Skip to main content

saving money weekly

I came across a an idea called 52 Week Money Challenge. Let me share to you how it works. The idea is to save Php62,900.00 in 52 weeks(one year) and we start with only Php50.00.

What is it?

From the label 52 Week Money Challenge, it's a Challenge. It's about saving Money. It runs for 52 weeks (1 year). In a nutshell, you religiously save an increasing amount for the whole year.

How do you do it?

  1. For the first week, you save Php50.00.
  2. On the second week, you save the same amount as last week, which is Php50.00 - plus additional Php50.00. That's Php100.00
  3. On the third week, you save the same amount as last week, which is Php100.00 - Plus additional Php50.00. That's Php150.00
  4. On the fourth week, you save the same amount as last week, which is Php150.00 - Plus additional Php50.00. That's Php200.00
  5. You repeat the cycle for one year or 52 weeks.
  6. Enjoy your money.

Minimum Requirements:

  • Make sure you can wait for one year
  • You have an income for at least a year
  • You can afford to set aside the amount of the last week. If you are using Php50.00 as base, then that's Php2,600
Tips: 
  • Put it in a bank account to avoid the temptation of spending your money
  • Have a goal on how to use it when you are done. (eg. cellphone, project car, travel)
  • You can change the base depending on what you can afford. If you are a student you might want to start with Php10.00 or Php20.00
If you think this is not effective to you, then consider changing some of the parameters. Say, reverse it(which i am using). Start from the biggest amount(Php2,600). Or, if you have an erratic amount of income, then just choose what you can afford on the week. I'll be discussing this next time since i have just thought of it right now.

Happy Saving!
Labels:

Popular

Contextual Stratification - Chapter 12: No Floor

The Search for the Bottom Throughout history, humans have searched for the ground floor of reality, the most fundamental level from which everything else emerges. The ancient Greeks proposed atoms: indivisible particles that couldn't be broken down further. Two thousand years later, we discovered atoms could be split, revealing electrons, protons, and neutrons. Surely these were fundamental? Then we found that protons and neutrons contained quarks. Perhaps quarks are fundamental? String theory suggests they might be vibrations of one-dimensional strings. Perhaps strings are fundamental? Some theories propose even strings are composed of more basic structures; branes, loops, or mathematical objects we don't yet have names for. Each generation believes it has reached the bottom, only to discover deeper structure. This could be a temporary state, we just haven't dug deep enough yet. Eventually we'll hit the truly fundamental level, and the digging will stop. Or it could be...
Read more

Contextual Stratification, Basilides, and the Shape of an Accurate Religion

Contextual Stratification quietly intersects with an unlikely figure: Basilides, the 2nd-century Gnostic often dismissed as obscure or overly metaphysical. Strip away the mythic language, and what remains is a sharp structural insight: reality is layered, and most human error comes from collapsing those layers into one. Basilides’ most radical idea was the Unknowable God—not a supreme ruler issuing commands, but a source beyond being, intention, or description. This god does nothing, says nothing, demands nothing. That sounds paradoxical until viewed through Contextual Stratification. Structurally, the Unknowable God maps cleanly onto the apex stratum: the highest layer that is necessary for grounding reality yet irrelevant for operation within it. Irrelevant here does not mean useless. It means non-operational. The apex stratum cannot be invoked to explain events, justify rules, or resolve disputes. It exists to mark a boundary—the point beyond which explanation, morality, and causati...
Read more

Contextual Stratification and Wittgenstein: From Language Games to Cognitive Architecture

Wittgenstein cracked a quiet truth that philosophy spent centuries missing: meaning doesn’t live in words but in use. A word means what it does in a situation, not what a dictionary freezes it to be. His concept of language games exposed how science, law, religion, and daily speech each operate under different rules, even when they reuse the same vocabulary. Contextual stratification is the next move. Where Wittgenstein described the phenomenon, contextual stratification structures it. Language games become explicit layers, like distinct strata where concepts are valid, coherent, and internally consistent. Confusion arises not from disagreement, but from dragging ideas across layers where they don’t belong. Most arguments aren’t wrong; they’re misplaced. Wittgenstein believed philosophical problems dissolve once we see how language is actually used. Contextual stratification operationalizes that belief: instead of debating meanings, you locate the layer. Instead of refuting claims, you...
Read more