Anyone else annoyed by the term "on a budget"?

[Frügal]

All around, I see this term tossed around in the wrong context. Groceries on a budget. Buying a decent car on a budget. Etcetera.
Really opens my eyes to how very few people really know how to manage their money...

[BuckyBadger]

I'm not sure that I understand your point... Budget has at least two meanings. One is an actual plan with numbers for different spending categories. Another is that of getting something inexpensively. Budget rent a car, for example.

How does someone saying that they are going to buy a car on a budget indicate to you that they don't know how to manage their money?

[disneysteve]

Yes, it is the same as "on a diet". In reality, all of us are always on a budget and always on a diet. Even if you spend no money or eat no food, you are still on a budget or on a diet.

[kaleida]

It doesn't bother in most cases, but I ran into one example the other day that bothered me. It was a "Fashion On A Budget" blog (whose URL I don't remember), but the author was blogging about a pair of $400 shoes. Dude...budget is just not the right word for that!

[disneysteve]

It doesn't bother in most cases, but I ran into one example the other day that bothered me. It was a "Fashion On A Budget" blog (whose URL I don't remember), but the author was blogging about a pair of $400 shoes. Dude...budget is just not the right word for that!

That raises an interesting point. You are assuming that "budget" and "frugal" mean the same thing, or "budget" and "cheap". I don't think that is true. I also think you need to have a point of reference. What if the person buying the $400 pair of shoes is a highly paid executive or celebrity who typically spends $1,000 on a pair? Or what if that $400 pair is extremely well made and comes with a lifetime guarantee so that they will be repaired or replaced free of charge if they wear out?

I know guys who only buy dress shoes at Nordstroms because of their guarantee. They spend 5 times what I typically spend but they have shoes that they've had for 10 years or more.

[BuckyBadger]

A budget is relative. To a very wealthy person, for hundred dollar shoes might very well be 'budget'shoes. In a magazine like Vogue, those are inexpensive shoes.

[kaleida]

That raises an interesting point. You are assuming that "budget" and "frugal" mean the same thing, or "budget" and "cheap". I don't think that is true. I also think you need to have a point of reference. What if the person buying the $400 pair of shoes is a highly paid executive or celebrity who typically spends $1,000 on a pair? Or what if that $400 pair is extremely well made and comes with a lifetime guarantee so that they will be repaired or replaced free of charge if they wear out?

I know guys who only buy dress shoes at Nordstroms because of their guarantee. They spend 5 times what I typically spend but they have shoes that they've had for 10 years or more.

Yeah but only a tiny, tiny subset of the population will consider $400 shoes to be less than they usually spend. The other 99.99% will read the website and feel inadequate about their own budget. Absolutely nothing wrong with loving $400 shoes, but I think the author should have chosen a different title for their blog out of solidarity and respect for 99.99% of the population.

Saying $400 shoes are frugal is kind of like saying "hey I'm really great at anger management - I only insulted 4 dozen people to their face today!" Maybe for 0.01% of the population that's a step forward, but to the rest of us, it feels really uncomfortable and weird to hear someone flaunting that information.

...also, there's not much difference in quality between $150 shoes and $400+ shoes. The ones with the higher price tag are priced that way because of who designed them.

[Nika]

Since we are discussing $400 shoes... Somewhat guilty here -- just bought a pair for 217 that was on sale from $400. (would not buy them at $400), but at half price they seemed like a bargain. And this is not widely known brand. What I mean is someone who goes to malls and buys Coach would probably not know of them. But, it is about quality. They are not flashy like Prada or Ferragamo - brand people associate with luxury, but c'mon, you can hammer nails with those shoes. They are terrible in all ways other than the look.

Shoes at that boutique are normally priced $400-600. And that is a going price for something decent. And they only have a sale once or twice a year.

I buy shoes whenever I find something that I can wear and that is not hideous.
And in spite of having access to all sorts of boutiques that line NYC, it comes to about 3 pairs a year. Most shoes sold in US SUCK! I blame car culture. It seems like shoes are designed to get you from the driveway to the house, not for people to actually walk in them all day long.

So I view these shoes not so much as a luxury, but as hard to find necessity - a good looking pair of shoes one can actually walk in without discomfort. I believe wearing bad shoes will eventually cause foot issues as you get older.

But, if I just couldn't afford these prices, I would have to adjust somehow (like wear sneakers or something).
I wonder, where do you guys buy your shoes that are comfortable, good for your feet and good looking at a price that makes $200 shocking?

[disneysteve]

I wonder, where do you guys buy your shoes that are comfortable, good for your feet and good looking at a price that makes $200 shocking?

You probably are directing this at woman but I'll give a guy answer. I mainly wear Rockport shoes to work. They run me under $70 at one of the outlet stores. I've never spent more than that on shoes. My wife also gets most of her shoes at the outlets. I don't think she's ever paid more than $50-60 for a pair.

[kaleida]

I don't find $200 shoes shocking...I don't find $400 shoes shocking. I have purchased $500 shoes before and only returned them because of the fit, otherwise would have kept them.

I just think it's rude and out of touch to use the phrase "on a budget" to describe $400 shoes. "On a budget" has a meaning that's more than the literal sum of its words. It means something to people who lost their jobs, whose houses are underwater, who can't afford to buy their kids food. Can anyone seriously say with a straight face they don't see past the literal meaning?

If someone was talking about buying $400 shoes "on a $20K/month budget" that wouldn't bother me a bit. That phrase doesn't have the same connotation...it's not a culturally relevant phrase like "on a budget" is.

[phantom]

It doesn't bother me at all. When someone says, "I can't do X because I'm on a budget," I figure it means "I can't do X because the budget I'm on doesn't include X." But, since the latter is more wordy, I don't mind the former.

I figure that "X on a budget" can mean one of two things: either some plan for buying X that is constant enough to work within a fixed budget or a way of obtaining X inexpensively enough that it can fit within almost any budget. Again, both alternatives get pretty wordy, so I think the shortened version is fine. This is especially true if "X on a Budget" is the title of something. I wouldn't want to try to sell a book called Some Plan for Buying Groceries That is Constant Enough to Work within a Fixed Budget.

It is a bit of a shame that "budget" is often used to mean "really tight budget," giving some people the impression that budgeting is only for people who have money troubles. But, I don't think it's really that big a deal.

[disneysteve]

"On a budget" has a meaning that's more than the literal sum of its words. It means something to people who lost their jobs, whose houses are underwater, who can't afford to buy their kids food.

It is a bit of a shame that "budget" is often used to mean "really tight budget," giving some people the impression that budgeting is only for people who have money troubles.

I think this is the answer right here. Some people view "budget" as a bad thing, something with negative connotations. "We don't have enough money so we had to put ourselves 'on a budget'."

Others view "budget" as just the way they handle their finances. It is another term for "spending plan." It isn't good, bad, or otherwise. It just is what it is. Everyone has one. Even people who don't think they are on a budget really are.

kaleida, I totally understand your point. I also roll my eyes when someone says, "I got a great deal on this $300 pocketbook." In my mind "great deal" and "$300 pocketbook" don't belong in the same sentence together, just as you don't think "budget" and "$400 shoes" go together but I think that's because people use the word "budget" incorrectly. It has come to mean something that it really doesn't mean.

[gostumpy]

Exactly.. I've been "on a budget" for the past 3 months, first time budgeting in my life... once or twice I've *jokingly* said "It's not in the budget!" but other than that, it hasn't really come up...

If/When the situation comes up, I much prefer "It's not part of our spending plan".... sounds much nicer

[DinoSaur]

People not knowing how to manage their money is good for us on this forum however. It makes those that can save and be asset rich have more power.

Help who you can, but some people just won't ever get it (not because they can't but because they don't REALLY want to).

[sherylgray]

Budget!!! The most horrifying job. But if you get over to it then you will be one of the happiest person all along the whole month. Budget will always be prepared based on the expense of previous month and expected expenditure of next month.