allowance for 9 year old

On Feb 7, 7:36*am, "Citcom" wrote:

Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For
example, if
I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20
irons.
That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer,
but I
just don't *have* $50.

Considering how easily credit is available in the U.S., I wonder how
much of a factor that is here.

I think it's ridiculous to buy on credit when one doesn't have to.
Sometimes, it's necessary, like when buying a house or student loans, but
just for everyday items that aren't absolutely necessary, one shouldn't
live beyond one's means. *Personally, I pay off my credit cards every
month, and if I couldn't I'd spend less so I could. *When I was a starving
student (I wasn't really starving, but I gave myself a typical student
budget), I spent like a starving student. *Spending on credit is what gets
people in trouble.

I agree completely. *As someone who just refinanced their mortgage to get
out of CC debt, we now only use the cc when necessary and pay it off
immediately. *I'm not going to buy a $50 iron on cc and not have the money
to pay it off at the end of the month (and therefore have to pay interest on
it which makes it cost more than $50) if I can buy a $20 iron without the
cc.

If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a $50 iron lasts
10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, it's better to pay interest on
the $50. This is an artificial example, of course. A more realistic
example would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more
reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The general principle
is that the long-term cost of ownership should be considered.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:

If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a $50 iron lasts
10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, it's better to pay interest on
the $50. This is an artificial example, of course. A more realistic
example would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more
reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The general principle
is that the long-term cost of ownership should be considered.

Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of everyday items and
eventually be in big trouble. My problem is more with people who buy
quality when quality is something nicer and more expensive but not more
durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take a beating. More
expensive clothes often have to be dry cleaned only, which I take to mean
less durable. If I pay big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw
it in the wash.

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:40:08 -0800, toypup wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:

If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a $50 iron lasts
10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, it's better to pay interest on
the $50. This is an artificial example, of course. A more realistic
example would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more
reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The general principle
is that the long-term cost of ownership should be considered.

Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of everyday items and
eventually be in big trouble. My problem is more with people who buy
quality when quality is something nicer and more expensive but not more
durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take a beating. More
expensive clothes often have to be dry cleaned only, which I take to mean
less durable. If I pay big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw
it in the wash.

I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such people. It's
fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but don't tell me it's more durable
because it's more expensive or "higher quality."

toypup wrote in
:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:40:08 -0800, toypup wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:

If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a
$50 iron lasts 10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years,
it's better to pay interest on the $50. This is an
artificial example, of course. A more realistic example
would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more
reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The
general principle is that the long-term cost of ownership
should be considered.

Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of
everyday items and eventually be in big trouble. My
problem is more with people who buy quality when quality
is something nicer and more expensive but not more
durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take
a beating. More expensive clothes often have to be dry
cleaned only, which I take to mean less durable. If I pay
big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw it in
the wash.

I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such
people. It's fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but
don't tell me it's more durable because it's more expensive
or "higher quality."

higher quality is going to be more durable. price has almost
nothing to do with quality or durability.
certain clothing items, unfortunately, do need to be dry
cleaned & it doesn't matter if you buy them at KMart or Brooks
Brothers. things like suits are impossible to properly press
at home, so dry cleaning is your best bet.
that said, i *wash* most of my "dry clean only" clothes,
because i don't buy suits (and the one i did have cleaned at
the dry cleaners, they shrunk so badly i couldn't wear it
again). some things need cold water & a delicate cycle. a very
few are hand wash.
dry clean only doesn't mean less durable, it generally means
the manufacturer hasn't preshrunk all the components, or that
there is shaping & padding that can't be ironed well with home
equipment & they're trying to cover their backside against
returns for shrinkage or dye run.
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 00:08:31 +0000 (UTC), enigma wrote:

toypup wrote in
:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:40:08 -0800, toypup wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:

If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a
$50 iron lasts 10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years,
it's better to pay interest on the $50. This is an
artificial example, of course. A more realistic example
would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more
reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The
general principle is that the long-term cost of ownership
should be considered.

Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of
everyday items and eventually be in big trouble. My
problem is more with people who buy quality when quality
is something nicer and more expensive but not more
durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take
a beating. More expensive clothes often have to be dry
cleaned only, which I take to mean less durable. If I pay
big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw it in
the wash.

I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such
people. It's fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but
don't tell me it's more durable because it's more expensive
or "higher quality."

higher quality is going to be more durable. price has almost
nothing to do with quality or durability.
certain clothing items, unfortunately, do need to be dry
cleaned & it doesn't matter if you buy them at KMart or Brooks
Brothers. things like suits are impossible to properly press
at home, so dry cleaning is your best bet.
that said, i *wash* most of my "dry clean only" clothes,
because i don't buy suits (and the one i did have cleaned at
the dry cleaners, they shrunk so badly i couldn't wear it
again). some things need cold water & a delicate cycle. a very
few are hand wash.
dry clean only doesn't mean less durable, it generally means
the manufacturer hasn't preshrunk all the components, or that
there is shaping & padding that can't be ironed well with home
equipment & they're trying to cover their backside against
returns for shrinkage or dye run.
lee

In my book, if something needs cold water or a delicate cycle or hand wash,
it is less durable because it cannot survive being treated like regular
clothing. If it survives being dragged through the mud and muck and all
sorts of scrubbing and fabric torture to get that stuff out, then it is
more durable. Things that don't last unless you give them extra special
treatment I don't consider durable.

toypup wrote:

I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such people. It's
fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but don't tell me it's more durable
because it's more expensive or "higher quality."

If you mean that expensive does not guarantee durability,
then I agree with you. If you mean that it's bogus to say that
it's worth it (for some) to pay more for something because it's
more durable, I'd take issue. I'm not sure which one you meant.
Some things that cost more *are* more durable than less expensive
alternatives.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:30:29 -0500, Ericka Kammerer wrote:

toypup wrote:

I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such people. It's
fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but don't tell me it's more durable
because it's more expensive or "higher quality."

If you mean that expensive does not guarantee durability,
then I agree with you.

Yes. That's what I mean.

If you mean that it's bogus to say that
it's worth it (for some) to pay more for something because it's
more durable, I'd take issue.

I don't mean that.

I'm not sure which one you meant.
Some things that cost more *are* more durable than less expensive
alternatives.

Yes. I know that. There is a fallacy that all things that cost more are
more durable, that "higher quality" is more durable. "Higher quality"
often just means more expensive, more difficult to find or make, not more
durable. "Higher quality" that requires special treatment to keep in good
shape is not more durable.

toypup wrote:

Yes. I know that. There is a fallacy that all things that cost more are
more durable, that "higher quality" is more durable. "Higher quality"
often just means more expensive, more difficult to find or make, not more
durable. "Higher quality" that requires special treatment to keep in good
shape is not more durable.

Agreed. I think high quality and durability go together
*within the same type of product*. For instance, if a ridiculously
delicate article of clothing is high quality, it will be more
durable than a lower quality version of the same thing, but not
more durable than a high quality pair of jeans ;-) Sometimes
durability just isn't the point ;-)
I also think that "durable" means something different,
depending on the product. For instance, while a high quality
cashmere sweater is going to require special handling, with
proper treatment it will stand up to years and years of wear
and keep looking good, unlike a lesser quality version of
the same sweater. A well made suit will take some special care,
but again, it will last for many years where a lesser quality
suit will wear out more quickly, even with the same special care.
So I think durability remains a factor even with more finicky
types of clothing. It's just on a different yardstick.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article
,
Beliavsky wrote:

Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. *For example,
if I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20
irons. That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer,
but I just don't *have* $50.

Considering how easily credit is available in the U.S., I wonder how
much of a factor that is here.

Well, the reason my hypothetical family can only manage a $20 iron is because
they have already got into trouble with their CC when they had to buy a fridge
in a hurry. That is often the case with families in poverty -- they cope well
when life is going well, but have no emergency reserves. When the fridge or
car conks out, credit is the only solution, which decreases the everyday
income thereafter, creating a downward spiral. That's leaving aside financial
imprudence, which is near-universal.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/

"toypup" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:

If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a $50 iron lasts
10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, it's better to pay interest on
the $50. This is an artificial example, of course. A more realistic
example would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more
reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The general principle
is that the long-term cost of ownership should be considered.

Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of everyday items and
eventually be in big trouble. My problem is more with people who buy
quality when quality is something nicer and more expensive but not more
durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take a beating. More
expensive clothes often have to be dry cleaned only, which I take to mean
less durable. If I pay big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw
it in the wash.


Exactly, Toypup. I'm glad someone else understands what I meant. I guess
Beliavsky has never been in CC debt and doesn't realize how easy it is to
let it happen if your not careful. NOT using the cc is the best way to stay
out of cc debt.

--
L. Miller
My Homeeschool Space www.myhomeschoolplace.com/Hogwartsacademy/
Usborne Books Representative )
Transylvania Data Recovery Services - when your computer is junk but your
data )
Nutronix - http://nutronix.com/jwhomeschoolmom
Berry Tree - http://www.MyBerryTree.com/bt36911
Automatic Builder - http://automaticbuilder.com/jwhomeschoolmom
Silver Solutions - http://www.automaticbuilder.com/jwhomeschoolmom/silver