So, I watched this show again, and I'm convinced that these folks don't understand the difference between saving in theory and saving in reality.
The couple on the show I watched had no children, and their second bedroom was jam-packed with well-organized food storage. LOADS of food for two people. Probably more than a year's worth.
They explained that travel is their passion, and they coupon so they can travel -- fine, I can understand that. They wanted to take a cruise for the husband's birthday. After checking their accounts, the wife announced that they could afford the cruise IF they could save $500.
So what's the LOGICAL way to save $500? It seems to me that any reasonable person would say, "Well, we've stockpiled this food for just such a purpose. We will not spend anything at the grocery store for the next month or so" -- or, more realistically, "We'll just allot $10 per week for fresh things like milk and eggs. By not spending anything at the grocery store, we'll painlessly accumulate the $500 that we need."
INSTEAD, they headed to the grocery store and spent -- I might be wrong on the exact number -- $540 on groceries and only paid $40 for them. They announced that they had "saved" $500 and now could go on their cruise.
In what parallel universe does this make sense? Yes, they have more food for their hoard, but they do not have $500 to give to the cruise company (unless they're sailing on a cruise line that accepts Ramen Noodles as payment). In fact, they now have $40 LESS in their checking account. Yes, they have more food in their already-large stockpile, but it doesn't bring them closer to their immediate goal of taking the cruise.
I personally call this "spaving" -- spending to save. Or spending so you can claim you saved.
The couple on the show I watched had no children, and their second bedroom was jam-packed with well-organized food storage. LOADS of food for two people. Probably more than a year's worth.
They explained that travel is their passion, and they coupon so they can travel -- fine, I can understand that. They wanted to take a cruise for the husband's birthday. After checking their accounts, the wife announced that they could afford the cruise IF they could save $500.
So what's the LOGICAL way to save $500? It seems to me that any reasonable person would say, "Well, we've stockpiled this food for just such a purpose. We will not spend anything at the grocery store for the next month or so" -- or, more realistically, "We'll just allot $10 per week for fresh things like milk and eggs. By not spending anything at the grocery store, we'll painlessly accumulate the $500 that we need."
INSTEAD, they headed to the grocery store and spent -- I might be wrong on the exact number -- $540 on groceries and only paid $40 for them. They announced that they had "saved" $500 and now could go on their cruise.
In what parallel universe does this make sense? Yes, they have more food for their hoard, but they do not have $500 to give to the cruise company (unless they're sailing on a cruise line that accepts Ramen Noodles as payment). In fact, they now have $40 LESS in their checking account. Yes, they have more food in their already-large stockpile, but it doesn't bring them closer to their immediate goal of taking the cruise.
I personally call this "spaving" -- spending to save. Or spending so you can claim you saved.