Ask HN: Is there anything wrong with splurging on tech? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is there anything wrong with splurging on tech?

9 pointstrifit68 comments

I was made to feel bad by my peers for spending money on my favorite gadgets now I’m introspecting if it was really a bad choice. What does the community think?

View on HN

It's worth thinking very carefully about your consumption habits re: how they produce waste. The real costs of our devices are often hidden in pretty horrifying externalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste

That said, even always upgrading to The Latest Thing can be done responsibly as long as you're making sure those old devices go to people who can get use out of them. Questionably useful gizmos are less great – I wanted a smart watch, got one, and regret it.

Hedonic treadmill is real, so keeping emotional distance from these things is useful.

I always thought it would be interesting to see a calculator that takes a finished product and shows how many raw resources went into it. For example, put in a load of bread, and it shows how big of a wheat field it needed, how much oil to transport it to market, etc. Put in a cell phone and it shows how many minerals were mined. Showing labor hours would also be neat.

Just a few examples for products across different sectors would be interesting.

There is a question that you can apply to any scenario that will almost always give you "the right answer":

What are you optimizing for?

If you are optimizing for the most experience with emerging tech, then no it's not wrong, you need to get access to it.

If you are optimizing for reducing e-waste, then you should be probably getting older tech and reusing it or selling tech that you've repaired.

If you are optimizing for minimal possessions, then yes, it could be bad if that means more objects.

If you are trading in and trading up and optimizing for "tech that holds value" then no, it's not wrong.

Often when people pass value judgements it's because they are optimizing for a different thing, and low and behold, that's where disagreements stem from.

Yeah, it's way better to separate value discussions from "optimizing for values" discussions. They're both important, but if you do them at the same time you don't really get anywhere.

On optimizing for the value of work output with tech, I think most people use terrible heuristics that mostly lead to them underinvesting. It's all just benchmarking against other companies and trying to be economical.

The number of companies that won't invest in a second monitor or an ultrawide for office employees is mindblowing. The efficiency gains are well studied, something like 20-40% (you may love your single small monitor, I'm talking about averages). It's an upgrade that's 1% of the salary for a $50k employee, lasts years, has no ongoing costs and is transferrable between work stations. It's a no-brainer.

You don't seem to be actually introspecting but rather asking a different group for approval now that your peers made you feel bad. What do you think?

Do you have the money (not going into debt, credit card or otherwise)? Are you genuinely enjoying the purchase? Are you sacrificing anything you want/need more (house downpayment, tuition money, grocery budget, student loan payments, 401k match, etc) to purchase said tech? Is the purchase hurting you in any way?

If yes to the first two and no to the latter two, tell your peers to suck it. If any other combination maybe you have some introspection to do, figure out what value (if any) you're actually getting out of the purchase.

Will you enjoy the gadget just as much a year from now, or is it like buying a luxury car where after a while it just becomes "a car"? The hedonic treadmill is real when it comes to things

Asking that question here is like asking a bunch of car enthusiasts whether there's anything wrong with splurging on cars ;)

So obviously I'd say there's nothing wrong with splurging at all. The question is what you do with it once you replace it when you splurge again; I'm certainly guilty of having an ever-growing collection of "spare parts", but even that's better than the landfill.

Asking here is like asking a forum of mechanics who hate cars, can't believe that anyone likes cars at all, and if they had the chance would sell all their cars in an instant and instead buy a farm that raises chickens.

Well I mean, that's what we all say, but then we start accumulating yet more cars on our chicken farms.

Nothing wrong with that. No true enthusiast would settle for such a poultry selection. Besides, what else are you gonna do once the kids flee the coop? You may just be winging it at first, but it's better than putting all your eggs in one basket.

Hey, that's not a bad idea...

You've just moved the landfill to your house, instead of somewhere else. Where do you think it's going to go when you are dead?

Waste is created at purchase, not at exit.

> Where do you think it's going to go when you are dead?

Hopefully to someone else with a similar penchant for collecting junk.

> Waste is created at purchase, not at exit.

Waste only becomes such once it loses all potential for use.

Very good counterpoints, especially the second. I suppose there is also the chance that recycling and reuse options continue to advance as technology moves forward.

That's what I'm hoping for, and a key reason why I rationalize hanging onto even broken parts when possible. Maybe they're useless now, but who knows what sorts of neat tricks we might devise to give them greater purpose than to be entirely destroyed forever.

Hell, even if they remain useless forever, there's at least a slim chance they'll stick around for enough generations to eventually be interesting for historians or collectors.

Was thinking something similar.

Your money, wipe your butt with it if you wish (although treasury dept wouldn't like that).

I only worry about getting privacy invading gadgets like home assistants and things that measure biological activity amd phone home.

I saw other posts after commenting and everyone is worried about waste. This idea of making consumers accountable is ridiculous. You are not responsible for ewaste as much as you are not responsible for global warming. It is the responsibility of manufacturers to maintain a sustainable carbon foot print and properly plan for disposal of ewaste, it is the responsibility of government to regulate all of this as well and impose taxes and cost as needed. The price of what you buy should reflect all of this. If everyone can buy 100 iphones that means the cost of managing ewaste and producing it responsibly was priced in. If it was not them the corner-cutters are responsible not the consumer.

There is absolutley no way you can get enough people to care about ewaste or carbon footprint to make an iota of a difference anytime this century.

Fatalism is a nice omnidirectional exoneration, but I don't think complicity is that simple ("it is their fault and I am blameless even as I reward what they do, it is government's fault and I am blameless even if they're representing me poorly").

In this case it is, producers are responsible and are best situated to deal with the problem. You can hold them accountable but you can't reasonably hold consumers accountable. Guilt-tripping is not accountability.

I agree with what you said about responsibility, except that, in a democracy, you _are_ responsible for your government. I'd argue that even in an authocracy you're responsible for surrendering your power to the authority.

personal_responsibility = 1/total_population - corruption_quotient

How responsible and how powerful you are are two different things. Your equation is a mix of both. Also, your equation does not account for the disparity in motivation. For every truly motivated individual, there's hordes of people who would not show initiative themselves, but are willing to follow. So, if you're a motivated individual, your power is not 1/total_population, but 1/motivated_population.

You are right about motivation, but responsibility makes sense only in relation to your own power, you can not be responsible for something you are powerless about (but you can of course be held responsible).

My opinion on this is somewhat controversial, or at least non-mainstream, I think. I'd say that responsibility and power are perpendicular. One way to put it is that you can respond to anything: responsibility in my mind is nothing more than acknowledging that something is part of your world. Another way I approach it is that I can't honestly differentiate between "I can't" and "I won't": this mindset can get pretty esoteric, but think of it this way: most "I can'ts", when you dig down, are actually "I won'ts". When you ask yourself why you can't do something, usually the answer will be that it's because you can't do something that depends on, and something that depends on, and so on, but eventually you get down to a root "I won't" or "I'm unwilling". Then suddenly the feeling of powerlessness stops, and you realise that you're just avoiding something.

that would just make the concept of personal responsibility and power meaningless ... it's also kind of a cope

That part I agree with you, you are reaponsible for the government you tolerate.

Curious to hear what you're buying!

My rule-of-thumb is that if it helps me be more productive or creative, it's a worthy investment. A Remarkable tablet has been my best tech purchase so far.

Indeed, when thinking about satisfying gadget purchases, the reMarkable tablet is the first that comes to mind as a device that lived up to its promises, and I keep using it regularly years later while most others languish around the house.

I write notes (text and sketches) on it, no more and no less. The last time a few hours ago.

Interested to hear more about how you use it please? I'm tempted...

I did some sketching for a while, but I've lost track of it. I'm not artistically talented at all but I found it soothing.

Mostly I use it for taking notes for math and physics lectures I audit on YouTube and MIT/Stanford's online education sites. Sometimes for brainstorming things at work too.

This is very vague, there's nowhere near enough context for anyone to offer you any solid advice.

> What does the community think?

What do you think?

There's the environmental aspect of it, which isn't great (the manufacturing of each computer emits a lot of CO2, and uses some rare metals that are increasingly hard to find, amongst other issues, I'm sure), especially if you replace tech super regularly, but if it's also part of your trade, then it kind of makes sense to have good tools. Those people probably don't berate dentists for getting new tools in their office, or carpenters for getting a new table saw.

That being said, there's a point where it tends to become diminishing returns. You don't need a super computer to code CRUD sites, especially nowadays (I say as I'm browsing the internet from my sorta fancy gaming desktop, but I do play games on it as well).

In that case buying a top end laptop might mean that it needs replaced further in the future.

Yeah, I can see the argument for that, sure. I still think the premium you pay for total bleeding edge might not be worth it, though. Plus a lot of the premium you pay for is not for added durability (maybe some added durability up to an extent, then after that it's mostly speed/power/memory/etc). The rest of the computer will still wear out in about the same time as other laptops, regardless of how great the tech is inside.

Macbooks tend to last quite a long time (I'm still using an early 2015 Macbook Pro, for example, and there's still nothing wrong with the hardware except maybe the fans are running more than they used to, most likely because I need to replace the heatsink thermal paste, it's probably worn down a lot) so paying a higher premium on those I can see being worth it, but I've had terrible luck with Windows laptops, with the most recent one having the plastic around the display break apart on me after only a few years being only one of many things happen to it, and that was a somewhat premium model (a gaming laptop, at least), so I'm hesitant to pay too much of a premium for Windows laptops.

All that matters is you enjoy using your favorite gadgets. I personally don't have an issue with using or splurging on tech, but when someone replace their gadgets every 6 months for the sake of having the marketed newest and best, I would definitely think about if it's necessary. How much newer or better is a product getting in a given cycle, and are they a power user that will see a meaningful benefit from upgrading. Tech is not the easiest to recycle, but if the tech is being resold or given away and it's not ending up in a drawer somewhere I honestly think it's healthy for the overall market even if it's a yearly thing. A smaller time frame sees a little excessive, but that a personal judgement.

Well, if you are second-guessing yourself, I'd actually argue that obviously you may have some reservations about it.

Let me ask you this: why did you spend the money? Is it stuff that will genuinely make your life and the lives of those around you better? Or is it stuff that you are buying to fill a void in your life caused by a lack of relationships or longing that something has yet to fill.

If it's the former, then maybe you ought to consider what actually does or doesn't make your life better. If it's the latter, then perhaps you ought to seek out those things rather than trying to buy yourself into "happiness".

> Well, if you are second-guessing yourself, I'd actually argue that obviously you may have some reservations about it.

Not necessarily. Some people are genuinely happy for what they buy/enjoy for themselves. But other people - who may not understand the value of that purchase (or are motivated by envy) - can bring down a person's enjoyment of that product, by mocking it, or thinking the lesser of it.

A simple example: movie reviews. Not everyone's palate is as 'sophisticated' or 'refined' as that of movie critiques. In comparison, lowbrow entertainment exists, and can be enjoyed by anyone, always. But critiques may look down upon such a form of entertainment - and a person who reads their reviews, and who shouuld normally enjoy their lowbrow their entertainment, might now enjoy their show less, just because others are looking down on it, or because they feel that they have live up to some 'standard' of correctness.

It's not about personally reservations. None of the above has anything to do with a person's inner reservations about a thing - it is about the external judgment, that may sometimes ruin enjoyment. Not everyone is as confident to be able to shake off the thought of others.

For me it all has to do with time and utility.

I generally keep an iPhone for three to four years, that said I don't buy a ton of fancy add ons or chargers. I did upgrade to a top of the line iPhone 13 Pro before a work trip to London (getting lost or without money because I wanted to keep an old phone with a less than okay battery seemed stupid).

I have the same mophie wireless charger I bought on prime day five years ago. It works fine, charging your phone slower is actually better for battery life otherwise I just use macbook USB c chargers for everything else.

My only other personal standard is "life is too short to deal with slow computers". It's literally my time, and dealing with something that breaks all the time is just not worth the frustration. So in other words I just don't use windows anything.

This goes without saying, I'm otherwise a very frugal person. Not sure if it's risk aversion - more so seems like keeping options open. I had a brief period of buying everything I wanted, and that just made me feel empty and moronic. Having $$ decently invested means options. Also goes without saying, my salary is pathetic compared to most engineers here.

Tech doesn't last.

If I were to spend $2500 on a guitar I know that 20, 40, 60 or even 100 years from now that guitar will play just as well, if not better, than it does today. OTOH if I were to spend $2500 on a laptop I know that 10 years from now, if not sooner, it will be a piece of junk.

Basically this is how I justify buying guitars to my wife! :)

Some things have lasting value. Art, crystal, good furniture, those are better items on which to spend money. Technology? It goes obsolete so fast you're essentially renting the item. Which is why, BTW, I've never bought an Apple Watch. It doesn't do anything my phone can't do and I've never spent more than $40 on a Timex. If I were to start slinging around serious money into a watch it would be a Rolex or something of that ilk. I guarantee it'll work just as well 100 years from now as it does today - decades after the Apple Watch was useless.

I prefer spending my money on things that last and tech just doesn't last. If you don't mind perpetually renting items and it tickles your fancy and fits your budget, then by all means, indulge.

Are you asking them for a loan or something? "Sorry guys I don't have money to kick in for lunch today, can you spot me?" while you are wearing $500 headphones? Then yeah, you should feel bad.

Otherwise tell them to pound sand.

I’m grateful to people that splurge on tech and later sell their barely-used gadgets in eBay where I get them for cheap.

Joking (half) aside, as others (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32070678) said, it’s your hard-earned money. People will criticize you for doing what you want much more intensely than they will thank you for not doing it.

Now, if you find that many of the things you buy don’t spark joy but rather make you feel dissatisfied and start looking for the next thing to buy, then there might be a problem.

Always feel bad if it comes from within. If it comes from others/friends/peers, nothing to feel bad about.

So let me ask you. If those peers did not make you feel bad, would you feel bad on your own that you shouldn't have splurged ? If answer is No, then move on. Nothing to see here.

People always have opinions. Sometimes they are good, sometimes they are whatever. You do what works best for you. Listen to your peers but ultimately it is your life. If you want to splurge and are willing to accept consequences (good or bad), your call. It is called Freedom.

You need to stop worrying about other people moralizing your choices.

If you asked those same people if getting abortions is immoral, they would likely say no, and that no one should be moralizing a woman's right to choose what to do with their body. And they are 100% right.

And in the same vein, they should not be moralizing what you decide to do with your money.

That is only up to you to determine. If it actually makes you happy and you can afford it, go for it. If it does not actually make you happy, you need to try to figure out what hole in your heart you are trying to fill with non essential material goods. Essentially, you need to determine if you have an addiction or not.

Tech is universally one of the cheapest things on the planet. Try buying housing or cars or watches or drugs.

Deriving happiness from objects and not people is an artificial, superficial, and maladapted way of life. "Status" is a sad remnant of our simple-minded ancestors.

This creates a niche where you can stagnate or remain stunted emotionally and socially, yet compensate with gadgets.

Can you not derive it from both? Doesn't seem that op is making a choice

As much as it's "wrong" to splurge on clothes, Michelin-star dinners, expensive cars, etc. If you can afford it, and you genuinely enjoy it, just go ahead and do it. De gustibus non est disputandum.

whatever brings you happiness. I spend little on experiences like vacations and tend to enjoy the experience leading to a purchase and usage of a thing. E.g. researching what guitar effect pedals would be cool is as enjoyable to me as using it to create sounds after I buy it. This also has an interesting side effect that often I'm satisfied without actually acquiring a thing but when I do - it leads to a better quality (whatever that means in that particular case) but also more expensive thing

> I spend little on experiences like vacations

I'm not going to claim this necessarily applies to you, but there's some research that suggests spending money on experiences rather than possessions tends to result in longer term happiness. See for example:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/buy-exp...

There is nothing wrong with being a tech enthusiast. It can even be refreshing especially if you are feeling burned out. Better to be an enthusiast than to get old and stop caring.

> There is nothing wrong with being a tech enthusiast.

Not... quite... but it's close. "Tech" is a broad domain and for example the normalization of consumer-owned, corporate-controlled, police-accessible surveillance cameras was driven by "tech enthusiasm" and is absolutely a net negative for society. Unquestioning support and adoption of new applications of tech may be neutral in a vacuum but we don't live in a vacuum.

There are reasons and uses for these things outside of what draws enthusiasts to them, and enthusiasts are encouraged to dismiss or ignore those consequences in their consumption. Nonetheless they are there, and tech consumption is not inherently neutral, though it's not inherently bad either.

Have a budget, stick to it, be happy.

Your money, do what you want with it.

You should work on caring less about what other people think, friends or community

Is there a word for someone who consistently dismisses and ignores the concerns and values of their friends and community?

Yes, it's called freedom.

I mean you have the freedom to shit in your hand and eat it, doesn't make it a good idea, or imply that the people around you should be pleased at your choices.

If you're a pregnant woman in the US South that wants to get an abortion, should you not get that abortion if the people around you wouldn't be pleased?

Or should you be free to do whatever the fuck you want, because it's your choice?

I didn't try make the argument that people should blindly do what those around them want them to do either, where did you get that? I'm just pointing out that "caring less what others think" isn't inherently virtuous. You turned it into this freedom brain shit, but like obviously of course you are free to do whatever, and people are free to feel how they feel about it. Whether you're willing to bear those consequences is part of the decisions-making that forms your freedom to act, how could it be otherwise.

You 100% did say that people should think about what their community wants.

But thank you for agreeing with me, and that freedom is doing what you want, and what people around you think shouldn't affect your decisions.

Sociopath? CEO material? Politician?

There's nothing wrong with spending your own money on anything you want.

Exactly. Buy massive gas guzzling cars, fly however much you want, eat all the meat you can and buy useless crap that pollutes the environment guilt-free #becauseyoureworthit

There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, as they say, but it is possible to be less unethical (and capitalism’s probably going to be around for the foreseeable anyway, so don’t beat yourself up).

Personally: I used to be more into new shiny things than I am. I still enjoy getting new stuff, who doesn’t, but I try to temper that with enjoying getting longevity out of the stuff I already have. I think it is right to deeply consider the ecological and exploitative impact of what we buy, but unless you completely change your lifestyle to actually not need much tech at all, self-loathing austerity is miserable too. Have good justifications for the things you buy, and once you do, enjoy them. Take good care of them and find a good home for them once you don’t want them any more.

The community thinks you should read Peter Singer.

Does it bring you joy?

Find new peers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com