The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
- eye.surgeon
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:19 pm
- Location: California
The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
The trendy thing these days is to talk about spending money on "experiences", basically a new-age description of a vacation, and how it's better than spending money on "things", basically a new-age description of hard assets. The news is full of pop-science articles touting the benefits of this, most of which I think are junk science.
I bring this up as a thought exercise for bogleheads. If you look objectively at spending on vacations, it's the worst money you will ever spend. It depreciates immediately. You have literally nothing left to show for it within a couple weeks. Objectively it's a much poorer purchase than even the most frivolous luxury sports car, which will never be worth zero.
I'm not discounting the psychological and emotional benefits of taking time off work, going on vacations, spending time with family. These have real merit. I'm just rejecting the pop-science notion that spending $10k going to Thailand for 3 weeks is somehow psychologically more beneficial than buying a more expensive car or installing a home theater. For me, either of those would provide more lasting enjoyment than a vacation. Not only do I enjoy them much longer, but they have a tangible value when I'm done with them.
Mind you, my wife has accused me of being the worst vacationer in the world as I get bored after about 3 days.
I bring this up as a thought exercise for bogleheads. If you look objectively at spending on vacations, it's the worst money you will ever spend. It depreciates immediately. You have literally nothing left to show for it within a couple weeks. Objectively it's a much poorer purchase than even the most frivolous luxury sports car, which will never be worth zero.
I'm not discounting the psychological and emotional benefits of taking time off work, going on vacations, spending time with family. These have real merit. I'm just rejecting the pop-science notion that spending $10k going to Thailand for 3 weeks is somehow psychologically more beneficial than buying a more expensive car or installing a home theater. For me, either of those would provide more lasting enjoyment than a vacation. Not only do I enjoy them much longer, but they have a tangible value when I'm done with them.
Mind you, my wife has accused me of being the worst vacationer in the world as I get bored after about 3 days.
Last edited by eye.surgeon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I would rather be certain of a good return than hopeful of a great one" |
Warren Buffett
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I think that is key. "For you". People do get long lasting things out of vacations - memories, time with friends and families, lots of joy planning the trip and reliving the photos.... I think the debate was spending money on experiences vs massively depreciating minor upgrades to material consumer goods - TVs, cars, etc. Better TV, cars, etc are nicer, but not in proportion to their cost ratio over a 'good' item enjoyed over years. These are not considered hard assets - real estate, gold, stocks are hard assets (to me). I think a little of both is a wonderful thing.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am For me, either of those would provide more lasting emotional benefit than a 2 week vacation.
Salvia Clevelandii "Winifred Gilman" my favorite. YMMV; not a professional advisor.
- Artsdoctor
- Posts: 6063
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
You might be taking these examples too literally. The "experiences" are usually metaphors for augmenting relationships. My father died several years ago; I don't really recall most of the things he bought me as a kid, but I certainly remember the experiences we shared together (especially those road trips and other vacations).
Likewise, the dinners out with friends can be used as an opportunity to share intimate aspects of one's life and bring you closer together. You haven't really purchased anything, but you've built a closer relationship with someone who matters a great deal to you.
It's the people that augment your life. It's usually not the "hard assets."
Likewise, the dinners out with friends can be used as an opportunity to share intimate aspects of one's life and bring you closer together. You haven't really purchased anything, but you've built a closer relationship with someone who matters a great deal to you.
It's the people that augment your life. It's usually not the "hard assets."
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Per your last sentence, you hate vacations so it makes sense that you don't see the value in experiences. I believe experiences don't always have to be vacations. You may want to broaden your thinking on experiences for a better outcome.
Dan
Dan
The market is the most efficient mechanism anywhere in the world for transferring wealth from impatient people to patient people.” |
— Warren Buffett
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
This seems very individual in nature. And I don't think it's a recent trend - this has been discussed for decades. I would offer this take, however: whether you spend on items or vacations, what matters is the joy you derive from their use. If you buy a luxury car, you may get satisfaction from driving it, looking at it and knowing it's in your garage. If you'd rather have a home theater, it's because you enjoy the experience of watching movies, often with family and friends, rather than owning speakers and a nice screen. The residual value of objects means less to many of us than the value gained from enjoying the use of objects.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
It's a matter of personal preference. What is important and valuable to one person may not be so to someone else.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
IMO the fallacy is creating a false dichotomy between experiences and things. For example, a luxury car seems like both a hard asset as well as something to experience. (And I'm someone who generally prefers spending money on so-called "experiences" like travel.)
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52211
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiastic about."--Charles Kingsley
We buy stuff, lots of it. And we buy "experiences" (e.g. Walt Disney World Resort). So I don't want to be too snobby about it.
My own personal philosophy is that what tends to give the best return in happiness is stuff that feels like work and involves skill-building. One of the reasons why "vacations" don't feel satisfying is that you are offered prepackaged pseudo-experiences that require no skill development. You don't come back from Walt Disney World Resort knowing how to do something you didn't know before. Any theme park, you don't need to know anything, they strap you into the thrill ride and you come out thrilled... but knowing nothing more except what it felt like.
I think the idea of "buying experiences" may have gotten distorted over time.
To me, what makes something an "experience" is that it makes some change, maybe very small, but some change, in the course your life takes after you do it.
A ride in a tour bus and a visit to a museum is not really an "experience," or at least it is at the extreme low end of "experiences." I can say that I think about North America before 1620 a little differently after visiting Cahokia Mounds, but "thinking a little differently" is not really "doing anything differently."
Studying Spanish, and getting lessons, live, via Skype, from a "community tutor" in Venezuela, at a cost of $5.50 for 45 minutes, is a kind of "experience." In a small way, it has led to little changes in my life path (when the school calls me in a substitute teacher, they know that I can speak a little Spanish and tend to give me the ELL--English language learners--classes... which are a blast because the ELL students are, mostly motivated and really want to learn. So I would call studying Spanish a valid "experience" because it has in fact changed my life... a tiny bit.
We buy stuff, lots of it. And we buy "experiences" (e.g. Walt Disney World Resort). So I don't want to be too snobby about it.
My own personal philosophy is that what tends to give the best return in happiness is stuff that feels like work and involves skill-building. One of the reasons why "vacations" don't feel satisfying is that you are offered prepackaged pseudo-experiences that require no skill development. You don't come back from Walt Disney World Resort knowing how to do something you didn't know before. Any theme park, you don't need to know anything, they strap you into the thrill ride and you come out thrilled... but knowing nothing more except what it felt like.
I think the idea of "buying experiences" may have gotten distorted over time.
To me, what makes something an "experience" is that it makes some change, maybe very small, but some change, in the course your life takes after you do it.
A ride in a tour bus and a visit to a museum is not really an "experience," or at least it is at the extreme low end of "experiences." I can say that I think about North America before 1620 a little differently after visiting Cahokia Mounds, but "thinking a little differently" is not really "doing anything differently."
Studying Spanish, and getting lessons, live, via Skype, from a "community tutor" in Venezuela, at a cost of $5.50 for 45 minutes, is a kind of "experience." In a small way, it has led to little changes in my life path (when the school calls me in a substitute teacher, they know that I can speak a little Spanish and tend to give me the ELL--English language learners--classes... which are a blast because the ELL students are, mostly motivated and really want to learn. So I would call studying Spanish a valid "experience" because it has in fact changed my life... a tiny bit.
Last edited by nisiprius on Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
-
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 5:47 pm
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Mathematiccally speaking, I can only disagree with you 100%. Objectivity is quite subjective in this case.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am The trendy thing these days is to talk about spending money on "experiences", basically a new-age description of a vacation, and how it's better than spending money on "things", basically a new-age description of hard assets. The news is full of pop-science articles touting the benefits of this, most of which I think are junk science.
I bring this up as a thought exercise for bogleheads. If you look objectively at spending on vacations, it's the worst money you will ever spend. It depreciates immediately. You have literally nothing left to show for it within a couple weeks. Objectively it's a much poorer purchase than even the most frivolous luxury sports car, which will never be worth zero.
I'm not discounting the psychological and emotional benefits of taking time off work, going on vacations, spending time with family. These have real merit. I'm just rejecting the pop-science notion that spending $10k going to Thailand for 3 weeks is somehow psychologically more beneficial than buying a more expensive car or installing a home theater. For me, either of those would provide more lasting enjoyment than a vacation. Not only do I enjoy them much longer, but they have a tangible value when I'm done with them.
Mind you, my wife has accused me of being the worst vacationer in the world as I get bored after about 3 days, and I actually enjoy my work.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
eye.surgeon,eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am
I bring this up as a thought exercise for bogleheads. If you look objectively at spending on vacations, it's the worst money you will ever spend. It depreciates immediately. You have literally nothing left to show for it within a couple weeks.
And, why is this a bad thing? Versus the "House Poor" people that will be paying for their mistake for 30 years.
KlangFool
30% VWENX | 16% VFWAX/VTIAX | 14.5% VTSAX | 19.5% VBTLX | 10% VSIAX/VTMSX/VSMAX | 10% VSIGX| 30% Wellington 50% 3-funds 20% Mini-Larry
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I think the OP and I have different values. I'm in my 70s and I still remember and treasure the trips my parents took me and my siblings on. I remember and am really glad I traveled to several foreign countries.
I really am not interested in "stuff" unless it's family photos, etc. A new television, a giant refrigerator, I have no interest in those things, they are just wastes of money to me.
I really am not interested in "stuff" unless it's family photos, etc. A new television, a giant refrigerator, I have no interest in those things, they are just wastes of money to me.
-
- Posts: 3908
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:19 am
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I will view this in a different way. We usually consider it more valuable if it is more difficult to obtain. With $30,000 in hands, it is easier to spend it on a car than on a trip. The latter needs TIME away from work, more planning, more unpredictable, so it is more valuable.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am The trendy thing these days is to talk about spending money on "experiences", basically a new-age description of a vacation, and how it's better than spending money on "things", basically a new-age description of hard assets. The news is full of pop-science articles touting the benefits of this, most of which I think are junk science.
I bring this up as a thought exercise for bogleheads. If you look objectively at spending on vacations, it's the worst money you will ever spend. It depreciates immediately. You have literally nothing left to show for it within a couple weeks. Objectively it's a much poorer purchase than even the most frivolous luxury sports car, which will never be worth zero.
I'm not discounting the psychological and emotional benefits of taking time off work, going on vacations, spending time with family. These have real merit. I'm just rejecting the pop-science notion that spending $10k going to Thailand for 3 weeks is somehow psychologically more beneficial than buying a more expensive car or installing a home theater. For me, either of those would provide more lasting enjoyment than a vacation. Not only do I enjoy them much longer, but they have a tangible value when I'm done with them.
Mind you, my wife has accused me of being the worst vacationer in the world as I get bored after about 3 days, and I actually enjoy my work.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Just seems like personal preference.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Generally speaking, I tend to get a lot more out of experiences than I do things. I consider eating/drinking, traveling, and learning to be experiences. They also tend to influence my thinking and open me up to new things that last way beyond the initial experience. Traveling abroad and interacting with local people can be life-changing.
Last edited by yangtui on Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2528
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:31 pm
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
You are right, I got nothing to show for, but it’s my vice and my kids are well travelled, one just commented on how her palate is much more diversified than some of her coworkers.
But some of the experience can’t be beaten.
But some of the experience can’t be beaten.
- TheTimeLord
- Posts: 12130
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
It takes a lot less room to store experiences than many of the junk hard assets I have bought over the years. Thus hard assets continue to demand investment even after purchase. Personally I have never had buyers remorse over a vacation, but I have bought plenty of items that I regretted sooner rather than later.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. |
Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I agree with the other commenter that it depends on the vacation.
My wife and I went on a mediterranean cruise two years ago and munich last year. Both were amazing experiences- We got to see other countries, cultures, and lifestyle. Granted seeing museums and such is a turn off for me after a while and can get boring I will say that.
But nothing replaces being at amalfi coast by a garden that oversees the coast and looking at a beautiful blue lagoon and then going down to the coast and walking about the tourists and various shops and expierencing that life. Same with germany. I didnt care for neuschwanstein (sp) but I loved everything else- from navigating their trains to walking about munich and then to salzburg austria. Totally amazing experiences
The best thing for us is that we still think and talk about it after wards-
I cant compare to 'hard assets' because I dont own really anything of expense as a resident
Its not a millennial think or the latest fad or anything else.
Rick steves has been doing it for decades not speaking to his happiness or whatever but the concept of experiencing interesting and new things for a week at a time is nothing new. Its just that most people find it too much effort and would rather do the vacation package off Disney or a cheapo cruise that offers nothing but the ship experience.
My wife and I went on a mediterranean cruise two years ago and munich last year. Both were amazing experiences- We got to see other countries, cultures, and lifestyle. Granted seeing museums and such is a turn off for me after a while and can get boring I will say that.
But nothing replaces being at amalfi coast by a garden that oversees the coast and looking at a beautiful blue lagoon and then going down to the coast and walking about the tourists and various shops and expierencing that life. Same with germany. I didnt care for neuschwanstein (sp) but I loved everything else- from navigating their trains to walking about munich and then to salzburg austria. Totally amazing experiences
The best thing for us is that we still think and talk about it after wards-
I cant compare to 'hard assets' because I dont own really anything of expense as a resident
Its not a millennial think or the latest fad or anything else.
Rick steves has been doing it for decades not speaking to his happiness or whatever but the concept of experiencing interesting and new things for a week at a time is nothing new. Its just that most people find it too much effort and would rather do the vacation package off Disney or a cheapo cruise that offers nothing but the ship experience.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I think the OP is correct that there has been an upsurge in the last 5 years or so of media which lauds experiences over things. A search of the nexis data base that I have access to confirms this. As the OP said much of this is based on travel " experiences". There is a failure in these articles to recognize that there is likely a decided minority of people who dislike travel and for whom other " experiences " don't give them much long lasting pleasure. I am more of a "things " person. My Parents were all about experiences, we traveled a lot and they couldn't understand why I disliked it so much. Some of it may be related to being a homebody. When I'm away I have a constant low level thought about how much I can't wait to get back home. I'm never happier on vacation even on ones I do enjoy than the moment I walk back into my house. Many people can't fathom this. Truly. They look at me like I'm insane when I tell them this.
-
- Posts: 955
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:48 pm
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I also have a rather low opinion of this prescription for happiness.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am The trendy thing these days is to talk about spending money on "experiences", basically a new-age description of a vacation, and how it's better than spending money on "things", basically a new-age description of hard assets. The news is full of pop-science articles touting the benefits of this, most of which I think are junk science.
I bring this up as a thought exercise for bogleheads. If you look objectively at spending on vacations, it's the worst money you will ever spend. It depreciates immediately. You have literally nothing left to show for it within a couple weeks. Objectively it's a much poorer purchase than even the most frivolous luxury sports car, which will never be worth zero.
I'm not discounting the psychological and emotional benefits of taking time off work, going on vacations, spending time with family. These have real merit. I'm just rejecting the pop-science notion that spending $10k going to Thailand for 3 weeks is somehow psychologically more beneficial than buying a more expensive car or installing a home theater. For me, either of those would provide more lasting enjoyment than a vacation. Not only do I enjoy them much longer, but they have a tangible value when I'm done with them.
Mind you, my wife has accused me of being the worst vacationer in the world as I get bored after about 3 days.
The sports car I purchased at 31 gave me much more pleasure and better memories than the six-week European vacation I took at 34. Ditto for the expensive clothes I purchased at that stage of life.
On the other hand, I took a year between college and grad school at 22 and those experiences were among the most enjoyable and valuable of my life, but they didn't cost a dime. None of my most valued experiences cost any money.
At this stage of life I don't value sports cars or expensive clothes, but I do enjoy a nice house, and I'd rather spend money there than on international travel and high-end restaurants. To each his own.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
The subsequent research I've seen suggests that it's not that simple a division--that it depends to some extent how you experience your hard assets. For me, some hard assets can provide pleasurable experiences over a long amount of time, and even acquiring those assets can bring pleasure.
I don't enjoy brick and mortar shopping, but I get considerable pleasure from window-shopping purchases. I probably keep up with over a dozen art galleries on a regular basis and a handful of ceramicists, and I do buy maybe one thing a year in each category. The art brings me joy when it arrives and it then has to wait around out of sight until I take it to be framed; it recedes from consciousness and becomes a new joy when it's framed. Then it takes me a while to find a place to put it up, and that's really pleasurable for me, especially if I find a really good spot. Probably the pleasure tapers a little after a while and then I rotate it out and put something else in, with the possibility of rediscovering it in the future. Ceramics get tied to seasonality--the great chili bowls come out when the weather cools and I'm pleased with them again, the tiny fruit bowls emerge when berries start up in early summer.
But it doesn't have to be just art and artisan type stuff. I splurged twenty years ago and got cotton velvet upholstery on two items of furniture, and every time I sit on them I'm delighted with it. I wake up on weekends happy with my nice bedsheets.
There are plenty of tangible assets whose pleasures fade very quickly for me, and I enjoy plenty of intangible assets as well. But I would agree with the research suggesting that "things vs. experiences" is a false dichotomy.
I don't enjoy brick and mortar shopping, but I get considerable pleasure from window-shopping purchases. I probably keep up with over a dozen art galleries on a regular basis and a handful of ceramicists, and I do buy maybe one thing a year in each category. The art brings me joy when it arrives and it then has to wait around out of sight until I take it to be framed; it recedes from consciousness and becomes a new joy when it's framed. Then it takes me a while to find a place to put it up, and that's really pleasurable for me, especially if I find a really good spot. Probably the pleasure tapers a little after a while and then I rotate it out and put something else in, with the possibility of rediscovering it in the future. Ceramics get tied to seasonality--the great chili bowls come out when the weather cools and I'm pleased with them again, the tiny fruit bowls emerge when berries start up in early summer.
But it doesn't have to be just art and artisan type stuff. I splurged twenty years ago and got cotton velvet upholstery on two items of furniture, and every time I sit on them I'm delighted with it. I wake up on weekends happy with my nice bedsheets.
There are plenty of tangible assets whose pleasures fade very quickly for me, and I enjoy plenty of intangible assets as well. But I would agree with the research suggesting that "things vs. experiences" is a false dichotomy.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
You have a very patient wife. Maybe she can chime in on this thread, and we can vote for the more persuasive side.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am
Mind you, my wife has accused me of being the worst vacationer in the world as I get bored after about 3 days.
Personally, I would find it hard to spend the proverbial $10,000 in Thailand, and lying on a beach would kill me after 10 minutes. But there are plenty of travel experiences that can provide lifelong memories and influence your world view, e.g. I just got back from the Baltic states and Belarus (among many other countries) and have a new appreciation of their suffering for pretty much all of the 20th century. Didn't come close to a 10-grand experience.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
A nice car and a home theater are both experiences, assuming you use them. But situations vary. For me a more expensive car would mean higher taxes, higher insurance payments, more worry about minor or major accidents, and I have nowhere to drive it that isn't choked with traffic so the experience would be frustrating at best. I get more enjoyment out of my skateboard. And I live in an area with many excellent live productions, so I would rather go out than stay at home.
A good test for experience vs thing is what you would do with something you buy. Will it sit on a shelf, occupying space and needing to be dusted? What will you do when you get tired of it?
P.S. I've spent a lot of money, at least by my standards, on my Sonos equipment, but I enjoy the experience of listening to it and discovering new music on a streaming subscription and internet radio.
P.P.S. Is an ebook a thing or an experience?
A good test for experience vs thing is what you would do with something you buy. Will it sit on a shelf, occupying space and needing to be dusted? What will you do when you get tired of it?
P.S. I've spent a lot of money, at least by my standards, on my Sonos equipment, but I enjoy the experience of listening to it and discovering new music on a streaming subscription and internet radio.
P.P.S. Is an ebook a thing or an experience?
Last edited by telemark on Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I tend to find conversations that include discussions of the art seen in Italy, the food in Paris, the landscape in Yosemite, etc. much more interesting than conversations about the joy of a new phone, car, etc.
Vacations, museums, hikes are often new experiences. After owning something for a while, it becomes familiar and less interesting to me.
Buying and reading a book an experience or a hard asset? Is a shorter commute an experience or a hard asset?
If you dislike vacations, it's no surprise that you prefer hard assets. Just don't assume your attitudes are universal or even common.
Vacations, museums, hikes are often new experiences. After owning something for a while, it becomes familiar and less interesting to me.
Buying and reading a book an experience or a hard asset? Is a shorter commute an experience or a hard asset?
If you dislike vacations, it's no surprise that you prefer hard assets. Just don't assume your attitudes are universal or even common.
- eye.surgeon
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:19 pm
- Location: California
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I guess my wife is right, there is something wrong with me
"I would rather be certain of a good return than hopeful of a great one" |
Warren Buffett
- Sandtrap
- Posts: 19591
- Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:32 pm
- Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi - white sandy beaches, N. Arizona 1 mile high.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
DW and I are "old school". We spend money on things that "last" and from that, experiences can be had. But, that is just us. $30,000 for a 2 week vacation cruise ship on the Mediterranean has never had appeal to us vs spending the same amount over time on things with lasting tangible return. Perhaps because we are both frugal, or business minded, or practical. IE: $5,000 to help a child, $10,000 to finish a landscaping project, $2000 to refinish the barn, and the rest not spent at all, or occasional trips back home to Hawaii.
There are experiences that don't cost a dime. Driving slowly through the snow covered National Forest. Spending a morning on the lakeside shorelines with a new camera lens. Like that.
Perhaps this is generational. "Old school" vs "consumer culture". "Experiences have a higher profit margin than hard assets".
As "dwickenh" observedly pointed out earlier. It's the experiences in general, paid or . . . especially. . . free.
Or, as "nisiprius" put it, "whatever brings a smile to someone else, or yourself.
There are experiences that don't cost a dime. Driving slowly through the snow covered National Forest. Spending a morning on the lakeside shorelines with a new camera lens. Like that.
Perhaps this is generational. "Old school" vs "consumer culture". "Experiences have a higher profit margin than hard assets".
As "dwickenh" observedly pointed out earlier. It's the experiences in general, paid or . . . especially. . . free.
Or, as "nisiprius" put it, "whatever brings a smile to someone else, or yourself.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
There is an element of pop psychology and intellectual snobbery in the "experiences are more valuable" trend. As in, my vacation to Italy is "better" than your projection TV (on which you probably watch the Kardashians).
But to the extent that the trend causes people to think about their choices and decide what really does bring them happiness, it is not a bad thing. As another poster said, the things I remember fondly with my kids and my parents are not things bought, but experiences with them.
Although, we have a large high def TV and watch a fair amount of sports so a lot of bang-for-the-material-buck there. The TV cost a lot less than our last vacation, but provides daily enjoyment.
Be aware, as you spend, that you are not stuck on the hedonic treadmill; does your spending -- on things or experiences -- bring you happiness?
"The hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes. According to this theory, as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness."
But to the extent that the trend causes people to think about their choices and decide what really does bring them happiness, it is not a bad thing. As another poster said, the things I remember fondly with my kids and my parents are not things bought, but experiences with them.
Although, we have a large high def TV and watch a fair amount of sports so a lot of bang-for-the-material-buck there. The TV cost a lot less than our last vacation, but provides daily enjoyment.
Be aware, as you spend, that you are not stuck on the hedonic treadmill; does your spending -- on things or experiences -- bring you happiness?
"The hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes. According to this theory, as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness."
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
-
- Posts: 2728
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 10:34 pm
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I think the emphasis on experiences also can be attributed to the recent anti-materialism and anti-consumerist sentiments that have been floating around since the recession. Apparently people have to be encouraged to spend because we have a consumerist culture, so if they are sick of buying objects (anti-clutter trend) they can spend on experiences. They theme here is spending. The good news is one can also have nice experiences without spending any money.
- Christine_NM
- Posts: 2796
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:13 am
- Location: New Mexico
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I read somewhere that TV and home theater are the neurological equivalent of sitting and staring at a blank wall. Most of your brain doesn't participate.
Experiences like vacations or just walks engage all your brain. Not to mention they are only time your kids will remember you outside of the home.
Experiences like vacations or just walks engage all your brain. Not to mention they are only time your kids will remember you outside of the home.
16% cash 49% stock 35% bond. Retired, w/d rate 2.5%
-
- Posts: 955
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:48 pm
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Nothing wrong with you, just your vacations.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:08 pm I guess my wife is right, there is something wrong with me
Lying on the beach in Waikiki is a lousy experience (for me anyway), but learning to surf on the 2-6 foot Waikiki sets that roll in like they were created in a wave machine is a great experience.
Walking through the Louvre bored me to tears (not an art history major), but lifting weights in a basement, hole-in-the-wall gym with the locals in Nice and chatting with the British guy and French girl behind the desk was fun.
Spending a week on a cruise ship stopping for part of a day at each of 5 or 6 Caribbean islands was painful, but diving with a moray eel and a barracuda at Eden Rock in Grand Cayman was great.
Your preferences may vary, and will certainly change as you age, but there is probably something that you'd like to do on vacation. My wife likes to "see the sights" (like the Louvre), but that doesn't appeal to me at all.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
i think that OP's conclusion is scientifically incorrect. i am sure that I have read about psychological findings that purchases of things, TVs, computers, jet skis, designer clothes, etc. provide a quick burst of happiness that fades rather quickly. it also leaves you subject to the treadmill effect, meaning that people have to continue purchasing items to feel the happiness after it has faded each time.
if anything, vacations, additional time spent with friends and family in new and interesting places, allow you to feel more nostalgic over time. more stories to tell, etc.
nostalgia is a powerful thing. hell, i even find myself feeling nostalgic about law school, and that was the worst three years of my life!
i rarely if ever feel nostalgic about my, i don't know, macbook i had junior year of college.
if anything, vacations, additional time spent with friends and family in new and interesting places, allow you to feel more nostalgic over time. more stories to tell, etc.
nostalgia is a powerful thing. hell, i even find myself feeling nostalgic about law school, and that was the worst three years of my life!
i rarely if ever feel nostalgic about my, i don't know, macbook i had junior year of college.
Last edited by bgf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“TE OCCIDERE POSSUNT SED TE EDERE NON POSSUNT NEFAS EST"
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I dont think there is anything wrong with you. In my opinion, the only mistake you are making is in envisioning that other people are not in touch with what they truly value and are being misled into consuming experiences instead of consuming goods.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:08 pm I guess my wife is right, there is something wrong with me
In the end, everything is an experience. Even a useless little gold bar or large diamond can "feel" good to own and hold in your hand. Watching a movie with a great home theater system can be quite an "experience".. The luxury car "feels" great to drive and so on. Different people just value different types of experiences. Whether that is through travel, restaurants, concerts and camping.. or through cars, music, movies or owning luxury swiss watches.. people do what makes them feel good. As long as a person can afford it, and it isn't harming them or someone else, there is mostly no "wrong" way of enjoying one's wealth.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
My take is that "experiences, not things" is just good old-fashioned conspicuous consumption adapted to the age of social media.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am The trendy thing these days is to talk about spending money on "experiences", basically a new-age description of a vacation, and how it's better than spending money on "things", basically a new-age description of hard assets. The news is full of pop-science articles touting the benefits of this, most of which I think are junk science.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
sounds like you don't like traveling ... me? i'm 32 - have surfed in hawaii, gone scuba diving in the mediterranean, sipped wine under the Eiffel tower, etc. etc. etc. I don't even know how much money I've "wasted" with "nothing to show for it" [aside from mind blowing life altering experiences, but who needs those?], but I've also lived a fuller life than people twice my age and I actually have interesting stories to tell. viewing a vacation as a depreciating asset is 1 of the most miserable sounding statements i've ever read.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am The trendy thing these days is to talk about spending money on "experiences", basically a new-age description of a vacation, and how it's better than spending money on "things", basically a new-age description of hard assets. The news is full of pop-science articles touting the benefits of this, most of which I think are junk science.
I bring this up as a thought exercise for bogleheads. If you look objectively at spending on vacations, it's the worst money you will ever spend. It depreciates immediately. You have literally nothing left to show for it within a couple weeks. Objectively it's a much poorer purchase than even the most frivolous luxury sports car, which will never be worth zero.
I'm not discounting the psychological and emotional benefits of taking time off work, going on vacations, spending time with family. These have real merit. I'm just rejecting the pop-science notion that spending $10k going to Thailand for 3 weeks is somehow psychologically more beneficial than buying a more expensive car or installing a home theater. For me, either of those would provide more lasting enjoyment than a vacation. Not only do I enjoy them much longer, but they have a tangible value when I'm done with them.
Mind you, my wife has accused me of being the worst vacationer in the world as I get bored after about 3 days.
there's a balance that needs to be struck with saving / actually living life. * doesn't have to be via traveling.
my GF and I never buy each other "gifts", instead we do "experiences" like swimming in a heated infinity pool overlooking the NYC skyline following a deep tissue massage. at the end of the day, we had "nothing to show for it" - other than an incredible time relaxing and enjoying life. there's a lot more to life than residual values and ROI.
Last edited by RRAAYY3 on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
the Op makes somes good points
Experiences vs. Things is irrelevant
When i drove an italian or german exotic sports car, it was an "experience", not just a "thing"
I am GLAD I spent thousands of dollars on trips to europe, vegas, and other places with friends in my 20s INSTEAD of investing in index funds. This includes the awesome convertible i had, and the trips to the beach. Why? because those "experiences" and "things" are totally different in my 20s then they are in one's 50s, etc. I could n't care less about the money those thousands would have become if it was invested. I chuckle sometimes when i see that people want to retire to "travel", and I am sure that would be fun, but something tells me it would be very different than eurrailing through europe in one's 20s. I
As long as someone is happy with their purchases, who cares if it is on experiences and things. And if buying things or experiences doesnt make one happy, and one would rather have the money invested - more power to you to. I see the benefit of both approaches.
Experiences vs. Things is irrelevant
When i drove an italian or german exotic sports car, it was an "experience", not just a "thing"
I am GLAD I spent thousands of dollars on trips to europe, vegas, and other places with friends in my 20s INSTEAD of investing in index funds. This includes the awesome convertible i had, and the trips to the beach. Why? because those "experiences" and "things" are totally different in my 20s then they are in one's 50s, etc. I could n't care less about the money those thousands would have become if it was invested. I chuckle sometimes when i see that people want to retire to "travel", and I am sure that would be fun, but something tells me it would be very different than eurrailing through europe in one's 20s. I
As long as someone is happy with their purchases, who cares if it is on experiences and things. And if buying things or experiences doesnt make one happy, and one would rather have the money invested - more power to you to. I see the benefit of both approaches.
- Sandtrap
- Posts: 19591
- Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:32 pm
- Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi - white sandy beaches, N. Arizona 1 mile high.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Exactly. This is also heard from those who profess to hire "their financial advisor" because the "business of handling their "portfolio" is too time consuming and stressful. And, they can afford the AUM fees rather than be bothered with the hassle of handling "money". (because they have so much of it).delamer wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:23 pm There is an element of pop psychology and intellectual snobbery in the "experiences are more valuable" trend. As in, my vacation to Italy is "better" than your projection TV (on which you probably watch the Kardashians).
But to the extent that the trend causes people to think about their choices and decide what really does bring them happiness, it is not a bad thing. As another poster said, the things I remember fondly with my kids and my parents are not things bought, but experiences with them.
Although, we have a large high def TV and watch a fair amount of sports so a lot of bang-for-the-material-buck there. The TV cost a lot less than our last vacation, but provides daily enjoyment.
Be aware, as you spend, that you are not stuck on the hedonic treadmill; does your spending -- on things or experiences -- bring you happiness?
"The hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes. According to this theory, as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness."
How often have we heard in the modern consumer culture (not Bogleheadville):
"Just pay for it. . it's only money. . ."
"Just hire someone to do it. . . it's not worth the stress. . . "
"You only live once. . . pay for it. . . . "
Yet, often, they are the one's with marginal portfolios. . . .
Last edited by Sandtrap on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
couldn't agree more ... sure, 1 summer i spent over 20K traveling and in theory would be "better off" with that in an index fund over 5+ years, but oh well silly me decided to actually enjoy his life. i saw my grandfather die alone, miserable, with a huge bank account because he constantly worried about every penny and always saving for what amounted to nothing. it's actually quite sad to think about - and this save,save,save frugal mentality on here sometimes gets out of control.sambb wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:15 pm the Op makes somes good points
Experiences vs. Things is irrelevant
When i drove an italian or german exotic sports car, it was an "experience", not just a "thing"
I am GLAD I spent thousands of dollars on trips to europe, vegas, and other places with friends in my 20s INSTEAD of investing in index funds. This includes the awesome convertible i had, and the trips to the beach. Why? because those "experiences" and "things" are totally different in my 20s then they are in one's 50s, etc. I could n't care less about the money those thousands would have become if it was invested. I chuckle sometimes when i see that people want to retire to "travel", and I am sure that would be fun, but something tells me it would be very different than eurrailing through europe in one's 20s. I
As long as someone is happy with their purchases, who cares if it is on experiences and things. And if buying things or experiences doesnt make one happy, and one would rather have the money invested - more power to you to. I see the benefit of both approaches.
at some point enough is enough and you need to actually step back and enjoy life. it's short.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
RRAAYY3 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:20 pmcouldn't agree more ... sure, 1 summer i spent over 20K traveling and in theory would be "better off" with that in an index fund over 5+ years, but oh well silly me decided to actually enjoy his life. i saw my grandfather die alone, miserable, with a huge bank account because he constantly worried about every penny and always saving for what amounted to nothing. it's actually quite sad to think about - and this save,save,save frugal mentality on here sometimes gets out of control.sambb wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:15 pm the Op makes somes good points
Experiences vs. Things is irrelevant
When i drove an italian or german exotic sports car, it was an "experience", not just a "thing"
I am GLAD I spent thousands of dollars on trips to europe, vegas, and other places with friends in my 20s INSTEAD of investing in index funds. This includes the awesome convertible i had, and the trips to the beach. Why? because those "experiences" and "things" are totally different in my 20s then they are in one's 50s, etc. I could n't care less about the money those thousands would have become if it was invested. I chuckle sometimes when i see that people want to retire to "travel", and I am sure that would be fun, but something tells me it would be very different than eurrailing through europe in one's 20s. I
As long as someone is happy with their purchases, who cares if it is on experiences and things. And if buying things or experiences doesnt make one happy, and one would rather have the money invested - more power to you to. I see the benefit of both approaches.
at some point enough is enough and you need to actually step back and enjoy life. it's short.
Agree, travel especially - younger is great time to travel and see the world. Builds character too.
-
- Posts: 12073
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:10 am
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Do what you want.eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am The trendy thing these days is to talk about spending money on "experiences", basically a new-age description of a vacation, and how it's better than spending money on "things", basically a new-age description of hard assets. The news is full of pop-science articles touting the benefits of this, most of which I think are junk science.
I bring this up as a thought exercise for bogleheads. If you look objectively at spending on vacations, it's the worst money you will ever spend. It depreciates immediately. You have literally nothing left to show for it within a couple weeks. Objectively it's a much poorer purchase than even the most frivolous luxury sports car, which will never be worth zero.
I'm not discounting the psychological and emotional benefits of taking time off work, going on vacations, spending time with family. These have real merit. I'm just rejecting the pop-science notion that spending $10k going to Thailand for 3 weeks is somehow psychologically more beneficial than buying a more expensive car or installing a home theater. For me, either of those would provide more lasting enjoyment than a vacation. Not only do I enjoy them much longer, but they have a tangible value when I'm done with them.
Mind you, my wife has accused me of being the worst vacationer in the world as I get bored after about 3 days.
- Sandtrap
- Posts: 19591
- Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:32 pm
- Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi - white sandy beaches, N. Arizona 1 mile high.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
There are some in "Bogleheadville" approaching 3x your age. . . might want to compare stories.. . .RRAAYY3 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:13 pm sounds like you don't like traveling ... me? i'm 32 - have surfed in hawaii, gone scuba diving in the mediterranean, sipped wine under the Eiffel tower, etc. etc. etc. I don't even know how much money I've "wasted" with "nothing to show for it" [aside from mind blowing life altering experiences, but who needs those?], but I've also lived a fuller life than people twice my ageand I actually have interesting stories to tell. viewing a vacation as a depreciating asset is 1 of the most miserable sounding statements i've ever read.
there's a balance that needs to be struck with saving / actually living life. * doesn't have to be via traveling.
my GF and I never buy each other "gifts", instead we do "experiences" like swimming in a heated infinity pool overlooking the NYC skyline following a deep tissue massage. at the end of the day, we had "nothing to show for it" - other than an incredible time relaxing and enjoying life. there's a lot more to life than residual values and ROI.
kidding. .
-
- Posts: 6993
- Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:40 am
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I'm sure you will take this offensively, but the issue (if any) is that you seem very egocentric and care most about how things impact YOU. That is why you see more value in tangible stuff (which all happens to be stuff that makes YOU happy and not your FAMILY) vs. experiences (which YOU don't put importance, but your family might).
Nothing wrong with being egocentric. But if one is egocentric then no experience with others will rival the experience of playing with something material you have always wanted. For example, what If I said you can watch a movie that you have ALWAYS wanted for $10 or I can buy you a free sandwich from a store that is your wife's favorite restaurant growing up. My guess, is you would choose the ticket because you would derive more pleasure from that then experiencing your wife happy eating her sandwich. Being happy is about finding HOW things/ experiences make you happy and NOT the actual purchase (nontangible vs/ tangible).
Personally, I find MUCH more happiness seeing my wife and kids happy then I would anything material. Forget home theater I don't even remember the last time I purchased a t.v. or electronics.
Good luck.
Nothing wrong with being egocentric. But if one is egocentric then no experience with others will rival the experience of playing with something material you have always wanted. For example, what If I said you can watch a movie that you have ALWAYS wanted for $10 or I can buy you a free sandwich from a store that is your wife's favorite restaurant growing up. My guess, is you would choose the ticket because you would derive more pleasure from that then experiencing your wife happy eating her sandwich. Being happy is about finding HOW things/ experiences make you happy and NOT the actual purchase (nontangible vs/ tangible).
Personally, I find MUCH more happiness seeing my wife and kids happy then I would anything material. Forget home theater I don't even remember the last time I purchased a t.v. or electronics.
Good luck.
"The stock market [fluctuation], therefore, is noise. A giant distraction from the business of investing.” |
-Jack Bogle
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Well, the house poor person has a place to live... and, would need one anyway, right. The house may depreciate some, but will likely appreciate over 30 years. And, the thread was about "things" not housing choices.... apples and oranges.KlangFool wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:08 ameye.surgeon,eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am
I bring this up as a thought exercise for bogleheads. If you look objectively at spending on vacations, it's the worst money you will ever spend. It depreciates immediately. You have literally nothing left to show for it within a couple weeks.
And, why is this a bad thing? Versus the "House Poor" people that will be paying for their mistake for 30 years.
KlangFool
But, to the point of what folks spend money on... it's not all that different. Some may choose to be house poor because their home is their castle, that's what is most important to them, and they will forgo things, vacations, and fun cars to have their dream home.
To each their own, is what it all boils down to.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I think that's not correct. I think you are engaging in the old people are over the hill and somehow drastically different than young people. Our bodies yes, and hopefully we have learned some things from experience, but that's about it.
-
- Posts: 955
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:48 pm
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
"Just hire someone to do it. . . it's not worth the stress. . . "Sandtrap wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:20 pmExactly. This is also heard from those who profess to hire "their financial advisor" because the "business of handling their "portfolio" is too time consuming and stressful. And, they can afford the AUM fees rather than be bothered with the hassle of handling "money". (because they have so much of it).delamer wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:23 pm There is an element of pop psychology and intellectual snobbery in the "experiences are more valuable" trend. As in, my vacation to Italy is "better" than your projection TV (on which you probably watch the Kardashians).
But to the extent that the trend causes people to think about their choices and decide what really does bring them happiness, it is not a bad thing. As another poster said, the things I remember fondly with my kids and my parents are not things bought, but experiences with them.
Although, we have a large high def TV and watch a fair amount of sports so a lot of bang-for-the-material-buck there. The TV cost a lot less than our last vacation, but provides daily enjoyment.
Be aware, as you spend, that you are not stuck on the hedonic treadmill; does your spending -- on things or experiences -- bring you happiness?
"The hedonic treadmill, also known as hedonic adaptation, is the observed tendency of humans to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes. According to this theory, as a person makes more money, expectations and desires rise in tandem, which results in no permanent gain in happiness."
How often have we heard in the modern consumer culture (not Bogleheadville):
"Just pay for it. . it's only money. . ."
"Just hire someone to do it. . . it's not worth the stress. . . "
"You only live once. . . pay for it. . . . "
Yet, often, they are the one's with marginal portfolios. . . .
I usually agree with you, Sandtrap, but when it comes to changing my oil, my tires, or my water heater, or even mowing my lawn, I'll hire someone every time. These chores are like a long commute; they decrease (my) quality of life. My job drains me and I don't have the bandwidth to handle this sort of work when I come home.
(Nevertheless, I think my portfolio is better than marginal. )
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I think you just explained how it would be different.... in bed by 8 pm and not out late enough to cause trouble or get in trouble because you're too experienced to would make for quite a different experience.
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Sounds as if this is mostly about wrong vacations - for you. Rather than rejecting experiences as pop-science, you could either find a vacation that is an experience, or skip vacations altogether, or drive to a vacation spot in a "more expensive car," or install a home theater. As a previous poster here said, "To each his own."eye.surgeon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:50 am I'm just rejecting the pop-science notion that spending $10k going to Thailand for 3 weeks is somehow psychologically more beneficial than buying a more expensive car or installing a home theater. For me, either of those would provide more lasting enjoyment than a vacation. Not only do I enjoy them much longer, but they have a tangible value when I'm done with them.
...
"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
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I dont understand why one has to spend 30k for two weeks or even have to do it for two weeks.Sandtrap wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:12 pm DW and I are "old school". We spend money on things that "last" and from that, experiences can be had. But, that is just us. $30,000 for a 2 week vacation cruise ship on the Mediterranean has never had appeal to us vs spending the same amount over time on things with lasting tangible return. Perhaps because we are both frugal, or business minded, or practical. IE: $5,000 to help a child, $10,000 to finish a landscaping project, $2000 to refinish the barn, and the rest not spent at all, or occasional trips back home to Hawaii.
There are experiences that don't cost a dime. Driving slowly through the snow covered National Forest. Spending a morning on the lakeside shorelines with a new camera lens. Like that.
Perhaps this is generational. "Old school" vs "consumer culture". "Experiences have a higher profit margin than hard assets".
As "dwickenh" observedly pointed out earlier. It's the experiences in general, paid or . . . especially. . . free.
Or, as "nisiprius" put it, "whatever brings a smile to someone else, or yourself.
We spent a total of 900 on the cruise for the two of us, 300 or so for excursions, eating outside of the ship, and about 1200 for the flights total.
The total bill for us was 2400 +/- 100 dollars
If anything I would say that old school is old school- but thats just me.
-
- Posts: 955
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:48 pm
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
"I think that's not correct. I think you are engaging in the old people are over the hill and somehow drastically different than young people. Our bodies yes, and hopefully we have learned some things from experience, but that's about it."chevca wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:34 pmI think you just explained how it would be different.... in bed by 8 pm and not out late enough to cause trouble or get in trouble because you're too experienced to would make for quite a different experience.
Well, I'm late 50s and I'm drastically different than I was in my 20s. There are many things I did then that I couldn't do now. There are other things I can still do, just not nearly as well. Also, my interests are very different; there are things I did then that I wouldn't want to do now (though did enjoy at one time).
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
I am more of a homebody than a traveler. When on vacation I usually count the days till I can go home. It is not that I don't enjoy the experience but hat I love home and take comfort in it.
However, I am very happy to have the experience of local museums, plays, art fairs. Day trips to local parks are also enjoyed.
However, I am very happy to have the experience of local museums, plays, art fairs. Day trips to local parks are also enjoyed.
-
- Posts: 807
- Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:38 am
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
Everyone should absolutely do what makes them happy. As I get older I find myself being much less materialistic (I just sold my house moved back into my small condo, I care less about cars, etc) but my spending on what some would consider frivolous has skyrocketed. I actually save much less for retirement than I used to despite lower fixed expenses and a higher salary.
I never miss a trip with friends anymore and if I feel like going to the keys and diving I just go. I’m very happy with this. If at some point I get more enjoyment out of a nice car or some other tangible object I’ll shift my actions to align with my philosophies.
As far as I know we only get one go at this life - might as well enjoy it.
I never miss a trip with friends anymore and if I feel like going to the keys and diving I just go. I’m very happy with this. If at some point I get more enjoyment out of a nice car or some other tangible object I’ll shift my actions to align with my philosophies.
As far as I know we only get one go at this life - might as well enjoy it.
- TomatoTomahto
- Posts: 17158
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm
Re: The fallacy of spending money on "experiences" vs hard assets
We have two kinds of vacations, depending on what we need. We have often gone on what I call “brain dead” vacations, where the goal was to sleep well, eat well, spend time with the kids, and just recharge the batteries that had become drained. Those worked well in the Caribbean for us. Sometimes some snorkeling, wind surfing, etc. got snuck in.
The other kind, what you might call “experiences,” were a small boat in the Galapagos, a (photo) safari in South Africa, fishing on the Kenai River (trust me, I’m not a fisherman), etc. Those “experiences,” and the conversations during them, are long lasting.
I love my Tesla. I quite like our LG OLED TV. I’m pretty sure I will like my iPhone X. I’m sure I will somewhat miss our house when we sell it. Tbh, I don’t remember what expensive car I had when we went to the Galapagos, but I remember the trip very well.
The other kind, what you might call “experiences,” were a small boat in the Galapagos, a (photo) safari in South Africa, fishing on the Kenai River (trust me, I’m not a fisherman), etc. Those “experiences,” and the conversations during them, are long lasting.
I love my Tesla. I quite like our LG OLED TV. I’m pretty sure I will like my iPhone X. I’m sure I will somewhat miss our house when we sell it. Tbh, I don’t remember what expensive car I had when we went to the Galapagos, but I remember the trip very well.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.