Google has led me astray.
In conversation the other day, I was under the impression that it was still common practice (as stated by those fancy “a diamond is forever” De Beers commercials) that rings should cost two months’ salary.
In my opinion, two months’ salary was still a pretty penny to be spending on a ring. But after doing a 30-second Google search, I was told the norm is now three months’ salary. Really?! Three months?
We’ve got some screwed up priorities, America. Spending 25% of your annual income on a ring?
No wonder we’re broke. How are you able to save up three months’ salary for a ring, but can’t pay off your credit cards?
I especially love the comments on this article:
According to a 2013 report from Jewelers of America, an average of $4000 was spent on engagement rings in 2012. This number ebbs and flows with the economy.
A little more research and it turns out that the whole idea of an engagement ring became popular in the 1930’s due to…a De Beers advertisement!
And in 1980, De Beers was the company that claimed an engagement ring should cost two months’ salary.
So let me get this straight– a popular consumer tradition created by and inflated by a diamond company?
I guess we really are suckers.
I know we’re all mostly personal finance related so perhaps our answers will be skewed, but I’m curious…
What do you think is appropriate to spend on an engagement ring?
Join our newsletter
Get the latest content straight to your inbox.