
Being Frugal Makes You A Loser - ajkessler
http://www.ajkesslerblog.com/being-frugal-makes-you-a-loser/
======
yason
I don't think that being frugal has ever been about going cheap.

Frugality is not about consuming but _investing in your_ life: that often
contradicts with cheap.

Frugality is about not buying things you don't need but buying things you
can't live without. A frugal person will typically invest in quality because
he knows he'll be using the item for years and doesn't want to replace it
every few.

I wouldn't consider myself extremely frugal but my favorite shoes I'm wearing
today I bought in the year 2000. They feel great, they have never had to been
repaired, they resist water enough, the leather is in good condition and
actually they didn't cost much (guesstimate in today's currency: 100-150€).
But I have this mindset that I don't _need new shoes_ just for the sake of new
shoes. That's frugality. I will wear mine for another ten years if only
they'll hold together and still look tidy enough to walk into the public.
(They look used of course, but still tidy.) If they don't, I'll have to buy a
replacement pair.

Frugality is also sometimes buying the cheapest thing. Buying a cheap electric
drill is frugal if you only drill a few times a year, which makes the drill
last for decades. Buying the best that money can buy would be frugal if you're
a carpenter or do renovations every week and need a professional grade
durability; however, if you're not doing that you're not frugal but rather
just going on the hifi tangent and in reality you want to buy the expensive
model because of your ego only.

Frugality also brings focus to—I was going to say consumption but I'll say
personal investment instead. It makes sense to buy quality items for what you
love: if you love riding a bike then investing in a quality bike is frugal
because it saves you and the environment from unneeded consumption and hair-
pulling. But you can't love everything either. You can't have the top of the
line computer, screen, home theater, coffee grinder, washing machine,
mattress, toilet seat, motorcycle, car, bike, camera, video camera, clothes,
shoes, accessories and consider yourself frugal. You can have one or two
because you simply can't be spending all of your time only grinding coffee,
coding, washing laundry, riding a motorbike, and shooting photos.

And yes, being frugal inevitably _does make me look like a loser_ in the eyes
of some people. But then what?

Other people's opinions about me are none of my business anyway.

~~~
jasonkester
Indeed, and I think that's what the author was saying too.

One example: Craftsman Hand Tools. They have a lifetime guarantee, so provided
you don't lose them, you're done buying screwdrivers and wrenches for life.

True story. I walked into Sears with a broken socket wrench.

Sears guy: "Wow. What happened to _that_?"

Me: "Well, I had a bolt that really didn't want to come loose, so I had a six
foot cheater bar and I was bouncing my whole weight on it when suddenly it
exploded."

Sears guy: "Yeah, that would do it. Let me see what I can do..."

[check in the back]

"Well, we don't have that model in stock, so here's a new one from our Pro
line. It's a bit more expensive, but it's probably a bit stronger too. Good
luck with that bolt."

I've had that same conversation on 3 different occasions, each with
ludicrously mis-used tools broken entirely through my foolishness. All
replaced for free with a smile.

~~~
ido

        I've had that same conversation on 3 different occasions, 
        each with ludicrously mis-used tools broken entirely 
        through my foolishness. All replaced for free with a 
        smile.
    

Let me guess - you live in the US.

Good luck getting the same result in Europe ;)

~~~
jasonkester
Uh, sure. You're right. Sears are thin on the ground over here.

In case I wasn't clear, all the abovementioned conversations happened at Sears
department store, the sole distributor of Craftsman hand tools. They have an
explicit policy of replacing any broken tool, regardless of how you broke it.

So if you rock up with the snapped-off handle of one of those tiny little
flathead screwdrivers (complete with a little clip so that you can keep it in
your shirt pocket), and a story about how you were trying to pry off a rusted-
on cylinder head using it and a large hammer, they'll replace it.

(as I have personally verified)

And yeah, you're right about the European version of customer service (at
least the English variant). Since moving here, I've never once come across a
merchant who was familiar with the concept of "the customer is always right".
Rather, "It's my shop, so by definition I'm right. And why are there so many
customers in here, anyway? I think I'll start closing at 5:30 so I don't have
to deal with them."

~~~
afterburner
Spending a month in France made me realize just how great customer service is
in North America. (Luckily France has other features.)

The one HUGE exception was the French national rail service. They must get
great compensation, or have good hiring policies, because everyone I dealt
with was spontaneously helpful and didn't mind spending extra time with me,
even to the point of extending their work hours.

------
nicpottier
On one hand I kind of agree with this, there certainly is something to be said
for buying nice stuff now and then, especially when it is stuff you love
doing.

For play, I use a ratio I call the Fun Factor. Essentially, that's the $/hr of
fun I get out of something. So if you go see a movie and it is $10, and it is
the rare money that is actually fun to watch, then the fun factor is roughly
$5.

So then you apply it to other things. Sure, $2,000 is a lot to spend a
mountain bike, but divided out by the number of hours I've had on it, I'm way
below $5 these days, so I consider it a fair deal.

A smartphone and laptop I love is always worth it in fun factor dollars.

That said, I do take issue on the 'lasting forever' bit, because wow, stuff
just isn't made to last forever anymore and nor would you want to. I think it
is a clever trick that we play on ourselves, oh, "This will be the last
[blank] I ever have to buy", but how often is that really the case?

I can think of a few things I have that qualify, but they are few. I bought a
$100 chef knife about a decade ago, still use it daily, still love it. I don't
see my Ortlieb messenger bag ever breaking down, so maybe that's another. A
few hand tools, but most hand tools last forever regardless of quality.

What are yours, what have you bought that you think you might keep forever?

~~~
ajkessler
I use the Fun Factor rationalization too, but I find it can be problematic in
many cases. Mainly with bigger purchases. When you amortize that $2000 bike
out per use, the difference between it and the $1500 bike can seem rather
insignificant. "$1.5 v. $2 per use? Hell, I might as well get the better one."
But, it's still $500. That's real money that could be used to earn more money
somewhere else. Ratchet that up if we're talking about cars or boats or
houses. So, I like the Fun Factor rationalization, but it can be dangerous.

As to the "lasting forever bit", I don't think it's necessary that things last
literally forever; the point is more that making very long term purchases is a
worthy goal. 15-20 years maybe. That said, I do try to buy things that
literally will last me forever, though the list isn't very long, yet:

I try to buy tools that will last forever, or close to. With things like
digital cameras (or any consumer electronics), it's silly to expect anything
to last more than 10 years, on the very long end.

But, with power tools, I buy things expecting them to last forever (with
routine maintenance and not heavy duty use). I more or less expect my nice
knives to last forever. I expect most of my furniture to last forever. I
expect my weight set to last forever.

~~~
gaustin
I just bought a 260 lb. high quality anvil. It will be an excellent anvil for
at least 200 years (if not 300 or 400 years).

How's that for longevity?

~~~
billswift
Only if it is taken care of. I have seen anvils with broken horns, chipped
edges, and deep rust pits that were no more than a hundred years old. I even
saw one anvil (don't know its age) that had been broken almost in half AND was
seriously rust damaged.

------
abalashov
I agree. Personally, I'm more sick of the culture of bargaining and haggling
over increasingly small, pedestrian items that has gained a lot of fashion in
the recession, even among people for whom it is not a financial imperative. It
was a movement with a lot of momentum even before the recession, though, so
there must be some other more enduring dynamics at play, too, not just
cyclical stuff.

There's a social cost to making an ass of yourself arguing +/- $0.30 on a loaf
of bread, so I don't do it. And--I jest not--I get chided by "frugal" people
for not spending a half hour going through my pile of 50+ coupon clippings in
front of the register in the express lane, ten people waiting in line behind
me be damned.

Nobody in the startup scene here likes a customer that rides them about price
no matter the discount, and appears to be fixated solely on price and not on
value. Nobody likes the message that sends about the customer's priorities,
their character, or the value they attach to the product or service. There is
a moral and a psychological valence to the whole thing. It's off-putting,
because it says that you don't realise that sometimes there is more to life
than cold, rational economic calculus. So why do it to others?

Negotiating big-ticket items like salaries, houses and cars has always been
okay in this culture, and there are considerable practical reasons to do it;
thousands of dollars are on the line, and the people on the other end of the
table have a pricing structure and a sales methodology designed specifically
to maximise gains on people reluctant or unable to negotiate. Obviously, I'm
not saying you should allow yourself to be screwed for the sake of eschewing
confrontation.

However, at the risk of sounding culturally chauvinist, as a Soviet immigrant,
one of the things I have always liked about the US and for which I have taken
pride in my adopted homeland is the fact that we're above petty bazaar culture
here--haggling for the sake of haggling, or being obscenely preoccupied with
price. Let's not lose that. Those of us from other cultures that have fewer
compunctions about wheel-dealing in petty crap know where that leads, and it's
a really detestable trait when not mandated by the necessities of poverty.

~~~
encoderer
There's so much I find wrong here I don't know where to begin. I'm not the
type to line-by-line somebodies post, but I'm tempted here.

Remember what Einstein called "The most powerful force in the universe" --
compound interest.

Small savings, done consistently, can grow into fortunes. Haggling; Couponing;
Finding the best cash-back credit offers (and changing regularly to the
currently-best credit card), the best APYs, the best coupon codes for
websites;

Three general things I listed. In my own personal experience, you can very
easily save $1000 a year from each of those 3, so in total, $3000 a year. (In
fact, we save that from couponing alone.)

At a fair, 5% APY, when I retire in 40 years, that has grown to nearly
$400,000. And if you can approach a historically-avergae 8%... wow: That's now
$840,000.

There's no "social cost" to that. There's certainly pressure to conform: Pay
the asking price, don't waste the time using coupons to full-effectiveness
which often requires doing more than one transaction when you checkout, don't
have the audacity to use the best deals possible from every bank you can find.
But "cost"? No. There's no cost. Having strangers like you upset at us doesn't
cost me a thing.

I've noticed that others with your POV dismiss the potential, they think they
have it figured out. That coupons waste hours to save pennies and even then
only on things you may not want or need anyway. That there's no way to "win"
when you game the banking systems rewards. That haggling just doesn't work
unless you're buying a car or a house.

But an additional $840k at retirement should illustrate to anybody that
discounts the potential that they're just wrong on this one.

~~~
abalashov
I think you've severely hyperbolised my comment. I didn't say you shouldn't be
smart with your money, most especially when the cost of doing so in resources
or obnoxiousness is small. I didn't say you should always pay sticker price,
and never seek a good deal.

I merely encourage judiciousness about the wisdom and worth-it-ness of
bargain-hunting in a given situation, and the recognition that doing it in
every situation is not necessarily the best thing _ipso facto_.

Also, left unsaid is that I am coming from the perspective of someone who
started a business from cash, with nothing, in a high-cost area. Having had to
tenaciously brute force my way through every step of of the process without
the benefit of 5% APY offers or anything of the sort has taught me important
lessons in when it's worth it to pursue a discount.

~~~
encoderer
To be fair, the example you used was haggling over a loaf of bread.

Your comment was hyperbole before I got to it.

~~~
abalashov
_To be fair, the example you used was haggling over a loaf of bread._

You thought I was kidding? I wish I were. I ran into a woman the day before
yesterday who was at Publix (www.publix.com) here in Atlanta, asserting that
the identical multigrain rye was 30c cheaper at Kroger down the street and she
was taking her business elsewhere.

She didn't exactly look indigent, either; I'd take pity upon someone who
managed to panhandle $2 but not $2.30. She was in a smart business suit.

It's not the first, second or third time I've seen something this ridiculous
lately. I can only conclude it's a trend.

~~~
encoderer
It's not Publix's policy to price-match across the board but often will.
They'll also accept competitors coupons. They also accept B1G1 Manufacturer
coupons when they themselves are running a B1G1 free sale, getting you both
items free.

Joke all you want, she's the smart one here. You crowing about her here has no
"social cost." And you say that your POV comes from running a business. So
does mine. In my case, I contract myself out. I've grown into a very high
hourly rate. I have an assistant to help with things so I can add more
billable hours.

But what I've learned from running a business is to guard every damn cent that
goes out the door. Not spending dollars to save dimes, but spending one dime
to save 2.

------
ChuckMcM
I have learned over the years that not spending 'enough' on tools is always a
bad choice. Like mgarfias I buy Craftsman hand tools from Sears because they
really do replace them no questions asked. I know a guy that would buy beat
up, nicked and dingy craftsman screw drivers or socket wrenches at garage
sales for a dollar and then go to Sears and get a replacement that they would
put in their toolbox.

My experience of wearing out shoes was interesting. I used to buy 'cross
trainers' or whatever the 'general use' canvas/plastic tennis shoe was at
Big-5 when they went on sale every year. Every year I'd get a new pair of
shoes for $10 to $15 and think "Wow look how much I'm saving over buying
leather shoes for like $100 - $150." And then someone pointed out that they
had leather shoes that they hadn't replaced in 10 years and it occurred to me
that maybe I was looking at acquisition cost and not lifetime cost.

I did the math and bought my first pair of Clark's. They lasted 7 years and
came out costing roughly $11/year for those 7 years. I replaced them with the
same exact model that was on sale for $75. Not only did they look better than
tennis shoes, they fit better, and 'wore' better. If I added the time spent
shopping, the cost to get the car to/from the Big5 every year, the Clarks were
'cheaper' by being more expensive but of better durability.

So it was still being 'Frugal' but it was being a bit more intelligent about
going about calculating the costs. I've long since learned to value my time
more reasonably than 'free.'

~~~
triviatise
The one thing you can do is replace the soles. My shoes are about $150 and
replacing the soles costs about $30. The uppers pretty much last forever.

------
lwhi
I disagree.

I find this ode to consumerism quite distasteful. Sure, buy quality items if
you can afford them, they'll often be worth the investment - but choosing to
be frugal because of difficult financial circumstances is _a good thing_.

Most people don't need half of what they buy.

As for 'being fugal makes you a loser'; I think if the choice is being seen as
a loser by the author of the article, and being broke and / or in debt - I'd
definitely choose the former.

I'd possibly understand if this kind of rationalisation came from a government
wanting its citizens to spend their way out of recession. Coming from a free
thinking individual, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

~~~
oasisbob
One reason his article resonates with me is because everything chosen as
examples are quite personal and practical: Shoes. Bedding. Tools. Hygiene.

Were he arguing that we should all purchase the newest kitchen gadgets,
technical life improvement fads, or whatever, I would agree.

~~~
varjag
But nail clippers, for heaven's sake!? He sounds a bit like Lifestyle magazine
clientelle.

------
jerrya
I tend to buy in two strategies. Either so cheap but functional I don't mind
throwing it out later (as eco bad as that might be), or buying good quality
wares. I believe that if you can afford good quality wares, that that will
both make you happier and leave you with something of substantial resale
value. So it may be a better financial strategy. Compare cheap Target cabinet
with "Handmade Amish Furniture."

That said, the tone of the article is well, smug and obnoxious, and makes no
effort to understand that many people cannot afford the quality goods the
author can, or just have different values.

For example, I use to drive sports cars and convertibles, but now I drive
cheap econo-boxes. Why? They tend to be more reliable, less expensive per mile
to maintain, and I drive too damn much and drive them into the ground. (And I
have a poor resales strategy -- I don't get rid of the cars fast enough.) I
sure do miss my convertibles. Really miss them too at this time of year. But
they just had accelerated decrepitude in my hands.

~~~
danssig
> and makes no effort to understand that many people cannot afford the quality
> goods the author can

A study done years ago found that the _reason_ poor people stay poor is
because they always buy the cheapest option so any money they save up ends up
getting used right away to replace something. A never ending cycle of buy
cheap/replace broken cheap stuff.

>For example, I use to drive sports cars and convertibles, but now I drive
cheap econo-boxes. Why? They tend to be more reliable, less expensive per mile
to maintain,

The point of buying quality is that it is cheaper to use and maintain. I think
you're doing an apple/orange comparison here. Your sports cars were probably
on the low end (and the quality end is probably just not attainable by working
class people) while your "cheap econo-boxes" are probably higher on the
quality scale for their class. You weren't being cheap here.

I know plenty of people who do go cheap with cars: they buy old used cars so
they can do the repairs themselves. And every weekend that's exactly what
they're doing: repairs. If they ever stopped and counted up their costs in
time, parts and eventually replacing with another clunker they could probably
lease a BMW cheaper.

~~~
barefoot
Which study was that? I've heard the same thing mentioned several times but
never seen the actual source.

~~~
danssig
It's an old study, I believe written in the UK. I read it in paper (don't
remember if it was a magazine, book, or excerpt).

------
lsc
There is a hidden cost to owning "lifetime" stuff- you have to keep track of
it, maintain it, and ensure it doesn't get damaged or stolen. sure, having a
nice tool is nice, but it is also /more work/ for as long as I keep it. The
$150 'paladin tools' brand cable tracer? it's pretty nice, but I've got to
spend effort keeping track of it. I've ended up buying a bunch generic of $5
'continuity testers' and leaving one at each data center and one in my car.
the nicer tool doesn't do me any good if it's across town. Also, if I drop
something heavy on one of these or if someone steals it? who cares.

I mean, sometimes you need the quality part to do the job, and sometimes
maintaining quality tools can even be a pleasurable experience, but recognize
that there is a cost to owning stuff you can't just walk away from.

~~~
reinhardt
This. The peace of mind that comes with owning disposable or easily
replaceable stuff is priceless. Every item I have to spend time and effort
maintaining and worry about losing or damaging it is another golden ball and
chain around my carefreeness.

~~~
gaius
But do you not see the externality there? Every "disposable" thing you own
started life in a sweatshop and is destined for a landfill. Beyond a certain
point, deliberately buying disposable instead of lifetime is just plain
irresponsible.

~~~
lsc
not always. For instance, I buy "disposable" cars. My personal rule is "Don't
spend more than a month's salary" which means I buy used.

~~~
gaius
I am thinking more of cheap consumer electronics, gadgets, etc, even clothes,
that only last a year. In the case of the car, you've saved it from being
disposed of by someone else, at least for a while.

~~~
lsc
My experience has been that cheaper clothing, on average, actually lasts
longer than the more expensive stuff. The cheap stuff is designed for people
who do physical work. even if you don't, the more durable fabric and stitching
will stand up to more runs through the washing machine.

The jeans I'm wearing right now are the costco store brand; I bought a bunch
during the first .com boom for $12 a pair and used them for quite some time.

My experience has been that more expensive jeans are usually made of thinner,
weaker material. I bought a bunch of fairly nice calvin klein brand jeans
which cost 3x as much as these jeans and they all suffered catastrophic
failures within the first year or so of use. (nearly all of them, I'd go to
lift something fairly heavy, I'd hear a tearing noise and feel a draft.
Irritating, as I'd have to interrupt the work day to change pants. The costco
brand jeans? when they fail it's usually that the knees or the seat would wear
through.)

I'm just saying, expense does not correlate very well with durability. Have
you ever owned a 10 year old BMW? I can tell you from experience that a 10
year old toyota is going to be more reliable.

I'm sure you can find many counterexamples; I mean, certainly a nice pair of
vibram-soled leather boots is going to last longer than any athletic shoe;
probably longer enough to make them cheaper over the long-term. Hell, if you
want to look "professional" there are specialized work-slacks and button-down
shirts made by companies like Dickies that are very durable but also fairly
expensive.

But my point is that more expensive is usually not a very good heuristic for
more durable, especially when dealing with fashion items.

------
calpaterson
The strange hate for people who are "cheap" is one of the more bizarre about
Americans. I don't think I've ever heard of frugality used as a pejorative
anywhere else in the English-speaking world.

~~~
cturner
I'm not at American, but what I see about your country is that it's huge and
varied. Given this, it's hard to think of things as American qualities.

I generally disagree with the post. I think fountain pens and fancy notebooks
are are a waste of time, though I've been through phases with both. For me -
cheap pencils, cheap graph-paper, cheap folders, and a system to keep order.

There are often ways to be smart that don't involve spending money. There's an
idea of people who have more money than sense who go with an expensive option
because they're hoping that this increases their chance of getting the thing
they will want/need.

I have a digital watch. It has a lap timer in it, and shows the full date,
cost less than USD100 and far more reliable than the swiss watch I have.

But there is some truth in the article - if you're just frugal all the time
out of principle it sends bad signals.

~~~
Fluxx
I think the moral of the story with this post is, "buy nice things for stuff
that matters." I don't think $100 pens are important to most people who post
here, but $2,000 mac laptops or cinema displays are. I spent $100 on a Timbuk2
bag because _I use it nearly every day_ when I go to work and don't want to
buy a $40 Swatch laptop bag from Target that will last me 6 months to a year
before it breaks while going through security at Seatac. It's just not worth
it.

------
SeoxyS
Besides the incredibly aggravating link-bait title—frugal is not equivalent to
cheap. I consider myself to be quite frugal, but for the stuff that I do own,
I have no objection to spending extra for the quality, luxury version—I
couldn't agree more with the post's message.

I try to live my life in the most minimalistic fashion (see my apartment[1]),
and am constantly looking to throw away things that add no value to my
experiences. I strive to keep my desktop and mailbox empty. But by no means
does that make me cheap: I pay for music, video streaming services. I buy
premium items and food, because I know that improving my quality of life is
the purpose of having money in the first place.

The cliche but somewhat true statement is: what good is all the money in my
bank account going to do me when or if I'm not around to spend them. I'd
rather live a good life now than the possibility of a better one in the
future.

[1]: <http://kswizz.com/post/5032419362/new-apartment>

------
wickedchicken
The privilege of spending extra on "nice things" is almost purely in the realm
of the well-to-do. This is the rationale Rich White People™ use when buying
L.L. Bean backpacks (LIFETIME WARRANTY GUYS) that end up piled in attics and
covered in dust from neglect. Also, a downside of 'nice stuff' is you have to
lug it everywhere. If you lead even a moderately itinerant lifestyle, this
_totally blows_. Don't listen to some guy on the internet telling you your
stuff sucks, just buy what you damn well please and what you think will do the
job. Your tools don't make you great, your skills do.

~~~
danssig
Sounds like you're a "frugal" person who got offended at this (correct)
message.

>Also, a downside of 'nice stuff' is you have to lug it everywhere.

What on earth are you talking about? If you buy a cheap generic $200 17"
laptop you'll have to lug it around just as much as a nice MBP. The difference
is; you'll have to replace the cheapy about 10 times in the lifetime of my
MBP.

~~~
jbm
I think you are reading too much into the comment.

I can throw out or resell a 400$ laptop with some ease; not so easy with a
more expensive model. (My current laptop is a MBP that I got from work)

I can't invest too much on a bed as I can't lug it around with my bedouin
lifestyle. I can imagine that is the case for quite a few people.

It's great that you have stability of location but that isn't true for us all.

~~~
danssig
>I can throw out or resell a 400$ laptop with some ease; not so easy with a
more expensive model.

I disagree here. If you pay $400 for it what is your resale value after a
year? I wouldn't even pay $50 for a year old $400 laptop since it's nearing
end of life. A good MBP, however could be sold three years later for half
value or a little less. This is not a bad option for people who want the
quality but can't afford a new one (and unless something big changes in the
line it's not always so compelling to get the newest model anyway).

>I can't invest too much on a bed as I can't lug it around with my bedouin
lifestyle.

Sounds sensible.

>I can imagine that is the case for quite a few people.

I can't imagine this being a very high % of people.

>It's great that you have stability of location but that isn't true for us
all.

For me the key is to be sensible with money. If you're getting the cheapest
thing because you've actually thought it out and it doesn't make sense to go
for the long term (e.g. because there wont be one) then fair enough. Most of
the people I know who go cheap do it because they're too intellectually lazy
to work out that they're actually spending more in the long term (and
conversations confirm this, I'm not being cynical).

~~~
jbm
I should probably bring up a few issues.

> Laptops

It's hard to find a buyer for an expensive laptop. Furthermore, you can find
people who buy Pentium 4 laptops for more than 50$ if the battery is working
properly. Point being, a one-year old 400$ laptop selling for 200-300$ is not
utterly unheard of, especially if you have kept good care of it. I understand
that it may be different in other parts of the world. The additional liquidity
of a cheaper asset shouldn't be underestimated.

I do think that we "computer people" are far more mobile than someone in more
traditional fields; it's part and parcel of online / startup life. I used to
shuttle between Montreal, Tokyo and Singapore all the time, and for a time I
expected I would wind up in Singapore. Instead, I ended up in Tokyo. Who could
have known? Thank God I didn't drop 2gs on a bed. (I wound up buying one on
Craigslist for about $450)

I do agree with you for the most part about the disgusting low quality crap
that people buy to save a dollar. However, I do feel the need to express why
some people may come to different value propositions.

~~~
wickedchicken
> It's hard to find a buyer for an expensive laptop.

Not to mention selling stuff is a pain in the ass. I'm a programmer, not a
professional craigslist haggler. Buying things "because I can sell them later"
has always burned me in the end.

------
cageface
The number of Tony Robbins-esque rah-rah lifestyle articles here has gotten
entirely out of hand lately. Seeing this at #1 on the site today makes me want
to delete my HN bookmark and be done with it.

~~~
MrUnknown
Then do it! Believe in yourself!

~~~
rms
OK, it was a good joke, but signing up new accounts for one joke works on
reddit, not here.

~~~
MrUnknown
Sorry, this is my normal username I sign up with and I didn't create a
throwaway account. I just rarely comment.

My username on reddit is the same also. 2+ Years or so and no comments.

------
dprice1
I'm in a state of disbelief that this is the top article on HN right now.

Reading this article made me feel like I was shopping in the discount aisle of
the pop-psych megalo-mart. This article is cheap shoes. It is poorly written,
contains numerous abuses of the English language, and aims low at an obvious
insight; the comments have been an order of magnitude more insightful. The
author utterly misunderstands the meaning of the main thing he impugns:
Frugality. Sorry, but this is a cheap knife with a flimsy blade.

~~~
rms
Yes, it is a really awful article. I'm sure it's not the worst thing to ever
be #1 though. Some of the specific advice is interesting, even if oddly wrong
on specifics. Box springs aren't really important unless the design of your
frame or style of mattress requires one. There is way more to buying shoes
than getting the most comfortable ones for <$100.

Maybe I should write some call-out in overly emotional language about how you,
Hacker News reader, should do ergonomics better. Probably I should just write
it in earnest, but then it probably won't be interesting enough to capture the
wisdom of the mob.

I'm not sure if the author of this piece even realized his own thesis, which
was basically "spend money on ergonomics" and instead he linked it together
under the guise of being frugal, where frugality is a great attribute that is
in reality divorced from the logic of this article.

------
scotty79
For mattresses buy pocket spring or latex foam. When me and my girlfriend
switched to pocket springs we literally felled asleep the first time our heads
touched the mattresses ... in the middle of the day, right after we set it up
in our apartment. It's incredibly comfortable.

For shoes buy some trekking shoes with goretex membrane. You'll never have wet
feet in your life again. My Garmont's served me well for last 8 ears. I just
had to do minor adjustment year ago because soles have rubbed off not evenly.
And I am yet to find shoelaces that don't break. I think about the ones made
of kevlar. Before that I was buying sneakers and leather shoes that fell apart
after 0.5-1 year and had to watch out for every puddle.

For your torso buy something from Polartec, as thick as you can find. And
something thin, light breathable, waterproof and windstopping to wear it when
it rains. Again you'll not get wet from the rain and dry up as fast as if you
were wearing only t-shirt.

Always spend money on things that make you life easier or the things you have
to do more comfortable. But when you don't have idea how good are the things
you consider buying are always pick cheaper ones. High price never guarantees
quality. It's often even strong indicator that seller is dishonest.

Oh. And don't make stuff up and don't buy things that will require from you
doing additional things.

I also almost never bring damaged things to the store to have them replaced.
It's easier to toss it away and buy something else. Much less unpleasant
social interaction.

~~~
afterburner
As a counterpoint to those reading:

I personally went with the Tempurpedic Cloud memory foam. Very soft, but
supportive. I'm tall (and therefore heavy), so I appreciate the lack of
pressure points memory foam has going for it. The most importing thing,
though, is to bargain them down to at least 40% off the original sticker
price.

Goretex membrane shoes can be quite hot; often the non goretex versions of the
same shoes are quite water resistant anyways, I never had a problem with my
non-goretex hiking shoes until I wore them so much several holes appeared.

------
keeptrying
It's simple.

Just count the number of hours you use an item in a week. Anything you use for
a large part of the week should be of high quality.

Bed, office chair, desk, computer screen, computer, cooking utensils if you
cook a lot, phone - in my case.

My car is 10 years old and doesn't have an a/c but I use it irregularly for
Kiteboarding purposes and don't care.

In essence, it's much harder to bear a small pain for a long time than it is
to bear a big pain for a small amount of time. And the mental stress from the
smaller and longer pain is much much more IMHO.

~~~
gdulli
That's not a good metric. Everyone sleeps in their bed for a lot of hours per
week but only a subset of people are sensitive to discomfort or back issues.

Why does anyone spend their time coming up with rules for what other people
should do in situations that are inherently based on personal values?

~~~
keeptrying
If you don't buy a good bed you'll develop back issues. And actually the
majority of sedentary workers will have back issues in their lives so it's
even more important.

This rule works for me and since it's not actually straight forward to figure
out, I thought it would help others.

~~~
iskander
...or you could put a lightly padded mat on the floor. The cost is minimal and
it makes my back feel healthier than a bed. As far as I can tell, beds are for
comfort not health.

~~~
keeptrying
Yeah but that gets some getting used to. My dad sleeps like that :) ...

------
HaloZero
I kind of agree with the author about willing to spend big money on things
that matter. Mattresses, computers, chairs, desks, things like that are all
things that you use regularly.

Though that's now that I consider being Frugal. Being frugal is not only being
practical with my money (buying what I need and knowing what I won't use). I
had a strong desire of buying an iPad, but really I know I won't use it. It
also involves making sure I take care of my things, I check my tires and oil
on my car regularly. Doing the little things to keep your stuff going and not
spending frivolously is being frugal.

------
elliottkember
These days, more and more I find that the sensible option is unfashionable.
Fashion seems to disregard the practical and applaud foolishness.

I'm not talking haute couture, mind - but everyday people. Didn't get a new
car? Weird. Still wearing your old shoes? Weird.

I seriously expect this trend to continue, Idiocracy-style, until utterly
stupid is fashionable, like back in high school. Diesel has made a strong
start.

------
noonespecial
My old boss used to say "Sometimes, you can't afford the cheapest thing."

Buying the _right_ thing can be less expensive in the long run than buying the
cheapest.

~~~
wuster
Agreed. There's usually an optimum value somewhere along the least -> most
expensive spectrum.

------
danielrhodes
Being cheap just for the sake of being cheap/frugal if the cost is not a
constraint is not wise and often times produces little to negative return.
Additionally, if the price tag is the only thing you are looking at and
considering when buying something, you are most likely overlooking equally
important costs down the road.

It seems people who are frugal/cheap fall in to a few categories:

* Little income and need to maximize runway

The best way to maximize your runway in this case is to reduce
monthly/repeated expenditures, especially food and housing. Being frugal here
is not only logical, it's a must.

* Saving for the long-term

Although you will net a bit of money this way over the really long-term, it's
far more efficient and gratifying to figure out a way to disconnect your
income from the the amount of time that you put in to making that income (e.g.
making a smart investment with a high rate of return) in order to maximize
your savings. Most people simply do not spend enough to see large savings
through being frugal, at least not enough to significantly change their
economic standing.

* Gaming factor

Some people just like the gratification of having gamed the system, which is
understandable.

* Mental cobwebs

It's often the case that people who grow up poor are far more price conscious
despite their current economic standing.

------
jowiar
One of the keys in all of this is differentiating between "cheap crap", "cheap
crap with a big price tag", and "expensive but worth it". I recently went shoe
shopping. I was looking for a pair of comfortable, casual shoes. What I came
across were:

$50 bunch-of-choices, made in China

$150 Boss/Diesel/etc, made in China

$225 Mephisto, made in France

$325 Ferragamo, made in Italy.

There is one obvious "wrong" choice here, yet it's the one that many people
end up with when they think they're going to "buy something nice".

~~~
roel_v
I don't know about Ferragamo, but I do own several pairs ( _gasp_!) of shoes
in that price range from a famous shoe brand here ("van Bommel", for the Dutch
reading this, and in case it matters). They will last for decades with proper
care and resoling every couple of years, but that's not the reason I bought
them; I'm pretty sure that after 15 years I'll want something different,
vareity being the spice of life and all. It's because they look super sharp
under my (priced to match, _second gasp!_ ) suits.

I have no way to measure if the dressing up has ever made a difference in a
deal or presentation. Or that the extra confidence has ever been the tipping
point. All I know is that the engineers who go on and on about how they're
sticking it to The Man by doing their demos in jeans and sneakers stand there
looking like just another barely socially adapted dude from the lab, while
those who dress to look the part are the ones that people come to afterwards
and remember.

Appearance matters. Not understanding this, or trying to be a rebel by
breaking rules you don't fully understand, makes you a hacker who is only
capable of hacking code (or circuits or whatever); and incapable of
understanding and 'hacking' social customs and psychology.

(PS It may be different in the US, around these parts Mephisto is a brand for
old people with bad feet; good shoes but not something you'd wear as a (even
slightly) fashion-conscious professional. Is Mephisto 'fancy' in the US?).

~~~
jowiar
I was _not_ implying the Ferragamos were the wrong choice. Rather, the
Boss/Diesel/etc. "designer" stuff that is probably made in the exact same
Chinese factory as the $50 equivalents. I was trying to say "get it cheap, or
get it right"

No arguments here on appearance.

~~~
roel_v
Oh sorry, then I misunderstood you, and my whole argument doesn't make sense
any more :)

------
slyall
One thing I do is to allocate a bit of money each week to "lifestyle", This is
the amount of money you allow yourself to waste every week. In my case it's
around $25.

Situations to use it:

* Treat myself to a $10 lunch instead of a $5 one once a week

* Just pay for parking instead of driving around of 10 minutes looking for a free park.

* Catch a Taxi instead of walking or waiting for a bus

* Want a coke and the nearest store charges $4/can? just pay it rather than spending 10 minutes looking for a more reasonable price.

* See a cheap toy or a book that looks interesting. Just buy it.

Depending on how rich you are it could be more or less than $25/week.
Somewhere between 0.1% and 1% of your income perhaps.

------
dkarl
I think I may already practice everything this blog post tells me to, but I
still feel insulted, both on my behalf and on behalf of people I know. The
author comes off as a real dick. I can't point to any recommendation in the
post I specifically disagree with, but I'm pretty confident if he met me he'd
find some reason to think I'm a loser. And my whole family. And most of my
friends.

Maybe it's because I don't take the same snotty attitude toward the
"mediocrity" of consumer purchases. Maybe it's because I recognize that the
"draining" and "grating" experience of using "piece of shit" stuff is, in many
cases, entirely relative. My car is less a draining piece of shit than a
$15,000 car and more a draining piece of shit than a $30,000 car. My
television is less a piece of shit than a $1000 television and more a piece of
shit than a $2000 television.

There's no magical way to get beyond "piece of shit" when there's always a
better, more expensive item available. The shirts I buy are not as nice as the
$200 shirts I'd buy if I were not paying careful attention to my spending. I
tried to buy a sport coat a few months ago. I'm not really comfortable buying
fancy clothes, so I just wandered around randomly for a week before giving up,
but what do you know, the perfect jacket I found (not in my size, but perfect
fabric) at Armani Exchange cost $2000 marked way down. Apparently I will not
be buying a sport coat that makes me feel "quality" and "worth it." My
favorite restaurants in town easily run into triple digits for two people or
even for one -- I go occasionally and watch what I spend, and on rare
occasions I have whatever I want. I don't feel like I'm eating shit and
reinforcing the mentality that I'm a cheap piece of crap when I spend $15 on a
meal, even if I usually would prefer the $50 meal.

There's no way I can escape those compromises. There's a hell of a lot of
_better_ stuff I would buy if I made twice the money I make now. There's no
way I can escape consciousness of that better stuff, and there's no way I can
escape the fact that there are plenty of people in town who don't have to make
the same compromises I do. There's no way I can escape the fact that the
fabrics I wear do not feel as nice as the fabrics they wear. There's no
escaping the fact that I chose my apartment as a trade-off between niceness
and location. I have a crappy apartment in a perfect location; most of my
coworkers have beautiful, new houses in distant, desolate suburbs; and a few
blocks away from me there are beautiful high-rise condos that are nicer than
my coworkers' houses and more centrally located than my crappy apartment. I
could afford one of those condos if I stopped contributing to my 401k and
stopped saving for a down payment on a house.

Does my choice of apartment make me frugal? I pay more for a central location,
which is what I want, so maybe I am following his advice. On the other hand, I
pay less by accepting a crappier apartment, so maybe I am not following his
advice. Actually, now that I think about it, I cannot be following his advice,
because my apartment does not fill me with gratification and self-esteem. Even
when I make the right decisions for myself, I never think _"Damn, this is
great, I am so totally worth this."_ Instead, I think, "This isn't the best or
the worst, but it's the best trade-off for me. Some people who make the same
money as me will spend more and have something better, and others will spend
less and have something not as good."

I really don't feel bad about it until I run into people like this who ram it
down my throat that not having the stuff I _really_ want is supposed to make
me feel cheap and unworthy compared to the people who can afford it.

And finally, not that anybody gives a shit anymore, it's just morally wrong to
equate possession of higher quality stuff with a higher level of worthiness.
If you indulge in the gratifying thought that your nice stuff reflects your
superior worthiness, that generalizes to the perception that people with
higher quality stuff are higher quality people. It's an inescapable mentality,
you can't _not_ think that way, but shouldn't we be working to moderate that
prejudice instead of intentionally aggravating it?

~~~
kerryfalk
I couldn't read past _"I'm not worth it"_. Based on that and your reply here
it just seems as though the author is materialistic. They're defining their
worth by the quantity and quality of the goods they possess.

I don't see how that's a healthy attitude. I'm probably on an extreme end of
the spectrum as I'm pretty minimalistic and don't have many possessions but
those I do have are typically of higher quality. I don't buy those things
because they make me feel like a better person, that I'm worthy of the higher
quality things, or that I deserve them but rather because they generally don't
cause me _pain_. Isn't that why we here on HN try to build high quality
software? To solve and cure some kind of pain? I appreciate when a product
does that so I'm willing to pay for it.

Qualifying your worth based on what you choose to purchase is short-sighted,
physical goods no matter their quality deteriorate in usefulness and lustre
with time. Experience, knowledge, and human relationships are enduring.
Therefore I reject any notion that a person's worth is valued by the quantity
and quality of their possessions.

~~~
bradleyland
I read the piece through to the end, and while I don't really like the way he
presented it -- there's no need to call anyone a loser -- there is an
important message to be shared. That is: care about the _experience_ you give
yourself. You clearly get this. Sometimes having fewer possessions results in
the experience that we value more. Your views might share more with the author
than it appears on the surface.

Where the author and I differ is that I don't always believe "spending more"
is the key. More appropriately, spend where it matters. As a corollary,
_don't_ spend where it matters as well.

~~~
liuhenry
There was a great post on Quora that made a similar end argument, but
presented much more logically and respectfully: [http://www.quora.com/Life-
Advice/What-life-lessons-are-count...](http://www.quora.com/Life-Advice/What-
life-lessons-are-counter-intuitive-or-go-against-common-sense-or-
wisdom/answer/Yishan-Wong)

"1. Chasing more and more money is not a route to happiness. You shouldn't try
specifically to acquire more money in the hopes that it will make you happy
but rather, once you have money, think carefully about how you can use it to
increase your happiness.

2\. Using money to buy the wrong things (often: things which are popular,
things which other people desire, things which require much manual upkeep or
worry - see #3) does not result in happiness.

3\. People often use money to buy things which they then spend time worrying
about, rather than purchasing things which allow them to worry less."

The main argument is that it's not a good idea to be frugal just for the sake
of being frugal - both extremes of materialism and the opposite are an
unhealthy relationship with money or possessions. Buying better things isn't
because "you're worth it", but because in some areas it will genuinely make
your life a better experience. It's about evaluating all the circumstances and
making the best decision rather than applying one credo constantly and
repeatedly.

------
mannicken
It's easy to say "spend $30 extra" when you actually have that money. There
were times when I was in debt, and had like $10 on my bank account, and so
many personal problems I couldn't handle work. His advice was pointless at the
time. That advice is pointless for anyone who doesn't have free $30 to spend
around.

My verdict: the author lives in a bubble that he has created and paid for.
However, that bubble is also his prison; it suppresses his ability to make
sudden changes in life.

I am fairly ok with sleeping on the street, since I've done it a number of
times, so when it comes to making a mildly life-changing decision I'll be more
confident about taking a risk.

Look, I like sitting here in a nice couch, typing on a Macbook about how
hardcore I am, just as much as everyone else does. But ultimately, a nice
couch is just that -- a nice couch, and a candle in the bathroom is just a
fucking candle. And in a hundred years, no one will care if you had a nice
couch or a candle in your bathroom, but they will if you wrote a book or
created something beautiful.

------
abstractfactory
Bruce Sterling said some similar stuff in the Last Viridian Note, and he said
it far better:
[http://www.viridiandesign.org/notes/451-500/the_last_viridia...](http://www.viridiandesign.org/notes/451-500/the_last_viridian_note.html)

It's a little unfortunate that viridiandesign.org is basically unreadable due
to that terrible background image.

~~~
KaeseEs
The arc90 readability bookmarklet fixes it for me.

~~~
mtrimpe
The good old Ctrl-A also does the trick ;)

------
comice
"I get as much pleasure watching my bank account grow as I do from buying
things or taking trips"

Pleasure from amassing wealth or things is misplaced. It's a dangerous
addiction to nothing. Work on that before you lecture the frugal about being
cheap.

~~~
roel_v
"Pleasure from amassing wealth or things is misplaced."

Says you. A holier than thou attitude about how awful all this 'materialism'
and 'attachment to the physical world' is, is also misplaced.

------
copenja
Wow, I disagree. Starting with expensive shoes. I wear flip-flops, shorts, and
a t-shirt to work everyday. I'm pretty comfortable. I don't see the
correlation between expensive footwear and comfort.

Beds. Yes, you spend 1/3 your life in bed. And you spend it unconscious. You
spend about 0.03% of your conscious life in bed while falling asleep (30 mins
a day).

But more importantly: Relax. Just because you make a certain decision doesn't
mean everyone else needs to.

~~~
mironathetin
>I don't see the correlation between expensive footwear and comfort.<

There is a close correlation, but only if you buy genuine leather shoes. Good
leather gets into shape while you wear it. If the leather is really tough, it
takes a while, but afterwards these shoes will fit as if they were made for
you. There is nothing that can be as comfortable, IMHO. The feet are always
dry, warm and comfortable.

The price is high, of course. Good leather costs a fortune (you want the one
without chemicals in them). Repairing these shoes is expensive too. Find the
right person who does it well, find the right brands, so you don't buy
expensive fake, etc. pp.

I own many hand made pairs, none of them less then 400 Euros worth (some
more). This is not frugal, this is luxury. But I have 20 year old pairs that
still look great and can easily be worn to the opera or a concert (if that's
your kind of occupation). Calculating the price per year is also pretty good
value for money.

But I would never dispute that flip flops are cheaper ;o). If you loose them,
if they are damaged, no problem. Investment is also always a commitment.

~~~
mironathetin
The interesting question would be (to come back to what the original article
is about): Do I feel better because I wear expensive shoes?

The answer is: no!

I feel good, because I want to wear nice shoes (sometimes, for reasons I have
to discuss with Mr. Freud sometimes) and what makes me feel good is that I can
fulfill my wish. Definitely not the fact that some of my shows are expensive.

------
saturdaysaint
There are studies that indicate that runners wearing $100+ shoes are much more
prone to injury than runners wearing sub-$50 shoes. In fact, what's initially
"comfortable" insulates our feet from important physical signals, leading to a
lot of physical pain. (read the recent, excellent book "Born To Run" if you
find this interesting)

My point is that not thinking about decisions "makes you a loser", and
equating price with quality is often a mistake.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
And since when did homo sapiens evolve to need a $600 matress? Folks around
the world sleep on a futon, or the floor. Do they all get terrible sleep? Or
do they adapt.

~~~
saturdaysaint
...or do they actually, in many circumstances, _thrive_ because we've evolved
to live under "thrifty" pre-industrial conditions? In the book I referenced
(Born To Run), the author describes an extremely isolated Mexican tribe where
40-50 year old men regularly run 50-mile plus races in bare feet, in good
part, many believe, _because_ they've shunned shoes. I wouldn't be surprised
if we come to the same conclusion about mattresses.

Again, I'm just throwing this in because I think it's best to think flexibly.
I also often argue that it makes perfect sense to splurge on a $60 massage or
a $75 per person meal every now and then because memorable experiences are
surprisingly valuable and more permanent (in one's mind) than they might
appear to the impulsively thrifty consumer.

------
bemmu
Bed and chair manufacturers must love this post. While I agree that it's
pointless to skimp on things which would make you more productive, it's not
necessarily true that the really expensive ones are better.

~~~
robryan
Yeah, you have to be smart about it really. To me, the quality different
between the super cheap mattress and the $500 ones is big. For the $500 to
$1000 jump, not so much. Same with chairs, the worst office chairs are
terrible and going to leave you with pain. The mid range ones to the top just
aren't as big a difference.

~~~
eru
I agree.

Though you can sidestep the chair issue: Just get a standing desk.

------
stashdot
A friend's uncle gave some very abrupt advice which has stuck with me. "There
are people who figure out ways to save money and there are people who figure
out ways to make more money."

~~~
omouse
Saving money = oppressing yourself. Making more money = oppressing others.

------
marknutter
I think it's perfectly acceptable to buy a cheap version of something if
you're not sure how much you're going to be using it. For instance, if you
decide to take up guitar, you'd be an idiot to spend $3000 on a nice Fender
Stratocaster, because chances are you're going to play it for a week and then
never touch it again. Same goes for a lot of hobbies. If you _are_ going to
use something a lot, however, I agree that you should eventually upgrade to
the nicest stuff you can afford.

------
EGreg
The surest way to be happy is to have a large safety net in all the things you
really need.

You can skimp on the things you merely want, and still be happy.

Think of all the things you really need, the things you would be really
miserable without. These are the ones you should splurge on. I mean, really,
spend 2x as much as you think the average person would spend on them. Totally
own it. Then you will always feel like your life is good. Because you don't
sweat the small stuff :)

------
nwomack
Absolutely agree with this post.

I didn't grow up with a lot of money, and was raised on the 'If it's available
Wal-Mart, buy it at Wal-Mart' mentality.

Looking back on this, I wasted so much money on crap that just got replaced.

Now, I spare no expense (within reason....) to buy the nicest of what I want.
End result? I'm more picky about what I buy, so I have fewer, but nicer
things. and I am rarely left thinking "Well I wish my X could do Y".

------
mncolinlee
Wow, this guy is a loser.

I don't disagree with his suggestion that the primary tools you use in life
and your trade should be high-quality. He's right about that specific
statement. If I must eat a Ramen-equivalent to buy the tools I need, I will.
However, most of us cannot afford his tastes in every area of life after
paying for crappy health insurance, a mortgage, and children. He reads like a
child who has never been forced to live on less and to value the tools we
have.

Most normal people are aware that every purchasing decision we make involves
trade-offs. We perform a cost-benefit analysis with many purchases. We think,
if I cut back on buying fancy coffee over the course of a year, I will save up
enough to afford a better laptop or a lower health insurance deductible.

The author has issues that need to be addressed. The whole article reads like
someone rationalizing bad choices on luxury-branded products and criticizing
in advance anyone who may one day point them out.

------
stretchwithme
Invest in yourself and those you care about at every opportunity. Enjoy life
from the proceeds. And never spend to simply impress others.

And value your time. If you don't, no one else will.

------
FrojoS
Obviously this article has hit a nerve. Its true, the tone is somewhat rude
and I don't agree with all he says, but I'm happy about the discussions. I'm a
cheap bastard and so are most of my friends. But I used to be the cheapest.
Hell, in my climbing bum days before Uni, I even got called "cheap bastard" by
fellow climbers on the campsite!

However, I'm changing. More into the direction that the author proposes. This
year, I got a Mac. It was almost forced on me by a friend. I always liked
Apple products but thought the price/value was just not good enough for a poor
student. I think I was wrong. I never want to go back. I would probably clean
toilets to afford a Mac if I have to.

The author touches an important point, especially for aspring entrepreneurs,
when he says: "Using well designed stuff reinforces the mindset of earning and
creating. “Man, the world needs more well designed and well made stuff like
this.” “Man, I’m going to earn more so I can have more well designed and well
made stuff like this.”" I couldn't agree more. How can you get costumers to
buy quality from you if you don't choose quality over price in your daily
life? Its hard to build something, that you have no experience with.

One advantage of buying cheap, though, is that its easier to get rid of them
later. Hence, you might feel more freedom and flexibility. However, I'm
starting to pay attention to aspects like weight and robustness so I don't
have to leave them behind when I leave. What I really want to get rid of the
next time I move is all the cheap stuff. On the other hand, having lots of
cheap stuff is a good reservoir for hacks!

I also agree with the author on "The mental aspect [being cheap] is huge." I'm
trying to get rid of this problem, too. In the last month I've bought two free
Apps [1] on online stores. I just felt they were worth the money. Later, when
I learned this was actually true, I checked for the license and was pleased to
see they where under GPL and Apache 2.0

[1] touch.txt for Android ($2) and Brisk ($15) for the Mac

------
hasenj
I've heard of an idiom "expensive is cheap" (kinda reminds you of "less is
more").

The idea being, or rather my interpretation of it is: something of high
quality that's 2x the price of something else of low quality is probably wroth
10x more, so it's actually "cheap" in the sense that you get a lot more than
what you pay for.

~~~
wickedchicken
This is totally a mindfuck designed to get you to buy more expensive stuff and
not care. Yes, if you have the money and you've made a vaguely reasoned
decision then buy the expensive thing by all means. But don't fork over extra
money just because "expensive is cheap."

~~~
wattsbaat
I understand your skepticism regarding spending extra money, but I do believe
that "expensive" can often be "cheap". But it very much depends on your level
of usage for the product in question.

To clarify hasenj's point about the more expensive thing being "worth 10x
more", imagine that an expensive couch will last you 10 times longer than the
cheap one (in addition to being more comfortable), but it will cost you twice
as much. If owning a couch is an essential part of your desired lifestyle,
then buying the more expensive couch is just the logical choice.

Of course, the real question is whether or not you really need couch? This is
obviously a matter personal preference, but your present decision-making
should incorporate your future preferences as well. There is often a lot of
uncertainty in gauging your future level of need/want for a given product,
which makes this a tricky game.

------
skrebbel
The first blog comment somehow underlines the truth in this post:

> You’re such a dick, Scott.

------
shiftb
Replace the word frugal with cheap in this article and it becomes much better.

------
Tyrannosaurs
There are two points here - the practical one (don't buy cheap stuff, you save
money but it costs you time because it doesn't work as well, breaks and causes
more grief than it's worth) and the mental one (because you're worth it).

The first one is fine and bang on the money, but are people actually getting
their sense of self worth from the quality of their nail clippers or having
pot pourri in the bathroom? Seriously?

If that's really the case then I'd suggest that people look at the underlying
issue of why this is rather than papering over the cracks by buying nice
stuff. The idea that your self worth comes down to your stuff is horrible and
should only be true in the world of advertising and marketing.

------
omouse
So we have two sides of capitalism here: consumers who want to buy at a
cheaper price, and consumers who want to spend more on quality/brand/etc.

I should change my nickname to "socialist_commentary" or something. Why not
argue about _why_ you need all these things and what you're doing by
supporting particular companies (some of which may treat their workers like
shit)? You're smart enough to talk about the price of the product, but not
smart enough to talk about the companies and our consumerist culture in
general? I don't buy that.

------
rglover
The author definitely makes a solid point: quality always wins. But the tone
and delivery of this article made me feel like an idiot for ever buying
anything on the cheap. Generally, I felt like I was back in high school being
put down for buying the wrong pair of shoes. Reiterating that point, the
author's delivery makes me feel like I've done something wrong, not put me on
the path to being naive about frugality.

------
thewisedude
What is Frugal is subjective to your income. What makes a person feel good or
bad is consequential of his social circle and what his friends/acquaintances
have.

For eg: a person making $1 million a year, could buy a $40K car and feel like
he was not compromising if all his friends had $30K cars.

However, a guy who is making a similar amount of money might not be too happy
if he had to buy a Jag and all his friends had Ferraris.

Ignoring the whole loser argument that the author is making, the one good
thing to consider here in the article is, its a good idea to spend
proportional to the time you will be spending with the product.

For eg: If you are spending a lot of time on computer, you probably want to
get something that is "good" quality and which is good for your eyes and has
other benefits.

------
bad_user
Article directly contradicts the definition of frugality, talking about being
cheap instead.

------
lionhearted
AJ is saying don't cut spending on things that affect your production. That's
absolutely a no-brainer. Buy yourself good tools, ensure you get good sleep,
keep your health up, keep your ability to walk.

Always spend more to increase your production by a bigger amount. It pays for
itself in the end.

Now, how much should you cut on pure consumption? That's a tricky one. I tend
to cut my consumption as low as I can without hurting my production. But do
always spend well on tools, on getting your production up, on your health, and
on taking good care of people who do right by you. Absolutely don't go cheap
on that stuff, you wind up with less in the long run if you do.

~~~
ajkessler
Thanks Sebastian :) Some of the things I tried to point out in the post are
things we often over look.

If you're a carpenter running a shop, it's a no-brainer to buy tools that help
you be more productive and make your life easier. But, there are other tools
or things we use every day, whose cumulative effects can be as important as
the one big tool we spend most of our time on. Making the same smart decisions
on those smaller things as we do on the larger ones isn't going to impact your
bottom line in a meaningful way, but can dramatically impact your quality of
life.

------
c0riander
There is a difference between cheap and frugal. In accepted parlance "cheap"
means making purchasing decisions based solely on price. "Frugal" means paying
for value, which is what this post is ultimately recommending (despite the
title) - a "lean" mentality, where you avoid needless cash burn (or saving) in
favor of those things that really matter.

Ramit Sethi likes to go on about this topic - see his "Cheap vs. frugal" blog
post, for example:
[http://sandbox.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/archives/2005/09/ch...](http://sandbox.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/archives/2005/09/cheap_versus_fr.html)

------
nickpinkston
As someone who just voluntarially went from a house, 3 cars, and tons of junk
- down to what I can fit in my hatchback (including furniture) and a basic
apartment, I can tell you that nothing is more liberating to me than throwing
away / selling junk that I didn't need, and being able to live without stuff
owning me.

Sure, my backpack has a nice laptop, iPad, etc. - but to me those are true
conveniences. I've slept for years on shit mattresses, and I've come to
conclude that it's how hard I worked that most affects my sleep.

Just my two cents...

------
ctdonath
Frugal: performing intense cost/benefit analyses on everything, including the
analysis itself.

Cheap: not spending more _only_ because the price is higher.

Frugal builds wealth. Cheap squanders it.

------
rahshank
The cheap vs frugal debate can go on forever. I think it comes down to cost
vs. convenience. If you're spending a ton of time and inconveniencing yourself
trying to be frugal maybe it's not worth it. When I'm trying to save money on
something I just ask myself whether the savings are going to inconvenience me
a ton. If so, I just buy a better, more expensive product. If not, hey just
get the cheaper product.

------
radioactive21
A better intelligent article would have address the total cost of ownership
and efficiency of the product over its lifetime.

In that sense, buying better quality products which might be more expensive at
first is a better deal. In this way I am willing to concede that you shouldn't
sell yourself short. But this can honestly be all summoned up by saying, do
your research before you buy.

------
brupm2
Most of you are dicks. The guy makes sense, don't cheap out on the things that
matter. Don't waste 30 minutes looking for nail trimmers every 2 weeks to save
an extra $3.85.

Take what he says with a grain of salt and apply to your life what you think
is right.

Hacker News comments are created by a bunch of self-righteous, over-
generalizing trolls.

Live and let live and don't be a cheapskate :]

------
nazgulnarsil
I'd just like to point out that true frugality doesn't lower your status. It
raises mine because I have a higher standard of living and thus appear to have
higher income than I actually do.

Miserly-ness is the result of something I call _naive cost benefit analysis_ ,
which is an analysis that leaves out important variables.

------
robryan
Another thing not touched on, when you are buying the cheapest you can find
you are often buying the product made from the lowest quality materials and
assembled by the cheapest workers in the world often in terrible conditions.

------
marckremers
A high quality mattress and king size bed, quality (and ALWAYS fresh) bed
linen, good duvets etc is the best investment you can make no matter what your
income bracket is, everyone needs this. Totally agree.

~~~
gdulli
I can sleep on anything and be comfortable. A mattress salesman even told me
that someone who has my body type doesn't need to spend big on a mattress if
they're comfortable with a cheaper one. But there are things I put good money
into that others wouldn't. Bloviating about what "everyone" needs or should do
is pointless and shows a lack of understanding that people have different
values.

------
plusbryan
I've bought $1 screwdrivers and $10 screwdrivers, and I can saw with some
assurance that 1) there wasn't a 10x difference in utility and 2) my annoyance
at #1 made it a far worse experiencs

------
wuster
Am I the only one who thinks his definition of 'frugal' is typically described
by 'cheap'?

Agree that he's just a total unlikeable dick all throughout the post. Heh.

------
trungonnews
I live with a belief that I cannot bring my money with me when I die.

------
bennesvig
A great post that will be misread by most people. Adam Carolla has a similar
rant in his book about why your bed should be one of the nicest things you
own.

------
dasil003
Who the fuck is this guy to tell me what I _should_ buy? It's not as if
frugality is rampant in America today.

