Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk.
Thats about the best way of putting it I've come across. It can be perceived risk as well. One thing I noticed when clearing out my depression-era grandparents house is that they basically saved everything they had a hard time getting at any point. My grandfather had a garage full of glass jars because there was a time in his life when he literally could not afford/find a simple glass jar when he needed one. The more I think about that, the more it freaks me out. I have a hard disk full of MP3 files...
The article makes a reasonable point, that hoarding can be motivated by rational frugality. I think it is a little unfair in its criticism of the original article, whose target audience is really people with many options (i.e. they have money).
I would say I have personally seen people who have an irrational tendency to hoard as a means to reduce risk. I have a neighbor with a house packed to the gills with accumulations over the decades. If she would clear it out, she could be renting a room for $800-$1000 a month. She could really use the money, too. Instead, she is being held hostage by ~$2000 of junk in disorganized piles, that would take 50 weekends of yard sales to make a dent.
IMO The actual way to word it (to be correct with the author's intent would be to say something like this:
Poor people hoard items because they cannot afford the risk of buying a replacement. Living simply is a virtue given to the wealthy; when necessary they have the income, knowledge, or time available to meet a given task. The poor have only their physical inventory and cannot rely on other sources.
I think this really resonates. I talked with a homeless guy who was pulling two shopping carts full of 'stuff' and asked him what was up with that. He had stuff that he could barter with other people for things he needed, he had stuff for dealing with different kinds of weather, he had stuff to disguise the stuff he really didn't want to get stolen, and stuff that he might need for a variety of contingencies.
I was really humbled by it because I had been ready to "explain" why carrying all that stuff wasn't helping his cause of living simply. He completely changed my perspective on it. I asked what was the one thing he needed and he said a pocket knife with a can opener. I got him two at a Big Five (which was where he was hanging out), one to use and one to trade for something down the road. More 'stuff', but with a purpose sadly.
That sentence is bursting at the seams. There are too many words between "Poor people have clutter" and "they have it to reduce risk", so the reader loses track of the context.
Maybe a really good writer could make that sentence work. But the rest of us can do just as well by breaking it down into smaller chunks:
> Poor people aren't dumb. They understand the virtue of living simply. But they also know the regret of discarding something, only to find they could have used it. They know the fear of repeating that costly mistake.
(In a later edit you can discard the chunks you don't need, condense the rest and, with any luck, you'll have a much pithier sentence.)
Your suggestion has a nice staccato rhythm, somewhat building pith as it goes. I like the way it flows.
I'd write something like:
> As with carrying, so with owning in general. Poor people aren't too dumb to see the virtue of living with less; they own more to reduce risk.
Keep it focused on ownership (not clutter), with a slight nod back to the original article to which the author is responding.
From my vantage point, 'have clutter' unnecessarily problematizes communicating the core idea--poor people aren't too dumb to appreciate the value of living with fewer possessions. I suggest eschewing 'clutter' altogether, because it implies messiness in addition to more things, increasing the negative tone. This is the only place 'clutter' shows up in the text--a conspicuous word choice in the midst of an article discussing quantity of possessions as a signal of one's wealth (as opposed to the organization and tidiness of one's possessions). A poor person with cleaning compulsions might own more to mitigate risks, but have it neatly tucked away and unobservable, thus making the messy, rich person with fewer possessions look like the one with clutter.
Note: Getting sidetracked by comments on sentence structure may be the signal that I've successfully procrastinated other work long enough.
I wonder how much longer this will hold true. Irrespective of my financial situation, for quite some time now I've found a rapidly decreasing need to consume stuff. It feels like the internet is all I need now... I moved almost a year ago and have yet to unpack. I actually don't even remember what I own anymore.
I think he's actually saying: "Poor people actually do indeed have a lot of clutter. Not because they don't see how they could live simply and how that would improve their outlook -- but because they have to have the clutter (the junk they've accumulated) because they might need that junk in the future, and the risk of throwing anything away is too great."
Actually, the above rephrasing is wrong and completely changes the meaning. The original author wasn't saying poor people have less clutter he was saying they have more, but for a reason. Maybe this wording is clearer:
The reason poor people have clutter isn't because they're too dumb to see the virtue of living simply, they have it to reduce risk.
The entire premise of this blog entry is: "Go out on the street and look, and I bet you’ll see that the richer people are carrying less." Well some guys did that very thing and published is in a book http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/d... where they found that to be not true at all. Millionaire's don't buy the shiny new toy when the one from three years ago. Rather then wasting a grand on a new macbook air they would spend $30 for a new battery. They buy used cars too.
the millionaires "next door" that i know do both. suburban california families worth a couple million bucks or more (white and asian tech and biotech industry families), i have seen:
* buy shiny new luxury cars... but drive them for a very long time. they also buy used cars because they have lots of cars (3-4+ per household)
* buy brand new apple products constantly... but also use 10 year old PCs and other old tech
* eat out and buy overpriced organic groceries whole foods ... but also buy bulk stuff at the not-rich-people supermarket because they cook too
* go on expensive vacations.... every 3 years
this stuff is not black and white, and it's really ridiculous to hear stuff like "millionaires don't buy the shiny new toy" .. yes they do.
It's not ridiculous because it was the result of the study done by the authors of the book. The fact of the matter is that the typical millionaire--i.e., person with a net worth of at least one million dollars--does not buy tons of shiny new toys. Yes, some millionaires do, typically the ones who are worth 10-100 million rather than 1 million. But the typical one does not.
If you know some millionaires who do, all this means is they are actually not the "typical millionaire," no matter what you might think. You also need to take into account the fact that a lot of people you might think are millionaires actually aren't, because they've spent their money on assets that depreciate rapidly. This means you could have a salary of 1+ million a year and still not be a millionaire if you spend it almost as fast as you make it. Look at many of the sports stars who go broke within two years of retiring--yes, it happens very frequently. They were never millionaires despite what everyone thinks.
Example: my uncle is a marketing executive, lives in a very nice house in an extremely affluent area, only stays in the nicest hotels, etc. Except his family probably has a net worth of maybe $100k at most. They're not even close to being millionaires. Why? Because they spend most of the money they make. If he were to lose his job, their entire lifestyle would grind to an incredible halt and they'd be forced to change everything they do just to not burn through their savings. If a millionaire loses his job, it's not a problem.
You're under the very misconception that the book seeks to correct. In any case, your anecdotes really aren't sufficient to destroy the results of a pretty solid study.
no. you are completely wrong and also fallacious. here is why.
i am not under any sort of misconception. i was refuting an unequivocal claim that "millionaires do not..." with 100% verified fact that yes, they in fact, do. certainly not all of them, but certainly not anywhere near NONE of them.
i never said my anecdotes were typical. you put those words into my mouth. i was refuting an unequivocal claim with specific equivocations. STRAW MAN ALERT.
and i am not fucking naive, obviously i know a lot of people have high incomes and just spend all their money and have bank accounts that look like dog shit. nobody ever said that wasn't the case. STRAW MAN ALERT.
and you know what? that is a perfectly valid way to live. the great thing about money is you get to do whatever the fuck YOU want to do with it and not what some self-righteous cheapskate on the internet tells you.
When the guy said "millionaires do not..." I think it was pretty clear he was not actually making a universal, unequivocal statement. Yes, some do. Many do, in fact--there are a lot of millionaires on this planet. But the typical millionaire, according to surveys, does not. The typical millionaire is self-made and worth between 1 and 2 million and is at least 50 years old. Those assets will typically be used to sustain a comfortable life in early retirement. Someone who makes 10 million at age 30 is not typical at all, even though there are, numerically, a lot of such people. There are simply far more millionaires who had good careers, spent wisely, lived somewhat frugally (at least relative to their salaries), saved up, invested, and now enjoy their retirement.
And yes, of course, you can spend your money however you want. That includes spending so much of it that you aren't even a millionaire, even if you easily could be.
I know a guy who's family net worth is $2+ billion. When he goes to the movies, he brings pre-popped popcorn in ziploc bags and shares with his friends.
yeah? if he's like most rich kids i've known he probably does it because it's more fun to flout the rules at the theater than to buy their popcorn.
NO OUTSIDE FOOD OR DRINK.
lots of rich kids i knew in college dealt drugs. think about that one for a minute. same exact (rule-flouting) behavior as poor folk - but is it because they were poor? or frugal? was it because they didn't want to spend their own money on their own drugs, or because they enjoyed flouting the rules to get free weed/coke/x/whatever?
I'm traveling the world and living on $40 a day. I have a $300 netbook, an iPhone 4S which i could live without because it isn't unlocked so it is just an mp3 player, and a $70 kindle. No you don't have to be rich to live a minimalist life style. You have to be vigilant about it. For food I am living frugally, making lentil soup or pasta. These things don't require much room.
All the things that I own at this point in time fall into at least one of these three categories.
1. Help me reach goals or aspirations (computer, camera)
2. Make my life simpler and safer (Water bottle, Telephone, multi-tool, clothes, accessories)
3. Provide or improve an experience (kindle, speakers/headphones)
The one thing these three categories share is function. Everything you own should have function and it should be consistently used/appreciated.
I'm actually living in a relatively high COL area for about that much (maybe closer to $35, even, excluding healthcare). But traveling seems difficult: transportation costs, plus costs of AirBnB's seem to bring it up significantly. Do you simply couch surf?
I used to live in NYC, and even there I was able to keep down my COL. I was lucky enough to grow up there but I found an apartment for pretty cheap in outer brooklyn. I didn't go out to clubs much, or eat out much either. I hung out mostly in cheap bars or dinner/house parties with friends.
Right now I am in South America, I am using couchsurfing.com and using hostels. I have an apartment right now which cut down costs a lot but still hang out with the local couchsurfing community. I cook nearly all the time so food is pretty cheap. I am lucky that I can program and work remotely but I have friends who do data entry work, translation, english tutoring. I have friends who volunteer in hostels for free room and board or use http://www.helpx.net/
As for traveling, mostly by bus, or budget airlines(which are as expensive as buses). And I do not move often.
Hanging out with couchsurfers has really kept my daily COL. I personally hate most tourist traps and by hanging out with couchsurfers usually you get amazing local cultural experiences for either free or cheap. IE My host in Venezuela took me to his girlfriend's niece's baptism party where I sang, drank, and danced with 70 year old venezuelan women.
I find I am happiest not going on a guided eco tour, or going to the top of some tall thing(building or mountain), but sharing thoughts and experiences with different/local people.
I have found that tips for traveling are all over the internet so I have none to give really. The advice you heard me tell you now is told by many others in travel blogs. http://reddit.com/r/travel
I've met all kinds of ages while traveling. 18-72 mostly in their 20s yes but that is because of the amount of responsibilities. Most of the older people I have met learned how to delegate responsibilities and obligations or get rid of them.
Increasing responsibility is only one facet of aging. Others include lower energy levels and reserves, health issues, and general need to take more care with the body (e.g. need a comfortable bed, otherwise will be stiff and swollen for many hours in the morning). These often lead to higher monetary expenditures, reserves, or insurance requirements.
I'm curious what your plans are to support yourself once you're done traveling? Most people don't have the luxury of taking these kind of lengthy trips, because having a lengthy resume gap in this kind of job market will kill you. Do you have some kind of safety net, either in the form of liquid wealth, family support, lifestyle business, or professional/personal network for when you're finished seeing the world?
"Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk."
Close but not quite. In my case at least it's true that when I was poor I accumulated stuff largely out of fear of scarcity, but the various "perfectly good" bits of junk I accumulated didn't actually reduce my risk in any way. If you replaced "to reduce risk" with "because they unconsciously and mistakenly believe it will reduce risk" you'd be close to the truth.
And while it would be harsh to call people still living in the grip of that illusion "dumb" on account of it, it is in fact an illusion.
Learning how to predict what stuff will and will not reduce risk is a learned skill. One should not be too hard on oneself while learning it. (The laptop hinges sitting in a box under my bed right now--perfectly good laptop hinges!--are probably going to be one of those learning experiences.)
The point of both pg's and NYT's stuff article is that this prediction is a learned skill. Our instincts suck.
Whereas this article's point is that the opportunity cost of hanging on to stuff is different for rich and poor.
True. But the rich and poor are united in one thing: their stuff instincts suck.
Especially since things like Amazon and Ebay have changed the relationship to stuff. With no real effort, I have sold 57 things on Amazon since 1/1/2012. The fact that I can readily convert almost anything I own to cash, usually with only 15 minutes of actual work (listing and shipping), changes the game.
The cost of each market transaction used to be the big drag. 50% commission plus the work of finding an agent, transporting the stuff to your agent, and receiving payment from the agent when it finally sold. And then if you needed to repurchase that same item down the road, the work of finding and transporting the repurchased stuff.
Amazon and Ebay have reduced that whole process (cost of sale transaction + (cost of repurchase transaction * probability of repurchase)) to what, 25% of the price of any individual item? Depending on how much it costs to ship.
Sold a 2GB stick of DDR2 RAM today.
Received: $16.49
Amazon fee: 2.31
Shipping: 1.76
Cost of transaction: 4.07
Cost of transaction as percentage of market value of stuff: 24.7%
>I have to think that's within almost everyone's budget, amortized over a long timeframe and with a payoff of much less clutter.
Regardless of your level of wealth some things are just not easy or quick to acquire [1]. I have saved myself some money, but more importantly, weeks' worth of waiting time (or at best days if I paid extra for speedy delivery) while the components I want ship from abroad, by keeping a two large drawers full of weird hardware. I'd like to get rid of most of it but it's hard to predict not just which parts are I'm going to need in the future but also which I will have trouble getting at all.
[1] If you deal with computers and electronics it can be things like unique power supplies, PS/2-to-AT keyboard adapters (I had to use one at work just last year to do some data archaeology) and USB-to-serial adapters, spare parts for that one ageing ThinkPad you consider to have the best keyboard of any laptop ever, quality PC trackballs, etc.
Yeah, I keep hard to replace things lying around too. I haven't gone full blown minimalist, just more minimal than I used to be, and more minimal than average.
If it goes too far I feel it can be more trouble than it's worth, though there might be some benefits I'm ignoring.
I don't think the author meant to call poor people "dumb", although he could have phrased the sentence better: "Poor people have clutter not because they're too dumb to ...."
I think that the examples the author highlights are not examples of that illusion. Instead, I think they are straightforward examples of how someone without the means to afford more expensive luxuries (such as a laptop with a working battery, or the wealth to pay retail prices for car parts) can end-up with more "stuff" to reduce risks (their laptop running of our juice while they are on the road, or not being able to use their car due to a lack of parts).
To each his own for me. Having less didn't allow me to enjoy or experience special things that having more somehow prevented from experiencing as the author would describe. In fact, having more was way better than having less for me.
Last 5 years, I moved around to various cities Canada and US every 4 to 8 months or so going to school and working on internships. By necessity, I had to pack light, really light. No car obviously. I was a poor student. I had only one furniture, a bed, and I got that only after I started to have lady friends over. Before that, I slept in sleeping bag for months. I had very few cloths and only thing I had extra were my underwear and socks. And I guess only thing of value I carried around was my Macbook. I didn't even have a smart phone until this last month. I used cheap Huawei prepaid phone drug dealers use as their second phone. I probably had a little more stuff than an average homeless person in that I had a roof over where I slept.
It was definately an "experience" alright. I had ended the life of plentifuly that I took granted in high school, and went onto a subsistence living by the North American standard of extreme minimalism for 5 years. Sure, I learned to inspect what my true needs were and had a good discipline to spend on things I needed, not wanted. However, was that learning worth 5 years of discomfort and annoyance?
Since January this year, I finally decided to settle. I was done with school and I found a good roommate to share furnitures and kitchenwares with. I had a lot of fun decorating my room, living room and kitchen. It's been awesome since then. I felt so much more comfortable with things around.
To put it bluntly, there wasn't anything romantic about living with less stuff. I haven't experienced or felt different things that you would not feel through living with plenty of things.
You condemn living with less while, in the same comment, describe exactly the kind of opportunity that it affords. Nobody with a full house, a 60" TV, and two cars in the garage could ever "[move] around to various cities Canada and US every 4 to 8 months or so going to school and working on internships." Maybe five years was too long for you, or maybe this wasn't your cup of tea, but it's an opportunity. It's a life-defining experience that you can only accomplish with a light-weight, minimal lifestyle. The case for minimalism, at least for me, is made almost exclusively in the opportunities it affords you. It's about trading certain comforts for life experiences.
That said, I am absolutely willing to admit that it is probably not for everybody and it is hardly going to be worth doing your entire life. But how many people don't even think to consider it? What opportunities are they losing out on?
It doesn't blow. The stimulation and knowledge you get (about yourself and about others) you get from new places and cultures (and not just dropping by for a visit, but actually living and working there) is fantastic. Of course, it gets old and you'll want to settle down, but at least you have those experiences under your belt.
Looks like parent's desired opportunities crystallised when he finally was able to settle down and escape forced minimalism and job jumping.
He didn't like it (for good reasons he explained) and it's like you are telling him "cancer opened your eyes to the importance of human relationships so it was an opportunity, see ?".
I was in the same situation as you, and when it's not voluntary, it's not very much fun. My dream now is to settle down in a home and live there for 5+ years.
to be fair... your 'improved' situation seems like what most people are advocating when they say you should have less stuff. you share living arrangements and don't own any expensive stuff.
your previous position seems pretty extreme... no furniture at all, barely any clothes, only extra socks... just a laptop.
In 21st century western civilization, most of us are incredibly wealthy. We live like kings of old able to eat produce and spices from the far corners of the earth.
Yes, if you have more money you don't need as many things. But in the long term I think that minimalism is going to recede as a social indicator. The reason why has been sneaking up on us for a while: The digital world is becoming more encumbered. People are realizing that they don't have much control over their data and their 'purchased' media. Services disappear regularly along with what we've invested in them.
What's the alternative? Well, currently, there is more freedom in the physical space, and people are slowly realizing that physicality has an upside.
I think we're due for a `Neo-Materialist' movement. Maker Culture is growing and moving beyond bohemian. I have friends with cluttered living spaces and in most cases it is not due to not having enough money to have fewer things. It is just a choice away from the Eastern-esque Steve Jobs-ian "let's have fewer things" aesthetic.
It's becoming more common to have a set of maker and made things that you love and show, and to treat living space as workspace. Buzz around 3D printing may accelerate the trend. Culturally, I'm not sure that this will completely overtake design minimalism, but it has a decent chance.
While I mostly agree with the author's conclusion, which matches my anecdotal experience, the argument presented seems a little weak... I'd be interested to see some data backing it up, though I imagine it's a hard thing to quantify.
Somewhat related: I lost ~90% of my belongings when my apartment flooded during Hurricane Sandy, which has totally changed my perspective on the inherent risks of material ownership. It may seem like a good idea to pay a 50% (or even more) premium for some items because "it'll last way longer than the cheap alternative" but if it gets catastrophically destroyed, the point is moot. The best thing you can do for yourself as a renter (assuming repurchasing everything you own would make a significant dent in your savings) is to buy renter's insurance WITH natural disaster coverage - most standard renter's insurance coverage does NOT cover natural disasters but it is usually available for not too much more. In general, you can expect to pay less than $200/year (often around $100/year) to insure an apartment, which is a small price to pay for peace of mind.
I'm not rich but I hate material things. I don't even own a laptop and I'm glad I don't need it.
It's frustrating for me when physical things break. It's not just because things break, but because you have to either repair then or buy a new stuff to replace. Both are burdens to me because I hate buying and I absolutely loathe not repairing things myself (which is kind of usual because most things are not repairable nowadays).
My solution was to have as few as possible and keep it low-tech so I can repair it myself.
It works because I can't afford travelling and my town is small, so I'm close to everything I need. I can relate to the post there: when I travel I pack an awful lot.
But... does @vruba really need all that stuff he carries around? Maybe it's his lifestyle and not his income what forces him to have so much. I rarely carry anything but my keys and a credit card for emergencies (which I seldomly use...)
Lifestyle and income are so often intertwined. He's carrying his laptop because it's his livelihood. He's working out of a coffee shop because he can't afford an office. Etc.
That would only apply if he's homeless or his job requires him to carry one. Otherwise, desktop PCs are cheaper and easier to repair (that's why I avoid laptops and work at home).
Of course each case is special, but his post is quite narrow-minded in that sense: it's mostly applicable to his lifestyle.
Most of my poor friends don't hoard, primarily because they can't even afford a place to put that stuff (try cluttering a 40 square meters flat where you live with your parents, a dog and a parrot)...
I would agree with the author that living with less may not be as applicable to his particular situation.
However, I don't believe the original article, which he is criticizing, was ever targeted at those with lower incomes. In fact, it is quite clear in the second paragraph of _Living With Less_ that the author is writing for the benefit of other better off folks like himself.
It's a common pitfall to buy more and more stuff as you become more and more wealthy and there is merit to the advice that if you are doing well enough, you should focus on living with less. It will help you stay nimble and focused and will probably help you maintain your trajectory and find true happiness to compliment your wealth.
Reminds me of a rich-guy I knew who liked to travel light. For some trips he wouldn't pack stuff. Instead he'd obtain new clothes at his destination, wear them while there, and then simply leave them behind. No muss. No fuss. No clutter.
What kind of clothes did he wear? Shopping for clothes is a major pita, so he must have always bought the same thing, readily available everywhere?
Also, aren't new clothes full of all sorts of chemical? Better to have washed clothes... (Personally I sometimes get skin reactions from wearing unwashed new clothes).
Author Lee Child has written a series of fictional novels which feature Jack Reacher, a former Major in the United States Army Military Police Corps.
Since leaving the Army, Reacher has been a drifter. He wanders throughout the U.S. because he was accustomed to being told where to go, when to go and what to do for every day of his life from military childhood to military adulthood. He also felt he never got to know his own country, having spent much of his youth living overseas on military bases and at West Point. He usually travels by hitchhiking or bus. As a drifter, the only possessions he carries are money, a foldable toothbrush and, after 9/11, an expired passport and an ATM debit card.
He wears his clothing for 2–3 days before discarding it, usually purchasing new clothing cheaply from chain outlets. He has no steady income and lives on savings in his bank account and part-time jobs. Since he has no fixed address, Reacher often eats in diners and other inexpensive restaurants.
Except that they're fictional and any time he runs into a bind something falls out of the plot hole to save him. It's not a very good way to reflect on how someone would deal with that situation in real life.
And, even without plot holes, a lot of the strategies that he uses work for him because he's a huge guy, with years of hard experiences in the military police. For example, he may have problems getting people to pick him up when he hitch-hikes, but he rarely needs to worry about his own safety with whoever gives him a ride.
I agree clothes shopping can be 'a major pita', but I suspect with the right level of wealth and a carefree attitude, it need not be. Just overbuy things that seem right; who cares if they don't fit well or no longer seem stylish after the first wearing? And at very high-end outlets, the staff will be better at making good recommendations at a glance, you may get to know the consistent sizing/cuts, and the aura from the brand/style can cover up minor issues. (Wear something expensive confidently and it seems that's how it's supposed to fit.)
"Sure, life can be a bit easier if you trim the proverbial fat now and again, but this is hardly a revelation to anybody except a minimalist like Graham Hill, for whom even the basic mechanics of life are all transcendent."
Consumerism is driven by our natural susceptibility to peer pressure coupled with the evolution of symbiotic corporate entities that have adapted to make advertising ever more effective and ubiquitous. The problem is that consumerism is now the dominant way we distribute wealth. If everyone suddenly started living simpler, the economy would collapse. Quitting consumerism cold turkey would be like quitting heroin.
> If you see someone on the street dressed like a middle-class person (say, in clean jeans and a striped shirt), how do you know whether they’re lower middle class or upper middle class?
Nonsense! You don't know anything about someone's economic class based on their appearance.
You can make an educated guess, usually very easily. Not necessarily the clothes, but definitely the shoes, accessories (especially bags, watches, and jewelry), tattoos, and teeth, hair, and skin. Richer people spend more on accessories (and repair their shoes!) and taking care of their bodies, because they can. And it shows.
You can probably make a good guess based on appearance (clothes, race, gender, general appearance) + their location (which if you are looking at them in person, you know). You are right, you can be wrong, but it'd be worth testing, as my gut feel is you'd get more right, than wrong.
I guess it's natural for successful people to be treated like sages, but I've commonly had the same feeling the OP expressed - you have to wade through people's 'wisdom'. Sometimes they are just out of touch.
This is accurate. Being poor is expensive (paradoxically?) in a lot of ways. One of them is the amount of attention that you have to give to stupid details, and the amount of stuff you end up lugging around. It clutters your life to be poor.
That NYT article was just douche-tastic. As someone who genuinely detests consumerism, I can't tolerate that whole "I'm rich and enlightened so I've given up stuff" braggadocio. That is consumerism. Only an idiot wouldn't see that. (Of course, there are genuine minimalists out there and I have no problem with that.)
I also hate the people who think travel makes them more interesting and virtuous. Most people, most cases? No, not at all. You might become more interesting if you spend a month in an Indian monastery, or building schools in Africa. However, going to clubs and getting drunk doesn't count. You can do that here. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's recreation, not automatically a promotion of the spirit.
> I also hate the people who think travel makes them more interesting and virtuous
You can think that but you're wrong. Travel opens the mind a hell of a lot. (And no it's not travel if you are in the same country)
What is pretentious BS is if you "spend a month in an Indian monastery, or building schools in Africa"
These are total rubbish, OK sure you'll learn some stuff, it's still travel but Africans earn a dollar or two a day, you've just added $12-$24 to their economy, nice work.
Travel the world and have fun. Don't do the tourist BS like going to monasteries, these are wanabee travel collectors interests. Go to night club, ride a bike, do what you do at home and learn the real stuff.
OK sure you do have to do the tourist stuff, how else do you get to experience a crazy Tut-tut or a packed out bus. But remember it's the journey not the destination.
And lastly not everybody can afford to travel, and that's sad. But just because it's sad there no point trying to pretend travel doesn't make people better. It's like access to school, yes it makes people better, yes not everyone can afford it, but don't just write it off. Work out ways to change this.
Isn't travel (specially foreign and not migration) one of the high marks of consumerism? I.e. it's an expression of disposable time/income. It also entails lots of resource allocation. What's more consumerist, 1,000 bucks worth of travel or 1,000 bucks of stuff off of Amazon?
Experiences consistently rank higher than possessions when it comes to providing happiness. Regarding the term, quoting the Wikipedia page on consumerism: "Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts." The page says nothing about travelling or tourism.
Tourism and travel is a consumer industry and you consume various services and goods in order to travel. Travel is heavily consumerist and there are many kinds of travel products and services that are available and advertised heavily. Travel can be a great experience, but you generally have to have some kind of wealth to travel (note I didn't say wealthy).
>"And no it's not travel if you are in the same country"
This is true of most places in the world but I strongly feel that travelling between regions of the USA is very similar to travelling to different countries. The northeast corridor, for instance, is HUGELY different from the southeast "bible belt". The cultures are distinct: food, architecture, dialect, history; I'm not sure how it doesn't count as travel!
Getting from South Carolina to New York is at least 700 miles. You can get from Berlin to Belgrade in that distance. And that's just on the same coast of the states! The west-coast culture is a beast of its own, to say nothing of the vast center of the country.
Suffice to say: seeing your own country can indeed be travel.
There is little worth seeing between South Carolina and the northeast besides DC and the Shenandoah Valley. New York may be hugely different than Charleston but there are few interesting differences between all the suburban areas in between.
It's kind of screwed up how poor people end up paying more for the same things than rich people do (for consumables, mainly -- rich people stores tend to price-discriminate for capital goods) -- when I lived in the TL, the local "corner sto" would charge 2x what Safeway 15 blocks away charged for the same item, and 3-4x what Costco or Amazon would charge.
(and of course rich people get given free stuff all the time, whereas places catering to poor people lock up the toilet paper)
I was going to say 'what about online banks, they're free', but realized that that requires a computer, internet connection, and tech literacy. Things more likely to be lacking amongst the disadvantaged.
It's just how banks work. If you keep a lot of money in your account, the bank earns a return on investing your money. If you only keep a little in the bank, then they have to charge you fees to make money off you. If you can't even pay the fees at all, they just won't give you an account.
There are non-profit credit unions, but those usually require a certain type of employment, in which case you probably don't have these problems either.
I worked in a warehouse once with a guy who didn't have a bank account and had to go to check cashing places to cash his paycheck.
He used to have a bank account, but at some point he ran into overdraft fees, so he'd have to pay a couple hundred dollars to settle that out before he can access the banking system. He couldn't afford that.
The painful thing is the "lower interchange fees for debit cards" thing essentially killed free checking and savings accounts for most low-income people (other than at credit unions). Those people don't have $2500 balances, or direct deposit, or linked mortgages, so they end up paying $5-25/mo in fees.
There is also a theft problem, both from shop lifting and employees. Given the slim margins in a grocery store it can be the difference between staying around and not.
Thats about the best way of putting it I've come across. It can be perceived risk as well. One thing I noticed when clearing out my depression-era grandparents house is that they basically saved everything they had a hard time getting at any point. My grandfather had a garage full of glass jars because there was a time in his life when he literally could not afford/find a simple glass jar when he needed one. The more I think about that, the more it freaks me out. I have a hard disk full of MP3 files...