Hacker News Reader

Comment by lui8906 | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com