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.
His frugality is Costco. My frugality is just catching regular sales.
Whether you are buying for ONE or TWELVE, I have never found it cheaper to buy at Costco as opposed to using ALDI/Winco Foods/Walmart/Kroger. The critical measure is the cost per ounce as opposed to the ability to buy a larger size.
The only thing that Costco offers in my opinion is convenience of shopping at one location.
Costco can work when you're single. You do have to have a fair amount of space to store things. I used to get a membership every other year. But, they have a good credit card (4% off for gas and 2% off Costco purchases). So, using that and paying it off every month pays for the membership.
It makes sense for me because I save a ton of money on over the counter allergy medication. A lot of things I used to have a prescription for are now over the counter. I buy certain other specific things there regularly (yes, in bulk, but, I don't have time with my job to need to go to 12 stores a week and I can shop in bulk 2-4 times a year and not have to think about onesie twosie items I need (I have it all at home)). I mostly don't shop there specifically for food; but, if I am going I may decide to stock up on meat or butter or something along that lines. I have freezer paper and freezer bags to break large quantities down into smaller portions.
I don't believe people plan on being single. Some people just end up that way. This way their friendships taking on more importance and meaning (and perhaps they have more time for a relationship with their heavenly father)...
The real cost of being single-without-children, vs. some other social arrangement, is in income-taxes. No amount of coupon-clipping or creativity in the kitchen would overcome that. Domestic expenses can be reduced by sharing living-space with roommates, an informal partner, taking-in an older relative and so on. But the taxes will remain.
So perhaps the most "frugal" move for a single person without dependents is to relocate to a state without state income tax.
Sure. Stop being single. Or at least insisting on the far more costly go it all alone (too often misanthropic) existence.
Without the economies of scale of a larger group sharing the common and ordinary costs and efforts involved...
you'll always be chasing your tail on any costs/anything whatsoever. Stop wasting time. Stop wasting money.
Um, wile the per-unit cost of the larger sizes is indeed lower, if said large group is living on just one or two incomes, the total expenditure rises in percentage terms with the additional non-earners.
The single person may therefore spend a lower percentage of their total income on basic life support needs. That's why an income that puts a family of four at or below the poverty line is adequate, or even middle-class, for a single individual.
(Myself: single, no kids, able to live in reasonable comfort on a salary that would put me below the poverty line if I had a spouse and two children.)
My comment is NOT about package sizes. It's about sharing space and all the rest that extends from that.
I addressed the opening question posed by the Op and ignored the distracting errata of his examples.
Quote:
(Myself: single, no kids, able to live in reasonable comfort on a salary that would put me below...
If YOU're happy then so am I.
The other 98% of low earners, those who aren't as comfortable as you, need to make practical adjustments.
Last edited by MrRational; 01-24-2022 at 06:41 AM..
My comment is NOT about package sizes. It's about sharing space and all the rest that extends from that.
I addressed the opening question posed by the Op and ignored the distracting errata of his examples.
If YOU're happy then so am I.
The other 98% of low earners, those who aren't as comfortable as you, need to make practical adjustments.
And likewise to you and your family. And if a single individual can't live comfortably on their salary, then yes, they do need to either make adjustments or find more renumerative work.
The reason I responded had to do with the blanket statement you made about single vs. family living, which I knew not to be true (compare Census Bureau data on median household income vs. median per capita income, not to mention the poverty line adjusted for household size), and the judgemental tone with which you dispensed your advice.
As a single person, my income doesn't make me a "low earner" — my salary is above the median income for a one-person household. I'm right in the middle of the middle class. (Take a look at the income ranges for Pennsylvania in this article.)
Last edited by MarketStEl; 01-24-2022 at 09:49 AM..
The reason I responded had to do with the blanket statement you made about single vs. family living...
I suppose I could have made my points more clear... but I didn't make any points about "family" anything.
My statement was about the 800lb gorilla of RE costs ($X ÷1 vs 2+) ... that the "frugal" choose to ignore
preferring to go on about their diligence with relatively meaningless life choices like paper towels.
I suppose I could have made my points more clear... but I didn't make any points about "family" anything.
My statement was about the 800lb gorilla of RE costs ($X ÷1 vs 2+) ... that the "frugal" choose to ignore
preferring to go on about their diligence with relatively meaningless life choices like paper towels.
The real estate costs can be reduced by partnering with room-mates, or even by buying a house and renting-out individual rooms. Several persons active on this forum have done the latter. Another approach is the much-maligned but increasingly popular idea of young-adults moving back into their parents' house after college graduation... or the reverse, of retirees moving-in with their adult children.
My concern is with a thematic undercurrent emerging in this thread: that single child-free people have a moral deficiency in their lifestyle choices, and consequently society righteously punishes them financially. We have tax-breaks and all sorts of support-systems for families, and even for single parents. But singles without chlldren are at the bottom of the heap, and "rightly so", because they've not engaged their proper human agency as parents and as members of a traditional household.
The real estate costs can be reduced by partnering with room-mates, or ...
Yes they can. Now go and tell that simple truth to the next "how can I afford" poster.
(This is where the misanthropes show up)
Quote:
My concern is with a thematic undercurrent emerging in this thread:
that single child-free people have a moral deficiency in their lifestyle choices...
I haven't ever seen that. The underlying psychological will come up a fair bit though.
The economic aspect stands on it's own merits. (And I'm just refusing delivery on the rest of your points)
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.
