|
On December 19 2016 12:24 JimmiC wrote:
Even a city of 70000 has public transit that you could cheaply buy or rent near public transit. That being sad public transit is a pain so I get it.
If the goal is max savings then the best way is max income and then reinvest your income into properties and businesses until you earn money through rentals. Then you reinvest your earnings into a wealth fund to maximize gains even more.
For that you want the best cost benefit of rent vs vehicle upkeep.
|
On December 19 2016 14:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 12:24 JimmiC wrote:
Even a city of 70000 has public transit that you could cheaply buy or rent near public transit. That being sad public transit is a pain so I get it. If the goal is max savings then the best way is max income and then reinvest your income into properties and businesses until you earn money through rentals. Then you reinvest your earnings into a wealth fund to maximize gains even more. For that you want the best cost benefit of rent vs vehicle upkeep.
I don't think the question was how to get rich fast. For that, just reply to one of the emails on the subject in your spam folder. 
|
On December 19 2016 14:44 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 14:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2016 12:24 JimmiC wrote:
Even a city of 70000 has public transit that you could cheaply buy or rent near public transit. That being sad public transit is a pain so I get it. If the goal is max savings then the best way is max income and then reinvest your income into properties and businesses until you earn money through rentals. Then you reinvest your earnings into a wealth fund to maximize gains even more. For that you want the best cost benefit of rent vs vehicle upkeep. I don't think the question was how to get rich fast. For that, just reply to one of the emails on the subject in your spam folder.
I was simply clarifying to the OP the difference between cutting costs and saving money. The two things aren't necessarily the same things
|
Also, i'd always do a rough calculation of how much time i invest to save money. Some things are simply not worth it.
Driving to a gas station with lower prices for example.
That being said, of course not all time is made equal. Some ways to save money are fun, so the time isn't wasted. But if it is something you don't enjoy doing, take a look at how much time you invest to save how much money.
|
On December 19 2016 15:20 Simberto wrote:
Also, i'd always do a rough calculation of how much time i invest to save money. Some things are simply not worth it.
Driving to a gas station with lower prices for example.
That being said, of course not all time is made equal. Some ways to save money are fun, so the time isn't wasted. But if it is something you don't enjoy doing, take a look at how much time you invest to save how much money.
Before you do that though, have a think about how much money/time/fun you can save by optimising like this, and then ask if it's worth the time to do the optimisation.
|
On December 19 2016 06:00 Epishade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 05:55 xM(Z wrote:sacrificing the least amount of happiness that pretty much killed your whole argument. ...No it didn't. It's a stipulation of living cheaply. You can still be frugal and happy. If I had said while sacrificing the MOST amount of happiness, then that would have just killed my whole argument because I'd just live in a box eating ramen every single day to save money... you got the why wrong.
most/less has no bearing on anything, what killed your argument is that the least amount of happiness is not quantifiable and its subjective. people will call you a hypocrite based on that; when your least amount of happiness looks grossly/disgustingly comfortable as far as your stated goal goes, so it doesn't actually matter.
basically, you're trying to have others quantify your unquantifiable notion based on their definition/idea of it(which is what happened - people came up with stuff and you rejected them because ... your happiness).
|
On December 19 2016 16:30 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 06:00 Epishade wrote:On December 19 2016 05:55 xM(Z wrote:sacrificing the least amount of happiness that pretty much killed your whole argument. ...No it didn't. It's a stipulation of living cheaply. You can still be frugal and happy. If I had said while sacrificing the MOST amount of happiness, then that would have just killed my whole argument because I'd just live in a box eating ramen every single day to save money... you got the why wrong. most/less has no bearing on anything, what killed your argument is that the least amount of happiness is not quantifiable and its subjective. people will call you a hypocrite based on that; when your least amount of happiness looks grossly/disgustingly comfortable as far as your stated goal goes, so it doesn't actually matter. basically, you're trying to have others quantify your unquantifiable notion based on their definition/idea of it(which is what happened - people came up with stuff and you rejected them because ... your happiness).
No, he doesn't. His question is apparently quite clear to anyone but you.
How can you save money in easy ways that are not too annoying. Of course everyone has different things that are "too annoying". That is besides the point. He is not looking for a scientifically exact study on the relation of annoyingness vs money saved. He is asking people for random ideas.
You could save a lot of money by living under a bridge and eating only rice soaked in water from the river. But for most people that qualifies as too annoying.
What he is looking for is things that one might actually do, not theoretical maxima of saving that are utterly infeasable in practice.
Like "Know how the taxes work", "Buy the non-brand product", "Use less heating by wearing warmer clothes at home" and other similar things.
Of course he won't do all of them, and that isn't the point. The point is to brainstorm ideas and pick the ones you like. And in that regard, his question is formulated perfectly fine.
On December 19 2016 15:32 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 15:20 Simberto wrote:
Also, i'd always do a rough calculation of how much time i invest to save money. Some things are simply not worth it.
Driving to a gas station with lower prices for example.
That being said, of course not all time is made equal. Some ways to save money are fun, so the time isn't wasted. But if it is something you don't enjoy doing, take a look at how much time you invest to save how much money. Before you do that though, have a think about how much money/time/fun you can save by optimising like this, and then ask if it's worth the time to do the optimisation.
AHA! You are trying to trap me in an infinite loop! But i saw through your deception!
|
On December 19 2016 15:32 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 15:20 Simberto wrote:
Also, i'd always do a rough calculation of how much time i invest to save money. Some things are simply not worth it.
Driving to a gas station with lower prices for example.
That being said, of course not all time is made equal. Some ways to save money are fun, so the time isn't wasted. But if it is something you don't enjoy doing, take a look at how much time you invest to save how much money. Before you do that though, have a think about how much money/time/fun you can save by optimising like this, and then ask if it's worth the time to do the optimisation.
People who post on TL clearly don't value their time at all, so this is a non-issue
|
A couple good ways to save money I've used lately are:
Asing airbnb or similar sites when traveling (also usually includes kitchen, which you can use for cooking instead of always going to restaurants).
When moved to a new flat I bought some slightly used forniture from random dudes through a phone app. Prices can be extremely cheaper than buying new stuff.
|
Isnt it time ineffective to buy random furnituture from random dudes instead od taking everything from one place?
|
On December 19 2016 21:10 Sent. wrote:
Isnt it time ineffective to buy random furnituture from random dudes instead od taking everything from one place?
I personally bought most of the stuff for my flat from Ikea in a couple of trips, as it is much more time effective indeed.
But when I found a specific piece of furniture I really wanted and it wasn't there, I think it's worth spending a couple of hours to find it and going to a random dude's flat to buy it for 30 instead of 300 bucks.
|
On December 19 2016 21:10 Sent. wrote:
Isnt it time ineffective to buy random furnituture from random dudes instead od taking everything from one place?
Yeah, it takes more time, but if it is expensive things, like dining table, chairs, sofa and so on, I think you can get comparable things much cheaper than new for a good save per time spent. But maybe not worth 2h of searching for a used blender for example.
|
We went with all new furniture due to just having had a horrid experience with bed bugs. You do NOT want to buy furniture and bring bed bugs into your home. So if bed bugs are a problem in your area (and bed bugs are becoming prevalent in more and more areas), be very careful when buying second hand furniture (same for that good-looking mattress that someone tossed out into the street).
|
On December 19 2016 20:53 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 16:30 xM(Z wrote:On December 19 2016 06:00 Epishade wrote:On December 19 2016 05:55 xM(Z wrote:sacrificing the least amount of happiness that pretty much killed your whole argument. ...No it didn't. It's a stipulation of living cheaply. You can still be frugal and happy. If I had said while sacrificing the MOST amount of happiness, then that would have just killed my whole argument because I'd just live in a box eating ramen every single day to save money... you got the why wrong. most/less has no bearing on anything, what killed your argument is that the least amount of happiness is not quantifiable and its subjective. people will call you a hypocrite based on that; when your least amount of happiness looks grossly/disgustingly comfortable as far as your stated goal goes, so it doesn't actually matter. basically, you're trying to have others quantify your unquantifiable notion based on their definition/idea of it(which is what happened - people came up with stuff and you rejected them because ... your happiness). No, he doesn't. His question is apparently quite clear to anyone but you. How can you save money in easy ways that are not too annoying. Of course everyone has different things that are "too annoying". That is besides the point. He is not looking for a scientifically exact study on the relation of annoyingness vs money saved. He is asking people for random ideas. You could save a lot of money by living under a bridge and eating only rice soaked in water from the river. But for most people that qualifies as too annoying. What he is looking for is things that one might actually do, not theoretical maxima of saving that are utterly infeasable in practice. Like "Know how the taxes work", "Buy the non-brand product", "Use less heating by wearing warmer clothes at home" and other similar things. Of course he won't do all of them, and that isn't the point. The point is to brainstorm ideas and pick the ones you like. And in that regard, his question is formulated perfectly fine. optimization/efficientisation(fr) is a scam. it's what you do when you stop evolving or you choose not to evolve/change anymore.
very dead/uninteresting subject to me. now, if we were to talk about why he had that change of heart all of the sudden, well, there might be something interesting there.
i break bubbles, i don't spit shine them like a gentleman.
|
When is it acceptable to wear a fedora?
|
On December 19 2016 22:44 Sent. wrote:
When is it acceptable to wear a fedora?
If your name is Nick Caffrey
|
|
|
Thanks.
He makes good use of compounded interest. Both by putting his savings into ETFs and paying off loans. What he does make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
how do you translate books/works that Rhyme like poetry or Dr seuss?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
