tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38606399.post9088055673773828480..comments2023-09-23T00:38:53.296-07:00Comments on Money and Such: Why Reducing My Lunch Money Really Wouldn't MatterUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38606399.post-595662363319577582009-03-06T18:22:00.000-08:002009-03-06T18:22:00.000-08:00Wooooohh. I see I hit a raw nerve with this one. S...Wooooohh. I see I hit a raw nerve with this one. Still, I am going to have to stand my ground.<BR/><BR/>Ren - I agree that it's all about priorities, and I do agree that if you really were able to hang on to those small amounts, over time, you would be able to save a bundle.<BR/><BR/>Dana - Yeah, you know $10 a day for Starbucks is probably a habit you want to kick anyways. Yes - this is really the only time I get out of the office while the sun is shining. 4 days this week, I didn't even manage to do that and had to have a frozen lunch microwaved... :-)<BR/><BR/>Mr. Tough - I am not going to argue diet issues. I have no opinion on the matter, and it's another topic altogether. However, my point was that if my wife and I cut out every last CENT of discretionary we would reduce our spending by less than 10%. The impact of reducing small expenses is really minute for us in the big scheme of things. Forget this walk outside thing - it's not for me, unless you are talking about a hike in the mountains - in that case I'm game.<BR/><BR/>Frugal - again, in theory I agree with you. You can save money and it will add up over time. However, even if I take your numbers: 22 work days a month multiplies by 7 dollars you save per day - it's not silly money, but it would not make a dent in our over all budget: 3 kids, rent, two cars... that's not where the big savings are. From my perspective, better to go out to lunch, pay $5 - $10 and return to work recharged and ready to work another 6 or 7 hours.<BR/><BR/>Maybe we are talking about a different kind of work day here, or may our financial lives and priorities are just too different to agree upon. Regardless, I will reiterate my main point: cutting out ALL discretionary spending would reduce our spending by less than 10%... to save big, we would need to make a big change.Shadoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11742366461186295248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38606399.post-84737154681253360892009-03-06T05:42:00.000-08:002009-03-06T05:42:00.000-08:00I bring lunch and eat at my desk. That doesn't me...I bring lunch and eat at my desk. That doesn't mean that I don't socialize: I round people up for coffee a couple of times a day and it's a nice little break for all of us. Cost-wise, it makes a huge difference: the lunches (and breakfasts) I bring from home run about $2 to 3$ per day in total. Some of my colleagues drop $10 per day or more, and that really adds up. <BR/><BR/>Of course, your workplace's culture matters: in some environments, what I do would lead to isolation and being left out of the loop about what's going on. Where I work, it's not a problem.frugal zeitgeisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804781758510341558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38606399.post-63266598211074228502009-03-05T14:01:00.000-08:002009-03-05T14:01:00.000-08:00I'm going to push back on this. When I stopped go...I'm going to push back on this. When I stopped going out for lunch two years ago, two good things happened. I lost 52 pounds and gained $140/month. To me $140/month is not chump change. As for the social thing, I already spend 8-9 hours/day with work colleagues. Why do I need more? Lunch with clients - OK - but I don't need to socialize with co-workers for an hour per day. If you need sun, eat for 30 minutes then go for a walk. I've done that as well. <BR/><BR/>It does matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38606399.post-19580727830765645692009-03-05T13:06:00.000-08:002009-03-05T13:06:00.000-08:00Ahh, I can't help but comment on this, and say tha...Ahh, I can't help but comment on this, and say that first I'm a cheapskate, but on this subject of small versus big money, I'm with you. The part where you said getting out at lunch is the only time you see sun? Wow, I so totally relate to that.<BR/><BR/>Where I used to work, people have 10-bucks-a-day Starbucks habit, and translate that into a year, the amount is gigantic. But when you go out to get these coffees and lunches, most of the time, you're not paying for the food/drink itself, but for the mental release and socializing opportunities it provide. Plus, work can be so stressful that short of pacing outside the building a few times a day like a lunatic, getting coffee is an excuse to get air. That or smoking. Or therapy. Which is way more expensive.<BR/><BR/>See? I'm cheap after all! <BR/><BR/>Bottom line, compare some coffee money to the losses we've all suffered in the past year in the market. Not only that, but what most people used to blow on Vegas, weekend bar trips, parking tickets, dates that don't go well. When choices allow, we should still focus on the bigger stuff, no? If we're really stuck in the rut of the Japanese for 10 years, then I'll consider the alternative. But right now, I'm not down with this:<BR/>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/business/worldbusiness/22japan.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38606399.post-10171223512632445112009-03-05T11:20:00.000-08:002009-03-05T11:20:00.000-08:00I agree with you as far as the savings aspect goes...I agree with you as far as the savings aspect goes; however, I think that the latte factor can be useful for setting spending priorities. Looking at the ways that you can make small reductions in spending, without having much negative impact on your quality of life can often let you find other areas where you can make correspondingly small increases in spending for a larger positive effect.<BR/><BR/>If skipping lattes three days a week will fund happy hour once a week (which it probably won't, but that's beside the point), then it may be worthwhile to do. Or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com