Yep. I’m not exaggerating. If all goes according to plan we really will have saved over $33,000 by the end of the year. Admittedly, numbers aren’t my forte, so you’d be right to question that figure, but I guarantee my math’s not fuzzy and $33,000 is only the tip of the iceberg. That amount only speaks to the items on which I have hard data right now or don’t need the help of an expert economist to quantify.
Our technique for saving all these thousands of dollars can be best encapsulated in one simple phrase: we’re kickin’ it Old School. Simple to say, yes; but, truth be told, it’s not necessarily simple to do. If you depend heavily on modern conveniences to keep up with the pace of the typical harried American lifestyle, or if you’re a techno geek who prides yourself on always being the first to own the sexiest new version of the coolest gadgets, you may find what we’ve done next to impossible. I’ve always been a bit old fashioned, so shunning modern conventions hasn’t been a huge stretch for me.
If you fit either of the profiles illustrated above don’t despair. I feel you. I’ve had my own harried American lifestyle to contend with, from my single parent days to my current circumstances. I have no more down time now, as a married work-at-home mom, than I did as a single one holding down two jobs while going to school. Not with an almost-2-year-old boy who Dr. Sears would probably call a “high needs” child and a husband who works long, physically demanding hours, often through the weekends. And, boy, do I ever know about techno geeks! I’m married to the offspring of the two people I had in mind while writing that description. My husband grew up surrounded by so much technology, even his daily meals were high tech (i.e., highly processed and ready to eat in 2 minutes or less with the simple touch of a few buttons). In the 5 years I’ve known them, my in-laws have amassed more electronic gadgets than I’ll ever own in my entire lifetime.
I’m not judging, really. Just painting a backdrop so you can appreciate how difficult it’s been to convince Mr. F we’d be better off with less electronic media and more fresh food in our lives. And it continues to be an uphill journey. Yet, we are well on our way to the $33,000 by scaling back on two things my man holds most dear (next to his family, of course). Huzzah! Yes, I managed to deliver two swift roundhouse kicks to Mr. F’s appetite for junk food and tech junk using the oldest trick in the Marriage 101 book. The big ‘C’ word: compromise, the key to any successful marriage. And the key to successfully kickin’ it Old School without driving my very New School husband bat spit crazy. Please allow me to elaborate on two of the Old School goals–“kicks,” if you will–that are helping us save so much money.
Old School kick #1: Stop watching TV, or at least significantly reduce screen time.
The facts and figures: According to a recent Nielsen poll, the average American home houses more televisions than humans. Average. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in order to get an average like that there would have to be enough people who own a ridiculously large number of TVs to offset those who own significantly fewer than the average. Or, the majority has to have a number of TVs at or close to the average. In either case, or even if my recollection of basic math is faulty, I find the Nielsen statistics disturbing on many levels.
In my own household the ratio of TVs to people is 3:4, but only if you include the TV we never use. If we’re counting only the functioning TVs, it’s 2:4. So, let’s split the difference and call it 2.5 to 4. Regardless of which number I choose to acknowledge it’s still not as bad as the national average. Then again, if I really stop to think about it, our ratio might as well be higher considering all the devices (e.g., smart phones, computers) on which we also watch TV and/or YouTube videos (which are basically short attention span TV shows), but the Nielsen survey only counted television sets . I suppose that should make me feel better, but it doesn’t. Passively watching a screen is effectively like TV viewing no matter what type of device the screen’s attached to.
Let me throw some more numbers at you for good measure (pun unintended). The average American watches 35.6 hours of TV a week. So, a typical American working a desk job 40 hours a week with a 1 hour round trip commute 5 days per week, spends 80.6 hours in sedentary activities—now, that has to be the ultimate oxymoron! Assuming this hypothetical person sleeps an average of 7 hours a night, that’s about 68% of their waking hours spent on their bum!
By now you can probably see where I’m going with all this, why it bothers me so much that, in so many of our great nation’s homes, TVs outnumber people. LearnVest Assistant Editor Alden Wicker seems to feel much the same way I do and articulates concerns similar to mine quite nicely in a 2012 article she wrote for Business Insider, so I’ll borrow some of her words. Our excessive TV viewing habits are turning us into “broke, greedy and overweight zombie.” Yeah, pretty much.
TV watching, Wicker claims (and I agree), is a nasty habit that can ruin one’s finances. The most obvious way it sabotages our financial health is the direct costs involved, from the cost of cable or satellite to the equipment (TV, DVR, receiver, speakers, etc, and the furniture to house all the equipment). We’ve been fortunate that nearly all our equipment for our main TV has been a hand-me-down or a gift, so I’m not certain how much money’s tied up in all that stuff. I do know that, after the introductory rate expired on our cable service, we would have paid over $540 (plus taxes and fees) last year to keep it running—with a downgraded package, that is. To keep the “free” premium channels we got in the intro deal would have been another $20/month, or $240/year.
Another way TV jeopardizes our financial stability is through the onslaught of commercials that hit us every time we tune in. Messages we receive through TV ads seep into our subconscious and prompt us to overspend. No one actually says to themselves, “Gee, I think I’ll buy this sweater because the people in the commercials looked rich. Wearing what they wear will make me rich too.” However, even though it sounds ridiculous, that train of thought is exactly what takes place in our brains unconsciously when we make purchasing decisions.
In sociologist and consumerism expert Juliet Schor’s estimation every hour we spend watching TV per week increases our annual spending by $200. That means the average American watching 35.6 hours of TV a week spends $7120 more than they need to. I’m going to assume I once watched at least the average amount, and I’m pretty sure I did when we had cable. Having reduced my TV viewing to about 5 hours a week, now my ad-driven spending only amounts to $1000 each year, saving my family $6120.
Indirect costs associated with too much TV have to do with our physical and mental health, which, in turn, impact our financial health. Research has shown correlations between TV and mental health issues such as attention deficit disorders, behavioral problems and depression. However, TV is only one possible contributing factor among many. Thus, the task of quantifying TV’s effect on our brains in terms of dollars and cents is well beyond my capabilities. I’ll leave that one to the experts.
Physical health problems, specifically diabetes and heart (cardiovascular) disease, are a different story. Certainly, those conditions can have other causes. For example, there is one type of diabetes that’s clearly not caused by lifestyle. And everyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the last 30+ years knows smoking can cause heart disease. However, a myriad of Type 2 diabetes and heart disease cases not due to congenital conditions or certain vices can ultimately be traced back to too many hours parked in front of a TV. It’s estimated that each year diabetics are out $7900 to treat their disease and heart disease incurs annual medical bills of $18,953.
You might be thinking, “TV can’t be blamed for all that. What about diet?” Diet absolutely plays a role in the development of chronic disease, but all too often what we eat is influenced by–you guessed it–TV. How many times have you suddenly gotten a craving for a bacon double cheeseburger or hot fudge sundae even when you’re not really hungry? That’s the power of advertising working on your subconscious. But that’s not the only way TV drives us to overconsume calories. When TV eats up a big chunk of our waking hours we have little to no time to prepare fresh, nutritious food. Therefore, we tend to eat more processed, unhealthy junk, often while sitting staring at our televisions like zombies.
Phew! The rationale for not watching TV could go on and on, but all of the above ought to be enough to convince everyone to quit for good. But, I know, the convincing is not the hardest part. It’s the doing. Even a Luddite like me who’s studied the negative effects of television extensively knows quitting TV altogether is not a realistic proposition for so many of us, especially those of us with unwilling family/household members. So we compromise.
New School compromise: We replaced our $45 per month cable with a much cheaper Netflix subscription at $8.23 per month (including tax). We get 18 digital channels, including major networks, for free with the aid of an antenna. We also watch “free” internet content such as YouTube videos and we have a subscription to Amazon Prime, which includes a number of movies and TV shows. I don’t count the Amazon subscription as a TV expense because I mainly use it to save on shipping. The video content is just a side benefit we don’t really use much. With all those options we could potentially watch a ton more TV than we ever did with cable. And, frankly, at times we have. Negotiations regarding acceptable amounts of screen time are ongoing.
The Math:
$540 saved on cable ($45/month basic package)
-$98.76 spent on Netflix subscription ($8.23/month)
+$6,120 saved on ad-driven shopping*
+$7,900 saved on diabetes care*
+$18,953 saved on cardiovascular disease care*
*I’ve only calculated savings on medical care and shopping for myself because, unfortunately, I can’t be sure Mr. F, a smoker and not the healthiest eater, won’t need care for either of the conditions I’ve discussed above at some time sooner or later. Also, I have no idea how to calculate dollars he may be saving or not saving on ad driven spending since he mostly does a lot of Netflix binge watching. There’s not yet any way to calculate how much advertising he’s exposed to, at least not that I’m aware of.
Total annual savings: $33,414.24
Kick #2 addresses another topic I’m very passionate about, and it goes hand in hand with spending less time in front of the TV. It’s about preparing more fresh, nutritious food at home. But this is supposed to be an article, not a book, so it will have to wait until next time.
