Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#71

Post by allenu »

zwog wrote: post #51
allenu wrote: post #9

I'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…

You really don't need expensive gear. My first long distance hike was 150km through scotland (West Highland Way) and I spent about 80€ for a pair of used hiking boots. The rest was borrowed from friends and I've used my family's old camping tent. Sure, I could have saved about 3kg if I had bought newer, lighter gear. Maybe I would have made fewer stops, maybe I would have been a day faster or even two. But why, the s…

I totally agree. I once did a half marathon and during training, and the half marathon itself, I used some cheap shoes I bought from Payless. My friend that I did the run with was shocked when I told her that on the day of the event. It didn't seem like a big deal to me.

I guess for a lot of people, gear really is a part of whatever hobby they're into. I used to be interested in photography and was showing some photos to some friends. They weren't anything amazing, but I was proud of them because I was starting to learn to compose photos and recognize good lighting. The camera I used wasn't anything special, though. Of course, one person who saw the photos immediately asked "What kind of equipment did you use?"

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#72

Post by saalweachter »

wwweston wrote: post #46
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #4

I 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.

This insight is hard to beat for explaining power. I've found it pretty easy to save money almost on accident with a six figure income, even without keeping too close an eye on expenditures. Helps if you skip buying the luxury auto, don't pick the most expensive living quarters you can, keep eating out under $10-15/day, and if you can be lucky+conscientious enough not to have catastrophic healthcare expenses, but you…

> And saving for that $1000 emergency will still be slow.

And worse, when you inevitably need to tap it, it will be equally slow to refill.

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#73

Post by strken »

war1025 wrote: post #37
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #4

I 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 has everything to do with their income being 80% of their essential bills. There is some truth to that, but there is also a fair amount of truth to the fact that a lot of people list things as "essential" that really aren't. For many it's a trade off of being poor or looking poor, and they would much rather be poor than look poor. Money isn't that different than dieting. It's a pretty simple equation. Money in >…

Simplifying dieting down to calories in calories out is one of my pet peeves, because it doesn't give you any information about how to achieve those goals. People don't automatically understand satiation, binge eating, macro and micronutrients, shopping, cooking, the caloric density of restaurant and takeaway food, BMR, the relatively tiny amount of calories burnt by exercise, or calorie tracking. These things aren't obvious and they're buried under a lot of misinformation.

The same goes for budgeting. Saying "spend less and get a better paying job" doesn't really help compared to detailed instructions on how to open a savings account and automatically deposit 5% of your pay into it, reviewing your monthly expenditure, changing habits like ordering delivery food every weekend, long term investments like buying your own washing machine, or pursuing a qualification that will help you earn more.

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#74

Post by deregulateMed »

Anyone have money but not enough Time? I see MMM for FIRE, but I'm looking for something time related. I suppose something like Efficiency Is Everything but more extreme like MMM, but for time.

Maybe I just need to save a bit more and retire. I just love my job and having coworkers, I don't want to give up the 40hr/week job.

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#75

Post by wcarss »

munificent wrote: post #13
jxramos wrote: post #6

In 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?

I spent the last 25 minutes trying to find out exactly that, and have so far come up nearly blank, but I agree that dollars inherited is a way more useful question.

The meme of "a high percent of people who are millionaires are first-generation millionaires" is pervasive. Googling this returns mostly investment scheme websites and CNBC/USA Today/etc clickbait quoting "The Millionaire Next Door", and talking about how "If They Did It, You Can Do It Too!" -- it's like something straight out of lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#76

Post by jxramos »

Retric wrote: post #17
jxramos wrote: post #6

In 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…

that's a fascinating point, what figures can be attained by what means, very good distinction.

I remember looking at lifetime earnings of software engineers and tabulating a bunch of generic lifetime gross salaries in general. It's in the millions range for sure but it's not near anywhere in the $100M level.

A career lasting 50yr at $50k/yr --> $2.5M gross; $500k/yr --> $25M gross.

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#77

Post by skybrian »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #4

I 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 may be true, but I don't believe this sort of article is aimed at people who are already doing everything they can. It's aimed at people who aren't, like their formerly-irresponsible selves.

Who knows, maybe publishing it in Outside will reach someone?

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#78

Post by the_only_law »

Havoc wrote: post #11

>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.

I’m very bad with money and it tends to hit hard with depressive cycles. I end up just buying all kinds of shit I think I can afford (and in some cases can), but then go overboard on other things and running out of money once can turn into a really bad cycle. Trying to figure my way out of probably the worst I’ve ever gotten myself and it’s tough because there’s just no way to get rid of the heaviest hitting expenses. It’s somewhat embarrassing though, because I make more money than a good many of my casual acquaintances, but am likely significantly more broke.

The last time this happened to me, my solution was to take even more debt to move to a new job that doubled my salary. I had a plan to be debt free in ~2 years, but that kinda fell apart with COVID. I suppose I could try and do that again, but I’m not in a position professionally to take a better job.

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#79

Post by deregulateMed »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #4

I 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.

80% of their Essential bills leaves a lot to be invested or saved.

I'd disagree, it's money management at that point.

I'm more concerned about those who are unprofitable every paycheck and growing debt, no way to cut expenses further. Probably due to high COL and lack of education, but I can't blame someone for living where they have family .

Re: Young, Dumb, and Broke: Why Outdoorsy Types Suck at Money

#80

Post by _carbyau_ »

allenu wrote: post #9

I'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…

Particularly with cycling, I always wondered why people would say justify their love of cycling with statements including fitness, self challenge, enjoying the outdoors.

I haven't heard any say they wanted to be regional champion.

If you compete with yourself, then changing your gear makes it hard to measure if you are getting better. Sometimes I think we compete with others when we don't need to.

Post reply on HN