Frugal Mama article in today's Washington Post
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Did anyone else read this today? Just curious what others think.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/advice/a-frugal-mamas-budget--and-splurge-friendly-lifestyle/2012/05/30/gJQA6mf51U_story.html I found it interesting that she thinks it's frugal to pay for interior decorating. I hear that things will be better planned and better quality but it still seems extravagent. Other things about the article seemed weird to me too. |
Anonymous
| Other than having 4 kids in a 2 BR house, and not doing after school activities, I didn't really see much frugality. Which is totally fine but not sure what the point of the article was. |
Anonymous
|
Everything about this article seemed weird. Did someone at the Post owe her a favor and agree to run this so she could get more hits on her blog? She seems to have a firm grasp on some really obvious things (eating at home costs less than eating out) and no credibility at all in other areas. You have no retirement savings but are spending $1000 on a dining room table?
I am not impressed that the wife of a physician has figured out how to squeak by. |
Anonymous
|
I had the same reaction -- I thought it was weird and I didn't really think she sounded frugal. I grew up with 8 kids in my family -- that was frugal.
I think the Washington Post could have found a much more interesting family to do a "frugal" article on. This woman hasn't thought of anything unique that would qualify her as "uniquely frugal". I agree a $1000 table is not frugal...if she had made one herself or "rescued" one from the trash bin...that would have been frugal. Eating at home is not necessarily frugal either. She didn't mention coupons...she has her stuff delivered! |
Anonymous
|
I think they have made some very frugal basic lifestyle choices -- the most important ones -- given that they have 4 kids -- not a frugal choice there at all!
But buying a 2 bedroom home when you have 6 people in your family is VERY unusual especially for a professional family. Living somewhere where public schools are an option -- another frugal choice. It looks like they als have quite a small yard. Given all of that -- a one time $1,000 expense for a dining room table that will stand up to years of use by 4 young kids? Makes a lot of sense. |
Anonymous
| I think the article resonated with me, although I agree it wasn't about being frugal. It just reminded me that I can't have it all, and I should really learn to think about where I should cut back spending on, so I can splurge on something else, like furniture in my house. I have the tendency of buying "quality" everything, when in fact, in some things, the quality doesn't really matter to me (buying hardcover book vs. paperback book). i think the article led me more to think about prioritizing, not necessarily saving money all around. |
Anonymous
| A stay at home mom with grocery delivery does not seem frugal to me. If I had the time, I would go to Shoppers Food Warehouse or Costco (since a family of 6). The stores that usually deliver are the pricier ones, correct? |
Anonymous
| I thought it was extremely weird too. I am kind of a a casual "afficionado" of frugal websites and blogs so I eagerly jumped right into that article, but I quickly caught on that there was sort of a whole lotta nuthin' going on there. I mean, the "suggestions" were so generic. I agree with the PP that it seemed like the Post writers almost seemeed to be paying her a personal favor in writing the article about her. It was all just so weird! |
Anonymous
|
$1000 would make sense if that were the only way to get a durable table and if they had enough retirement savings. Otherwise, no.
I wouldn't care about any of it if she weren't holding herself out as a model of frugality/rational priorities. |
Anonymous
Seriously! I thought this too. So many things like this just had me scratching my head. Also: no retirement savings? She addressed this in the 11 a.m. online "conversation" on the Post website but, honestly, her reply was dippy too. She basically said, "I am confident we can catch up." Umm, no. The whole point of starting to save for retirement early is the magic of compounding. Everyone has seen those tables showing the differences b/w two people, one who started saving at age 22 or so, the other (say) 8 years later at age 30. Even if the 30yo puts loads more in there, the 22yo ends with tons more b/c of compounding. So again, this "frugal" lady's outlook seemed strange to me. Her whole outlook on frugality seemed like a mile wide but only an inch deep. |
Anonymous
Yes, completely agree with all this. |
Anonymous
| I was totally puzzled and annoyed too. Then I realized that often times in Washington, "struggling" or "frugal living" can still encompass a family that makes six figures and does stuff like has the kids share a room (gasp!) or doesn't exclusively shop at Whole Foods (poor babies!). Dumb. |
Anonymous
| One of the comments summed it up well by writing "Frugality for the 1%". |
Anonymous
|
Agree that she is not a good example of frugal living. A SFH in AU Park/Janney school district (how many families would be able to afford that)? 4 kids? No retirement? $1000 table? She has to LIVE the priorities of frugal living, and spending $1000 on a table (that she probably could have gotten for $300 on craigslist) when that money should have straight into retirement was especially egregious.
Poor editorial choice. WaPo quality is heading down the tubes. |
Anonymous
| I think the point was the they are frugal in some aspects of their lives (eating in, no after school activities, less driving, growing food, walking to school, going public etc.) so they can spend money on things that are important to them (i.e. their home, being able to afford staying home, save time by not having to run to the store every other day, etc.) These are choices most people with limited means make daily, even when "limited" in this area means "wealthy" somewhere else. Just different priorities, that's all. |