Who buys new and why?

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by x129

I buy new for the same reason I have people cut my lawn and clean my house. Because it is signifcantly cheaper. 2+ hours spend looking for a deal on ebay or online is 400+ dollars that could be in my bank account. Clubs also are not much of an expense if you only buy them every 3+ years (and no the technology really doesn't change much faster than that. Exceptions are for wedges that wear out) compared to other golfing expenses.  YMMV depending on your situation.

Yes, nothing says saving money like paying for lawncare and house cleaning...

Easy to say when your time is worth $200/hr.  If I were you, I wouldn't wast time wiping my own ass!

[x129]

As I said YMMV. In golf a lot of us our in the position where time and money are interchangeable. You might not be.In HS I spend hours building my own computer (well assembling parts) instead of buying a premade.  The 400 bucks was worth more than the 8 hours. You have to put a value on your time and figure out if you have the ability to translate between time and cash.

As far as hiring someone to wipe your ass, you are sitting there anyway. I am nowhere near a good enough multitasker to do work while someone is wiping my ass. YMMV on that also.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Yes, nothing says saving money like paying for lawncare and house cleaning...

Easy to say when your time is worth $200/hr.  If I were you, I wouldn't wast time wiping my own ass!

[newtogolf]

For some like myself it does save us money.  It's called opportunity cost.  I can pay people to do those things and use my time to generate a lot more income than they cost me to do their jobs.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Yes, nothing says saving money like paying for lawncare and house cleaning...

Easy to say when your time is worth $200/hr.  If I were you, I wouldn't wast time wiping my own ass!

[GJBenn85]

Originally Posted by x129

I buy new for the same reason I have people cut my lawn and clean my house. Because it is signifcantly cheaper. 2+ hours spend looking for a deal on ebay or online is 400+ dollars that could be in my bank account. Clubs also are not much of an expense if you only buy them every 3+ years (and no the technology really doesn't change much faster than that. Exceptions are for wedges that wear out) compared to other golfing expenses.  YMMV depending on your situation.

LOL, I am always amused when people use this argument.  For this to be valid, you need sufficient work to bill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.  Otherwise, your "free" time you spend on casual interests is actually worth nothing monetarily.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by GJBenn85

LOL, I am always amused when people use this argument.  For this to be valid, you need sufficient work to bill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.  Otherwise, your "free" time you spend on casual interests is actually worth nothing monetarily.

Bingo.  It's hilarious.  People have time to golf, waste on message boards, but paying someone to clean their house saves them money.

Look, I could care less how much money anyone has, and if you choose, and have the ability, to pay for such services, great.  I would never say you shouldn't.  But to argue that is saves you money is ludicrous.

[newtogolf]

I understand why it seems illogical or humorous to some, but you have to approach it differently than you are.  I spend about 60 hours per week on average running my business and sometimes as much as 80.  In addition to owning a business, I'm a husband and father and expect to have some free time for myself to play golf, waste on message boards, etc.

It would take me 3-4 hours per week to care for my lawn which would come at the expense of time I spend with family, business or doing things I like.  Since I'm not willing to give up family time, golf or other things I enjoy, the only other area is to take it away from work which has a real cost associated with it versus intrinsic cost.  Either way, it "costs" me less to pay someone to provide services that I don't wish to dedicate my time to doing.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Bingo.  It's hilarious.  People have time to golf, waste on message boards, but paying someone to clean their house saves them money.

Look, I could care less how much money anyone has, and if you choose, and have the ability, to pay for such services, great.  I would never say you shouldn't.  But to argue that is saves you money is ludicrous.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I understand why it seems illogical or humorous to some, but you have to approach it differently than you are.  I spend about 60 hours per week on average running my business and sometimes as much as 80.  In addition to owning a business, I'm a husband and father and expect to have some free time for myself to play golf, waste on message boards, etc.

It would take me 3-4 hours per week to care for my lawn which would come at the expense of time I spend with family, business or doing things I like.  Since I'm not willing to give up family time, golf or other things I enjoy, the only other area is to take it away from work which has a real cost associated with it versus intrinsic cost.  Either way, it "costs" me less to pay someone to provide services that I don't wish to dedicate my time to doing.

Ok, if you define "cost" having nothing to do with money.  I agree.  You choose to do other things and pay for certain services.  No problem.   That is my point.   I'm only arguing that you are not making money or losing money when you mow your own lawn or clean your own house, unless of course, like was mentioned, you have the ability to make money 24/7.  I have yet to hear of a single person that has that ability.  You choosing to take away from your work time rather than leisure time does not make it any more logical.

The fact is, you could save money doing those things yourself if you wanted to.  To argue against that is illogical, period.

Like you, I work full time, as does my wife, we have two children, and always have things going on.  We have our house cleaned.  It's worth it to us as well.  But, it does not save us money, or "cheaper" than doing it ourselves.

[x129]

No you don't need 24x365 hours of work for this to be true.  You just need enough hours enough to bill to cover the time spend doing the service. Then it becomes a simple trade off of would you rather work for and hour or do the chore. Doing the work and the chore would eat into your free time. If I enjoyed washing toliets you would have to factor that in the value of that also.  And yes if the goal in life was to maximize income, then I would take zero free time. That isn't the goal of my life.  As far as calling it saving money what would you call it? I can work and have someone do my yard and end up with 100 bucks in my bank account or I can do the yard and end up with 0 dollars in the bank account.  And yes when you switch form a salary to paid by the hour, it requires a bit of time to change the mindset. But even on a salary people make the same type of time/money tradeoffs (do you drive 3 miles or walk). It just isn't as clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJBenn85

LOL, I am always amused when people use this argument.  For this to be valid, you need sufficient work to bill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.  Otherwise, your "free" time you spend on casual interests is actually worth nothing monetarily.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Bingo.  It's hilarious.  People have time to golf, waste on message boards, but paying someone to clean their house saves them money.

Look, I could care less how much money anyone has, and if you choose, and have the ability, to pay for such services, great.  I would never say you shouldn't.  But to argue that is saves you money is ludicrous.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by x129

As I said YMMV. In golf a lot of us our in the position where time and money are interchangeable. You might not be.In HS I spend hours building my own computer (well assembling parts) instead of buying a premade.  The 400 bucks was worth more than the 8 hours. You have to put a value on your time and figure out if you have the ability to translate between time and cash.

As far as hiring someone to wipe your ass, you are sitting there anyway. I am nowhere near a good enough multitasker to do work while someone is wiping my ass. YMMV on that also.

OK, so humor me.  What do you do that you get paid 24/7 and that time and money are interchangeable?  I admit I am not and have never heard of anyone that literally is.

I'm not talking about you choosing to do something else, or putting some arbitrary value on your time.  I mean actually $.  You said you would lose $400+ in a couple hours.  You said actual money in your bank account.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by x129

No you don't need 24x365 hours of work for this to be true.  You just need enough hours enough to bill to cover the time spend doing the service. Then it becomes a simple trade off of would you rather work for and hour or do the chore. Doing the work and the chore would eat into your free time. If I enjoyed washing toliets you would have to factor that in the value of that also.  And yes if the goal in life was to maximize income, then I would take zero free time. That isn't the goal of my life.  As far as calling it saving money what would you call it? I can work and have someone do my yard and end up with 100 bucks in my bank account or I can do the yard and end up with 0 dollars in the bank account.  And yes when you switch form a salary to paid by the hour, it requires a bit of time to change the mindset. But even on a salary people make the same type of time/money tradeoffs (do you drive 3 miles or walk). It just isn't as clear.

Well, saying that the only time you can do these "chores" is during work, and not during leisure time, is what's not logical.  You have plenty of time to do these things yourself and have them not "cost" you anything other than priority of wanting to do something else.  That's really my only point.  You have every right to pay for whatever you want and do whatever you want.

But, attempting to justify it as an actual money saver is just wrong.  If it were, no one would do anything for themselves.  This is simply about choices and priorities, not money.  Ya know....YMMV.

[x129]

Contract work. I get paid~250/hr (it varies between 200-350 depending on the contract) for the past 2+ years and have turned down work because I don't want to go much over 60 a week (I am not an idiot. When there is a bubble market going on you take advantage of it by working longer hours than you can do over a 20 year period. When the rates go back to the normal 75-150 my hours will scale back also).  The total flexibility to fit in hours is unique but most successful self employed professionals I know are in the same boat. If they had more hours in a day, a lot of lawyers, doctors and accountants could all handle more clients.

Gresh,you don't seem to understand the basic concept of being able to work as much as you want and there only being 24 hours in a day. And the fact that paying someone else only works when you make more than they do. Your right it is about choices and priorities. Mine is to have more money in my bank account at the end of the month. Yours is not to spend money.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Well, saying that the only time you can do these "chores" is during work, and not during leisure time, is what's not logical.  You have plenty of time to do these things yourself and have them not "cost" you anything other than priority of wanting to do something else.  That's really my only point.  You have every right to pay for whatever you want and do whatever you want.

But, attempting to justify it as an actual money saver is just wrong.  If it were, no one would do anything for themselves.  This is simply about choices and priorities, not money.  Ya know....YMMV.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

OK, so humor me.  What do you do that you get paid 24/7 and that time and money are interchangeable?  I admit I am not and have never heard of anyone that literally is.

I'm not talking about you choosing to do something else, or putting some arbitrary value on your time.  I mean actually $.  You said you would lose $400+ in a couple hours.  You said actual money in your bank account.

[Gresh24]

Quote:

Contract work. I get paid~250/hr (it varies between 200-350 depending on the contract) for the past 2+ years and have turned down work because I don't want to go much over 60 a week (I am not an idiot. When there is a bubble market going on you take advantage of it by working longer hours than you can do over a 20 year period. When the rates go back to the normal 75-150 my hours will scale back also).  The total flexibility to fit in hours is unique but most successful self employed professionals I know are in the same boat. If they had more hours in a day, a lot of lawyers, doctors and accountants could all handle more clients.

Gresh,you don't seem to understand the basic concept of being able to work as much as you want and there only being 24 hours in a day. And the fact that paying someone else only works when you make more than they do. Your right it is about choices and priorities. Mine is to have more money in my bank account at the end of the month. Yours is not to spend money.

I understand the concept of being able to work as much as one wants.  I choose to work 40 hours per week for someone else for a salary, and spend the rest of the time with my family.

FYI, if you sacrificed leisure activities for mowing your own lawn and cleaning your own house, you'd have more money in your bank account.  That is the only point.  My goal is not to not spend money.   I am completely fine with my bank account balances, and trust me I spend plenty.

What you're suggesting is like saying paying $20,000 for someone to put a roof on your house will put more money in your bank account than spending $10,000 for the materials and doing it yourself.

The bottom line is paying for all those services you choose not to do are expensive and in no way put more money in your account at the end of the day.  Again, to each their own.  Not many people can make $250/hr.  Congrats.  Your justifications are flawed however.

[newtogolf]

I agree with you, from a pure financial standpoint I'd save money if I gave up golf and mowed the lawn.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Ok, if you define "cost" having nothing to do with money.  I agree.  You choose to do other things and pay for certain services.  No problem.   That is my point.   I'm only arguing that you are not making money or losing money when you mow your own lawn or clean your own house, unless of course, like was mentioned, you have the ability to make money 24/7.  I have yet to hear of a single person that has that ability.  You choosing to take away from your work time rather than leisure time does not make it any more logical.

The fact is, you could save money doing those things yourself if you wanted to.  To argue against that is illogical, period.

Like you, I work full time, as does my wife, we have two children, and always have things going on.  We have our house cleaned.  It's worth it to us as well.  But, it does not save us money, or "cheaper" than doing it ourselves.

[x129]

If given the choice between getting 250 bucks and paying someone 40, you think you save money by getting paid zero and paying zero I don't know what to say. Math obviously works differently in your world than mine. We are getting way off topic. Lets get back to golf.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Quote:

I understand the concept of being able to work as much as one wants.  I choose to work 40 hours per week for someone else for a salary, and spend the rest of the time with my family.

FYI, if you sacrificed leisure activities for mowing your own lawn and cleaning your own house, you'd have more money in your bank account.  That is the only point.  My goal is not to not spend money.   I am completely fine with my bank account balances, and trust me I spend plenty.

What you're suggesting is like saying paying $20,000 for someone to put a roof on your house will put more money in your bank account than spending $10,000 for the materials and doing it yourself.

The bottom line is paying for all those services you choose not to do are expensive and in no way put more money in your account at the end of the day.  Again, to each their own.  Not many people can make $250/hr.  Congrats.  Your justifications are flawed however.

[tristanhilton85]

I've done both... it really just depends on what I end up wanting to get... if I can get the EXACT same thing in used and really good condition, I'll usually go that route unless the price difference is insignificant.  Also, sometimes there are perks like money back guaranties if you purchase new which aren't available on used clubs.

Also, sometimes it's nice to have something that has only been yours.

[newtogolf]

Lately I've actually gone with buying new items that are a little older.  Instead of buying a new Razr Hawk driver I got a new FT Tour for $130.  I recently picked up a new set of Callaway 2009 X Forged irons for $200.  I take very good care of anything I buy so I don't like to buy used items unless they are in mint condition.

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Lately I've actually gone with buying new items that are a little older.  Instead of buying a new Razr Hawk driver I got a new FT Tour for $130.  I recently picked up a new set of Callaway 2009 X Forged irons for $200.  I take very good care of anything I buy so I don't like to buy used items unless they are in mint condition.

I've done this before too... When I got the Nike SQ driver (that was a while ago) it was after the DYMO came out... it's a good way to get new equipment on the cheaper side.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I agree with you, from a pure financial standpoint I'd save money if I gave up golf and mowed the lawn.

Thank you.  That's the only point.