Monday, March 24, 2008

Are They Protecting Me From Myself?

Tip Of The Day: The best way to save money on eBay is to NEVER WIN AN AUCTION. Why don’t I ever win? Because some of us around here can’t spend more than $20 on any single thing. Including a lousy pair of shoes.

Tip For Tomorrow: How to be cultured and educated for less. Cheap theater (real theater, not movie theater) tickets to the big playhouses in the TC. Like the Guthrie. That gorgeous blue mothership… not to be confused with IKEA.

Further Elucidation Of My Cheap Deal: In the last week, I’ve lost three, THREE auctions on eBay, and all for the same thing – nude, pointy-toe, high-heeled pumps. Or sling-backs; I’d settle for sling-backs.

But no. Oh no. I can’t win a single, solitary pair because I can’t spend more than $20 per item, and YES, THAT INCLUDES SHIPPING. SORRY I KEEP YELLING, BUT I’M KINDA MAD HERE. And apparently it costs like, a zillion dollars to ship a pair of shoes. Oh wait, no it doesn’t. It only costs about $5, but these sellers are trying to RIP ME OFF. And there I go again, with the yelling and whatnot.

Here is a recap of my losses. I missed out on a pair of Charles David pumps, new in the box (or NIB for you eBay-savvy folk), for just $35.99, plus an additional $5.30 for shipping. Which honestly? Is not bad for shipping, but still. I lost.

Then there were the Prada pumps, gently worn but HELLO! They’re PRADA! And in great shape! Because they’re PRADA! The Prada (PRADA!) pumps went for $26 and $8 for shipping. So close! And yet, so far.

Last were the Nine West sling-backs, also gently worn but still cute. They went for a mere $11.50, but when you tack on the $8.95 the seller wanted for shipping, they came to 45 whole cents more than $20. In this instance, math sucks.

Those Nine West puppies are the shoes that broke this camel’s back. For a mere 45 cents more, I could have had the shoes that are supposed to elongate my legs and go with every article of clothing in my closet. The shoes that every fashion designer and stylist thinks every woman should own. The shoes, in short, of my dreams. The nude, pointy-toe, high-heeled pumps. Or sling-backs; I’d settle for sling-backs.

However, now that my rage has (mostly) died down, I can see how my $20 rule has, yet again, saved me from myself. Once I have the nude pump, then what? Then what shoes will I absolutely NEED to possess. Not want, but NEED. And how much would I spend on that pair?

Not only did the $20 rule stop me from spending $41.29, or $34, or $20.45, it also saved me the amount of money I would have spent on the NEXT pair of shoes. Because you know there would have been a next pair.

The rule isn’t about denial or punishment – it’s about making me be more cognizant of my spending. It’s to help me save money, AND save me from wasting money. If I can only spend $20, then I can’t spend as frivolously or as wantonly as I might. The $20 rule is keeping this Chick in check.

(I know it sounds like Cheap Chick heresy – new shoes are NOT a waste of money. But really? With all the shoes I own? They kind of are.)

Now I will get down from my soap box and get back on eBay. Eventually I will find a pair of nude pumps for $20 or less. If I don’t, there’s always the thrill of the hunt. And hunting on eBay is what makes that little shopping site my favorite time sucker. Best of all, they suck my time for FREE.


LaRue said...

Ah, the lure of eBay, where you can almost convince yourself that you do need that MIB (mint in box) Star Wars figurine for $30.00 that originally cost $1.99 and that your dog chewed the leg off of back in 1977. Or a Marie Osmond doll to replace the one you gave a mohawk and then painted with nail polish.

Lets face it, eBay can make your childhood ALL BETTER.

As for shoes, well, I completely understand you. Especially when they are willing to combine shipping, and really, its just another $19.99, right? Which then totals $80.00 and suddenly you have shoes you can't wear 6 months out of the year. But they are pretty.

I think I'm a mite crabby today. Better go eat some of the 50% off chocolate I bought at Target and sweeten my disposition.

Amy the Mom said...

Really there should be an exception not only for hair, but for Prada that's less than $30. I would totally vote for a waiver there.

Tundrababe said...

Yes! FREE is BEST!

Congrats on your Fox news gig, that is awesome!