2008: My year of living smaller | Hacker News Reader

2008: My year of living smaller

broadcast.oreilly.com

51 pointsdimm57 comments

Though this article isn't all that well written, it brings up what seems to be a (very good) trend lately: people exploring the idea of living with less.

I'm only a college student right now, and already have limited expenses, but I've been exploring the idea of reducing the amount of things I own; a more minimalist lifestyle. I've realized something that Jelliffe points out towards the end of his article:

"Simplicity is great if it is coupled with quality household goods, but terrible with commodity goods that bust all the time."

Most items you can get at Wal-Mart, Target, or any major chain store are not well made...and, well, crap. Yes, the nicer things are more expensive and more difficult to find, but they are worth it. Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years?

That's just the beginning of living simpler, though. It isn't just about replacing your stuff with better stuff, but about reducing the overall amount of stuff you own. Do you really need X, Y, and Z, or can you do without Y and Z?

Relating this to my own experience, I like to see it as an interesting challenge. Since I fly back and forth from my school (and I don't own a car), everything I own has to be packed away in a storage unit at the end of the school year. Therefore, the less I own, the less I have to store, and the better off I am. I've been working to get rid of a lot of things I don't need (how much clothing do I really need? Electronics? Trinkets?) and avoiding buying new things. The major advantage this has is that it frees up a lot of money to spend on things I really want to do, such as a trip to Japan I have planned for this summer.

I wish this idea would go more mainstream, though, as I think the whole US could do with a little downsizing. Perhaps this current economy will help push us in that direction?

I think the idea is simplistic.

I have had the same $10 Wal-Mart cooking knife for a few years now. I'm sure it won't last more than a few more years. However, I bought it in poverty, and it will last me through poverty until I am making good money. Then I will buy a nice knife. There is nothing wrong with that.

Grad school is hard. It requires a lot of my time. A sewing kit is not cheap, and sewing is time-expensive. It is probably a net positive for me to throw out socks with holes in them, even if they cost me a few extra dollars over the course of three or four years.

I understand the urge to simplify. This is the land of Henry David Thoreau, after all. But sometimes it carries an assumed moral tone without justification. People feel it's right and don't question it. If nobody bought from Wal-Mart, people would have a lot less stuff. Some of that stuff is valuable, it saves people time and makes them more comfortable. Often cheap stuff is bridging a gap for folks caught in hard times. There is no need to moralize against them.

I'm not trying to moralize against anyone, nor am I trying to sound like I am in any way more "right" than someone who cannot afford to simplify as much. I only stated that the quality of these items these stores sell is generally terrible. You are entirely correct in your statement that places like Wal-Mart bridge a gap or present a temporary standby until someone can afford to "upgrade" and simplify.

As it stands, I'm likely going to be buying Ikea-produced furniture next year because I need to furnish an apartment cheaply, and I will only be keeping it for a couple years. I don't have the money or the means to buy furniture that will last me a long time at this point...but that doesn't mean I'm not thinking about what I am doing. I still am aiming to buy as little furniture as is necessary, and avoiding anything I can do without or simply don't need.

Yes, the idea is simplistic, but that is the point: if you can reduce and purchase quality then you should, and if you can't, at least have an awareness (and perhaps simplify another aspect of your life). I'm at a point where I can do both, but understandably, not everyone can do that.

It's all about reducing as much as you can, within your current circumstances. I'm not trying to say that you need to buy that $100 knife now, but in that case, perhaps you could do with one or two less forks (this isn't a literal example, mind you). Less waste and less worry, without entirely sacrificing comfort.

Before going to Ikea, I would try hitting a couple garage sales. Check out the Pennysaver magazine too.

I second this. You can sometimes get really great, durable, nice stuff for the same price or less than IKEA.

Or just search Craigslist's free or furniture section. You can often find people moving who would rather give away or sell their perfectly fine Ikea furniture than move it (probably because they're going to upgrade).

You're right that it does often come with a moral tone, but comments on HN aside, I think this guy's post is the least moralizing, least preachy, least "magical" article I've ever read on the subject. If you keep reading down to the comments, you'll find this backed up by his responses.

Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years?

But living with 1 $100 knife requires certain behavioral changes. You must take care of it, sharpen it, transport it if you're moving.

Really, these are positive changes and I totally agree that we should be buying more durable goods and maintaining them. In fact, this behavioral change is why the government wants people to own homes. Home ownership gives you something that you need to maintain well rather than simply move away from/discard. It even gives you incentive to improve upon it as that trip to Home Depot can really improve things like the value of the home. People live in communities, improve their homes and communities, and take a real stake in improving things on that local level.

The government promotes home ownership because it's believed to decrease crime at a community level; I don't think they care about the amount of stuff that people buy. In fact, I'd wager that home ownership tends to increase a person's tendency to buy crap.

spot on for the behavioral changes

i'd use the $100 knife LESS than the $10 counterpart -> that's why i use $1 knifes because i cannot care less if it breaks

even google doesn't use sun blades, that's pretty telling

about home ownership, there are correlations that countries that are low on home ownership level(e.g, swiss) is richer than ones with high level (e.g, spain)

those examples are correlation, not causality ... anomaly i'd say and it's worth practicing

I don't think you can make the call on which knife you'd use till you had both. If you enjoy cooking or if you hate cooking but have to, the $100 knife will likely become your choice knife: preparing food becomes quicker and easier -- you're investment returns in time and peace of mind.

The $100 knife is also usually quite indestructible compared with the $10 counterpart. Even a $100 knife in the poorest care is salvageable with a professional sharpening.

that's it, $100 knife is wonderful till you lost it or break it

$10 knifes, you can afford to have spares

another example, i no longer use mechanical pencil because it betrayed me so many times (i can't see if there's extra lead inside)

transparent mech pencil is better, but i often forget to bring extra leads :(

that's why i buy 96 counts pencils for $5 ... the lead is visible, it never fails me

and no, i don't bring sharpener (you can always break the pencil and 'sharpen' the lead against rough surfaces)

i bring 5 sharpened pencils instead and put the rest in various places

although it's redundant (to ensure reliability), it's simpler and i'm much happier

"everything I own has to be packed away in a storage unit at the end of the school year. Therefore, the less I own, the less I have to store, and the better off I am. I've been working to get rid of a lot of things I don't need (how much clothing do I really need? Electronics? Trinkets?) and avoiding buying new things."

Well said. Whenever I've had the luxury of living somewhere for an extended period of time I've accumulated things, despite all efforts to the contrary. It's certainly less wasteful to save that half-used roll of wrapping paper than to buy another in 11 months, but it comes at the cost of having to keep it somewhere, and the need to be at least minimally aware of it. Before you know it, you've got to have a box for the wrapping paper rolls, and a closet in which to keep the box, and then you put other stuff in the closet, and....

When I moved to San Francisco, I got rid of everything that couldn't fit in one of those door-to-door moving crates. It was a cathartic exercise, and I've been surprised that I haven't missed anything that I eliminated. There's a lot to be said for throwing away everything you own to make a journey; it lets you focus on the things that actually matter.

I have to agree with this (I'm thinking of that Stuff essay by Paul Graham) - I have stuff in Dubai, Kabul, Yangon - in boxes. I'm sixpence none the richer (experience-wise) without it.

If you buy the $20 knives, as long as you can invest the money you don't spend at 6.34% or more, you actually come out ahead.

Did you include transaction costs in your calculations?

Not in the sense of emotional well-being.

The important thing to remember about $100 knives is that if this is all that is available, only certain people can have knives at all.

The really great thing about the "cheap asian manufacturing revolution" is that it means that nearly everyone can have a whole bunch of household goods that they may not have had before.

My grandfather had to pay nearly a months salary for a circular saw in 1958. I now have and use this saw all the time. Its so well made that my children will likely use it as well. I didn't get the saw until he died. Before that I had a $30 "harbor freight" saw. It was awful but at least I could have a saw at all. It certainly allowed me to fully appreciate the good one.

Which makes more sense: owning one quality $100 knife for 30+ years, or going through 10 $20 knives over the course of 30 years?

It depends. The $100 knife could become lost, stolen or damaged. Improved or cheaper knives, or even a new technology to replace the knife as we know it, could appear in the next 30 years. You could even keep two cheap knives so you have a spare whilst the other is in the dishwasher.

Even if you never go through 10 $10 knives and "save money", you lose out in time and happiness (dull blades perform poorly, and every day you prepare food is wasted time with a poor knife, and a blow to your own mood, because dull blades are more apt to slip and cut you, mar your food, and generally put you in a fowl mood).

If you don't cook, though, no worries.

You can get a decent knife for $10 and I've honestly never had a knife put me in a fowl[sic] mood.

This is true.

The $10 knife and the $100 knife were probably made from the same material in the same factory in China. The $100 knife was just marketed differently.

If you want good performance, learn to sharpen your knives. The best way to learn is to sharpen many many knives. You can put a razor edge on any knife out there. There is no magic to it. Don't buy any fancy gadgets. Just get 3 good sharpening stones. You can get 3 good ones for under $100.

The $100 knife usually won't have better edge retention because it is probably made from the same material as the $10 variety. It was probably heat treated in the same way too. The only difference is that the $100 knife probably has better quality control. It probably looks nicer and feels nicer in the hand. These things matter to some people, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it will cut better. It won't.

So it is not worth buying good knives but it is worth buying good sharpening stones? Hmm.

I don't see why anyone wouldn't want something that feels nicer in the hand. Wouldn't you also want a chair that feels nicer on your arse? Even tho' you could make do with a cheaper one?

1. Under $100 translates into about $20 if you shop around or buy at garage sales

2. Some people value things differently. Nice feeling is worth $1 to some people and $100 to others.

^ Only sane comment in this whole stupid thread. Anyone who pays 100 dollars for a knife is a sucker.

I'm guessing you either don't use knives very much or haven't used a really nice one. I use a chef's knife every day, having a good one does not make me a sucker. It's like paying for the leather option when buying a car--it's not essential, but it's damn nice to have. The knife's a lot cheaper too :).

Coincidentally enough, this conversation has come up on HN before, and the consensus was that professional chefs actually use knives that cost around $30; $100 knives are for people who want expensive knives that are functionally indistinguishable from $30 ones. It's more like paying for a "free-range" leather option when buying a car. :)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=269945

I commented there too :). I have the knife that Cooks Illustrated recommended, the Forschner. It's a good knife, worth the $25. Probably worth more, but it's not remarkable. I also have a Shun that's the same size and it's an amazing knife. Priced as such too, it's around $100. The differences are subtle, but because the Shun is perfectly balanced it's not hard to notice. My chef friends love it. Novice cooks who pick it up immediately notice something different. It's a very well crafted tool. Switch the prices and I'd still say the same thing, I'm all about getting a bargain.

If we're doing car comparisons, it's like a Camry versus a Lexus. The Lexus can't get you anywhere that the Camry can't, but you'll enjoy yourself more.

That said, I'm sure there are expensive knives out there that are simply shit. Price is a marketing technique sometimes. But there are real gems out there too. If I had to buy over again, I'd still get a Shun.

Good catch ;) My thinking was revolving around cooking.

Your knife comparison is interesting because of the current really low interest rates. The IRR of the $100 knife is probably more competitive with the 10 $20 knives right now, compared to a couple of years ago. It seems conceivable to me that low interest rates would encourage people to buy a few quality items rather than a lot of crappy ones.

Does living smaller mean having to give up things (such as replacing socks with holes)?

The majority of Americans can take simpler steps. For example, buy larger containers. So, I'm a young post-college student trying to save as much money as I can and most of my friends make wages that are barely double the federal poverty line and we're in the Boston area. So, we buy as large a container as we can to save money. When I'm with people not of that demographic, I see the opposite. Those 8oz Poland Spring bottles abound - in the homes of environmentally conscious people. Saran wrap and plastic bags to be thrown away replace tupperware-style containers.

You don't need to decide that old, crappy, ripped socks need to be repaired. Buy that huge thing of soap to refill the one or two small containers you actually need. Get a nalgene or similar bottle to use for water or other liquids. If you want soda at work, get a 2-liter bottle and a reusable glass rather than constantly buying cans and 20-oz bottles. Don't get single meal wrapped stuff.

I love people living smaller, but I don't think most people will do what the author has done (but congrats to him for accomplishing it). Still, there are little things you can do that don't affect your quality of life that really do make a difference. It's not that hard to do it, the problem is that it's so easy not to do it. Buying a reusable glass and 2-liter bottles requires a tiny bit of planning and forethought when that vending machine is there with wonderfully easy, single serving containers.

The other thing I'd add is that if you're interested in this as a serious endeavor and not just for show, you need to take some time and analyze your expenditures first. Just like optimizing code, you need to go get the low hanging fruit before you start fiddling around the edges.

Buying a 2-liter and a reusable glass isn't worth much if your lead foot is costing you $200 extra a month in gas.

(Incidentally, I'm not tossing in the "just like optimizing code" thing as a sop to the audience; the optimization loop 1. Find biggest problem 2. Solve biggest problem 3. Repeat as needed (and no more) is generally useful in many situations.)

Analysis will almost certainly reveal some expenditures and things that are surprisingly expensive, but will probably also show there are some niceties that don't actually have anywhere near as much impact as you might think at first. For instance, I tend to buy the nicer spices; sure, they may look twice as expensive but it may be worth 1 penny more per meal (for instance).

i choose to wear sandals -> bye bye socks & holes problem

the 'need' to cover every part of one's body is perplexing ... also the 'need' to use different products for different body parts (shampoo for hair, hand soap, genital soap, etc)

i take old skool approach, just use washing soda (a pinch for 0.5 L water) for my personal-cleaning needs. only when i deal with oily stuff then i use commercial soap/shampoo

nowaday i don't go to shoes, socks, and cleaning aisles anymore ... freeing time for more important stuffs

You must live in a nice, warm, dry land where you don't need the warmth and protection of socks. And you must be blessed with resliant skin and hair that doesn't dry out or become rough when you wash it with baking soda.

You must live somewhere perpetually warm. I can't imagine wearing sandals this month in New York, unless I didn't value my toes.

"I don't particularly feel I need my mobile, but my friends consider it unfriendly not to be at their beck and call"

I didn't own a wireless phone in 2008 and noticed the same thing. For example, nobody wants to arrange to meet at a specific place/time for a public event; they want you to call when you get there and walk toward them pointing out landmarks that betray your location.

I already knew that this is how meeting arrangements are now handled; what I didn't expect is that it's now considered rude to require a more specific commitment.

Probably around 2004 I started noticing that many young people had forgotten (or never learned) how to arrange a meeting without a mobile phone. Several times I had conversations like this:

"Just call me when you get there."

"I don't have a phone."

"Umm... so what do we do?"

I had to explain that we needed to agree on a time and exact location to meet. It was very strange, as I hadn't had this problem in the previous decade when I was meeting people.

Live with less, but don't forget that time has inherent value as well. Opportunity cost. Ask yourself if your purchases are giving you less or more time to do what you actually want.

I also find that the best limiter for me is having a restricted living space. I spent a year and a half on the road as a software consultant, and my luggage got progressively smaller as time went on. By the end of my travel life last summer, I had managed to combine two weeks of business necessities with a camping mattress and stuff for the weekend, and hold it all in a single airline carry-on sized backpack. This didn't make me less of a consumer, though, it just directed the consumption in different ways. I consumed airline tickets, hotel rooms, restaurant food, etc. at a much higher rate than most people. But I enjoyed the lifestyle.

That being said, I would still really like to have a flat-screen TV and a couch of my own. Priorities, though...

Funny, I was starting to think along these lines as well during last year. Maybe it's something in the air. I sure hope so. caugh consumption fatigue caugh

My new mantra: From now on I will have FEWER, SMALLER, and BETTER things.

This usually applies to gadgets, such as my laptop but also subscriptions etc: I aim to have as few recurring payments as possible. This includes avoiding to own a car (Hello Zipcar) and mortgage (not that I can afford it at this point, but still). I can recommend everyone to do a cleanup in that area every now and then.

I live in NYC and managed to get a little office within walking distance so I can be "subway independent". Sure I save a few dollars on walking to work, but the biggest gain is to miss out on the frequent delays and floodings! Yay!

"How can better vision not be at the top of my to-do list?" (to quote comedian Brian Regan).

As long as it's a personal choice, it's fine.

The problem with this 'movement' is when it tries to impose its choices on others.

I agree that a specific lifestyle should not be forced on others. Unfortunately, many of the costs of the average American lifestyle are externalized through our government. We are all forced to pay those costs.

Examples:

* subsidies which allow extremely cheap processed "food"

* tax funds used to pay for sports stadiums

* tax breaks for energy companies

* tax funds used for environmental cleanup

I remember reading that when Einstein moves, the most important things he brought with him were some paper, his pipe, and his violin.

Paul Erdos probably was an even lighter traveller.

It all depends on what defines you.

I need food and clothing (if it's cold, or nudity is a crime).

As people slowly learn that having too much stuff can be more hassle than it's worth, I'm seeing a quiet trend towards simplified consumption. It is my expectation that rapidly developing regions like China will go through a period of outrageous consumption, but it is my hope that they will learn quickly from the American trailblazers in that area and settle into prefering quality and simplicity over conspicuous quantity.

When buying material goods, I think it we may be mistaken and shortsighted to only consider the purchase price and the satisfaction it will add to our own lives.

What about negative externalities, like the future cost of having fewer resources to use for more important purposes, environmental degradation and rehabilitation, and the cost of dumping/recycling after use? These are all real costs of every purchase you make, but often not "included" in the price.

Living on less leaves more scarce resources for use by others whether now or in the future, and sends less crap to landfills. Label me a moralizer if you like, but I think it is smart for society to encourage individuals to think beyond themselves. That capitalism has proven incredibly effective at driving innovation and efficiency does not mean we should defend its weaknesses as well as its strengths (better to work hard at mitigating them, to minimize the total overhead of the system).

I love how some people can 'experiment' with living smaller while many in this country and the rest of the world have no other choice.

This experiment would have meant more in 2004 when everyone was living high on the hog.

Why such extremism? Without it, one could get most of the benefits without most of the hassles.

It was an experiment.

Good point.

I have trouble applying this to where I live in New York City.

Really? In NYC you can't repair your own socks, steal/share wifi or go without contact lenses? Am I missing something?

i like making stuff. consuming less actually helps me be more creative, feel more satisfied, live more customized, and earn practical skills.

I read this essay yesterday (thanks, HN! my addiction pays off!) and got to thinking.

I used to live in a prosperous, expensive, beautiful, poorly kept up 1900s suburb of Washington DC called Takoma Park. I had downsized to a 500 sq ft apartment that I fell in love with -- it had such great design, craftmanship, and big trees outside every window, so idyllic (sigh). My wooden deck, out in the trees, was far bigger than my bedroom, and that was a plus too. It felt wonderfully like home.

I had to go shopping all the time for various things and spent a ridiculous amount of time in the car because everything was about 20-30 minutes away, the roads were bad, and the traffic was incredible.

I lived there just over a year. Then I moved to Vienna, Austria.

Now I live in an apartment in an Altbau (old building), built in the late 1800s and renovated last in the 1970s. And the 1970s here were a lot less prosperous than in the US. It's got an ancient pull-chain toilet. It's got a totally 70s custom wood built-in kitchen with large tile countertops and a broken built-in fridge, replaced with a standalone on the end of the countertop. It's got door handles that pull off, sagging floors (they're like 110 years old) that need refinishing, a couple ancient windows that barely open/close, and lots of 30- to 120-year-old furniture, courtesy my new husband.

This should drive me nuts.

I read this essay and I thought: I haven't really bought any thing in nearly 2 months, with the exception of books (Kindle) and small xmas presents. I've bought lots of food, and I've bought some experiences (museums, etc.), but not... stuff.

It wasn't on purpose. It doesn't really feel strange. I walk by lots of stores every day. We even go grocery shopping every day or two, because the stores are every few blocks and the daily bread is real, without preservatives.

My feeling of "needing" to go shopping just sort of slipped away, even though some things about the apartment irritate me & could be fixed with a trip to IKEA. Getting to IKEA is a fair amount of work since we don't have a car, but that's not really why I haven't done it. I just don't care. And I used to be a person who, once she entered a store, would take 3 times the amount she intended because shiny things caught her eye.

It's very strange, but also nice. I didn't set out to be like this, it just happened. I welcome it, but I don't entirely understand it.

i suspect getting married had something to do with it. I used to buy tonnes and tonnes of books, collected soundtracks, assembled troops of figurines and model kit mecha units...etc. But somehow I've become like you as well -- I'd much rather spend 20 bucks on dinner and a movie at home cuddled up with the spouse than another CD or DVD. I married young (22) so I should still be in the prime years of blowing away money, but I'm not. The other day a hobby shop was having a 80% off closing sale and I didn't even go.

I went the other direction. My wife is a natural born materialist. She has a tendency to buy things for me that she thinks I will like which turn out to be things that she would like if she had my interests but had her attraction to object ownership (e.g. anime figures, novelty ThinkGeek keyboard).

EDIT: although I must admit that she nails it sometimes - turns out the under-desk cycle and the rotating push-up handles are portable, useful and multi-tasking friendly.

Don't think so, Chocobean. I've lived with guys for years and it didn't change it at all, regardless of their (very varied) spending habits. And when I lived with this one, too.

I'm 100% sure it's a cultural/environmental difference.

Also, I'm not talking about hobby supplies or stuff I might have a real reason to actually want, either. I could drop $200 at Target without even breaking a sweat. Or buying fun things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com