25 ms·

The title here seems very inflammatory. The article questions whether some actions (e.g. painting your own home instead of hiring someone to do it) are truly fr

The title here seems very inflammatory. The article questions whether some actions (e.g. painting your own home instead of hiring someone to do it) are truly frugal. It goes on to say that the philosophy of frugality is a handmaiden for wealthy. Maybe so, but why would we discourage good spending habits? For example, choosing to eat one or more meals out each day versus bulk cooking is an option available to most people. Likewise, choosing to spend $800 on rent with roommates versus $1,600 for a studio or one bedroom apartment. I'm not seeing how millenials or members of the middle class benefit by uncritically opting for more expensive options. My read on frugal culture is spend however much money you want on whatever you want, but do so eyes-wide-open. Break free from all the advertising, inertia, and "keeping up with the joneses". Frankly I think if more people adopted this style of thinking it would have serious ramifications for the rich and their businesses built on over consumption and debt.

duxup 9y ago
I think the title refers more to the idea that those folks selling this frugality made plenty of money already and that financial freedom is what helped them establish their lifestyle... not the frugality they sell.
- aschearer 9y ago
  I agree the article was attempting to take down that family, but even on that count I wasn't convinced. So they have a home in Massachusetts? That hardly makes them "rich". Nor is being able to hire a painting company the exclusive province of the wealthy. Perhaps pursuing FIRE is something only available to the upper middle class. That's an interesting argument, but not one put forward in the article. Furthermore, I think it's bordering on class warfare to set the upper and lower middle classes against each other. It reeks of divide and conquer, and who benefits? The people pushing over expensive lifestyles funded with debt.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    Minor correction: They have a second house in Massachusetts, 1/2 a mile from MIT and 1 mile from Harvard, which they paid $460,000 for in 2012 (https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/05/08/why-did-we-buy-our-house/ https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/05/08/why-did-we-buy-our-ho...) and now rent (http://www.frugalwoods.com/2017/02/24/how-we-turned-our-city-home-into-a-rental-property/ http://www.frugalwoods.com/2017/02/24/how-we-turned-our-city...). (Whoa, their property manager is cheap.)
    - cko 9y ago
      Less than 3% of gross for a single unit? That is a rate you’d expect for a 200 unit apartment complex.
- xboxnolifes 9y ago
  The audience that these types of blog posts are targeting aren't those of who are stuck making minimum wage, but instead those who are fairly well off but think they aren't because they keep spending yearly costs on $1000 phones, 5+ subscription services, large housing costs, eating out multiple times per week, etc.
  - duxup 9y ago
    I don't know who the target audience is. I'm not sure your issues you address are anymore a path to financal independence than anyone else offers. It's really easy to pick our personal boogeymen that no doubt play a part in things, and make them more of the issue than they really are.
    - xboxnolifes 9y ago
      I'm just repeating issues that the blog authors from FrugalWoods, MMM, MadFientist, ERE, ERN, etc, all bring up as their main points for obtaining wealth (Or being financially independent as they call it). And they were merely examples of a large list of things that increase spending, hence the 'etc'. Each of them typically does three things: They keep their household yearly spending under $35,000 (some even less than this), increase income as much as possible, and invest the savings, taking advantage of tax-deferred accounts whenever possible. Though, the three things are basically common sense when you think about it.
  - ericd 9y ago
    Don't forget new cars, especially financed with debt.
- jogjayr 9y ago
  But tons of folks working high-paying jobs don't manage to establish a lifestyle like the Frugalwoods. There's a reason phrases like "keeping up with the Joneses" exist. It's how you end up with "out-of-touch" articles about how a $250k annual income is barely middle-class in NYC or the Bay Area. Can't we focus on the message instead of the messenger? Or stop assuming that the message is for Millennials alone?
  - duxup 9y ago
    I think there is a legit reason to include the messenger and the message if you think the messenger's advantages are what make the suggestions in the message possible....
    - jogjayr 9y ago
      There are many people who have the same advantages as the Frugalwoods (education, high-paying jobs) but not the same lifestyle outcomes. Are we going to criticize them for pointing this fact out by showing their own example?
anigbrowl 9y ago
You're missing the point. The 'frugal culture' is selling the idea that this is the road to economic self-sufficiency while omitting or glossing over other significant information, like having a very healthy income stream to begin with. If you're poor, being frugal is very unlikely to lift you out of poverty. That doesn't mean frugality is bad, but that marketing is as the key to financial stability is deceptive.
- aschearer 9y ago
  Sure, but are people like the ones in this article or MMM seriously advocating that their philosophy will solve poverty? It's always struck me as middle or even upper middle class people revolting against over consumption and debt. Insofar as that's the case it seems like a positive development. And I don't see why we can't do two things at once, address inequality and poverty and reform out-of-control consumerism.
  - azernik 9y ago
    I've heard this frequently in right-wing circles; see e.g. the complaints about people on welfare having (shock!) smartphones.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      People in Sudan have too. An older smartphone can be had for very little nowadays. As can be a budget model.
    - ericd 9y ago
      Smartphones are an expensive luxury, not a necessity. I think the expectation is that people on the public dole should be trying to save as much as possible and try to get off of welfare.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        A moderately capable smartphone can be had for $100 and up, especially if you're not aiming for the latest model. That makes it very competitive with laptops, and provides the owner with communications, mapping, and access to all kinds of services which will make it easier to get by and considerably easier to do things like job hunting. Dismissing it as an expensive luxury is absurd.
qntty 9y ago
I guess this is the real motive behind the article: But here’s the thing. Regardless of intent, these Millennials are telling an older generation of elite Americans — the very people whose policies and financial decisions kneecapped the economy — what they want to hear: that everything is more or less okay, and young people just need to be more thoughtful about their money. And that’s a shitty idea to perpetuate. Because whatever happens in the years ahead, penny-pinching will likely remain a lifestyle enhancement for bourgeois Millennials who possess enough money to enjoy the dividends of being thrifty. For most of us, there are no dividends: just thrift. It's not about the advice itself -- the advice all seems pretty reasonable -- it's about the place that advice has in the story we tell ourselves about young people. I myself practice many of these thrifty tips, but I cringe to think that the blog posts that people write about them will be used to justify continuing to build a world where they are more and more necessary.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  I think there’s real value in spreading the message of thrift. The 20th century saw a massive build up of the consumerist lifestyle. It’s going to take a lot of work to back that out, so we might as well start now. I’ve personally seen people with high five figure student debt go on regular international trips. These people more or less live paycheck to paycheck and save specifically for travel (or use credit cards — if they can get them). Educating people as to why that might be a bad idea and creating a supportive culture of anti-consumerism seems like a good idea. Sure there are policy decisions at play too, but being “frugal” can hardly hurt.
  - qntty 9y ago
    No doubt. Again: the tips are great and many people would do well to listen to them. However, the larger question of the place that these tips have in the story that we tell ourselves about society is still an open question. There are multiple ways to place these tips in a larger context while still following them and regarding them as worthwhile. It's important to understand that there is a choice to be made here about the story we tell ourselves.
notyourwork 9y ago
People want what they can't have which I don't think will ever dissolve. Therefore, the idea that advertising has any bearing on this is flawed. Keeping up with the joneses is less about having the same thing and more about having the joneses quality of life. They aren't the same if you look at them. Having a fancy car for example is a status symbol, what is the status? The status is that this car has nicer features, butt warmers, more comfortable seating, better safety. Taking that status symbol a step further, I can deduce that if the joneses can afford that fancy car they also have other fancy things. Most reduce this logic down to the following: The more individual items I have that the joneses have the closer I'll be to their quality of life. I think this is a really interesting dynamic though because the more money I make I am not proportionally happier. In fact, my happiness stopped increasing with salary increases the moment I was able to afford bills and have leftover for savings. Since than my salary has grown many times over and I am still the same person I was fresh out of college getting by. My wife and I are still the same couple, we are no happier with the weather we have achieved over the years.
- neogodless 9y ago
  There are so many things you cannot tell by looking at how other people appear to be living their lives. Or whether the car is valued for utility, features or perceived status. First, you can't tell from looking at their car how well-suited their finances are to paying for it. They could have a 12.99% 72-month loan that doubles the actual cost (plus higher insurance premiums, premium fuel, etc). Or they bought it cash, self-insure, and have money invested that compounds over time and pays their insurance and gas bill for them. Second, you probably don't know how they are using it. If you're a master salesman with an excellent income, selling 7-figure deals to executives, you might actually get utility out of perceived status! But if you're a coder who walks a quarter mile from parking and works in the basement of the building, the brand name on that car is worth nothing. And most of those comfort features can probably be found in a Mazda for $20K less. Or a ten-year old luxury car. (Personally I love the hatchback which combines all those features with utility and fuel economy! No need to buy the luxury sport sedan.) Finally, wait, why do you think advertising isn't doing its job? People know what they can't have because of advertising. Then they want it.
mcguire 9y ago
Here's the question: if you were to "cut back on things like eating out at restaurants and taking public transportation to work," would you be able to save 71% of your income? How long would it take you, just in cutting back on lattes and painting your own home rather than hiring a contractor, to buy a 4 bedroom house on 66 acres in Vermont? I don't really like doing plumbing, but I've replaced quite a few faucets and toilets. Not because I wanted to be "frugal", but because I could not afford to pay someone to do it; if I didn't, it wasn't getting done. I didn't blog about it; I didn't tell everyone, "Hey, lookit me! I'm saving money!" because everyone else I knew was also doing their own plumbing because they were also broke. (Now, of course, I could pay someone. But that ship's sailed. Besides, it's really hard to find good contractors.) The McFrugals, according to the article, aren't talking to millenials or anyone else who needs to be frugal; they're talking to the wealthy, saying "all those people you think are whiney, spoiled kids, really are spoiled, whiney kids."
- sokoloff 9y ago
  > Here's the question: if you were to "cut back on things like eating out at restaurants and taking public transportation to work," would you be able to save 71% of your income? No, because my taxation burden alone is well above 29%. I'm pretty sure they're calculating that they're saving 71% of their earned income, but they're almost surely not saving 71% of their earned income plus gross rent receipts.
  - mcguire 9y ago
    You are correct, it's post-tax. (https://www.frugalwoods.com/2015/01/09/well-hot-damn-frugality-works-our-2014-savings-rate-revealed/ https://www.frugalwoods.com/2015/01/09/well-hot-damn-frugali...) It also doesn't include 401(k)s and mortgage principal. Edit: Here's how they do it: https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/04/10/how-we-save-65-annually/ https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/04/10/how-we-save-65-annual...

duxup 9y ago

I think the title refers more to the idea that those folks selling this frugality made plenty of money already and that financial freedom is what helped them establish their lifestyle... not the frugality they sell.

aschearer 9y ago
I agree the article was attempting to take down that family, but even on that count I wasn't convinced. So they have a home in Massachusetts? That hardly makes them "rich". Nor is being able to hire a painting company the exclusive province of the wealthy. Perhaps pursuing FIRE is something only available to the upper middle class. That's an interesting argument, but not one put forward in the article. Furthermore, I think it's bordering on class warfare to set the upper and lower middle classes against each other. It reeks of divide and conquer, and who benefits? The people pushing over expensive lifestyles funded with debt.
- mcguire 9y ago
  Minor correction: They have a second house in Massachusetts, 1/2 a mile from MIT and 1 mile from Harvard, which they paid $460,000 for in 2012 (https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/05/08/why-did-we-buy-our-house/ https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/05/08/why-did-we-buy-our-ho...) and now rent (http://www.frugalwoods.com/2017/02/24/how-we-turned-our-city-home-into-a-rental-property/ http://www.frugalwoods.com/2017/02/24/how-we-turned-our-city...). (Whoa, their property manager is cheap.)
  - cko 9y ago
    Less than 3% of gross for a single unit? That is a rate you’d expect for a 200 unit apartment complex.
xboxnolifes 9y ago
The audience that these types of blog posts are targeting aren't those of who are stuck making minimum wage, but instead those who are fairly well off but think they aren't because they keep spending yearly costs on $1000 phones, 5+ subscription services, large housing costs, eating out multiple times per week, etc.
- duxup 9y ago
  I don't know who the target audience is. I'm not sure your issues you address are anymore a path to financal independence than anyone else offers. It's really easy to pick our personal boogeymen that no doubt play a part in things, and make them more of the issue than they really are.
  - xboxnolifes 9y ago
    I'm just repeating issues that the blog authors from FrugalWoods, MMM, MadFientist, ERE, ERN, etc, all bring up as their main points for obtaining wealth (Or being financially independent as they call it). And they were merely examples of a large list of things that increase spending, hence the 'etc'. Each of them typically does three things: They keep their household yearly spending under $35,000 (some even less than this), increase income as much as possible, and invest the savings, taking advantage of tax-deferred accounts whenever possible. Though, the three things are basically common sense when you think about it.
- ericd 9y ago
  Don't forget new cars, especially financed with debt.
jogjayr 9y ago
But tons of folks working high-paying jobs don't manage to establish a lifestyle like the Frugalwoods. There's a reason phrases like "keeping up with the Joneses" exist. It's how you end up with "out-of-touch" articles about how a $250k annual income is barely middle-class in NYC or the Bay Area. Can't we focus on the message instead of the messenger? Or stop assuming that the message is for Millennials alone?
- duxup 9y ago
  I think there is a legit reason to include the messenger and the message if you think the messenger's advantages are what make the suggestions in the message possible....
  - jogjayr 9y ago
    There are many people who have the same advantages as the Frugalwoods (education, high-paying jobs) but not the same lifestyle outcomes. Are we going to criticize them for pointing this fact out by showing their own example?

anigbrowl 9y ago

You're missing the point. The 'frugal culture' is selling the idea that this is the road to economic self-sufficiency while omitting or glossing over other significant information, like having a very healthy income stream to begin with. If you're poor, being frugal is very unlikely to lift you out of poverty. That doesn't mean frugality is bad, but that marketing is as the key to financial stability is deceptive.

aschearer 9y ago
Sure, but are people like the ones in this article or MMM seriously advocating that their philosophy will solve poverty? It's always struck me as middle or even upper middle class people revolting against over consumption and debt. Insofar as that's the case it seems like a positive development. And I don't see why we can't do two things at once, address inequality and poverty and reform out-of-control consumerism.
- azernik 9y ago
  I've heard this frequently in right-wing circles; see e.g. the complaints about people on welfare having (shock!) smartphones.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    People in Sudan have too. An older smartphone can be had for very little nowadays. As can be a budget model.
  - ericd 9y ago
    Smartphones are an expensive luxury, not a necessity. I think the expectation is that people on the public dole should be trying to save as much as possible and try to get off of welfare.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      A moderately capable smartphone can be had for $100 and up, especially if you're not aiming for the latest model. That makes it very competitive with laptops, and provides the owner with communications, mapping, and access to all kinds of services which will make it easier to get by and considerably easier to do things like job hunting. Dismissing it as an expensive luxury is absurd.

qntty 9y ago

I guess this is the real motive behind the article: But here’s the thing. Regardless of intent, these Millennials are telling an older generation of elite Americans — the very people whose policies and financial decisions kneecapped the economy — what they want to hear: that everything is more or less okay, and young people just need to be more thoughtful about their money. And that’s a shitty idea to perpetuate. Because whatever happens in the years ahead, penny-pinching will likely remain a lifestyle enhancement for bourgeois Millennials who possess enough money to enjoy the dividends of being thrifty. For most of us, there are no dividends: just thrift. It's not about the advice itself -- the advice all seems pretty reasonable -- it's about the place that advice has in the story we tell ourselves about young people. I myself practice many of these thrifty tips, but I cringe to think that the blog posts that people write about them will be used to justify continuing to build a world where they are more and more necessary.

malvosenior 9y ago
I think there’s real value in spreading the message of thrift. The 20th century saw a massive build up of the consumerist lifestyle. It’s going to take a lot of work to back that out, so we might as well start now. I’ve personally seen people with high five figure student debt go on regular international trips. These people more or less live paycheck to paycheck and save specifically for travel (or use credit cards — if they can get them). Educating people as to why that might be a bad idea and creating a supportive culture of anti-consumerism seems like a good idea. Sure there are policy decisions at play too, but being “frugal” can hardly hurt.
- qntty 9y ago
  No doubt. Again: the tips are great and many people would do well to listen to them. However, the larger question of the place that these tips have in the story that we tell ourselves about society is still an open question. There are multiple ways to place these tips in a larger context while still following them and regarding them as worthwhile. It's important to understand that there is a choice to be made here about the story we tell ourselves.

notyourwork 9y ago

People want what they can't have which I don't think will ever dissolve. Therefore, the idea that advertising has any bearing on this is flawed. Keeping up with the joneses is less about having the same thing and more about having the joneses quality of life. They aren't the same if you look at them. Having a fancy car for example is a status symbol, what is the status? The status is that this car has nicer features, butt warmers, more comfortable seating, better safety. Taking that status symbol a step further, I can deduce that if the joneses can afford that fancy car they also have other fancy things. Most reduce this logic down to the following: The more individual items I have that the joneses have the closer I'll be to their quality of life. I think this is a really interesting dynamic though because the more money I make I am not proportionally happier. In fact, my happiness stopped increasing with salary increases the moment I was able to afford bills and have leftover for savings. Since than my salary has grown many times over and I am still the same person I was fresh out of college getting by. My wife and I are still the same couple, we are no happier with the weather we have achieved over the years.

neogodless 9y ago
There are so many things you cannot tell by looking at how other people appear to be living their lives. Or whether the car is valued for utility, features or perceived status. First, you can't tell from looking at their car how well-suited their finances are to paying for it. They could have a 12.99% 72-month loan that doubles the actual cost (plus higher insurance premiums, premium fuel, etc). Or they bought it cash, self-insure, and have money invested that compounds over time and pays their insurance and gas bill for them. Second, you probably don't know how they are using it. If you're a master salesman with an excellent income, selling 7-figure deals to executives, you might actually get utility out of perceived status! But if you're a coder who walks a quarter mile from parking and works in the basement of the building, the brand name on that car is worth nothing. And most of those comfort features can probably be found in a Mazda for $20K less. Or a ten-year old luxury car. (Personally I love the hatchback which combines all those features with utility and fuel economy! No need to buy the luxury sport sedan.) Finally, wait, why do you think advertising isn't doing its job? People know what they can't have because of advertising. Then they want it.

mcguire 9y ago

Here's the question: if you were to "cut back on things like eating out at restaurants and taking public transportation to work," would you be able to save 71% of your income? How long would it take you, just in cutting back on lattes and painting your own home rather than hiring a contractor, to buy a 4 bedroom house on 66 acres in Vermont? I don't really like doing plumbing, but I've replaced quite a few faucets and toilets. Not because I wanted to be "frugal", but because I could not afford to pay someone to do it; if I didn't, it wasn't getting done. I didn't blog about it; I didn't tell everyone, "Hey, lookit me! I'm saving money!" because everyone else I knew was also doing their own plumbing because they were also broke. (Now, of course, I could pay someone. But that ship's sailed. Besides, it's really hard to find good contractors.) The McFrugals, according to the article, aren't talking to millenials or anyone else who needs to be frugal; they're talking to the wealthy, saying "all those people you think are whiney, spoiled kids, really are spoiled, whiney kids."

sokoloff 9y ago
> Here's the question: if you were to "cut back on things like eating out at restaurants and taking public transportation to work," would you be able to save 71% of your income? No, because my taxation burden alone is well above 29%. I'm pretty sure they're calculating that they're saving 71% of their earned income, but they're almost surely not saving 71% of their earned income plus gross rent receipts.
- mcguire 9y ago
  You are correct, it's post-tax. (https://www.frugalwoods.com/2015/01/09/well-hot-damn-frugality-works-our-2014-savings-rate-revealed/ https://www.frugalwoods.com/2015/01/09/well-hot-damn-frugali...) It also doesn't include 401(k)s and mortgage principal. Edit: Here's how they do it: https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/04/10/how-we-save-65-annually/ https://www.frugalwoods.com/2014/04/10/how-we-save-65-annual...