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

101–110 of 138 posts

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

#101

Post by caterama »

mancerayder wrote: post #50
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.

> I am bad with money. I’m also not abnormal. Reading stuff like this makes me feel old. The - new generation? - who seem to always publicly remind themselves that they're good enough after all and just like everyone else and normal and it's hard for us ... and now don't get me wrong: these things can be true. But I grew up not standing on a soapbox and exclaiming these things, and not thinking or writing in that way…

Evoking the sense that there are systematic forces at play is intentional! Who cares if _you're_ bad with money? It could be an edge case that doesn't matter. But if it's normal to be bad with money (i.e. there are a lot of people who are bad with money), that's a little more interesting -- something to pay attention to.

Also, as someone on the younger side, this mentality is comforting. It's the comfort of existing within a school of fish. Despite unpredictable currents that act on you like an object, it's comforting to know that there are many of you. A few individuals disappear here and there, but chances are the school will survive. You're normal, you belong, things are hard, but you'll probably be fine.

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

#103

Post by nomel »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #23
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.

I agree that that's a major point. Still, I'm consistently utterly surprised by friends/family/colleagues with similar income but a very different predicament. I was raised on welfare myself and started out my early twenties with minimum wage jobs including factory work. Yet I always had savings, the idea that I couldn't cover a $1000 emergency would be insane to me, especially structurally. Did that mean I had to li…

Maybe a good example of "normalization of deviance" in society?

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

#104

Post by boring_twenties »

AuthorizedCust wrote: post #29
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.

Do people who consider themselves “outdoorsy” tend to pursue employment opportunities that pay less than their potential earnings, had they pursued employment that maximized the value of their skills? It’s like a “pursue your passion” dilemma. If your passion is whitewater rafting, employment in that field will pay differently than, say, many kinds of employment facilitated by a computer science degree. Same dilemma…

Anecdotally, I'd say it's very common. In fact I often meet people who have abandoned previously lucrative careers to work for peanuts, in exchange for more skiing. A friend of mine used to be an investment banker; currently a server at a bar. I myself gave up software development and delivered pizza for a couple of years (though I later ended up with a decent compromise.)

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

#105

Post by war1025 »

strken wrote: post #73
war1025 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I agree with everything you said.

I guess the point I was trying to make is more that doing these things is not impossible. It is just a matter of being properly informed (which is in itself a difficult task).

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

#106

Post by boring_twenties »

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…

> Once you hang out in those circles (as the article states), you don't want to have cheap gear

Having been hanging out in ski bum circles for quite a few years now, this doesn't seem to be the case to me. Most of them buy their gear used via ski swaps, craigslist, etc. People with blatantly expensive gear like Arcteryx are routinely mocked. We like to joke that if you don't have duct tape on your ski clothing, you're nothing but a poser who must have just flown in from NYC that morning.

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

#107

Post by theartfuldodger »

koilke wrote: post #67
laurent92 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a reasonably frugal person, it is very annoying that outdoorsy people set the standard for spending, and they make me look stingy. I’m not stingy. I’m sane. They’re the ones going bankrupt ;) 20 years later: They’re married with kids and I’m single. Perhaps I really looked stingy ;) Moral of the story: People in average are de facto pushed to consume all their margin.

I know the feeling. I often prefer not to eat anywhere the costs are more than $10 and usually go for places around $5. I wish to retire in a few years and they in a few decades.

It would be very difficult to get a lunch or dinner for $15 that was of any reasonable quality in my region. I do not live in an absurdly high COL area (CNY)

What can you possibly be eating for $5

I think some people can treat eating as more utilitarian, while having a great meal or even a halfway decent meal is a true pleasure and an experience worth having as often as possible for myself. The small pleasure is what makes the grind feel worthwhile.

I fully expect to walk out $25-$30 lighter after a basic entree/lunch, a drink and a tip, even if eating alone on a lunch break. A date with my wife ( on the low end) $70, bring out the whole family ($100)

Do we have significantly different average prices. Maybe a pre-made gas station sandwich or single fast food sandwich could cost $5

A $5 meal sounds like a chore, an amazing roadside Shack find! or absolute trash ingredients not worth eating.

How do you do it?

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

#108

Post by whiskyant »

>But these are just the flashes through the fog, clues to an unpleasant memory I’ve blocked out. Because when I think too hard about the truth, it hurts my head: I have no idea where all my money went.

Just look at your bank account and credit card statements? First step in managing your money, is evaluating how you're spending it.

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

#109

Post by jcheng »

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…

> Cycling shouldn't be about the gear itself. It should be about, well, getting out there and cycling. But for some people, half the fun is spending money on the toys.

I love getting out there and cycling (just got back from a ride in fact). I also love geeking out about bikes and bike gear, and I’m not sure why you say it “shouldn’t” be half about that. Why shouldn’t it? I appreciate the engineering that goes into them, the latest theories as to how to make bikes better, the design and aesthetics, the component choices and all the tradeoffs involved. Surely on Hacker News of all places, we’re allowed to geek out on such things? If you love cycling but refuse to allow yourself to appreciate how cool bikes are (regardless of age or price, btw), maybe you’re missing out on half the fun!

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

#110

Post by 8note »

IkmoIkmo wrote: post #23
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.

I agree that that's a major point. Still, I'm consistently utterly surprised by friends/family/colleagues with similar income but a very different predicament. I was raised on welfare myself and started out my early twenties with minimum wage jobs including factory work. Yet I always had savings, the idea that I couldn't cover a $1000 emergency would be insane to me, especially structurally. Did that mean I had to li…

Living with your parents longer than expected sounds like your parents didn't also need you to be helping support them while you were getting these savings
Post reply on HN