[LennStar]

So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?

Because it makes them realize how shitty they are. And that is bad for your self-esteem, so you have to kick down someone else.

Normal human behavior. Just look at the Trump fans (the poor people coming from XXX who will work harder than me) or climate change (If that is true I have to stop being a wasteful idiot, so it can't be true).

[StarBright]

Perhaps pertinent to this thread: a while ago someone on the forum mentioned "The Old Money Book." It was 99 cents so I grabbed it on amazon and now follow the guy's blog. Others here might enjoy it! The latest post is on buying used cars.

https://theoldmoneybook.com/

[Metalcat]

Friends of ours are spenders.. Have a fabulous house, 2 new SUV's and earn about the same as what we used to.

A while ago the Hubby points out to me that "it really pisses him off that I'm retired"..

So I asked him.. Without telling me any numbers..

1) Do you know what is your current net worth?
2) Do you know What are your 401k's invested in?
3) Do you know What fees are you paying on your investments?
4) Do you fix your own cars? (He is a mechanical engineer BTW).
5) Do you max out your 401k contributions?
6) Have you paid off all consumer debt including your cars and school loans?

Answer to all of the above was "No"... My answer before I FIRED was "yes"... plus a lot more besides as it relates to #5.

So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?

Then his Wife went on this mini rant about how she thinks they are doing pretty well because they earn so much...

Ok then, We are multi millionaires who earn basically no income at all.. OK i didn't say that last part.

Why are you friends with people who get angry and rant at you for your personal finance choices?

[Cranky]

The people I have known who were Really Rich all had family trusts dedicated to education. They didn’t spend their income on that, but when they die some of their capital goes back into the trust. It’s like not buying your own furniture - some earlier person in your family did that, and you just have it reupholstered. Then you wear your grandfathers dinner jacket until it literally falls apart.

I think I am too "low class" to understand the furniture statement. When someone else here mentioned that a MP referenced a colleague who "bought his own furniture," I thought the person who said it meant that the truly rich would hire other people to buy furniture *for them*. But did he mean that you would **already** have inherited furniture so you would not need to buy any unless of a lower class?

This is a rather fascinating little detail.

I'm guessing it's about buying such high quality that it lasts forever, unlike cheap throwaway stuff like IKEA.

That's a very unfair Ikea comment!  We bought Ikea in volume when we were poor heading to middle class.  With 8 figures now we can have whatever we want - but some of that Ikea stuff has been with us for more than 25 years and is going strong.  Like new, looks great.  I'll probably pass a couple of them to the kids.  I think the frugal millionaire type give Ikea a big thumbs up!

Well, I've passed on a nice solid IKEA table to one of my kids, so some IKEA furniture is pretty decent. However, none of my family is even remotely in the Old Money category.

[DadJokes]

We went out to a bar with friends this weekend. It's been a while since I've been in a bar, but I know they charge $10+ for drinks. I decided to mustachian it up.

I had three pints of beer before I left the house.
The bar offered a free Natty Light if you were wearing local sports team colors on game day, so I made sure to support my team (who got curb-stomped that night).
Since it was Natty Light, none of the other friends wanted it, so they all gave me their free beer.

At that point, I had spent $3 and had three pints and five 10 oz. beers.

The bar also sold pitchers of beer. Natty Light was $6, and the next cheapest was $16. When I went with the Natty, one of my friends said, "We've learned a lot about DJ tonight." Yeah, you learned that it doesn't have to cost $50+ to have a good time.

[dandarc]

Life's too short to drink cheap-ass beer ;)

[DadJokes]

Life's too short to drink cheap-ass beer ;)

Lol, the secret is to drink "acceptable" beer at home beforehand. Once you are a little buzzed, your taste buds care a lot less what you are drinking.

[dandarc]

Life's too short to drink cheap-ass beer ;)

Lol, the secret is to drink "acceptable" beer at home beforehand. Once you are a little buzzed, your taste buds care a lot less what you are drinking.

So the doctor tells me "you've gotta stop drinking" back in early May. I'm thinking "I might have 3-5 drinks in a week, so I doubt that's it, but whatever, we'll give it a try - too young to have a fatty liver". So I more or less stopped drinking - had 4 drinks total on a 2 week vacation, a couple of beers after we got home from that and one or two glasses of wine when my mom visited. Sitting on < 10 drinks overall in 4+ months when September rolls around. My friend asks "want to go to the Raiders game this weekend?" Never been to an NFL game, so sure. Big time splurge, but whatever. I needed something to eat at the stadium and the beverage options at the only stand without an absurd line were lemonade for $7, and beers were only $9.50 (very good price at a major sporting event - horrifically expensive in almost any other scenario) - I bought a beer. I just asked for "the red one" as I could read the labels on all the other ones and knew I didn't want them. Turns out "the red one" is Budweiser - just regular Bud. Dammit if that was not the tastiest beer I've ever had. Switching from the double IPAs and imperial stouts to "water" seems to have reset my taste buds.

[LennStar]

Life's too short to drink cheap-ass beer ;)

Lol, the secret is to drink "acceptable" beer at home beforehand. Once you are a little buzzed, your taste buds care a lot less what you are drinking.

So the doctor tells me "you've gotta stop drinking" back in early May. I'm thinking "I might have 3-5 drinks in a week, so I doubt that's it, but whatever, we'll give it a try - too young to have a fatty liver". So I more or less stopped drinking - had 4 drinks total on a 2 week vacation, a couple of beers after we got home from that and one or two glasses of wine when my mom visited. Sitting on < 10 drinks overall in 4+ months when September rolls around. My friend asks "want to go to the Raiders game this weekend?" Never been to an NFL game, so sure. Big time splurge, but whatever. I needed something to eat at the stadium and the beverage options at the only stand without an absurd line were lemonade for $7, and beers were only $9.50 (very good price at a major sporting event - horrifically expensive in almost any other scenario) - I bought a beer. I just asked for "the red one" as I could read the labels on all the other ones and knew I didn't want them. Turns out "the red one" is Budweiser - just regular Bud. Dammit if that was not the tastiest beer I've ever had. Switching from the double IPAs and imperial stouts to "water" seems to have reset my taste buds.

Alcoholic or non alcoholic fatty liver?
Because you can get one from sugar too. Even if you never drink any alcohol. So stay away from all those oversugared soft drinks too ;)

[Exflyboy]

Friends of ours are spenders.. Have a fabulous house, 2 new SUV's and earn about the same as what we used to.

A while ago the Hubby points out to me that "it really pisses him off that I'm retired"..

So I asked him.. Without telling me any numbers..

1) Do you know what is your current net worth?
2) Do you know What are your 401k's invested in?
3) Do you know What fees are you paying on your investments?
4) Do you fix your own cars? (He is a mechanical engineer BTW).
5) Do you max out your 401k contributions?
6) Have you paid off all consumer debt including your cars and school loans?

Answer to all of the above was "No"... My answer before I FIRED was "yes"... plus a lot more besides as it relates to #5.

So why does it piss you off that I worked so hard and achieved my goal, when you have done pretty much nothing?

Then his Wife went on this mini rant about how she thinks they are doing pretty well because they earn so much...

Ok then, We are multi millionaires who earn basically no income at all.. OK i didn't say that last part.

Why are you friends with people who get angry and rant at you for your personal finance choices?

Good question. The guy is an old college friend of DW's and I just met them a couple of years back.

Personally I don't care if we are friends with them or not, I do find some amusement listening to some of their friends complain about the $700 it costs to service their new BMW..:)