Is it cheaper to be antisocial?
Posted
Nov 08 2007, 08:23 PM
by
Karen Datko
Rating:
After a weekend flurry of housecleaning, laundry and catching up on The New Yorker, young, hip New York City denizen Madame X pondered a Carrie Bradshawesque question at My Open Wallet: Does it cost less to be antisocial? Like many other things in life, it depends. You'll save a lot on food and entertainment, particularly if, like Madame X, you're uncomfortable eating out and going to the movies alone. On the other hand, traveling is cheaper for two. You can split the hotel bill, and you'll likely eat in a restaurant, rather than overpay so a guy in a white jacket will bring food to your room.
Fellow New Yorker Little Miss Moneybags agrees that being social has its costs. Because her vegetarian entrees normally cost less than those of her meat-eating friends, she loses out if everyone decides to split the bill equally among them. But spending money from time to time may actually be good for her, she concludes. "I already lean toward the crazy-cat-woman and frugal-till-you're-just-cheap end of the spectrum, so being antisocial might have associated nonfinancial costs that aren't healthy for me," she says.
