Actually, this is part Fribble, part LBYM and part Early Retirement in terms of where it belongs.

Surely, most of you have heard the phrase, "keeping up with the Joneses." Roughly translated, it amounts to "consumer competition" to see who can demonstrate who has "made it" more in life.

I can recall thinking this way, the "he/she who dies with the most toys wins" line of thinking. But have y'all ever thought about how much extra work you have to put in to accumulate all those toys?

A few days ago, someone suggested that my wife and I should move out of our modest 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom, 1200 square foot home and into something more befitting of the increased income we've enjoyed over the last three years or so. After all, don't we have to show the world we've "made it"?

Well, it sounds tempting. But I also think there's one calculation many people fail to take into account, above and beyond whether their savings and/or cash flow will be able to absorb it: How many more years will I *have* to endure the corporate rat race in order to acquire this new toy? This statement is often a bucket of cold water on the face.

Determine how much enjoyment you'll derive out of a purchase, determine how much longer it will force you to remain in the work force, and then decide. If we bought a new home that "kept up with the Joneses" according to our means, I calculated that it would delay our retirement by about nine years given reasonable estimates of earnings, payments, returns on investment and savings rates.

Is it worth nine years of a real-life Dilbert comic strip to show the world you've "made it," when the old home was perfectly sufficient, cozy and safe?

The same is true of a new car. Yeah, I lust after a 2001 Miata, but when I recall $500 payments for five years, realize that means no new investments for five years, that loss of investment compounds over 20 years to delay retirement by two years. It hardly seems worth it in that context, especially when the old '94 T-Bird is still going strong even after 110,000 miles. There's some amount of "living for today" to be done, because we have no assurance we'll have a tomorrow, but the costs should be weighed appropriately.

Sure, maybe I won't *want* to retire at 50 as I currently plan (I'm 35 now). Truthfully, I hope I won't want to retire, because I hope I mostly enjoy my work then. But working because you have to is a loss of empowerment, a loss of control, which makes one feel hopeless and powerless. I suppose I'm preaching to the choir here, but don't you think it helps strengthen your resolve to save rather than spend, when you think about purchases in terms of the years of freedom and financial independence you lose?

I'll let the rabid consumers "keep up with the Joneses" and work until they're 65 or worse. I'd rather buy leisure time, an early end to indentured servitude, and let the Joneses "win." We'll see who the winner is twenty years from now.

#29