5 ms·

Maybe a couple can survive changes in the housing and job market well enough that it they don’t mind the changes to their quality of life. But it very likely wi

by oposa 7y ago

Maybe a couple can survive changes in the housing and job market well enough that it they don’t mind the changes to their quality of life. But it very likely will be noticeable to their kids when other families have stronger finances and better access to housing and job markets. If you can’t save more than the difference to such markets what you get for the money is de facto less. It is sort of inflation by inequality. Then the theory doesn’t really hold and the frugality has just been to try and keep up. I am all for frugality but in many places it hasn’t worked out in the last 10 years because you haven’t had the same access to growth. Unless you already had assets in the first place.

CWuestefeld 7y ago
Huh? I guess I'm really not following your reply. It seems like you're saying that my willingness to keep a car for a dozen years and to bring my lunch rather than buying, and my wife having a $30 purse rather than a designer one, hasn't actually helped my financial situation. That seems a rather silly claim.
- wolco 7y ago
  You also close the door on opportunity. Your wife with a better purse could be making unboxing videos bring in thousands. Bringing vs buying could be an opportunity cost. I've worked in places that provided food perhaps a job change could help pay fof the lunch.
  - CWuestefeld 7y ago
    Apparently I'm wrong, and there's no point in trying to be economical. The evidence is wrong, and people who spend wantonly actually end up with more net available funds. Who woulda thunk it?
    - wolco 7y ago
      Life is not black and white and studies study only certain things. Don't consider yourself wrong because certain use-cases may lead to other outcomes. Being economical will save you money. At some point being too economical will mean you have to accept lower quality/value. There is a tradeoff. If your parents were being economical they might not have purchased a computer in the 80s.. It was seen as an expensive toy and not purchasing one would have saved them thousands. Long term the opportunity cost would outweigh the purchase cost. Buying a cheap kettle it might last 6 months paying a little more and you don't need to replace it for 5 years. There is an old British saying. Penny wise / pound foolish.
      - kgwgk 7y ago
        Sure, and you can also buy an expensive kettle today and replace it with an even more expensive Alexa-commanded kettle next-year. It’s silly to say that not going to Hawaii for a week or not buying a $1000 handbag is going to cost you more money down the road... Where is the opportunity cost in bringing your own lunch to work? Would he increase his chances of getting a better job if he stopped doing that in his current job?
        wolco 7y ago
        The person who throws out working stuff for something newer always has a pulse on what is hype and has the first mover's advantage. You can't be the first to write an amazon kettle app if you don't own the product. The bringing a lunch eating alone vs eating with the group does matter. A lot of company information gets shared during lunches, friendships are made and sometimes you get to interact with people from other parts of the company. This does give you a leg up when promotions come and or layoffs. Not going on vacation ever or not buying a purse doesn't seem like it would matter. It could if you are looking to join a social group where everyone goes and shares vacation photos or if the group goes purse hunting together. The point is any path could save/cost you as long as it fits with your goals and your situation. Saving that college money instead of spending it and going could allow you to buy a home sooner but it also could limit your career growth. Everything is a tradeoff.
        kgwgk 7y ago
        It also makes sense to buy lots of kettles and designer handbags when you're a merchant of kettles or luxury goods. You could make a case for anything, but some of those scenarios may be more relevant for the general population than others. I'm sure that for most people spending in real estate or education may be better than spending in fine wines, holidays or luxury cars. > Everything is a tradeoff. Absolutely. You trade work against money and money against stuff. You could have more money and less stuff. Which means having less stuff now and more stuff (or less need to work) in the future. Because money and debt are tools to move consumption between the present and the future. That's the point. It's a choice and nobody is limiting your capacity to consume in the future by forcing you to consume today.

by oposa 7y ago

CWuestefeld 7y ago

Huh? I guess I'm really not following your reply. It seems like you're saying that my willingness to keep a car for a dozen years and to bring my lunch rather than buying, and my wife having a $30 purse rather than a designer one, hasn't actually helped my financial situation. That seems a rather silly claim.

wolco 7y ago
You also close the door on opportunity. Your wife with a better purse could be making unboxing videos bring in thousands. Bringing vs buying could be an opportunity cost. I've worked in places that provided food perhaps a job change could help pay fof the lunch.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  Apparently I'm wrong, and there's no point in trying to be economical. The evidence is wrong, and people who spend wantonly actually end up with more net available funds. Who woulda thunk it?
  - wolco 7y ago
    Life is not black and white and studies study only certain things. Don't consider yourself wrong because certain use-cases may lead to other outcomes. Being economical will save you money. At some point being too economical will mean you have to accept lower quality/value. There is a tradeoff. If your parents were being economical they might not have purchased a computer in the 80s.. It was seen as an expensive toy and not purchasing one would have saved them thousands. Long term the opportunity cost would outweigh the purchase cost. Buying a cheap kettle it might last 6 months paying a little more and you don't need to replace it for 5 years. There is an old British saying. Penny wise / pound foolish.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      Sure, and you can also buy an expensive kettle today and replace it with an even more expensive Alexa-commanded kettle next-year. It’s silly to say that not going to Hawaii for a week or not buying a $1000 handbag is going to cost you more money down the road... Where is the opportunity cost in bringing your own lunch to work? Would he increase his chances of getting a better job if he stopped doing that in his current job?
      - wolco 7y ago
        The person who throws out working stuff for something newer always has a pulse on what is hype and has the first mover's advantage. You can't be the first to write an amazon kettle app if you don't own the product. The bringing a lunch eating alone vs eating with the group does matter. A lot of company information gets shared during lunches, friendships are made and sometimes you get to interact with people from other parts of the company. This does give you a leg up when promotions come and or layoffs. Not going on vacation ever or not buying a purse doesn't seem like it would matter. It could if you are looking to join a social group where everyone goes and shares vacation photos or if the group goes purse hunting together. The point is any path could save/cost you as long as it fits with your goals and your situation. Saving that college money instead of spending it and going could allow you to buy a home sooner but it also could limit your career growth. Everything is a tradeoff.
        kgwgk 7y ago
        It also makes sense to buy lots of kettles and designer handbags when you're a merchant of kettles or luxury goods. You could make a case for anything, but some of those scenarios may be more relevant for the general population than others. I'm sure that for most people spending in real estate or education may be better than spending in fine wines, holidays or luxury cars. > Everything is a tradeoff. Absolutely. You trade work against money and money against stuff. You could have more money and less stuff. Which means having less stuff now and more stuff (or less need to work) in the future. Because money and debt are tools to move consumption between the present and the future. That's the point. It's a choice and nobody is limiting your capacity to consume in the future by forcing you to consume today.