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. 😉