5 ms·

Though this article isn't all that well written, it brings up what seems to be a (very good) trend lately: people exploring the idea of living with less. I'm o

Though this article isn't all that well written, it brings up what seems to be a (very good) trend lately: people exploring the idea of living with less. I'm only a college student right now, and already have limited expenses, but I've been exploring the idea of reducing the amount of things I own; a more minimalist lifestyle. I've realized something that Jelliffe points out towards the end of his article: "Simplicity is great if it is coupled with quality household goods, but terrible with commodity goods that bust all the time." Most items you can get at Wal-Mart, Target, or any major chain store are not well made...and, well, crap. Yes, the nicer things are more expensive and more difficult to find, but they are worth it. Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years? That's just the beginning of living simpler, though. It isn't just about replacing your stuff with better stuff, but about reducing the overall amount of stuff you own. Do you really need X, Y, and Z, or can you do without Y and Z? Relating this to my own experience, I like to see it as an interesting challenge. Since I fly back and forth from my school (and I don't own a car), everything I own has to be packed away in a storage unit at the end of the school year. Therefore, the less I own, the less I have to store, and the better off I am. I've been working to get rid of a lot of things I don't need (how much clothing do I really need? Electronics? Trinkets?) and avoiding buying new things. The major advantage this has is that it frees up a lot of money to spend on things I really want to do, such as a trip to Japan I have planned for this summer. I wish this idea would go more mainstream, though, as I think the whole US could do with a little downsizing. Perhaps this current economy will help push us in that direction?

timr 18y ago
"everything I own has to be packed away in a storage unit at the end of the school year. Therefore, the less I own, the less I have to store, and the better off I am. I've been working to get rid of a lot of things I don't need (how much clothing do I really need? Electronics? Trinkets?) and avoiding buying new things." Well said. Whenever I've had the luxury of living somewhere for an extended period of time I've accumulated things, despite all efforts to the contrary. It's certainly less wasteful to save that half-used roll of wrapping paper than to buy another in 11 months, but it comes at the cost of having to keep it somewhere, and the need to be at least minimally aware of it. Before you know it, you've got to have a box for the wrapping paper rolls, and a closet in which to keep the box, and then you put other stuff in the closet, and.... When I moved to San Francisco, I got rid of everything that couldn't fit in one of those door-to-door moving crates. It was a cathartic exercise, and I've been surprised that I haven't missed anything that I eliminated. There's a lot to be said for throwing away everything you own to make a journey; it lets you focus on the things that actually matter.
- pageman 18y ago
  I have to agree with this (I'm thinking of that Stuff essay by Paul Graham) - I have stuff in Dubai, Kabul, Yangon - in boxes. I'm sixpence none the richer (experience-wise) without it.
mdasen 18y ago
Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years? But living with 1 $100 knife requires certain behavioral changes. You must take care of it, sharpen it, transport it if you're moving. Really, these are positive changes and I totally agree that we should be buying more durable goods and maintaining them. In fact, this behavioral change is why the government wants people to own homes. Home ownership gives you something that you need to maintain well rather than simply move away from/discard. It even gives you incentive to improve upon it as that trip to Home Depot can really improve things like the value of the home. People live in communities, improve their homes and communities, and take a real stake in improving things on that local level.
- timr 18y ago
  The government promotes home ownership because it's believed to decrease crime at a community level; I don't think they care about the amount of stuff that people buy. In fact, I'd wager that home ownership tends to increase a person's tendency to buy crap.
- hs 18y ago
  spot on for the behavioral changes i'd use the $100 knife LESS than the $10 counterpart -> that's why i use $1 knifes because i cannot care less if it breaks even google doesn't use sun blades, that's pretty telling about home ownership, there are correlations that countries that are low on home ownership level(e.g, swiss) is richer than ones with high level (e.g, spain) those examples are correlation, not causality ... anomaly i'd say and it's worth practicing
  - sc 18y ago
    I don't think you can make the call on which knife you'd use till you had both. If you enjoy cooking or if you hate cooking but have to, the $100 knife will likely become your choice knife: preparing food becomes quicker and easier -- you're investment returns in time and peace of mind. The $100 knife is also usually quite indestructible compared with the $10 counterpart. Even a $100 knife in the poorest care is salvageable with a professional sharpening.
Prrometheus 18y ago
I think the idea is simplistic. I have had the same $10 Wal-Mart cooking knife for a few years now. I'm sure it won't last more than a few more years. However, I bought it in poverty, and it will last me through poverty until I am making good money. Then I will buy a nice knife. There is nothing wrong with that. Grad school is hard. It requires a lot of my time. A sewing kit is not cheap, and sewing is time-expensive. It is probably a net positive for me to throw out socks with holes in them, even if they cost me a few extra dollars over the course of three or four years. I understand the urge to simplify. This is the land of Henry David Thoreau, after all. But sometimes it carries an assumed moral tone without justification. People feel it's right and don't question it. If nobody bought from Wal-Mart, people would have a lot less stuff. Some of that stuff is valuable, it saves people time and makes them more comfortable. Often cheap stuff is bridging a gap for folks caught in hard times. There is no need to moralize against them.
- endtwist 18y ago
  I'm not trying to moralize against anyone, nor am I trying to sound like I am in any way more "right" than someone who cannot afford to simplify as much. I only stated that the quality of these items these stores sell is generally terrible. You are entirely correct in your statement that places like Wal-Mart bridge a gap or present a temporary standby until someone can afford to "upgrade" and simplify. As it stands, I'm likely going to be buying Ikea-produced furniture next year because I need to furnish an apartment cheaply, and I will only be keeping it for a couple years. I don't have the money or the means to buy furniture that will last me a long time at this point...but that doesn't mean I'm not thinking about what I am doing. I still am aiming to buy as little furniture as is necessary, and avoiding anything I can do without or simply don't need. Yes, the idea is simplistic, but that is the point: if you can reduce and purchase quality then you should, and if you can't, at least have an awareness (and perhaps simplify another aspect of your life). I'm at a point where I can do both, but understandably, not everyone can do that. It's all about reducing as much as you can, within your current circumstances. I'm not trying to say that you need to buy that $100 knife now, but in that case, perhaps you could do with one or two less forks (this isn't a literal example, mind you). Less waste and less worry, without entirely sacrificing comfort.
fizx 18y ago
If you buy the $20 knives, as long as you can invest the money you don't spend at 6.34% or more, you actually come out ahead.
- davidw 18y ago
  Did you include transaction costs in your calculations?
- ahoyhere 18y ago
  Not in the sense of emotional well-being.
seano 18y ago
Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years? It depends. The $100 knife could become lost, stolen or damaged. Improved or cheaper knives, or even a new technology to replace the knife as we know it, could appear in the next 30 years. You could even keep two cheap knives so you have a spare whilst the other is in the dishwasher.
- sc 18y ago
  Even if you never go through 10 $10 knives and "save money", you lose out in time and happiness (dull blades perform poorly, and every day you prepare food is wasted time with a poor knife, and a blow to your own mood, because dull blades are more apt to slip and cut you, mar your food, and generally put you in a fowl mood). If you don't cook, though, no worries.
  - seano 18y ago
    You can get a decent knife for $10 and I've honestly never had a knife put me in a fowl[sic] mood.
    - mynameishere 18y ago
      ^ Only sane comment in this whole stupid thread. Anyone who pays 100 dollars for a knife is a sucker.
      - jonknee 18y ago
        I'm guessing you either don't use knives very much or haven't used a really nice one. I use a chef's knife every day, having a good one does not make me a sucker. It's like paying for the leather option when buying a car--it's not essential, but it's damn nice to have. The knife's a lot cheaper too :).
        jcl 18y ago
        Coincidentally enough, this conversation has come up on HN before, and the consensus was that professional chefs actually use knives that cost around $30; $100 knives are for people who want expensive knives that are functionally indistinguishable from $30 ones. It's more like paying for a "free-range" leather option when buying a car. :) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=269945 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=269945
noonespecial 18y ago
The important thing to remember about $100 knives is that if this is all that is available, only certain people can have knives at all. The really great thing about the "cheap asian manufacturing revolution" is that it means that nearly everyone can have a whole bunch of household goods that they may not have had before. My grandfather had to pay nearly a months salary for a circular saw in 1958. I now have and use this saw all the time. Its so well made that my children will likely use it as well. I didn't get the saw until he died. Before that I had a $30 "harbor freight" saw. It was awful but at least I could have a saw at all. It certainly allowed me to fully appreciate the good one.
ojbyrne 18y ago
Your knife comparison is interesting because of the current really low interest rates. The IRR of the $100 knife is probably more competitive with the 10 $20 knives right now, compared to a couple of years ago. It seems conceivable to me that low interest rates would encourage people to buy a few quality items rather than a lot of crappy ones.

timr 18y ago

"everything I own has to be packed away in a storage unit at the end of the school year. Therefore, the less I own, the less I have to store, and the better off I am. I've been working to get rid of a lot of things I don't need (how much clothing do I really need? Electronics? Trinkets?) and avoiding buying new things." Well said. Whenever I've had the luxury of living somewhere for an extended period of time I've accumulated things, despite all efforts to the contrary. It's certainly less wasteful to save that half-used roll of wrapping paper than to buy another in 11 months, but it comes at the cost of having to keep it somewhere, and the need to be at least minimally aware of it. Before you know it, you've got to have a box for the wrapping paper rolls, and a closet in which to keep the box, and then you put other stuff in the closet, and.... When I moved to San Francisco, I got rid of everything that couldn't fit in one of those door-to-door moving crates. It was a cathartic exercise, and I've been surprised that I haven't missed anything that I eliminated. There's a lot to be said for throwing away everything you own to make a journey; it lets you focus on the things that actually matter.

pageman 18y ago
I have to agree with this (I'm thinking of that Stuff essay by Paul Graham) - I have stuff in Dubai, Kabul, Yangon - in boxes. I'm sixpence none the richer (experience-wise) without it.

mdasen 18y ago

Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years? But living with 1 $100 knife requires certain behavioral changes. You must take care of it, sharpen it, transport it if you're moving. Really, these are positive changes and I totally agree that we should be buying more durable goods and maintaining them. In fact, this behavioral change is why the government wants people to own homes. Home ownership gives you something that you need to maintain well rather than simply move away from/discard. It even gives you incentive to improve upon it as that trip to Home Depot can really improve things like the value of the home. People live in communities, improve their homes and communities, and take a real stake in improving things on that local level.

timr 18y ago
The government promotes home ownership because it's believed to decrease crime at a community level; I don't think they care about the amount of stuff that people buy. In fact, I'd wager that home ownership tends to increase a person's tendency to buy crap.
hs 18y ago
spot on for the behavioral changes i'd use the $100 knife LESS than the $10 counterpart -> that's why i use $1 knifes because i cannot care less if it breaks even google doesn't use sun blades, that's pretty telling about home ownership, there are correlations that countries that are low on home ownership level(e.g, swiss) is richer than ones with high level (e.g, spain) those examples are correlation, not causality ... anomaly i'd say and it's worth practicing
- sc 18y ago
  I don't think you can make the call on which knife you'd use till you had both. If you enjoy cooking or if you hate cooking but have to, the $100 knife will likely become your choice knife: preparing food becomes quicker and easier -- you're investment returns in time and peace of mind. The $100 knife is also usually quite indestructible compared with the $10 counterpart. Even a $100 knife in the poorest care is salvageable with a professional sharpening.

Prrometheus 18y ago

I think the idea is simplistic. I have had the same $10 Wal-Mart cooking knife for a few years now. I'm sure it won't last more than a few more years. However, I bought it in poverty, and it will last me through poverty until I am making good money. Then I will buy a nice knife. There is nothing wrong with that. Grad school is hard. It requires a lot of my time. A sewing kit is not cheap, and sewing is time-expensive. It is probably a net positive for me to throw out socks with holes in them, even if they cost me a few extra dollars over the course of three or four years. I understand the urge to simplify. This is the land of Henry David Thoreau, after all. But sometimes it carries an assumed moral tone without justification. People feel it's right and don't question it. If nobody bought from Wal-Mart, people would have a lot less stuff. Some of that stuff is valuable, it saves people time and makes them more comfortable. Often cheap stuff is bridging a gap for folks caught in hard times. There is no need to moralize against them.

endtwist 18y ago
I'm not trying to moralize against anyone, nor am I trying to sound like I am in any way more "right" than someone who cannot afford to simplify as much. I only stated that the quality of these items these stores sell is generally terrible. You are entirely correct in your statement that places like Wal-Mart bridge a gap or present a temporary standby until someone can afford to "upgrade" and simplify. As it stands, I'm likely going to be buying Ikea-produced furniture next year because I need to furnish an apartment cheaply, and I will only be keeping it for a couple years. I don't have the money or the means to buy furniture that will last me a long time at this point...but that doesn't mean I'm not thinking about what I am doing. I still am aiming to buy as little furniture as is necessary, and avoiding anything I can do without or simply don't need. Yes, the idea is simplistic, but that is the point: if you can reduce and purchase quality then you should, and if you can't, at least have an awareness (and perhaps simplify another aspect of your life). I'm at a point where I can do both, but understandably, not everyone can do that. It's all about reducing as much as you can, within your current circumstances. I'm not trying to say that you need to buy that $100 knife now, but in that case, perhaps you could do with one or two less forks (this isn't a literal example, mind you). Less waste and less worry, without entirely sacrificing comfort.

fizx 18y ago

If you buy the $20 knives, as long as you can invest the money you don't spend at 6.34% or more, you actually come out ahead.

davidw 18y ago
Did you include transaction costs in your calculations?
ahoyhere 18y ago
Not in the sense of emotional well-being.

seano 18y ago

Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years? It depends. The $100 knife could become lost, stolen or damaged. Improved or cheaper knives, or even a new technology to replace the knife as we know it, could appear in the next 30 years. You could even keep two cheap knives so you have a spare whilst the other is in the dishwasher.

sc 18y ago
Even if you never go through 10 $10 knives and "save money", you lose out in time and happiness (dull blades perform poorly, and every day you prepare food is wasted time with a poor knife, and a blow to your own mood, because dull blades are more apt to slip and cut you, mar your food, and generally put you in a fowl mood). If you don't cook, though, no worries.
- seano 18y ago
  You can get a decent knife for $10 and I've honestly never had a knife put me in a fowl[sic] mood.
  - mynameishere 18y ago
    ^ Only sane comment in this whole stupid thread. Anyone who pays 100 dollars for a knife is a sucker.
    - jonknee 18y ago
      I'm guessing you either don't use knives very much or haven't used a really nice one. I use a chef's knife every day, having a good one does not make me a sucker. It's like paying for the leather option when buying a car--it's not essential, but it's damn nice to have. The knife's a lot cheaper too :).
      - jcl 18y ago
        Coincidentally enough, this conversation has come up on HN before, and the consensus was that professional chefs actually use knives that cost around $30; $100 knives are for people who want expensive knives that are functionally indistinguishable from $30 ones. It's more like paying for a "free-range" leather option when buying a car. :) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=269945 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=269945

noonespecial 18y ago

The important thing to remember about $100 knives is that if this is all that is available, only certain people can have knives at all. The really great thing about the "cheap asian manufacturing revolution" is that it means that nearly everyone can have a whole bunch of household goods that they may not have had before. My grandfather had to pay nearly a months salary for a circular saw in 1958. I now have and use this saw all the time. Its so well made that my children will likely use it as well. I didn't get the saw until he died. Before that I had a $30 "harbor freight" saw. It was awful but at least I could have a saw at all. It certainly allowed me to fully appreciate the good one.

ojbyrne 18y ago

Your knife comparison is interesting because of the current really low interest rates. The IRR of the $100 knife is probably more competitive with the 10 $20 knives right now, compared to a couple of years ago. It seems conceivable to me that low interest rates would encourage people to buy a few quality items rather than a lot of crappy ones.