If you totaled up all the money I've spent on, let's say, shoes over the course of my life, the total would be…oh, who knows, enough to buy some crazy imported sports car. But I care deeply about all my shoes (past, present and future purchases). And doesn't short term happiness count for something?
Oh no, it certainly does not, according to the New York Times (this message, a tiny little one page, wrapped up in a glossy, thick magazine devoted to style and all things pricey and covetable).
In yesterday's New York Times, there was a special insert entitled Eye Candy (Women's Fashion Fall 2007) and flipping through its a little over 300 pages was just like Christmas morning.
While looking at all the pretty, shiny pictures, I'd occasionally stop on some of the few pages that had actual articles. Page 118, New Balance: the point of the piece was that while shopping is more fun than saving, money put towards what you buy today could be saved into bigger materialistic purchases or goals. As it brilliantlystated: "[investment] alternatives so you don't wind up the best-dressed person in the shelter."
The piece takes five different ages and five different expensive purchases. It explains how the money could be saved (over the course of many, many years) to net you a "better" investment. Some of it was good. A brief run down:
A 25 year old could save $359 a month for five years and be able to afford to purchase an apartment by the time she hits 30, instead of buying those shoes and kind of ugly purse right now.
A 35 year old could save $842 a month for eighteen years and get her baby into some obnoxious Ivy League, instead of buying that Cartier watch now. Yawn. Get the watch. The kid probably will run off to backpack in Europe by then anyway.
A 40 year old could save $2083 a month for two years (instead of that really cute bag) tp save up enough money for a kitchen renovation. Geez, isn't that was Home Depot credit cards are for? Boring goal.
A 45 year old could save $1000 for twenty years instead of some cheap looking ring now. Result: enough money to pay for nine years in a private nursing home. Of course, that is probably figuring in today's rates. In twenty years, that'll probably be enough to land you a bed in some constantly raided by the news and investigators crappy nursing home. If you had bought that ugly ring, you could hold the inheritance of it over your child(ren)'s head and at least live out your retirement in her house instead.
Anyway, all pretty good suggestions (if not a tad depressing, um, saving for a nursing home?). But I was most interested in the 30 year old. After all, that's me. What should I be saving for?
A 30 year old can achieve becoming a millionaire by the age of 40! Instead of buying a fur coat (sure), I can save…$6,657 a month (cough) for ten years. Oh, save almost $7000 a month? Is that all? I'd just have to take on, oh, two or three more jobs…but then I'd be a millionaire and I could blow all my money on crap I didn't buy for ten years.
Yeah, I didn't really learn much from the article. Except that, at 30, I am expected to save the most out of all the other ages in the article. And, wow, NY Times must have a rich reading audience, if it thinks nothing of telling a 30 year old to save 7K for a few years.
P.S.: pale skin is back in fashion. I predict a return to coke head chic. Enjoy.
(New Guy just popped into my office and his nasty cologne is still lingering, gag).
No comments:
Post a Comment