The cost of being: A first-year teacher who's ‘obsessed with saving'
Want to be part of The Cost of Being? Fill out the questionnaire here.
Gender: Female.
Age: 22.
Ethnicity: Pākehā.
Role: First-year English teacher.
Salary/income/assets: $64,083.
My living location is: Suburban.
Rent/mortgage per week: $0 – I live with my mother, but contribute to the bills. About $150 a week.
Student loan or other debt payments per week: $30k student loan.
Typical weekly food costs
Groceries: My family handles all grocery shopping – I contribute $30 to a meal subscription service, which gives us three dinners a week.
Eating out: Close to $100 – my friends and I are all foodies, and love to go out, usually about twice per week.
Takeaways: Rolled in with eating out above.
Workday lunches: I often partake in the weekly $2 school sausage sizzle.
Cafe coffees/snacks: I might be the only teacher in Auckland who doesn't drink coffee – it saves me a lot of money.
Other food costs: I splurge on little luxuries from the supermarket – nice cheese or pate.
Savings: I am obsessed with saving, and have been my whole life. Apart from my restaurant habit, I control my own spending very tightly. I have $40k in savings, in the same bank account I made when I was 12.
I worry about money: Sometimes.
Three words to describe my financial situation: Tightfisted, privileged, union-dependant.
My biggest edible indulgence would be: Kikorangi blue cheese.
In a typical week my alcohol expenditure would be: $0.
In a typical week my transport expenditure would be: $50 on petrol.
I estimate in the past year the ballpark amount I spent on my personal clothing (including sleepwear and underwear) was: Well under $200 – I shop exclusively at op shops/thrift stores, and beg, borrow or make the rest.
My most expensive clothing in the past year was: A pair of nice work pants, $25 at Savemart.
My last pair of shoes cost: $150 hiking boots from Macpac, two years ago and still going strong.
My grooming/beauty expenditure in a year is about: $0 – I don't wear makeup, and I cut my own hair (badly).
My exercise expenditure in a year is about: $5 a week for my local pickleball league.
My last Friday night cost: $25 for a plate of fish, plus $6 for parking – $31 all together.
Most regrettable purchase in the last 12 months was: A $42 plate of pasta at a posh Ponsonby restaurant… could have gotten better at any pub.
Most indulgent purchase (that I don't regret) in the last 12 months was: A massive, $150 cake for my birthday. It was delicious, and lasted us a full week.
One area where I'm a bit of a tightwad is: Clothing. I'm regularly wearing stuff that should be thrown out, but I believe in mending everything until it can't be worn without a public nudity charge.
Five words to describe my financial personality would be: Scrooge-ish, food-motivated, saver, thrifty, dedicated.
I grew up in a house where money was: Tight. We've always been a single parent household, and were on and off the benefit throughout my teenage years. Me starting work has really helped.
The last time my Eftpos card was declined was: Sometime in high school… 2018?
In five years, in financial terms, I see myself: Putting more into my KiwiSaver, moving up the teacher's pay scale, and perhaps being a bit more confident spending my money.
I would love to have more money for: Travel!
Describe your financial low: As a child, being very conscious of where money came from and what it meant to not have enough. It wasn't fun, but it made me appreciate the value of saving.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Reserve Bank keen to know how Kiwis use cash
Image: RNZ The Reserve Bank is asking people how they use and store cash, saying it needs more up-to-date information as it redesigns the system. The random postal survey asks people how they prefer to pay, how often they use cash, how easy it is to deposit and withdraw coins and notes, and whether they store cash and why. The central bank is asking new questions this year such as whether people are having challenges in using cash. It will now carry out its survey annually instead of every two years. "As the steward of money and cash for New Zealand, we need to ensure that New Zealanders can access, use, and bank cash," the central bank's director of money and cash Ian Woolford said. The survey will inform its work to redesign the cash system. Retail New Zealand chief executive Carolyn Young told Morning Report the use of cash was diminishing, to less than 10 percent of transactions. While some people never used cash, there were times and places where it was critically important, she said. "In rural areas versus urban areas there is more cash that goes through transactions. "And we know intrinsically that people that are on a really tight budget, that cash is a really great tool for managing budgets." Young said cash was indispensable in emergency situations when electricity or eftpos connections go down. Hospitality businesses were more likely than retailers to no longer take cash, she said. "The Reserve Bank perspective is you don't have to take cash but you have to have an alternative method if somebody can't pay by a card." New Zealand First has put forward a members' bill to protect cash as a key option in transactions, requiring stores to take it for purchases up to $500. Young said retailers recognised the importance of cash but didn't back it being compulsory. There was a risk of robbery for businesses holding cash, and counterfeit notes were common, she said. The survey runs to October 10. If people receive a letter to voluntarily participate they can check it is legitimate by visiting the Reserve Bank website, emailing cashusesurvey@ or phoning +64 4 472 2029.
1News
4 hours ago
- 1News
Keen on cash? The Reserve Bank wants to know how you use it
The Reserve Bank is asking people how they use and store cash, saying it needs more up-to-date information as it redesigns the system. The random postal survey asks people how they prefer to pay, how often they use cash, how easy it is to deposit and withdraw coins and notes, and whether they store cash and why. The central bank is asking new questions this year such as whether people are having challenges in using cash. It will now carry out its survey annually instead of every two years. "As the steward of money and cash for New Zealand, we need to ensure that New Zealanders can access, use, and bank cash," the central bank's director of money and cash Ian Woolford said. ADVERTISEMENT The survey will inform its work to redesign the cash system. Retail New Zealand chief executive Carolyn Young. (Source: Breakfast) Retail New Zealand chief executive Carolyn Young told Morning Report the use of cash is diminishing to less than 10% of transactions. While some people never use cash, there were times and places where it was critically important, she said. "In rural areas versus urban areas there is more cash that goes through transactions. "And we know intrinsically that people that are on a really tight budget, that cash is a really great tool for managing budgets." Young said cash was indispensable in emergency situations when electricty or Eftpos connections go down. ADVERTISEMENT Hospitality businesses were more likely than retailers to no longer take cash, she said. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including the West Auckland builder sentenced over massive meth haul, fire on a commuter train, and how Bluey could teach kids about resilience. (Source: 1News) "The Reserve Bank perspective is you don't have to take cash but you have to have an alternative method if somebody can't pay by a card." New Zealand First introduced a Member's Bill to mandate trade vendors to accept cash payments for goods valued up to $500 – meaning if passed, cash payments would have to be accepted by law. Young said retailers recognise the importance of cash but don't back it being compulsory. There was a risk of robbery for businesses holding cash, and counterfeit notes were common, she said. The survey runs to October 10. If people receive a letter to voluntarily participate they can check it is legitimate by visiting the Reserve Bank our website, emailing cashusesurvey@ or phoning +64 4 472 2029. ADVERTISEMENT
The Spinoff
4 hours ago
- The Spinoff
NZOA has saved reality TV and soaps – what about all the shows left to die?
NZ on Air is confronting a very uncomfortable question: what to save, and what to leave behind. Funding announcements from NZ on Air are not typically newsworthy in and of themselves. The agency functions as a local version of the BBC, but instead of existing as a non-commercial umbrella brand, it funds a variety of media which runs across a wide range of largely commercial mediums and platforms. Funded work often consists of a mix of returning shows and new projects, which are either predictable (another season of Q+A, or a fresh David Lomas project) or largely unknown (another murder in rural New Zealand, cast tbc). The most recent round was strikingly different, making news in a way which reveals challenges to the agency's model, and shows just how bad the choices are for NZ on Air now. Three very familiar shows collectively received more than $5m in funding. They are Shortland Street, Celebrity Treasure Island and The Traitors NZ. All are broad in their appeal and comparatively popular. Yet none would have been considered good candidates for funding until very recently. That's because NZ on Air was set up to address a market failure. Due to our small population, some forms of 'programming reflecting New Zealand identity and culture' (according to its legislation) are not commercially viable. The legislation makes specific reference to 'drama and documentary', with everything else somewhat in the eye of the beholder. For decades that meant scripted shows (such as comedy and drama) were NZ on Air's core business, while most other formats (from current affairs to breakfast TV) were commercially funded, due to TV networks being able to sell enough ads to make them on their own terms. That didn't mean it lacked value, just that it didn't need the support. News is the canonical example of a commercially funded genre – TVNZ's 6pm bulletin remains among the highest-rated shows on television, despite costing a bomb to make. Reality TV wasn't even a genre when NZ on Air was founded, and the agency has tended to be fairly circumspect in its funding of it over the years, only getting involved when, as with Match Fit, or Popstars, it fulfilled another worthy goal. Shortland Street, our only true soap, was briefly funded as a kind of TV startup, but cranked along under its own steam for decades afterwards. This was helpful because reality TV and soaps are considered less intellectually nutritious by the kind of people who care about the culture we fund. The end of that era This has not been an uncontested idea. Critics, including those at The Spinoff, and the makers of reality TV have long felt that NZ on Air was too prescriptive in its definition of 'reflecting New Zealand identity and culture'. They believe that reality TV and soaps are popular, show a diverse range of New Zealanders and bring voices, vernacular and perspectives to our screens, just as scripted comedy and drama do. This past week, they won the argument. Shortland Street has returned for a second funded season, after last year accessing two different strands of public funding to stay on air. More striking was the return of The Traitors NZ and Celebrity Treasure Island, two shows which had previously been commercially funded. Celebrity Treasure Island is a revival of an '00s-era format, and has drawn praise for its use of Te Reo Māori and addressing 'complex issues like ageism, sexism and queer politics, all on primetime mainstream television', according to my colleague Tara Ward. The Traitors NZ is a hit local version of a smash international format, with a diverse cast and a strong strain of New Zealand-specific humour. In addition to the cultural arguments, there's also a broader systems-level case for their funding. The shows have consistently rated strongly, particularly with the kind of middle-aged audiences which have abandoned linear television over the past decade. The thinking goes that by keeping these tentpole shows on our screens, you also help keep our networks and production companies viable. The path not taken Despite the solid arguments in favour, there remains a case against, too. To contemplate it, you only need to cast your mind back to a little over a year ago. It was a bonfire of the journalists. We lost longform current affairs stalwart Sunday, the venerable consumer rights show Fair Go, the magazine-style 7pm staple The Project and, most wrenchingly, the whole Newshub operation, all in the space of a few harrowing months. The death of those shows was attributed to the awful financial equation facing TV networks. That despite all rating very strongly, at least by comparison to the rest of the schedule, none could justify the investment required to keep them running. It was a shocking, visceral event, one which made New Zealand a cautionary tale across the Tasman – the country you need to look hard at to figure out how to avoid its fate. Now, a year on, and NZ on Air has been persuaded by the arguments of TVNZ and Three, that these reality TV and soap formats are too important to be allowed to die. To be clear, none of Shortland Street, Celebrity Treasure Island or The Traitors NZ is fully funded. The budgets aren't public, but production industry sources suggest the agency's investment would cover no more than 50% of the associated costs, and perhaps considerably less. Still, the risk of moral hazard is clear. The networks and production companies have established that no show is beyond help, and as audiences decline, there is a manifest case for continually topping up the public funding component of budgets. The implication is that paradoxically, as they get less popular and ad revenue declines, they should receive more help. None of which is to say these decisions are wrong in isolation. But looking at the slate of what we publicly fund now, we seem a long way from home. Pulpy true crime documentaries, reality TV shows with large chunks devoted to selling McDonalds, regularly re-named shows built around the interests of a single comedian. Still, what else can we do? Linear TV audience decline is a global phenomenon, and no public or private broadcaster has successfully ported their audiences across to digital at the same scale as they once had, let alone been able to defend the same advertising revenues. NZ on Air faces bad choices everywhere as it seeks to fulfil its mission and defend its model. It may not have even been given the chance to save the news. But as we slip gently into a new era, where everything which can be argued can be funded, it's important to remember the shows we didn't save too. And ask whether the foundational mission of NZ on Air is better served by what we kept, or what we threw away.
