Getting over that financial unease? Budgeting advice
"Budgeting is a tool for planning, not for execution. It sounds like you don't have a problem BUDGETING (planning what to spend on what things) but rather with the execution of your plan. That is - living frugally. This is primarily an issue of self control and personal psychology - not an issue with the mechanics of budgeting and finance, which explains why the most popular personal finance ""gurus"" (Dave Ramsey, Suze Ormond) deal as much with your relationship to money and spending as they do with financial knowledge. There is no easy answer here, but you can learn to spend less. One helpful thought is to realize that whatever your current income is, someone in your community is currently making less than that and surviving. What would you do differently if your real, actual income was $100 or $200 less than it is currently. If your food budget is a concern, learn to cook cheaply. (Often, this is more healthy.) You mentioned schooling, so I assume you are on or near a college campus. Many colleges have all sorts of free-food opportunities. (I used to eat free vegetarian meals weekly at a Hare Krsna temple. Price of admission: listening to the monk read from the Bhagavad Gita.) Fast food is, of course, a complete no-no on low-budget living. It probably goes without saying, but just in case you haven't: cancel cable, get a cheap phone plan (Ting is excellent if available in your area), and otherwise see how you can squeeze a few dollars out of your bills. On the subject of frugality, I have found no book more enlightening than: Money Secrets of the Amish: Finding True Abundance in Simplicity, Sharing, and Saving" You sound like you are budgeting too much for food.  Try limiting yourself to $200 a month for food and take that out in cash.  When it's up, it's up.  It's a hard way to learn but if you can tackle that, then budgeting for other things gets easier.   In terms of your fear of doing a financial bellyflop, which is valid, it sounds like you may need to both sit down and learn a little more about personal finance.  Try mrmoneymustache.com or fivecentnickel, or any of the other frugal living blogs that are out there.  There are whole communities that can help you and give you tips to do more with less, and learn budgeting and finance and how to handle your money and your future.  And no worries, the fact you are concerned enough to look for direction now means you may be able to avoid your fear completely. Put your budget down on paper/spreadsheet/tool of choice (e.g Mint, YNAB, Excel).  Track every cent for a few months.  Seeing it written down makes The Financial Conversation easier.  One simple trick is to pay yourself first.  Take $100 and sock it away each month, or $25 per paycheck - send it to another account where you won't see it.  Then live off the rest. For food - make a meal plan.  Eggs are healthy and relatively cheap so you have breakfast covered.  Oatmeal is about $2 for a silos' worth.  Worst case you can live off of ramen noodles, peanut butter and tuna for a month while you catch up.  Cut everything as some of the others have answered - you will be amazed how much you will not miss. Dave Ramsey's baby steps are great for getting started (I disagree with DR on a great many things so that's not advocating you sign up for anything). Ynab's methodology is actually what got me out of my mess - they have free classes in their website - where budgeting is about planning and not simply tracking. Good luck.
Yes, you can indeed become rich by investing even small amounts over time. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week. Suppose you choose to put your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. 35 years from now, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). This math works out for anyone, no matter who your parents are, where you are from, where you went to school, etc. Yes, you have a better chance of becoming wealthy the more you invest, the longer you have to stay invested, and the better choices you make in your investments.  By starting early, you will maximize your time invested, which allows you the flexibility to be more conservative in your investments and to invest smaller amounts.  But for those with a shorter time to invest, it is still doable for most people.  Get your financial life under control by eliminating your debt, setting a household budget, and investing for the future. "Thank goodness you replied again before i did i completely forgot to respond and that notification was a good reminder. Im genuinely enjoying the conversation and sorry about the name calling most of my political and economic debates happen with family where name calling is not only accepted but expected lol.    &gt; Too many people walk into the emergency room uninsured, or under-insured. They get emergent care that they are not covered for, and the hospitals jack up the prices greatly in the hopes of getting a larger portion reimbursed by Medicare  [this link] (https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/who-bears-the-cost-of-the-uninsured-nonprofit-hospitals) seems to contradict that statment. i dont know enough about the system to say youre wrong but it doesnt sound very real to me.   &gt;Again, Switzerland has lower tax rates than the US, but they don't even crack the top 20 when it comes to countries with low taxes.  Youre obviously not wrong but there are many places on that list id love to retire in. Amongst the developed world from what im seeing [here] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates) has the 27th lowest individual income tax rate when it applies to there highest bracket. now i use the term ""developed"" very loosely here as there are countries ahead of them on that list that clearly arent part of the developed world but its not up to me to decide what the swiss rank is.  &gt;So you work in construction, an industry in which commercial is notorious for underbidding a contract (whether to government or to private), and then running into unexpected overages that cause the job to go over schedule, over budget.  This is dangerously false. The industry isnt known for underbidding and going over budget. Only really really really bad contractors do that. What a lot of good contractors do is, when you know a general contractor for a long time or youre trying to to build a relationship you do eachother favors so they will say for instance ""hey man i dont have the budget to pay you what you need so take a loss on this one and we'll take care of you on the next one"" or they will find some money unaccounted for in the budget and throw it your way in the form of extra work done.   &gt;Its not like the government just sits around and takes it. I know of at least one federal contractor who went to federal prison for fraudulently winning contracts in my part of the country.  In my line of work they really do just sit back and take it, from what ive experience you have to be super greedy and really fuck up to get their attention. 1 job i did, i was only there for 3 weeks total and in that 3 week period i saw all types of osha violations, rescource waste, time waste and plenty of govenrment workers who didnt really know what they were doing ""checking"" on the job to make sure progress was being made.   &gt;It is because government has tremendous resources that they can throw at a problem.  This is where we really do differ, i see this as a bad thing. I see it as them not spending money efficiently money that they got from me and my hard work. Look at the f22 raptor for instance it is now 3 times over budget from the projections for how much of an upgrade? Whats the point of a contract if someone can just go over budget 3 times over without anyone blinking an eye. Why not just say ""get it done and bill us"". I understand your point of view completely i just vehemently disagree with it especially because i think the government source of revenue is based around theft." The amount of money you have should be enough for you to live a safe but somewhat restricted life if you never worked again - but it could set you up for just about any sort of financial goal (short of island buying) if you do just about any amount of work. The basic math for some financial rules of thumb to keep in mind: If your money is invested in very low-risk ways, such as a money market fund, you might earn, say, 3% in interest every year. That's $36k. But, if you withdraw that $36k every year, then every year you have the same principal amount invested. And a dollar tomorrow can't buy as much as a dollar today, because of inflation. If we assume for simplicity that inflation is 1% every year, then you need to contribute an additional $12k to your principal balance every year, just so that it has the same buying power next year. This leaves you with a net $24k of interest income that you can freely spend every year, for the rest of your life, without ever touching your principal balance. If your money is invested more broadly, including equity investments [stocks], you might earn, say, 7% every year. Some years you might lose money on your investments, and would need to draw down your principal balance to pay your bills. Some years you might do quite well - but would need to remain conservative and not withdraw your 'excess' earnings every year, because you will need that 'excess' to make up for the bad years. This would leave you with about $74k of income every year before inflation, and about $62k after inflation. But, you would be taking on more risk by doing this. If you work enough to pay your daily bills, and leave your investments alone to earn 7% on average annually, then in just 10 years your money would have doubled to ~ $2.4 Million dollars. This assumes that you never save another penny, and spend everything you make. It's a level of financial security that means you could retire at a drop of the hat. And if don't start working for 20 years [which you might need to do if you spend in excess of your means and your money dries up], then the same will not be true - starting work at 45 with no savings would put you at a much greater disadvantage for financial security. Every year that you work enough to pay your bills before 'retirement' could increase your nest egg by 7% [though again, there is risk here], but only if you do it now, while you have a nest egg to invest. Now in terms of what you should do with that money, you need to ask yourself: what are your financial goals? You should think about this long and hard (and renew that discussion with yourself periodically, as your goals will change over time). You say university isn't an option - but what other ways might you want to 'invest in yourself'? Would you want to go on 'sabbatical'-type learning trips? Take a trade or learn a skill? Start a business? Do you want to live in the same place for 30 years [and thus maybe you should lock-down your housing costs by buying a house] or do you want to travel around the world, never staying in the same place twice [in which case you will need to figure out how to live cheaply and flexibly, without signing unnecessary leases]. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere eating ramen noodles and watching tv, you could do that without lifting a finger ever again. But every other financial goal you might have should be factored into your budget and work plan. And because you do have such a large degree of financial security, you have a lot of options that could be very appealing - every low paying but desirable/hard-to-get job is open to you. You can pursue your interests, even if they barely pay minimum wage, and doing so may help you ease into your new life easier than simply retiring at such a young age [when most of your peers will be heavy into their careers]. So, that is my strongest piece of advice - work now, while you're young and have motivation, so that you can dial back later. This will be much easier than the other way around. As for where you should invest your money in, look on this site for investing questions, and ultimately with that amount of money - I suggest you hire a paid advisor, who works based on an hourly consultation fee, rather than a % management fee. They can give you much more directed advice than the internet (though you should learn it yourself as well, because that will give you the best piece of mind that you aren't being taken advantage of). "When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now.  In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also  mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not ""pure stocks"": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done ""by hand,"" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard.  (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice." "I started storing and summing all my receipts, bills, etc. It has the advantage of letting me separate expenses by category, but it's messy and it takes a long time.  It sounds from this like you are making your summaries far too detailed. Don't. Instead, start by painting with broad strokes. For example, if you spent $65.17 at the grocery store, don't bother splitting that amount into categories like toiletries, hygiene products, food, and snacks: just categorize it as ""grocery spending"" and move on to the next line on your account statement. Similarly, unless your finances are heavily reliant on cash, don't worry about categorizing each cash expense; rather, just categorize the withdrawal of cash as miscellaneous and don't spend time trying to figure out exactly where the money went after that. Because honestly, you probably spent it on something other than savings. Because really, when you are just starting out getting a handle on your spending, you don't need all the nitty-gritty details. What you need, rather, is an idea of where your money is going. Figure out half a dozen or so categories which make sense for you to categorize your spending into (you probably have some idea of where your money is going). These could be loans, cost of living (mortgage/rent, utilities, housing, home insurance, ...), groceries, transportation (car payments, fuel, vehicle taxes, ...), savings, and so on -- whatever fits your situation. Add a miscellaneous category for anything that doesn't neatly fit into one of the categories you thought of. Go back something like 3-4 months among your account statements, do a quick categorization for each line on your account statements into one of these categories, and then sum them up per category and per month. Calculate the monthly average for each category. That's your starting point: the budget you've been living by (intentionally or not). After that, you can decide how you want to allocate the money, and perhaps dig a bit more deeply into some specific category. Turns out you are spending a lot of money on transportation which you didn't expect? Look more closely at those line items and see if there's something you can cut. Are you spending more money at the grocery store than you thought? Then look more closely at that. And so on. Once you know where you are and where you want to be (such as for example bumping the savings category by $200 per month), you can adjust your budget to take you closer to your goals. Chances are you won't realistically be able to do an about-face turn on the spot, but you can try to reduce some discretionary category by, say, 10% each month, and transfer that into savings instead. That way, in 6-7 months, you have cut that category in half." I'll chime in and say that my wife and I thought this was a really dumb idea, until we tried it. I was keeping track of everything in my checkbook ledger, but having the physical money in the envelopes really does work! We thought it would be more hassle than it's worth, and there were hiccups the first month or two, but in the end we both agree this is what started our movement towards responsible money management and debt reduction. We have the following Categories:  Obviously, ymmv, but the point is to take any categories in your budget that are hard to budget for, as they vary from month to month, and just set aside an amount form your paycheck, in cash, for each one of those categories in an envelope.  What I've noticed is that by putting the money aside up front, it's MUCH easier to stick to the budget. We'll often shuffle money around in the envelopes if priorities change for a particular month as well, so rather than taking money away from an extra payment on a debt or our planned savings transfer, which would have been our default action pre-envelopes, we can just move $XX from Date Night into Groceries if we have to, hence, planning out how we'll spend our money, budgeting, has gotten a LOT easier since adopting this system. This situation is certainly difficult to handle. While there are good reasons for and against giving or loaning money directly why not handle this in an open and honest way?  Give your friends the link to your question, which shows that you care about their well-being and the friendship. It also shows that you are deeply concerned that the situation might become worse if they are unable to get the finances in order.  If a close friend of mine would be so concerned it would definitely get me starting to think about the situation and possible ways out of it. There will be no single solution to the problems they are facing but having friends that actually care can stabilize such a tricky situation much more than any small financial gain. When a friend of mine was in deep financial trouble he did not hang out with us anymore because we often met in bars or cafés which were at that point just too expensive for him. So simply changing the location to a less expensive place allowed him to participate in social life again and was much better if we would have payed for him and created an atmosphere of social debt. I'm not a finance guy (at all), but I would think the saving habits developed over the past few years of down-turn would take awhile to break down again. Meaning people may be able to afford dinner out, but have gotten used to not spending the money on it. I would imagine many people's habits have changed.