5 ms·

I think spending smartly is more important than simply being frugal. For instance, when you are buying equipment, you don't buy the cheap stuff just because it

by larrik 6y ago

I think spending smartly is more important than simply being frugal. For instance, when you are buying equipment, you don't buy the cheap stuff just because it's cheap. You buy the best stuff the first time, because you will usually save money over the long run. If you bought the cheap stuff first, and it didn't work or didn't last, but then bought the best stuff later, now you paid extra and wound up at the same place. This doesn't apply to everything, though. The boss I had who operated this way strictly decided he didn't want the $80 video card in his computer, he wanted a $200 one (which back then was like buying a GeForce 3070 just to run spreadsheet applications on a single monitor).

onionisafruit 6y ago
What you describe is a perfect example of what I think of as frugal vs cheap. The cheap person goes for the lowest immediate cost. The frugal person goes for the lowest long term cost.
malavwarke 6y ago
great example, been cheap and been frugal are 2 different things
ValentineC 6y ago
> For instance, when you are buying equipment, you don't buy the cheap stuff just because it's cheap. You buy the best stuff the first time, because you will usually save money over the long run. If you bought the cheap stuff first, and it didn't work or didn't last, but then bought the best stuff later, now you paid extra and wound up at the same place. Cue: Sam Vimes's "Boots" theory: "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

by larrik 6y ago

onionisafruit 6y ago

What you describe is a perfect example of what I think of as frugal vs cheap. The cheap person goes for the lowest immediate cost. The frugal person goes for the lowest long term cost.

malavwarke 6y ago

great example, been cheap and been frugal are 2 different things

ValentineC 6y ago

> For instance, when you are buying equipment, you don't buy the cheap stuff just because it's cheap. You buy the best stuff the first time, because you will usually save money over the long run. If you bought the cheap stuff first, and it didn't work or didn't last, but then bought the best stuff later, now you paid extra and wound up at the same place. Cue: Sam Vimes's "Boots" theory: "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."