For those who don't know, it's possible, because of the way CVS has structured a particular incentive program, to use coupons, rebates, sales, and the incentive program to walk into a CVS and come out with a huge amount of stuff for next to or absolutely nothing. Money Saving Mom talks about this on her blog, so if you're interested I recommend reading her description.
I don't CVS. For many reasons.*
First, at the risk of sounding self-righteous, I have to say that I don't feel comfortable with the ethics of it. Maybe I'm just bad at the math of it but the concept of walking out of a store with something for free just because the store didn't think through the consequences of a particular program sounds like cheating, at best. Store owners have families to feed as well... or maybe it's just that I hate getting something for absolutely nothing. I hesitate saying this because there are a lot of gray areas when it comes to frugality. The CVS thing just doesn't feel right to me.
Second, I don't use most of the stuff CVS sells. And I don't want to pass on much of that stuff to my friends. My health has improved so dramatically since I cut out most of those chemicals that the idea of passing along tons of stuff to my friends that might make them sick... we'll I'd rather just make bath salts or other beauty aids here at home and put them in pretty containers.
Asking in advance about allergies, of course. ;)
Finally -- and again, I hesitate saying this, but I feel it needs to be said -- I worry that the CVS thing fosters a bad attitude about savings.
In Bleak House by Charles Dickens there's a character called Richard Carstone, one of those in the novel waiting for a lawsuit to finally divvy up an inheritance. He's a likeable guy, very sympathetic character, with a fatal flaw... he doesn't understand money. More than once in the novel Dickens points out (through the main character) how Carstone's misunderstanding of the word "savings" actually puts him in deeper debt. Just because I happen to love Dickens, I'll quote what I feel sums up Carstone's attitude:
"My prudent Mother Hubbard, why not?" he said to me when he wanted, without the least consideration, to bestow five pounds on the brickmaker. "I made ten pounds clear out of Coavinses' business."
"How was that?" said I.
"Why, I got rid of ten pounds I was quite content to get rid of, and never expected to see anymore. You don't deny that?"
"No," said I.
"Very well! Then I came into possession of ten pounds--"
"The same ten pounds," I hinted.
"That has nothing to do with it!" returned Richard. "I have got ten pounds more than I expected to have, and consequently I can afford to spend it without being particular." (pages 86-87 Riverside edition)
Carstone acts as if money he's saved is extra money... when in fact, it's money he originally had that needed, and still needs to be, put towards necessities or invested so that he can make more money later.
Now, I'm not saying that people who shop at CVS use the same logic. But I am worried at the change in attitude from frugality=using less to frugality=buying more stuff you don't need to save more, even if you really can somehow manage to spend less. IMO, it's too easy to slip into unhealthy "frugal" habits if you're used to thinking of the money you spend to save money as "money you wouldn't have otherwise". I know because I used to do this a lot early in my marriage. Before long, instead of having extra, you end up wondering where it all went.
Maybe it's with the post about pancakes I have yet to do. :P
So, I applaud those who CVS simply from an organizational standpoint, but I think I'll just stick with learning to live without. It seems to work better for me and my family.
*Just to be clear, I don't think any less of people who CVS. I've gotten a lot of good tips and advice from Money Saving Mom and other blogs by those who CVS. Not only that, they seem like good people. They simply draw their frugal boundaries in a different place than I do.
No comments:
Post a Comment