Cutting costs anywhere that makes sense adds to that budgetary cushion that can be used to pay off debt, add to an emergency fund, save for college, or anything else.  One fairly easy way to do this is to reduce, or eliminate, trips to the vending machines down the hall.  The markup in our building borders on ridiculous now ($1.00 for a candy bar).  And what’s more, although Snickers® would like you to believe that it satisfies, candy usually just makes you hungrier.

Which brings me to my secret snacking weapon:  oatmeal. Plain, old-fashioned Quaker Oats.  Not the “instant” oats, but the big, giant container of oats.  I get ten pounds of oatmeal for under $8.  That breaks down to less than a dime per serving, and a serving is a full cup of oatmeal.  That’s a heck of a lot cheaper than a candy bar, and much more nutritious.

Here’s what I do.  Adapt to your tastes:

• Keep the oats dry in some kind of closed container. I use a plastic coffee container.
• Bring a 1/4-cup scoop to measure out a serving. Or a 1/2-cup.  Doesn’t matter too much.
• Scoop half of the oats into a mug, then put any flavorings you might want in. I use cinnamon ($4 for 11 ounces at Costco) and honey.
• Scoop the other half on top of the flavorings. I do this because pouring the hot water on in the next step makes the cinnamon clump if it’s on top.
• Pour hot water in to whatever level of consistency desired.

I tend not to get bored with the same foods over and over again, so this works well as a snack for me.  Even if you don’t want to go all-out with buying oatmeal 10 pounds at a time, the smaller container in the grocery store is still pretty cost-effective.

One of those little money saving things for your budgeting arsenal.

Got tweet? I do!

After giving myself a giant environmentally-friendly pat on the back for how green it was for me to buy a used washer and dryer, a big hole was pointed out in my argument.

I had considered the costs of electricity and manufacturing, but neglected to consider water costs.  Commenter “First Step” points this out:

I think you’re overlooking the real reason that the “efficient” washers are better for the environment–much lower water usage. If you live in an area where water is scarce and/or expensive, you will recoup the cost of the more expensive washer very quickly. We bought the $1000 washer 6 years ago when we moved to an area where water cost more than twice what we had been paying. On water savings alone, we recouped the cost of the washer in about 3 years. Our washer uses less than 10 gallons per load versus 40 for the previous model.

Since water is becoming scarce in more and more areas, expect to see more incentives to get the old style washers out of use.

I admit that water cost hasn’t been an issue where we live. We pay a minimum monthly fee plus a per-gallon charge after we exceed a certain amount. The only extra costs we’ve incurred on our water bill are for dumb things like forgetting to pay on time. We’ve never used so much water in one month that we’ve had to pay extra, so that’s probably the reason why I didn’t even consider the water costs.

Buying a water-efficient washer makes marginal financial sense for people in my situation, but I know  now not everyone is in the same boat.  If you pay for every gallon you use each month, then water efficiency becomes a factor.  Or, if you have a large family or use a lot of water for some other reason, and end up paying above and beyond some flat fee each month, then water efficiency becomes a factor.

“First Step” says to expect more incentives to get old-style washers out of use, but they’re not necessary.  Supply and demand should do this naturally.  As in, “Gee, my water bill doubled after they changed their pricing model.  Let’s look at payback time for a newer washer.”  Or, more directly, “Gee, I can only use 2,000 gallons of water this month, and my clothes washer consumes 400 of those gallons.  What about getting one that only uses 100 gallons?”

Anyway, bottom line is to take water use, as well as how you have to pay for that usage, when deciding what kind of washer to get.

Got tweet? I do!

What’s more, there are likely a few more appliances that I’d be eager to buy used, even though there are more efficient, “greener” versions being made today.

I mentioned in the roundup that we bought a used clothes washer and dryer.  We found the advertisement on our local Craigslist, went up, and found the set to be in very good shape.  A comparable set today would cost between $800 and $900, and we bought his two-year-old set for $400.

An $800-$900 washer/dryer set isn’t completely bottom of the line, but it’s not top of the line, either.  A water-efficient, energy-efficient top-load washer, plus a matching dryer, runs about $1,000.  The washer model at this level is Energy Star rated.  (The dryer isn’t, but I think that’s because dryers aren’t efficient in general.  That’s what clotheslines are for.)

There’s a big push for people to upgrade their appliances to more efficient models.  The government is even chipping in 30% of the upgrade cost on selected appliances, up to $1,500, in the form of a tax credit.  (Washers and dryers aren’t included.)  It would seem that we, and our greenness, took a step backwards by buying a used washer and dryer.

Well, it probably will not only less costly overall to get the used appliances instead of the new efficient ones, it will probably be greener, too. I’ll explain.  There are a couple of things to consider:  total cost, and total energy expended.

Let’s use these numbers, which are pretty close to what they were when we checked them out at Lowe’s.  The less-efficient set cost about $30 more per year to operate than the more-efficient set.  At a cost difference of $600 ($1,000 – $400) this means a break-even point of 20 years.  We’d be fortunate if either set lasted this long.  So, the difference in the total cost of ownership is a wash.  (Sorry.)

But what about total energy expended?  It’s true that I’ll burn more energy running the inefficient appliances, but that’s not the only consideration.  The energy-efficient appliances would have been brand-new, meaning they were constructed out of new materials.  This construction process is very costly in terms of energy. We’re giving the used appliances a second chance.  The appliances are already manufactured.  It’s a pretty green way to go, actually.  Why buy new when you can make do?  Why buy new when a place like RepairClinic.com will help you find the replacement parts you need?

It’s helpful to remember the second “R” of being green:  reduce, reuse, and recycle.  Used is great.  Take that, Energy Star!

Thanks to Cash Money Life for including this post in the Carnival of Personal Finance.

Got tweet? I do!

No really, that isn’t a joke:  Some people did get bonuses this year, and they weren’t even bank executives!

Got a tip to this CNN Money feature on how seven people will spend their year-end bonus.  (One of the featured people is Danielle Liss, also known as The Frugal Lawyer.)

The bonuses for these seven ranged from $77 to over $50,000.  Though it isn’t apparent from the captions on the pictures, all seven of them plan to do something responsible with at least part of their bonus:

• Replace an ailing dishwasher
• Pay down debt
• Pay bills or buy necessities
• Bolster savings for house purchase or just for a rainy day
• Invest in real estate

A year-end bonus is one of those small windfalls that can be used for prudent things, or just blown.  What several of the people featured in this article did was allocate up to half of the bonus for “fun stuff” to alleviate saver’s remorse.

Doing something prudent with the windfall is good, because next year the year-end bonus might be “Congratulations, you still have a job” or “Here’s four weeks’ severance pay instead of just two.”

Got tweet? I do!

Merry Christmas!  We’re at my wife’s parents today celebrating Jesus’s birthday.

If you’ve had a lot of snow (as we have) here’s a quick treat if you have some (real) maple syrup around and a candy thermometer:

1. Collect some snow in a bowl.  (Make sure the snow is all right, meaning that it’s all white.)
2. Bring some maple syrup up to the “softball” temperature, 230 degrees F.
3. Spoon out the hot syrup (without stirring) and drizzle it onto the snow.
4. Pull the little bits off of cooled syrup off of the snow, and enjoy!

Got tweet? I do!

Getting a bolstered emergency fund is a great idea now.  (It usually is, but now especially.)  One way to get to a decent cushion is to spend less so that the extra can go into savings.

Many kinds of expenses can be cut, but the easiest ones to eliminate are ones that you probably won’t miss anyway.  Expenses like the following:

• Seasonal expenses. Are you paying year-round for an activity that you only do in the summer (or winter)?
• Hobby-related expenses for a hobby you’ve lost interest in. Maybe you were gung-ho about scrapbooking, and the stamp of the month delivery just goes in a drawer now because other things have become more important.
• Job-related expenses that aren’t necessary anymore. Say your last job required membership in certain professional societies, or more likely, required a certain kind of dress or appearance.  Or perhaps you’ve moved from up-front sales to more of an office job, and the wardrobe that was necessary for dealing with customers all the time isn’t needed anymore.
• Any luxury that doesn’t deliver like it used to. It could be a monthly massage, a monthly trip to The Melting Pot, premium movie channels, etc.

The Frugal Lawyer saved money on some little things that she admitted weren’t that important, like eyebrow threading, open-toed shoes, and magazine subscriptions.  She observes:

These aren’t huge savings, but the little amounts will add up over time.  Particularly if I am putting the extra money into savings or toward paying off debt.  I’m still looking at my regular spending to find other things that I can trim from the budget.

Little things do add up. What irrelevant expenses can you cut out of your spending?

Update: Thanks to Amateur Asset Allocator for including this post in the Money Hacks Carnival!

Got tweet? I do!

Many of my colleagues have heard about the recent cease and desistery regarding the trademarking of what I thought was a fairly common term for a frugal woman which, by the way, rhymes with barista.  (Here’s some context.)

But I’m not here to take sides.  No-sir-ee-bob.  I’m just here to provide a helpful service to some of my dear colleagues who might be waiting in the wings, ready to fire up their own frugal branding juggernaut.

Here are some suggestions for frugalized names, y’all!  No need to thank me.

• Frugalneering
• Frugalerism Frugaltary
• No Frugal Needed
• Five Cent Frickel
• Poorer Than Froo
• Free Froney Frinance
• Stick Figure Cartoons Are Frugal
• Frugal Are Sexy
• The Fridgerati Life
• Frawkfox
• Frazy Man and Monaviney
• Frugal Bread
• All Frugantial Matters
• Frapgirl’s Fiscal Challenge
• Frugal Free Adventure
• Get Rich Frowly
• The Frimple Dollar
• Froolanomy
• Mrs. Fricah

Just don’t take Being Frugal, The Frugal Duchess, and Frugal for Life.  I’m going to trademark those.  KIDDING!

Got tweet? I do!

We just arrived in West Virginia to visit my wife’s parents and her grandmother who’s visiting them.  We’re bringing along a three-month-old puppy that we got a few weeks ago from a friend.

We stopped at Five Brothers for dinner and ate outside so that Taffy could get out, too.  While we were eating, I was really surprised how much attention Taffy got.  And it was mostly from girls and young women who introduced themselves by saying  ”Awwwwww!”

Then my wife and I thought the same thing at the same time: “Man, it would have been great to have a puppy in college!”  She said that it works great for guys to have a puppy, but not for girls.  All it does is attract other girls.

But then I ran down the reasons why I didn’t have a puppy in college:

• I didn’t have a clue
• I was mildly allergic to dogs
• Dogs weren’t allowed in the dorms
• Did I mention that I didn’t have a clue?

But anyway, my wife had some of the same restrictions, but unlike me, she had a clue, and she was able to get puppies for free to take out and about without actually owning them. The local Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) shelter would welcome anyone who wanted to take the dogs out for a walk, because they’re cooped up in kennels most of the day and the walks help to socialize them for eventual adoption.  They got to know her so well that she could play with them in the cages.

Had I known this as a single guy I could have had puppies for nothing and my chicks for free!

But now, as a very happily married guy, I at least know not to walk Taffy in town without my wife close by.

Got tweet? I do!

Cube farms are great for overhearing little bits of random quotable goodness, like this gem from one of my (male) co-workers while he was talking on the phone with his wife (I can only assume):

I like to smell like a man, but sometimes I like to smell like a different-smelling man.

But this isn’t a post about how to smell different, nor is it just for men.  (Well, maybe the smelling like a man part is just for men, but hey, I won’t tell.)

It’s about being on the lookout for substitutions that can mix things up a bit without being more expensive.

I’m very much a stuck in a rut kind of guy on some things.  If I find something I like, I’ll get it again and again until they stop selling it to me.  That’s the way I’m wired, and my wife loves me anyway.

The neat thing about heading to the supermarket or the drugstore is that there are usually at least a few varieties of just about everything that cost pretty much the same:

• Different flavors (vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, Moose Tracks)
• Different colors (50 different colors of Play-Doh®)
• Different shapes (spaghetti, bowtie, shells, macaroni)
• Different textures (creamy, chunky)
• Different scents (over two hundred brands of deodorant)

Trying something different doesn’t have to mean spending more than you would anyway. So consider switching aftershaves and try changing around other products you normally buy to keep budgeting and frugality from getting to be too much of a drag.

It’s gotta be better than running out for a $300 purse.

Got tweet? I do!

OK, so I’m reading the July, 2009, issue of U.S. News & World Report that my mother-in-law left the last time she visited, and I happen on an article called “Frugal Forever?” written by Kimberly Palmer, senior editor at U.S. News and blogger at Alpha Consumer.  (She had several articles in that issue.)

The gist of the article:  Frugality, borne of necessity, is now the in thing.  People don’t feel the pressure to spend, businesses are playing into frugality with their marketing campaigns.  Eating over at friends and doing your own nails is chic.

Overall, a perfectly solid article.

The last paragraph mentions that people will still want to splurge once in a while, especially when the repayment of their interest-free loan to the government known as a federal income tax refund hits their bank accounts.  This also is all well and good, but the example that was used … well, maybe it’s testosterone but I just don’t get it:

One consumer told us, “If I get $1,000 back [in tax refunds], I may buy a $300 purse.  If I don’t do it, I’ll go crazy … “

Am I completely out of touch by saying that $300 for a purse is crazy?

I very well might be.  Let me know in the comments.

Got tweet? I do!