Budget Post

For the past two weeks, I've been wrapped up in setting up an entirely new budgeting system for the household. This is not a plea for sympathy: I've enjoyed it thoroughly. It's one of those things that I call "inconsistent with my character sketch": if I were a fictional character -- anti-list, anti-schedules, numerophobic -- no reader would believe I'd enjoy dealing with a detailed system of numbers.

But I do. After all, I don't have to do any actual calculating myself (that's why computers were INVENTED). Meanwhile, I like knowing exactly what's available in which category. We did start out that way, but somewhere around kid two or three, I got lazy and content with a very Victorian arrangement in our marriage: I'd just ask Darren if we had enough for whatever I wanted. Or I'd inform him of what I bought and let him do the transfers necessary to cover the expenses. Very neat and patriarchal of us, but not very sound financial practice.

Because I've been so preoccupied with the budget -- as in, racking my brain for other topics to talk about just to relieve Darren's monotony -- I've been musing over the following unrelated money-type thoughts recently:

1. A friend was advising me on how to cut down on the grocery bill, and a large part of her advice was "shop at Wal-Mart." I replied that I don't shop at Wal-Mart. She agreed that the one in town is a death-trap, but the newer one outside of town was less crowded. "No," I said, "I don't shop at Wal-Mart at all. Period. On principle." The trouble is, it's a very vague principle, made up of equal parts of dislike (Wal-Mart has pushed out every other competing business in my hometown, leaving residents with no other shopping choice); discomfort (I don't like relying on China to make my life better... but I shop at Target, and it's not like they're all stars and stripes themselves); and stubbornness (if everyone else shops at Wal-Mart, then I sure as heck won't). It's annoying that a vague principle can cost extra money.

2. However, after two or three years of eschewing Wal-Mart, I'm glad to say that my horizon has broadened. When I think, "I need to buy a box of small nails and a hairbrush," I then think, "So which stores do I need to go to?" I shop a much larger variety of stores now that I can't get everything in one (crowded, headachey, greed-breeding) place.

3. Budget cuts aren't as easy as the articles make it appear. It's easy to say, "Cut out that Starbucks coffee!", but then you're left with the reality that you don't get that yummy coffee you're so attached to. (Not that I patronize Starbucks, of course.) Especially when the yummy coffee is already a once-a-month treat. Especially when you really don't want to see your beloved local chain go under from lack of business.

4. Also, it's easy to advise, "Drop unnecessary magazine subscriptions." That's fine and good for BH&G, which is a huge corporation and probably could manufacture its own customers to buy its magazine if it had to. But the little magazines that depend on our support to survive... it's as much a favor as a pleasure to subscribe.

5. Same goes for the farm that we bought shares in. It's expensive, not to mention risky if the growing season turns out to be a disaster. Much cheaper to get produce at the grocery store (or WAL-MART). But we want to support the farm.

6. Living "green" and "organically" is not budget-friendly.

7. So much for a "budget post." This thing's long. Darren's the one who practices economy of words, not me.

-- SJ