Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure how you define "penny-pinching" either, but Merriam Webster defines frugal as "characterized by or reflecting economy in the use of resources" where economy is "thrifty and efficient use of material resources".
Thus, the original premise of this thread is absurd. Any strategy that produces optimal ROI is obviously an efficient use of available resources and is therefore fully compatible with frugality. These approaches are not mutually exclusive.
Did you read the article? All the article says is instead of canceling cable and drinking one less latte per week, just make a higher income. While the term "frugal" by dictionary definition may not be the best, the concept is still valid.
Personally, I think changing your lifestyle to save a measly $6/week is absurd.
I'm not sure how you define "penny-pinching" either, but Merriam Webster defines frugal as "characterized by or reflecting economy in the use of resources" where economy is "thrifty and efficient use of material resources".
Sure, but this is the general definition of the word, in relation to lifestyles frugality is really about penny-pinching not broader "efficient use of available resources". Just look at the topics in this forum, the vast majority are focused more or less on penny-pinching.
The term isn't particularly concrete, hence all the disagreement when people try to flesh out a concrete meaning.
Did you read the article? All the article says is instead of canceling cable and drinking one less latte per week, just make a higher income. While the term "frugal" by dictionary definition may not be the best, the concept is still valid.
Personally, I think changing your lifestyle to save a measly $6/week is absurd.
For many that's $6 per day.
Lets say 5x per week.
$30 per week, 52 weeks per year.
That's $1,560
I remember when ROTH IRA's first came out. That's about HALF the annual contribution they were recommending to make you a 'millionaire'
It's like Dave Ramsey's analysis of buying a new car vs buying an older model... it's something like a million bux also.
Did you read the article? All the article says is instead of canceling cable and drinking one less latte per week, just make a higher income. While the term "frugal" by dictionary definition may not be the best, the concept is still valid.
Here's my issue with this article:
It isn't news that a higher discretionary income allows you to spend more money. Reducing spending and seeking higher income can and should be done concurrently. If a higher income is actually achieved, it's easy enough to start buying lattes again. Let's face it: if you can't afford to buy lattes on your current income, you still can't afford it with a plan to increase that income. You can only afford it if that plan actually succeeds.
I strongly suspect that there are more than a few people who will say "Oh, I just need to turn my hobby into a second job so I can earn more money! No need to cancel the ultimate TV package!" and continue driving themselves into debt without actually changing their financial situation.
Quote:
Sure, but this is the general definition of the word, in relation to lifestyles frugality is really about penny-pinching not broader "efficient use of available resources". Just look at the topics in this forum, the vast majority are focused more or less on penny-pinching.
The term isn't particularly concrete, hence all the disagreement when people try to flesh out a concrete meaning.
If the author had written an article about how cutting a million coupons doesn't save enough money to be worth the time, that would be fine. But the message I got was that you shouldn't be careful about spending money, regardless of whether you have it now or not.
I remember when ROTH IRA's first came out. That's about HALF the annual contribution they were recommending to make you a 'millionaire'
It would take a return of 20%/year for ~$750 to compound to one million over 30 years. Saving $6/day would realistically net you around $30,000 in today's dollars in 30 years.
It would take a return of 20%/year for ~$750 to compound to one million over 30 years. Saving $6/day would realistically net you around $30,000 in today's dollars in 30 years.
Your the only one saying ~$750, or 30 years.
But your obvious lack of reading comprehension has already been proven in earlier comments! (Which is why I largely ignore you)
If you're 23 years old and deposit $3,000 per year (that's only $250 each month!) in a Roth IRA earning and 8% average annual return, you will have saved $985,749 by the time you are 65 years old due to the power of compounding. If you make a few extra contributions, it's clear that a $1 million goal is well within reach. Also keep in mind that this is mostly interest - your $3,000 contributions only add up to $126,000.
Your comment was about retirement, 30 years is the typical time period used to make calculations for such. In terms of the $750, I parsed your sentence wrong, but the point is not changed. $3,000/year saved over your working life (~30) will not make you a millionaire, in this case you'd end up with around $150,000 in today's dollars, maybe $200,000 if you're lucky. A far cry from one million...
Did you read the article? All the article says is instead of canceling cable and drinking one less latte per week, just make a higher income. While the term "frugal" by dictionary definition may not be the best, the concept is still valid.
Personally, I think changing your lifestyle to save a measly $6/week is absurd.
Agree !
You could be on the other side of the dirt tomorrow
you never know live life smart and be happy
Your comment was about retirement, 30 years is the typical time period used to make calculations for such. In terms of the $750, I parsed your sentence wrong, but the point is not changed. $3,000/year saved over your working life (~30) will not make you a millionaire, in this case you'd end up with around $150,000 in today's dollars, maybe $200,000 if you're lucky. A far cry from one million...
I don't care what others do. I started investing in an IRA (This was before ROTH) The year I turned from 14 to 15.
And I've never seen anything about '30 years' (Not saying that it doesn't exist.) But from 20 to 50.... Not too many people retiring at 50.
As to the numbers... argue with the article, not me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
