Hacker News Reader

Comment by kristopolous | Hacker News Reader

Maybe I'm not the mainstream, but the more money I have, the less obligated I feel to use any of it.

Every car I've owned has been cheaper than the previous and honestly these days I'm mostly public transit. But at the same time, I've become many times richer between each car purchase.

I love the non connection and unpreciousness of my possessions - how profoundly and easily replaceable they are and how detached I am from them.

At the end what is wealth other than excess of liberty and freedom. An ability to purchase luxury without much concern for the cost is at its highest form when someone can also dismiss most of the luxury as frivolous and not purchase it at all.

View on HN

I'm really confused...did you write this ironically? Are you the author? Your quote seems to directly confirm the author's hypothesis, no? E.g. that there now exists a class of affluent status who is not longer able to signal his or her value through objects anymore since they are widely accessible by all classes, so one has to find other ways to subtly show one's wealth. You then go and comment on Hacker News about how wealthy and self-realized you, "aspire to be." Is that not why the author chose the term, "aspirational class?"

Either the author is really on to something, or you yourself are an agent of the author.

Why is that confusing? Has HN become so contrarian that a top comment agreeing with the author is suspect?

I think the confusion stems from the fact that the OP tries to set himself apart from the target of the article. It just sounds like he didn't read the link.

I don't see this "[trying] to set himself apart" bit. Maybe I'm reading too literal? Maybe others are projecting? I don't know. I read OP as continuing the article's discussion. Or just a minor "meh, this is how it is with me."

But "setting himself apart"? Or 'writing ironically'? I don't see it.

>> Maybe I'm not the mainstream...

how profoundly and easily replaceable

It is no great virtue to think that when you have wealth, but try living like that when you are poor and all of your meagre possessions were hard-earned.

Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

Obviously if you need a car/house/refrigerator/whatever to live your life and are not wealthy then replacing that item is not easily done, because it costs weeks of salary (or more) and needing a replacement can be profoundly disruptive to your life.

However, I can see no chain of logic suggesting that means you're forced to live less minimally than a wealthier person is able to.

>> It is no great virtue to think that when you have wealth, but try living like that when you are poor and all of your meagre possessions were hard-earned.

>> Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

Those are separate things. Minimalism would be the opposite of buying things that are easily replaceable. Surely you would buy things that don't need replaced often/can be repaired and are higher quality/more expensive.

Using plastic dishes, throwing them out after every meal, and buying new ones isn't minimalism. Spending money on 4 good quality ceramic plates which will last the next 10 years is.

> Spending money on 4 good quality ceramic plates which will last the next 10 years is.

Are there bad quality ceramic plates? Mine costed $1-$3 each and they're great.

Yup, if you can trust the glaze not to contain cadnium or lead, pretty much the cheapest will do. Same with stoneware.

Only if you don't care about beauty. And you should care, looking at something beautiful every day makes you happier.

I think it's just a bad example. Unless you mishandle them these things never break and are basically free at the next good-will or fleamarket.

Maybe shoes are a better example? Though identifying good quality is a lot of work in itself and may signal status I guess.

Shoes: definitely. But it applies to other, seemingly mundane things. e.g. Cookware, Vacuum Cleaner, Furniture etc. The quality differential b/w a dyson and the cheap $20 vaccuuum is staggering; using a dyson is a pleasant experience while the $20 cheapo? Not so much.

Don't get me wrong. When I was a grad student, I bought the cheapest vacuum, cheapest shoes and clothes. But I did know that better quality things did exist, and didn't hesitate to purchase them when I could finally afford to.

Do the Dysons suck more?

Dyson vacuums have interesting industrial design, but in terms of function they don't even make the CR top ten[1], so yes, I expect they are better than some, but they are also more expensive than most.

1: https://www.consumerreports.org/products/upright-vacuum/rati...

Those reviews are paywalled, so I can't really see what criterion they are using to rate a product high/low. I agree though that Dyson's are pricey, but they last long and are a joy to use. Not saying there aren't other models that do the same.

DSW has a rack in the back of every store with heavily discounted (50+%) shoes. Good quality, great price, limited selection. 10/10

Too bad the worth of this information is regionally constrained. (The internet is truely amazing to bridge this gap so easily.)

It's a terrible example. I was in a hurry and for some reason it was the first thing that came to mind.

> Minimalism would be the opposite of buying things that are easily replaceable.

I believe what parent is referring to might be better termed "mental minimalism".

In that the optimization is for not having to think about physical goods. Good qualities here are durable, reasonably priced, reliable, simple, and effective.

To tease the thread apart from what separates the well-off doing this from the poor doing this, I'd say it's the "reasonably priced" criteria. An ideal good under this lifestyle is cheap enough that one isn't weighed down by worry over caring for their devices.

F.ex. If something happens to my refurb XPS 13 on the road, I wouldn't be annoyed. If I had a brand new MBP, I might be a bit more disappointed. Thus, with the former, I don't even have to worry about that eventuality, whether or not it ever happens.

> Using plastic dishes, throwing them out after every meal, and buying new ones isn't minimalism. Spending money on 4 good quality ceramic plates which will last the next 10 years is.

No, using cheap plastic plates, which will easily last a decade (my mom I think, still uses ones my family got free as promotional items with cereal purchases ~30 years ago when I was a kid) and making them last is minimalism.

Ceramic plates break a lot more easily then cheap but durable plastic ones.

I don't think GP was under any illusions on this front - hence "the more money I have". "Profoundly and easily replaceable" by expending money.

Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

Or living within your means?

Minimalism is a different thing. Living within your means is about budgeting, its arithmetic. Minimalism is about owning very few physical things, but often very nice things. Like only having 3 pairs of pants but they all cost in excess of $200 each. Basically it boils down to owning the just essential and carefully chosen artifacts or modern life.

Note, I'm not endorsing this idea, just trying to describe it.

Well, I suppose everybody is going to have a different opinion. To me, it's more about avoiding excess, mostly to keep spending down.

There's a certain level of minimalism though that actually increases spending. For example, not keeping a toolbox around the house means having to call someone for even the smallest maintenance work you might need.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point, if you need tools then keep them, the point is to own what's necessary rather than what society and marketers think you should.

Not keeping a tool box around the house very rarely means not having access to tools. Tools are commonly borrowed/shared amongst friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, borrowed from work, co-ops[1], makerspaces, or rented[2].

[1] https://www.houselogic.com/save-money-add-value/save-on-util...

[2] http://www.homedepot.com/c/tool_and_truck_rental

> Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

Care to explain? I've seen this line of thought a lot, but don't understand at all. Maybe minimalism attracts people who have grown up wealthy and realize that money doesn't solve all problems, but that's different. It's a luxury in the metaphorical sense that not having to worry about money is a luxury, but I don't think that is the same as or as ostentatious as purchasing luxury items.

Probably has more to do with age. 20 years ago retirement was 40 years away; now it's only 20, and have kids college to save for. Though I'm making 3x what I did 20 years ago, I'm a lot more frugal. Nothing impresses me anymore either. A used car is just fine. I don't need any more guns. I buy my clothes at Costco. Really nothing to spend money on, despite being in upper 5% income bracket.

I like the guns part :) Which ones do you have already?

Several AR, FAL, misc battle rifles and carbines, 1911s, shotguns, etc. Let's just say more than I have fingers and toes to count them. What I don't have is any east block guns, other than an old Mosin Nagant; I'd like a few good AK. Also a Fostech Origin 12, and maybe SCARs. The gun industry has grown so much over the last 20 years there is just too much to choose.

Don't worry, all securely in safes, except for the 1911 on my hip.

"I don't need any more guns."

Haha, that's not a phrase you often hear at a dinner table in Dublin :)

Well I didn't say I didn't "want" any more.

My grandmother lambasted that I only had 2 hands, and didn't need so many guns.

I only need more when some politician is trying to take them.

I only need more when some politician is trying to take them.

That sounds so strange from the other side of the Atlantic.

It sounds strange on this side of the Atlantic as well, and I own a few firearms myself.

Well Obama was the best gun salesman ever, so I'm not alone.

I'm sure it does, but there is a gun culture in the USA. You can go to a large gun store on a Friday night and just hang out and discuss guns. There will be 80 and 18 year olds there all chatting. Gun shows are not even about buying guns, it's a cultural gathering. When you attack guns you attack the culture, and there will be pushback. Same can be said for fox hunting, confederate flags, whaling, etc.

Having served and learned to use weapons in the military. With a hell of a lot of training both as a solider then as an instructor, being around civilians and watching how badly/unsafely so many of them use weapons, I always find myself slightly nervous. Though as military I would also same the same about police :)

Totally agree. The two NDs I have seen in classes are cops, but only 10% of cops are probably gun enthusiasts; teh rest just shoot the minimum required per month, which is probably 25 rounds. I had my NRA instructor certs years ago, but won't teach due to insurance costs. Then again, the chances of civilians using weapons defensively in public are pretty low, so it's really not a risk worrying about. Just don't go to public shooting ranges. The number of holes in the ceilings tell it all. I feel perfectly safe doing IDPA, etc. and shooting on private ranges and clubs.

I strongly recommend, at least once in your life, having a discussion or listening to gun enthusiasts. One on one. Not electronically.

As far as an anthropological opportunity there are none better.

Rarely does a subject rise to faith and rarely are discussions anything but binary. A rare opportunity i always enjoy with my gun friends.

How does having more guns make it harder for "them" to take the guns away? We're at the point that every neighborhood could arm a decent-sized militia anyway.

Easy, it makes it a tougher problem for "them" (note I wrote "politicians") since there are simply more guns. It also expands the industrial base. I estimate the AR15 industry alone is probably $1B; shutting down that alone won't go over well.

It's also just basic civil disobedience. If they want to ban encryption, you encrypt everything. If they want to ban guns, you buy more guns. If they want to ban pot, you have a smoke out on the capital grounds.

The $13 Costco jeans have a terrible fit .. but $13!

Car shopping these days is: "What can I pay cash for, and will likely last 3 years without unanticipated repairs?" A 10 year old Lexus is often still in it's prime.

Let me ask you this: would it not be a good way to spend $30 more for a good Levi's, that fit well and last at least twice as long, besides looking very good?

I don't expect to change your mind, just to present alternative views on utility and money. Personally, I love the fact that an excellent quality jeans (Calvin Klein) can be had for less than $100 in today's world. My point is that even luxury goods are not that unaffordable today, and maybe people should give more thought to their purchases than just the price.

Another example: I've been buying Hanes/Fruit of the Loom underwear all my life (I'm a guy). Recently I invested in luxury underwear. The difference is just staggering; the new ones are so much more comfortable and fit so snugly. I couldn't believe I had lived so much of my life in the discomfort of cheap underwear.

My wife has been buying these lightly used jeans on eBay for $15, the ones with all the crap studded onto the pockets. She says they cost +$150 new. I joke she can probably wear them out and sell them again for much more. I keep telling my kids to buy jeans, cut and tear holes in them, through on some bleach, and sell them 2x what they paid for them.

> Let me ask you this: would it not be a good way to spend $30 more for a good Levi's, that fit well and last at least twice as long, besides looking very good?

No. Levis are made on the same factory as Old Navy. A few of their lines are completely the same. Old Navy jeans can be had for $15/each in a store or $10 at discounters.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Are you saying that they are basically the same jeans with different branding? If that's the case, then yes I agree with your statement. But if they're just made in the same "factory"... well Tesla makes both Model S and Model 3 in the "same factory".

Sure, but what's the big difference between the S and the 3, other than the insane mode (at +100k)? The S will cost 2x much for not much added features.

They are made on the same factory, using the same material. Top level levi's include a single magnetic anti-counterfit thread.

It is missing from the Old Navy ones. Buttons that are added are different.

That's the difference.

Meh, I don't even own a pair of jeans. Just don't like the way they feel. I just buy the Kirkland khaki styled pants for $20. Then 2XLT polos from J.C. Penny outlet for $6. Now I have no problems buying a couple of $40 Iron Maiden world tour shirts; go figure.

Recently bought a 2015 Nissan Leaf EV with 19k miles for $8,500. I though that was a good deal. Compared to the old Toyota truck, it's essentially free to drive and should have near zero maintenance.

> A 10 year old Lexus is often still in it's prime.

So is a 10 year old Toyota, which is a heckuva lot cheaper.

You're not wrong. But the local Toyota dealer's service department is .. bad.

> I love the non connection and unpreciousness of my possessions - how profoundly and easily replaceable they are and how detached I am from them.

Being someone who is lower on the income scale, my stuff is by no means replaceable. At least not easily. To be blunt, it's easy to say that none of your possessions mean anything when they actually don't; when that shitty old car means about half a year of income for you, it means a lot, even if not sentimentally.

Frankly all that sounds to me like just a reverse-posturing for the wealthy; "I have so much and look how I live, I don't need things." Yeah that's very easy to say when you could have literally any and all the things you ever wanted, should you change your mind. I would query back how many people are living check-to-check to make that fortune possible? I don't mean this as an attack, but in my experience, pretty much everyone who has a lot of money in the bank also has a trail of people behind them with fresh footprints on their heads.

"Hey, money isn't everything" - Someone with a comfortable amount of money

Sure - this is about a definition of wealth. You have two choices: you can buy at your level of income and need to take care of what you buy, or you can buy below your income level and free yourself from those concerns and burdens.

I understand that at a certain income level, you are at or near the bottom rung for certain things. This is always the case.

If you have $4,000 you can buy a functional, durable, used car and take care of it.

If you have $400,000 you can buy the same car and not worry about it if it breaks down. But now you can buy a small, well-built, home and take care of it.

If you have $4,000,000 you can buy the same home, hope for the best, but not be bothered if things happen. But now you can invest in a small, well-built company and take care of it.

And so on and so forth... every level has a new bottom rung. Even Bill Gates has a small, well-built, international organization (like a NATO or WHO).

At some point, however, you have the option to free yourself from bottom-rung consumption if you choose to do so.

Not so awfully long ago when I worked my entry level job, I made roughly $800 biweekly. Do you know what that's like? And that's a pretty comfortable wage for my area, compared to others, but $4,000, are you joking? Might as well be $400,000 or $4,000,000 for as attainable as $4,000 was. Yeah sure, I could save that by spending literally nothing outside essentials for three years, but who can live like that without losing their minds?

I don't want to be rich. Being rich blows by many accounts. I want enough money in the bank where a bang in my car isn't enough to send me to the poorhouse and where a visit to the ER isn't going to render me homeless. Wanting financial security: the thing you have and are describing; is perfectly natural, except that it's nearly unattainable by I think the vast majority of the population. And don't sit there and tell me that it's all our fault for needing to finance shit when we barely make enough to live already.

While I agree that reducing your desire to consume leads to a happier life, I disagree about how you should respond to necessities.

I have found that when I spend my money on a few high quality products, I appreciate them more, I take better care of them, and I am happier overall than buying the cheapest thing that'll work. That doesn't mean buying "luxury" items, instead it involves looking for products with thoughtful design, durability and functionality.

For example, I don't buy cheap shoes, chairs or computer monitors.

Everyone has a different set of things they care about. Some people won't be satisfied with say, the respectable $400 speakers at the music store, and desire the high-end (there's speakers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars).

But I don't think any of us are that way with everything. I don't, for instance, know the thread count of my pillow cover nor have I installed a custom computerized shower head in my bathroom. I also suppose, for example, there's superior version of the cutlery I have in my kitchens and the forks I've been using all these years are simply not the best.

I'll likely buy one of the more expensive options at target, but I don't go to a luxury store where the options are 20 times more expensive and have monograms of wealth on them, even if I could afford them just the same.

I've been to these stores, looked at the items, and then left thinking "how absurd and frivolous."

I really feel that worrying about such things is a form of voluntarily enslavement. I've been very close to people with drug addiction before and I've seen how the substance controls them like a puppet. I feel the same mechanics at play with consumption goods.

I'm open to buying nice things and taking care of them, but I try really hard not to value them in a way that the object controls me.

I have liked this quote for a long time, and try to live by it, but am unable to find the source: “The first time you recognise what you are willing to give your life in return for, these tawdry little baubles of a distracted world – the suburban house, the children with perfect teeth – self loathing has to be the inevitable consequence.”

yeah although technically that quote implies that the children (with in this case are modified by the description with perfect teeth) are tawdry little baubles. Which probably inspires a loathing not prefaced with self.

Perhaps - I've always interpreted it more charitably to mean that you care more about what your kids' teeth look like than spending time with them.

The materialism being referred to is the cosmetic perfection of the kids' teeth (presumably beyond ensuring their health).

"Tawdry little baubles" does not refer to the children themselves.

That's a weird quote, since both the suburban house (=good schools and, more to the point, good peers) and braces (I guess orthodontistry is intended here?) are typically for your kids' benefit. Lower chances of falling into crime, higher chances of having a good education, and better looks all mean an easier life for them. If one loathes oneself over that, one should reexamine one's purpose and priorities—which isn't to say that some kind of endless, constant giving at any cost is necessary or even a good idea in parenting, but self loathing for spending money to send your kids to good schools and straighten their teeth, if you can afford those things, seems extreme.

I can think of plenty of other "tawdry baubles" I'd call out before those. They're not even really things. Very odd choices.

> Every car I've owned has been cheaper than the previous and honestly these days I'm mostly public transit. But at the same time, I've become many times richer between each car purchase.

Not only cars/transportation. Housing. It's amazing how housing situation in the US is pretty much theft of the young and the poor.

I paid more for housing ( rent/utilities/etc ) as a poor college grad than I do now many years later. Property taxes/insurance/etc ( tax deductible unlike rent ) is much lower than rent.

Not only that, when you are wealthier/more stable, you can afford to plan ( food, groceries, etc ) and wait for deals that you just couldn't when you were poorer/younger.

Even bank accounts. When you were young/poor, the bank charged you "maintenance fee/account fee" because you didn't have enough money in the bank. Now the bank has a "rep" specifically assigned to me to offer me "plane ticket upgrades", special offers, higher interest accounts, "free trades" on IRAs, etc.

I can only imagine what REAL wealthy people ( tens/hundreds of millions or even billionaires ) have. I know a bank I worked for had an entire floor ( "wealth management division" ) dedicated to help high net worth individuals. Wonder what perks those people got.

I know someone who pays close to 0% interest on his personal mortgage because the bank desperately wanted his company's business. The more money(power) you have the better deals you can get on anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com