I feel like spending money can be more readily justified when you spend it on something you need. Food for example – I find it so much easier to part with money for food than with money for clothes, even though I know that I would gain greater utility from buying clothes than from buying food.
What’s the difference? I need the food, I don’t necessarily need the clothes. And yet somehow this logic allows me to justify spending $13 on a freaking salad!!
Whenever I go shopping I do this: If I find something that I like then before I can buy it I try and convince myself that I absolutely need it – Need it for work, need it for summer, need it for my holiday, need it because it will go with everything so I’ll wear it heaps. Yes Renee you REALLY needed that faux leather vest with frills. If I am placed in a situation where I desperately want something but can’t think of a reason why I need it then I will leave and return again when I have a reason (some may say this is simply indecisiveness – see here).
There is, however, a problem with this tactic: After revisiting an item on several occasions without purchasing it you can get into a tricky situation with the shop assistant – You can only tell them so many times that “You’ll think about it” before it becomes awkward.
I’m not really sure what the solution is here? Is this even a problem that needs a solution?
Spending less money on food could perhaps be a start. Maybe if I take up heaps of new hobbies then it’ll allow me to think of more reasons to need certain things that I want to buy. Or perhaps I should just take advice from Carrie Bradshaw who said - "When I first moved to New York, I bought VOGUE instead of dinner. I just felt it fed me more." – Equating food (needs) with things (wants) could work. Yes.
Check out the pictures below - These are all of the outfits that lost out to my expensive salad.
Images: Theyallhateus, iwantbigcloset, lou-rico, SNOB Fashion blog.