Thoughts on Frugality and the True Cost of Your Purchase
As a followup to yesterday’s post about the cheap choice not being the frugal choice, I just wanted to highlight this comment from a reader named michael:
I learned that the cost of something is the price divided by the number of uses.
This is a great way of looking at things, and I couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s well worth paying extra as long as the added cost doesn’t outstrip the added utility of the item that you’re buying.
Published on July 2nd, 2008 - 4 Comments
Filed under: Frugality
email this article
- bookmark it
About the author: Nickel is the founder and editor-in-chief of this site. He's a thirty-something family man who has been writing about personal finance since 2005, and guess what? He's on Twitter!
Related articles...
» Buying a New Car: True Cost to Own» One Year Ago This Week (October 1st – October 7th)
» Carnivals – Week of 05/12/08
» More Thoughts About Refinancing Our Mortgage
» How to Avoid ATM Fees
» First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit Followup
» Online Cost-of-Living Calculators
» Carnivals – Week of 09/11/06
Was this article useful? Please sign up to receive our content via e-mail:
Great deals...
Readers’ choice...
Recent articles...
- Effect of Foreclosure, Short Sale, and Bankruptcy on Your Credit Score
- DIY Garage Kayak Racks: Fast, Frugal, and Effective
- Lending Club $25 Bonus Reminder
- Coupons are a Waste?
- How to Save Money on Pet Care
- Best HSA Custodian?
- Considering a High Deductible Health Plan
- Pay Back the Homebuyer Tax Credit?
- How to Find a Good Deal
- How Much Does Your Debt Cost?
Recent comments...
- Jennifer: Hi, I used ”Credit Solution” to settle my debt and avoid bankruptcy. They managed...
- Merry: I have two questions. I have been making an extra regular mortgage payment in...
- iris bobi: I went to contract 4-2009 and going to close on my house either December...
- Tim Rosen: Pros and Cons: Pros: a.) A systematic discipline to save/invest on a regular basis, for a...
- Matt Jabs: @Tim: Thanks, I hope this article helps get even one person on the...
- Tim Rosen: Excellent Matt! A very practical, real-world plan that I believe anyone can "flesh out"....
- Jerry Robertson: Your article has great information about the large companies going out of business, but...
- laura: I have a foreclosure on my credit from Jan 2007 and my FICO score...
Most talked about...
- Dave Ramsey is Bad at Math
- $8,000 Homebuyer Tax Credit
- Dish Network Customer Service SUCKS
- How to Claim the First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit
- $15,000 Homebuyer Tax Credit
- Reduced Credit Limits? Share Your Experience
- Would the "Fair Tax" Gut the Economy?
- Tax Stimulus Rebate Payments to Start Early
- Pay Off Mortgage Early? Or Invest?
- The Best Online Savings Accounts (Updated!)
- Life's Too Short to Drink Cheap Beer
- $7500 First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit
Stumble It!
Digg It!
Tip It!
del.ico.us
Facebook
I’ve also recently decided to measure it by time.
Most purchases aren’t one-time expenditures. You buy them. Then you may need to buy supplies such as electricity, tonor, gas, needle and thread, dishwasher soap, cleaning/dusting supplies, roofing materials, additional memory, and/or how-to books to keep using it long-term. If it’s something that doesn’t last forever, you’re going to have to re-buy it if you still want it.
So, how much does it cost over time compared to, say, my income?
For example, my computer isn’t just $1600. Since my old one broke after four years, and also cost $1600, then the cost of a computer is $400/year or 1.3% of my take-home income. I really like having a computer and having it be a laptop and having it free of any software that resulted in Bill Gates getting more money. But do I like this part of my lifestyle to spend 1.3% of my income on it forever? That’s a good question.
I pay cash for cars, but save $50/month toward my next car plus average $150/month for gas, maintenance, repairs, and insurance, so that’s $200/month or 6.2% of my income. Owning a car is barely worth this much to me (I don’t need one, just want one, mostly because I often lend mine out to my boyfriend or sister). Currently I buy ten-year-old cars of reliable makes and keep them as long as possible (ten years last time, seven years so far on this car); I would never pay more for a newer car.
And then things sometimes go unexpectedly bad somehow – they go out of style, stop fitting, get worn out quicker because I’m fatter in the thighs now, get attacked by moths, stop working. For example, my cassette tapes, records, and VCR movies are essentially useless to me. I had thought of them as things that last forever (if I took proper care), but now I am re-buying some of them and losing the rest. So you should probably add an additional percentage for this sort of thing.
Comment by Debbie M — Jul 2nd 2008 @ 1:11 pmif one of your main reasons for having a car is to loan it out, maybe you should reconsider. At what point is it not ok for your boyfriend and sister to not consider how much a car is worth to them, because they can just borrow yours!
Comment by nil zed — Jul 2nd 2008 @ 3:57 pmSo how does this tie into a very big ticket item such as a home? If you divide by hours of use instead of number of uses, it gets interesting. Say you drive a car 5 hours a week and 84 hours a week at home. If you spend 25,000 on a car, then that works out to $420K on a house.
But wait, that house can theoretically last you forever, whereas the car will probably be 10-15 in most cases. And of course, averaged over time a home will generally appreciate while a car clearly depreciates.
Comment by SomeGuy — Jul 3rd 2008 @ 9:51 amWhat a nifty adage!
With bigger-ticket items, it doesn’t seem to quite fit. Like Debbie M, I also pay for my cars in cash, setting aside savings over time for the purpose. But the car fund is stashed at Vanguard, where most of the time it makes money. So the calculation of the car’s cost as a percentage of income would need to take into account 10 years’ worth of interest income on the invested savings.
But if you bought the car or the house on time…how could you calculate cost by number of uses? The cost of a car loan or a mortgage is huge. Meanwhile, the real value of the car drops and (theoretically) the real value of the house rises. First, it would be tricky to calculate the actual cost per use against inflation and depreciation; and second, you’d have to weight the number of uses (esp. of the car) by the REQUIREMENT to use it. That is, you must have the car to get to a job in order to earn the money to pay for the car — in most US cities, public transport isn’t a real option. You have to have a roof over your head — though you don’t have to own that roof. How does nonnegotiable necessity affect the value of “number of uses”?
Argh! The math is over my head!
Comment by Funny about Money — Jul 3rd 2008 @ 12:49 pm