Is the Obsession with Frequently Visiting Starbucks Really So Rampant?
Introduction
Why do so many bloggers and financial gurus cite giving up Starbucks as the number one easiest way to add to one’s savings? Is the problem of frequently visiting Starbucks really as rampant as it seems?
While many articles and posts only mention Starbucks by name, the implication is that any form of more expensive dining or beverage break is to be avoided.
This article will explore the implications of this advice and why the solution might not be as straightforward as it appears.
The Role of Convenience
When we look at food services such as Starbucks, they serve as a convenience when we want both the service and the food. And, of course, we often want to sit and relax. Starbucks provides just that.
For me, it’s a treat to enjoy and not a regular visit that makes it special. Similarly, the joy comes from the momentary indulgence rather than the regular habit.
The Myth of Luxury
Many financial gurus and bloggers turn tangible items like Starbucks into symbols of needless luxury. They imply that this luxury can and should be abandoned.
However, be wary of these abstractions and the jumps they make to extreme conclusions. The idea is often that if one would save a few minutes to make coffee at home or cook breakfast, they could pay off a student loan or afford a house.
This leap in logic, while often presented as sound advice, is actually quite ridiculous.
Cost Analysis and Reality
According to Ryne Survival, your Starbucks habit costs you about $1,600 per year. If you spent $7 per day, it would be around $2,555. However, these figures are presented in a way that sounds absolutely awful, as if it were so much money!
Let's break it down a bit more realistically. Even if you're using a K-cup from work, it's going to take roughly five minutes for the machine to heat up and brew. Making a more honest comparison, if you're using a 150 espresso machine with a decent bean, it takes about ten minutes to make a latte, assuming you have the skill and the counter space. Then, it takes another ten to twenty minutes to drink it. You're not getting nothing for that money.
The Impact on Savings
Even if we assume that you save over $2,500 out of your $50,000 annual salary by not buying coffee, this amount is not going to significantly chip into a $100,000 student debt. Additionally, housing prices in metropolitan areas often increase far more than that annually.
Technically, cutting out Starbucks or any other luxury spending would save you money, but it doesn't consider the larger costs people are facing. It also doesn't account for the fact that not spending money might make you miserable, and that not spending on luxuries is not a practical long-term solution.
A More Realistic Approach
Most people, including myself, spend a bit more than they should on minor luxuries and eat too much, not getting enough fiber, or not exercising enough. Reducing this spending slightly without making it painful can help.
For example, if you cut down on drinks from three times a week to once a week, you could save $520 in a year. While this won't make a huge difference in the grand scheme, it's a step in the right direction.
The Pandemic Context
With the pandemic and lockdowns, many are not going out to shop or dine. While this is being advised, it also means that luxury spending was keeping many people employed. Not spending money is literally "the economy," and millions of people not doing that is a disaster.
This suggests that the advice to cut out all luxuries might be more about shame and blame than practical financial advice.