4 ms·

> They still take their cars for service But not every car owner takes their car for service! That's the point. Some car owners service their own cars, for a

> They still take their cars for service But not every car owner takes their car for service! That's the point. Some car owners service their own cars, for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it can be quite a bit cheaper. I think this goes back to the point about needing money to afford having less stuff. I have a set of ramps, an oil drain pan, a jug for returning the old oil, a specialized filter wrench, and a ratchet. That's about $200 in stuff, and then I pay $20 for oil and $4 for a filter each time. As opposed to $65 at the oil-change place or $80 at the dealer, because they both charge a mindboggling markup for using full-synthetic oil. (And I'm not confident the place on the corner actually puts in what they claim to anyway.) Since I count this as something of a hobby, I don't count a dollar value for the time I spend doing it. Which means I'm saving roughly $50 each time, and the tools are paid for after 4 oil changes. After that it's pure savings. If I wanted to have less stuff, I'd pay quite a bit more for the privilege. I assert that minimalism is directly at odds with self-sufficiency.

coldtea 7y ago
>But not every car owner takes their car for service! That's the point. That's ~a~ point, but it's not tied to minimalism. That's more about the savings. And in this day and age, with modern cars being quite unserviceable, I don't know many (whether poor or not) that fix their own cars, except for very basic things (changing oils, and so on. Not many tools needed for those). >Since I count this as something of a hobby, I don't count a dollar value for the time I spend doing it. Which means I'm saving roughly $50 each time, and the tools are paid for after 4 oil changes. After that it's pure savings. If I wanted to have less stuff, I'd pay quite a bit more for the privilege. Well, that's still like a small set of stuff, at best fitting in a small box and forgetting about it. So it's not really outside minimalism. A person who is a minimalist but also a carpenter could have 10x the devices and still be a minimalist. It's all about not getting more than you need to get the job done, which many people, whether in their regular decoration/life/job/etc, or in their hobbies, do (e.g. related to "gear acquisition syndrome"). In other words, it's like the idea of "minimum viable product", but applied to buying stuff. Orthogonal to how much that product must cost. Sure, if someone is rich enough to oursource all of their life (e.g. have chefs deliver them food) then they don't need a kitchen at all, and can have a more minimal house this way. But that's in no way a requirement for being a minimalist, or applying minimalism to one's house. And in most cases it's the inverse: people with more money get a bloated kitchen with all kinds of crap they don't need ("juice squishier" anyone?) compared to people with less. But people with less are hardly minimalists either. You can overbuy stuff and fill your house even on a very basic wage (30-40K say). >I assert that minimalism is directly at odds with self-sufficiency. It's really orthogonal. What you describe as self-sufficiency example consists of buying all kind of tools to save $200 a year or less (and that's if one doesn't count their own time's value). But even a person making $40K could still pay those $200 -- and they mostly do, minimalists or not. So it's not like "changing oil self-sufficiency" or the need to save money on oil changes prevents one from being a minimalist. Or proves that you need to be "ultra rich" (the claim at the start of this thread) to be one.
- myself248 7y ago
  > And in this day and age, with modern cars being quite unserviceable, I don't know many (whether poor or not) that fix their own cars, except for very basic things (changing oils, and so on. Not many tools needed for those). Well, you just met one. Aside from pulling the engine, which would need a hoist I don't own, or body work (I've never been much good with sheet metal), there isn't a job I can't do on my car, which is a 2012 hybrid. Diagnostics are a USB dongle instead of a stethoscope now, and tweaks are likewise software-based, but here on HN of all places, this should not be surprising. Bearings are still bearings, tires are still tires, and the whole thing is held together with clips and screws and glue just like every other car in the history of cars. It's hardly rocket science.
perl4ever 7y ago
It seems contradictory to attribute savings to owning your own tools when you admit you are not using the same oil. The dealer probably doesn't use the same filter either.
- myself248 7y ago
  I think you read it backwards -- the shop on the corner is probably putting in _cheaper_ oil. If anything, I'm overpaying for oil and still saving.
asdff 7y ago
>I assert that minimalism is directly at odds with self-sufficiency. No, you've proven that it's not. Many people equate minimalism to just not having stuff. Minimalism means you have the minimum amount of stuff for the task at hand. You have one set of ramps, one oil pan, one jug, one specialized filter wrench only for your car, and a ratchet that fits that filter. Exactly the tooling you need for the job, and nothing more. That is very minimalist. A non minimalist person who changes their oil might have a half dozen old jugs half filled with oil in their garage, a drawer full of misc filter wrenches, and redundant ratchets.

coldtea 7y ago

>But not every car owner takes their car for service! That's the point. That's ~a~ point, but it's not tied to minimalism. That's more about the savings. And in this day and age, with modern cars being quite unserviceable, I don't know many (whether poor or not) that fix their own cars, except for very basic things (changing oils, and so on. Not many tools needed for those). >Since I count this as something of a hobby, I don't count a dollar value for the time I spend doing it. Which means I'm saving roughly $50 each time, and the tools are paid for after 4 oil changes. After that it's pure savings. If I wanted to have less stuff, I'd pay quite a bit more for the privilege. Well, that's still like a small set of stuff, at best fitting in a small box and forgetting about it. So it's not really outside minimalism. A person who is a minimalist but also a carpenter could have 10x the devices and still be a minimalist. It's all about not getting more than you need to get the job done, which many people, whether in their regular decoration/life/job/etc, or in their hobbies, do (e.g. related to "gear acquisition syndrome"). In other words, it's like the idea of "minimum viable product", but applied to buying stuff. Orthogonal to how much that product must cost. Sure, if someone is rich enough to oursource all of their life (e.g. have chefs deliver them food) then they don't need a kitchen at all, and can have a more minimal house this way. But that's in no way a requirement for being a minimalist, or applying minimalism to one's house. And in most cases it's the inverse: people with more money get a bloated kitchen with all kinds of crap they don't need ("juice squishier" anyone?) compared to people with less. But people with less are hardly minimalists either. You can overbuy stuff and fill your house even on a very basic wage (30-40K say). >I assert that minimalism is directly at odds with self-sufficiency. It's really orthogonal. What you describe as self-sufficiency example consists of buying all kind of tools to save $200 a year or less (and that's if one doesn't count their own time's value). But even a person making $40K could still pay those $200 -- and they mostly do, minimalists or not. So it's not like "changing oil self-sufficiency" or the need to save money on oil changes prevents one from being a minimalist. Or proves that you need to be "ultra rich" (the claim at the start of this thread) to be one.

myself248 7y ago
> And in this day and age, with modern cars being quite unserviceable, I don't know many (whether poor or not) that fix their own cars, except for very basic things (changing oils, and so on. Not many tools needed for those). Well, you just met one. Aside from pulling the engine, which would need a hoist I don't own, or body work (I've never been much good with sheet metal), there isn't a job I can't do on my car, which is a 2012 hybrid. Diagnostics are a USB dongle instead of a stethoscope now, and tweaks are likewise software-based, but here on HN of all places, this should not be surprising. Bearings are still bearings, tires are still tires, and the whole thing is held together with clips and screws and glue just like every other car in the history of cars. It's hardly rocket science.

perl4ever 7y ago

It seems contradictory to attribute savings to owning your own tools when you admit you are not using the same oil. The dealer probably doesn't use the same filter either.

myself248 7y ago
I think you read it backwards -- the shop on the corner is probably putting in _cheaper_ oil. If anything, I'm overpaying for oil and still saving.

asdff 7y ago

>I assert that minimalism is directly at odds with self-sufficiency. No, you've proven that it's not. Many people equate minimalism to just not having stuff. Minimalism means you have the minimum amount of stuff for the task at hand. You have one set of ramps, one oil pan, one jug, one specialized filter wrench only for your car, and a ratchet that fits that filter. Exactly the tooling you need for the job, and nothing more. That is very minimalist. A non minimalist person who changes their oil might have a half dozen old jugs half filled with oil in their garage, a drawer full of misc filter wrenches, and redundant ratchets.