Live Cheap!

[RedScare]

I don't think anyone here was trying to say 2/1s are the way to go. From my viewpoint at least, the suggestion is that too many people believe that larger (more than they need) homes signify success of some sort. The resulting mortgage not only makes them miserable, but puts many in severe financial straits. Most could live in substantially smaller homes very comfortably, but allow the avalanche of "buy more, buy bigger" commercials to convince them that they "need" that larger home.

Note that this is not a thread about whether people should live in smaller homes. That is for the McMansion trashing threads. This is more about ways that one can live more frugally, and how American society is antagonistic to the concept of thrifty living. Those that can afford it, if they wish, are free to live large. Those who cannot afford it, or would rather work and worry less, should definitely look at downsizing...whatever that may mean to them. Obviously, for music, danax and I, that means a 2/1 or less. For you, your wife and kids, it would be noticably larger.

Frankly, every time I read about this stuff, there seems to be too many sacred cows. Some people say they "have" to have a certain size house. Others HAVE to live in this subdivision. Still others could NEVER drive a smaller car, or take the bus. Some could NEVER walk down the street in Houston weather, or shop at Target. Well, to those people, good for you. Now, get off this forum and get back to work, because you REALLY need your job. The point is, if people did not have so many sacred cows, they would not need nearly so much income. I have been selling my sacred cows since 2001. I still have many to sell. But, I am getting there. And my only problem is the occasional relapse of consumerism.

[Guest danax]

Frankly, every time I read about this stuff, there seems to be too many sacred cows. Some people say they "have" to have a certain size house. Others HAVE to live in this subdivision. Still others could NEVER drive a smaller car, or take the bus. Some could NEVER walk down the street in Houston weather, or shop at Target. Well, to those people, good for you. Now, get off this forum and get back to work, because you REALLY need your job. The point is, if people did not have so many sacred cows, they would not need nearly so much income. I have been selling my sacred cows since 2001. I still have many to sell. But, I am getting there. And my only problem is the occasional relapse of consumerism.

I've heard two examples of this in the past two days; one, a guy in the mortgage business who has been doing well for many years is feeling the crunch. He told his wife that they should sell the house and "downsize" into a $500K house. She supposedly tells him, " I could never live in a $500K house!" (they have no children). Another story; a real estate agent told me of a couple looking for another home. They have a home right now that the man absolutely loves (1M or so value) and the wife if insistent that they "need" something close to 3M. So he's giving in and leaving the house he loves.

One passing thought is that "women's lib" created a new consumer monster. The establishment of the working woman as standard societal equipment has unleashed a barrage of new buying, and I wonder if women are more possibly more materialistic than men? That's another topic though.

[musicman]

One passing thought is that "women's lib" created a new consumer monster. The establishment of the working woman as standard societal equipment has unleashed a barrage of new buying, and I wonder if women are more possibly more materialistic than men? That's another topic though.

i will give the ladies credit and say no. a good friend of mine lives in NM and sure has taught me a few things. she's one of the no TV types and definitely a hands on person. only thing she won't tackle is electrical (but i have seen her do low voltage like on boats). she makes great pecan pie, is a great carpenter/plumber/mechanic, etc. i know she'll tell you (and me) it is about finding about what really is important to you to survive.

[CDeb]

One passing thought is that "women's lib" created a new consumer monster. The establishment of the working woman as standard societal equipment has unleashed a barrage of new buying, and I wonder if women are more possibly more materialistic than men? That's another topic though.

Nah. My wife has a good job making more than I do and she is much more thrifty (OK, cheap) than I am. She is definitely the one that reins in the family spending and I am grateful for that!

[musicman]

^

^

good post red unfortunately i clicked the wrong button and lost my response.

i do agree that society doesn't look highly at those who are frugal. when i was younger, i don't think i did either but things changed for me and i realized that somethings that i thought were important weren't even necessary. i know some people consider cable tv a necessity. while it may be give one more viewing options, it also takes away from other more pleasurable/productive things.

a friend (and coworker) who lives down the street has lived in her house for 15 yrs or so. she invited one of her coworkers over and the coworker told her that "you can do better." the comment upset her. i explained that material things bring happiness to some people but they also result in more bills.

the delineation between a need vs a want is different for everyone. the last few yrs have given me the opportunity to reflect on quite a few things and has resulted in a different demarcation for me. i'm definitely not living like a hermit, but have simplified my life in quite a few areas.

so red when is the next sacred cow sale? i may need to make a purchase.

[millennica]

One passing thought is that "women's lib" created a new consumer monster. The establishment of the working woman as standard societal equipment has unleashed a barrage of new buying, and I wonder if women are more possibly more materialistic than men? That's another topic though.

I think it is difficult to make a generalization about women being more materialistic than men. My sense is materialism is gender neutral. In my family, I have always made more money than my spouse, have always been more frugal and less into creature comforts, pushing to rein in spending and not purchase things just because we can afford them.

[Guest danax]

I think it is difficult to make a generalization about women being more materialistic than men. My sense is materialism is gender neutral. In my family, I have always made more money than my spouse, have always been more frugal and less into creature comforts, pushing to rein in spending and not purchase things just because we can afford them.

I agree. It has a lot more to do with cultural programming than anything, I suppose. My former wife grew up in Mexico in humble surroundings and was great with money. Those who grew up within a certain economic and social level might have a problem adjusting down and doing with less, such as the "princess/high maintenance woman", to use a stereotype.

And as Coog mentioned, even going materially minimalist can be displayed as a status symbol, which then is no less egocentric than being a McMansionite.

[RedScare]

so red when is the next sacred cow sale? i may need to make a purchase.

You just mentioned it. It annoys me to no end that I pay $65 for cable/satellite TV, when there are so few shows worth watching. If not for the fact that I would spend more money sitting in a bar watching a few sporting events than the entire month's bill, I'd ditch the thing.

[TheNiche]

Nah. My wife has a good job making more than I do and she is much more thrifty (OK, cheap) than I am. She is definitely the one that reins in the family spending and I am grateful for that!

Dad!?

[millennica]

And as Coog mentioned, even going materially minimalist can be displayed as a status symbol, which then is no less egocentric than being a McMansionite.

Giving a conspicuous demonstration of anything intended to attract attention whether it be flaunting one's material minimalism or one's brave unflinching attitude-- can be displayed as status symbols, all equally egocentric in my opinion.

[CDeb]

Dad!?

Nope!

[jm1fd]

You just mentioned it. It annoys me to no end that I pay $65 for cable/satellite TV, when there are so few shows worth watching. If not for the fact that I would spend more money sitting in a bar watching a few sporting events than the entire month's bill, I'd ditch the thing.

ComCrap's most recent rate increase pissed me off, so I canceled my cable TV. I'm going to just download everything I want to watch from the interwebs....

[RedScare]

More articles on the Middle Class.

What is middle class?

Acouple of quotes are eerily similar to what we were discussing yesterday.

Data aside, being

[MidtownCoog]

More articles on the Middle Class.

What is middle class?

The reality is that we are all bombarded with an "American Dream" as defined by Madison Avenue.

Dude. You have to tune that crap out. That's what I do and it works great.

[crunchtastic]

Have been away for a while--thanks for such a thought-provoking topic.

It's not just things, it's services. Stuff we pay someone else to do that my middle class parents would never have. And I see it cross class lines all the time--take the average 16 year old girl on a steady diet of teen content, magazines, etc. and she may be from a very low income, family, but she's in the nail salon getting a mani-pedi, because it's a treat, she's worth it and it's only a small splurge. It's easy to justify $10 here or there. The nail salon, the car wash, the yard crews. The explosion of services that can be had at little to no cost because of the available labor to provide those services (another topic) just blows me away. And a lot of it's driven by time, which is driven by population patterns and sprawl, and advertisers and entrepeneurs have taken this and run with it, creating needs you didn't even know you had. Someone who lives, say, in Cinco and spends 3 hours a day commuting has to find a way to reclaim time (clever Madison Avenue to the rescue!). Hence eating out, spending twice as much at the store for prepared meals, $80 a month for tv., plus the Netflix, plus the game systems, so you can spend more time at home relaxing with your family (but always with content!), Bubbles Car Wash, yard crew, a different crew to hang your Xmas decorations for you, so you have more time, to shop for more Xmas presents, that will eventually go into your mini-storage unit since a new one just opened around the corner.....

I'm reading a sort of fluff book, The United States of Arugula, about food, gourmet dining, etc, and it puts a point on something I never considered in the context of consumption--that dining out as entertainment didn't exist in this country on any kind of scale, really, until the 70s. Now look at us.

People I work with think I'm nuts to wash my own car and mow my own lawn. To me, anyway, there's a psychogical impact of feeling less and less connected, paying someone to do all your stuff so you have more time to.... consume. I like my yard. I paid a damn lot of money for it. It's important for me to spend time with it. I find it deeply troubling for the future of the republic, as Red put is so well, that at least among my middle and upper middle class peers, my view is not only the minority view, it's a crazy one. How appropriate, I'm off to a meeting with a co-worker who giggles and shrugs her shoulders when she talks about her Viking 6-burner/dual fuel range and oven she's used 3 times in 6 months. Boy, do I covet that oven!!

[MidtownCoog]

I find it deeply troubling for the future of the republic, as Red put is so well, that at least among my middle and upper middle class peers, my view is not only the minority view, it's a crazy one.

The theme in these replies tell me that y'all spend too much time worrying about other people's business.

[RedScare]

The theme in these replies tell me that y'all spend too much time worrying about other people's business.

Some call it worry. Others call it thoughtful observation.

[CDeb]

It's not just things, it's services. Stuff we pay someone else to do that my middle class parents would never have.

Astute observation.

Like you, some people think I'm crazy to mow my own yard and do many of my home repairs myself.

My response is always, "One of the surest paths to wealth is to never pay someone to do something that you can easily do yourself."

[musicman]

The theme in these replies tell me that y'all spend too much time worrying about other people's business.

sounds as if you do too.

[crunchtastic]

It's nice to have this conversation with people who can take the topic beyond the watered down Dave Ramsey talking points and without resorting to cheap judgment calls.

Anyway...bread and circuses, and all that.

[MidtownCoog]

sounds as if you do too.

Just replying to the threads as I see fit.

Why does a "how to be cheap" conversation always turn into "people have too much stuff and consumerism is bad"?

Is it some kind of way that cheapos can feel better about themselves?

Be cheap. And don't sweat the small stuff, like how much junk your in debt neighbords have.

[musicman]

Why does a "how to be cheap" conversation always turn into "people have too much stuff and consumerism is bad"?

Is it some kind of way that cheapos can feel better about themselves?

it's all about wants vs needs. we make our lives as complicated or as simple as we want.

maybe it should be a "don't knock it til you try it thread"

[RedScare]

Anyway...bread and circuses, and all that.

Bread and circuses, indeed!

LOL, I had to look it up, but it does fit the conversation. FWIW, this is somewhat of a tangent to a theory that I have been thinking about, and lightly researching for several years. Without going into too much detail, it revolves around the control of populations. Everyone knows of historical attempts by communist regimes to control the populace by converting all property to state ownership. The central government then controls wages, property ownership, etc., to the exclusion of the individual. Virtually everyone lives in a state of lower middle income, save for the few ruling elite. No one lives in abject poverty. Simultaneously, no one rises above middle class, either. Because the central government controls one's very means of survival, the populace is theorhetically controlled.

At other times in history, organized religion performed this function. Fear of reprisal from God was used to control the behavior of the masses. For those who doubted the existence of God, or even the claim to superiority of God's earthly leaders, other more immediate punishments were used.

Clearly, to a large extent, neither of these methods of control are used in the US. In fact, it is doubtful that either really could, at least not for very long. That does not change the perceived need on the part of aspiring leaders to control the US populace. Something better was needed. Something that the rank and file citizen would not even perceive as control. Enter American style capitalism.

It is important to note that this control is not necessarily exerted by a finite group of rulers. There is not really a group at all. It is more of a loose collection of like-minded thinkers. Membership in this collection of people is not controlled by any means other than the willingness to think alike and the ability to carry out the thoughts of the "group". The control relies on the inherent greed and envy of people. By nurturing and manipulating that greed, by educating the populace that greed is good, and the greedier are better than the less greedy, the populace is consumed with the achievment of material goods, and less interested in what the leaders are doing. In fact, the leaders can do almost anything at this point, as long as it convinces the populace that it allows them to acquire more material goods.

So, who is in the "group"? Manufacturers and retailers, of course, who profit handsomely from an increased appetite for material goods. The marketing industry is indispensible for advertising the goods and services, and for spreading the gospel that more is better. The banks are critical, as consumers have only so much cash to purchase the goods. Plus, one can stop purchasing as one's funds run out. Control is therefore lost. A person in debt is under the control of the banker. Lastly, but most importantly, government policies that encourage the unhealthy appetite for material goods is key. Therefore, giving corporate tax breaks, loosening lending laws and usury rates, and minimizing or eliminating penalties for fraudulent advertising allows the cycle to speed up immeasurably.

It is easy to keep a system like this going. Consumers acquire more goods, making them feel as if they are succeeding. There is never a shortage of people who wish to join the controlling group. Polititians, seduced by wheelbarrows of cash, are more than happy to loosen restrictions on fraudulent business practices further, all in the name of "free markets". As controllers of the military, they can then be persuaded that the Army can properly be used to expand the economic footprint of the US, as opposed to its historical use as defense.

Now, the consumer is stuck. After purchasing so much on credit, he is no longer free to move at will. The debt must be paid to the banks. Further, there are more goods to acquire. Since the same "group" that lent the money and sold the goods also employs the consumer, the consumer can be forced to work longer hours to continue receiving the paycheck to pay the bank. At the end of the day, the consumer is too tired to protest any inequities. He is also afraid of losing what he has acquired, a sure sign, he was taught, of failure.

A rather harsh example of this phenomenon can be found in the legal industry. For years, the largest law firms have showered new law school graduates with lavish parties and huge starting salaries out of all proportion to their worth to the firm as neophyte attorneys. The new lawyers are encouraged to "look the part" by purchasing expensive wardrobes, cars and homes. This is in addition to the huge student loans they have picked up along the way. The young lawyers, no doubt thinking they are every bit as important as their new bosses have told them they were, dive in with gusto. Once ensnared with the $140,000 starting salary, a salary they cannot get in any other profession, and once indebted to their eyeballs, the firm then piles on the work, knowing the lawyer cannot leave. It is not uncommon for these young attorneys to log 80 and 90 hour work weeks. All that money and they cannot even enjoy it. Who would have ever thought that one could think he is a slave at $140K?

Now, like I warned, this is a very rough outline. It is devoid of supporting data, which would quickly make the post too long. It is just a short publication of a theory I have been researching, one that I am not ready to proclaim "proven". It may not even be an original thought. While I welcome all critical remarks, I do ask that you keep the "communist", "anti-American", "tinfoil hat", and "stupid liberal" posts to a minimum. I already know that this is not mainstream thought. I only post it to hear intelligent responses...for or against.

[MidtownCoog]

The Chinese do it too, and they are "communists".

Wang Zhongjun is loaded and happy to flaunt it. He wears Prada shoes, Versace jackets, and a Piaget watch. He smokes Cohiba cigars from Cuba. He drives a white Mercedes-Benz SL600, a silver BMW z8, and a red Ferrari 360. His art collection includes hundreds of sculptures and paintings. Value: $30 million or so. Home sweet home is this 22,000-square-foot mansion furnished with British and French antiques.

[crunchtastic]

Two words:

company store.

Red, there's lots of stuff out there that will reinforce your thinking on the 'marketplace' taking the place of government and/or religion. Totally off the top of my head, Naomi Klein is a reporter and not an academic, but No Logo is by now a standard. Corporation Nation (Gerber ? I think) is good and well documented, and has as its premise a legal construct: corporate charters and what the hell happened to them.

To Coog's point, everyone is catching up. I saw some segment on tv that France is running, literally, out of Champagne, and Chinese and the Russians are to account for the increased consumption. Which the French, of course, can't abide. Russians are the new Ugly Americans.

Enslaved young lawyers is something I know firsthand-- I worked at Baker Botts back in the days when everyone in town at the right firms were still basking in the glow of the Tenneco settlement, late 80s. (I was a nite-shift proofreader going to grad school days). Of course then it was 80K to start for the young hot pup lawyers, 80-90 hour weeks. I dated my fair share of 'em because they were always working late. (but not in a communist 'fair share' way) Two things really stick out--(1) thank god for cocaine and (2) 80% of those hotshot young lawyers burned themselves out and left the firm, still deeply indebted, bitter, and 80% of all they really did was glorified secretarial work. (never mind their hours billed as 'partner' to unsuspecting clients, oops). A hell of a price to pay.

As far as conspiracy goes, that would assume things sneaky, illegal, or done in secret. Most of the truly nasty stuff going on in the word is out in full view. It's just that few people care to question it.

[MidtownCoog]

Quit worrying about other people and focus on your inner cheapness!

[RedScare]

Two words:

company store.

As far as conspiracy goes, that would assume things sneaky, illegal, or done in secret. Most of the truly nasty stuff going on in the word is out in full view. It's just that few people care to question it.

Wow, first the "bread and circuses", then company store. I thought of the company store analogy as I was writing my post, but left it out. It does have that feel to it. While the company store is clearly not communism, but capitalism, it is also decidedly not free market either.

As for conspiracies, I made every effort not to mention or even allude to one. Conspiracies conjure up images of Lee Harvey Oswald, et al. This is not so much conspiracy as like minded thinkers. Corporate CEOs discussing how to guarantee profits at the country club. The only conspiracy to speak of might be the control of politicians by flooding their campaign coffers with cash in return for favorable legislation, but as you indicated, this is done in full view, reported by the media on a regular basis. But, the effect is undeniable. Back in the 70s, credit card interest rates over 18% were illegal in 37 states. Now, all 50 states allow virtually unlimited rates. In an era of extremely low interest rates, it is routine to see maximums in the 30s. The highest that I have heard is a staggering 78%. Other examples are deregulation of almost every industry, with the result being higher prices when lower prices through competition was promised.

The big difference is business control of government as opposed to government control of business. Of course, the failure of both systems of government is that the citizen has no control in either.

Note to Coog: Dude, give it up. This is an internet FORUM. A forum is for the exchange of ideas. If this topic makes your head hurt, read something else.

[MidtownCoog]

Y'alls' insecurities are way too transparent.

Feel free to continue to justify your frugality as you see fit.

The only exchange of ideas I see in this thread is is "we don't like people with stuff".

Carry on with being cheap and stop worrying about everyone else.

And remeber, I am one of you frugal fools. I just don't covet (or worry) about what junk my neighbors are in debt for.

[musicman]

The only exchange of ideas I see in this thread is is "we don't like people with stuff".

don't think anyone has said this either.

[crunchtastic]

oof--deregulation. Speaking of something that makes one head explode... My lower utility rates? My lower telecom rates? Better airlines? Grrr... Still waiting on this magical competition induced lower-price/better service promised by the Freidman uber-free-market economists.

That and my freaking jet pack.

Have we ventured way, way off topic yet?