Post # 1
I thought this WSJ article (also discussed on Jezebel) about the actual costs of weddings was interesting. Is this something you have considered? I was bad with money in undergrad and I know the credit card bills cost me soo much more later down the line. My credit card debt is down pretty low now and I’m worried about raising it back up with wedding costs.
Some of the comments on the article say they would rather have a nice wedding to reminisce about when they are older than have a big mutual fund. Sounds nice and romantic but what are you really going to think when you’re 75, surprisingly healthy and wondering about money?
Post # 3
Interesting point, but what about the families that want to pay? My parents aren’t saying, “if you don’t spend this on your wedding, you can keep it” – the money they are generously allocating for my wedding is for that only.
And while I would be having a much smaller scale budget and guest list if our parents didn’t have a say in it, there are still things that are important to us. Like has been said on the multiple budget posts in the last few days: budget is something between the bride, groom, and sometimes their families. It’s really not for others to judge, and while that’s an interesting concept, I think that it’s a point that’s really not as simple as the article makes it out to be.
Post # 4
Ah they could say that about anything. That Coach purse you just spent $200 on? That could $200 saved could have been $5000 by the time you retire. What about the money you spent on a brand new car? You could have bought a used one for less and kept the money you saved for retirement.
A wedding is something that comes along only once and asking people to reconsider it so they can have retirement funds doesn’t go over well with me. Heck, I’m 25 and have no retirement funds set up whatsoever. Who knows if I’ll even make it to retirement age.
I don’t agree with all the things that article is saying. Especially the fact that cash bars shouldn’t be allowed. I think that is perfectly acceptable in some social circles.
Post # 5
I find the last bit especially offensive: “People who spend more aren’t more married at the end of it. The analysis I would really love to see would be one comparing the amount spent on the wedding and the likelihood of divorce.
Hmmm. I wonder what it would show?”
The insinuation seeming to be that if you spend more on your wedding, you’re trying to fabricate magic in your marriage, or trying to cover up some deeper unhappiness, or that you’re irresponsible with money, which would ultimately lead to divorce. I’m not sure which it is, but it’s not implying anything good. God, I am sick of that attitude.
Post # 6
Blah, that just came up earlier today, too. I just don’t see how the two are related.
Post # 7
The article actually doesn’t bug me much. It is good food for thought. Financially, it is probably unwise to cut into one’s retirement savings in order to pay for the wedding. Compound interest and all.
But I think most people would not put that money into long-term savings if they didn’t spend it on the wedding. As another poster pointed out, it isn’t as if my parents would cut me a check for my retirement if I spent less. The money we are both contributing is coming out of discretionary funds. Fiance, parents, and I are already maxing our retirement contributions through our employers.
But if the choice is contributing less to savings vs. having a more lavish wedding, financially the best choice is to cut back. On the other hand, even if a couple and their parents make the other choice, if they can justify it to themselves, there is no shame in it.
Post # 8
I agree with pp, the premise of the article is kind of off. You could apply this logic to any non-essential spending.