> Cost Re-framing (Work Hours Psychology): It immediately translates the item's price into a more tangible metric: This $80 gadget costs you 4 hours of your work. This technique, known as "opportunity cost visualization," makes the trade-off much more real.

I already do this automatically myself but this only makes me more likely to buy stuff I want. Because many things are so crazy cheap that the time you need to work for them is really not a lot.

Also, the example on the website says 2.1 weeks of work for $217 sneakers. Is the person on the example earning $400 per month or is the calculation different (for example only considering expendable income)?

That's a completely valid point, and I’ve heard similar feedback from many early users. I recommend, and I personally have started doing this, that you plug in your disposable income instead of your total salary.

Disposable income is what you have left after paying for essentials like rent, groceries, commuting, and bills. It’s basically the money available for non-essential purchases. This gives you a more realistic hourly rate and makes you think more about opportunity costs. For example, that $80 gadget could be taking a much bigger chunk of your free cash than it seems at first.

To clarify, in the current free plan, users can enter their annual income. However, the work-hours psychology is based on a default average of about $50k USD. This varies by currency and country, so in this case, like the sneakers example, it translates to about 2.1 weeks.

In the premium version, the app uses your actual income or disposable income, if you prefer, so it becomes much more personalized and precise.

As a thank you to early adopters, I’m offering free weekly premium access to gather feedback and improve the app. Let me know if you’d like to try out the personalized version.

I had this problem when I started budgeting/tracking my money more closely. Turns out I don't spend ENOUGH money on my hobbies! :D