[kcowan]

And now I'm really really craving Indian food and it's only 6:45 am...

We do some Thai at home and Italian but go out for Indian and Greek. Also DW hates fish, so I tend to order that when out. BBQ ribs out but steak, pork, chicken in.

 

[Sherlock]

I've found Indian food to be some of the best value for the money. I've been to several different Indian all you can eat buffets in Toronto and it's usually around $10. The food is both tasty and healthy and not something I'd know how to make at home.

 

[Sampson]

It is all relative. Maybe a millionaire buys a 5-series instead of a 7-series. For them, that is frugal, saving $30k-$50k, for lower income earners, either purchase is outrageously expensive.

Keep in mind lifestyle creep/inflation is a serious risk for people. If you suddenly open the purse strings, you can get in trouble quick.

 

[Berubeland]

I think that frugality is more about choices.

You can't have everything, but you can give up crap you don't care about to purchase stuff that you do care about.

For instance I drive an old crappy car but my son has ballet class and music lessons and swimming lessons. We eat out lots. I work a lot. It isn't unusual for me to work 12-14 hour days 6-7 days per week. I'm not cooking when I get home and my hubby makes great chicken strips and Kraft Dinner if you get my drift.

Even when you don't spend money today to save it, you're saving on unnecessary "crap" you don't need to be able to buy stuff you do need in the future.

I practice the art of not wanting crap.:biggrin:

 

[brad]

It is all relative. Maybe a millionaire buys a 5-series instead of a 7-series.

When I was in my early 20s I spent a year working for a multi-millionaire in Westchester County, New York; his neighbours included the actor Frank Langella and Lila Acheson Wallace, the founder of Readers Digest. He drove a 15-year-old Volkswagen Beetle; it was his only car. But he had a part-time butler who served food and greeted visitors at the door.

As Berubeland says, it's about choices: what he drove wasn't important to him, so he didn't spend money there. He was a very busy guy and his wife had passed away some years earlier, so the butler was useful.

 

[Spidey]

I think we should draw the distinction between frugal and cheap. Frugality should be something that ultimately enhances your life and that of your family in a measurable way.

 

[brad]

Frugality should be something that ultimately enhances your life and that of your family in a measurable way.

Maybe, but if I'm a millionaire who likes my 15-year-old Volkswagen and sees no need to upgrade to something fancier, is that frugality or cheapness?

I think frugality can involve spending money on what matters to you and not wasting money on things that don't.

As I said upthread for me it's all about avoiding waste. I can afford to buy a much nicer car than my rather beat-up 2005 Toyota Matrix, but it would be a waste because I don't drive much and all I want is reliable transportation and enough room for my gear. I can afford to buy a nice new suit but since I only wear a suit two or three times per year it would be a waste...therefore I still wear the suit I bought in 1992. It hasn't started to look threadbare yet, but when it does I'll get something that's well-made enough to last me the next 25 years. It doesn't have to be fancy. I can afford to buy a big TV but it would be a waste because we don't watch TV; instead we rent movies and watch them on my 15" laptop, which turns out to be perfectly adequate for our purposes (as long as we plug in external speakers: big sound compensates for small screen).

 

[Nemo2]

@brad: +1 We are almost clones.

 

[Jon_Snow]

It is my intention to enter an ultra-frugal mode in the first few years of my early retirement - a grow/catch your own food (I might go hungry when the fishing is poor), walk/bike everywhere, type of lifestyle. Part of the decision is based on not wanting to draw down my nest egg in its early stages - but the idea of living on as little $ as possible (at least for a few years) very appealing to me. A test of character of sorts.

 

[Spidey]

Maybe, but if I'm a millionaire who likes my 15-year-old Volkswagen and sees no need to upgrade to something fancier, is that frugality or cheapness?

There isn't a clear answer to that question - it would depend on how this decision impacts you and your family's overall satisfaction. If you enjoy the car, perhaps like tinkering with mechanical stuff and wouldn't get much satisfaction from a newer vehicle then the decision would make sense. However, if you are constantly taking it into the shop (which may be impacting family activities, etc.), worry about a break-down on longer trips and would really be more comfortable in a newer model, then it would be silly to keep driving it when a newer vehicle would enhance the lives of yourself and your family and is well within the range of affordability.

 

[brad]

Spidey - I agree totally. I think in this particular case, my millionaire employer was a widower in his early 70s, didn't drive very much, and loved his old Bug. So it made sense for him to keep it.

Whenever I think of cheap vs. frugal I think of an acquaintance of mine whose car would sometimes run out of gas while he was driving around shopping for the cheapest gas station. He almost certainly spent more in gas driving around in his search than he saved by getting the lowest price, plus there's the inconvenience and time hassle of running out of gas. That for me is the very definition of cheap.

 

[Four Pillars]

Whenever I think of cheap vs. frugal I think of an acquaintance of mine whose car would sometimes run out of gas while he was driving around shopping for the cheapest gas station. He almost certainly spent more in gas driving around in his search than he saved by getting the lowest price, plus there's the inconvenience and time hassle of running out of gas. That for me is the very definition of cheap.

In my opinion, that is the definition of stupid.

 

[MoneyGal]

Ha! Exactly what I was going to say. each: (I have no idea why we have a "peach" smilie.)

 

[Square Root]

This debate usually comes back to tastes and personal utility. Not really worth trying to convince others in these matters. The meaning of the word frugal is open to interpretation. We can all agree however that waste is to be avoided.
I just don't agree that frugality ( defined as restricted spending under one's means) is virtuous in it's own right.

 

[brad]

I just don't agree that frugality ( defined as restricted spending under one's means) is virtuous in it's own right.

I don't know if we've been saying it's virtuous or even something to aspire to. It's kind of a personal ethic, like the hiker's ethic of "take only photographs, leave only footprints." If that appeals to you, you follow it; if it doesn't appeal, you don't. But I don't think frugality is only "important" for poor people. A wealthy person who wants to leave behind a legacy, or wants to donate a large portion of his or her income to charity, may find it very important to be frugal. That's one of my motivations for being frugal, although in truth I'm mainly frugal by accident--I'm just not interested in spending money for the sake of spending money, nor am I attracted by the things that many people with money to burn spend their money on. I want to keep my life simple and my home uncluttered, which translates to not spending nearly as much as I could. That doesn't make me virtuous or smart.

 

[Square Root]

I agree many people are frugal for many reasons. Those you list are valid. I would say though that giving money away is just another form of expenditure. In any event I think the decision to be frugal is one of taste or disposition. I do think the more important question is "living within your means" however big or small that may be. This of course is generally a simpler question for someone in the decumulation phase, such as I.

 

[Sampson]

There are so many 'human' variables here. I'm sure many people here enjoy getting more for their money.
, whether it be food, cars, or butlers. For me, an important variable is value. You could have the same amount of money, give it to two different people, and the amount of joy, material goods, or whatever they are buying will be different. The frugal person presumably gets 'more' for their money.

Another issue here is whether a person is a spender or saver. We've had this discussion in other threads and it seems this factor never changes in some regardless of personal income.

 

[CashMoney101]

I think the point is that, if you are in the habit of spending all your income, you will probably continue to do that even as your income rises and you won't end up really improving your situation as much through the added income. I found this to be true for myself in my 20s-- a raise or a big commission cheque was a reason to go buy stuff I didn't really need but wanted and hadn't had enough cash to buy before. Now that I view those events instead as opportunities to increase my savings and investments because I have trained myself to live within my means, a windfall is not just a short term one off event. It is leveraged for greater security and in fact increased in value by the time the money needs to be used. That is the rub-- if your whole plan for getting ahead is to constantly increase your income so you can increase your lifestyle, you are in fact on a treadmill and how ARE you going to get off of it? No matter how much money you make, it is beneficial to slow down and realize, you won't get ahead if all of this month's money is spent before the next paycheque comes. This is why I think frugality is important for everyone, it sets you up to really benefit from the increase in income that is sure to come as you age, get wiser, and advance in your career.

 

[Square Root]

@ cashmoney. What you describe is not so much a lack of frugality but a lack of saving towards financial independence or retirement. Living below your means during your working life is how you save for retirement. This probably involves frugality but not necessarily. Towards the end of my working life I made a very high salary, saved a lot of it but also spent a lot of money. I would not view myself during these years as frugal but I sure saved a lot. I realize I may not be representative. To be " frugal" during this time would not have made much sense in my view. Also, now that I am retired the important thing s living within my means. In general this may or may not require frugality. In my case it does not and I therefore see no virtue in frugality for its own sake. Maybe I should let this topic go though.

 

[Cal]

I think that what is considered frugal can vary depending upon your income. As buying your lunch at subway might be considered frugal to some, as they did not have fine dining. Yet for others, eating out in any form could be considered splurging with their money.

Also, I don't believe frugality is always about the money. In some ways, phsycologically it can be almost like a game.