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

Maladaptive Frugality

herbertlui.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 322 posts

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#281

Post by [deleted] »

rawgabbit wrote: post #170
engineer_22 wrote: post #124

I am a consulting engineer serving small communities in Central New York. Ostensibly my job is to design construction projects to fix a problem, but most of my job is actually helping the community figure out how to pay for the fix. My greatest frustration is Maladaptive Frugality. There are whole communities with this mindset, and it takes a lot of effort to communicate the reality to the town/village board that the…

I like these quotes as this is something my company struggles with. Can you give an example of "Tripping over dimes to pick up pennies"? At my company, it’s always choosing the vendor who promises the most. The fact that they have extremely dissatisfied customers and leave a trail of shit is always ignored.

[deleted]

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#282

Post by engineer_22 »

engineer_22 wrote: post #278
cloverich wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but being aware of your mortality is inextricably linked to the human experience. They aren't aware / afraid of their mortality. They are aware of the lack of financial safety net / social support. It is in effect everyone accepting a more primal state of affairs, where the weak die, as a virtue. Rather than a state of affairs that we are economically capable of: Universal healthcare. Many of us understand this is…

How much money is your life worth? How much is the government willing to spend to keep it? How much are you willing to spend? What is healthcare, and how to distinguish that from simply prolonging the inevitable? And what of those who refuse to eat well and exercise? What of those who smoke, drink, and debauch themselves? Or ride motorcycles and jump from high places? How do we prioritize our doctors' already straine…

> You are looking at this from the wrong angle.

Thank you, I'm confident I will fairly consider all which you're about to reveal!

> We get taxed a lot (not if you are ultrawealthy but still…). so government is taking [sic] of money in exchange for…? well in the USA it is in exchange for paying down debt and department of “defense” so that we can bomb the [sic] out of everyone we want whenever we want.

An idea so crucial to the birth of this nation, is that taxes are not paid in any "exchange". Your property is removed from you and your government makes use of it as it will. In fact, the federal income tax was unknown to our country before it was concocted to raise funds for WW1 and was unfortunately never retired. Pointing out our current conflicts is definitely appropriate!

> we also spend [sic] of money on healthcare already but this money is going you know where, middlemen and racking in profits and doing a whole lot of other things except providing care. so the question is - where would you rather your tax dollars be spent?

I would rather my government didn't help itself to my money at all. In my opinion concentrating the wealth of a nation in the hands of a few is exactly the circumstances most certain to create the corruption I think you've described.

> and also another question which is why are Americans the only citizens of any developed nation where providing care is “impossible

In the United States emergency care must be provided, regardless of ability to pay.

For non-emergency care, please consider some of the issues I've already raised.

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#283

Post by _alternator_ »

jimbokun wrote: post #238
_alternator_ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a false dichotomy. My wife and I worked through our 20s, but regularly took vacations. We flew to NYC from LA at least 2x per year from 25-30. We had season ski passes. We lived frugally but well. I was in grad school, she was a consultant. Our income was solidly lower middle class for LA, and we still managed to save 25-40% of our income per year. Now that I've got a kid and am in my 40s, I've taken…

OK if you were in grad school, ski passes, multiple flights to NYC per year, living in LA and saving 20-40% of your income, your wife must have been making a hell of a lot as a consultant.

How much do you think all this cost?

Ski passes for 2: $500 at mammoth. (Yes, the prices have definitely increased.) We'd sometimes drive up just for the day (leave 4am, back 9pm) to save on lodging. This was fairly doable in my 20s.

Flights to NYC: we'd book on cheap off-days, and I think round trip was usually about $400 for both of us. LANYC is a very competitive route and deals can be amazing. I learned to use Priceline like a pro, so we typically stayed in manhattan for about $100/night or less(!) for fancy hotels that usually charge $300+. We often would stay in 2-3 different hotels to save on money.

So all-in for these activities was probably about $6k-7k per year. Grad stipends were $25k, which covered rent plus most of the vacation, and my wife had an entry-level job at a decent firm.

Didn't feel like a stretch in part because we were really flexible, but we were careful about how we spent our money.

No cable TV, for example. That shit steals your time and money (doubly so because the ads encourage you to spend more money).

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#284

Post by ubermonkey »

kristianp wrote: post #269
ubermonkey wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Home debt has traditionally been seen as "good debt" for a bunch of reasons, but the big ones were that (a) Home loans meant you were accumulating equity in an appreciating asset; and (b) Mortgage interest was enough to allow most people to take a larger-than-standard deduction on income taxes; and (c) The relationship between home prices and the equivalent rental market meant you could probably have a nicer place fo…

For me, owning your own home is partly about (mostly) paying it off before retirement, that way most people won't need a large retirement income to pay the rent. Also in my country, aged care asks for a large refundable deposit, for example 600k, if it comes to that. It doesn't pay for the increased medical expenses near the end. But it can pay them off if sold after death.

Yeah, we're 56 this year and have no mortgage anymore. That's nice.

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#285

Post by ubermonkey »

m463 wrote: post #275
ubermonkey wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Home debt has traditionally been seen as "good debt" for a bunch of reasons, but the big ones were that (a) Home loans meant you were accumulating equity in an appreciating asset; and (b) Mortgage interest was enough to allow most people to take a larger-than-standard deduction on income taxes; and (c) The relationship between home prices and the equivalent rental market meant you could probably have a nicer place fo…

In california I've noticed lots of other things. prop 13 might make apartments pay less taxes than comparable condos, and condos also have HOA fees that can easily be $2k. I've even seen HOA fees on single family homes.

HOA fees on freestanding homes are VERY common, but they're generally not as high as places with shared walls.

It's only in condos and whatnot that they get crazy, though. My sister has $2500 in monthly fees associated with her fully owned condo in Philly, for example.

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#286

Post by ubermonkey »

wallst07 wrote: post #252
ubermonkey wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They cannot, because they are wrong. And I say this as a person who has owned no small number of fancy cars (but I got better). A new base-model Prius is absurdly luxurious compared to a base model car of 1975 or 1985 or even 1995. If you have lived long enough to see this change, then dropping 2x or 3x or 10x the cost of the Prius self-evidently puts you wildly beyond the point of diminishing returns. The Prius is g…

How can I be wrong if this is all subjective in the first place? I've owned a number of cars, and this isn't just about luxury. It's about the quality of the drive. If you call HVAC and a Stereo luxury, then you haven't updated your definiteion relative to "1976 or 1985". Again, all purely subjective. But there is a huge idfference between a Prius and a drivers car.

You appear to have some reading comprehension issues. Perhaps revisit my prior reply.

What specific benefits does a "driver's car" have over a "regular" car, praytell?

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#287

Post by ubermonkey »

wallst07 wrote: post #259
ubermonkey wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's definitely true, and I have a whole other rant how my cycling pals and I love to poke fun at dudes who show up to the group ride on a brand new $10,000 bike and get dropped before the midpoint. BUT! It's easier than you think to get a point in participatory motorsports where the difference between, say, a Cayman and a Miata is something you can actively use.

>That's definitely true, and I have a whole other rant how my cycling pals and I love to poke fun at dudes who show up to the group ride on a brand new $10,000 bike and get dropped before the midpoint. This has nothing to do with higher end cars or bikes being "signaling" this is just an anecdote between your skill and the next level. You could say the same thing about a tour de france winner with any bike vs you and…

>This has nothing to do with higher end cars or bikes being "signaling" this is just an anecdote between your skill and the next level.

No, that's precisely what it's about.

>You could say the same thing about a tour de france winner with any bike vs you and your pals

In cycling, a TdF rider's bike isn't significantly more expensive or fancy than the highest-end bike available from any given maker. A novice rider rolling up on something one or two ticks away from the absolute top of the line is being a silly person. Novices in any discipline who opt for the high end of equipment are making foolish choices, and are frequently teased about it.

>If you are competitive, you get to a point where the differences do matter.

My guess is that you don't know very much about cycling. Pogi would be as very nearly as fast on my $5000 road bike as he is on his TdF bike. His comp bike is a little bit lighter, and it has components that are one tick higher up and thus lighter, but the differences at this level are tiny.

Nobody who isn't being paid to ride needs to go higher than $5k on a road bike. Going higher is just showing off, which is of course a totally reasonable thing to do, but don't pretend it makes a real difference.

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#288

Post by ubermonkey »

jimbokun wrote: post #250
ubermonkey wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's definitely true, and I have a whole other rant how my cycling pals and I love to poke fun at dudes who show up to the group ride on a brand new $10,000 bike and get dropped before the midpoint. BUT! It's easier than you think to get a point in participatory motorsports where the difference between, say, a Cayman and a Miata is something you can actively use.

Curious what would you say is the sweet spot to pay for a bicycle before rapid diminishing returns? I still feel like if you go out for a long ride on a Huffy from Walmart you might hurt yourself.

I only know road bikes.

The groupset would drive it for me. If I was buying a new bike, and I knew I wanted to be a rider, I wouldn't mess about with anything less than Shimano 105. At Specialized, the lowest end bike with the 105 groupset on it is $2100. That's the Allez Comp, which has an aluminum frame and wheels.

The next step up the ladder would be their "endurance" frame, which is carbon. It's called the Roubaix, and equipped with 105 it's $2800.

Either of those would be a good first "serious" bike.

If the question is more about diminishing returns, I'd offer my own bike, which is a Giant TCR Advanced. It's a couple years old. I have about $5500 in it, all in, but that includes the middle-grade SRAM electronic shifting group, carbon wheels, and a power meter. The meter is skippable if you're not doing serious training, but I did and do use power data for training. Subtract $800 if you don't want that.

I honestly think spending more is just showing off. If that's your jam, knock yourself out, but it's probably not making a big difference UNLESS you need a custom frame to be comfortable.

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#289

Post by rekabis »

freetime2 wrote: post #5

For years I did this with the thermostat - something I learned from my father who always kept the house under 65F (18C) in Winter. I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it even led to arguments with my spouse early in our marriage when I would enter a room and find the thermostat set to a balmy 70F. Eventually I just sat down, looked at how much it costs keep the house a few degrees warmer in winter, and realized we could af…

> who always kept the house under 65F (18C)

And some of us literally have no choice. I need my home office to be under 18℃ in order to not imitate a drowned rat. Anything over 28℃ and I am dripping with sweat even completely naked. And no, I am not obese.

Maybe your dad is the same?

Re: Maladaptive Frugality

#290

Post by duskdozer »

freetime2 wrote: post #39
chromacity wrote: post #4

Most people in the US are pulled into living on credit straight out of school. You get a student loan, then a car loan, then a credit card, then a mortgage. You finance vacations, appliances, kitchen remodels, smartphones - mostly to keep up with friends and coworkers who finance their lifestyles too. A lot of people are in non-stop debt from the age of 18 to 55, if not longer. By most estimates, only about 10-20% of…

For sure it's more common for people not to save enough. But for people who are frugal and save diligently for most of their lives, there often comes a point where they cross a threshold where they have met all of their financial goals, and the "problem" is no longer how save money but to enjoy spending it. And this can be a real challenge for people who have built up deeply ingrained saving habits. My mother, for ex…

Are you sure they were deciding only or even primarily based on cost? I often find myself choosing cheaper options over more expensive ones, because I find them easier or more enjoyable to use. I think with expensive/luxury products, there tends to be more "curation" and opinionation, which can work well if your preferences line up but is a detriment if not. I also think a lot of times more expensive products are just "luxury-hacking," having focused on "building a brand" to the point where they are able to charge more for worse products. Example: Beats headphones adding weights inside just so that they "feel more premium" https://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/audio/...
Post reply on HN