Hacker News Reader

Comment by lwhi | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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

I think you misunderstood the intent of the author. He doesn't advocate buying things that you don't need, he wants you to save that money so that you can buy quality where quality matters.

I agree, but for a different reason. I really broke from his thesis when he said, "It also reinforces the mindset that you’re cheap. “Stuff is cheap, so I don’t need a lot of money.” “I’m happy with mediocrity.”"

Really? "Buy more expensive stuff, so you'll require a higher salary"? This is ridiculous.

I think he's (doing a bad job of) saying that you should buy quality items to improve your day to day living and not fall into the trap of buying cheap items and then artificially limiting your earning power accordingly.

The OP is arguing mostly for _better_ stuff, not _more_ stuff. It doesn't argue for credit. It does argue for conservation of time and attention, rather than cash. I'd say reading comprehension is step one for free thought.

And you overlook the point that "better" == "more functional". Good shoes will walk much farther, in better comfort and health, than bad ones. If you choose bad shoes, everyone who understands this will see that you do not.

And you overlook the point that "better" != "more expensive".

Being frugal is not mutually exclusive to living a good quality life.

Who has said that price is a reliable indicator of quality? The chief claim is that price shouldn't be the _only_ purchasing criteria.

And no one has claimed that goods of any kind are essential to a "good quality life".

fru·gal/ˈfro͞ogəl/Adjective 1. Sparing or economical with regard to money or food. 2. Simple and plain and costing little: "a frugal meal".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com