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

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by user_id

The definition in the dictionary says nothing about "reduce costs", rather it states that frugality is the economical use of resources.

frugal
1. economical in use or expenditure; prudently saving or sparing; not wasteful: a frugal manager.
2. entailing little expense; requiring few resources; meager; scanty: a frugal meal.

"entailing little expense". "Expense" means "cost". If costs are too high, they must be reduced to be "little expense".

And it's not just "economical use of resources"; the definition clearly states that saving or sparing must be "prudent".

So frugality is reduction of costs for economical but prudent use of one's resources.

Originally Posted by user_id

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".

What does "seeing someone converse something" mean? How does one see a person "converse something"??? What are you trying to say here?

Originally Posted by user_id

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.

That's your opinion of "the new trendy thing" based purely on your own, limited experience. It's anecdotal. I disagree with you. And yes, I have said that being "green", home cooking, saving money, simplifying one's lifestyle, etc. are all part of frugal living, but you try to equate those things individually with frugality, and that's wrong.

Originally Posted by user_id

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

You whined like a little girl that it takes you 30 minutes; it's clearly a difficult chore for you.

Originally Posted by user_id

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.

Actually, the food I eat at home is often better, especially from a cleanliness perspective. In your case, I'm sure everything about eating out is better, especially cleanliness.

Originally Posted by user_id

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.

That's fine, for you. But your initial assertions that it takes ME more time to cook at home were wrong. Even now, you say there is "little commonality between [sic] the ingredients" for cooking different meals at home, and that's not really true. You assume that, because you don't know how to cook.

Originally Posted by user_id

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".

I never said that cooking at home "always make sense from a cost vs time analysis." I said that it does make sense enough of the time that a frugal lifestyle needs to include at least some cooking at home.

Yes, it would take a "very unique situation" for someone to be eating out ALL the time while being frugal in doing so, and I gave the example of business travel when one is living in a hotel.

But to never cook at home, when you do live at home, is more than likely not a frugal way to live.

Originally Posted by user_id

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.

Boundaries are absolute, specifics are relative. What's so hard to understand. A Honda Accord is a "car" and a Toyota Corolla is a "car", but they have different specs relative to their individual designs. The same can be said for 100's of other vehicles which can be called "cars".

But someone can't come along with a Schwinn bicycle and insist it's a "car", and then point out the similarities with cars (wheels, steering, brakes) and the fact that different cars have RELATIVE standards while still being rightly called "cars" and try to use this to insist that a Schwinn bicycle is also a "car" because the relativity gives him license to interpret it the way he wants.

And that's all you're doing when it comes to frugality. And I know you're lying but there's no way to prove it over the internet, and you take advantage of that; but you're still not applying the term "frugal" properly, which I have proven.

Originally Posted by user_id

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

I'm not going back and forth, I'm being consistent with what I've been saying.

Originally Posted by user_id

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.

Yes, they are relative, but there should be a balance. Frugality involves not giving priority to any one type of cost. When you talk about your personal tastes/enjoyment/pleasure being the overriding cost factor, it is a good indication that you are yet another person who is not frugal but misuses the term and falls back on the "relativity" factor. You're no different from the environmentalists or skinflints who wrongly call themselves "frugal".

Environmentalists put the environment above all other costs and then claim that it's their preference, their pleasure, so therefore they are "frugal" because "relatively" they can do so. No, they're not frugal; you don't set one cost above the others all the time and then use pleasure/enjoyment as the reason, hiding behind "relativity".

Skinflints put money above all other costs and then claim that it's their preference, their pleasure, so therefore they are "frugal" because "relatively" they can do so. No, they're not frugal; you don't set one cost above the others all the time and then use pleasure/enjoyment as the reason, hiding behind "relativity".

Self-centered, wasteful consumerists like you put your own enjoyment and pleasure above all other costs and then claim that you "frugal" because "relatively" you can do so. No, you're not frugal; you can't set one cost above the others all the time and then use pleasure/enjoyment as the reason, hiding behind "relativity".

A frugal person looks to balance all the costs. A frugal person considers his or her pleasure (or lack thereof) as a cost but does not allow it to override every other cost. There is some sacrifice involved. A prudent balance of cost reduction so that OVERALL cost is reduced is the goal. That means sacrificing some of each cost, not completely serving your own pleasure.

Originally Posted by user_id

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.

The MYTH was your idea that Cold Stone serves up fresh ice cream daily that has no CHEMICALS (NOT "emulsifiers", but chemicals, for coloring, flavoring, thickness) in it like store-bought ice cream. THAT was the myth, because they serve ice cream that has more chemicals and isn't necessarily made the same day you're buying it. Of course there's such a thing as "fresh" ice cream; it's just that I could tell you didn't know what that meant so I asked what you thought it meant and you came back with Cold Stone, lol... I gave you enough rope to hang yourself.

There are plenty of ice creams available in your grocer's freezer, and many of them have much higher butterfat (and less overrun) than your beloved Cold Stone. Basically, you're trying to defend that you THOUGHT Cold Stone served "fresh" ice cream with no preservatives or chemicals (although after a while you admitted to "emulsifiers", but not chemicals or additives which are not emulsifiers) and that you THOUGHT it was made better than any "grocery store crap". But I proved you wrong. Why can't you just admit it?

Your Cold Stone ice cream contains CHEMICALS, yet you didn't know this and derided store-bought ice cream for containing chemicals which it does not - namely, cellulose gum and vanillin. Those are CHEMICALS found in Cold Stone which weren't found in Turkey Hill.

Then you whine that I focus on these chemicals; well, YOU brought up the whole thing about chemicals and harped on it.

So, here you go:


Notice it's from a restaurant, so that you will eat it.

Originally Posted by user_id

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.

It wasn't about the taste at first, it was about the chemicals. Then you blamed the chemicals for making the store-bought ice cream taste "plastic".

Then it came out that what you are eating and considering 'fresh' is more chemical laden than the store-bought stuff you derided.

Then you refuse to admit that you're wrong and wrongly try to push the idea that the chemicals in Cold Stone are only "emulsifiers" which they are not; the chemicals in your beloved Cold Stone are thickeners, artificial colors, and artificial flavors.

But since the food you eat is mostly in restaurants your taste is most likely skewed to enjoy the chemical-laden foods that they serve...

Originally Posted by user_id

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

That's projection; you're projecting onto me what you yourself are doing. You started this entire thread as a troll. You figured you'd come onto the "frugal living" board and tell off the skinflints and tree huggers by telling them they're stupid and foolish to spend their time saving pennies and trees, and that everyone should be saving pounds not pennies (making the wrong assumption that frugal people are cheapskates that are penny-wise and pound-foolish). Now that it didn't go so easily for you, you decided to continue the pissing match. You are a jackass and a half.

[London Girl]

Originally Posted by user_id

I was just reading around this forum a bit and I started to think just what is meant by "frugal" by a lot of the people talking about it. It seems to have a lot to do with being cheap and trying to save money at any cost.

Now if you're broke I understand, but otherwise what's the point exactly?

Let's go back to your original question.

The point, exactly, which has been answered many times, is that many people (even those with high incomes and substantial assets) like to live a frugal lifestyle because it means that they:

1) Can reduce or eliminate expenses or waste which then helps give to them the financial ability to accumulate more money to enjoy experiencing/owning more of the things that are really important to them WITHOUT having to take on debt to do so. Surely that is obvious?

2) Can have a higher degree of financial security by having "spare" money available should a situation arise where they require it. It's been beaten to death elsewhere in this thread, but some people base their frugality on their experiences of harsher economic times and are frugal because they do not wish to be financially vulnerable again. Surely that is obvious too?

3) Can help to pay for children's college fees and otherwise invest in their children's futures. Frugality isn't always just for the financial benefit of the person who practices it.

There are a million other reasons why people practice frugality.

Some people are living on an extremely tight budget, others are not, yet they still prefer to avoid waste and unnecessary expenditure.

There are many levels at which people practice frugality.

Some people go to the extremes, others less so.

Some people can live comfortably within their means, and save money, without being frugal.

Some people can live comfortably within their means but prefer be frugal to save more money.

Some people have to be frugal to stay within their means.

Some people cannot live within their means but cannot be frugal either. They usually end up in debt.

It's all pretty obvious really. But apparently not to you

[user_id]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

"entailing little expense". "Expense" means "cost".

No, expense and cost do not have the same meaning, the latter is more general than the former. "Expense" refers to a monetary cost. The definitions in the dictionary say nothing about some sort of cost vs benefit analysis, etc and for good reason that is not how people use the word "frugal". Although, clearly the word is being used in certain groups in a new way recently. The "frugal movement".

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

Even now, you say there is "little commonality between [sic] the ingredients" for cooking different meals at home, and that's not really true. You assume that, because you don't know how to cook.

And why did I say that? Oh yeah, because I was talking about someone who wants a varied diet. For example there are not many common ingredients between Thai food and French food. The former is going to require, chilies, curry paste, coconut milk, rice noodles, pickled vegetables, etc etc where as the latter butter, herbs, celery, onions, etc, etc.

You did not understand what I meant, because you don't know how to cook much.

But anyways, I'm going to stop reading here. No interest in this pissing match, let me know when you're interested in reasoned dialogue.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by London Girl

1) Can reduce or eliminate expenses or waste which then helps give to them the financial ability to accumulate more money to enjoy experiencing/owning more of the things that are really important to them WITHOUT having to take on debt to do so. Surely that is obvious?

But this is not frugality to me, this is spending money on X while not spending it on Y. Everyone makes choices about how they are going to spending their money, so then I guess everyone is frugal. Or are they only frugal when they cut expenses in particular areas?

Originally Posted by London Girl

2) Can have a higher degree of financial security by having "spare" money available should a situation arise where they require it.

But frugality does not necessarily imply monetary savings. One of my points is that "frugality" does not save much in the end because people become over focused on pennies.

Originally Posted by London Girl

There are a million other reasons why people practice frugality.

Sure, such as they are doing badly and need to out of financial necessity. I'd imagine that is the most common reason.

[London Girl]

Originally Posted by user_id:

But this is not frugality to me, this is spending money on X while not spending it on Y. Everyone makes choices about how they are going to spending their money, so then I guess everyone is frugal. Or are they only frugal when they cut expenses in particular areas?

Yes, I think we are all frugal to some degree.

A good example where a more frugal person might cut expense is food. We all need to eat. Some people consider that preparing food "from scratch", using fresh ingredients and minimising the impact of chemical additives on their bodies to be better (and cheaper) than buying heavily processed and packaged "convenience" food. And, as I said before, it really takes no longer to make, for example, a large lasagna and freeze some than it would to make a smaller one - meaning that one may not need to "spend" any time cooking on another night. So the time "spent" may be recouped anyway. Now I like to dine out, and am pretty discerning. There is only one restaurant in our area that serves food of a quality that I consider good. We go there once or twice a month. If we went more often, we'd get bored of it. The other local restaurants vary from so-so to bad. I'd rather go out out once or twice a month to the great restaurant than, in my opinion, "waste" money dining at a mediocre one once or twice a week. Mediocre restaurants often use crap ingredients and it shows in the quality of their food. Personally, I'd rather cook for myself. It's cheaper and it's better. Ditto cooking from scratch rather than buying processed food that always tastes gross and is expensive for the quality one gets.

Another example: We have sandwiches for lunch. It takes a few moments to make them in the morning and we can both have lunch for 5 days for a fraction of the cost of both of us buying lunch at a fast food outlet or a cafe. If we each spent $5 on lunch each day that's $50. It does not cost me $50 to make lunch for us for 5 days, it's more like $18. So that's a $32 saving/week, let's say for 48 weeks - $1,536 a year. That's our gas and electric bills easily covered each month. What do we "lose" by making our lunch? Well, not time - when you consider getting to the fast food outlet/cafe, waiting in line etc etc. And not quality - I'd take a decent wholegrain sandwich over a greasy burger any day.

EDIT: Washing clothes. We all need to do it. We usually wash on a cold setting. Our everyday clothes don't get particularly dirty so even if I need to spray a grease spot or whatever, cold water works just fine. It saves on our water heating expenses and takes no more time then selecting "hot" or "warm". Sometimes I'll wash stuff on warm if we've been hiking, gardening or whatever, but for everyday clothing use it's simply not necessary.

But frugality does not necessarily imply monetary savings. One of my points is that "frugality" does not save much in the end because people become over focused on pennies.

But you don't know this for sure, do you? Just as you seem to think that everyone who practices frugality must be unaware of how the economy is faring.

Sure, such as they are doing badly and need to out of financial necessity. I'd imagine that is the most common reason.

I'm sure some are doing badly and I'm sure some are doing very well. As I said in my earlier post, some people HAVE to be frugal, some people CHOOSE to be frugal.

Some people are now being forced to be frugal because they were never frugal before and didn't plan for the fact life might suddenly change for them - that their home would lose value, that they might lose their job.

Those who were already frugal and stayed clear of debt and saved that extra money are far better placed to deal with such changes and the impact those changes might have on their lives.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by London Girl

Yes, I think we are all frugal to some degree.

If frugal involves things that we do because we are human, than I don't think the term has much meaning.

But I think the word in a common language sense is meaningful, it just means uses resources economically and cost efficiently. Has nothing to do with cost/benefit analysis etc. There is also "frugal as a trend" and what I see in this thread is people trying to explain this in some sort of rational matter, when its really just a trend that involves particular tasks (e.g., Home cooking, the use of coupons, etc etc).

Originally Posted by London Girl

....Personally, I'd rather cook for myself. It's cheaper and it's better. Ditto cooking from scratch rather than buying processed food that always tastes gross and is expensive for the quality one gets.

And this is all fine, but I think it has nothing to do with being frugal. The cost/benefit analysis here is difficult and I sure you've yet to crunch the numbers, instead you do it because you prefer the food from home and such and such.

The "frugal trend" in part seems to be about people returning to more traditional ways of doing things, but I think it has become popular due to a shift in household finances. That is, most are doing it out of financial necessity. There have always been people that acted in this way though, mostly older but some younger too. These people are unlikely to want to think themselves as "trendy", but their lifestyle has now become a trend!

Originally Posted by London Girl

It takes a few moments to make them in the morning and we can both have lunch for 5 days for a fraction of the cost of both of us buying lunch at a fast food outlet or a cafe. If we each spent $5 on lunch each day that's $50. It does not cost me $50 to make lunch for us for 5 days, it's more like $18. So that's a $32 saving/week, let's say for 48 weeks - $1,536 a year.

And if the savings is worth it to you, then that's great. But I think you're not being all that consistent. Previously you spoke about the benefits of eating fresh foods instead of foods with additives. Yet, what does your sandwich contain? Mayo out of a can, which is little different than frozen meal in terms of preservatives. Bread off the shelf which again, little different than frozen food. Processed meats? Rather bad for you and have been linked to cancer a number of times. And you are eating it 5 days a week. So your monetary savings comes at a cost.

Originally Posted by London Girl

And not quality - I'd take a decent wholegrain sandwich over a greasy burger any day.

This is just hyperbole, are you trying to suggest the only food you can get out is a "greasy burger"? You can easily find a sandwich of similar quality to whatever you make at home, not to mention numerous other options (e.g., a fresh salad).

Originally Posted by London Girl

But you don't know this for sure, do you? Just as you seem to think that everyone who practices frugality must be unaware of how the economy is faring.

You can't know much "for sure". I never stated that "everyone who...", rather I stated that many so called frugal people have lost a lot by not paying attention to the markets (note, I said markets). But in terms of the economy, I don't think many "frugal" people were aware of what was going on when it mattered most, namely 2-3 years ago. Everyone knows today, but without a time machine that does not do you much good.

Also, in terms of people without debt being able to deal with the current economy you may want to rethink that a bit. There is no debtor prison, people can file for bankruptcy. So, while the frugal person has been saving his/her pennies and now using some of them, the debt-driven spend theft has filed for bankruptcy relieved himself of most of his debts and had all the fun of using the money!

[London Girl]

If frugal involves things that we do because we are human, than I don't think the term has much meaning.

But I think the word in a common language sense is meaningful, it just means uses resources economically and cost efficiently. Has nothing to do with cost/benefit analysis etc. There is also "frugal as a trend" and what I see in this thread is people trying to explain this in some sort of rational matter, when its really just a trend that involves particular tasks (e.g., Home cooking, the use of coupons, etc etc).

And this is all fine, but I think it has nothing to do with being frugal. The cost/benefit analysis here is difficult and I sure you've yet to crunch the numbers, instead you do it because you prefer the food from home and such and such.

The "frugal trend" in part seems to be about people returning to more traditional ways of doing things, but I think it has become popular due to a shift in household finances. That is, most are doing it out of financial necessity. There have always been people that acted in this way though, mostly older but some younger too. These people are unlikely to want to think themselves as "trendy", but their lifestyle has now become a trend!

I don't think you're actually interested in people's attitudes or interpretations to/of frugality - you asked, people responded and you just want to argue with them

And if the savings is worth it to you, then that's great. But I think you're not being all that consistent. Previously you spoke about the benefits of eating fresh foods instead of foods with additives. Yet, what does your sandwich contain? Mayo out of a can, which is little different than frozen meal in terms of preservatives. Bread off the shelf which again, little different than frozen food. Processed meats? Rather bad for you and have been linked to cancer a number of times. And you are eating it 5 days a week. So your monetary savings comes at a cost.

Ummmmmm I think you'll find that home baked bread or even store bought bread is better for you than most processed foods And you are now reduced to guessing at what I put in my sandwiches We don't eat processed meat for precisely the reasons you point out - did you think I was unaware of the issues linked to soduim nitrates etc? No, you just assumed - as usual.

This is just hyperbole, are you trying to suggest the only food you can get out is a "greasy burger"? You can easily find a sandwich of similar quality to whatever you make at home, not to mention numerous other options (e.g., a fresh salad).

Yes I can get a sandwich, or a salad - if I want to spend $5+ five days a week on lunch. But I choose not to do that. I choose to be "frugal" with my money and fix my own lunch

You can't know much "for sure". I never stated that "everyone who...", rather I stated that many so called frugal people have lost a lot by not paying attention to the markets (note, I said markets). But in terms of the economy, I don't think many "frugal" people were aware of what was going on when it mattered most, namely 2-3 years ago. Everyone knows today, but without a time machine that does not do you much good

.


I'm sure there were just as many non-frugal people that were caught out by the markets and economy as there were frugal people.

You keep harping back to this theme of:

"many so called frugal people have lost a lot by not paying attention to the markets (note, I said markets). But in terms of the economy, I don't think many "frugal" people were aware of what was going on when it mattered most, namely 2-3 years ago."


Where is the data to show this distinction between "frugal" and "non-frugal" people and the impact of the markets/the economy on either group? I'd love to see it

Also, in terms of people without debt being able to deal with the current economy you may want to rethink that a bit. There is no debtor prison, people can file for bankruptcy. So, while the frugal person has been saving his/her pennies and now using some of them, the debt-driven spend theft has filed for bankruptcy relieved himself of most of his debts and had all the fun of using the money!

Sure, filing for bankruptcy is a winnner - why didn't that occur to me before?

Are you, yourself, bankrupt already? Or considering it? Heading for it? If not, why not, given it's obviously such a win-win no brainer Just keep paying your landlord - he'll appreciate your rent. And I'm sure you'll have no problems in the future with your glowing credit score

[user_id]

Originally Posted by London Girl

I don't think you're actually interested in people's attitudes or interpretations to/of frugality - you asked, people responded and you just want to argue with them

I did ask, and I argued with some of them who were trying to pretend it was some how a rational process.

Originally Posted by London Girl

Ummmmmm I think you'll find that home baked bread or even store bought bread is better for you than most processed foods

Huh? How can it be better than most processed foods when it is a processed food?

Originally Posted by London Girl

We don't eat processed meat for precisely the reasons you point out

If you don't use processed meats, then what do you use? Unless you are carrying around a cooler, using other meats would be unsafe if you are making it in the morning and eating it for lunch. But perhaps you are cooling it, in which case you conveniently did not mention the time it takes to cook the meat you used.

I suppose they could be vegetarian...but usually those don't keep very well.

Originally Posted by London Girl

Yes I can get a sandwich, or a salad - if I want to spend $5+ five days a week on lunch. But I choose not to do that. I choose to be "frugal" with my money and fix my own lunch

Clearly, you should be spending your money the way you see best fit. Just don't pretend as if the only thing you can purchase for lunch is a "greasy burger". That is just silly.

Originally Posted by London Girl

I'm sure there were just as many non-frugal people that were caught out by the markets and economy as there were frugal people.

Certainly, but I just find it ironic that get caught up on saving pennies at the cost of losing pounds.

Originally Posted by London Girl

Are you, yourself, bankrupt already? Or considering it? Heading for it? If not, why not, given it's obviously such a win-win no brainer Just keep paying your landlord - he'll appreciate your rent. And I'm sure you'll have no problems in the future with your glowing credit score

I've never filed for bankruptcy, it would make absolutely no sense for me to do so. I was not talking about myself, rather someone that perhaps is underwater, has a lot of credit card debt, etc. That person will make out very well by filing for bankruptcy...and for what? A lower credit score that will improve in 2-3 years. Its a win-win strategy, you got to spend the money and now don't have to pay it back.

No, idea why you are talking about my landlord. But I hope in appreciates his rent, I appreciate living in his place after all its significantly cheaper than the cost of owning a comparable property.

A credit score is just a number, one that is only important to people without money.

[London Girl]

Originally Posted by user_id:

I did ask, and I argued with some of them who were trying to pretend it was some how a rational process.

It is a rational process. If your aim is to save money and if you achieve that aim without compromising your standard of living to a degree you are uncomfortable with or otherwise at any inconvenience to yourself, then you have achieved what you set out to do. What's irrational about that?

Huh? How can it be better than most processed foods when it is a processed food?

Next time you're shopping......go and look at the ingredients in a loaf of Health Nut wholegrain bread (or similar - may not be sold where you are), a box of Hamburger Helper and a box of Kraft Mac 'n ' Cheese. Which has the most additives?

If you don't use processed meats, then what do you use? Unless you are carrying around a cooler, using other meats would be unsafe if you are making it in the morning and eating it for lunch. But perhaps you are cooling it, in which case you conveniently did not mention the time it takes to cook the meat you used.

I suppose they could be vegetarian...but usually those don't keep very well.

Amazon.com: Ensign Peak Deluxe Insulated Lunch Cooler: Apparel

I use this type of cooler - with icepacks. And offices do have refrigerators ya know...................

If we have roast chicken for dinner for example, there is plenty of chicken for sandwiches the next day

We also have: cheese, salad, tuna, egg, Marmite (an English spread)........................

Clearly, you should be spending your money the way you see best fit. Just don't pretend as if the only thing you can purchase for lunch is a "greasy burger". That is just silly.

OK - I'll rephrase it for you I make my own sandwiches because I don't want to spend $5+ a day on:

Greasy burger
Bagel
Sub
Salad
Sandwich
Pie.............................etc etc etc.......

Is that better?

Certainly, but I just find it ironic that get caught up on saving pennies at the cost of losing pounds.

Still waiting for the statistics from you on those frugal v non-frugal people and the markets, the economy, blah blah blah

I've never filed for bankruptcy, it would make absolutely no sense for me to do so. I was not talking about myself, rather someone that perhaps is underwater, has a lot of credit card debt, etc. That person will make out very well by filing for bankruptcy...and for what? A lower credit score that will improve in 2-3 years. Its a win-win strategy, you got to spend the money and now don't have to pay it back.

No, idea why you are talking about my landlord. But I hope in appreciates his rent, I appreciate living in his place after all its significantly cheaper than the cost of owning a comparable property.

A credit score is just a number, one that is only important to people without money

I'm sure your landlord is very happy you're paying his mortgage for him - if he even has a mortgage

I'm not even sure why you think that a low credit score is such a "non-deal" Plenty of employers are very interested in their employees' credit scores when they're hiring.

And it can be quite difficult to rebuild that credit score when you've just defaulted on a mountain of debt

[user_id]

Originally Posted by London Girl

Originally
It is a rational process. If your aim is to save money and if you achieve that aim without compromising your standard of living to a degree....

What you are describing is a cost/benefit analysis which I think is distinct from "frugality". Frugality is a trend, or a common language term implying one is being "resourceful".

Originally Posted by London Girl

Next time you're shopping......go and look at the ingredients in a loaf of Health Nut wholegrain bread (or similar - may not be sold where you are), a box of Hamburger Helper and a box of Kraft Mac 'n ' Cheese. Which has the most additives?

I don't know the ingredient lists won't tell me that, the latter things are more complex so involve more ingredients. But I really have no idea which one has more additives as say a percentage of the total volume of the product.

Originally Posted by London Girl

Is that better?

Like I said, you should do whatever you see is the best use of our money. There is no need to misrepresent the other ways of doing things.

Originally Posted by London Girl

Still waiting for the statistics from you on those frugal v non-frugal people and the markets, the economy, blah blah blah

I never claimed the "frugal" are more likely to lose money in the markets, rather I said there is a certain irony when they lose pounds while saving pennies. I've see many examples of this, from getting suckered by pricing strategies from retailers to purchasing over priced homes.

Originally Posted by London Girl

I'm sure your landlord is very happy you're paying his mortgage for him - if he even has a mortgage

I'm sure he is happy to have a renter, but what is your point exactly? Seems as though you are trying to degrade renting, which is rather silly on multiple levels. Buying over the last 5~6 years in coastal California was for suckers, its far cheaper to rent. Even today despite modest declines, its still significantly cheaper to rent. By renting I save money each month and have no downside risks.

My landlord has owned this property since the 80's he is likely making a killing, but so am I vs owning. I cannot go back in time and purchase real estate.

Originally Posted by London Girl

I'm not even sure why you think that a low credit score is such a "non-deal" Plenty of employers are very interested in their employees' credit scores when they're hiring.

And it can be quite difficult to rebuild that credit score when you've just defaulted on a mountain of debt

I said credit scores is a number that is a concern for people without money, if you have money then your credit score is much less important.

And no, its not difficult to rebuild your credit score after you've defaulted on a mountain of debt. After 2-3 years you can have a decent credit score again. Sorry, but the system does not award "frugality", it rewards risk taking.