Lest it seem that I only buy five for a dollar books or St John jackets for 3.50 at thrift stores, let me ‘fess up with the truth. I love to check out “real” stores, though I mainly do it on the internet. And, since as I explained in an earlier post, I am the child of black-belt sale shoppers, I really can’t buy anything at regular price.
I find that I haven’t really wanted anything this season, in spite of the fabulous and well-publicized pre-Christmas markdowns.
So even though I’m not buying the following, I thought I’d save you—dear readers—some legwork and alert you to 2 good sales—and one bad one.
UGGS—I mentioned that I wanted some Uggs earlier. My son is so scornful of this desire. Honestly, it’s because my feet always hurt. I had a pair of Uggs a few years ago. They were $14 at Marshalls. Right before I got there, someone bought 40 pairs to sell on ebay! Sadly, these were light blue. I couldn’t bring myself to wear them, so I sold my single pair.
This year, Uggs have been the one item that seemed immune from the rampant markdowns. Even now, the markdowns are not great. But every day or so a new style has been marked down on the sites of the upscale department stores—Neimans, Bloomingdales, Nordstrom, and Saks. Even Bergdorfs (a store very intimidating to enter, but where I used to stop and use the ladies’ room en route to my orthodontist!). Sometimes there are only a few sizes left. Markdowns are only between 30-40%. The deals disappear in the blink of an eye, so I won’t link you. But do check them out.
Levenger—I love this upscale stationery and office stuff supplier, especially their Circa notebooks, but it really is ridiculously expensive. They have one great deal: a sampler Circa notebook for $40, which comes with a $40 gift card. I got this last year and eventually used the gift card to buy 4 circa notebooks with refills (compact size) that were marked down to $9.95. This deal is back and is even better if you can find one of the 20% off deals floating around on the net. These little notebooks make very snazzy graduation gifts. (Note: you can’t use the 20% off on the sampler kit, but can use it on the sale notebooks.)
Talbots—This company has snazzed up its style this year. It is also one of the companies in big trouble. Sales have been good. Before Christmas, Talbots had an additional 40% off sale items; the sale continued after Christmas. Great!!! Then I checked the site today to see if a certain jacket was still there …and guess what? The 40% off is OVER and the prices went up! What kind of thing is this???? So the question is: did I save $65 by NOT buying the jacket at its lowest point, or did I save $101 by not buying it today? I leave you with this Zen question.
UPDATE: Talbots sent me an email announcing 50% off sale IN STORE ONLY. So sale items are a bit less than they were before Christmas.
Custom Search
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Frugal Families Aggravate Nation's Woes
Frugality is bad for the economy
“Frugal Families aggravate nation’s woes”: so trumpets the Wall Street Journal, with a picture of a middle-class family at their kitchen table. Read it here!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120525879656021.html
Honestly, I can hardly see how learning to live responsibly can, in the long-term, hurt our country’s economic health.
My personal situation: as I said in an earlier post, I am trying not to be embittered. I have always been pretty responsible, yet I too lost about 40% of the equity portion of our retirement accounts. So (in the bitter mode), I missed the good times of consumption, but am subject to the same downturn as everyone else!
Would it be true that the habitually frugal (like yours truly) would NOT be aggravating the nation’s economic woes? I am going to be spending the same as last year. Plus, we’re planning on the following: some new slipcovers for chairs, a family trip somewhere, perhaps Boston and New York City, an expensive implant for my tooth (that should help the oral surgeon from his downturn), and Mr Frugal Scholar is itching for a new-to-him expensive bicycle (that should help someone who wants to/has to sell his bicycle).
Dear readers: no doubt this will be picked up by all the big blogs. But let this little blog know what you think!
“Frugal Families aggravate nation’s woes”: so trumpets the Wall Street Journal, with a picture of a middle-class family at their kitchen table. Read it here!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123120525879656021.html
Honestly, I can hardly see how learning to live responsibly can, in the long-term, hurt our country’s economic health.
My personal situation: as I said in an earlier post, I am trying not to be embittered. I have always been pretty responsible, yet I too lost about 40% of the equity portion of our retirement accounts. So (in the bitter mode), I missed the good times of consumption, but am subject to the same downturn as everyone else!
Would it be true that the habitually frugal (like yours truly) would NOT be aggravating the nation’s economic woes? I am going to be spending the same as last year. Plus, we’re planning on the following: some new slipcovers for chairs, a family trip somewhere, perhaps Boston and New York City, an expensive implant for my tooth (that should help the oral surgeon from his downturn), and Mr Frugal Scholar is itching for a new-to-him expensive bicycle (that should help someone who wants to/has to sell his bicycle).
Dear readers: no doubt this will be picked up by all the big blogs. But let this little blog know what you think!
Monday, January 5, 2009
A Modern John Henry Takes on the Dishwasher
The overwhelmingly positive response to my “Frugal Saint or Frugal Fanatic” post has prompted me to forgo modesty and reveal one of my other secret, but perhaps excessive, virtues: I wash dishes using fewer natural resources than anyone else in the world.
I’ve heard the argument from the pro-dishwasher camp: it uses less water than traditional hand washing, and is therefore more economical than washing by hand. I believe this argument is dangerously flawed because it ignores the whole picture to focus on a single component. Water itself is inexpensive and not very energy intensive. But the electricity one uses to power the dishwasher is, relatively speaking, substantial. So I may use 20 gallons washing dishes by hand, when the dishwasher can do it with 10, but the dishwasher will use .5 kilowatts of electricity, while I use none at all. So who comes out ahead?
In addition, how many people run the dishwasher when it’s not entirely full? We actually do have a dishwasher, and even run it occasionally, but only when it is absolutely full. In fact, I have a system for arranging dishes—based on cutting-edge string theory--that is so sophisticated that only I am allowed to do the loading. For a variety of sins, both venial (leaving more than ½ inch between plates) to mortal (placing cups upright), Ms. Dr. FS has been banned for life from loading dishes. Of course our children think that the proper place for dishes is on the nearest surface, so they are no threat.
In short, those who argue that they are saving water by using the dishwasher are sometimes correct, but they ignore the whole picture. Notice that I said “sometimes” correct; that’s because I can wash dishes with less water than even the most efficient mechanical dishwasher. I learned this skill when,, for five summers, I lived out in the woods on my family’s undeveloped land on the Oregon coast. During the first two we didn’t have a well, and since there wasn’t a road that went all the way to our ten acres, I had to hand-carry water in five gallon containers for all my needs. Five gallons of water weighs about 40 pounds, and that gets heavy very quickly. Even when we put in a hand-pumped well, getting water was fairly energy intensive.
So we developed a dishwashing system that employed four plastic buckets. The first was for the initial washing, and on down the line until the last for final rinsing. When the rinse bucket got even a little dirty it would be moved up a position, the first bucket would be emptied into the bushes, refilled with clean water, and returned to begin its life anew as the final rinse stage. The dishes might not have been sterile, but they were sure clean, and no one ever got sick or complained. And now that we actually have a generator, an electric pump, and a tank (made from a hot water heater scavenged from the town dump), we still stick to the old ways.
My techniques were refined during a stay at my parents’ house in southern California during one of the water shortages, during which we actually lowered their water consumption by half, in spite of having to wash our infant son’s cloth diapers. (No, not by hand; we’re not that fanatic.)
So now I use all of these accumulated skills when I do dishes at home, carefully monitoring the water volume, always shutting the water off when not in use, using successive rinses, etc. Does it save a huge amount of energy, or money? Probably not. But I’ll bet the discipline carries over to other activities, whether consciously or not. And anyway, it’s kinda fun!
I’ve heard the argument from the pro-dishwasher camp: it uses less water than traditional hand washing, and is therefore more economical than washing by hand. I believe this argument is dangerously flawed because it ignores the whole picture to focus on a single component. Water itself is inexpensive and not very energy intensive. But the electricity one uses to power the dishwasher is, relatively speaking, substantial. So I may use 20 gallons washing dishes by hand, when the dishwasher can do it with 10, but the dishwasher will use .5 kilowatts of electricity, while I use none at all. So who comes out ahead?
In addition, how many people run the dishwasher when it’s not entirely full? We actually do have a dishwasher, and even run it occasionally, but only when it is absolutely full. In fact, I have a system for arranging dishes—based on cutting-edge string theory--that is so sophisticated that only I am allowed to do the loading. For a variety of sins, both venial (leaving more than ½ inch between plates) to mortal (placing cups upright), Ms. Dr. FS has been banned for life from loading dishes. Of course our children think that the proper place for dishes is on the nearest surface, so they are no threat.
In short, those who argue that they are saving water by using the dishwasher are sometimes correct, but they ignore the whole picture. Notice that I said “sometimes” correct; that’s because I can wash dishes with less water than even the most efficient mechanical dishwasher. I learned this skill when,, for five summers, I lived out in the woods on my family’s undeveloped land on the Oregon coast. During the first two we didn’t have a well, and since there wasn’t a road that went all the way to our ten acres, I had to hand-carry water in five gallon containers for all my needs. Five gallons of water weighs about 40 pounds, and that gets heavy very quickly. Even when we put in a hand-pumped well, getting water was fairly energy intensive.
So we developed a dishwashing system that employed four plastic buckets. The first was for the initial washing, and on down the line until the last for final rinsing. When the rinse bucket got even a little dirty it would be moved up a position, the first bucket would be emptied into the bushes, refilled with clean water, and returned to begin its life anew as the final rinse stage. The dishes might not have been sterile, but they were sure clean, and no one ever got sick or complained. And now that we actually have a generator, an electric pump, and a tank (made from a hot water heater scavenged from the town dump), we still stick to the old ways.
My techniques were refined during a stay at my parents’ house in southern California during one of the water shortages, during which we actually lowered their water consumption by half, in spite of having to wash our infant son’s cloth diapers. (No, not by hand; we’re not that fanatic.)
So now I use all of these accumulated skills when I do dishes at home, carefully monitoring the water volume, always shutting the water off when not in use, using successive rinses, etc. Does it save a huge amount of energy, or money? Probably not. But I’ll bet the discipline carries over to other activities, whether consciously or not. And anyway, it’s kinda fun!
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Job Loss and Mortgage Mess: Two Stories
Today, I would like to juxtapose two stories.
The first, from the Wall Street Journal, presents one instance of the housing bubble. The essay presents (with pictures) the tale of a house, 500-plus square feet, unfit for habitation, being appraised at over $100,000. The owner received a mortgage for the full "value."
The occupant, a 61 year old woman, with a history of alcoholism, used the money to pay off debt. She eventually moved out, leaving the home to be occupied by her son, who could not afford the mortgage.
The part of the article that aroused much outrage was the mention that the owner has not worked for many years, but lives on $3,000/month from various sorts of assistance. Also arousing outrage was the army of “professionals,” including the appraiser, who participated in (and profited from) the mortgage industry.
Story #2 is from the CNN site. It presents quite sympathetically the tales of two young men, who lost their $100,000-plus/year jobs. Both had to take jobs paying substantially less.
Here are two vignettes.
Vignette 1: “Shaun Chedister, 30 . . . was laid off from his job at Washington Mutual at the end of last year. After eight months of actively looking for work to help support his wife and four children, he accepted an offer from Ernst & Young even though the new position as an executive administrator paid less than half of what he was making before. . . . . But the adjustment to making $66,000 a year from $125,000 has been hard. 'For the last four to five years I'd been making six figures,' Chedister said. ‘My lifestyle had been at a certain level.’”
Number 2: “After Jarrod Posner, 34, was laid off from his $110,000-a-year job as a mortgage lender for D.R. Horton, he had to change careers to find employment. After months of looking he took a job as an enrollment counselor at the University of Phoenix - a position that paid $33,000…’I was actually thankful because I was getting a job, but at the same time my wife and I realized we had to make a lot of lifestyle changes,’ Posner said. “
OK. Maybe I am embittered. But does anyone else see the connection between the stories? Those salaries of the CNN story are awfully high for people in their early 30s, especially since the jobs don’t require much specialized training or education. One worked in the mortgage industry and the other worked for WaMu, the bank that represents, if I’m not mistaken. the largest bank failure in US history (a function of those irresponsible loans).
Weren’t those big salaries dependent on lending a la the WSJ story? Did the housing bubble prop up the whole economy? Someone: please explain!
The first, from the Wall Street Journal, presents one instance of the housing bubble. The essay presents (with pictures) the tale of a house, 500-plus square feet, unfit for habitation, being appraised at over $100,000. The owner received a mortgage for the full "value."
The occupant, a 61 year old woman, with a history of alcoholism, used the money to pay off debt. She eventually moved out, leaving the home to be occupied by her son, who could not afford the mortgage.
The part of the article that aroused much outrage was the mention that the owner has not worked for many years, but lives on $3,000/month from various sorts of assistance. Also arousing outrage was the army of “professionals,” including the appraiser, who participated in (and profited from) the mortgage industry.
Story #2 is from the CNN site. It presents quite sympathetically the tales of two young men, who lost their $100,000-plus/year jobs. Both had to take jobs paying substantially less.
Here are two vignettes.
Vignette 1: “Shaun Chedister, 30 . . . was laid off from his job at Washington Mutual at the end of last year. After eight months of actively looking for work to help support his wife and four children, he accepted an offer from Ernst & Young even though the new position as an executive administrator paid less than half of what he was making before. . . . . But the adjustment to making $66,000 a year from $125,000 has been hard. 'For the last four to five years I'd been making six figures,' Chedister said. ‘My lifestyle had been at a certain level.’”
Number 2: “After Jarrod Posner, 34, was laid off from his $110,000-a-year job as a mortgage lender for D.R. Horton, he had to change careers to find employment. After months of looking he took a job as an enrollment counselor at the University of Phoenix - a position that paid $33,000…’I was actually thankful because I was getting a job, but at the same time my wife and I realized we had to make a lot of lifestyle changes,’ Posner said. “
OK. Maybe I am embittered. But does anyone else see the connection between the stories? Those salaries of the CNN story are awfully high for people in their early 30s, especially since the jobs don’t require much specialized training or education. One worked in the mortgage industry and the other worked for WaMu, the bank that represents, if I’m not mistaken. the largest bank failure in US history (a function of those irresponsible loans).
Weren’t those big salaries dependent on lending a la the WSJ story? Did the housing bubble prop up the whole economy? Someone: please explain!
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Madoff and Me: A Personal View
In the titling tradition of “Marley and Me” (about a dog) and “Roger and Me” (about the economy in Detroit, via the auto industry), I bring you “Madoff and Me.” Not the real me, of course; I am definitely not well-connected enough to have even gotten a chance at one of the feeder funds in the news. I am referring to a Wall Street Journal essay by a college professor, whose area of specialization is gullibility. He has a sister who lives in Boca Raton and was investing in one of the now infamous feeder funds. She got him in.
I am also a teacher and even have relatives who live NEAR Boca Raton. So I have a certain feeling for this fellow. I am not being facetious.
Anyway, in his WSJ essay, he outlines some historical scams (see Mr Dr Frugal Scholar’s related post on this). Then he outlines how he got snookered. Evidently, Madoff’s genius lay, in part, on his promise of good, but not great, returns. He also offered a “history” of absolutely steady returns, with no losses.
This is, in my opinion, a “must-read.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123093987596650197.html
I am also a teacher and even have relatives who live NEAR Boca Raton. So I have a certain feeling for this fellow. I am not being facetious.
Anyway, in his WSJ essay, he outlines some historical scams (see Mr Dr Frugal Scholar’s related post on this). Then he outlines how he got snookered. Evidently, Madoff’s genius lay, in part, on his promise of good, but not great, returns. He also offered a “history” of absolutely steady returns, with no losses.
This is, in my opinion, a “must-read.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123093987596650197.html
Books at Thrift Stores: Episode 1
I have been buying books at thrift stores for many years now. I came to the game late. When I was in graduate school, I went to the Salvation Army. Their store was in a damp basement. There I saw Danna, the owner of a recently-opened used book store. She must have had 50 books on the counter (they were 2 for a nickel). When she saw me, she said, “Oh, I hardly ever come here. This is the first time I’ve found any books. Usually, they don’t have any good books.”
Needless to say, I became a regular. As far as I could tell, we were the only people who bought books there. I bought some for me and the rest to trade for credit at the other used bookstore. I’m sure Danna was relieved when I moved.
It’s harder to find good books now because many people sell them on-line. If you ever go to a book sale and see people waving a cell phone over a book, you can be sure they are subscribing to “Scoutpal.” The isbn number links to Amazon and tells the person what the book is going for. Last time I went to a Friends of the Library Sale, I was the only person of 11 customers who did not have one of these.
I wish the people who run the sales would get one of these. The resellers only buy those books that can be sold. The library retains all the books that the resellers might have taken a chance on in the years before Scoutpal.
In fact, you don’t even have to know how to read to benefit from one of these. You can just scan or key in the numbers. I see teenagers in Goodwill methodically using Scoutpal on every book, including the tomes of John Grisham. I always want to tell them that they would save a lot of time if they would just eliminate the Grishams, which make up the bulk of books in any thrift store. My guess is that a parent is sending off a teenager to help with the family income.
So while it’s hard to find good academic books (my favorites!), or cookbooks, there is an overabundance of good fiction and children’s books. These have very little resale value, so it is easy to get that Oprah book you missed, any best seller of recent vintage, or wonderful Scholastic books for kids of all ages.
Just a few I’ve gotten recently:
“The Paradox of Choice”: I read a library copy a while ago. The premise is that too much choice does not increase happiness. My son read my library copy. He is going to give this book, which looks unread, as a gift to a friend who has too many choices.
“Girl, Interrupted”: I had this book years ago and probably traded it in at a used bookstore. My daughter saw the film of this book when we were in Florida. I told her I would get her a copy of the book. Second day back, there it was!
“Beasts of No Nation”: My son will be taking a course on African fiction. This is on the reading list. A very lucky find.
Total cost: 60 cents.
Dear readers: What books have you found at thrifts? What do you do with them when you are done? Anything you're looking for?
Needless to say, I became a regular. As far as I could tell, we were the only people who bought books there. I bought some for me and the rest to trade for credit at the other used bookstore. I’m sure Danna was relieved when I moved.
It’s harder to find good books now because many people sell them on-line. If you ever go to a book sale and see people waving a cell phone over a book, you can be sure they are subscribing to “Scoutpal.” The isbn number links to Amazon and tells the person what the book is going for. Last time I went to a Friends of the Library Sale, I was the only person of 11 customers who did not have one of these.
I wish the people who run the sales would get one of these. The resellers only buy those books that can be sold. The library retains all the books that the resellers might have taken a chance on in the years before Scoutpal.
In fact, you don’t even have to know how to read to benefit from one of these. You can just scan or key in the numbers. I see teenagers in Goodwill methodically using Scoutpal on every book, including the tomes of John Grisham. I always want to tell them that they would save a lot of time if they would just eliminate the Grishams, which make up the bulk of books in any thrift store. My guess is that a parent is sending off a teenager to help with the family income.
So while it’s hard to find good academic books (my favorites!), or cookbooks, there is an overabundance of good fiction and children’s books. These have very little resale value, so it is easy to get that Oprah book you missed, any best seller of recent vintage, or wonderful Scholastic books for kids of all ages.
Just a few I’ve gotten recently:
“The Paradox of Choice”: I read a library copy a while ago. The premise is that too much choice does not increase happiness. My son read my library copy. He is going to give this book, which looks unread, as a gift to a friend who has too many choices.
“Girl, Interrupted”: I had this book years ago and probably traded it in at a used bookstore. My daughter saw the film of this book when we were in Florida. I told her I would get her a copy of the book. Second day back, there it was!
“Beasts of No Nation”: My son will be taking a course on African fiction. This is on the reading list. A very lucky find.
Total cost: 60 cents.
Dear readers: What books have you found at thrifts? What do you do with them when you are done? Anything you're looking for?
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Frugal New Year
We got back from a trip to Florida a few days ago. After a 14 hour drive, we needed tranquility. Here is our low-key a frugal day, the last day of 2008.
Frugal Scholar: Even though I still count as a Yankee after 20 years here, I made the classic meal of black-eyed peas for the last day of 2008 and, for good luck, the first day of 2009. This is a totally flexible dish. I cooked up a pound of dried peas, sautéed some sausage and green onions from the garden and added to the peas. With a dash of hot sauce, it’s a favorite. How can anything so easy and cheap be so good? We had this with some of the greens that are proliferating in the garden. Also served with mashed potatoes (my favorite!) and some cranberry sauce bought very cheap at Big Lots.
Mr Frugal Scholar: He spent the day gardening and doing various chores around the house.
Frugal Son: Unlike his mother, he likes tedious cooking tasks. So he made up a bunch of tiny meatballs. Really tiny! These will be frozen and thrown into soup later.
Frugal Daughter: She sewed on a button for me (yes, I am the proverbial “can’t sew on a button” person). Now I can wear the great jacket I got at Banana Republic that was reduced to $17.00. She also offered to wax my eyebrows! What a great kid! This would have cost me $10 at the local beauty school and at least $20 in a salon.
Frugal Children went away for New Year’s Eve: Frugal Daughter to Lafayette and Frugal Son to New Orleans. Frugal Parents watched “Burn After Reading,” which was lent by friend of Frugal Son.
What a frugal day! Happy New Year!
Frugal Scholar: Even though I still count as a Yankee after 20 years here, I made the classic meal of black-eyed peas for the last day of 2008 and, for good luck, the first day of 2009. This is a totally flexible dish. I cooked up a pound of dried peas, sautéed some sausage and green onions from the garden and added to the peas. With a dash of hot sauce, it’s a favorite. How can anything so easy and cheap be so good? We had this with some of the greens that are proliferating in the garden. Also served with mashed potatoes (my favorite!) and some cranberry sauce bought very cheap at Big Lots.
Mr Frugal Scholar: He spent the day gardening and doing various chores around the house.
Frugal Son: Unlike his mother, he likes tedious cooking tasks. So he made up a bunch of tiny meatballs. Really tiny! These will be frozen and thrown into soup later.
Frugal Daughter: She sewed on a button for me (yes, I am the proverbial “can’t sew on a button” person). Now I can wear the great jacket I got at Banana Republic that was reduced to $17.00. She also offered to wax my eyebrows! What a great kid! This would have cost me $10 at the local beauty school and at least $20 in a salon.
Frugal Children went away for New Year’s Eve: Frugal Daughter to Lafayette and Frugal Son to New Orleans. Frugal Parents watched “Burn After Reading,” which was lent by friend of Frugal Son.
What a frugal day! Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
