A few posts back I wrote about how much the extra square footage costs us just to keep the dining room table. To be honest I was a little unfair to Cat with my analysis, so I am here to make amends.

I also wrote a post about systemic spending; how non optimal spending can increase happiness. With increased happiness comes a higher probability that you will achieve your goals.

So how do these two posts relate? I suspect some of you see this already: From the dining room table post, Cat and I rent an apartment that at face value is larger than we need. As I detailed in the post, we could move to a one bedroom apartment and that would meet our needs. It would be cheaper and we would get to FI faster. Would we be happy though?

The answer to that question is a clear no. That table serves as a place for family for Cat. She said as much in the comment that she left on the post. We have a very small but loving family and it is important to us, especially to Cat. But the extra square footage also serves another purpose. The second bedroom (also mentioned in the original post) serves as an office but also a craft room for Cat. She spins fiber into yarn, and has small spinning wheels in there and comfy chair for knitting. She uses the dining room table for some of this work too.

When Cat comes home from work, she retreats to the office to spin, knit, weave and most importantly decompress. This makes her happy and this is where the systemic spend comes in. We spend the extra money on rent and square footage so that she has the ability to decompress as this makes her happy. Both of us being happy is key to helping her to keep her savings rate up.

So to summarize; our rent is non optimal. We could do better. Would doing better serve us in any way? Unlikely I think. The key here is we need to succeed and if keeping the table is what makes that happen, then we keep the table!