[CWuestefeld]

I think the kind of things you're talking about are more exceptions, and probably don't matter as much to a given family in the long run. For example, once I've managed to buy a house, that's a stake in the ground; it doesn't matter that property values continue to rise beyond that, since you've already got the housing you need.

But so many other things really are choices. I see lots of my colleagues replacing their new cars every 3 years; mine is five years old, having replaced the car I previously owned for 12 (and they were a Hyundai and Subaru, respectively, even if I could afford a Mercedes). Having cable TV with all the movie and sports channels is very much a decision that anyone can pass by. How often and where you eat out makes a big difference in expenses. Clothes, shoes, jewelry, furniture, matching stainless steel appliances with wifi, ... the list goes on and on.

[oposa]

Maybe a couple can survive changes in the housing and job market well enough that it they don’t mind the changes to their quality of life. But it very likely will be noticeable to their kids when other families have stronger finances and better access to housing and job markets. If you can’t save more than the difference to such markets what you get for the money is de facto less. It is sort of inflation by inequality. Then the theory doesn’t really hold and the frugality has just been to try and keep up.

I am all for frugality but in many places it hasn’t worked out in the last 10 years because you haven’t had the same access to growth. Unless you already had assets in the first place.

[CWuestefeld]

Huh? I guess I'm really not following your reply. It seems like you're saying that my willingness to keep a car for a dozen years and to bring my lunch rather than buying, and my wife having a $30 purse rather than a designer one, hasn't actually helped my financial situation. That seems a rather silly claim.

[wolco]

You also close the door on opportunity. Your wife with a better purse could be making unboxing videos bring in thousands.

Bringing vs buying could be an opportunity cost. I've worked in places that provided food perhaps a job change could help pay fof the lunch.

[CWuestefeld]

Apparently I'm wrong, and there's no point in trying to be economical. The evidence is wrong, and people who spend wantonly actually end up with more net available funds. Who woulda thunk it?

[wolco]

Life is not black and white and studies study only certain things. Don't consider yourself wrong because certain use-cases may lead to other outcomes.

Being economical will save you money. At some point being too economical will mean you have to accept lower quality/value. There is a tradeoff.

If your parents were being economical they might not have purchased a computer in the 80s.. It was seen as an expensive toy and not purchasing one would have saved them thousands. Long term the opportunity cost would outweigh the purchase cost.

Buying a cheap kettle it might last 6 months paying a little more and you don't need to replace it for 5 years.

There is an old British saying. Penny wise / pound foolish.

[kgwgk]

Sure, and you can also buy an expensive kettle today and replace it with an even more expensive Alexa-commanded kettle next-year.

It’s silly to say that not going to Hawaii for a week or not buying a $1000 handbag is going to cost you more money down the road...

Where is the opportunity cost in bringing your own lunch to work? Would he increase his chances of getting a better job if he stopped doing that in his current job?