Buy things, not experiences | Hacker News Reader

Buy things, not experiences

write.as

200 pointsRickJWagner194 comments

I always took "buy experiences not things" to mean that you should put your money towards having experiences, whether that's paying for a trip or buying something that enables you to do something you couldn't without it.

A kayak is a "thing", but it's the gateway to an experience. If I buy someone a kayak, I don't intend for them to just hang it in their garage and look at it. I expect they'll actually use it.

If I buy someone a board game, I expect they'll play it with other people. If I buy someone a food basket, I expect they'll not only eat it, but share it with their family and make a memory around it.

If I buy someone a $1 toy from Dollar Store, I expect they'll play with it for a few minutes, and then throw it away. Yes, that was still an experience, but it's a pretty hollow one, and so it's just a "thing", though I suppose there's still a chance it could generate good memories.

OTOH, pre-painted figurines... I just don't see how they create an experience. They're literally just there to look at. They might remind you of an experience you already had, but they don't create or enable experiences.

And by extension, you could apply this to almost all art.

And I definitely don't think people should stop buying (or producing) art. I end up thinking about the advice sometimes, but I don't follow it.

I think it just depends on the receiver of the gift. My daughter LOVES figurines and her and her friends will get together and role play with their different animals. It’s very much an experience. But I’d never buy something like that for my wife :)

For art, you experience it if it resonates with you. So, for me art is first an experience.

But going back to the original article, it says:

"A well-appointed kitchen allows you to cook healthy meals for yourself rather than ordering delivery night after night."

As we discussed with an architect about renovating a house, he asked us our budget for the kitchen. We said that we paid about 2500€ for our current kitchen, so we were ready to spend 5000 to renovate. His answer was: "You, you are really cooking!". His 20 year experience was that the more expensive the kitchen, the less it is used. We are effectively cooking every single day of the week.

We bought an apartment with the most beautiful worthless kitchen (the apartment had other qualities). The bench tops were Carrera marble. Any type of acid dulled the shiny surfaces and any type of food, like tomato or tea, stained it irreversibly.

It really blows my mind that all these expensive ston(ish) surfaces stain so easily. Why in the name of God would you purchase something so expensive and put it in a room where most of the staining happens?

It looks good in the brochure, and you don't realize how fragile it is until it is too late.

We purchased a quartz (manufactured) countertop about fifteen years ago. It is robust to the point that you can cut on it and put hot pans directly on it. It looks almost as good as (or maybe the same as if you're not too fussy) a granite counter. At the time, it was significantly cheaper than the "natural" granite counters. But I looked recently and the quartz is now more expensive than granite. So I guess folks are starting to feel the same way you do.

I love quartz countertops! You can even get them to look like marble or granite if you want now a days. As you mentioned that are incredibly sturdy! I even have them in my bathrooms.

> and put hot pans directly on it.

Really? We’re going to have to replace our quartz island countertop just from sitting a (hot) lid on it. And we were also told that we shouldn’t sit anything hot on it (I just wasn’t thinking when I sat the lid on it).

A quick search [1] also shows that a downside to quartz is that it’s not as resistant to heat as other surfaces (including granite).

[1] https://countertopguides.com/guides/pros-and-cons-of-quartz-...

See that makes sense to me. Being able to put hot pans on my kitchen surface would be super useful to me. I kinda assumed that all stone surfaces were stain resistant, as otherwise why would people buy them?

You are supposed to periodically seal it.

> You are supposed to periodically seal it.

Yeah, few people seem to realize how porous marble is. A really bad choice for counters. And floors. And shower stalls.

It's almost as if using marble in spite of it's disadvantages was a conspicuous consumption signal.

Oh, wait.

Trust me, we did. We got some special oil that was what we were told to use. But then some slightly drunk people made Margaritas a late evening. And my brother left a used teabag next to the sink. Then the cleaner managed to scratch the marble when emptying a bucket with water into the sink.

Wonder if there’s anything about Veblen goods being intentionally fragile or otherwise impractical to use, to assert their rarity and expensiveness.

Probably not, they just optimize for looks and not use.

Status symbol. Also looks nice.

Also - people in very rich homes tend to have things on display for areas that look like you’d do work but then they don’t ever work there.

So, for the kitchen, you’d have a real kitchen in the back. That’s where your staff would prepare meals. The front kitchen is merely for appearance.

Real stone like marble or granite needs to be curated prior to use, and maintained. The most you use them, the better it turns regarding stains and absorptions.

We oiled them according to the manufacturer’s instructions. And it’s not like an iron pan that you naturally put oil and grease in as part of your cooking. I’m sure the countertop might become saturated eventually by use, but it would have a very different colour and surface structure after all it absorbed, and all acids that dissolved the surface.

As a general surface, I agree with you. But for specific purposes, cold stone is really the best working surface. Making pastry would be the canonical example, and marble has often been the preferred stone. But that requires a dedicated pastry prep area, so most people would just settle for a marble board they can pull out when required.

That sounds like it wasn't sealed or surfaced properly? I thought that kind of bench top needed to be protected with some sort of sealant to prevent this kind of thing.

It was carefully oiled with the special oil the manufacturer gave us. That still wasn’t enough.

>>His 20 year experience was that the more expensive the kitchen, the less it is used.

My builder told me the same thing - the people that spend the most on kitchens, are those that use them the least.

I once took part in a certain competitive sport in which it was possible to decorate oneself with all manner of expensive clothing and electronic gear. Without fail, the "tourists" bought thousands of dollars worth of optional new gear before they'd begun, while the two people who I was close to who became world-class competitors had minimal second-hand gear.

Road biking? :D

"People with more money than time buy $3,000 road racing bicycles with ultralight carbon frames to shave two pounds off the bike, regardless of the fact that they themselves are probably at least 10 pounds overweight."

From Chapter 2 of Early Retirement Extreme by Jacob Fisker

The equivalent 2022 price for a top end road bike is closer to $15k. Just the bike.

As somebody with $10k road bike - it’s way easier for me to make additional $10k (even after taxes) than loose 10 pounds. Also expensive road bicycle is just nicer to ride regardless of weight. Frame is stiffer, electronic gear shifting is more reliable, etc.

$2K electric powertrain would give you even better returns.

I love my electronic shifters. I certainly don’t need them, but they never need adjusting. I just hope I never forget to charge them and have to ride home on a fixed (or manually adjusted) gear.

Perhaps it is that those who spend the most have the most money and spend more time out at restaurants or work too much to go home and cook.

My sister spent $350K USD on a kitchen remodel that included a crazy expensive La Cornue Château stove, yet she doesn't know how to cook. When I visited her many months after the work was done she showed me the stove but wasn't sure how to turn it on. Her goal was to get her kitchen into an interior design magazine, which she accomplished.

She's a constant source of embarrassment, but also entertainment, for the rest of the family.

> She's a constant source of embarrassment, but also entertainment, for the rest of the family.

For remodeling her kitchen?

For spending money ostentatiously, making sure everyone knows how much she spent, and not understanding when they won't or can't do the same.

"His 20 year experience was that the more expensive the kitchen, the less it is used."

Which makes perfect sense as such a person is likely time constrained and has the financial means to dine/order out more often. At this point the cost is more decorative than utilitarian, it needs to have the fit/finish of the rest of their home.

> His 20 year experience was that the more expensive the kitchen, the less it is used.

I wonder how they verified that, probably didn't.

n=1 counter-example (ha!)

I know two retired lawyers. When they downsized from a mansion to a luxury condominium, they had an incredible kitchen installed. They don't cook much personally, but they have someone come in and cook a couple of days a week.

They also entertain, and when they do so, they have caterers come in and use the kitchen.

They knew all of this going in, and had the kitchen designed around being convenient for all three scenarios: What they need for themselves, what their chef/cook needs, and what a catering company needs when they throw a party.

I never used to believe that sort of anecdote, but then some years back a woman my wife knew paid at least US$100k for a kitchen remodel/renovation despite the fact that to a good approximation, she never cooks. She literally wanted it all just for appearance. Mind blown (I cook almost every night, and will do so more or less regardless of the kitchen facilities).

> OTOH, pre-painted figurines... I just don't see how they create an experience... And by extension, you could apply this to almost all art.

I think you could expand the kinds of experiences to be a little broader. Say a tattoo: I got mine because it makes me happy to see it, routinely. Getting some figurines or art that make your space - home, work, your body, etc. - bring your more happiness/less dreariness (even if only a little, every day, day after day) can be worth it. I'd make the same argument for plants, though I think plants have a little more inherent vs. personal benefit.

For me, art is about stopping me for a moment and forcing reflection, realization, or something similar. I have a painting a love, that I just stop to look at sometimes. I feel like I see something different in it as time goes by. Same for movies: some are just purely entertainment, others help me introspect and put me in position to think about who I consider and interact with the world.

In short: "experiences" need not always be relating to the external.

My $300 Costco Pelican Kayak is probably the best $ spent on the amount of fun experiences I've had with it. It turned out that there's an Island I can kayak to in under an hour from my house, that is teeming with birds and wildlife and has a secluded sandy beach. It feels like being transported to Hawaii every time. But I've kayaked to other places with it too and its such an awesome experience. It's something you can do on your own or with a friend, go hard to get exercise or easy to relax. Antidote to the lockdowns. Maybe pair it with a bike or rollerblades. And you have a full upper/lower body workout better than a gym.

Reminds me of growing up near the water. Almost like having your own private beach to swim and fish. Sounds like you've found an awesome place.

Don’t forget “collecting” is an experience too. Even if you don’t get much experience from an item the hobby of collecting itself is an experience. Deciding what to buy and when. How to display it, etc.

> A Lamborghini may be fun to drive for the first days or weeks, but pretty soon it fades into the background of your life.

That depends on whether you bought it for yourself or to show off. A lot of people buy/wear/own expensive tools to show off, as a status symbol. Especially those who can afford a Lamborghini are seen as such (whether appropriate or not I don't know). At the same time, many people who cannot afford a Lamborghini would love to drive around in one which feeds into the status symbol loop ('you want this'). Good news! They can do that, virtually, with a fraction of the cost. They buy the experience, not the thing. I am not sure what the point of this entire write-up is, I just found it a terrible example. Because almost everyone who owns one car, owns it primarily as a tool, not an experience. Yes, it provides an experience, but its mostly a tool. A tool has a lowest common denominator. It has to work reasonably well, well enough, for its purpose. If you're rich, you may have higher standards and might get annoyed about your Tesla's entertainment system instead of the conventional car of a poor person leaking oil.

As for kayak, I can resonate with your example. I went to Venice as child, with my father (who has since passed away). My father was in a wheelchair back then, he had MS and could barely walk. Every bridge, we needed help to get him across. People helped. We didn't see the cathedral (too much effort), but we did end up in a gondola. Though it took effort to get him in, and it was 'on our own risk', this was very special for us as a family, including me. Before my father became ill (he was a photography nerd among other things) he made a picture of a man with a gondola in the 70s and won a national competition with it which hung in our house. And now I, his son, was able to experience the same with him. I have no idea how much my mom paid in Italian Lira for the experience, but I know for sure I wouldn't have wanted to buy the boat or the man. Because the experience is a memory which only old age can take away from me, no amount of money can describe it. Remember how I mentioned people helped? They'll never know it, but I am grateful.

I've bought art, and hung it on the wall. It looks nice, but no matter how nice it is, it isn't long before you don't actually see it anymore.

IMO this is the difference between "nice art" and having a connection to whatever you're displaying.

We have a few things hanging that are nice, and they do, indeed, disappear. We also have a few that aren't as nice but where we have a connection to them. A couple travel posters as a reminder of an amazing vacation, a map of Paris where we visited and loved the experience, and a fancy triptych concert poster for a destination concert my wife attended all have meaning beyond "nice art", and I notice them at least once a week.

My wife had some fans and a painting that she purchased in China as a teen, when she was traveling on an educational trip that coincidently happened during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. (She didn't really find out what happened until she returned to the states.)

She treasured those, and yes, had a continuous active connection to them. Unfortunately they were all destroyed in a house fire. You can't replace those sorts of things.

> So I would, if anything, reverse the maxim: “Buy things, not experiences!” Sure, the Lambo might still be a waste of money, but thoughtfully chosen material goods can enable new activities can enrich your life, extend your capabilities, and deepen your understanding of the world.

certain goods can "enable new activities". It seems like the author is still prioritizing experiences, just acknowledging that some experiences require things. Camping is a good example.

I think the author misunderstands the original point though. Overconsumption generally leads to having a big collection of stuff, ever larger houses to store it. Having a reasonable collection of items that the user can leverage to have higher quality experiences, that are built to last where possible makes absolute sense. What is reasonable? That's for everyone to decide themselves. I don't find "buy things, not experiences" to add much to the discussion though.

Maybe a more flexible maxim would be "buy what lasts". A memory can last, but overpaying for an insta photo op is a fleeting status bump. The skis that let you take spontaneous adventures in with friends might last, but yet another single-use kitchen appliance probably won't. Disposable goods and services attract the most exploitative business models.

> Disposable goods and services attract the most exploitative business models.

Not sure that's true. Most people aren't particularly exploited by the toilet paper industry, are they?

Whether some industry is 'exploitative' is more of a function of whether its customers and workers have outside options available. Competition provides discipline.

Funny you mention toilet paper, cutting trees to clean your ass , and not very well at that, double layer, triple layer, scented...how many kinds of toilet paper, companies, people producing, managing, transporting, selling it...and it all ends up not very recyclable... all that because ? the bidet never took off?

Not sure what you mean by never took off? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet_shower#Prevalence

I think he was commenting on other’s misinterpretation and misapplication of the original point.

He is dead-on.

> I think he was commenting on other’s misinterpretation and misapplication of the original point. He is dead-on.

Other's *Imagined misinterpretation, or is there some evidence to go on? To my knowledge, the recent push back against consumption was against the traditional life pattern of accumulating new things on the rat race track (new car, house, upgrading your tastes, expensive clothes to keep up with your peers). Having read some pop psychology books (no expert) there seemed to be some academic support for pushing back on this arrangement and rather prioritizing relationships with people around you and experiences / shared experiences.

I'm not sure how the wires get crossed and people take from that narrative, to own less and buy more prestigious items and experiences like an expensive haircut.

This feels like a straw man argument. Who was saying you should not own a set of tools, nice kitchen wares, or exercise equipment? Some people, I’m sure, but not the economists (or psychologists or whatever) who found the “experiences produce more happiness than things” effect, nor most of the people who use this principle to guide their purchases. The idea is that a vacation does more for you than buying a new car instead of a used one (i.e., that this applies to purchases made with disposable income/for fun), not that you should eschew pots and pans in favor of purchasing restaurant experiences. Further, I think most people who generally prefer experiences to things acknowledge that acquiring thoughtfully chosen objects can be a very good idea.

You would be surprised with the kinds of people out there. I used to flat share in a large city with a friend and I had bought most of the kitchen wares since the flat was unfurnished and I had a preference to cook at home. He would constantly tell me how I only cared for things and I should be a minimalist like him. When I was packing to move out on my own he was complaining that I was taking everything and it would be unfair to not leave most of my things behind and I should by new things when I move into the new place. I would hesitate to generalise that people want experiences over things or actually understand what minimalism is

The "things" in the charitable reading of "buy experiences not things" are about the throwaway consumerism stuff that ends up in landfills. Stuff like fast fashion or kids toys that children get immediately bored of the day after Christmas.

A minimalist can get rid of all the unworn clothes cluttering up the closet while also buying a sewing machine to make clothes the wearer truly loves. The advice to "buy experiences not things" shouldn't mean sacrificing the sewing machine and only use that money for a trip to see a Paris fashion show.

I think reasonable people already know that many hobbies require buying things.

I think you're right, but in another sense I think the consumerist junk reading is just one segment of the population looking down their nose at another. I'm not sure that a game I quickly become bored with is substantially different from a weekend holiday. They're both things that occupied me for little time, but which I enjoyed for that little time and form positive, if rarely reviewed, memories. I don't go much for fashionable clothing, but I suspect the same is true there.

There are other arguments against disposable goods, but I don't know if they're strictly worse than the experiences that the maxim seeks to replace them with. It's a lot easier to replace a pound of cotton than it is to take a flight's worth of CO2 out of the air.

Edit: rephrased a line.

The sectors of the economy that are becoming more expensive every year – which are preventing people from building durable wealth – include real estate and education, both items that are sold by the promise of irreplaceable “experiences.” Healthcare, too, is a modern experience that is best avoided. As a percent of GDP, these are the growing expenditures that are eating up people’s wallets, not durable goods.

I don't find this type of reasoning very persuasive. First of all, "experiences" like live music or tourism seem to be conspicuously absent ("education" is an experience?! healthcare? People want to pay for the experience to be in a hospital?).

This, in turn, makes me wonder what the author has in mind when he talks of "durable goods". A laptop? A camera? a fridge?

A bike, a good tent, a decent sleeping bag, a comfortable pack. Own those thing and go find your own experiences.

All of what I listed may not be durable forever, but for the cost they go a good while.

When I'm 80, I don't want to spend 80% of my wealth on living another year.

I’m nowhere near 80 but I have health conditions which necessitates regular medical intervention and prescribed medication to keep me alive.

By this logic I should just lay down and die instead of trying to get better??

I shattered my collar bone into about 5 big chunks from mountain biking in my twenties. It would have been fatal (after a long infection) a 100 years ago. I'm glad I got it fixed.

I was speaking in the general case about the point of medical care that doesn't balance out economically.

I'm not so nihilistic to say that people shouldn't live they life they have, but it's pretty well known the most expensive health care people get is usually right at the end of their lives. Chronic conditions aside of course.

Everyone is eventually going to be in my position over time. But you’re currently describing my life as not worth the cost of living.

I don't think that's what they are saying. They specifically said they wouldn't want to spend 80% of their wealth at 80yo to live for another year.

It sounds like that's their choice, but made no mention of applying this to others.

Their scenario is an 80yo living for one more year. It sounds like that's significantly different than your scenario.

I am not contesting this. I am arguing against stuff like "education is an experience-type product".

Usually - at least nowadays - you "buy" (i.e. put money and time) in pursuit of some kind of education (be it a degree or a Kubernetes bootcamp or whatever) in order to increase your chances to get a good job.

And even for stuff which is not about markeatable skills (like, I dunno, painting lessons) I doubt that the actual cost would be significant enough to make a dent in their investment opportunities.

Indeed this is more than weird. My mind simply cannot grasp why on earth would somebody advocate for dumbing down the education or healthcare. It's not like they perform that great, or that they're optional/luxury/impulse.

My read is that the author is using "experience" to mean "something produced in a low-productivity sector" and "thing" to mean "something produced in a high-productivity sector", which is definitely an idiosyncratic interpretation of those words.

This! When people "buy experiences" and travel/visit etc, I just don't really find it interesting. I buy things because I enjoy doing stuff with them. I buy a camera and a drone because I like taking shots. I buy a new computer because I like coding/design/video editing and it does it faster. On the other hand, I've never found traveling an enjoyable activity of any kind. It's just extra stress for me (unless there's some specific reason that excites me that justifies it all). I buy tools that enable me to create more stuff, and I'd always pick it over many experiences that I'd buy.

Good to see that I'm not really alone.

I think the strawman here is assuming that an experience needs to be "bought".

What kind of photos/videos do you take with your camera/drone if you don't like traveling/visiting places?

In any case, the author makes the distinction between experience-like things. A camera is a perfect example of an experience-enabling thing. Photography and videography are experiences. I don't think anyone in the "buy experiences not things" crowd would discourage buying a camera, or something like say a surfboard, snowboard, basketball, woodworking tools, raspberry pi, etc since those enable experiences.

On the topic of travel - personally I think it's extremely valuable from a cultural/educational perspective to venture outside of one's city and/or country at least once in one's lifetime. I've spent the last 4 years traveling and living abroad, and while I wouldn't necessary recommend going that hard, I certainly wouldn't trade the experience for anything. Also, experience is more than just buying plane/train tickets and hotel rooms, nor do experiences necessitate travel.

Very good. While the OP may disagree, I suspect, years from now, it will be certain experiences taking photos with the camera/drone that will still linger in their mind.

I know for myself that a couple decades ago I excitedly rode the digital camera revolution and photographed/video'd family vacations (yeah, not very original of me). The photos now recall to my mind the heat and wind of Death Valley, the girls jumping on the beds in the hotel ... not the particular gear I was using.

There's plenty of opportunities to take pictures/videos close to home. Which does not count as „traveling“ for most people.

There are dozens of us!

When I buy a thing, I can use it for a while then sell it on eBay to recoup some of the cost. I can return it to the store if I don’t find it useful. With some items, I can share it with a friend and he can get the same utility from it. None of these things are true for purchased experiences.

I used to think I liked travel, but turned around later in life. To me, travel is nothing but stress. Let’s take a typical international trip: Big payment up front for plane tickets, hotel, rental car and so on up front, then you’re praying it all goes well. You can substitute travel insurance for prayer if you want to spend even more money. Then, the security/boarding circus of air travel. Then cramped seating and crap service in what has turned into a Greyhound Bus in the sky. Once you land, assuming the airline didn’t lose your bags, you and the rest of the cattle are marched through immigration and customs, where you pretty much have no rights as a human being. Finally you are in your glorious destination! Except you probably don’t speak or understand the native language so everything you do is going to be 5X more difficult than at home. You rent a car that’s not as nice/familiar as yours, stay in a hotel that just doesn’t have everything you’re used to at home. With kids in tow you’re desperately trying to keep everyone corralled together and (in some destinations) not kidnapped. Finally, you hit some tourist sites, lay on the beach, check out the local cities, whatever your goal was. Then, back to the circus to get home. COVID has added “pass last minute COVID tests or you are stuck without compensation” to the equation. By the time you’re home you are so thankful to get back to real life! Spent all that time and money for what? A memory that we can’t even sell on the secondhand market. Maybe 100 more photos on the phone which we might look at again sometime later.

Last vacation I took with my family, my spouse mentioned to me two days before it started “I can’t wait till this is all over and we’re back here at home again!” I agreed, and we both realized “why are we doing this??”

I can definitely relate to the "I wish we could just cancel the trip and take two weeks to relax at home" sentiment, pre-departure. At the same time I'm almost always retrospectively glad that I went on any given trip.

I often feel the same way about social engagements ("I hope the other party cancels so that I can just stay in and relax") which retrospectively were much more enjoyable than being alone at home.

I think both of these are about intentionally complicating your life for a period of time. Sometimes that's called for, but I can imagine if you're raising kids and working full time there's a real appeal to not complicating your life any further.

Travel is spraying you with novelty from a firehose. Everything around you is new - people, buildings, cusine, language, nature, climate e.t.c. It's not for everyone, sure

> This! When people "buy experiences" and travel/visit etc, I just don't really find it interesting.

Agreed. The things I buy make my life richer in some way that matters to me. The person buying the Lambo presumably has his life made a little better for owning the car.

I know someone who, even though they had to sell their house due to loss of income, did not miss a single vacation (at least once each year, sometimes twice, to a resort) in the last 25 years. They told me, at least once when I was buying some new toy for myself, that experiences matter more than material goods, because "after all, you can't take it with you".

Then they got annoyed when I asked them if they thought that they're taking their memories with them.

Given a choice between blowing a ton of money on some ephemeral thing and only having a memory of it in return, and blowing a ton of money on some concrete long-lasting item, I will pick the item most of the time.

After all, the more assets you can leave your children, the better off they will be. They can also turn those assets back into money.

We're different then. On the road is the only time I truly feel unburdened by the stresses and distractions of everyday life. My best and most creative ideas come while on the road.

Maybe it depends on the baseline. I don't have much stress in my daily life and I'm okay with (physically) being at the same comfortable space. Any traveling activity is more stressful than my daily life.

Maybe if I had my daily life more stressful or for whatever reason I didn't like where I was, I might find traveling more appealing. Maybe it's just me of course.

A personal example is my motorcycle. It's as material a thing as you can get, but the enjoyment I had gotten out of it would be hard to match if I looked to "buy experiences" instead.

Of course, the by-product of owning a motorcycle is getting the experiences of riding it through beautiful canyon roads, feeling the wind on your body, and meeting new friends in the community. But it had to start with "buying things".

In my 20s I spent more than 6 figures to travel world. I cannot imagine a single "thing" that will ever come close to giving me a similar experience.

It completely altered my life, consciousness even.

If a Lambo can replicate that, I will gladly save money to buy one down the road.

To buy and *maintain it*. Maintaining it is quite an expensive experience.

No idea about the Lambo, but the Ferrari programs seem designed to encourage driving the hell out of the car. Everything is X years with unlimited miles. When you buy the car, you can opt to purchase a 15-year long "you pay for gas and tires, we cover everything else including car washes" package. I'm sure the cost is insane, but then again so is the car.

Personally I believe travelling the world on a much smaller budget (like lower 5 figures, depending on how many years you travel of course) is more interesting. Instead of big hotels you stay in small guesthouses, more contact to fellow travellers (of that age-group) and contact to the locals.

It was in the lower spectrum of 6 figures, spread out over 4 years of almost persistent travel. A lot of that money went to plane tickets, which is crazy to think, really. But for the most part, I was renting houses that were maybe $300 a month on the lower side and $600 a month if I was staying in Bali. I enjoy quiet and in a sense it is priceless for me to be away from busy roads.

And, of course, a lot of hotels along the way.

I also learned to eat entirely local, but this took time. The first 6 months of traveling Asia was an absolute nightmare for my gut. And I truly mean that. I don't even want to go into details because it was that gross.

But I understand what you are saying. I made some costly mistakes, especially in the first part of my journey. It certainly taught me a lot about myself in the process.

You can travel in your Lambo. Some ppl actually do this.

"Buy experiences, not things" have always bothered me as irrational. Sure, one-off experiences are valuable, but I think they're overrated. Maybe it's because I don't have a good memory, but, to me, an experience is orders of magnitude more valuable in that moment, while it's happening, than the memory of it, which will fade, and eventually disappear entirely.

Buying experiences are short term value propositions for me, they're great while they last, but they tend to fade, and the absolutely best of them, those that fade slowly or not at all, those cannot be bought anyway.

Things on the other hand, are an investment in the future, it I buy an item, I will have many opportunities to derive value from it, at least as long as I can remember that I own it.

A thing can't kiss you on the beach while watching the sunset.

Indeed, and you can't buy that experience either (well, I supposed you could, but I'm going to argue it's not going to be as good as the real thing).

If you're "buying" the kiss I'd really argue whether it's a good thing.

I don't think the argument applies to things like love, kiss, or any non-quantitative things.

I've had the experiences, including kisses and much, much more.

Now it's only a sorrow memories, while 1TB Transcend StoreJet still holds them well [in .jpg and .mov form] and serves well to occasionally transfer files > 30Gb.

And I still have a couple t-shirts from that time, though relegated to in-house wear only, of course.

So, should you have bought 2x 1TB disks instead of going on that holiday?

There were two disks, actually. The other one (although a 640Gb one) was left to her with a copy of those jpegs and movs.

Now guess, how often do I look at them?

I don’t think the point is that you can sit on your couch and remember the experience and derive value from that. It’s more that you undertake experiences with other people and then when you see those people you reminisce about those experiences. When my friends and I hang out we talk about holidays we went on 15 years ago. We relive it, laugh, different people remember different parts. We can repeat this every time we see each other and it never gets old.

I don't have to pay to hang out and have good times with my friends though, that cost only the time I spend doing it?

I think you're strawmanning here a bit. The point isn't that one has to "pay" for an experience.

That is exactly the point, why else would they say "buy experiences, not things"? I need things to survive, so I buy things. Then I use the rest of my time to get experiences for basically free. There is no point in buying stuff that is basically free anyway. It is worth it to make a few trips around the world, but that is really cheap if you consider your whole life. What you don't need is a trip every year etc, experiences you pay for stops being an experience and starts being mundane very quickly.

Instead of making a trip, why not just build something, like a program or learn to cook or make some sports goal or read up about some studies etc. All of those are free or saves you money and way more memorable and interesting than things people pay a lot of money for.

Sounds like the bad memory has something to do with it.

I still think about some conventions I went to where I got to meet friends I had only known through the internet. They were like ten years ago.

I went to a concert in 2019 for a band I wanted to really see and was (and still) and into, and stood right up front. I still think about that and it's driven me to see more shows. Now I have an amazing photo collage above my desk that I can see all the time and remember how awesome it was.

Yes, the memory thing is definitely a factor, it's not like I avoid having experiences, I love to go to LAN parties and there has been great concerts too, but my recall of them are weak, I mostly remember that I enjoyed it very much, but there's very little recall of the actual things we did or feelings I had.

Irrational?

> Sure, one-off experiences are valuable, but I think they're overrated

One-off experiences are literally what your life is made from

Okay, if you want to apply that interpretation, then how would there be a difference (except the price) of buying a house and going to a concert?

In my humble world, going to a concert is great but when the concert is over, you're left with nothing, it was a one-off purchase. If you buy a house, you'll have a place to live until you decide to sell it, after you bought it, it's yours, your experience continues,it's not a one-off, you'll repeatedly have that experience every single day you wake up in that house...

Depends on one's life, but there're lots and lots of repeated experiences available.

I go for a run on the same route every saturday. In summer I go for bicycle routes on same routes. Repeating such experiences opens up an entirely new layer. Observing the nature change over the yearly cycle as well as longer times changes is very different from just having one-off experiences when you can't compose them into a bigger picture.

"Experiences not things" is a reaction against how my parents and other family live their lives. They don't have carefully chosen tools and possessions that maximize their possessions. They have mountains of garbage, huge houses stuffed to the rafters with a lifetime of Walmart shopping. Decaying, worthless, unused trash that can never be thrown away, protected like a dragon's hoard. Minimalism is not a rationalization for urbanism, it's a reaction against our trash-addicted magpie forefathers.

Yes, I recently read that the average American home has 300,000 items in it. Having so much stuff isn't helping you experience the world, it is a hindrance to it.

If you include every component inside my board game boxes (instead of just counting it as 1 item), I'm sure I've got that beat. Some of them have like 500+ components in a single box.

Becoming a parent (and maybe the pandemic?) just flipped this switch for me.

I had been getting more and more invested in minimalism and the buy experiences not things vibe when all of a sudden everything changed and now I'm happy with many of the things listed in OP.

I'm not going out to bars half of my nights. I can't even remember the last time I went to a bar. I have my beers at home, in the comfort of my living room.

All of a sudden I want more space, a bigger house, a backyard. A nicer, bigger, safer car.

It's just that my situation has changed.

As a kid, I treasured the family vacations more than anything else. Don't neglect that.

During the pandemic I moved into a <400 sq ft apartment with my partner and we love it. Comme ci comme ca. Also, please don't get a bigger car, they are usually less safe, often for the occupants and definitely for the people outside.

Don't worry, I'm not getting anything that big.

It's cheaper to enjoy beers in your living room than at a bar, too.

>All of a sudden I want more space, a bigger house, a backyard. A nicer, bigger, safer car.

Which is appealing but they all come with a price. Part of that price might include longer hours, working a job you don't like or an extended commute. None of that is good for your relationship with your kids.

If we really want to live a minimalist life, then forget about throwing away boxes of stuff, and focus on downsizing education, real estate, and healthcare.

If you have a functional kitchen and a home gym (or tennis rackets or cross-country skis), you might reduce your dependence on healthcare.

This part of the thesis is really twisted thinking. It exemplifies how healthcare is just an afterthought in certain places, until people become affected by the desolate condition of the US healthcare system themselves. I gather it's because in general healthy younger people don't think much about the ones that are disabled or have been hit with a health crisis (accident[0], cancer, psychosis). At that point the reflective reaction I see is to appeal to others (e.g. GoFundMe). I'd rather people think about and work towards having a health care system that shares the burden across the whole population.

Edit: Adding this for context [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30058108

As with all things there is a balance. I’ve removed many physical things (whole categories of things in some cases) from my life, but at the same time I have a full home gym, more tools than I really need and more bikes than my wife thinks I need.

In some areas I would be considered Spartan and in others indulgent. The key is paying attention to what things/experiences make you happy and spend your time and money there, regardless of what other people think.

Getting rid of your stuff should only be a priority if it brings you some quality of life improvement - otherwise buy all the stuff you want.

As someone who’s moved a lot in the last ten years, I have an intrinsic affinity to minimalism. When you’ve moved three or four times in as many years, you really question each “thing” you’re packing up and loading into a truck for the third or fourth time.

Further, the last decade I’ve spent a major part of my recreational time out with friends rather than sitting at home like Golem coveting his precious or Smaug content to be alone with my hoard of material possessions.

I guess, sure, if your life’s goal is to own a house in the suburbs and obtain the nuclear family with a spouse and 2.5 kids, where your neighbors measure your status based on your possessions, then this piece makes great points!

Otherwise, I call bullshit, because I’ve definitely made memories and stories I can look back at with more than fondness, that were amazing to experience, and just as fun to recount with friends now. I wouldn’t for a second trade those experiences for a new couch, TV, or sound system. IMO, OP is basing a lot of their opinions on relative uneventful life.

> Further, the last decade I’ve spent a major part of my recreational time out with friends rather than sitting at home like Golem coveting his precious or Smaug content to be alone with my hoard of material possessions

So you're not a creature of Hobbit?

The author proves a weak opinion piece that seems to actually reinforce the idea of enabling experiences. Slogans are short but understanding is long & nuanced. People who debate slogans don't debate the underlying intention & meaning behind them.

"Buy experiences, not things" doesn't mean only spending money on experiences that leave no material effects, it means spending money enabling experiences rather than spending money that doesn't. There is no such thing as "thing-like experiences", there are experiences enabled by purchases. Merely purchasing amazing camping gear doesn't provide you an experience, but using it does and that's an experience you've spent money on, not a "thing-like experience". On the other hand, upgrading your phone one version is unlikely to enable the same increase in experiences.

Many people seem to like the experience of buying things and trying them out, though.

Otherwise it would be hard to explain the current "pro" audio plugin market, for example. Neither hobbyists nor professionals need hundreds of compressor and EQ plugins but companies have figured out that they will nevertheless buy them if the price hits a certain low sweet spot. Unless it becomes an addiction, I doubt this really makes them unhappy. It's mostly just a harmless "waste" of discretionary salary.

Buying things can be equally problematic, speaking as someone with a bit of an impulse control problem who has probably 200 more board games than I have proper storage for and are spilling out all over the place (some in the garage, some in the sitting room, dining room, living room, basement, my office, the crawlspace, a walk-in closet, just laying on the ground in some circumstances). There comes a point where getting more of a thing isn't really useful anymore.

Also, it really should be "buy neither". I'm trying to stop my bad buying habits this year, in part, because it's helping contribute negatively to climate change. Those games (or any good) have to be manufactured and transported, and use up precious resources we have on his planet.

But experiences (at least the ones most people think of when they say this, like long-distance travel) also contributes badly to climate change. Which is another thing I'm struggling with, because I've never really traveled outside the US (except a week in Canada, once), and I've been mostly stuck within a three state radius for the past two years. I've always valued other cultures and seeing the world, just didn't feel like I can afford to before, and now I have to feel guilty for wanting to do that while the climate change specter looms.

I may still let myself make a big trip or two at some point, as just watching other people do it on streams or whatever isn't quite the same, but my bucket list for travel was pretty long and it no longer really feels super ethical to burn a bunch of jet emissions just so I can see in person what the Angkor Wat ruins look like in Cambodia, as an example of what was on there.

There's probably lots to see closer them that people ignore because everyone keeps being encouraged to think big and grand with experiences. State parks can have some beauty in them as well, even if they're smaller and simpler, you don't always have to go to national parks or other countries to see nature. My wife and I did quite a few of those near us the past two years and there's still quite a few more we could explore within a two hour drive of us.

Its almost like there isn't an easy either/or scenario here. Life can't be broken down into such an easy phrase.

Most of the things I own are to enable experiences. I enjoy kayaking and backpacking. Is my kayak a thing or is my kayaking an experience. I'd say it fits both.

I'm a happy consumerist and love to buy things, whereas experiences are less important to me because I don't like traveling and only want to go out occasionally. So I kind of agree with the author, maybe I'm even a bit more radical.

I sometimes even research things I don't really need at all just to find out what's the best one at a reasonable price. For example, I have pretty much the best metal pencil sharpener of the world attached to my table, use a mechanical keyboard, have a very neat monocular in my backback, have the optimal backpack, have a special sports fountain pen and the (for me) best pocket knife in my pocket, etc. Recently, I've bought inflatable solar-powered candle imitations that my girlfriend absolutely loves. I've even bought a printing adding machine, not the best but a fairly good one, and occasionally enjoy using it even though it's definitely the last thing I'd really need. It rattles in a pleasant way.

To cut a long story short, it seems obvious that life advice in both directions is somewhat shallow. Some people prefer to spend their money on traveling, others prefer things. Claiming that experiences are better sounds like a marketing ploy by companies who offer "vanity lifestyle products & experiences."

When you own things, your benefit from them comes from your experience of them when they are in use. As you increase the number of things in your life, the average utility of them decreases. There are a few counter examples[0], but for most people spending their own private money it follows that rule. Note that this is not the case with average degree of quality, but usually quality costs hit diminishing returns pretty fast (a couple of doublings).

Ok so really what the original argument was saying wasn't the straw man of living like a stoic vs buying a better car or toaster. The original argument was taking time to experience the world is worth the cost compared to the alternative. That it's better to have a Honda instead of a Porsche if it means you had time to travel Europe and Africa for half a year instead.

And I mostly agree with that. I don't mind shelling out the dollars for stuff that really matters like my primary dev machine, or what have you, but I really don't need $500 sweaters, or a luxury car, even though I can afford it. The delta to my own enjoyment just isn't worth it compared to other priorities like travelling or helping someone out.

[0] e.g., horse plus cart is better than two horses or two carts.

I find recreational travel to be the height of consumerism. It's massively polluting and wasteful.

I do it a bit myself, but I'm not going to pretend I'm better than someone else becausethey wastefully buy different things while I wastefully got to different places.

> Healthcare, too, is a modern experience that is best avoided

This is a joke, right?

It is best avoided. Avoid meaning to alter your course in advance, i.e.: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or the best way to stay healthy is not to get sick.

> the best way to stay healthy is not to get sick

This is a pretty “duh” statement. Of course people don’t want to get sick. But many illnesses are genetic, even illnesses that we presumably have some control over (like blood cholesterol levels or addiction). Many illnesses are caused by exposures and traumas in our childhoods where we had very little control in our life. Even lifestyle illnesses can be pointed to as coming from a place where one may not have been enabled to live a healthy lifestyle, due to ignorant raising.

Well, I think so, but around 65% of adults are overweight in my country, less than 30% eat enough dietary fibre and 82% of adults consume alcohol. Of course there are things out of our control, but a lot of people act like they don't care about getting sick.

Those would be cases then where it couldn't be avoided, so you end up seeking health care. There is a difference between 'avoiding' and 'not using under any circumstances'.

I mean, I completely agree. This is why I also don't write unit tests and why I avoid debugging my code.

The best way to have a correct program is not to write buggy code in the first place. /s

Sarcasm noted, but there is truth to that. You could sit down and slop together some code or you could do it thoughtfully according to a plan. Likewise with health, you could eat right and exercise or eat junk and sit on that ass. Doing these things don't guarantee bug-free code or sick-free life, but the improve the odds. It's a cliche and obvious, I understand the resistance.

Buy things that repeatedly generate experiences :)

Rimworld/ Crusader Kings/ Civ comes to mind

> While I appreciate the Stoic-style appraisal of what really brings happiness, economically, this analysis seems precisely backward. It amounts to saying that in an age of industrialization and globalism, when material goods are cheaper than ever, we should avoid partaking of this abundance. Instead, we should consume services afflicted by Baumol’s cost disease, taking long vacations and getting expensive haircuts which are just as hard to produce as ever.

This seems like a silly argument. People don’t hear that aphorism and stop shopping.

The genesis of that aphorism is people buying into the lifestyle that modern advertising sells to you and feeling unsatisfied. Like something is missing. Turns out, having a ton of crap that was sold to you as being life changing is seldom so. But take a walk in the park on a good day; meet up with friends to just hang out makes you feel better.

That said, I do agree that the economy has “caught up” on that and is now selling experiences too. A vacation experience. A cruise experience. And so on.

The right attitude seems to be skeptical of anything advertised and try to find your own thing. Not to just give in to rampant consumerism.

I would also challenge the notion that city dwellers are setting the tone for this conversation. Very few Americans live in apartments willingly; it seems like a temporary thing; the goal is always to get a house. I doubt the apartment dwelling Americans are significant enough to set the cultural mores.

I like to think about my spending in terms of whether or not something is an simply an expense or is a "capital expenditure". The latter is anything that will

   * enable an activity that I think I want to be able to do
   * reduce my long term expenses
   * improve my health
   * be something that brings me immediate and almost tangible joy

Any of the above are enough to move it into the "capital expenditure" realm, and more than one is excellent.

Expenses covers spending like food (mostly, though some kinds of cooking and eating fit into the above list), utilities, recurrent spending that I could imagine just doing without (Netflix), most conversations with professionals. It also covers equipment with a defined and relatively short life - a new bike is capital expenditure, but the tires are just expenses. A new water heater is capital expenditure (since presumably the old one has issues), but the energy to run it is an expense. A new pair of gloves that keep my hands toasty at 12k ft (4000m) in winter is a capital expenditure, but the laundry soap to clean them, and the nitrile gloves I use when doing oil changes are just expenses.

Obviously, many things fall between the cracks, but in general I find it useful to try to sort spending into these two categories before deciding on its value.

I think this is poorly argued by the author.

"Now that even the poor can afford material goods, let’s denigrate goods while highlighting the remaining luxuries that only the affluent can enjoy and show off to their friends."

The author turns to classism, claiming that experience-ism is some Rich person's luxury to put down the poor...this sentence comes across as assuming rich people delight in the misfortune of the poor. Further, he casts aside the obvious environmental degradation that the acquisition of things causes, claiming somehow that experiences are all heavily lush and use tons of resources.

"The advocates of the new minimalism are, by and large, urban dwellers..." Where is the evidence for this? He's just pulling this out of a hat.

Furthermore, he blurs the lines between experiences and things so far to make his entire argument banal. If, as he claims, things lead to experiences, and they're not mutually exclusive, then there's no counter-argument...all experience-ists are actually thing-lovers in disguise, because experiences rely on things to occur. This is like saying "everything is a thing, so experiences are a thing, check-mate".

To me, the author decided on the clickbait title, then wrote a few meager, one-sided points which don't hold water.

> economically, this analysis seems precisely backward.

Yes, but that is the point - the economics of your life are not what makes you happy, at least not once you have some wealth.

When we are young, poor, or both, most of us are fighting to have enough money to cover our needs, and therefore economics are everything to our happiness. We work to get to the point where we are stable financially. But when we reach that point, happiness is no longer driven by economics. We've surpassed that hurdle. (And should be grateful for having done so, BTW... many people never get there.)

Once you are lucky enough to be past that point, your measuring stick should change to something that is not economic. Hence, the advice to buy experiences. This does not mean that investment in things is a bad financial choice. It means that investment doesn't drive happiness. Sure, take care of your nest egg, manage your finances, empower yourself to always stay above that hurdle... but also go out and do things and live a life that satisfies you.

Now, if owning more stuff truly satisfies you, fine. But for many people, it does not, especially as we get older and realize that all we truly have at the end of our life is our experiences.

Not sold, sorry.

I have a very good electric drill. Made in Germany, hammer function, Pobedit bits. For the last 3 years I've used it mostly to make holes in leather belts, about once a quarter. Because I don't have a "well stoked toolshed" with leather-hole-punching-tool among others, it seems.

Last week I needed to do some small maintainance and found out it wold be better done with a ratchet wrench. I ordered it online and they brought it in an hour. That's what "living in a prime location" means.

It also often comes with an ability to earn a prime salary and calling a specialist to do things like hanging paintings, fixing electric sockets and so on, while I may have an experience of walking with a friend in a nearby park. I really prefer that lifestyle.

Alas that wrench will collect dust in the closet for the next year at least. But I beleive that with stunts like one hour delivery we (as in "humanity") will eventually come to one hour rentals of things, so we will be able to spend even more on experiences. Can't wait for these times.

> "There are experience-like things; like a basement carpentry workshop or a fine collection of loose-leaf tea. And there are thing-like experiences, like an Instagrammable vacation that collects a bunch of likes but soon fades from memory."

I would retitle the article as "Buy Experience-Like Things, Not Thing-Like Experiences". Or maybe "experience-enabling things" is a better way to put it.

I don't think anyone would ever discourage buying a piano, basketball, snowboard, camera, Raspberry Pi to tinker with, etc, because these all enable experiences that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

Things and experiences aren't inherently good or bad. It depends on the thing and activity. It's true that many experiences do require things (eg. having/renting a car to visit cool places), but many of the best experiences can't just be bought with money (the classic example being romance).

Interesting take on the subject, though I would not be certain that minimalism emerged as co-op mechanism for the lost of purchasing power.

Personally, I focus my money on "reducing unhappiness" first, which includes buying things that seem unnecessary like a second chef knife to use when the first is in the dishwasher. Despite that, I feel quite minimalist in my day-to-day life as I try to be mindful of what I buy (change my mind).

If I can recommend a book on money and value, "The Geometry of Wealth" by Brian Portnoy is surprisingly deep on the subject of happiness. I thought it was about to how to invest according to your investor profile but it was more about finding what matters to you and aggressively move your money towards that. Also an interesting discussion of the two faces of happiness: hedonistic (instant gratification) and eudaimonistic (life contentment).

... or hedonistic (joy) and eudaimonistic (smugness)

There is an event horizon for experiences, at least in my brain. I'm a photo hoarder, and the photos are well organized too. I also hoard old emails and anything else that captures my life's experiences.

Something that happened 5 years ago is "recent". Something that happened 10 years ago is getting iffy. 20 years ago is so disconnected from the present that only skeletal memories remain, and even old pictures and writeups don't have the same impact.

It is possible to buy things that still give joy after 20 years. They don't have to be fancy. I have a particular Makita handheld electric drill (not the cordless variety!) that was the most pleasant to use electric drill I ever experienced after buying one 25+ years ago. Two others I showed it to immediately got their own. And that thing still works, and still gives me joy.

I think a more meaningful catchphrase that works on both sides of the things vs experiences spectrum is "buy quality, not quantity." My best vacations have also been some of my less expensive, because I spent a lot of time picking and choosing. Likewise, a good pair of shoes or a quality office chair can change your life while a quick Amazon Prime purchase of the same thing can be thrown away quickly.

Drinking coffee is an experience that also requires things. It doesn't always require spending a lot more money or even getting a lot more equipment, but a great cup of coffee always involves focusing on the quality and little improvements you can make.

I think you'll find any real minimalism practice is more about minimizing low quality things and experiences to allow the things and experiences that remain to be maximally enjoyable.

In my view, 'experiences' (time) are alway related to 'things' (assets) :

- The experience of sleep requires a bed

- The experience of cooking requires groceries and kitchen tools

- The experience of being an elite requires a fancy diploma

And if the experience does not requires an asset, it is usually because you are borrowing (lending) the asset of another party

- The experience of consulting a psyghologist requires him to have a diploma

- The experience of traveling requires the airline business to maintain a fleet

- The experience of creating a startup to change the world requires borrowed equity at a given rate

I plan to discuss this stuff in my upcoming newsletter about personal finance. People who are all about 'buying experiences not things' are usually priviledged hot heads whose social and professional situation allow them pay high borrowing fees in order to not deal with the logistic of managing their own assets.

The author's conclusion comes full circle: buy things that enable experiences. Thus, buy experiences.

Well, that is exactly the difference - buy things that enable you to get experience for free many times, instead of buying experience-as-a-service.

Traveling is an experience, probably one of the most impressive we can have. To travel the world, to experience cultures, places, and food. But I have to buy a one-time ticket, not a private jet.

Also, the satisfaction ROI on that one thing you bought once drastically caves after a short while.

Really depends on the thing.

Surfboards, motorcycles, hell even some nice speakers. Those are things you buy once, yet provide continuous great experiences (at minimal extra cost) for many years to come.

Of course, traveling is amazing too, but a lot of people can get just as much satisfaction from "things". Personally, I think both are essential for a fulfilling life, but it's perfectly reasonable if people have different priorities.

That's true, but we can live with both buying one time experiences and also things that can give experiences multiple times.

Ultimately it's all experiences!

But I agree with the author that the current trend of renting everything is difficult to understand. I can rent a kayaking experience for $70 a pop, or just buy a kayak for ~$1K. I've certainly used my kayak more than 15 times so I'm already ahead. And eventually I'll sell it for a reasonable percentage of purchase price. And meanwhile I can use it without restrictions which is a much more enjoyable experience (at the rental place need to return it before they close, can't use it at night, can't go to some areas, etc.)

For anything I expect to use more than once, I'd rather buy it to enjoy freely.

I think the author misses the point. We live in a culture where people frequently buy things and then never use them. Those are the things people mean when saying "buy experiences, not things". Putting money into tools for a hobby you already do is buying experiences.

> Putting money into tools for a hobby you already do is buying experiences.

That is true. Like I have a board game hobby, and each one of those I buy is to buy a new experience, a new set of mechanisms, art, theme, etc. Now unfortunately a lot of what I buy ends up just sitting on shelves, because I have way too much of these to ever play more than a handful more than once every couple of years now, but at least at the time of purchase it was so I could have a game experience that I don't have access to yet (used to be I could count on some friends to get some games and experience it that way, but I've seen them a lot less since the pandemic, and a lot of what I buy can be played solo now).

I think both arguments are at extreme ends of a spectrum, and I'm probably somewhat moderate on the point now. I too was once super into the minimalism kick, KonMari method, etc., but I eventually realized that it had simply become its own form of limiting dogma.

Perhaps the best way to look at it is: pursue only those experiences *and* things which truly enrich your choice of lifestyle. In other words, don't get the fancy car _or_ go on the fancy spiritual retreat or whatever just because it seems cool/trendy/culturally-significant/etc. Ponder carefully how you want to live overall, and then make sure your current lifestyle matches what you decide to buy/do and where you decide to go/live.

I remember someone told me they always buy a T-shirt when they're away on a trip somewhere. Something local themed. That way whenever, years later, they pull it out of their wardrobe, it stirs some good memories. Started doing this myself.

I've thought about this a lot while debating a new purchase that I have a few months to sit on. The author hit the nail on the head with this:

  > But what this rationalization ignores is the extent to which tools and possessions enable new experiences.

The opening paragraph mentions a Lambghini as being a poor buying choice because "it'll fade into the background" after a few weeks. I think back to my first car, a LeBaron Convertable that I bought with cash at seventeen. Considering where I live, owning a car for the first time was something that enabled experiences that I couldn't have had without it. The car, itself, faded into the background, but the experiences it enabled me to have did not.

But there are some "things" that are new experiences on their own and don't fade into background if using them is something that brings you joy. About a decade ago, I purchased my first motorcycle. I fall into a little bit of depression when the weather turns to winter, stressing over the fact that it'll be months before I'll be back on it.

Back to the purchase I'm thinking about, now. I own a Future Motion OneWheel Pint. I purchased it more than two years ago. Over the last two years, if it's not snowing, I'm riding it every day. I ride almost the exact same route on this thing every time I'm on it. I'm using it for the experience of riding it and because the device offers so much to me as a rider, as I get better at mastering it, I experience new things. It is so much fun to use, in fact, that I'm looking at getting an upgraded version of the same board. I'd like to have longer range and slightly higher speed, but more importantly, I'd like to be able to ride with other members of my family at the same time on the same devices rather than fight with them over "who's taking the bike".

For me, I'm using this approach from now on: "prioritize purchasing things that are experiences on their own to use (my OneWheel), followed by things that enable new experiences (my car), followed by things that free up time to do the things I want to do, instead (my lawn care services)"

After I bought my cross-country skis, I for the first time feel almost addicted and so happy and full of joy when I get to step outside, put on the skis and go on a 10km track that goes right past our house. When I look back, I remember being hesitant as with all things I buy whether I should do spend my money or not (what if I won't ski that much?), but now afterwards I am very much thankful to myself for buying the skis even if they were expensive. As we say, 100% worth it, including the good amount of experiences I've had with them so far.

If you buy experiences for the same reason you buy things and that reason is that you just want something new all the time, then you're not going to make any progress either way.

Buy things you really need. Buy experiences that you really, really want. But it should all serve the purpose of ideally not having to further buy something (or something similar) again the next week, month or year. Ideally, you're happy with what you have and what you've experienced and you don't need to repurchase that happiness over and over again.

Even the author takes for granted that the experiences are what is important. But instead of buying the experiences directly, like the restaurant meal with friends, the author is making a point that by having bought a large living room and a well equipped kitchen we can use our things to have the experience instead.

And I think this is uncontroversial. The slogan "buy experiences, not things" is just a way to point out that the experience is the important part, and that the things, if any, just are means to that.

Or, don't buy things. Chances are you are getting by just fine with what you have and the only reason you think you need to buy something else is because someone who sells that thing paid professional manipulators to convince you that you need it. It's the same with experiences, really. Most of the reason you think you need to travel is because other people have travel blogs and talk about how amazing it is while taking staged photos that don't show off all the annoying parts and bills.

Not sure I agree with much of it, but one thing resonates very well with me: A well-appointed kitchen allows you to cook healthy meals for yourself rather than ordering delivery night after night. Having been born in a third-world country, where eating out is cheap and portions are generous, I never cared about learning how to cook properly. When I moved to Europe, where outside-food is ridiculously expensive and portions are depressingly small, I concur with this with all my heart and soul.

The reason the happiness from a Lamborghini doesn't last, and the thinking behind experiences generally being superior than possessions has some roots in hedonic adaptation.

Basically a tendency for people "to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or life changes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

My motto is buy what makes you happy. Some people like going on trips, fancy restaurants, but others like the latest tech, car, etc. Up to you to know what is good for you.

Back when I was solo and practicing minimalism, I didn't buy many things and I didn't buy experiences just to have something to buy. There were experiences, some of which involved monetary exchanges, and many that did not. It's not really about what you buy, but being mindful and present to the experience you are having. So for me, the minimalism helps reveal that by limiting the distraction from the process of buying and consuming things.

I buy experiences, not things because all the “things” you gather end up weighing you down. Sure, you could sell those things, but that’s work in and of itself.

Do I buy things? Sure I do, but most of the things I buy are in service of some experience I wish to have. But I go to estate sales from time to time, where you see the collected detritus of a person’s life sold at ten cents on the dollar. Kind of puts it into perspective as the whole deal is a bit sad.

There is almost something thoughtful here, it would be better off without the conclusion.

Blog posts are often just comments hiding from a reply mechanism and this is one of them.

It is an insightful observation that experiences can be empty and forgetful and thats a great conversation, it is almost insightful that people with prime inner city apartments are the ones doing it because they have no space for consumptive things while ignoring the greater discussion there.

I decided to buy a motorcycle.

I quickly realized I wanted to learn more about how to drive.

I went to a top-rated school for motorcycles just to make sure I could take experience from the best.

I came back and bought a better motorcycle, I decide to participate in my local championship in which I end up in third place.

I sold the Ducati.

I decided to buy a company.

I quickly realized I want to learn more about how to sell products.

...

So, I guess my life is a continuous oscillation between ignorance and satisfaction.

One of the things I encourage kids to do is make up their own games, may that involve a creative take on tag or putting together a checkers board with a piece of paper and painted rocks. The reason is simple: we put too much value on attaching happiness to money. I certainly don't want to see their happiness evaporate simply because they cannot afford it.

This is kind of a weird post.

The author seems to be anti living in "prime" locations, at least that's how I read the tone when talking about the "downtown studio" with no space. I mean even if it is expensive, the whole point of that downtown studio is to enable experiences, either directly by gaining access to them or indirectly by simply giving you more time by reducing your commute (eg when I lived in NYC I quite deliberately lived a 5 minute walk from work).

Second, I can't help but think of the Fight Club quote:

> “The things you own end up owning you. It's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything.”

I think observers miss this point when they see people living more alternative lifestyles (eg tiny homes, on a boat, in a van). All of those things you own require upkeep or even just space to store them. This is a drain on your income and if you want to keep having them it increases how much money you need to support them.

The only part I really agree with tangentially is the "overconsuming experiences". Like this is how I feel about people who climb Mount Everest. It's long since lost any achievement value really. I can't help but feel that "experiences" can reach a point of trying to fill a void that'll never be filled.

The next iteration will be "buy information, not experiences." Industry creates and purchases data. We purchase books (read on Kindles), online courses, and in extreme cases, credentials. Isn't an NFT just 0s and 1s?

Aren't we ultimately just converting material wealth to digital wealth?

While I do think minimalism is overrated, and probably a side effect of the overpriced housing market the post mentions, experiences are definitely a better investment, if it's something you WANT to experience, and not just experience for the sake of experience.

People just need a balance mostly.

Buy assets, minimise expenditure and maintain happiness through tiny incremental upgrades.

But maybe these takes are assuming that nobody can afford to buy assets any more unless they already have them. Most people I know consider everything they buy to be an expense.

I was kind of listening until they intimated education and healthcare are not worthwhile.

> A spacious living room makes it easy for your friends to come over and catch up on one another’s lives.

This one rings true, modern megacities make your overpay for the housing, which is tiny, so then you overpay for bar / pub / whatever

Cities also make it much easier for your friends to actually show up. When I lived in a large city all my friends where either a walk or a short subway ride from a central meeting point. Now when we've all traded that in for larger living rooms we're all spread to the winds and we'd have to collectively spend hours in a car to all get together. Trading an apartment in the city for a larger living room has meant that I see much less of my friends than I used to.

Pure ideology. Can't even think of actions outside of individual consumerism.

We are at the point where we really have enough things and enough "experiences", so we don't know what to want next. Sex used to be an important driving force, but that fades out too ...

As someone with poor episodic memory, but I personally value things but still go out of the way for experiences that involve others who are better at recounting said experiences down the road.

I have a Lamborghini. I don’t drive it to show off. It’s simply been on my vision board since age fifteen. It brings me a great experience every day.

Similarly, I bought a expensive espresso machine, also from Italy (lambo is VW now though). It brings me enjoyment and caffeine. While others are impressed by it, the purchase wasn't to impress. Functionally its amazing with every piece doing something very specific. Its function defines the form and perception of form gets confused with fancy, even by my smartest friends. Lamborghini are just well formed cars, not fancy by any means.

Buy things that free up your time for experiences.

    > A well-appointed kitchen [..] A toolbox [..] A hunting rifle

... one of these things is not like the others

Yes, a well-appointed kitchen is orders of magnitude more expensive.

The correct answer is BUY THINGS AND/OR EXPERIENCES, so long as you can afford

"Buy assets, not indulgences" is so much more accurate and catchy, imo.

Taking this one step further: buy tools to make things that enable experiences.

Have to disagree. For every thing you buy, you should have time to use it. I can’t count how often i bought expensive things just to use it once. On the other hand, experiences are already the time you buy, not a material thing.

One should not buy things that one does not needed. Money spent in education and travel (which is just a form of education) is the best investment.

Convince me that I am wrong.

One should not buy things that one does not need

I love to travel and I have taken many a fun and interesting course to further educate myself post university. And while I certainly don't regret any of it for second, I needed none of them and from a purely utilitarian point of view they where pretty terrible investments.

Wow, Harold Lee destroys that strawman!

A few years back, maybe after reading Marie Kondo, I started the trivial addition of 'do I need this, or do I just want this' whenever I was thinking about buying something. Sounds stupid, but there were surprisingly many things (wow, that jacket?) that I really did not need. I did pass on a signed Elon Musk biography, though, which I regret to this day ;-)

That Lambo the author riffs about in the article? Absolutely an experience to be bought, if the money was there.

When I am on my deathbed, I will think back, to that beautiful time when I bought that tricked out gas stove instead of seeing Italy.

Is optimization for minimum amount of deathbed regrets a wise way to live your life?

You can decide to go to Italy, be back tired and disappointed in 3 days, and then blame yourself for not getting the gas stove instead. Your point of view can change when you are much older, sure, but there is still a gap in the argument for why traveling is more worthwhile compared to buying stuff.

> Is optimization for minimum amount of deathbed regrets a wise way to live your life?

This. Dying is unlikely to be a pleasant experience, regardless of the number of your regrets

How you would feel about your life if you were on your deathbed right now is in fact an interesting exercise. Right now. What do you regret doing, and most importantly what do you regret NOT doing?

Many people, after they retire, feel like they lived a wrong life, full in work, and not experiences. Or, you know, THINGS.

What Really Matters at The End of Life:

https://www.ted.com/talks/bj_miller_what_really_matters_at_t...

Or you'll be thinking about all those fantastic meals you made and shared thanks to that stove. While your visit to Italy is nothing but I vague, slightly disappointing, memory.

Perhaps you should buy a thing:

Working server

Can afford neither, sorry.

why buy if you can make!

Anyone else noticing this trend of telling people what to do in the headline?

Have been reading Hacker News for many years, and feel like this kind of headline is quite common from the HN/SV bubble. Paul Graham writes like this too. It’s the language of a software tutorial for novices, applied to life. It’s this shift that makes it feel so pretentious! As a reader it’s fine to accept being a novice reading expert advice, when the subject is a computer program. When the subject is life choices, a writer would normally adopt a more humble tone, since most readers would need to be convinced that someone had all that more expertise than themselves. At the same time, I find it slightly endearing in its naivety, because these subjects being too complicated to capture in simple rules doesn’t stop the authors from trying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com