Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Guilt, Pt. 2



Guilt can be a fickle thing.

Readers may remember my post regarding how I felt a tinge of guilt simply for spending $1.99 on lunch one day recently. (I'd been brown-bagging every day for the two months prior.)

Yesterday, however, I did something much worse, and felt no guilt whatsoever:

At about 12:30pm, I made sure my bases were covered, ducked out of work, and went to a matinee showing of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. (Yes, I went by myself. I'd never gone to a movie alone before now. It was actually pretty okay, as the theater was sparsely populated anyway.)

Three hours later, I'd officially closed out the Star Wars moviegoing portion of my childhood. I'd also cost myself $5.50 (ticket), plus $3.78 for a medium Coke, and roughly $45 for the missed time at work. (Part of my pay is hourly.)

Over $54 to see a movie on the big screen ... and it didn't bother me a bit.

Of course, a $1.99 lunch sticks with you for about 20 minutes. Star Wars flicks have proven to stay with me for about ... oh, I dunno ... forever.

— Posted by Michael @ 11:06 AM








4 Comments:
 

Reminds me of the scenario that I saw a few years ago. They did some research and tested people's decision making about money:

They chose a $1.95 item and asked consumers if they would pay $7.95 for the item right where they were, or if they would drive 15 miles to save the $6.00 on the same item at another store. People chose to drive across town to save the $6.00 almost every single time.

Then they changed up the question. For a $99.00 item, they asked consumers if they would pay $105 here, or drive 15 miles to save the $6.00. A much higher percentage of people chose to just pay the $105 here to save the hassle.

Interestingly, $6.00 is $6.00 but we tend to put a different weight on the same $6.00 when it is relative to the total cost of our purchase.

Anonymous Anonymous
, at 9:35 PM, May 25, 2005  
 

I'm glad to see you have your priorities straight. BTW, I am sure the cost was worth it. This Star Wars was the best of the three.

Anonymous Anonymous
, at 8:15 PM, May 26, 2005  
 

So...Were you saving the $1.99/day in order to afford movies, plays, or other entertainment, If so what is the problem? If not Its kind of like a chocolate bar. You can only deprive yourself for so long then you have to binge. So little bouts of freedom need to be just that.

Anonymous Anonymous
, at 10:18 PM, May 26, 2005  
 

As far as saving money on lunches, those savings had no particular destination. It was just that I couldn't find a good reason to keep spending ~$100 per month on eat-out lunches. Rather do something else with that money.

Saving it in my e-fund would be preferable, I suppose, over watching a movie.

Then again, I have to ask myself: What would you pay to return to one of the best parts of your childhood just one more time?

The answer: More than $54.

So, in that light, perhaps it was a bargain.

** Comments Closed on this Post **

Thoughts on my personal finances, goals, experiences, motivations, and accomplishments (or lack thereof).

My financial life began turning around when I took responsibility for it.
— Dave Ramsey


100%

Start (2005-12): ~$21,900
Currently: $0
[About Our Debt Paydown]

100%

Savings Goal: $15,000
Currently: ~$15,115
[About Our Liquid Savings Goal]