 |
|
The study by Scott Rick, Cynthia Cryder, and George Loewenstein reveals that tightwads save, not because they care more about the future than spendthrifts, but because forking out the money is too painful of an emotional experience.
Females are no more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts, but males are nearly three times more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts.
Respondents under the age of 30 were only slightly more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts, but respondents over 70 were five times more likely to be tightwads than spendthrifts.
Do geeks tend towards one category? I wonder?
Spendthrift thirty-something-yr-old
// as geeky as they come 🙂
Define “under-spending”
I would suggest ‘geeks’ are generally spendthrifts (including me).
My guess is we tend to over analyze the price to value benefits of things more so than most.
However, when it comes to gadgets, we are like woman and shoes. I mean, how many USB flash memory sticks do we really need?
“an international survey”
US savings rates are horrible.
In the past what the other 2/5’s were spending made up for us geeks.
uhm uhm…. somehting is wronge here… seriously wronge here..
tightwads?? most of america just doenst have money…
Overspending is paying $200 for a tablecloth or $2500 for a throw rug.
Things you can cook and clean with are available at discount stores. Big Lots has a great selection of bath towels. A $149 dinner table suspends plates above the floor to facilitate dining just like a $5000 dinner table does.
Now, things with specs… like plasma screens, video cards, cameras, and those sorts of things… those things matter.
Women like diamond rings because women are batshit crazy. If I’m dropping a few months salary on something, it damn well better connect to a satellite or have really long battery life or something. There is no such thing as a rock on a metal loop that is worth more than $10.
#7 There is no such thing as a rock on a metal loop that is worth more than $10.
Damn straight!
…There is no such thing as a rock on a metal loop that is worth more than $10
…said the 40 year old virgin… 🙂
I am a technophile but I very prudent with money.
For me keeping my money is more important than having some toy.
Cursor_
#9 – I’m glad you used the 🙂 because I’d hate to have to defend myself by linking to my Flicker account…
#7 OhForTheLoveOf
Back to basic economics for you!
>>If I’m dropping a few months salary on something, it damn well better connect to a satellite or have really long battery life or something. There is no such thing as a rock on a metal loop that is worth more than $10.
Suppose you spend $10,000 on a ring. In ten years it will probably be worth about $10,000. Now spend the same $10,000 on electronics… in about ten years it will be worth $10.
A fancy toy is a rapidly depreciating expense… a ring on a hoop is an asset… specially if you are wise about on whose finger you place it.
Diamonds are great industrial abrasives. A great line from an original Star Trek episode about diamonds, rubies, etc. “I can make these on my ship by the ton.” Episode’s title “Catspaw”
#12 – Suppose you spend $10,000 on a ring. In ten years it will probably be worth about $10,000. Now spend the same $10,000 on electronics… in about ten years it will be worth $10.
All I can do with a ring is look at it and say, “ooh pretty.”
Electronics may depreciate, but I can actually do things with electronics… or boats or cars or fishing gear or kitchen appliances… and in the case of the soon to come economic apocalypse, some of those things might help me survive when roving bands of Road Warrior clans roam America’s vast barren wasteland, raping and pillaging the weak.
Electronics depreciate for many reasons, but one is that newer and better electronics are made. Isn’t it telling that we spend a lot of time and money making computers, TVs, cars, planes, etc., better, faster, etc., but we put no effort at all into advancing the all-important gold ring technology?
That’s because rings don’t actually do anything. If having a $10K purchase hold its $10K value for 10 years, wouldn’t saving the $10K (and maybe earning interest on it) have been the smarter thing to do? Rather than buying a shiny ooh ahh trinket.
And if I put that trinket on the finger of someone who doesn’t share my core values about the value of trinkets, then I’m making a pretty big mistake 🙂
#11 OFTLO
I take it back!
#13 is obviously the 40 year old virgin!
…original Star Trek episode…Episode’s title “Catspaw”…
🙂
GigG, compare the inflation rate with what you get in a typical savings account. Less, I bet.
Diamonds are a big scam. Anyone who thinks the silly things are worth what you pay for them might try selling one to a jeweler. Their actual market value to anyone but an idiot is about 25% of what the stores charge. Maybe.
Even gold is a poor investment for value storage; it was losing value for years, up until Nov ’01.
In 1965 hamburgers cost $.25 when gold was around $120/oz (one oz of gold bought 480 burgers). In 2001, gold was about $275/oz, and burgers were what? About $3.50? That’d be 79 burgers per ounce of gold.
Let’s see, gold is around $1000 today, and a burger is about $4, or 250 burgers per ounce of gold.