Comment by ethanbond | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethanbond | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Could it be that they have the resources to purchase necessary items because they opted not to purchase the several dozen unnecessary items that their non-minimalist peers had sprung for?

It's well established that poorer people not only have fewer resources, but are generally worse at allocating the resources they do have. This is attributed to a difference in perception of money (something to spend vs something to save).

It's not a difference between being able to purchase an item versus not being able to. It's a difference between being able to invest heavily in each item you own — certainly a privilege of the well off.

In any case, whether the loudest advocates of minimalism are annoying or not, our base level of consumption is far too high for a variety of reasons: environmental, economic, and yes, I think emotional.

There are immense resources poured into making people want/need/desire more "things," and if their ability to acquire "things" doesn't make that possible, there's an inherent damage to a person's psyche.

"Minimalism" isn't the same as being poor.

To be honest I don't think your first point is accurate. People aren't poor, because they spend a lot of money, they are poor because they don't have a lot of money.

To say that you can lift yourself and your family out of poverty by saving money, makes not a lot of sense. And lot's of the items that one would perceive as unnecessary from a financially comfortable position, don't maybe look that way when you're in the situation yourself. Sure, eating beans everyday might save you money, but then you've spent your life eating beans, and in the end that wasn't the deciding factor.

That said, there are many people ( and I agree with you, our society as a whole probably does) who live above their means continually, I just don't think that that's a problem that's confined to poor people. You said

> It's well established that poorer [...] are generally worse at allocating the resources they do have.

Would you mind expanding on that a little, or link me to some material that you've found useful ?

Well there are people who make $100k living paycheck to paycheck and there are people who make $40k but spend even less and as such grow their assets.

Being poor is a thing you can dig yourself out of but it takes a huge amount of energy to do so. It's excruciating to not spend on comfort when you're uncomfortable but that's what it takes. Which is probably why so few people manage to "pull themselves up by their boot straps"

Defining comfort is a whole 'nother beast altogether.

What's "comfortable" to a person choosing an SUV as their third car because they already have a convertible and sedan is entirely different to someone stuck on public transportation, for example, who'd appreciate anything with a running engine.

A person "stuck" on public transport is choosing comfort over the person riding a bike as they spend some money but generally don't expend much energy and have climate control. They may or may not save time.

Bicycle versus walking.

Single room apartment by yourself versus multi room apartment with roommates.

Choosing a dwelling versus living in a vehicle.

Eating tastier more expensive food versus cheaper, blander food.

It's comforts all the way down to living in an improvised shelter out in the wilderness.

Not buying a third car can save sufficient money for a normal family to live off for several years. Walking to work vs riding the bus for a year can save you enough money to live on for a week or maybe two. Additionally some choices -such as living in a car -carry negatives beyond discomfort, such as risk to safety, loss of time and most significantly loss of flexibility and therefore opportunity cost.

>> Being poor is a thing you can dig yourself out of but it takes a huge amount of energy to do so.

This is why if you want to stop the cycle of poverty, you need to give people incentives to get off assistance and make it possible to succeed, instead of making it easier to stay on welfare. As humans, we will always take the easier route.

It also sad to think we've made it much easier for people to get on welfare and stay on welfare indefinitely. I have several friends who prefer to work just enough hours to get assistance, but not enough to actually get off of it. What does that say about our culture and society when people are content to live off the government instead of wanting to succeed and get out of poverty??

source: after college, I had several bouts of depression, was homeless for a stint and used government programs to get out of the hole I was in. It wasn't easy, but it gave me perspective on what its like to be really poor, and what it takes to get out of that hole.

Some people do work under a certain amount of hours to stay on assistance. You are correct, the system needs to change to make it possible to succeed. I have a cousin that made just a little too much ($20 or less) and lost about $200 in food assistance. Many face the same sorts of choices with housing benefits, child care, and so forth. The problem more lies in the cutoffs for assistance making it such that many people have to make horrible choices to be able to not get assistance. It isn't being content, it is trying to eek by.

You were able to do it, but some folks can't. The system doesn't help, and they don't know how. Some folks, in your situation, might have died. You were armed with a college education, which meant you had more opportunities than the local retail spot. Add a wife and/or children and/or severe health problems into the mix and it becomes much harder.

Interesting back and forth. You should read the book "Scarcity, why having so little means so much" [1] it is a really interesting investigation of the mental impact of not having enough.

[1] http://scholar.harvard.edu/sendhil/scarcity

Thanks for the tip!

There's a difference between going out and buying new stuff and not getting rid of existing stuff. The first costs actual money, the second only costs space. Depending on how much space costs relative to the stuff that's stored in it, keeping stuff around might be perfectly rational or even optimal.

It's not guaranteed to be so by any means, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com