This just in: I'm a selfish, miserable miser who is ruining the economy!

Well, maybe it's a little less dramatic than that.

Awhile ago, I wrote a piece about how we could not afford as much as people seem to think that we can. My husband earns a decent income, and at the time I wrote it, I was earning some serious extra money as a contract worker. People who are close to us could guess that we were in a decent income bracket, and we sometimes got "why are you not doing/buying X? You can afford it!"

I was reminded of that attitude on Wednesday, when I heard this commentary by Will Wilkinson on NPR as I got ready in the morning. Did you hear that?

I understand the basic we have to buy stuff to keep the economy rolling concept of hour our economy works. But to hear that I was part of the problem by daring to save my money and have a moderate Christmas? I alarmed my husband and our roommate by yelling "Are you SERIOUS!?!?" to the radio.

The attitude that frugality=misery and hard times is alive and well. Mr. Wilkinson states:

For those who've lost a job, are dealing with reduced hours or wages, or face a real risk of economic pain, it's plain sense to do what it takes to make ends meet in lean times. Cancel Showtime, pile on the sweaters, go unto the checkout armed with coupons. When you have to do it, belt-tightening's no joke.

But, gladly, most Americans don't have to -- not even in this economy.

It's true that, in theory, I don't have to use coupons, could crank up the heat, and get cable. But it was my understanding that spending more means you have less in savings. Because we don't have these things, we'll be in a much better position that we would have been if my husband does lose his job. He already went on reduced hours with little warning, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

While we pray for the best, we always have a plan B in case the worst happens. Because we always use coupons and live frugally all the time, cutting back won't be a punishment if the worst happens. For the most part, we will continue living exactly as we do now, minus a few extras that we do enjoy. It will be a minor lifestyle bump, not a major lifestyle makeover during a stressful and uncertain time.

I suppose what gets me about this whole commentary is the underlying assumption that scaling back is bad, that frugality is a last ditch measure, that saving your money and not engaging in reckless consumerism is a recipe for misery for all involved. States Mr. Wilkinson:

But if you're blessed with good fortune in these hard times, you're not helping anyone if you let frugality chic stop you and yours from having a very Merry Christmas indeed.

Yes, because the only way to have happiness at Christmas time is to spend money, and frugality is just a fad that we should not really be following unless we have to.

If living below your means and be prudent with your spending is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Frugality and the Economy

Will a return to frugality destroy the economy? Marketplace Money ran an interesting story on this today. It's worth a listen!

What would you do for a free lunch?

You know those fish bowls you sometimes see at restaurants where you put in a business card for the chance to win a free lunch for your office? My husband has about twenty billion business cards and only deals with people with whom he exchanges a business card about...oh, once a year, so he's been putting them into the free lunch fish bowl whenever he sees one. We never expected anything out of it.

Guess who won the free lunch?

Of course, (and I don't know why we never considered this) there is a catch. The lunch is being put on by a representative of some organization, and by "free lunch for your office" he means "free lunch for whoever you can drag in kicking and screaming." So I get to go too. :) He considered not even taking it, but who can resist a free lunch? So we have about five other people coming- well warned that they are going to have to listen to a sales pitch- and we're excited about having lunch together today.

But we feel kind of bad. Is it wrong to accept something like this when you know that you will never, EVER buy what the person is selling? And that the people you are bringing are unlikely to buy the product as well? One argument is that the salespeople baited us- and we took it, but we are not obligated to buy anything from them. (They did not say that the lunches were put on by salespeople on the big fish bowl, after all.) The other argument is that these people are trying to make a living, and it's better to say no and let them give a lunch for somebody who may actually buy the product. We are going, but part of me feels bad about it. What say you, readers?

*We're not actually sure what product this person is selling- I'll have to update on that after the lunch. We looked up the organization he represents, and it was very, very vague. We never do business with anybody who is vague on what they are selling- it's an immediate red flag to us.

UPDATE: He was a financial planner and was interesting to listen to. He did not tell us anything we have not already thought about though. I wonder how many clients he gets through these lunch things? It must be a decent amount- we saw him meeting with another big group right after he finished with us!