
Wealth, risk, and stuff - nyodeneD
http://vruba.tumblr.com/post/45256059128/wealth-risk-and-stuff
======
noonespecial
_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...

~~~
acchow
> Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of
> living simply; they have it to reduce risk.

I wish English had better grammatical structure. I had to re-parse that
sentence 5 times.

> Poor people have clutter not because they're too dumb to see the virtue of
> living simply; they have it to reduce risk.

FTFY.

EDIT: I parsed it wrong. Fixed.

~~~
columbo
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.

~~~
ChuckMcM
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.

------
ryanong
I'm traveling the world and living on $40 a day. I have a $300 netbook, an
iPhone 4S which i could live without because it isn't unlocked so it is just
an mp3 player, and a $70 kindle. No you don't have to be rich to live a
minimalist life style. You have to be vigilant about it. For food I am living
frugally, making lentil soup or pasta. These things don't require much room.

All the things that I own at this point in time fall into at least one of
these three categories.

1\. Help me reach goals or aspirations (computer, camera)

2\. Make my life simpler and safer (Water bottle, Telephone, multi-tool,
clothes, accessories)

3\. Provide or improve an experience (kindle, speakers/headphones)

The one thing these three categories share is function. Everything you own
should have function and it should be consistently used/appreciated.

Here is to a life, instead of bought, lived.

~~~
scarmig
How do you handle shelter?

I'm actually living in a relatively high COL area for about that much (maybe
closer to $35, even, excluding healthcare). But traveling seems difficult:
transportation costs, plus costs of AirBnB's seem to bring it up
significantly. Do you simply couch surf?

~~~
ryanong
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.

~~~
manglav
do you have a blog of some sort? I am going to pursue this lifestyle as well,
and any tips are extremely valuable. Hooray for traveling!

~~~
ryanong
<http://youtube.com/ryanmalcomong>

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>

------
pg
"Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of
living simply; they have it to reduce risk."

Close but not quite. In my case at least it's true that when I was poor I
accumulated stuff largely out of fear of scarcity, but the various "perfectly
good" bits of junk I accumulated didn't actually reduce my risk in any way. If
you replaced "to reduce risk" with "because they unconsciously and mistakenly
believe it will reduce risk" you'd be close to the truth.

And while it would be harsh to call people still living in the grip of that
illusion "dumb" on account of it, it is in fact an illusion.

~~~
graeme
In a year of semi-minimalism, I've probably lost $20-$50 from getting rid of a
couple closets full of stuff.

I have to think that's within almost everyone's budget, amortized over a long
timeframe and with a payoff of much less clutter.

~~~
networked
>I have to think that's within almost everyone's budget, amortized over a long
timeframe and with a payoff of much less clutter.

Regardless of your level of wealth some things are just not easy or quick to
acquire [1]. I have saved myself some money, but more importantly, weeks'
worth of waiting time (or at best days if I paid extra for speedy delivery)
while the components I want ship from abroad, by keeping a two large drawers
full of weird hardware. I'd like to get rid of most of it but it's hard to
predict not just which parts are I'm going to need in the future but also
which I will have trouble getting at all.

[1] If you deal with computers and electronics it can be things like unique
power supplies, PS/2-to-AT keyboard adapters (I had to use one at work just
last year to do some data archaeology) and USB-to-serial adapters, spare parts
for that one ageing ThinkPad you consider to have the best keyboard of any
laptop ever, quality PC trackballs, etc.

~~~
graeme
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.

------
jsnk
I shared some similar sentiments about owning things in previously submission.
(<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5364482>)

\---

To each his own for me. Having less didn't allow me to enjoy or experience
special things that having more somehow prevented from experiencing as the
author would describe. In fact, having more was way better than having less
for me.

Last 5 years, I moved around to various cities Canada and US every 4 to 8
months or so going to school and working on internships. By necessity, I had
to pack light, really light. No car obviously. I was a poor student. I had
only one furniture, a bed, and I got that only after I started to have lady
friends over. Before that, I slept in sleeping bag for months. I had very few
cloths and only thing I had extra were my underwear and socks. And I guess
only thing of value I carried around was my Macbook. I didn't even have a
smart phone until this last month. I used cheap Huawei prepaid phone drug
dealers use as their second phone. I probably had a little more stuff than an
average homeless person in that I had a roof over where I slept.

It was definately an "experience" alright. I had ended the life of plentifuly
that I took granted in high school, and went onto a subsistence living by the
North American standard of extreme minimalism for 5 years. Sure, I learned to
inspect what my true needs were and had a good discipline to spend on things I
needed, not wanted. However, was that learning worth 5 years of discomfort and
annoyance?

Since January this year, I finally decided to settle. I was done with school
and I found a good roommate to share furnitures and kitchenwares with. I had a
lot of fun decorating my room, living room and kitchen. It's been awesome
since then. I felt so much more comfortable with things around.

To put it bluntly, there wasn't anything romantic about living with less
stuff. I haven't experienced or felt different things that you would not feel
through living with plenty of things.

~~~
tobyjsullivan
You condemn living with less while, in the same comment, describe exactly the
kind of opportunity that it affords. Nobody with a full house, a 60" TV, and
two cars in the garage could ever "[move] around to various cities Canada and
US every 4 to 8 months or so going to school and working on internships."
Maybe five years was too long for you, or maybe this wasn't your cup of tea,
but it's an opportunity. It's a life-defining experience that you can only
accomplish with a light-weight, minimal lifestyle. The case for minimalism, at
least for me, is made almost exclusively in the opportunities it affords you.
It's about trading certain comforts for life experiences.

That said, I am absolutely willing to admit that it is probably not for
everybody and it is hardly going to be worth doing your entire life. But how
many people don't even think to consider it? What opportunities are they
losing out on?

~~~
codewright
That lifestyle blows. It takes living from a position of privilege to think
that it's somehow a wonderful opportunity.

~~~
joonix
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.

------
acchow
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.

------
michaelfeathers
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.

------
dandelany
While I mostly agree with the author's conclusion, which matches my anecdotal
experience, the argument presented seems a little weak... I'd be interested to
see some data backing it up, though I imagine it's a hard thing to quantify.

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

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

------
kaoD
I'm not rich but I hate material things. I don't even own a laptop and I'm
glad I don't need it.

It's frustrating for me when physical things break. It's not just because
things break, but because you have to either repair then or buy a new stuff to
replace. Both are burdens to me because I hate buying and I absolutely loathe
not repairing things myself (which is kind of usual because most things are
not repairable nowadays).

My solution was to have as few as possible and keep it low-tech so I can
repair it myself.

It works because I can't afford travelling and my town is small, so I'm close
to everything I need. I can relate to the post there: when I travel I pack an
awful lot.

But... does @vruba really need all that stuff he carries around? Maybe it's
his lifestyle and not his income what forces him to have so much. I rarely
carry anything but my keys and a credit card for emergencies (which I seldomly
use...)

When you don't need, there are no risks.

~~~
kennywinker
Lifestyle and income are so often intertwined. He's carrying his laptop
because it's his livelihood. He's working out of a coffee shop because he
can't afford an office. Etc.

~~~
kaoD
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)...

------
tobyjsullivan
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.

------
scott_meade
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.

~~~
Tichy
What kind of clothes did he wear? Shopping for clothes is a major pita, so he
must have always bought the same thing, readily available everywhere?

Also, aren't new clothes full of all sorts of chemical? Better to have washed
clothes... (Personally I sometimes get skin reactions from wearing unwashed
new clothes).

~~~
pragmatictester
Author Lee Child has written a series of fictional novels which feature Jack
Reacher, a former Major in the United States Army Military Police Corps.

Since leaving the Army, Reacher has been a drifter. He wanders throughout the
U.S. because he was accustomed to being told where to go, when to go and what
to do for every day of his life from military childhood to military adulthood.
He also felt he never got to know his own country, having spent much of his
youth living overseas on military bases and at West Point. He usually travels
by hitchhiking or bus. As a drifter, the only possessions he carries are
money, a foldable toothbrush and, after 9/11, an expired passport and an ATM
debit card.

He wears his clothing for 2–3 days before discarding it, usually purchasing
new clothing cheaply from chain outlets. He has no steady income and lives on
savings in his bank account and part-time jobs. Since he has no fixed address,
Reacher often eats in diners and other inexpensive restaurants.

source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_reacher>

One of the novels in the series was recently made into a movie starring Tom
Cruise. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reacher_(film)>

I would highly recommend reading the novels to discover how a man can live
lightly and travel across the country on very little.

~~~
jaggederest
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.

~~~
yen223
One life lesson I learned: never draw life lessons from fiction :)

------
bravura
For a funnier and lighter response to Graham Hill, I highly recommend this
piece from bike snob:

[http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-walls-
kept...](http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-walls-kept-closing-
in.html)

"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."

------
vannevar
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.

------
rizzom5000
> 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.

~~~
esperluette
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.

------
timinman
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.

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

------
michaelochurch
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.

~~~
aaron695
> 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.

~~~
mc32
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?

~~~
capisce
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.

~~~
king_jester
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).

