9 ms·

Wealth, risk, and stuff

213 points by nyodeneD 14y ago

jsnk 14y ago
I shared some similar sentiments about owning things in previously submission. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5364482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5364482) --- To each his own for me. Having less didn't allow me to enjoy or experience special things that having more somehow prevented from experiencing as the author would describe. In fact, having more was way better than having less for me. Last 5 years, I moved around to various cities Canada and US every 4 to 8 months or so going to school and working on internships. By necessity, I had to pack light, really light. No car obviously. I was a poor student. I had only one furniture, a bed, and I got that only after I started to have lady friends over. Before that, I slept in sleeping bag for months. I had very few cloths and only thing I had extra were my underwear and socks. And I guess only thing of value I carried around was my Macbook. I didn't even have a smart phone until this last month. I used cheap Huawei prepaid phone drug dealers use as their second phone. I probably had a little more stuff than an average homeless person in that I had a roof over where I slept. It was definately an "experience" alright. I had ended the life of plentifuly that I took granted in high school, and went onto a subsistence living by the North American standard of extreme minimalism for 5 years. Sure, I learned to inspect what my true needs were and had a good discipline to spend on things I needed, not wanted. However, was that learning worth 5 years of discomfort and annoyance? Since January this year, I finally decided to settle. I was done with school and I found a good roommate to share furnitures and kitchenwares with. I had a lot of fun decorating my room, living room and kitchen. It's been awesome since then. I felt so much more comfortable with things around. To put it bluntly, there wasn't anything romantic about living with less stuff. I haven't experienced or felt different things that you would not feel through living with plenty of things.
- tobyjsullivan 14y ago
  You condemn living with less while, in the same comment, describe exactly the kind of opportunity that it affords. Nobody with a full house, a 60" TV, and two cars in the garage could ever "[move] around to various cities Canada and US every 4 to 8 months or so going to school and working on internships." Maybe five years was too long for you, or maybe this wasn't your cup of tea, but it's an opportunity. It's a life-defining experience that you can only accomplish with a light-weight, minimal lifestyle. The case for minimalism, at least for me, is made almost exclusively in the opportunities it affords you. It's about trading certain comforts for life experiences. That said, I am absolutely willing to admit that it is probably not for everybody and it is hardly going to be worth doing your entire life. But how many people don't even think to consider it? What opportunities are they losing out on?
  - codewright 14y ago
    That lifestyle blows. It takes living from a position of privilege to think that it's somehow a wonderful opportunity.
    - joonix 14y ago
      It doesn't blow. The stimulation and knowledge you get (about yourself and about others) you get from new places and cultures (and not just dropping by for a visit, but actually living and working there) is fantastic. Of course, it gets old and you'll want to settle down, but at least you have those experiences under your belt.
  - johnchristopher 14y ago
    Looks like parent's desired opportunities crystallised when he finally was able to settle down and escape forced minimalism and job jumping. He didn't like it (for good reasons he explained) and it's like you are telling him "cancer opened your eyes to the importance of human relationships so it was an opportunity, see ?".
- purplelobster 14y ago
  I was in the same situation as you, and when it's not voluntary, it's not very much fun. My dream now is to settle down in a home and live there for 5+ years.
- beachstartup 14y ago
  to be fair... your 'improved' situation seems like what most people are advocating when they say you should have less stuff. you share living arrangements and don't own any expensive stuff. your previous position seems pretty extreme... no furniture at all, barely any clothes, only extra socks... just a laptop.
scott_meade 14y ago
Reminds me of a rich-guy I knew who liked to travel light. For some trips he wouldn't pack stuff. Instead he'd obtain new clothes at his destination, wear them while there, and then simply leave them behind. No muss. No fuss. No clutter.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  To be fair, with the baggage charges on some budget airlines and the price of clothes in some places this can be the economical way.
- Tichy 14y ago
  What kind of clothes did he wear? Shopping for clothes is a major pita, so he must have always bought the same thing, readily available everywhere? Also, aren't new clothes full of all sorts of chemical? Better to have washed clothes... (Personally I sometimes get skin reactions from wearing unwashed new clothes).
  - pragmatictester 14y ago
    Author Lee Child has written a series of fictional novels which feature Jack Reacher, a former Major in the United States Army Military Police Corps. Since leaving the Army, Reacher has been a drifter. He wanders throughout the U.S. because he was accustomed to being told where to go, when to go and what to do for every day of his life from military childhood to military adulthood. He also felt he never got to know his own country, having spent much of his youth living overseas on military bases and at West Point. He usually travels by hitchhiking or bus. As a drifter, the only possessions he carries are money, a foldable toothbrush and, after 9/11, an expired passport and an ATM debit card. He wears his clothing for 2–3 days before discarding it, usually purchasing new clothing cheaply from chain outlets. He has no steady income and lives on savings in his bank account and part-time jobs. Since he has no fixed address, Reacher often eats in diners and other inexpensive restaurants. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_reacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_reacher One of the novels in the series was recently made into a movie starring Tom Cruise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reacher_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reacher_(film) I would highly recommend reading the novels to discover how a man can live lightly and travel across the country on very little.
ryanong 14y ago
I'm traveling the world and living on $40 a day. I have a $300 netbook, an iPhone 4S which i could live without because it isn't unlocked so it is just an mp3 player, and a $70 kindle. No you don't have to be rich to live a minimalist life style. You have to be vigilant about it. For food I am living frugally, making lentil soup or pasta. These things don't require much room. All the things that I own at this point in time fall into at least one of these three categories. 1. Help me reach goals or aspirations (computer, camera) 2. Make my life simpler and safer (Water bottle, Telephone, multi-tool, clothes, accessories) 3. Provide or improve an experience (kindle, speakers/headphones) The one thing these three categories share is function. Everything you own should have function and it should be consistently used/appreciated. Here is to a life, instead of bought, lived.
- scarmig 14y ago
  How do you handle shelter? I'm actually living in a relatively high COL area for about that much (maybe closer to $35, even, excluding healthcare). But traveling seems difficult: transportation costs, plus costs of AirBnB's seem to bring it up significantly. Do you simply couch surf?
  - CompelTechnic 14y ago
    please answer this, ryanong. I'm gonna take a year or two off of work soon to do this- I'm sure other people would like to know as well.
  - ryanong 14y ago
    I used to live in NYC, and even there I was able to keep down my COL. I was lucky enough to grow up there but I found an apartment for pretty cheap in outer brooklyn. I didn't go out to clubs much, or eat out much either. I hung out mostly in cheap bars or dinner/house parties with friends. Right now I am in South America, I am using couchsurfing.com and using hostels. I have an apartment right now which cut down costs a lot but still hang out with the local couchsurfing community. I cook nearly all the time so food is pretty cheap. I am lucky that I can program and work remotely but I have friends who do data entry work, translation, english tutoring. I have friends who volunteer in hostels for free room and board or use http://www.helpx.net/ http://www.helpx.net/ As for traveling, mostly by bus, or budget airlines(which are as expensive as buses). And I do not move often. Hanging out with couchsurfers has really kept my daily COL. I personally hate most tourist traps and by hanging out with couchsurfers usually you get amazing local cultural experiences for either free or cheap. IE My host in Venezuela took me to his girlfriend's niece's baptism party where I sang, drank, and danced with 70 year old venezuelan women. I find I am happiest not going on a guided eco tour, or going to the top of some tall thing(building or mountain), but sharing thoughts and experiences with different/local people.
tobyjsullivan 14y ago
I would agree with the author that living with less may not be as applicable to his particular situation. However, I don't believe the original article, which he is criticizing, was ever targeted at those with lower incomes. In fact, it is quite clear in the second paragraph of _Living With Less_ that the author is writing for the benefit of other better off folks like himself. It's a common pitfall to buy more and more stuff as you become more and more wealthy and there is merit to the advice that if you are doing well enough, you should focus on living with less. It will help you stay nimble and focused and will probably help you maintain your trajectory and find true happiness to compliment your wealth.
noonespecial 14y ago
Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk. Thats about the best way of putting it I've come across. It can be perceived risk as well. One thing I noticed when clearing out my depression-era grandparents house is that they basically saved everything they had a hard time getting at any point. My grandfather had a garage full of glass jars because there was a time in his life when he literally could not afford/find a simple glass jar when he needed one. The more I think about that, the more it freaks me out. I have a hard disk full of MP3 files...
- comrade_ogilvy 14y ago
  The article makes a reasonable point, that hoarding can be motivated by rational frugality. I think it is a little unfair in its criticism of the original article, whose target audience is really people with many options (i.e. they have money). I would say I have personally seen people who have an irrational tendency to hoard as a means to reduce risk. I have a neighbor with a house packed to the gills with accumulations over the decades. If she would clear it out, she could be renting a room for $800-$1000 a month. She could really use the money, too. Instead, she is being held hostage by ~$2000 of junk in disorganized piles, that would take 50 weekends of yard sales to make a dent.
- icefox 14y ago
  The entire premise of this blog entry is: "Go out on the street and look, and I bet you’ll see that the richer people are carrying less." Well some guys did that very thing and published is in a book http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206/wwwicefoxnet-20 http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/d... where they found that to be not true at all. Millionaire's don't buy the shiny new toy when the one from three years ago. Rather then wasting a grand on a new macbook air they would spend $30 for a new battery. They buy used cars too.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - baddox 14y ago
kaoD 14y ago
I'm not rich but I hate material things. I don't even own a laptop and I'm glad I don't need it. It's frustrating for me when physical things break. It's not just because things break, but because you have to either repair then or buy a new stuff to replace. Both are burdens to me because I hate buying and I absolutely loathe not repairing things myself (which is kind of usual because most things are not repairable nowadays). My solution was to have as few as possible and keep it low-tech so I can repair it myself. It works because I can't afford travelling and my town is small, so I'm close to everything I need. I can relate to the post there: when I travel I pack an awful lot. But... does @vruba really need all that stuff he carries around? Maybe it's his lifestyle and not his income what forces him to have so much. I rarely carry anything but my keys and a credit card for emergencies (which I seldomly use...) When you don't need, there are no risks.
- kennywinker 14y ago
  Lifestyle and income are so often intertwined. He's carrying his laptop because it's his livelihood. He's working out of a coffee shop because he can't afford an office. Etc.
  - kaoD 14y ago
    That would only apply if he's homeless or his job requires him to carry one. Otherwise, desktop PCs are cheaper and easier to repair (that's why I avoid laptops and work at home). Of course each case is special, but his post is quite narrow-minded in that sense: it's mostly applicable to his lifestyle. Most of my poor friends don't hoard, primarily because they can't even afford a place to put that stuff (try cluttering a 40 square meters flat where you live with your parents, a dog and a parrot)...
dandelany 14y ago
While I mostly agree with the author's conclusion, which matches my anecdotal experience, the argument presented seems a little weak... I'd be interested to see some data backing it up, though I imagine it's a hard thing to quantify. Somewhat related: I lost ~90% of my belongings when my apartment flooded during Hurricane Sandy, which has totally changed my perspective on the inherent risks of material ownership. It may seem like a good idea to pay a 50% (or even more) premium for some items because "it'll last way longer than the cheap alternative" but if it gets catastrophically destroyed, the point is moot. The best thing you can do for yourself as a renter (assuming repurchasing everything you own would make a significant dent in your savings) is to buy renter's insurance WITH natural disaster coverage - most standard renter's insurance coverage does NOT cover natural disasters but it is usually available for not too much more. In general, you can expect to pay less than $200/year (often around $100/year) to insure an apartment, which is a small price to pay for peace of mind.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  For people with lots of savings, the general liability policy that comes attached to homeowners or renters is probably a good idea.
acchow 14y ago
In 21st century western civilization, most of us are incredibly wealthy. We live like kings of old able to eat produce and spices from the far corners of the earth.
michaelochurch 14y ago
This is accurate. Being poor is expensive (paradoxically?) in a lot of ways. One of them is the amount of attention that you have to give to stupid details, and the amount of stuff you end up lugging around. It clutters your life to be poor. That NYT article was just douche-tastic. As someone who genuinely detests consumerism, I can't tolerate that whole "I'm rich and enlightened so I've given up stuff" braggadocio. That is consumerism. Only an idiot wouldn't see that. (Of course, there are genuine minimalists out there and I have no problem with that.) I also hate the people who think travel makes them more interesting and virtuous. Most people, most cases? No, not at all. You might become more interesting if you spend a month in an Indian monastery, or building schools in Africa. However, going to clubs and getting drunk doesn't count. You can do that here. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's recreation, not automatically a promotion of the spirit.
- zobzu 14y ago
  Uff, makes too much sense, nobody replies. So I will: hey, dude, you're right. I'm glad someone writes these things every now and then.
- rdl 14y ago
  It's kind of screwed up how poor people end up paying more for the same things than rich people do (for consumables, mainly -- rich people stores tend to price-discriminate for capital goods) -- when I lived in the TL, the local "corner sto" would charge 2x what Safeway 15 blocks away charged for the same item, and 3-4x what Costco or Amazon would charge. (and of course rich people get given free stuff all the time, whereas places catering to poor people lock up the toilet paper)
  - kyllo 14y ago
    Two words: check cashing. Poor people don't get bank accounts, so they have to give these places a slice of every paycheck.
    - shawabawa3 14y ago
      What? Surely anyone with an address can open a bank account?
pg 14y ago
"Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk." Close but not quite. In my case at least it's true that when I was poor I accumulated stuff largely out of fear of scarcity, but the various "perfectly good" bits of junk I accumulated didn't actually reduce my risk in any way. If you replaced "to reduce risk" with "because they unconsciously and mistakenly believe it will reduce risk" you'd be close to the truth. And while it would be harsh to call people still living in the grip of that illusion "dumb" on account of it, it is in fact an illusion.
- graeme 14y ago
  In a year of semi-minimalism, I've probably lost $20-$50 from getting rid of a couple closets full of stuff. I have to think that's within almost everyone's budget, amortized over a long timeframe and with a payoff of much less clutter.
  - networked 14y ago
    >I have to think that's within almost everyone's budget, amortized over a long timeframe and with a payoff of much less clutter. Regardless of your level of wealth some things are just not easy or quick to acquire [1]. I have saved myself some money, but more importantly, weeks' worth of waiting time (or at best days if I paid extra for speedy delivery) while the components I want ship from abroad, by keeping a two large drawers full of weird hardware. I'd like to get rid of most of it but it's hard to predict not just which parts are I'm going to need in the future but also which I will have trouble getting at all. [1] If you deal with computers and electronics it can be things like unique power supplies, PS/2-to-AT keyboard adapters (I had to use one at work just last year to do some data archaeology) and USB-to-serial adapters, spare parts for that one ageing ThinkPad you consider to have the best keyboard of any laptop ever, quality PC trackballs, etc.
    - graeme 14y ago
      Yeah, I keep hard to replace things lying around too. I haven't gone full blown minimalist, just more minimal than I used to be, and more minimal than average. If it goes too far I feel it can be more trouble than it's worth, though there might be some benefits I'm ignoring.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rizzom5000 14y ago
> If you see someone on the street dressed like a middle-class person (say, in clean jeans and a striped shirt), how do you know whether they’re lower middle class or upper middle class? Nonsense! You don't know anything about someone's economic class based on their appearance.
- Volpe 14y ago
  You can probably make a good guess based on appearance (clothes, race, gender, general appearance) + their location (which if you are looking at them in person, you know). You are right, you can be wrong, but it'd be worth testing, as my gut feel is you'd get more right, than wrong.
- esperluette 14y ago
  You can make an educated guess, usually very easily. Not necessarily the clothes, but definitely the shoes, accessories (especially bags, watches, and jewelry), tattoos, and teeth, hair, and skin. Richer people spend more on accessories (and repair their shoes!) and taking care of their bodies, because they can. And it shows.
hkmurakami 14y ago
Being rich and spending money, while often correlated, are not necessarily equivalent. This is something that the author should perhaps keep in mind.
michaelfeathers 14y ago
Yes, if you have more money you don't need as many things. But in the long term I think that minimalism is going to recede as a social indicator. The reason why has been sneaking up on us for a while: The digital world is becoming more encumbered. People are realizing that they don't have much control over their data and their 'purchased' media. Services disappear regularly along with what we've invested in them. What's the alternative? Well, currently, there is more freedom in the physical space, and people are slowly realizing that physicality has an upside. I think we're due for a `Neo-Materialist' movement. Maker Culture is growing and moving beyond bohemian. I have friends with cluttered living spaces and in most cases it is not due to not having enough money to have fewer things. It is just a choice away from the Eastern-esque Steve Jobs-ian "let's have fewer things" aesthetic. It's becoming more common to have a set of maker and made things that you love and show, and to treat living space as workspace. Buzz around 3D printing may accelerate the trend. Culturally, I'm not sure that this will completely overtake design minimalism, but it has a decent chance.
bravura 14y ago
For a funnier and lighter response to Graham Hill, I highly recommend this piece from bike snob: http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-walls-kept-closing-in.html http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-walls-kept... "Sure, life can be a bit easier if you trim the proverbial fat now and again, but this is hardly a revelation to anybody except a minimalist like Graham Hill, for whom even the basic mechanics of life are all transcendent."
timinman 14y ago
I guess it's natural for successful people to be treated like sages, but I've commonly had the same feeling the OP expressed - you have to wade through people's 'wisdom'. Sometimes they are just out of touch.
vannevar 14y ago
Consumerism is driven by our natural susceptibility to peer pressure coupled with the evolution of symbiotic corporate entities that have adapted to make advertising ever more effective and ubiquitous. The problem is that consumerism is now the dominant way we distribute wealth. If everyone suddenly started living simpler, the economy would collapse. Quitting consumerism cold turkey would be like quitting heroin.

213 points by nyodeneD 14y ago

jsnk 14y ago

I shared some similar sentiments about owning things in previously submission. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5364482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5364482) --- To each his own for me. Having less didn't allow me to enjoy or experience special things that having more somehow prevented from experiencing as the author would describe. In fact, having more was way better than having less for me. Last 5 years, I moved around to various cities Canada and US every 4 to 8 months or so going to school and working on internships. By necessity, I had to pack light, really light. No car obviously. I was a poor student. I had only one furniture, a bed, and I got that only after I started to have lady friends over. Before that, I slept in sleeping bag for months. I had very few cloths and only thing I had extra were my underwear and socks. And I guess only thing of value I carried around was my Macbook. I didn't even have a smart phone until this last month. I used cheap Huawei prepaid phone drug dealers use as their second phone. I probably had a little more stuff than an average homeless person in that I had a roof over where I slept. It was definately an "experience" alright. I had ended the life of plentifuly that I took granted in high school, and went onto a subsistence living by the North American standard of extreme minimalism for 5 years. Sure, I learned to inspect what my true needs were and had a good discipline to spend on things I needed, not wanted. However, was that learning worth 5 years of discomfort and annoyance? Since January this year, I finally decided to settle. I was done with school and I found a good roommate to share furnitures and kitchenwares with. I had a lot of fun decorating my room, living room and kitchen. It's been awesome since then. I felt so much more comfortable with things around. To put it bluntly, there wasn't anything romantic about living with less stuff. I haven't experienced or felt different things that you would not feel through living with plenty of things.

tobyjsullivan 14y ago
You condemn living with less while, in the same comment, describe exactly the kind of opportunity that it affords. Nobody with a full house, a 60" TV, and two cars in the garage could ever "[move] around to various cities Canada and US every 4 to 8 months or so going to school and working on internships." Maybe five years was too long for you, or maybe this wasn't your cup of tea, but it's an opportunity. It's a life-defining experience that you can only accomplish with a light-weight, minimal lifestyle. The case for minimalism, at least for me, is made almost exclusively in the opportunities it affords you. It's about trading certain comforts for life experiences. That said, I am absolutely willing to admit that it is probably not for everybody and it is hardly going to be worth doing your entire life. But how many people don't even think to consider it? What opportunities are they losing out on?
- codewright 14y ago
  That lifestyle blows. It takes living from a position of privilege to think that it's somehow a wonderful opportunity.
  - joonix 14y ago
    It doesn't blow. The stimulation and knowledge you get (about yourself and about others) you get from new places and cultures (and not just dropping by for a visit, but actually living and working there) is fantastic. Of course, it gets old and you'll want to settle down, but at least you have those experiences under your belt.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  Looks like parent's desired opportunities crystallised when he finally was able to settle down and escape forced minimalism and job jumping. He didn't like it (for good reasons he explained) and it's like you are telling him "cancer opened your eyes to the importance of human relationships so it was an opportunity, see ?".
purplelobster 14y ago
I was in the same situation as you, and when it's not voluntary, it's not very much fun. My dream now is to settle down in a home and live there for 5+ years.
beachstartup 14y ago
to be fair... your 'improved' situation seems like what most people are advocating when they say you should have less stuff. you share living arrangements and don't own any expensive stuff. your previous position seems pretty extreme... no furniture at all, barely any clothes, only extra socks... just a laptop.

scott_meade 14y ago

Reminds me of a rich-guy I knew who liked to travel light. For some trips he wouldn't pack stuff. Instead he'd obtain new clothes at his destination, wear them while there, and then simply leave them behind. No muss. No fuss. No clutter.

jiggy2011 14y ago
To be fair, with the baggage charges on some budget airlines and the price of clothes in some places this can be the economical way.
Tichy 14y ago
What kind of clothes did he wear? Shopping for clothes is a major pita, so he must have always bought the same thing, readily available everywhere? Also, aren't new clothes full of all sorts of chemical? Better to have washed clothes... (Personally I sometimes get skin reactions from wearing unwashed new clothes).
- pragmatictester 14y ago
  Author Lee Child has written a series of fictional novels which feature Jack Reacher, a former Major in the United States Army Military Police Corps. Since leaving the Army, Reacher has been a drifter. He wanders throughout the U.S. because he was accustomed to being told where to go, when to go and what to do for every day of his life from military childhood to military adulthood. He also felt he never got to know his own country, having spent much of his youth living overseas on military bases and at West Point. He usually travels by hitchhiking or bus. As a drifter, the only possessions he carries are money, a foldable toothbrush and, after 9/11, an expired passport and an ATM debit card. He wears his clothing for 2–3 days before discarding it, usually purchasing new clothing cheaply from chain outlets. He has no steady income and lives on savings in his bank account and part-time jobs. Since he has no fixed address, Reacher often eats in diners and other inexpensive restaurants. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_reacher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_reacher One of the novels in the series was recently made into a movie starring Tom Cruise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reacher_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reacher_(film) I would highly recommend reading the novels to discover how a man can live lightly and travel across the country on very little.

ryanong 14y ago

I'm traveling the world and living on $40 a day. I have a $300 netbook, an iPhone 4S which i could live without because it isn't unlocked so it is just an mp3 player, and a $70 kindle. No you don't have to be rich to live a minimalist life style. You have to be vigilant about it. For food I am living frugally, making lentil soup or pasta. These things don't require much room. All the things that I own at this point in time fall into at least one of these three categories. 1. Help me reach goals or aspirations (computer, camera) 2. Make my life simpler and safer (Water bottle, Telephone, multi-tool, clothes, accessories) 3. Provide or improve an experience (kindle, speakers/headphones) The one thing these three categories share is function. Everything you own should have function and it should be consistently used/appreciated. Here is to a life, instead of bought, lived.

scarmig 14y ago
How do you handle shelter? I'm actually living in a relatively high COL area for about that much (maybe closer to $35, even, excluding healthcare). But traveling seems difficult: transportation costs, plus costs of AirBnB's seem to bring it up significantly. Do you simply couch surf?
- CompelTechnic 14y ago
  please answer this, ryanong. I'm gonna take a year or two off of work soon to do this- I'm sure other people would like to know as well.
- ryanong 14y ago
  I used to live in NYC, and even there I was able to keep down my COL. I was lucky enough to grow up there but I found an apartment for pretty cheap in outer brooklyn. I didn't go out to clubs much, or eat out much either. I hung out mostly in cheap bars or dinner/house parties with friends. Right now I am in South America, I am using couchsurfing.com and using hostels. I have an apartment right now which cut down costs a lot but still hang out with the local couchsurfing community. I cook nearly all the time so food is pretty cheap. I am lucky that I can program and work remotely but I have friends who do data entry work, translation, english tutoring. I have friends who volunteer in hostels for free room and board or use http://www.helpx.net/ http://www.helpx.net/ As for traveling, mostly by bus, or budget airlines(which are as expensive as buses). And I do not move often. Hanging out with couchsurfers has really kept my daily COL. I personally hate most tourist traps and by hanging out with couchsurfers usually you get amazing local cultural experiences for either free or cheap. IE My host in Venezuela took me to his girlfriend's niece's baptism party where I sang, drank, and danced with 70 year old venezuelan women. I find I am happiest not going on a guided eco tour, or going to the top of some tall thing(building or mountain), but sharing thoughts and experiences with different/local people.

tobyjsullivan 14y ago

I would agree with the author that living with less may not be as applicable to his particular situation. However, I don't believe the original article, which he is criticizing, was ever targeted at those with lower incomes. In fact, it is quite clear in the second paragraph of _Living With Less_ that the author is writing for the benefit of other better off folks like himself. It's a common pitfall to buy more and more stuff as you become more and more wealthy and there is merit to the advice that if you are doing well enough, you should focus on living with less. It will help you stay nimble and focused and will probably help you maintain your trajectory and find true happiness to compliment your wealth.

noonespecial 14y ago

Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk. Thats about the best way of putting it I've come across. It can be perceived risk as well. One thing I noticed when clearing out my depression-era grandparents house is that they basically saved everything they had a hard time getting at any point. My grandfather had a garage full of glass jars because there was a time in his life when he literally could not afford/find a simple glass jar when he needed one. The more I think about that, the more it freaks me out. I have a hard disk full of MP3 files...

comrade_ogilvy 14y ago
The article makes a reasonable point, that hoarding can be motivated by rational frugality. I think it is a little unfair in its criticism of the original article, whose target audience is really people with many options (i.e. they have money). I would say I have personally seen people who have an irrational tendency to hoard as a means to reduce risk. I have a neighbor with a house packed to the gills with accumulations over the decades. If she would clear it out, she could be renting a room for $800-$1000 a month. She could really use the money, too. Instead, she is being held hostage by ~$2000 of junk in disorganized piles, that would take 50 weekends of yard sales to make a dent.
icefox 14y ago
The entire premise of this blog entry is: "Go out on the street and look, and I bet you’ll see that the richer people are carrying less." Well some guys did that very thing and published is in a book http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206/wwwicefoxnet-20 http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/d... where they found that to be not true at all. Millionaire's don't buy the shiny new toy when the one from three years ago. Rather then wasting a grand on a new macbook air they would spend $30 for a new battery. They buy used cars too.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- baddox 14y ago

kaoD 14y ago

I'm not rich but I hate material things. I don't even own a laptop and I'm glad I don't need it. It's frustrating for me when physical things break. It's not just because things break, but because you have to either repair then or buy a new stuff to replace. Both are burdens to me because I hate buying and I absolutely loathe not repairing things myself (which is kind of usual because most things are not repairable nowadays). My solution was to have as few as possible and keep it low-tech so I can repair it myself. It works because I can't afford travelling and my town is small, so I'm close to everything I need. I can relate to the post there: when I travel I pack an awful lot. But... does @vruba really need all that stuff he carries around? Maybe it's his lifestyle and not his income what forces him to have so much. I rarely carry anything but my keys and a credit card for emergencies (which I seldomly use...) When you don't need, there are no risks.

kennywinker 14y ago
Lifestyle and income are so often intertwined. He's carrying his laptop because it's his livelihood. He's working out of a coffee shop because he can't afford an office. Etc.
- kaoD 14y ago
  That would only apply if he's homeless or his job requires him to carry one. Otherwise, desktop PCs are cheaper and easier to repair (that's why I avoid laptops and work at home). Of course each case is special, but his post is quite narrow-minded in that sense: it's mostly applicable to his lifestyle. Most of my poor friends don't hoard, primarily because they can't even afford a place to put that stuff (try cluttering a 40 square meters flat where you live with your parents, a dog and a parrot)...

dandelany 14y ago

While I mostly agree with the author's conclusion, which matches my anecdotal experience, the argument presented seems a little weak... I'd be interested to see some data backing it up, though I imagine it's a hard thing to quantify. Somewhat related: I lost ~90% of my belongings when my apartment flooded during Hurricane Sandy, which has totally changed my perspective on the inherent risks of material ownership. It may seem like a good idea to pay a 50% (or even more) premium for some items because "it'll last way longer than the cheap alternative" but if it gets catastrophically destroyed, the point is moot. The best thing you can do for yourself as a renter (assuming repurchasing everything you own would make a significant dent in your savings) is to buy renter's insurance WITH natural disaster coverage - most standard renter's insurance coverage does NOT cover natural disasters but it is usually available for not too much more. In general, you can expect to pay less than $200/year (often around $100/year) to insure an apartment, which is a small price to pay for peace of mind.

maxerickson 14y ago
For people with lots of savings, the general liability policy that comes attached to homeowners or renters is probably a good idea.

acchow 14y ago

In 21st century western civilization, most of us are incredibly wealthy. We live like kings of old able to eat produce and spices from the far corners of the earth.

michaelochurch 14y ago

This is accurate. Being poor is expensive (paradoxically?) in a lot of ways. One of them is the amount of attention that you have to give to stupid details, and the amount of stuff you end up lugging around. It clutters your life to be poor. That NYT article was just douche-tastic. As someone who genuinely detests consumerism, I can't tolerate that whole "I'm rich and enlightened so I've given up stuff" braggadocio. That is consumerism. Only an idiot wouldn't see that. (Of course, there are genuine minimalists out there and I have no problem with that.) I also hate the people who think travel makes them more interesting and virtuous. Most people, most cases? No, not at all. You might become more interesting if you spend a month in an Indian monastery, or building schools in Africa. However, going to clubs and getting drunk doesn't count. You can do that here. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's recreation, not automatically a promotion of the spirit.

zobzu 14y ago
Uff, makes too much sense, nobody replies. So I will: hey, dude, you're right. I'm glad someone writes these things every now and then.
rdl 14y ago
It's kind of screwed up how poor people end up paying more for the same things than rich people do (for consumables, mainly -- rich people stores tend to price-discriminate for capital goods) -- when I lived in the TL, the local "corner sto" would charge 2x what Safeway 15 blocks away charged for the same item, and 3-4x what Costco or Amazon would charge. (and of course rich people get given free stuff all the time, whereas places catering to poor people lock up the toilet paper)
- kyllo 14y ago
  Two words: check cashing. Poor people don't get bank accounts, so they have to give these places a slice of every paycheck.
  - shawabawa3 14y ago
    What? Surely anyone with an address can open a bank account?

pg 14y ago

"Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk." Close but not quite. In my case at least it's true that when I was poor I accumulated stuff largely out of fear of scarcity, but the various "perfectly good" bits of junk I accumulated didn't actually reduce my risk in any way. If you replaced "to reduce risk" with "because they unconsciously and mistakenly believe it will reduce risk" you'd be close to the truth. And while it would be harsh to call people still living in the grip of that illusion "dumb" on account of it, it is in fact an illusion.

graeme 14y ago
In a year of semi-minimalism, I've probably lost $20-$50 from getting rid of a couple closets full of stuff. I have to think that's within almost everyone's budget, amortized over a long timeframe and with a payoff of much less clutter.
- networked 14y ago
  >I have to think that's within almost everyone's budget, amortized over a long timeframe and with a payoff of much less clutter. Regardless of your level of wealth some things are just not easy or quick to acquire [1]. I have saved myself some money, but more importantly, weeks' worth of waiting time (or at best days if I paid extra for speedy delivery) while the components I want ship from abroad, by keeping a two large drawers full of weird hardware. I'd like to get rid of most of it but it's hard to predict not just which parts are I'm going to need in the future but also which I will have trouble getting at all. [1] If you deal with computers and electronics it can be things like unique power supplies, PS/2-to-AT keyboard adapters (I had to use one at work just last year to do some data archaeology) and USB-to-serial adapters, spare parts for that one ageing ThinkPad you consider to have the best keyboard of any laptop ever, quality PC trackballs, etc.
  - graeme 14y ago
    Yeah, I keep hard to replace things lying around too. I haven't gone full blown minimalist, just more minimal than I used to be, and more minimal than average. If it goes too far I feel it can be more trouble than it's worth, though there might be some benefits I'm ignoring.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

rizzom5000 14y ago

> If you see someone on the street dressed like a middle-class person (say, in clean jeans and a striped shirt), how do you know whether they’re lower middle class or upper middle class? Nonsense! You don't know anything about someone's economic class based on their appearance.

Volpe 14y ago
You can probably make a good guess based on appearance (clothes, race, gender, general appearance) + their location (which if you are looking at them in person, you know). You are right, you can be wrong, but it'd be worth testing, as my gut feel is you'd get more right, than wrong.
esperluette 14y ago
You can make an educated guess, usually very easily. Not necessarily the clothes, but definitely the shoes, accessories (especially bags, watches, and jewelry), tattoos, and teeth, hair, and skin. Richer people spend more on accessories (and repair their shoes!) and taking care of their bodies, because they can. And it shows.

hkmurakami 14y ago

Being rich and spending money, while often correlated, are not necessarily equivalent. This is something that the author should perhaps keep in mind.

michaelfeathers 14y ago

Yes, if you have more money you don't need as many things. But in the long term I think that minimalism is going to recede as a social indicator. The reason why has been sneaking up on us for a while: The digital world is becoming more encumbered. People are realizing that they don't have much control over their data and their 'purchased' media. Services disappear regularly along with what we've invested in them. What's the alternative? Well, currently, there is more freedom in the physical space, and people are slowly realizing that physicality has an upside. I think we're due for a `Neo-Materialist' movement. Maker Culture is growing and moving beyond bohemian. I have friends with cluttered living spaces and in most cases it is not due to not having enough money to have fewer things. It is just a choice away from the Eastern-esque Steve Jobs-ian "let's have fewer things" aesthetic. It's becoming more common to have a set of maker and made things that you love and show, and to treat living space as workspace. Buzz around 3D printing may accelerate the trend. Culturally, I'm not sure that this will completely overtake design minimalism, but it has a decent chance.

bravura 14y ago

For a funnier and lighter response to Graham Hill, I highly recommend this piece from bike snob: http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-walls-kept-closing-in.html http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-walls-kept... "Sure, life can be a bit easier if you trim the proverbial fat now and again, but this is hardly a revelation to anybody except a minimalist like Graham Hill, for whom even the basic mechanics of life are all transcendent."

timinman 14y ago

I guess it's natural for successful people to be treated like sages, but I've commonly had the same feeling the OP expressed - you have to wade through people's 'wisdom'. Sometimes they are just out of touch.

vannevar 14y ago

Consumerism is driven by our natural susceptibility to peer pressure coupled with the evolution of symbiotic corporate entities that have adapted to make advertising ever more effective and ubiquitous. The problem is that consumerism is now the dominant way we distribute wealth. If everyone suddenly started living simpler, the economy would collapse. Quitting consumerism cold turkey would be like quitting heroin.