seraphina has me all enthralled. she's such a tiny little slip of a girl, lolita-esque and coquettish. despite her tender age, she's streetsmart and worldly-wise. i can't help but feel like taking her under my wings when i see that bright shining face of hers looking up at me. but of course it really should be the other way round; she's so much more accquainted with the ways of the world than i am.

apart from that intriguing disparity between age and experience, seraphina fascinates me with her seemingly inexhaustible wardrobe. it's remarkable for the very fact that she possesses a limitless quantity of quality items. i've never seen her wear the same pair of shoes twice and these aren't just ordinary shoes we're talking about. just in the category of black 3 inch heels alone, i've seen her wear: a) bling bling strappy heels chock-full of gorgeous crystals that swing and sparkle in the light; b) dominatrix lace-ups with ribbons and ruffles; and c) glossy midnight green gradient (fading into black) stiletto pumps.

for yesterday's audition, she wore an m)phosis satin tube dress the colour of rich dark chocolate, with chi-chi details like polished silver buckles and faux belt trims. over this she threw on an asymmetrical off-shoulder translucent printed silk blouse. her ensemble didn't just look expensive; it was expensive.

after oohing and ahhing over her outfit, i told her she was simply amazing. i'm nowhere near her when it comes to spending on clothes and shoes. her reply - "there's no point in earning so much if you don't spend it." and i couldn't help but agree, even if her way of spending is a little excessive and doesn't take into account the need to set aside money for big ticket items like marriage, buying a house, kids, and so on.

but the basic principle is there - money is simply a medium that facilitates the exchange of goods and services. it has no intrinsic value of its own. it exists simply to be spent. it's just whether you spend now or spend later. and that's where opinions diverge. there are two extremes: those who squirrel away all their earnings and accumulate a fat bank account vs those who splurge it all without a thought for the future.

me, i'm all for moderation. that is, in theory if not in practice. sure, you need to plan for the future, but slogging away without rewarding yourself isn't going to make life any rosier. then of course age is an important factor. i came across a theory once which suggested that the optimum proportion of one's income that should be put aside every month is directly proportional to one's age. according to this theory, you should be saving 25% of your salary when you're 25, 50% when you're 50, 70% when you're 70, etc.

it actually makes a lot of sense to me because it's based on the assumption that a person's income increases over time while expenditure on essential goods (such as food and electricity) remains more or less constant. hence, it becomes possible to save more over time.

but of course this theory is subject to certain limitations. for one, you actually have to be earning beyond a subsistence level before you can even start thinking about building a nest egg. which is why i'm not going to make any concrete plans to save until i begin my NIE stint. i'm going to enjoy my next two years as much as possible with minimum material deprivation. oh the happiness.

ying @ 4:36 PM

---