>I have no idea where all my money went.
I can so relate to that.
Fortunately my natural instincts appear to leave me with cash at end of month which I move to savings...but that is about the extent of my control over things.
Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
11–20 of 138 posts
Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
#12I'm a firm believer that everyone should have a skill they can use to support themselves. It doesn't really matter what that is as long as you can't be replaced easily by unskilled labour.
So take the author. She wants to be a ski bum while she's young. I respect that, actually. So the question such people should be asking is: what skill could I gain that is compatible with that?
Example: being a qualified paramedic/EMT. Why? Ski patrols need them. People get hurt skiing. They always will.
I respect the ability to live frugally (as the author did), especially in order to gain experiences. After all, you won't be young forever. You won't be here forever. How much happier will it make you to live in a small house in a sea of suburbia as a billing code administrator for a health insurance company? But hey, at least you have a 401k and dental.
The author has several false dichotomies in here (IMHO). For example, comparing the "dirtbag" lifestyle to the "rich". There's a whole lot in between there.
Also, living paycheck to paycheck is stressful. So is not having options (eg decision fatigue [1]).
Being a journalist is perhaps not the best choice.
The people people live one paycheck away from being destitute varies but usually it's not because they want to be a ski bum. It's generally because they've taken on long term expenses they can barely afford. It's because they've convinced themselves they need to provide certain things for their children and families, often because they didn't have it themselves growing up. Things like paying for their college, living in a massive house and so on.
In providing these material things I so often see people who don't see their children and bring negativity home because they hate their lives. What good does that do anyone?
So many of the decisions people make I find is to have what other people think they should have. Family, neighbours, friends.
I can't help but feel that the author still misses the point.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-fr...
Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
#13In a 2014 study, he found that 58 percent of affluent people are first-generation wealth, not trust-fund babies. I've heard that idea before, that the notion of inherited unearned wealth as explaining the bulk of the wealthy population is actually misleading. Same thing was said in that old book The Millionaire Mind I think.
I think people is the wrong metric for this statistic. A large number of just-barely-affluent nouveau riche could drown out a handful of old money robber barons that own the world.
The much more interesting statistic would slice it by dollar: What percentage of dollars are owned by first-generation wealthy versus old money?
Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
#14The answer to the headline is, of course, because almost everyone sucks at money.
But here's the thing. I have $80 and need to pay $100 in bills. There aren't any money skills that can overpower math.
I think the relevant skill would be the ability to pitch this cash shortfall of yours as an investment opportunity for some other unfortunate fool
Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
#15I'm not a particularly outdoorsy person, but being a frugal person, I have noticed that a lot of outdoors activities really do "require" an investment. Equipment can be expensive, as can ski passes or trips. Once you hang out in those circles (as the article states), you don't want to have cheap gear. It's as with anything, I suppose, but with gear, there's always more and better things, which never interested me. I…
Also, outdoorsy stuff is where many rich kids spend their money. So there are poor models to follow wrt money.
Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
#16I'm not a particularly outdoorsy person, but being a frugal person, I have noticed that a lot of outdoors activities really do "require" an investment. Equipment can be expensive, as can ski passes or trips. Once you hang out in those circles (as the article states), you don't want to have cheap gear. It's as with anything, I suppose, but with gear, there's always more and better things, which never interested me. I…
It’s true that a lot of things take an investment but I don’t think you should be so prescriptive about some things like when you say:
“Cycling shouldn't be about the gear itself. It should be about, well, getting out there and cycling.”
People can of course enjoy a hobby or activity and get something out of it that’s not the thing you think they should be getting out of it and that’s awesome. It’s okay if the fun is in spending the money, and it’s okay if you have a $1200 bike and don’t care about that stuff. They’re both equal ways of approaching any given hobby.
Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
#17In a 2014 study, he found that 58 percent of affluent people are first-generation wealth, not trust-fund babies. I've heard that idea before, that the notion of inherited unearned wealth as explaining the bulk of the wealthy population is actually misleading. Same thing was said in that old book The Millionaire Mind I think.
It really depends on where you’re drawing the line for wealth. The Millionaire next door set it at what most would consider a healthy retirement. Looking at the 100M level and things are different because unlike say 3M people can’t really just save up that kind of money, it takes leverage not just time and budgeting.
Further, it’s questionable what counts as inheritance vs hard work. If you turned the family business from a 5M dollar company to a 500M dollar company that’s difficult, but easier than starting from scratch.
Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
#18I am bad with money. I’m also not abnormal. A 2017 survey by CareerBuilder found that 78 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, while a 2019 survey by Bankrate found that 60 percent of us couldn’t cover a $1,000 emergency. For most in this predicament, it has nothing to do with being bad with money. It has everything to do with their income being 80% of their essential bills.
> but I can tell you that there were $60 rounds of drinks purchased without a second thought and $25 cab rides to the bars. There were $1,500 ski-season cabin shares in Lake Tahoe and a $150-a-month membership at Equinox. There were multiple Starbucks lattes per day and $18 organic steak salads eaten at my desk. I don't think this is someone who can't cover essential bills with their salary. This is the trap kids fal…
WarOnPrivacy wasn't saying that this person was someone who wasn't making much money; they were replying to the rational for this not being "abnormal": most people who live paycheck-to-paycheck--not this person, but most people--simply don't make much money... they aren't "bad with it".
Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
#19> How was I ever going to afford a kid’s college fund? How was I ever going to afford a kid’s college fund?
Uh, lady, you’re 37 years old. If you seriously want a kid, you need to approach finding a spouse with the same seriousness and intention you (admirably) now approach finances. Otherwise, it ain’t gonna happen.
But I guess that’s another article.
Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money
#20I am bad with money. I’m also not abnormal. A 2017 survey by CareerBuilder found that 78 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, while a 2019 survey by Bankrate found that 60 percent of us couldn’t cover a $1,000 emergency. For most in this predicament, it has nothing to do with being bad with money. It has everything to do with their income being 80% of their essential bills.
It can hardly be true that 78% of Americans can only afford food, shelter, usually a car (any car!) and perhaps health insurance. A hint is that they live paycheck to paycheck, i.e. the spending just "happens" to match the earning.
Don't get me wrong, of course there are genuinely poor people. But not far over half of the population.