What does it mean to be frugal? (sell, best, value)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by London Girl

Conversely, many of the "frugal' people I know are FAR from broke. My in-laws for example have always been frugal - as a result they now have a high degree of financial stability and are also in a position where if they decide to take a vacation to Europe or Australia they can do so without needing to borrow any money to facilitate their trip.....

There are frugal people with plenty of money, but from my observation frugality usually correlates with being broke. Not always, but usually. Regardless, comparing personal experiences with "frugal" people is not all that fruitful.

Having the money to take a vacation is not exactly saying much though.

Originally Posted by London Girl

However, those experiences are incredibly pertinent to that person's approach to frugality

Like I said, your experiences certainly shape you...but that speaks nothing about how rational it is to base your views on your past experience. I still have one living grandparent and she does some odd stuff that is undoubtedly based on her growing up during the depression, but a lot of is pretty irrational in today's environment.

Originally Posted by London Girl

the actual % increase from 1950 (14.5%) to 2009 (17.5%) is actually a 20.6% rise - which I think is pretty high, (although understandable given the increased availability of credit).

Its not that high considering there were not even credit cards in 1950, also consumer credit changes depending on the economic environment 17.5% is not that much higher than the historic average.

Originally Posted by London Girl

Now if you are assuming that all frugal people religiously pump money into their retirement accounts then sure, they may have lost money "on paper".

Yes, the good old "its only paper loses" argument, but this misses the point. If they had paid better attention to the markets, they could have avoided the losses while still receiving the majority of the gains after the markets recovered. The amount of money we are talking about here is pretty huge, more than a lifetime of pinching pennies.

Originally Posted by London Girl

If you would encourage others, why would you not do it yourself?

Because I receive no tangible benefit from my personal contribution.

Originally Posted by London Girl

Maybe you don't drink beer. If you did, wouldn't you spare some couch time once a month to dump them off and collect the deposit? Or would you prefer to just throw them in the trash? Collectively we will all pay the price for pollution and waste. Fortunately not all individuals share your selfish and lazy approach to the environment.

I recycle my cans, but only because California charges 5 cents a can which you get back at a recycle center. The place where I shop down the street recycles them and I can just dupe them in a tub and get them weighted so it ends up not taking too much time. But when I lived in Pennsylvania I did not bother, there were only costs and no benefits.

Yes, fortunately some people are willing to spend their time recycling, etc for ideological reasons. Like I said I encourage it = )

[Gandalara]

Originally Posted by user_id

There are frugal people with plenty of money, but from my observation frugality usually correlates with being broke.

Your observations (such as they are) are wrong.

Please note. Short answer. To the point.

In your very first post you said, "I started to think just what is meant by "frugal"." By reading just a few of your posts, it's obvious you started this thread with your mind already made up.

You don't like our individual definitions. So go watch your pounds. Or go start a new thread titled How I like to Waste My Money.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

Not at all. I gave the denotation of the word (i.e. "what the word means in the language") and I supported it with all of my posts.

No, what you did was explain your religion of frugality which is rather different than how the word is generally used in the language.

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

You did suggest it was difficult to make a hamburger. You call it "work" which implies it is difficult. You also insisted it takes you 20-30 minutes to do it, which implies it is difficult for you

This is silly, you put words in my mouth and try to justify it with this gibberish? Under this bizarre logic, making a hamburger is difficult because a chef at a burger restaurant does it as work.

Don't pretend I said things I did not, real simple.

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

And eating out can be part of a frugal lifestyle, but cooking your own food is a must for a frugal lifestyle, except perhaps in very unique situations.

You continuously contradict yourself, you just stated that you consider more than just raw time spent yet claim that cooking your own food is a must "except very unique situations". Rubbish, not enjoying cooking is not a "very unique situation" and if you are going to include to what degree someone enjoys a task then eating out a lot can be "frugal" for anybody that finds it unpleasant to cook, which again is far from "very unique".

You are also ignoring another rather important issue, cooking is a skill, one that not everyone has. The skill takes awhile to learn and some people are better at it than others, I personally would have little desire eating the slob many "frugal" people make day-to-day. But again, this is part of you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On one side its relative to the person and on the other there are some things that "must be done, except very unique situations".

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

So why do you make up and present as fact that "any ice cream that does not have as its first ingredient "cream" (they do call it ice cream for a reason) is not premium in any sense"??? The fact of the matter is that "premium" ice creams have a high butterfat content, regardless of whether "cream" is the first ingredient or not.

The amount of fat in "cream" is regulated, likewise in milk. The order in which the ingredients appear therefore gives you a good idea about the nature of the ice cream. Given that the second ingredient in Cold stone is non-fat milk its clear that the the ice cream has a high cream content, Turkey Hill or the majority of what you purchase at the grocery has the minimum to be considered ice cream. That is how they keep the costs done (the cream is the most expensive ingredient, obviously).

You seem to want to believe your cheap Turkey Hill is some how "premium" ice cream, its not its just your standard grocery store ice cream. But if you enjoy it that is all that really matters.

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

That's fine. But that wasn't your argument until just now. Until just now, you said this about store-bought ice cream.

No, I mentioned it a number of times. I also stand by what I said before, the crap from the grocery store does not compare to fresh premium ice cream (regardless of whether the company, like cold stone, used emulsifiers or not).

You are fixated on the ingredient lists despite me pointing out in my original post that cold stone does in fact use emulsifiers, yet this ignores an important issue. Cold stone ice cream is made fresh daily, the stuff in the grocery store is not. Regardless of ingredients, cold stone is better because its ahem....made fresh daily. Just how a recently butchered steak is better than one that has been in your freezer for 3 months.

Anyhow, speaking of waste could you please stop wasting database space with the rants? Surely you can say what you want without petty insults, etc?

[jlawrence01]

Originally Posted by user_id

Anyhow, speaking of waste could you please stop wasting database space with the rants? Surely you can say what you want without petty insults, etc?

And will you be following your own request.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Gandalara

Your observations (such as they are) are wrong.

Not sure what you are saying, are you saying I've imagined what I've observed or they don't represent the average frugal person well? Not sure what to say to the former, but with the latter how would you know? Because it does not match your experience with such people? Obviously I'd suggest your observations are wrong...so who is right? Personal observation is not going to tell us...

Originally Posted by Gandalara

In your very first post you said, "I started to think just what is meant by "frugal"." By reading just a few of your posts, it's obvious you started this thread with your mind already made up.

I certainly started the thread with a particular idea in mind, namely that there was not a meaningful general notion being used by the folks talking about being "frugal" and it more so represents a certain life style that includes home cooking, etc among other things.

This thread has just confirmed by original impression though.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by jlawrence01

And will you be following your own request.

Certainly, I don't rant and insult people when responding to them.

[London Girl]

There are frugal people with plenty of money, but from my observation frugality usually correlates with being broke. Not always, but usually. Regardless, comparing personal experiences with "frugal" people is not all that fruitful.

Having the money to take a vacation is not exactly saying much though.

And yet you make a sweeping statement that, from your observation, "frugality usually correlates with being broke". Naturally other people have different observations to you and will share those observations accordingly.

I'm sure a couple of weeks in a condo in Florida is affordable for many, I would not necessarily say the same of 3 weeks in Australia, two weeks in Italy and ten days in Kauai - which are the vacations my in-laws took between February 08 and June 09 They have actually visited over 60 countries in the last 17 years. Their idea of frugality is not dining out frequently at mediocre restaurants, not changing their car every year and not buying crap that they don't need. They spend the money they save on seeing as much of the world as they can, and having a good time while they do it.

Its not that high considering there were not even credit cards in 1950, also consumer credit changes depending on the economic environment 17.5% is not that much higher than the historic average.

Again, you conveniently omit to consider the role that MEW has played in replacing CONSUMER debt with HOUSEHOLD debt for many people Look at those graphs again. Are you seriously of the opinion that MEW has not had a tremendous impact on household debt and the proportion of household debt to GBP in the last 6 years? You can split hairs and bang on about the RE bubble - yes, OK, that's what started all this - but the MEW issue is part and parcel of the RE bubble and is entirely relevant to your assertions about consumer debt being "not that much higher than the historic average".

Yes, the good old "its only paper loses" argument, but this misses the point. If they had paid better attention to the markets, they could have avoided the losses while still receiving the majority of the gains after the markets recovered. The amount of money we are talking about here is pretty huge, more than a lifetime of pinching pennies

.

Again, you make a sweeping assumption that frugality=ignorance of the markets.

My point, and we are talking about FRUGALITY was to compare a PAPER LOSS scenario for the following:

A "paper loss" on a retirement/savings/whatever account of your "Frugal Economic Dimwit" that may or may not recover its value.

To:

A "paper" (if the house has not been sold and the loss not crystalised) loss on a MEW'ed property for my "Spendthrift MEWer at the RE Casino" where the nominal value of that property has fallen (and, in some cases, to use your own words "The amount of money we are talking about here is pretty huge, more than a lifetime of pinching pennies") - CA or NV anyone?.

The hapless refinancer now not only has less "equity" but also a bigger DEBT to service. Which in turn, may leave that borrower unable to save any money - or pay down any additional consumer debt for that matter.

Because I receive no tangible benefit from my personal contribution.

I recycle my cans, but only because California charges 5 cents a can which you get back at a recycle center. The place where I shop down the street recycles them and I can just dupe them in a tub and get them weighted so it ends up not taking too much time. But when I lived in Pennsylvania I did not bother, there were only costs and no benefits.

Yes, fortunately some people are willing to spend their time recycling, etc for ideological reasons. Like I said I encourage it = )

So, when you went to your local supermarket in PA, there were no can/bottle recycling facilities?

If your attitude to life is such that the only thing that matters to you is, well, you - and your actions and thoughts are calculated only from the blinkered perspective of only doing things if they benefit yourself - then I actually feel quite sorry for you.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by London Girl

And yet you make a sweeping statement that, from your observation, "frugality usually correlates with being broke".

Huh? I'm making the statement that "from my observation frugality usually correlates with being broke". No idea why you are referring to it as a "sweeping statement" are you suggesting I'm wrong about my personal experiences? I don't know...but I was not making a statement of fact, hence the "from my observation". My personal experience, just as yours, could not represent the general picture well.

Originally Posted by London Girl

They have actually visited over 60 countries in the last 17 years. Their idea of frugality is not dining out frequently at mediocre restaurants, not changing their car every year and not buying crap that they don't need. They spend the money they save on seeing as much of the world as they can, and having a good time while they do it.

Again, here is the problem you appear to be demonizing one type of spending while praising another. People enjoy different things, some would rather save their money to travel and others would rather spend it at "mediocre" restaurants, buying new cars, etc. These are personal choices. In fact personally, I'm not that interested in traveling.

Originally Posted by London Girl

Again, you conveniently omit to consider the role that MEW has played in replacing CONSUMER debt with HOUSEHOLD debt for many people....

Should have said this before, but let's keep that topic to the other thread its not relevant here.

Originally Posted by London Girl

Again, you make a sweeping assumption that frugality=ignorance of the markets.

Sorry, but I never suggested this, rather I gave this as an example of how many frugal people lost pounds while saving pennies. One that I think was pretty common.

Also, I'm unclear why you are talking about people that irresponsibly took out equity form their homes.

Originally Posted by London Girl

So, when you went to your local supermarket in PA, there were no can/bottle recycling facilities?

No, there was not. The city's waste management picked up recyclables every so often, but I have no idea what the schedule was because I never recycled.

Originally Posted by London Girl

If your attitude to life is such that the only thing that matters to you is, well, you - and your actions and thoughts are calculated only from the blinkered perspective of only doing things if they benefit yourself - then I actually feel quite sorry for you.

Yep, that is my attitude and oh no...you feel sorry for me? How can I go on with my life now? Should be obvious, but your worldview means nothing to other people.

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by user_id

No, what you did was explain your religion of frugality which is rather different than how the word is generally used in the language.

What I explained was not a "religion". You should learn what the word means before throwing it out so casually.

"Frugal" has the denotation (actual definition) of reducing costs (which can be more than just financial) and waste prudently. The word is used that way (denotatively) "in the language". It is also used more inaccurately with connotation that it means being cheap. The connotation of a word is neither 100% accurate nor 100% inaccurate because it entails a subjective addition to the denotation. In short, I use the word "frugal" denotatively and it is indeed used that way "in the language", if by nothing other than the fact that it is explicitly defined that way.

It seems you want to argue that the connotation has supplanted the denotation of the word. That is impossible across the board, but you could have made a valid argument for that being the case with many people. Instead, you want to go to the extreme of insisting that the word is only ever used connotatively, and that's wrong.

Originally Posted by user_id

This is silly, you put words in my mouth and try to justify it with this gibberish?

I didn't put words in your mouth, I even quoted you.

Originally Posted by user_id

Under this bizarre logic, making a hamburger is difficult because a chef at a burger restaurant does it as work.

Under THAT bizarre logic, flipping a light switch is work, because a manager at a restaurant does it as work.

Originally Posted by user_id

Don't pretend I said things If did not, real simple.

I'm not. You described making a burger as "work". "Work" has different meaninngs which are clarified by the context in which it's used. The context you gave stressed the difficulty and amount of time involved; only later, when that argument began falling apart for you, did you bring up that it was unpleasant.

Originally Posted by user_id

You continuously contradict yourself, you just stated that you consider more than just raw time spent yet claim that cooking your own food is a must "except very unique situations". Rubbish, not enjoying cooking is not a "very unique situation" and if you are going to include to what degree someone enjoys a task then eating out a lot can be "frugal" for anybody that finds it unpleasant to cook, which again is far from "very unique".

The "most unique situations" were in relation to those times when cooking one's own food is too difficult or costly in other ways. For example, sometimes when I travel for business, it is more frugal to order every meal from a restaurant, since there is no financial cost to me.

Another thing you have to realize is that there is a difference between "not enjoying" something and outright hating it. Most people I know don't particularly enjoy cooking or doing other simply chores, but most of them don't hate those things so much that they won't just do it themselves. I don't enjoy doing laundry, but it's not so bad that I loathe it and refuse to do it.

Originally Posted by user_id

You are also ignoring another rather important issue, cooking is a skill, one that not everyone has.

Again, there are varying levels of skill. Woodworking is a skill, but a lot of people can pound a nail or use a saw and do some basic woodworking with no training. It doesn't "take a while" to learn how to pound a nail, but it does take a while to learn how to make a piece of furniture. Likewise with cooking; it takes a while to learn how to make a gourmet dinner, but just about anyone can turn on a stove, heat up a pan, and cook something in the pan.

Originally Posted by user_id

The skill takes awhile to learn and some people are better at it than others, I personally would have little desire eating the slob many "frugal" people make day-to-day.

You don't have to make the slop other people make day-to-day. You can make the slop YOU like and have it day-to-day.

Originally Posted by user_id

But again, this is part of you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On one side its relative to the person and on the other there are some things that "must be done, except very unique situations".

So the concept you're not understanding (out of ignorance or obstinance, I'm not sure which, but I think it's the latter) is that within boundaries there can be relativity. There can be absolutes and relativity at the same time.

Someone can be a "baseball player" if he plays baseball. He can play on his tee-ball team, or in the Majors, or a minor league team, or high school, or college, or just informally with a group of others. It's relative to the person. But the absolute is that he must play baseball. A 5-year-old tee ball player is every bit a "baseball player" as Derek Jeter is. They both do things differently, relative to their specific situations, but they both meet the criteria to be described as "baseball players".

Likewise, different people can be "frugal" and do things which are relative to their respective situations. As long as both are doing things which reduce overall costs and waste, relative to their specific situations, they can both be "frugal".

What part of this do you still not understand?

Originally Posted by user_id

The amount of fat in "cream" is regulated, likewise in milk.

What's the regulation?? Do you have a reference, or is this something you're making up?

Cream can be light, medium, heavy, or extra-heavy (or whipping), just as "milk" can mean skim, 1%, 2%, or whole. The differences have to do with how much butterfat is in each.

Originally Posted by user_id

The order in which the ingredients appear therefore gives you a good idea about the nature of the ice cream. Given that the second ingredient in Cold stone is non-fat milk its clear that the the ice cream has a high cream content, Turkey Hill or the majority of what you purchase at the grocery has the minimum to be considered ice cream. That is how they keep the costs done (the cream is the most expensive ingredient, obviously).

It is the butterfat content that matters. If the cream content is high but the cream used is light cream, the butterfat may be lower in that ice cream than in another one which uses less of a much heavier cream (more butterfat).

Another thing you are igoring is overrun. If Cold Stone's overrun is higher, it means they pump more air into the product. The more air, the less of each ingredient. So it's entirely possible, even likely, that while cream is the biggest ingredient in that ice cream, they may have less cream overall because air has displaced it. Ice cream with 100% overrun is half air, so the amount of cream used is half the amount it would be with no overrun.

So, yes, cream might be the most expensive ingredient, but with enough overrun they can put less cream in their ice cream than another brand with lower overrun who lists cream second. And that's not to mention what level of cream is used - light cream is much cheaper than heavy cream.

Originally Posted by user_id

You seem to want to believe your cheap Turkey Hill is some how "premium" ice cream, its not its just your standard grocery store ice cream. But if you enjoy it that is all that really matters.

Ice cream is considered "premium" when the butterfat is at least 14%. When it's at least 16%, it's considered "super-premium".

Turkey Hill is "premium" ice cream, whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not. And it has fewer additives than your Cold Stone ice cream, despite your earlier lies about "preservatives" and "chemicals" being in it.

Why did you and why do you continue to lie about this? Can't you admit when you were wrong? Do you have any integrity at all???

Originally Posted by user_id

No, I mentioned it a number of times. I also stand by what I said before, the crap from the grocery store does not compare to fresh premium ice cream (regardless of whether the company, like cold stone, used emulsifiers or not).

Why do you stand by what you said when the fact is that "the crap from the grocery store" has fewer additives than the crap you obstinately insist is better??? If you hate additives, "chemicals", "preservatives" as you said earlier, then why do you insist the ice cream with more additives is "better"??? It is obvious now that you are just being obstinate.

Originally Posted by user_id

You are fixated on the ingredient lists despite me pointing out in my original post that cold stone does in fact use emulsifiers, yet this ignores an important issue. Cold stone ice cream is made fresh daily, the stuff in the grocery store is not. Regardless of ingredients, cold stone is better because its ahem....made fresh daily. Just how a recently butchered steak is better than one that has been in your freezer for 3 months.

I focused on the ingredient list because you first focused on it. You insisted that the store-bought ice cream contained "preservatives" and "chemicals" which your "fresh" cold stone ice cream did not.

Then when you realized you were wrong, you called the additives in cold stone "emulsifiers", which was wrong again. They are not all "emulsifiers", by the way. Mono and diglycerides are emulsifiers, but you tried to single that out as the "bad" additive. But annato is a coloring, vanillin is a chemical (not an extract or natural product), and cellulose gum is another chemical. So, right there are 2 chemicals and an artificial color that are added to Cold Stone but not to Turkey Hill, yet you insisted that your "fresh" ice cream (of which you gave Cold Stone as an example) has no chemicals or additives (other than "emulsifiers") and that Turkey Hill store-bought ice cream does.

As for Cold Stone making their ice cream fresh daily, I don't doubt that. The question is, do they sell the freshly made ice cream the day it's made??? I mean, Turkey Hill makes their ice cream fresh daily, also... It just doesn't get to the consumer in the same day. For all anyone knows, Cold Stone makes their ice cream fresh daily, stores it, and sells it as they need to but days later. Maybe they make fresh ice cream daily so that they will have a 3-day supply, or one-week supply on hand, and then sell the oldest of the stock as they go. First in, first out. They never say that the ice cream they make fresh daily is sold the same day, they just say it's made fresh daily on premises.

Originally Posted by user_id

Anyhow, speaking of waste could you please stop wasting database space with the rants? Surely you can say what you want without petty insults, etc?

Why? You're wasting database space with your own rants, petty insults, and trolling. When you stop, I'll stop, too.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

What I explained was not a "religion". You should learn what the word means before throwing it out so casually.

"Frugal" has the denotation (actual definition) of reducing costs (which can be more than just financial) and waste prudently.

The definition in the dictionary says nothing about "reduce costs", rather it states that frugality is the economical use of resources. This matches how most people use the word in every day language, for example upon seeing someone converse something you say "he is being frugal".

That is every day language, the new trendy thing they call "frugal" seems to be wrapped in some of the things you've mentioned, e.g., being "green", home cooking, etc etc. But this forum seems to be more about penny-pinching.

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

I'm not. You described making a burger as "work". "Work" has different meaninngs which are clarified by the context in which it's used. The context you gave stressed the difficulty and amount of time involved;

Sorry, but I never suggested it was difficult I stated that I consider it work or a chore. And I do.

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

Likewise with cooking; it takes a while to learn how to make a gourmet dinner, but just about anyone can turn on a stove, heat up a pan, and cook something in the pan.

You are of course missing the point. Eating at home in this case requires a significant sacrifice, namely the food at home is not nearly as good as what you can get out.

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

You can make the slop YOU like and have it day-to-day.

I could, but it would take significantly more time. With cooking the number of people being served is a very important factor. Usually its not much harder to cook for 2 vs 5, as a result it often makes sense for a house wife with a family of 5 to cook at home rather than eat out. Where as the same meal may not make sense for a couple to make instead of eating it out. And yet another important issue is regarding how varied your diet is, if you like to eat a variety of foods then making them at home is rather expensive as there will be little commonality between the ingredients.

These are yet more reasons why home cooking does not always make sense from a cost vs time analysis. Contrary to your suggest that home cooking is a must except for "very unique situations".

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

So the concept you're not understanding (out of ignorance or obstinance, I'm not sure which, but I think it's the latter) is that within boundaries there can be relativity. There can be absolutes and relativity at the same time.

You're right I don't understand this, either something is relative or its absolute. Either you are going to base "what is frugal" on the personal preferences, means, etc of the individual or you are not.

Yet you go back of forth here, you suggest its relative yet insist that "except very unique situations" frugality involves home cooking.

Your example of baseball is irrelevant, you are suggesting a concrete definition for frugality. The question is whether the "costs" are analyzed from the individual perspective or in some more sort of absolute perspective.

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

just as "milk" can mean skim, 1%, 2%, or whole.

You'll notice in the ingredients list both "milk" and "non-fat milk" why do you imagine that is the case? Would not mixing the two be "milk" of some lower fat content? Perhaps, they just wanted to be amusing.

Ranting so much about the ingredient lists, you'd think you would have checked the fat content. It confirms just want I stated, per 100 grams cold stone has 8.9 grams of saturated fat where as cheapy Turkey Hill ice cream you are buying as 6.7 grams. That's 25% less fat, of course anybody with taste buds would figure that without looking at anything.

By the way, I found it a bit amusing that your own beloved Turkey Hill makes natural ice cream. Now....if Turkey Hill can manage to put it in a container and sell it in the grocery store you'd think someone would be able to sell it in an ice cream shop. Yeah...one big myth.

Lastly, as I said before you can't tell from the ingredient list which has more crap in it. As I said before, I was a bit surprised that cold stone uses some of the things they use as it seems unnecessary.

Furthermore, when I say cold stone is better I'm talking about the taste and quality (it being made with more cream and made fresh) not the additional chemicals, I guess saying "regardless of whether the company, like cold stone, used emulsifiers or not" was not enough.

You are far too interested in making this a pissing contest to actually pay attention to what is being stated.