I’m not objecting (in the sense of “disapproving” ) to anything in your post, really. I actually liked the phrase about taking care of both present and future needs and, if you’re doing that, any extra cash is gravy. I would agree with that.

I would also say that the number of people who are actually taking care of (have accounted for) their reasonably foreseeable future needs is probably pretty small. And I think that fact is revealed in the large audience that exists for personal finance blogs and websites. In other words, on some level, lots of people “get” that they have financial issues to work out and are interested in learning how to do that and to talk with others about what they’ve learned/what they do, etc.

As to the work situation you describe, I would agree that anyone who works 60-80 hours a week needs to either eat out a lot (outsource the food preparation) , or have a spouse or partner who can prepare them meals to take to work.

Steve, since I pretty specifically said that meeting your expenses included proper savings for retirement and such, I’m not sure what you’re objecting to.

there is a very large group of 20- and 30-something americans that got very used to eating out almost every day, under the haze of easily accessible credit cards. And no, I have to say that eating out is NOT only marginally more expensive than eating in (assuming you cook from scratch) in the U.S. Eating out costs about 3-4 times what it costs to eat my own food at home, in my experience.

So, to this large group of americans, staying in the house and preparing all of their meals from stuff they got at the grocery story feels strange and *frugal* not normal.

Although it is true that, depending on what you buy for food and drink, you can probably spend almost as much eating meals at home as you can out in restaurants. But most people on blogs like this are focusing on saving cash and not on

Yesterday I also blogged about how “debt-forgiveness” or rather forgiving yourself for your financial sins of the past may actually help to break the cycle Trent refers to – http://saverqueen.com/2009/01/09/this-year-resolve-to-forgive/

I don’t consider the mere act of eating at home to be frugal (though it could be, depending on what you’re cooking). In my experience, a meal at a restaurant (even in the US) is always going to cost more than an equivalent meal cooked at home – and that’s just for the food. By the time you figure in the tip, gas, wear and tear on the car, driving time, etc, eating out almost always seems like a huge extravagance.

Cheers,
Ken

As far as the rest of the topic, I sometimes don’t agree with Trent, but it does get me thinking.

I would say that eating out isn’t (usually) frugal and can be outrageously luxurious, but would never assume the opposite to be true, ie that eating at home is a frugal option. I know some of this is cultural because it is possible to eat out in the US for not much more than cooking at home (so our American relatives tell us), so I am curious.

If spending cash on a night out with family and friends once every 2 weeks or so considered is not frugal, that would be silly. Those things create memories for everyone and it’s a chance to put the hard earned cash to meaningful use.

I think one thing to consider is that just because you have the cash in the bank and are able to swing buying something doesn’t mean you can afford it–it can still be beyond your means. You may be able to “swing” it, but that doesn’t mean you can afford it necessarily, if, for example, you aren’t saving enough for retirement or you are drowning in debt.

I struggle with this myself, and as my savings grow I find myself more tempted to buy things I NEVER would have considered when I had only $700 in the bank. The fact is, just because I have $7000 in the bank (or whatever amount), doesn’t mean I am yet on track for meeting some important and necessary expenses, such as retirement planning. It just means I have a healthy cash cushion. Yet I am tempted to buy more because the money is there.

My 2 cents.

I still don’t get this. If, by saving through the week, you can now afford the Saturday night out, then you are not living beyond your means. Pretty much by definition.

I don’t think many people would object to your distinguishing between “frugality as a means of permanently and significantly reducing your standard of living” and “frugality as a means of more effectively prioritizing your spending so you can keep buying things you like without going into debt.” But by saying things like “living beyond your means,” you are insinuating that people in the second category are being financially foolish and living an unsustainable lifestyle, when in fact whether they are or not has nothing to do with which category they are in, but whether they spend more than they earn. If you’re trying to raise a new baby on minimum wage, category one may be your only reasonable choice. If, on the other hand, you’re making an income that covers your costs (including reasonable retirement savings), you may find that you want to go into category one to meet some longer-term goal (early retirement, say) or you may find that you are basically on track and category two is your way of making sure you stay on that track.