$200k for a coffee and sandwich?

I'm reading "Playing with FIRE" by Scott Rieckens. He realised he could save a 6-figure amount just by not having a sandwich and coffee on his way to work each day.

Traditionally Scott would buy an coffee and a sandwich on his way to work. It was "only" eight dollars so it seemed like an easy purchase.

Even with free coffee at work, eight dollars seemed a small price to pay with a sandwich included.

Doing the Math

Then Scott crunched the numbers. Eight dollars each workday came to $160 a month. $1,920 per year.

Continuing this habit for 30 years of work would cost him $57,600.

If he invested that $160/month instead, he would accumulate $133,161 (invested at 5%).

Translating that into Australian dollars it's $194,765.27 (to be precise).

How the little things add up

It is amazing how even little things add up if we do them a lot. $8 doesn't sound much - until he realises he's buying 7,200 coffees and 7,200 sandwiches.

Are we getting value?

This is not to say don't ever buy anything. It's about working out whether we're really getting value from our purchases.

Repeat purchases are particularly in question - for two reasons. Because we do them often, the cost really adds up (like the coffees). We also know that the longer we have something the less we enjoy it.

So how much does stuff really cost?

Good question. I developed my own little calculator for this (grab a copy).

I tried an example of a $14 lunch each workday. It came out to cost nearly quarter of a million dollars.

Download your own copy and you can try it out for different expenses, whether they occur each workday, every day, week, month or year.

I'm not picking on coffee drinkers. It might be buying clothes you don't wear, having a gym membership you never use, or cable TV that you don't need.

By finding out the true cost you can decide whether it's providing good value, or whether you'd be better off with the cash.

Comments

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 c

Don't dump on charities

Netflix causes mass dumping. Here's an alternative. January is usually a big month for physical donations to charity. In 2019 it's been over-the-top (literally) as charity donation bins have been overflowing with items. The Netflix series "Tidying Up" by famous declutterer Marie Kondo (see her book ) has inspired many to declutter their homes. But in the process they've cluttered the streets. What's so bad about donating? When the bins overflow the extra items are thrown away. Having been in the weather, the rain and on the ground, they are classified as contaminated and cannot be sold. To make it worse, much of what fills the bins is not good enough to sell, and is also dumped. Bad donations hurt charities 13 million dollars. That's how much it costs charities to deal with all the junk we dump on them - 60,000 tonnes a year. Lifeline says half its stores have stopped accepting donations. We might think we're helping, but that's a lot

This could all be yours

This cartoon kind of happened to me on the weekend. Joking about death My dad has his own unique sense of humour. Flippantly he joked that when he passes away, the first thing I'll need to do is get a rubbish skip (maybe two) and jam it full with all the junk from the garage. I was reminded of Marie Kondo, who says in her book that we have to deal with items either now or later; so it might as well be now. For people who have retired, I guess there's a third option: Ignore it for a few more decades and let descendants deal with it. Don't get me wrong - my dad has plenty of years left yet. But from his joke I'm guessing he's reasonably happy to let it all sit there while he enjoys retired life. Why not deal with it? I can kind of understand. It's an overwhelming task (even to look at). There's also the "I might need that" factor. Which is fair enough, but even if an item is needed, is it findable in amongst everything else? About half the

But wait... there's less!

Search This Blog