Skip to main content

How to waste a year's wages

A friend recently asked me why it is that so many people (on good incomes) are struggling to save.

Often the big three money areas are housing, transport and food. In one sense these are necessary items. But what we spend on them is often way more than necessary.


I crunched some numbers on how much extra my wife and I could spend on these things - if for some reason we wanted to burn our money.

1. Housing

Our apartment is fairly nice, but also cost-effective. I've mentioned how choosing it saves us $1,800 per year, compared to a similar one we saw.

The high end of 2-bedroom apartments in our suburb is $305 per week more than our apartment. Not $305 per week. $305 per week more than ours is.

I cannot get over that. Sure it's new and modern-looking, but that's a lot of money.

It's an extra $15,860 per year above what we pay.

2. Transport

The Australian Automobile Association lists the costs of owning and running a car. It includes many often-overlooked costs like maintenance and depreciation (but not speeding or parking fines).

The average car in my city costs $271.87 per week to own and run. That's $14,137 per year.

3. Eating out

We generally cook our own meals, but there are people who eat out daily. It might be home-delivered takeaway. It might be buying lunch and a few coffees during the work day. It might be a cafe-cooked breakfast on the weekend.

A new restaurant near us is delicious and reasonably affordable. The cheapest entree is $10 and the most affordable main is $18.

Eating there every night would be $28 each. That's $196 per week (without any drinks) - or $10,192 per year. Each!

Adding it up

Hypothetically, we could live in a really flash place, own two cars (instead of zero) and each eat out once per day. And it would cost us an extra $64,518 per year.

To be fair we would save a small amount on train and bus fares, and on groceries. Let's say $7,500. That still leaves an extra cost of $57,000 for this inflated lifestyle.

To have $57,000 to spend, after tax, a person would need to earn $74,100. That's a full-time wage.

So in a couple, one person would have to work full-time their whole life just to pay for the more expensive versions of these three things.

Someone once said "it is not so much the high cost-of-living, but the cost of high-living".

It's amazing how much we can save by choosing the slightly more basic version of things.

No offence

I'm not having a go at anyone who lives in a penthouse apartment, has multiple vehicles, or buys lunch and coffees. It's your life and your choice.

I'm just saying that if you're wondering where your money went - or how others survive while working far fewer hours (or on a much lower wage) this might be part of the answer.

PS. If you'd like to read more, why not subscribe to my monthly-ish catch-up email. All the new articles in one quick email.

Comments

  1. Great way to put money into perspective with folks. I read an interesting meme a few weeks ago which posed the question, "what does it take to waste $10,000/year?" with the answer being just $27/day. Such an easy amount of money to spend a day on unnecessary luxuries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely. And when there's several ways to waste $10,000 it really adds up. :)

      Delete
  2. absolutely right
    not to mention the cost of social life: when you meet with your friends in cafes /restaurants and it's lame not to drink and eat, when you go to the theatre twice a month to stay (or pretend to be) intellectual /or the cinema

    also health - monthly pass for a gym can be a significant amount of money as well

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes the gym can be expensive - especially when so many members don't actually go! :)
      There are cheaper/free alternatives to most things but it needs someone to have the initiative to suggest it. Meeting up with friends in each other's homes, exercising at the free outdoor gyms in the park (where available), riding a bike, and borrowing movies from the local library.
      I think the challenge is advertising. Many dollars are spent to convince us that the above things aren't cool. Nonsense. When we invite friends to our house for a meal, they don't say "This is so lame, I'd much to prefer we all went to a restaurant."
      (I'll stop before this comment becomes its own blogpost ;) but I think you get my point)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

5 Reasons why we hoard - and they're wrong

"Less is More" is one of the catch-cries of downsizing. Often the fewer things we have the more we value them. So it's a great title for a book that's basically a manual for how to de-clutter your home. The introductory chapter of Less is More: How to De-clutter Your Life gives some great insights into why we find it so hard to reduce our stuff. Here are 5 of them - the last one is one of the biggest for me. 1. The cost of holding on. We were raised by our parents and grandparents and in their day items were expensive and space was cheap. It made sense in those days to hold onto stuff just in case you ever needed it. But today housing is expensive and items are cheap. It's hard to change a habit, but now we save much more by downsizing. 2. Keeping it in the family. For some reason we prefer to give things to those close to us. Again this was viable in the days of big families and lots of children to receive hand-me-downs. But these days we have smaller fa...

20 unplugged ideas

May 1-7 is Screen-Free Week . It's about spending time away from the screen and more time with each other - or doing things we love. It's a great chance to break the work-tired-watchTV-ads-shop-work cycle. This list of twenty alternative ideas is great for screen-free week. It's also a great reminder of things we could enjoy if we're shopping and spending less - and maybe working less and enjoying life more.

Will robots take your job?

The future could be very different. It's one reason I started this blog. What will technology mean for jobs? For incomes? For society? So I was excited to find Will Robots Take Your Job? at my local library. What does the book say? There's always been technological change and we've always found jobs. As the more laborious jobs were taken by machines, we took on higher skilled jobs, moving further up the "skill ladder". The main question is whether this time is different. Will the "skill ladder" continue to have higher rungs for humans to move on to? Will these rungs appear as quickly as the current rungs disappear? Either way we're headed for significant disruption. Either large-scale re-training of our workforce or massive unemployment. The author despairs that our leaders seem not to talk about this - and worse still, not have a plan for it. Farmers or horses? In 1870 about 75% of Americans worked in agriculture and used 25 million hors...