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

51–60 of 138 posts

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

#51

Post by zwog »

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 sole idea behind the trip was to walk outside.

On my first day I met another solo hiker and he was kind of a gearhead - or showboat - because most of the time he talked about how light his gear is and what functions it has and apparently it was most important to him that I know how expensive it all was.

Same with bikes: if your goal is to ride a bike almost every bike that fits to the person riding it and us technically in good condition works.

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

#52

Post by emerged »

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…

I’ve had years of joy and fitness cycling with cheap equipment. I’ve also had years of even more joy and fitness and goal achievement with relatively expensive equipment.

You weigh out what it’s worth to you for what you get out of it. You make the careful choice relative to everything you care about holistically and strategically.

The polarized ideas that you need to spend very little or an extreme amount are equally reductive. You should spend the amount you have carefully negotiated with yourself and your priorities.

For cycling in particular, you don’t need much to start out with. Slowly over time you may increase in fitness and time investment, community, goals. From there it becomes worth investing more IMO.

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

#53

Post by deregulateMed »

stevenpetryk wrote: post #5
alisonkisk wrote: post #2

The answer to the headline is, of course, because almost everyone sucks at money.

It seems as though it is increasingly hard to make sufficient money in the first place.

I lived close to paycheck to paycheck for a few years as I was paying for my school, then my wife's school.

I was one of the few to do Community college, live with parents, then when my job required moving, my gf. I didn't eat out. I didn't buy new stuff.

My poor friends buy/lease new cars, Apple products, take out, alcohol at bars, etc...

I still don't do this.

I don't expect these people to save 30k/yr. I expect them to save 5k/yr, but they squander it.

They make sufficient money, they spend it on marketed products.

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

#54

Post by allenu »

munk-a wrote: post #24
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…

For seven thousand dollars you can get a computer that will make a saint weep (you can get something about 99% as good for like two grand if you build it yourself or four if you bought it prebuilt). Computers are insanely cheap joy boxes when compared to nearly every other form of entertainment - for that cost you're getting a piece of hardware that will be nearly top-of-the-line for three years or so now-a-days, and…

Yeah, money is definitely weird. I suppose it's all about what we value. I have coworkers who have bought Teslas but when they talk about furniture, they'll buy super cheap things that, to me are poor quality and will fall apart easily. They treat it as purely a utilitarian item. To me, I'm okay with my crappy little 10 year old car as it gets me from A to B, but I want to spend a little more on furniture because I like the beauty and joy it brings me in my home.

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

#55

Post by derefr »

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 might, if you consider "choosing to live in a high-cost-of-living area when you could have access to jobs with similar pay in lower-cost-of-living areas" to be "being bad at money."

(Or, to go even more hard-line, if you consider "choosing to not go into trades, medical specialties, or other high-career-wage-growth-per-input-hour-of-education career paths, when you have no reason to believe you're uniquely suited to/talented at the high-barrier-to-entry career path you've chosen instead, and thereby not especially likely to end up making money at it" to be "being bad at money.")

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

#56

Post by jaimex2 »

It's all about finding a balance. I'm outdoorsy and have more money than I know what to do with.

Keep the career, keep investing and keep exploring.

You don't need to quit your job, just make sure its one the does allow flexibility. If its just not working out you may need to suck it up to get a decent job title that will let you jump across to a company that allows you more flexibility. A 2-5 year endeavour but definitely possible.

Outdoorsy gear is expensive, no. Overpriced. Don't buy new. Seriously learn to DIY a bit and repair things. It's easier than you think and a source of accomplishment comes with it.

Finally you don't need years off. Long breaks scattered is much better. If you found the right job you'll actually miss it while away, then miss going outdoors while on the job. Absence should make the heart grow fonder for either part of your life.

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

#57

Post by creato »

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…

The thing with these things is that when you do it a lot, the cost of ski passes or bikes or whatever is not that high. If you ski 50-100 days, a $500 or $1000 ski pass is much cheaper than most forms of entertainment (that's less per day on lift access than it costs to go to a bar).

The way these kinds of things get expensive is if you buy all the passes and equipment but then only actually use it a few weeks a year.

I know a lot of people that do not make much money that have ski passes and nice equipment because their priorities are different.

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

#58

Post by monetus »

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…

I think most people don't have anything resembling stability in their minds, and spend an inordinate amount of time in a "flight or fight" mood with heightened anxiety. Median household income is 64k - this isn't a per person number and responsibilty, the rat race, it compels spending. Having the willpower to stabilize your life can be difficult, when you need stability to find willpower.

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

#59

Post by valzam »

monoideism wrote: post #40
kuhzaam wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people adopt

I had my first kid at age 34, and part of my deeply regrets not going sooner (wife is much younger). I had some serious health issues by 45, which impeded by ability to raise my kids the way I wanted. Adopting in 40s? Will the parent even still be alive when the kid graduates college? With good luck, genes, and good diet/exercise, yes. Otherwise, likely not.

Unless you live in bad parts of Africa I suspect living to 65 is not an unreasonable goal....

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

#60

Post by monoideism »

Cola wrote: post #45
monoideism wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had my first kid at age 34, and part of my deeply regrets not going sooner (wife is much younger). I had some serious health issues by 45, which impeded by ability to raise my kids the way I wanted. Adopting in 40s? Will the parent even still be alive when the kid graduates college? With good luck, genes, and good diet/exercise, yes. Otherwise, likely not.

Life expectancy for a 40 year old in the US is ~80. It is very likely that with an average lifestyle the parents will be around after the child has graduated college.

Yes, that would be:

50%: some combo of good luck, genes, diet, exercise

50%: some combo of bad luck, genes, diet, exercise

Post reply on HN