Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills.
User avatar
Topic Author
statsnerd
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:01 am

Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by statsnerd »

I thought this was a good read about someone who discovered frugal/Boglehead ways

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opini ... wanted=all
User avatar
momar
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 11:51 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by momar »

Image
"Index funds have a place in your portfolio, but you'll never beat the index with them." - Words of wisdom from a Fidelity rep
Greatness
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:07 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Greatness »

To each their own. However, I cannot see most people, let alone a family live in 420 sq ft.
User avatar
Noobvestor
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:09 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Noobvestor »

If you ever spend time in other cities, you might be amazed what you can live with and what becomes normal. I live in a city/state where my 1,000 square feet is relatively small, but when I visit Seattle, San Diego, let alone New York or really anywhere in Europe, I'm quickly reminded how luxuriously much space that is. Then there's the developing world. Needless to say, we can all live in 400 SF or significantly less if need be. It's all relative.
"In the absence of clarity, diversification is the only logical strategy" -= Larry Swedroe
User avatar
Topic Author
statsnerd
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:01 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by statsnerd »

Here is the Youtube video of his apartment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3T_RfJ6KPs
Greatness
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:07 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Greatness »

Very interesting, but I can see a family going crazy in there. One person, no problem. More than one, problem. No privacy. You have a family of three. What is one wants to take a nap. One wants to read, and one wants to watch a movie. The one watching the movie would be fine. The other two, not so much. What if it is four of them? Gets even more complicated. This works for one person, not much more.
rr2
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by rr2 »

Greatness wrote:Very interesting, but I can see a family going crazy in there. One person, no problem. More than one, problem. No privacy. You have a family of three. What is one wants to take a nap. One wants to read, and one wants to watch a movie. The one watching the movie would be fine. The other two, not so much. What if it is four of them? Gets even more complicated. This works for one person, not much more.
The space splits up into the guest bedroom area. The person watching the TV can get a wireless headset.

I really like it. It would not be a problem with a well adjusted couple. More than two -- yes it can be an issue.

A much longer video is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYV0qATsyts
Greatness
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:07 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Greatness »

watching an action movie with ear plugs can damage eardrums. Like I said, if there was a solid second room with maybe some sort of sound proofing, then I can see it working. This is basically a third of a normal studio for two + people. In the real world, this would not work.
rr2
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by rr2 »

Greatness wrote:watching an action movie with ear plugs can damage eardrums. Like I said, if there was a solid second room with maybe some sort of sound proofing, then I can see it working. This is basically a third of a normal studio for two + people. In the real world, this would not work.
Perhaps, it won't work for you and a number of others. It can work but does require compromises. Even though we currently live in a larger house, the rooms are not sound proofed. There is no dedicated TV room. If my wife is taking a nap, I will not watch TV with the volume on high. I will not go to the yard and use the mower or blower. Yes, 400 sqft is a very tight space but can be done. I grew up in a large family with 8 of us living in a roughly 1000 sqft 2 bed/2 bath house.
User avatar
CyberBob
Posts: 3387
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:53 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by CyberBob »

From the article: What exactly are we storing away in the boxes we cart from place to place?

Answer: Time and Money. Also known as life-energy.
When people ask what was the secret to my retiring at 42, I never give the answer they expect. Although I'm a long-time Boglehead, it wasn't my stellar investing habits, but rather the simple fact that I never accumulated needless 'stuff'.

Bob
ossipago
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:31 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by ossipago »

Greatness wrote:watching an action movie with ear plugs can damage eardrums. Like I said, if there was a solid second room with maybe some sort of sound proofing, then I can see it working. This is basically a third of a normal studio for two + people. In the real world, this would not work.
What does "a third" mean? The average studio in the U.S. is likely less than 600 sq ft. I've lived (happily) in a 300 sq ft studio. With proper design and downsizing, 420 sq ft is plenty doable even for two people, or two people plus an infant.
NYBoglehead
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 9:38 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by NYBoglehead »

I don't have a lot of stuff and do my best not to accumulate stuff, but I have lived in a 450 sq ft apartment and I can tell you that it is not a comfortable amount of space. I used to hit my knees on the wall getting out of bed in the morning, the couch was literally an inch away from the door frame, and having more than 3 or 4 people over was impossible.

Not a bad idea for a bachelor but if you want to have a family that kind of space is tough to deal with.

Just because it is doable doesn't mean its desirable. I don't ever plan on living in a giant space, but I don't ever plan on living in less than 500 sq ft again. My current 800 sq ft seems massive to me now!
hicabob
Posts: 3794
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: cruz

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by hicabob »

NYBoglehead wrote:I don't have a lot of stuff and do my best not to accumulate stuff, but I have lived in a 450 sq ft apartment and I can tell you that it is not a comfortable amount of space. I used to hit my knees on the wall getting out of bed in the morning, the couch was literally an inch away from the door frame, and having more than 3 or 4 people over was impossible.

Not a bad idea for a bachelor but if you want to have a family that kind of space is tough to deal with.

Just because it is doable doesn't mean its desirable. I don't ever plan on living in a giant space, but I don't ever plan on living in less than 500 sq ft again. My current 800 sq ft seems massive to me now!
Here are some pics of 45 square foot apartments in Hong Kong - shot from "above" ... quite incredible

http://imgur.com/a/dvPqf

My home office/lab/equipment alone take up about 2000 square feet
The Wizard
Posts: 13356
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by The Wizard »

My double garage is about 450 square feet, so I'm happy about that...
Attempted new signature...
tphp99
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:47 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by tphp99 »

I lived in a 600 sq ft studio apartment while in school. I thought that was the whole point of college so you would not HAVE to live in a studio apartment for the rest of your life. :oops:

The guy in the article throws a dinner party for 12? Standing room only?
ossipago
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:31 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by ossipago »

tphp99 wrote:I lived in a 600 sq ft studio apartment while in school. I thought that was the whole point of college so you would not HAVE to live in a studio apartment for the rest of your life. :oops:

The guy in the article throws a dinner party for 12? Standing room only?
The proportion of studios no doubt correlates highly with urbanization. In high-density, walkable areas, having people over for entertainment becomes much less important; there are always plenty of bars and restaurants around to meet people at. It's a mistake to think of a studio as a living space in isolation from its surroundings; the proximity of amenities helps a lot.
User avatar
Index Fan
Posts: 2587
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:13 am
Location: The great Midwest

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Index Fan »

Living like a poor person in a poor country is now hipster, I see. Imagine everyone not buying much at all, and then imagine living in Cuba. But I repeat myself.

I find the whole 'atoning for the sins of the environmentally wasteful' thing a bit like wearing a hair-shirt. But that's me.

If you like that kind of thing, that's cool. Just don't make it mandatory, like controlling the size of sodas in NYC. These things have a way of becoming rammed down people's throats 'for their own good'.
"Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis." | -Seneca
User avatar
tyrion
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:33 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by tyrion »

I don't understand a lot of the negative remarks. If it's not for you, that's fine. It's certainly not compulsory.

I find it inspiring. Not that I want to move my family of 4 into it, but we do have a 1200 sq ft house and there are some interesting ideas on how to do more with an individual room (like a kid's bedroom).
ossipago
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:31 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by ossipago »

Index Fan wrote:Living like a poor person in a poor country is now hipster, I see. Imagine everyone not buying much at all, and then imagine living in Cuba. But I repeat myself.

I find the whole 'atoning for the sins of the environmentally wasteful' thing a bit like wearing a hair-shirt. But that's me.

If you like that kind of thing, that's cool. Just don't make it mandatory, like controlling the size of sodas in NYC. These things have a way of becoming rammed down people's throats 'for their own good'.
Is that where cities mandate maximum sizes on new housing units? Oh wait, they don't - typically, they only have minimums. No aspect of housing is really operated by a free market, but if it was, I have no doubt that most cities would see many, many more small units built; the economics is just too favorable, for both residents and developers.
Random Poster
Posts: 3314
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:17 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Random Poster »

hicabob wrote:
NYBoglehead wrote:I don't have a lot of stuff and do my best not to accumulate stuff, but I have lived in a 450 sq ft apartment and I can tell you that it is not a comfortable amount of space. I used to hit my knees on the wall getting out of bed in the morning, the couch was literally an inch away from the door frame, and having more than 3 or 4 people over was impossible.

Not a bad idea for a bachelor but if you want to have a family that kind of space is tough to deal with.

Just because it is doable doesn't mean its desirable. I don't ever plan on living in a giant space, but I don't ever plan on living in less than 500 sq ft again. My current 800 sq ft seems massive to me now!
Here are some pics of 45 square foot apartments in Hong Kong - shot from "above" ... quite incredible

http://imgur.com/a/dvPqf

My home office/lab/equipment alone take up about 2000 square feet
I don't see a bathroom in those photos.

Nor do I see a clothes washer (I'm not even sure that I see a sink in some of the photos), and I gave up shared clothes washers when I graduated from college (for the record, I largely gave-up shared bathrooms around that time too, but can deal with them on a short-term basis when staying in hostels).

I also don't see what appears to be happy people in the photos either, but I admit that body language can be deceiving.
User avatar
tylerdurden
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:26 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by tylerdurden »

I think a lot of focus is being put on the size of the apartment; that's understandable since the article does mention it a few times and the author's new business is small home design. However, I enjoyed the article for the other topics covered, primarily of being tied down by possessions verses having fewer material goods and more freedom to roam. Now, most people cannot afford to live like a nomad given day jobs, family, and such, but it was interesting to think about. And I think a lot of people can relate to the idea of lifestyle inflation and the accompanying material goods that brings, even if it isn't to the extent of dot-com entrepreneur.

It happens to be particularly appropriate for me since my wife and I are planning to downsize a bit as I relocate for a job. Of course we are only going from a 2,100 sq-ft house to a 780 sq-ft apartment, so not as extreme as the author's NYC apartment. But it is during this downsizing and moving process that I've really noticed how much of a burden owning things can be.
"The things you own end up owning you." -TD
User avatar
Meg77
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Meg77 »

My boyfriend sent me this article over the weekend. We are starting to talk about looking for a home to purchase together later this year. I am always fascinated by these stories, and while we have no intention of living in a studio together just because we could, I do vascillate between wanting the 3 bedroom 2000+ SF townhome that we could easily afford and wanting to buy something half the cost that we could pay off in just a handful of years. The former would be more "appropriate/expected/normal" though we'd be a bit more chained to our jobs/income level. The latter would make us feel like super savers, real Bogleheads, bucking the consumerism mindset that is shoved down our American throats daily! But it would be much less comfortable, particularly given that we are talking about having kids in the next couple of years...

There is a happy medium to be found between buying tons of crap you don't need and downsizing your lifestyle into an unnecessarily small and uncomfortable space. I definitely think most of us lean towards the former problem than the latter though.
"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest." - Benjamin Franklin
RenoJay
Posts: 748
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:20 am
Location: Nevada

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by RenoJay »

I currently live in a 4,100 square foot home on nearly an acre. In my 20's, I spent a year traveling the world with just a backpack that contained two t-shirts, one pair of pants, one pair of shorts and some toiletries. I would not in a million years give up the family that now populates my ridiculous home, but on all other fronts I was probably happier with the backpack than the house.
User avatar
greg24
Posts: 4508
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:34 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by greg24 »

There seem to be a lot of people who feel a need to live at the extremes. Buy a gigantic house and hire a personal shopper named Seven to fill it with crap. Go through an existential period, then decide 420 sq. feet is all they need. Then publish an article about it in the NY Times and discuss it over drinks at their favorite steam punk hipster bar.

Or, there are millions of people who have lived a life of simplicity their entire life without having to lecture others about it, or be congratulated for it, or even realize its a "life choice".
hsv_climber
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by hsv_climber »

What always puzzles me with these minimalist articles is that they just don't make practical sense.

Think about it that way - whenever this guy travels, he has to stay in a hotel (not too many hostels in US), he has to rent skis, he has to rent bicycle, he has to rent camping equipment, and so on.
Sure, my garage is filled with those things, but just calculating the $$ "my stuff" have saved me vs. rent, as well as camping vs. staying in the hotel, "my stuff" has repaid itself many times already.
Last edited by hsv_climber on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
crowd79
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by crowd79 »

This NY Times article fascinated me, as well as the YouTube video of the lady's tiny 80 square foot pad in Manhattan. I would never, ever pay $800 for a closet in NYC without a kitchen, but it got me watching other YouTube videos and seeing how other people design and incorporate living in small spaces, i.e., buying rooftop apartment and remodeling it into 3 rooms, etc. I could probably live that way. Here are some videos I watched that I found of interest:

Lego-Style Apartment (I love Legos!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=juW ... =endscreen

Space-Invading apartment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3qkCOsyReE

Rooftop views of the city with terraces, yeah I could live that way with everything in reach!
User avatar
bengal22
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by bengal22 »

statsnerd wrote:I thought this was a good read about someone who discovered frugal/Boglehead ways

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opini ... wanted=all
I never saw the connection between the Boglehead philsophy and frugality. I really believe that investing wisely and not accumulating debt enables us to live a more luxurious lifestyle. Living in a 800 sq. ft apartment to me has absolutely nothing to do with this forum.
"Earn All You Can; Give All You Can; Save All You Can." .... John Wesley
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 21240
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by HomerJ »

Moderation in all things...

This guy is as big of an idiot at 420 square feet as he as was with his McMansion and his personal shopper.

Both extremes are stupid. Especially since he can afford more... I'm not talking about "stuff". I'm talking about simple things like being able to take a crap without your knees being pressed up against the sink or taking a shower where you can turn around. There's no way he has 12 people in that room "comfortably".
Saving$
Posts: 2510
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:33 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Saving$ »

Living like that is easily doable, even for a family. It really just depends upon your cultural norms. In the US we are at the extreme end of the spectrum with the McMansions, etc. In many Asian and European countries, multiple generations live together in much smaller homes. It is not unusual for 3 generations to share a 2 or 3 bedroom one bath apartment. In third world countries, it is no unusual for families of 8-10 to live together in a one room, 300 sf house, with a latrine shared with the neighborhood. It is just not what we are accustomed to, which is why we think we "can't."

I vividly remember a young man from Ghana visiting the states in the late 80's. We took him to a normal suburban ranch house - probably a 3/2 built in the 50's, with a family room added on. He wanted to know how many families lived there. When he learned it was just one family he decided they must be family of the president, and the entire neighborhood must be where the US president's family lived if there was only one family per 1400 sf house.

It's all what you are used to. And you can get yourself used to things if you are motivated enough.
User avatar
ryuns
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:07 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by ryuns »

hsv_climber wrote:What always puzzles me with these minimalist articles is that they just don't make practical sense.

Think about it that way - whenever this guy travels, he has to stay in a hotel (not too many hostels in US), he has to rent skis, he has to rent bicycle, he has to rent camping equipment, and so on.
Sure, my garage is filled with those things, but just calculating the $$ "my stuff" have saved me vs. rent, as well as camping vs. staying in the hotel, "my stuff" has repaid itself many times already.
But maybe not for everyone all the time, especially when you evaluate the alternatives. For a lot of people, it sometimes makes a LOT of practical sense to do all of those things exactly, depending on what you're in to. Not everyone camps, for one thing, and if anyone wanted to camp with me, I'd already have them covered. Heck, even if they weren't, I'd loan them anything they wanted for the total price of a 12 pack. If you're flying to go ski, it might be cheaper to rent skis when you get there anyway, and you don't have the burden of maintenance or the worry of trying to maintain them. Same with a bike. And age comes to all things: I had to spend several hours this weekend working on my mom's bike, plus the cost of new brakes and a few other items just undo what years of garage-borne entropy had wrought.

So in sum:
-Buying can be better than renting, but not always, especially when you consider wear and tear, transportation to the places where you actually want to use said items, storage space/cost when not in use, maintenance, and the mental cost of having to keep track of/account for/think about said items.
-New websites, along with a healthy social network can minimize the cost of borrowing. The Economist's cover story this week about the "sharing economy" is quite compelling. I wish people, including my own neighbors and friends, were more organized about what we had and what could be shared. Everything from backpacking supplies, to power tools, to even loaner bikes for when people to come to visit and you need an extra one or two.
An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered. -- GK Chesterton
User avatar
White Coat Investor
Posts: 17338
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Greatest Snow On Earth

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by White Coat Investor »

I've lived in 640 with 2, and around 800 with 4 and with 6. I didn't like any of it. Some things are worth paying for, like space. 500 sq ft per person is pretty nice I think.
1) Invest you must 2) Time is your friend 3) Impulse is your enemy | 4) Basic arithmetic works 5) Stick to simplicity 6) Stay the course
AndroAsc
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:39 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by AndroAsc »

Paying for more square footage usually translates to higher rent/mortgage, and less money to savings. Definitely not the Boglehead way, unless a large house is your "splurge".
ddj
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by ddj »

Meg77 wrote: There is a happy medium to be found between buying tons of crap you don't need and downsizing your lifestyle into an unnecessarily small and uncomfortable space. I definitely think most of us lean towards the former problem than the latter though.
greg24 wrote:There seem to be a lot of people who feel a need to live at the extremes. Buy a gigantic house and hire a personal shopper named Seven to fill it with crap. Go through an existential period, then decide 420 sq. feet is all they need. Then publish an article about it in the NY Times and discuss it over drinks at their favorite steam punk hipster bar.

Or, there are millions of people who have lived a life of simplicity their entire life without having to lecture others about it, or be congratulated for it, or even realize its a "life choice".
Yes and yes. In my mid 20s I lived in a studio with a mini fridge and microwave as my kitchen. The room was 12'x14' (168 ft sq) plus bathroom, which had a bathtub. I never did the dishes crocodile dundee style though :? . Believe it or not, I had a queen sized bed and your average couch in there. It was kind of fun and an affordable way to live in a very expensive ski town. I only did that for ~6 months. I have more of an average living situation these days.
Curlyq
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:26 pm

.....

Post by Curlyq »

.....
Last edited by Curlyq on Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Blister
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:59 am
Location: Tennessee

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Blister »

Precisely why I would not want to live in NYC or any other large metro area. They are nice places to visit though. I'll keep my 16 acres in the hills of Tennessee. :happy
Everthing works out in the end. If it doesn't then its not the end.
halfnine
Posts: 2405
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:48 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by halfnine »

Under the circumstances I am not sure why this warrants much criticism. A single guy who lives in a major city (probably in a great location as well) lives in a 400 sq ft apartment that is cleverly enough designed to make it more like 800 sq ft. I spent my entire 30s living in major cities across the planet both while single and with my wife. 300-400 sq ft was typical, that is just the price you pay for the lifestyle and a great location. And to have a place like his would have been extraordinary. Now would I like to live like that with children.....no (was fine though until the baby began to crawl). Would I like to live like that outside of a world class city.....no. Like everything in life it's all relative to one's circumstance.

The biggest issue I actually have with the whole article is this:
Aside from my travel habit — which I try to keep in check by minimizing trips, combining trips and purchasing carbon offsets — I feel better that my carbon footprint is significantly smaller than in my previous supersized life
Yes, I have a huge carbon footprint from traveling, but lets forget all about that because I save a small fraction of it by living in a smaller house. Living green and environmentally friendly....don't think so.

My other issue with that article and minimalism in general is that the stuff in ones life is not just limited to what one owns. It is what one uses throughout the year. The furnished hotel room when traveling, the bus/taxi, the rented skis, etc. Just because that one doesn't own it, doesn't mean that one is immune from stuff. The difference is simply whether it is something you own or rather choose to rent or borrow instead. Neither is better or worse, again its all relative to one's circumstance.
User avatar
mojave
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:59 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by mojave »

Saving$ wrote:Living like that is easily doable, even for a family. It really just depends upon your cultural norms. In the US we are at the extreme end of the spectrum with the McMansions, etc. In many Asian and European countries, multiple generations live together in much smaller homes. It is not unusual for 3 generations to share a 2 or 3 bedroom one bath apartment. In third world countries, it is no unusual for families of 8-10 to live together in a one room, 300 sf house, with a latrine shared with the neighborhood. It is just not what we are accustomed to, which is why we think we "can't."

I vividly remember a young man from Ghana visiting the states in the late 80's. We took him to a normal suburban ranch house - probably a 3/2 built in the 50's, with a family room added on. He wanted to know how many families lived there. When he learned it was just one family he decided they must be family of the president, and the entire neighborhood must be where the US president's family lived if there was only one family per 1400 sf house.

It's all what you are used to. And you can get yourself used to things if you are motivated enough.
Where I work there is a high population of Indian families in the surrounding area. The homes are massive 6,000 sq ft+ and there are about 10 Mercedes parked in the driveway.
david99
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:56 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by david99 »

I like having some space in my home where I can go and read a book if my girlfriend wants to watch TV, but I don't want that much space or stuff where I have to work till I'm 65 to pay for all of it.
Fallible
Posts: 8795
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:44 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Fallible »

bengal22 wrote:[...
I never saw the connection between the Boglehead philsophy and frugality. I really believe that investing wisely and not accumulating debt enables us to live a more luxurious lifestyle. Living in a 800 sq. ft apartment to me has absolutely nothing to do with this forum.
A question for you: perhaps highest among the Boglehead principles is living below your means, which would seem to be quite closely connected to frugality. Does that differ from your idea of the BH philosophy?
"Yes, investing is simple. But it is not easy, for it requires discipline, patience, steadfastness, and that most uncommon of all gifts, common sense." ~Jack Bogle
snyder66
Posts: 1055
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by snyder66 »

To each his/her own, right? I don't understand the negativity here, either. To me, This is more like cold turkey. He realized the error in his ways and gave up nearly everything. Sometimes you come back to the middle and maybe not. You can can some good bits out of this extreme story and maybe help yourself.
jasc15
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:36 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by jasc15 »

hsv_climber wrote:What always puzzles me with these minimalist articles is that they just don't make practical sense.

Think about it that way - whenever this guy travels, he has to stay in a hotel (not too many hostels in US), he has to rent skis, he has to rent bicycle, he has to rent camping equipment, and so on.
Sure, my garage is filled with those things, but just calculating the $$ "my stuff" have saved me vs. rent, as well as camping vs. staying in the hotel, "my stuff" has repaid itself many times already.
Has it repaid the expense of the extra space required for storing it?

I would say it's probably cheaper, for example, to put visitors up in a hotel for a week each year than to furnish and maintain the equivalent space in your own home in perpetuity.

This isn't exactly my cup of tea either, but I think it's a good idea to see just how luxurious we have it compared with some of the world, even those of us living in 600 SF apartments. We shouldnt be so attached to our biases as to what is reasonable and normal. I think that is the point, even if it is preachy.
freebeer
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 8:30 am
Location: Seattle area USA

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by freebeer »

Fallible wrote:
bengal22 wrote:[...
I never saw the connection between the Boglehead philsophy and frugality. I really believe that investing wisely and not accumulating debt enables us to live a more luxurious lifestyle. Living in a 800 sq. ft apartment to me has absolutely nothing to do with this forum.
A question for you: perhaps highest among the Boglehead principles is living below your means, which would seem to be quite closely connected to frugality. Does that differ from your idea of the BH philosophy?
"cheap" is not the same as "frugal" and I don't think "frugality" is exactly Jack Bogle's thing: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/joh ... les-house/ . IMO Bogleheads principles have to do with being smart about investing in order to achieve lifetime "consumption smoothing". Investing implies saving which does imply living below your means during accumulation phase and safely achieving smoothing during decumulation implies not living above your means during retirement, but that's quite different than frugality. Even though a lot of Bogleheads are, also, frugal, I think of this as a secondary and optional part of the philosophy. If you got a fantastic deal on a reliable car that you keep for years you are a Boglehead whether that car is a luxury sedan or an econobox.
Fallible
Posts: 8795
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:44 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by Fallible »

freebeer wrote:
Fallible wrote:
bengal22 wrote:[...
I never saw the connection between the Boglehead philsophy and frugality. I really believe that investing wisely and not accumulating debt enables us to live a more luxurious lifestyle. Living in a 800 sq. ft apartment to me has absolutely nothing to do with this forum.
A question for you: perhaps highest among the Boglehead principles is living below your means, which would seem to be quite closely connected to frugality. Does that differ from your idea of the BH philosophy?
"cheap" is not the same as "frugal" and I don't think "frugality" is exactly Jack Bogle's thing: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/joh ... les-house/ . IMO Bogleheads principles have to do with being smart about investing in order to achieve lifetime "consumption smoothing". Investing implies saving which does imply living below your means during accumulation phase and safely achieving smoothing during decumulation implies not living above your means during retirement, but that's quite different than frugality. Even though a lot of Bogleheads are, also, frugal, I think of this as a secondary and optional part of the philosophy....
What you invest you've saved, what you've saved, you've achieved by living within or below your means and keeping costs low, i.e., being frugal. If you're successful to the point where you no longer feel you have to be frugal, that's your decision of course.
"Yes, investing is simple. But it is not easy, for it requires discipline, patience, steadfastness, and that most uncommon of all gifts, common sense." ~Jack Bogle
User avatar
tractorguy
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 6:32 pm
Location: Chicago Suburb

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by tractorguy »

I mentioned this article to my daughter who is into "building restoration" eg saving old buildings and finding uses for them. She and her boyfriend live in downtown Boston, use public transport, bike or walk, and generally are strong proponents of any activity that reduces our environmental impact. She had seen the article. I was somewhat surprised by her comment that all of these "extreme eliminate your possessions" articles (her words) seem to be written by rich folks. She claimed that they have no trouble living with nothing in a small space because they can afford to travel the world, eat out, and generally live outside of their apartment. Her comment was that she would love to see one article about 4 people living in a small apartment to save money (as is common in her peer group). It's not as enjoyable when your constrained by 4 walls and you don't have the freedom to change your situation.
Lorne
mamster
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:05 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by mamster »

But that's exactly the point, TractorGuy: there's a major qualitative difference between living small by choice and by necessity.

I've lived with my wife and daughter in a 260 square foot apartment. Only for a month, but I could easily see doing it indefinitely. It was, in fact, the happiest month of my life thus far. Now we live in 750 square feet. 500 square feet per person seems like way too much to me.

This is not to suggest that people who enjoy more space are wrong, or that the guy profiled in this article is a money genius. But the fact is, people who don't feel constrained by a small space have a major financial advantage over those who do, because housing is the number one lifetime expense for most people.
freebeer
Posts: 2014
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 8:30 am
Location: Seattle area USA

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by freebeer »

Fallible wrote:...What you invest you've saved, what you've saved, you've achieved by living within or below your means and keeping costs low, i.e., being frugal...
Sure, I'm just quibbling that frugality per se is in any way the "highest among the Bogleheads principles". For one could live below one's means and speculate with the delta but this would be non-Bogleheadian. And there's a "non-rational"/quirky aspect to being especially frugal: Bill Gates is famously frugal locally, thing s like eating $1 hamburgers at Dick's. But that is clearly not a rational part of his investment plan and he's very spendy in some other areas like his giant home and extensive car collection.
User avatar
black jack
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:13 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by black jack »

mojave wrote:
Saving$ wrote:Living like that is easily doable, even for a family. It really just depends upon your cultural norms. In the US we are at the extreme end of the spectrum with the McMansions, etc. In many Asian and European countries, multiple generations live together in much smaller homes. It is not unusual for 3 generations to share a 2 or 3 bedroom one bath apartment. In third world countries, it is no unusual for families of 8-10 to live together in a one room, 300 sf house, with a latrine shared with the neighborhood. It is just not what we are accustomed to, which is why we think we "can't."

I vividly remember a young man from Ghana visiting the states in the late 80's. We took him to a normal suburban ranch house - probably a 3/2 built in the 50's, with a family room added on. He wanted to know how many families lived there. When he learned it was just one family he decided they must be family of the president, and the entire neighborhood must be where the US president's family lived if there was only one family per 1400 sf house.

It's all what you are used to. And you can get yourself used to things if you are motivated enough.
Where I work there is a high population of Indian families in the surrounding area. The homes are massive 6,000 sq ft+ and there are about 10 Mercedes parked in the driveway.
But on average, our cultural norm is at the extreme, materially speaking: http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/20 ... ossessions#.

Which raises the question: would all those other cultural norms look like ours if those cultures had as much income and cheap land as we do? I suspect the answer is yes, as your example suggests. After all, our cultural norm looked different 60 years ago, when families of five were living in new 1,000 sq ft homes.
We cannot absolutely prove [that they are wrong who say] that we have seen our best days. But so said all who came before us, and with just as much apparent reason. | -T. B. Macaulay (1800-1859)
hsv_climber
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by hsv_climber »

jasc15 wrote:
hsv_climber wrote:What always puzzles me with these minimalist articles is that they just don't make practical sense.

Think about it that way - whenever this guy travels, he has to stay in a hotel (not too many hostels in US), he has to rent skis, he has to rent bicycle, he has to rent camping equipment, and so on.
Sure, my garage is filled with those things, but just calculating the $$ "my stuff" have saved me vs. rent, as well as camping vs. staying in the hotel, "my stuff" has repaid itself many times already.
Has it repaid the expense of the extra space required for storing it?

I would say it's probably cheaper, for example, to put visitors up in a hotel for a week each year than to furnish and maintain the equivalent space in your own home in perpetuity.
Space is cheap in Alabama :lol:
I guess that is another interesting feature of all "minimalist" lifestyle articles is that they all come either from Silicon Valley or NYC.
My TOTAL house related expenses last year: ~$2100 (1100 RE tax + 650 ins. + 300 leak fix (one time thing) + 160 termite ins.).

Putting visitors into hotel for a week : $80 * 7 = $560.
Renting skis over 5 years @ 5 days / year: $35 * 25 = $875 vs. buying: $500. -> ~$400 over 5 years.
Camping for 10 nights / year @ $20 / night vs. 10 nights @ $80 / hotel -> $600.
....

So, it is easy to see that having space to store useful stuff wins.
Curlyq
Posts: 787
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:26 pm

.....

Post by Curlyq »

.....
Last edited by Curlyq on Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hsv_climber
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Re: Living with Less. A Lot Less (NYTimes Article)

Post by hsv_climber »

Curlyq wrote: I'm calculating this differently.

I'm using the cost to purchase a two-bedroom place versus a one-bedroom place. The cost difference is roughly $30,000 for an extra bedroom. That buys a lot of hotel rooms and I don't have an empty room sitting there un-used or poorly used because I have a bed in it.

Also, I buy new skis and boots every two years. They usually cost me $600 for skis and bindings. New boots run $500 and up. This is if you are shopping the sales and buying prudently for the high-end stuff. Renting skis is a lot cheaper if you don't ski that often and you get the latest technology that somebody else has mounted and tuned. I'm a former ski tech, so I tune and wax my own skis. Cost to do that runs about $25-35 a pop (waxing should be done weekly) at the local shop. Include that into the rental cost as you get freshly tuned and waxed skis when you rent.

There is a concept of voluntary simplicity that does not involve only having lots of money or living in one of two cities. Many people are choosing to live a simpler life. You may need to read more than a few articles to get this sense.
What you've described is anything but "voluntary simplicity". High end stuff, new skis and boots every 2 years, ... .
It seems like you've got it backward. You might want to double check the definition of the word "simplicity" and then compare it with your post regarding using only top of the line high end equipment for skiing.
Post Reply