Stop Idolizing Penny Pinchers
December 16, 2015 1:54 PM   Subscribe

A Slate piece discusses the problem with our society lionizing individuals who engage in extreme forms of thrift, and how it obscures the actual financial issues people face. (SLSlate)
posted by NoxAeternum (110 comments total) 50 users marked this as a favorite
 
Well duh, you shouldn't idolize a guy who paid of a tax subsidized loan early. Idolize the true penny-pincher, who got an interest only loan and invested the missing principle payments in the stock market :P
posted by pwnguin at 2:01 PM on December 16, 2015 [4 favorites]


"Americans are not going broke over lattes!" An old but still relevant Salon piece from Elizabeth Warren, whose Two Income Trap covers this in much more detail.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 2:10 PM on December 16, 2015 [56 favorites]


No kidding. When did the public start accepting the fact that it's actually ok to pay more than twice the selling price of a house?
posted by Melismata at 2:12 PM on December 16, 2015


Yeah--reading that piece, I thought "wow, how lucky for this guy that he has the ability to do that. He's lucky he doesn't have kids or other dependents or anyone but himself to support, either financially or with time--so he can point all his time at paid jobs. He's lucky to be able to sustain that kind of work schedule without breaking mentally or physically, and to have a definable goal in sight to do it. Not everyone can do that.

And this speech:

“You bought homes you couldn’t afford. You took equity out of your homes to buy other thing you couldn’t afford. You leased your cars. You bought new cars. You went on vacation. You bought clothes. You spent money like it was going out of style.”

Holy shit, we're not even allowed to buy clothes now?!?! What, you want me to crawl around naked dressed in rags? Christ al-fucking-mighty.
posted by sciatrix at 2:16 PM on December 16, 2015 [68 favorites]


Working multiple jobs wasn't his only sacrifice. His three-bedroom bungalow includes an extra basement apartment. To maximize his rental income, Cooper lived in the basement and rented out the rest of his house.
This isn't possible for most people. We're renting out our condo at the moment after moving cross country and if we put every piece of excess cash we got from it alone each month into its mortgage we'd have it paid off in 5 years so no shit he paid it off quickly.

He's still not living in the main house either, still the basement. Like you've paid for this thing, worked your ass off for it and you've not seen an ounce of enjoyment out of it while paying all the shit you have to when you're a homeowner. I know everyone wants to root for the studious ant but what exactly is this guy working so hard for? Some life at some currently unspecified time?
posted by Talez at 2:18 PM on December 16, 2015 [52 favorites]


On the same note, here's a piece from Helaine Olen on The Latte Factor. (Story is annoyingly formated as a series of tweets.) A quote from that grabbed me - "America is a place where luxuries are cheap and necessities are expensive."

There is nothing wrong with thrift - saving for a goal, or to improve your credit rating, or to be able to have a parent stay home, or help the environment, is well and good. But I agree that the framing of extreme thrift as Those Wasteful Poors Are Doing It Wrong, And Oh Yes, Bootstraps! is blaming people for being frivolous with money when the real problem is that necessities like health care, child care, and especially housing, are now beyond the reach of more and more people.

(Yes, I know Sean Cooper is Canadian, but the housing and child-care conundrums apply there, too. At least health care is not the albatross it is here in the US.)
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 2:19 PM on December 16, 2015 [22 favorites]


I don't see how the Canadian guy did anything foolish--he lived liked a penny-pincher for 3 years, not 40--and hardly extreme thrift. He worked his day job, had an extra gig at a grocery story and wrote freelance. He practiced what the Green preaches to everyone :
"Cooper biked to work, brown-bagged his lunch and made dinners at home. "
The horror.
One CBC story isn't "lionizing". Olen makes it sound like there's a media avalanche about super cheapskates, but it's one 30 year old single guy. It's not a formula for everyone.
posted by Ideefixe at 2:20 PM on December 16, 2015 [16 favorites]


And to add to that: I am single with no kids. I am a woman. I live in one of the most expensive parts of the country. I am not a brilliant scientist. I work two jobs just to have a few nice things like cable TV, and have almost nothing in my savings account (though I'm able to save for retirement in a 401k). I'm worried about Christmas.
posted by Melismata at 2:21 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


Really, it's just another insidious version of "If you work hard enough you can get everything you want" as a way of making everything about people's individual, personal decisions and directing attention away from other root causes of economic hardship.
posted by barchan at 2:22 PM on December 16, 2015 [86 favorites]


You can also live in San Francisco for only $500/mo!
posted by Talez at 2:27 PM on December 16, 2015 [16 favorites]


I think it's this guy, the Notre Dame guy who lived in his van, and I think one other guy who lived in a truck and worked at Google that makes these stories feel like a trend. The stories are supposed to be comforting: "You're not doomed if you just buckle your belt tighter!" Well, maybe. Lots of people have their belts as tight as they will go and they're still not getting by.

When I was younger, I had this attitude. I called it "finagling." If I needed things, I went without or finagled a way to get them cheap or free. I was pretty proud of it. I was smart and cheap and I was beating the system.

But 20 years later, I realized; you get pretty tired of always being on guard, always penny-pinching, never relaxing. It's not fun anymore. It feels like being in jail. There needs to be a way to have some comforts and security in life. It's not excessive to want to be able to live in a clean, well-lighted place that's safe and homey without having to eat nothing but peanut butter for a year first. You get tired of everything being grubby and used and duct-taped and shitty. Of not getting the checkups you really do need. Or never wearing clothes that fit you right, or last longer than a few months.

We're doing ok, right now. We aren't living in gold-plated debauchery, but we do have some luxuries, while still being careful. But in the back of my mind is a fear that something will take this away and we'll be back where we were, or worse.
posted by emjaybee at 2:28 PM on December 16, 2015 [75 favorites]


I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would take offense at this guy's story. Guy has something he wants badly, works hard to accomplish it. Whether it's paying off debt, owning every Beany Baby, or becoming a physician, do what you want, don't harm anyone on the way, and fuck the haters.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:29 PM on December 16, 2015 [16 favorites]


One CBC story isn't "lionizing". Olen makes it sound like there's a media avalanche about super cheapskates, but it's one 30 year old single guy. It's not a formula for everyone.
Ideefixe

You may have missed the second page of the Slate piece, which is filled with links to stories and data regarding the lionizing and moralizing of super-frugality. The particular CBC story was just a launching point.

On preview: no one is attacking this particular guy. It's the larger phenomenon, which the Slate piece shows arose post-2008 Recession, of scolding people in financial straits for not being frugal enough. It's the people using stories like this guy to wag their finger at the poor and say, "See, if only you wasteful cretins could control yourselves you would have no problems."
posted by Sangermaine at 2:30 PM on December 16, 2015 [18 favorites]


I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would take offense at this guy's story. Guy has something he wants badly, works hard to accomplish it. Whether it's paying off debt, owning every Beany Baby, or becoming a physician, do what you want, don't harm anyone on the way, and fuck the haters.

The problem is that stories like this guy become hand wavey things for nasty people to say "fuck the poor be more like this guy" when it's only a very narrow and specific set of circumstances that allowed him to be able to pull something this ridiculous off.
posted by Talez at 2:31 PM on December 16, 2015 [40 favorites]


Really, by being thrifty he's only making things worse, but he's just doing a personal implementation of the austerity that governments seem to love so much. What we really need is some Robin Hooding (preferably through taxes/government programs) to get money into the hands of people who actually want to spend it.
posted by ckape at 2:34 PM on December 16, 2015 [8 favorites]


I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would take offense at this guy's story.
I don't take offense at his story. Good for him! I take offense at the way that stories like his are held up as solutions for the structural problems that are driving people out of the middle class.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:34 PM on December 16, 2015 [124 favorites]


I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would take offense at this guy's story.

Because he becomes the yardstick by which everyone else is measured, because he's portrayed as an example to emulate, as opposed to a cautionary tale about getting caught up in misconceptions about finance. Which then puts social pressure on everyone else.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:35 PM on December 16, 2015 [13 favorites]


"Work harder, poors!" -Rich People
posted by vibrotronica at 2:35 PM on December 16, 2015 [24 favorites]


So-o-o - working harder is not the key to success; we should spend more than we earn for the greater good. Got it.
posted by randomkeystrike at 2:40 PM on December 16, 2015 [7 favorites]


My way of living frugally is one extra ice cube in my morning pint glass of scotch.
posted by turbid dahlia at 2:43 PM on December 16, 2015 [39 favorites]


I don't think anyone is saying not to work hard. But there comes a point when you just can't do more. And at that point luck and other larger factors you have no control over play a role. But a lot of people with money just assume they made all the right choices and worked hard while the poor just fucked up and made bad choices and didn't work hard and that's not true.
posted by FireFountain at 2:44 PM on December 16, 2015 [13 favorites]


No, the lesson is that people who aren't successful are just as likely to be hardworking and frugal as anyone else.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 2:44 PM on December 16, 2015 [23 favorites]


Over the year that works out to a whole extra bottle.
posted by turbid dahlia at 2:44 PM on December 16, 2015 [30 favorites]


So-o-o - working harder is not the key to success; we should spend more than we earn for the greater good. Got it.

And the award for willful misreading of the thread goes toooooooooo
posted by Existential Dread at 2:45 PM on December 16, 2015 [61 favorites]


I don't know if it's the key to success, but I don't think it's the key to happiness. I don't want a life where I work all the time and live on Kraft Mac'n'Cheese because it's cheaper than real food. I don't think that people are wasteful or sinful or lazy because they want a social life, an occasional glass of wine, and some free time, not to mention a romantic partner and/or kids.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:46 PM on December 16, 2015 [22 favorites]


> So-o-o - working harder is not the key to success;

Correct! Hundreds of millions of people all over the world work their asses off - where do you think your computer, clothes, and much of your food comes from? - every day and remain in poverty!

> we should spend more than we earn for the greater good. Got it.

Oh I see you weren't being serious. HA HA HA that was funny.
posted by rtha at 2:53 PM on December 16, 2015 [51 favorites]


A few years back, David Wong put to words my feelings about all these "Live on bread and water for three years and work harder!" and "He dropped out of school/quit his day job to become an entrepreneur and made millions of dollars, why can't you?" stories :
So "anyone can get rich" isn't just untrue, it's insultingly untrue. You can't have a society where everyone is an investment banker. And you can't have a society where you pay six figures to every good policeman, nurse, firefighter, schoolteacher, carpenter, electrician and all of the other ten thousand professions that civilization needs to survive (and that rich people need in order to stay rich).

It's like setting a jar of moonshine on the floor of a boxcar full of 10 hobos and saying, "Now fight for it!" Sure, in the bloody aftermath you can say to each of the losers, "Hey, you could have had it if you'd fought harder!" and that's true on an individual level. But not collectively -- you knew goddamned well that nine hobos weren't getting any hooch that night. So why are you acting like it's their fault that only one of them is drunk?

You're intentionally conflating "anyone can have the moonshine" with "everyone can have it." And you are doing it because you're hoping that we will all be too busy fighting each other to ask why there was only one jar.
(From this great article at Cracked.com: 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying.)
posted by lord_wolf at 2:55 PM on December 16, 2015 [191 favorites]


Hey... Don't knock K-D...

If I Had $1000000
We wouldn't have to walk to the store
If I Had $1000000
We'd take a limousine 'cause it costs more
If I Had $1000000
We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner.
(But we would eat Kraft Dinner. Of course we would, we'd just eat more.
And buy really expensive ketchup with it.
That's right, all the fanciest Dijon Ketchup. Mmmmmm.)

posted by jkaczor at 2:57 PM on December 16, 2015 [7 favorites]


The problem is that stories like this guy become hand wavey things for nasty people to say "fuck the poor be more like this guy" when it's only a very narrow and specific set of circumstances that allowed him to be able to pull something this ridiculous off.

To the extent that's happening... and it seems to be mostly in the minds of his critics, it isn't this guy's fault. Not to mention, the path by which he accomplished his goal isn't all that ridiculous. There's little indication that he wants to live like this the rest of his life, or thinks he should be held up as any kind of example. In fact, he was inspired by the hard times his mother had to face.

Frankly, the path he chose doesn't really seem all that bad for someone in his position. I've read about many MeFites sacrificing far more for what may be less in return. Every time a thread about college education comes around.

There are problems many people face with their finances. Using this guy to illustrate these problems as the Slate piece does is kind of a shitty thing to do to him and his effort.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:59 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


Nobody is criticizing him, 2N2222. The Slate piece is about the media narrative about him, not about his personal choices.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:01 PM on December 16, 2015 [15 favorites]


Part of the problem with delayed gratification is that there's no guarantee that you will actually wind up gratified at the end of your austerity program. Most of the time the topic of these types of stories is someone (usually a white male) with a high amount of privilege already that makes this possible. For example, the Google parking lot guy: young, healthy, earning high wages, and living off the well-publicized largesse of his employer (e.g. free food, shower, laundry, and no cops hassling him night after night). The three year mortgage guy: "Cooper, a financial analyst earning $75,000..." also young, white, male, healthy and with a substantial income.

Give either of these guys a costly disease, make them a member of a marginalized group, hell, give them a dependent or sick family member to care for, and tell me how viable these paths are.

Don't get me wrong, these guys aren't the problem; the media narrative is the problem.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:03 PM on December 16, 2015 [52 favorites]


In the land of radical individualists the man is a hero. Of course not everyone could behave like him or the economy would just wither and die from the aggregation.
posted by Pembquist at 3:04 PM on December 16, 2015


Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with this guy but newspapers and TV stations never run stories where the subject paid off all his debt in 3 years by having his b-school buddy hook him up with a sweet sell-side bond desk job at JP Morgan or where someone gets a job as a VP of Everything at the company their father founded, etc, etc. Because the way that the vast majority of rich people get rich is dynastic wealth.

I mean, heck even this guy has a pretty big leg up: Cooper works full-time as pension analyst for a consulting firm.

It's probably not the most amazing job ever but I'm sure it's above average.

I mean, how excited are you about a newspaper headline that says "Man With Above Average Income Has Above Average Economic Success"?
posted by GuyZero at 3:05 PM on December 16, 2015 [31 favorites]


So-o-o - working harder is not the key to success

EXACTLY. It never has been. If there has ever in history been one single key to success, that key has always, ALWAYS, been to be born properly into a wealthy family that remains so for your entire existence.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 3:05 PM on December 16, 2015 [34 favorites]


Can't get past the first concept here. A native-born American who watches his culture closely and has read more than one frugal-living book cover-to-cover, I can ASSURE you that Americans have never "lionized" people who "engage" in "extreme" forms of thrift.

The rhetorical devices in that sentence alone put it in the top 10% of the Bullshit Category.

Anyway. Do we sort of admire someone who can coupon a grocery store for $100 worth of stuff and get a refund in the process? Yes. But the Americans, if any, who are "lionized" are those who toss money around like there's no tomorrow. In fact, we can blame the Great Recession on such "lions" and the "I could be a millionaire too" crowd grasping for their imaginary slice of the pie.

No, they couldn't, although they participate in the fantasy willingly. And will happily decimate the planet in their fruit-fly pursuit of "meeeee tooooo". In the meantime, the sane are managine to live ... not just survive ... on an adequate amount of nutrition and modest means. Just as they, and all wild animals on Earth, always have. Even the disappearing lions and elephants.
posted by Twang at 3:05 PM on December 16, 2015 [5 favorites]


Yay Helaine Olen! I've also heard horror stories about "debt-free" living in some religious communities, when it's not just one guy living out of his car and showering at Google but a patriarch imposing austere poverty on a powerless wife and kids.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 3:05 PM on December 16, 2015 [8 favorites]


FireFountain: "But a lot of people with money just assume they made all the right choices and worked hard while the poor just fucked up and made bad choices and didn't work hard..."

I believe this is called "being born on third base and going through life thinking you hit a triple." See also: Donald Trump.
posted by bluecore at 3:06 PM on December 16, 2015 [6 favorites]


I don't think the media lionizes thrift at all. Quite the opposite. Where are the television series about poor people happily getting by? What advertiser promotes saving money over purchasing something? The whole culture is telling us to spend, spend, spend. Then when some rare voice tries to remind us of the bitter truth that there is really no way to pay your bills except to earn more or spend less, we jump down their throats and accuse them of blaming the victim.
posted by Modest House at 3:07 PM on December 16, 2015 [10 favorites]


People in general can't stand injustice, and it is pretty damn unjust that really, really hard working people can't make ends meet, while there are plenty of people who don't work at all (inherited money, for example) and live the lives of (often discontented) pashas.

From this come our traditional tales of how hard work and thrift conquer all, whereas really they don't. Equally false is the idea that paying off one big debt like a mortgage will create lasting and reliable financial security -- one expensive illness or disabling injury will belie that assumption.

Also, our consumption oriented lifestyle is arguably one of the most unhealthy aspects of contemporary living. That is one of the persuasive theses in Dr. Mate's In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts. So the other big myth about spending your way to joy and happiness is equally false.
posted by bearwife at 3:08 PM on December 16, 2015 [4 favorites]


“You bought homes you couldn’t afford. You took equity out of your homes to buy other thing you couldn’t afford. You leased your cars.

Yet, if you turned on a tv or opened a magazine in the late 80s and in the 90s, you were treated to financial expert after expert extolling the amazing opportunities in cheap money, HELOCs, and you were told only a fool buys a car.

And now, of course, you're being told that you were an idiot for doing those things...by other financial experts.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:15 PM on December 16, 2015 [14 favorites]


Also interesting: his house was 425K but his mortgage was 255K...where'd that other 170K come from anyway? The article doesn't mention that. (Apologies if the video does; I'm at work and can't watch videos.)

I mean maybe it's just, you know, he's always lived at home or whatever. But even then, the luxury of never paying a dime in rent and being able to save everything to buy your own house is definitely not universally available.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 3:16 PM on December 16, 2015 [17 favorites]


Then when some rare voice tries to remind us of the bitter truth that there is really no way to pay your bills except to earn more or spend less, we jump down their throats and accuse them of blaming the victim.

Yes, because they are.

We as a society are not nearly as profligate as you seem to think. In fact, a lot of the societal messaging you refer to exists in large part because we're not naturally profligate, and so profligacy has to be encouraged. And the reality is that we haven't been allowed to share fully in the increase in productivity, and that's the heart of the problem.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:16 PM on December 16, 2015 [11 favorites]


scolding people in financial straits for not being frugal enough

This, in an economy where you are expected to own a share of a car, so you can "share" money with Uber while sharing rides ... and rent a share of an apartment, so you can "share" money with AirBnB while sharing your living space. Don't forget your HSA, where you cost-"share" your healthcare, so you can be "motivated" to shop for CT prices from the back of an ambulance.

Up next: an app for wardrobe-sharing, because no, sciatrix, you're not allowed to own clothes. You'll have to share them. Or you're just not trying hard enough ...

"Sharing" economy, my ass.
posted by Dashy at 3:17 PM on December 16, 2015 [13 favorites]


Nobody is criticizing him, 2N2222. The Slate piece is about the media narrative about him, not about his personal choices.

You yourself made a comment about happiness, referencing his choices.

As to the media narrative about him, presumably the CBC article,it doesn't seem to make that narrative much at all. In fact, its tone seems more like an oddball character/filler story. The "media narrative" seems to be something that Slate wants to drive, and something that lots of MeFites seem to like, even if the CBC source article doesn't actually support it quite well.
posted by 2N2222 at 3:20 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's probably not the most amazing job ever but I'm sure it's above average.

At $75,000 a year, he would actually be in the top 11% of earners in Canada.
posted by northernish at 3:21 PM on December 16, 2015 [14 favorites]


Hey... Don't knock K-D...


Similarly, I would definitely pay a premium for a cruelty-free green dress. Some things are just worth it.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:21 PM on December 16, 2015 [13 favorites]


Dear America: only a couple of decades ago you were 6% of the world's people consuming 25% of the Earth's resources. The other 6.7 Billion people on the planet will never be able to live like that.

Your Great Expectations are being downsized, so that the rest of the world no longer has to do without in order to labor and service your wildest desires.

tough tits
posted by Twang at 3:23 PM on December 16, 2015 [9 favorites]


The things the rest of the world provides (food and clothing) aren't getting more out of reach. It's stuff like housing, child care, and college. The American middle class is giving way to the American upper class, more than the Chinese middle class.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 3:32 PM on December 16, 2015 [34 favorites]


Twang, except that's not what's happening. We're not being downsized by the rest of the world. We're being downsized by our sociopath robber baron oligarchs.

(Oops, what Bulgaroktonos said.)
posted by xigxag at 3:36 PM on December 16, 2015 [22 favorites]


There was an interesting article by an economic blogger/journalist who extended Elizabeth Warren's argument to point out that for true fiscal flexibility, it is actually better to spend less on fixed costs like housing and more on frivolities like lattes and entertainment. The argument was that after a financial shock like a job loss, a mortgage is nigh-inescapable - while lattes and season tickets can be cancelled, and an apartment downgraded - without damaging one's credit score. Of course such a personal resource allocation must be a well-considered decision in order to reap the financial-resilience benefits, but it was an interesting counterpoint to the ownership society droning.
posted by Svejk at 3:37 PM on December 16, 2015 [13 favorites]


Holy shit, we're not even allowed to buy clothes now?!?! What, you want me to crawl around naked dressed in rags? Christ al-fucking-mighty.

Yeah, that would be more persuasive if it were new clothes instead of just "clothes."

It is true most people tend to spend more on clothes than they need to be presentably dressed. With the exception of my shoes, underthings, and jeans, pretty much everything I wear comes from the thrift store with an average cost of perhaps $3 per item. And if I didn't have such a hard-to-fit butt that only one specific type of jeans seems to work on, I'd happily buy my jeans there too.

Meanwhile, most people also tend to spend too small of a proportion of their clothing budget on shoes. Even if you can afford new clothes, you'd probably be better off buying your clothes from the thrift store and investing the savings into a couple of really good pairs of shoes, boots, etc. with custom orthotic inserts. There are few things that will enhance your current and future quality-of-life more than shoes that don't fuck up your feet and spine. Make it a priority, people, and your body will thank you.
posted by Jacqueline at 3:40 PM on December 16, 2015 [4 favorites]


My way of living frugally is one extra ice cube in my morning pint glass of scotch.
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:43 PM on December 16 [6 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]

Over the year that works out to a whole extra bottle.
posted by turbid dahlia at 5:44 PM on December 16 [2 favorites −] Favorite added! [!]


I didn't know that Jessica Jones had a MetaFilter account! :D
posted by Jacqueline at 3:47 PM on December 16, 2015 [5 favorites]


I don't think the media lionizes thrift at all. Quite the opposite. Where are the television series about poor people happily getting by?

I think there are two such shows alone on TLC. As well as one about "Extreme Couponing".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:51 PM on December 16, 2015 [9 favorites]


We're not being downsized by the rest of the world. We're being downsized by our sociopath robber baron oligarchs.

An interesting historical analogue is the Highland Clearances. A Scot with all the right lefty credentials (native, St. Andrews-educated, SNP, sustainable-living-and-actually-doing-it) characterized it to me as the Scottish lairds (landowners and leaders) realizing their tenants and peasants would starve if they didn't industrialize the farming and radically remake the Scottish economy. I'm not sure how true this actually is, but it sounds like something a sociopath robber baron oligarch would say to placate the proles, bourgeoisie, and security apparatus.

I believe we can all agree that nationwide lifestyle downsizing is also better than worldwide wars of conquest, displacement or genocide over resources. The problem is how to make it truly nationwide in population and scope rather than the third-world inequality we're seeing in the US now.
posted by infinitewindow at 3:54 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


He's still not living in the main house either, still the basement. Like you've paid for this thing, worked your ass off for it and you've not seen an ounce of enjoyment out of it while paying all the shit you have to when you're a homeowner. I know everyone wants to root for the studious ant but what exactly is this guy working so hard for? Some life at some currently unspecified time?

It says in the article that he'll move into the main house when he gets married. From that, I'd infer that family is important to him and surmise that he's probably working this hard now so that he and/or his wife will have the financial flexibility to spend more time with his possible future children.

So yeah, he's taking a gamble that he'll live long long enough to enjoy the payoff of his sacrifices, but it's a very +EV bet given that the probabilities of a man getting married (~90%) and having children (~75%) are both much higher than the probability of him dying young (<10%). He's also in good financial shape in case either he or his future wife become disabled and unable to work.

I wish I'd been like him when I was younger and healthier instead of frittering my 20s away. Now I'm in my late 30s, too sick to work, a burden on my husband, and there's almost no way we'll be able to afford biological children before it's too late. :(
posted by Jacqueline at 4:05 PM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


Can't get past the first concept here. A native-born American who watches his culture closely and has read more than one frugal-living book cover-to-cover, I can ASSURE you that Americans have never "lionized" people who "engage" in "extreme" forms of thrift.

So one of the central dilemmas here - thrift is indeed a virtue and the American consciousness is indeed fairly saturated with messages that promote the absolute opposite. We are supposed to want to buy lots of nice stuff. But then when somebody runs into financial trouble we're like well sucks to be you, shouldn’ta bought all that stuff don't you know. Which is to say we selectively blame or lionize individuals so as to avoid confronting the systemic problems.
posted by atoxyl at 4:12 PM on December 16, 2015 [31 favorites]


Also this particular story seems to celebrate a guy who lived fairly ascetically and worked like a fucking lunatic for... what? To be able to afford a house? That would seem to indicate a poor state of things though actually it sounds like he probably could have paid it over a standard period of time if he hadn't decided this was worthwhile to save some money. Anyway, what we we should be doing is all working less and consuming less whereas the message we usually get is everybody should work more but only poor people should consume less.
posted by atoxyl at 4:28 PM on December 16, 2015 [15 favorites]


I wish I'd been like him when I was younger and healthier instead of frittering my 20s away. Now I'm in my late 30s, too sick to work, a burden on my husband, and there's almost no way we'll be able to afford biological children before it's too late. :(

Conversely, I feel like I might as well have frittered my 20s away, because working my ass off at thankless jobs and tightening my belt til I just about fainted didn't actually generate any appreciable security for me. (What did? An inheritance, natch. A scaled-down version of exactly how most of the rich in the US got that way.) Though I guess my choices to consistently date men in my own meh income bracket, rather than marry early and marry up, could be considered a kind of frittering away.

But that's the point. Nobody's financial planning should ultimately come to ruin because they got sick in their 30s or failed to find a rich spouse at 23. Both your choices and my choices should be OKAY CHOICES in a sane society. People should be able to have some financial footing even if they fail to dedicate their every healthy second to it. People who DO dedicate their healthy years to hard work should actually reap the rewards of it! Right now our society is set up to render our choices moot, no matter what they are, as soon as luck turns against us.

This Canadian House Dude has done a lot of work--literally, he has pretty much never done anything but work--to try and insulate himself from turns of luck; nobody's saying he shouldn't have done it, because bad luck kills in our culture. What people are lamenting is that he ever had to.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 4:29 PM on December 16, 2015 [36 favorites]


One thing to keep in mind is that you have to have social capital to be thrifty. I saved a lot of money by living with my family in a kind of cruddy apartment with no washer/dryer or dishwasher until I was 39. I drive a car with a big dent in the side. I don't have a couch. But you know what? I can get away with all that stuff because I have a high-status job and I fit the physical description of a high-status person and my speech marks me as educated, and so when people see my dented car or the peeling paint on my house they don't look down on me. If I didn't have money and status, I could never be so cheap.
posted by escabeche at 4:30 PM on December 16, 2015 [63 favorites]


I've tried the living frugally thing. Drove a beater car when I could afford a nicer one. What happened? In middle class suburbia my car got spat on, people threw garbage on it, I'd get tickets for parking on one part of the street where I noticed other cars did not when parked there for days. People at my job would give me an attitude about it (though they were jerks anyway, but they definitely took advantage of using it as a club to beat me with). I'd have people in parking lots look at my car, look at me, and give me this malicious grin, or puff their chests up like they were superior to me. All the while I could afford a nicer ride.

Our culture in the US is very materialistic and competitive, and it encourages kicking people down in whatever way they can find. I experienced this trying to be frugal with my car. So it takes a strong stomach to deal with the aggression that's thrown at you from not flaunting signs of material wealth.

Like, I was on a NJ Transit train the other week and the people standing next to me were talking about how their headphones were so much nicer and more expensive than my "Walgreens headphones" that were draped around my neck (and I could obviously overhear them), as if I'd take proper, home-listening headphones on my daily commute. It's relentless. It may be different in other parts of the country, this is the NYC area here and maybe this area is particularly materialistic.
posted by gehenna_lion at 4:41 PM on December 16, 2015 [12 favorites]


I can ASSURE you that Americans have never "lionized" people who "engage" in "extreme" forms of thrift.

I feel like that's pretty demonstrably false. The more general narrative, specifically the rags to riches, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, anyone can go from having nothing to being comfortably middle class (whatever that even means any more), etc, is pretty strongly routed in the foundation of the so called "American Dream." Granted, that narrative is a false, destructive fiction, but I don't see how you could argue that it isn't something lauded by American culture.

Also, as already noted upthread, this specific idea of an extreme thrifty lifestyle has become even more en vogue since the 2008 financial crash. The Extreme Couponing show mentioned by Empress Callipygos was one of the first things that came to mind.

Of course, the really perverse thing is that there is also a strong push for consumerism. Buy the latest car, get the biggest house, etc, etc. I guess this could be seen as the continuation of the "American Dream." This is the "riches" part of the story. And for the rest of us, who aren't at the riches part, well then I guess it's intended to be aspirational.

Sort of. Sometimes I think we draw attention to this conspicuous consumerism just so we can judge it. I imagine a major reason why people watch shows like the Real Housewives syndicate, Keeping up with the Kardashians, etc. is so that they can judge the people on the shows, even if they also might on some level envy them.

So basically, as with so many things, we're getting conflicting messages from all directions. There's the morality police which says you should pinch all your pennies and if you don't succeed, well then it's because you didn't try hard enough or make the right decisions, not because you were participating in a system that is basically designed for most people to fail. Then there's the pop culture marketing message which basically tells us that what really matters isn't what we do, it's what we have, and it's also that we have more than the other guy has.

(This reminds me of the dual narrative that tells women they should be chaste and pure but also they're just too uptight if they don't like being objectified or turn down male sexual advances.)

tl;dr: We're all more or less fucked, in every sense of the word.
posted by litera scripta manet at 4:48 PM on December 16, 2015 [7 favorites]


I drive an old dinged up car and I get around being judged for it by walking to work, so instead of judging me, my professional coworkers just treat me as a quaint oddity or perhaps a person with three heads.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 4:53 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


It may be different in other parts of the country, this is the NYC area here and maybe this area is particularly materialistic.

Wow, yeah. I lived in the Pacific Northwest until I was 27 and maybe I was just oblivious but I never encountered that sort of snobbishness about cars etc. Meanwhile, I've long noticed that my East Coast friends seem much more particular about wearing nice/fancy clothing than my West Coast friends even though my West Coast friends tend to be richer than my East Coast friends.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:00 PM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


One thing to keep in mind is that you have to have social capital to be thrifty. I saved a lot of money by living with my family in a kind of cruddy apartment with no washer/dryer or dishwasher until I was 39. I drive a car with a big dent in the side. I don't have a couch. But you know what? I can get away with all that stuff because I have a high-status job and I fit the physical description of a high-status person and my speech marks me as educated, and so when people see my dented car or the peeling paint on my house they don't look down on me. If I didn't have money and status, I could never be so cheap.

This is so true and the social markers of status ripple through these discussions in all kinds of ways.

We are doing a lot of delayed gratification at the moment and making some pretty big sacrifices for what I hope will be a good long term reward, but it's not at all guaranteed and if things don't work out I'm going to look back at this period with a lot of regret.

Another factor that doesn't get mentioned often is that with interest rates so low (even after today's rate hike) and with it so hard for anyone who isn't already rich enough and connected enough to benefit from hedge funds and insider trading to make any money with investments, "investing" in thrift, education, and crazy delayed gratification schemes is about the only way your average middle class person has for any chance of a reasonable return. But productivity gains aren't being shared and the plutocrats are grabbing every fraction of a cent that they can leverage, so people very reasonably look at alternatives. Some people go back to school, and others take in boarders in order to pay down their mortgage.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:01 PM on December 16, 2015


I think American society lionizes both extreme thrift and profligate spending. It's the ordinary people in the middle who are ignored.

But IMO that makes sense given that most of the media coverage of either extreme is basically for entertainment purposes and seeing how other ordinary middle class people live isn't very entertaining for people who are already living that way.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:04 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


I drive an old dinged up car and I get around being judged for it by walking to work, so instead of judging me, my professional coworkers just treat me as a quaint oddity or perhaps a person with three heads.

Unfortunately so many places in the US are set up in such a way that it's impossible to do this because everything is so decentralized that there isn't any housing in walking distance of where a given person works or because the housing is prohibitively expensive, and it's not like there are many places in the US with public transportation that's suitable to fill in the gaps.
posted by litera scripta manet at 5:05 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


I am underpaid for my position & my experience -- by at least 20%, if not more -- but I'm happy to have a job (I've been looking, but various life issues have kept me from fully pursuing it). I live in someone's basement, which is comfortable and I like. I drive a car fro 1988 (mostly because my 1993 car got totaled). My bills are as minimal as I can make them (I guess you could tell me to cut Netflix and Hulu -- Internet is covered by my landlord -- but I wouldn't).

I got to a point where I'd cut back as much as I was going to. At a certain point, $10 here and $5 there wasn't going to make much of a difference. Yeah, I may buy more beer or food than I should (always still within my budget, though) but it's sort of like ... how much do I want to make myself miserable? I don't buy a lot of material things (clothes on occasion, but cheap ones, and some used records). The benefit of cutting back and cutting back and cutting back some more just didn't seem worth it.

I'm pessimistic enough to know that my life probably will just be this way forever. I'm OK with that. I'd rather try to make myself happy now. Was that $50 a month I could "save" going to go something better? Maybe, but considering I have a savings account that gets less than 1% interest ... well, I'd rather feel stable about my life now and enjoy it for what it is, rather than what it could be (but probably won't).
posted by darksong at 5:06 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


with interest rates so low (even after today's rate hike) and with it so hard for anyone who isn't already rich enough and connected enough to benefit from hedge funds and insider trading to make any money with investments,

But that's not really true. Interest rates were higher in previous decades because inflation was high; adjusted for inflation you weren't really making much more back then. And anybody can just invest in an equity index fund (people on Mefi recommend them all the time) or buy equity index ETFs, which have done very well since the financial crisis. In fact, index funds have actually been beating hedge funds in aggregate since the start of (or I guess I should say during, since it's technically over) zero interest rate policy, and by a very large margin. It's a myth that you need to be rich and well-connected to make money from investments.
posted by pravit at 5:09 PM on December 16, 2015


Actually higher interest rates were amazing if you were a homeowner - sure you were paying 15% on your mortgage in the 80's but inflation made your payments disappear as long as your income kept pace with inflation (which it did for most people).

Inflation is fine as long as you don't have any money saved.
posted by GuyZero at 5:15 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


Until fairly recently, the idea of frugality was very closely associated with moderation.

In a spectator society frugality is only noticed and admired if it's "extreme." Spectators are interested in extreme wealth and extreme frugality because they're aberrations and aberrations are interesting to look at.

In a world where people did things instead of looking at them, everything would probably be a lot more moderate.
posted by crazylegs at 5:26 PM on December 16, 2015 [20 favorites]


A native-born American who watches his culture closely and has read more than one frugal-living book cover-to-cover, I can ASSURE you that Americans have never "lionized" people who "engage" in "extreme" forms of thrift.

I sort of agree. Having nice things is seen positively. Having nice things that are obviously used is sort of "tacky" depending on your position in the greater social structure.

One of my favorite examples is my exes mother, who was solidly 1% wealthy, being outraged to the point of lecturing me and then badmouthing me to anyone who would listen later... For wanting my exes laptop she had just broken that they simply replaced instead of repairing. She threw it in the trash, in front of me, and lectured me that only filthy poor people would want something like that.*

Having nice things is Social Capital in and of itself. But unless you're buying them at the store new, no one better see how you got them.

In that way, these stories are sort of weird in that they show how the sausage is made which is generally Not Cool™. You're either supposed to have the nice things, or not. But if you're getting the nice things for cheap, or more commonly by racking up tons of consumer debt, that's supposed to be hush hush. It's sort of interesting that the narrative is shifting to "look at how much this guy tightened his belt!" because all of my experience is that people who do these sorts of things are tacky, and even spectacles. There aren't TLC reality shows about couponing because it's cool now, they're presented alongside the show where people eat couch cushions compulsively.

One thing to keep in mind is that you have to have social capital to be thrifty.

Also so much this. If you have a great job, you can live in a basement apartment with no furniture and drive a beat up 80s car and be treated as normal(I know more than one guy who works in tech who fits this description perfectly).

It's one thing to have cleverly gotten and maintained nice things and clothing if you don't have that much money, but it's another thing entirely to have a nice semi-prestigious job and have junky things. I've been poor, sort of poor with nice stuff, and had an entry level good job with almost nothing. People leave you way the fuck more alone in the final category than they do anywhere else.

*It was like, a couple month old top of the line macbook i could have fixed for ~$400 or something, too. My laptop at the time was a duct taped together piece of shit my friend stole and gave to me.
posted by emptythought at 5:28 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


In conclusion, America is a land of contrasts.
posted by Jacqueline at 5:30 PM on December 16, 2015 [6 favorites]


He saved up the $170,000 down payment by working multiple jobs throughout his twenties, starting while he was in college. He didn't spend three years on this lifestyle - he never says exactly, but probably ten years (he talks about regretting that he didn't socialize during college, etc).
posted by the agents of KAOS at 5:42 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


He worked 100 hours a week as a way to avoid the stress of owning money. Ok, whatever.
posted by EvelynU at 5:45 PM on December 16, 2015 [7 favorites]


Up next: an app for wardrobe-sharing, because no, sciatrix, you're not allowed to own clothes. You'll have to share them. Or you're just not trying hard enough ...

Actually you can ...
posted by bgal81 at 5:47 PM on December 16, 2015


So it takes a strong stomach to deal with the aggression that's thrown at you from not flaunting signs of material wealth.

And on another related side, I've gotten lectured for not suitably reacting to someone's nice stuff and embarassing the person I was with. From what I understood I shouldn't fawn over it too much, or seem like I cared or noticed too much but I should have at least acted like I cared to some extent. How to determine the exact amount was necessary was a mystery to me.

I realized then that I really wasn't made for this particular wealthier them me social group nor a friendship with the person. I'm guessing it was something I either needed longer exposure to in order to get the social and status rules or had to be brought up in it to get it. I had no interest whatsoever in figuring it out because I honestly didn't care about 'all the things.' Having someone get mad at me for not caring was so weird. I made it worse by just laughing and not realizing how serious a problem it apparently was.
posted by Jalliah at 5:52 PM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


We live in a consumer economy, so I don't think frugality is valued at all. How could it be? It would threaten the foundation our economy is built on. Just remember GWB after 9/11, saying our duty as Americans was to spend money.

Echoing posts above, this brand of frugality is celebrated because it's held up as an example of people adapting to the status quo, and is displayed for others to emulate. Which is far preferable than people fighting for changing it. Take a look at how Bernie Sanders has been treated by the New York Times; his coverage there has, by and large, been treated with scorn and derision. Donald Trump has received fairer coverage, weirdly enough.

I'm not a huge Bernie Sanders guy, but it's pretty obvious challenging the current state of things is actively being fought against by the establishment, and it's not like Sanders is radical in any way, many of the "crazy" policies he wants to reinstitute go back to the dark, terrible days of the 1990s.

So the new normal is that we have to sacrifice a very significant part of our lives to achieve some small semblance of security, which is one chance moment away from falling apart, and what's down below isn't pretty. All for the privilege of a small class of people who've captured the government and economy, and their employees in various related sectors (finance, tech, etc.),with people in tech being a couple of laws and half a generation away from sliding down the ladder themselves in this system.
posted by gehenna_lion at 5:56 PM on December 16, 2015 [11 favorites]


> . It may be different in other parts of the country, this is the NYC area here and maybe this area is particularly materialistic.

Count me as another vote for "NYC is a snakepit." I mean west coast me would give you shit about driving your dented car too, but the shit I'd give you would be super passive-aggressive and entirely directed toward convincing you you should ride a bike and/or take the bus instead.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:01 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


I made it worse by just laughing and not realizing how serious a problem it apparently was.

It wasn't a serious problem, it's just that this person was an insecure gitface.
posted by poffin boffin at 6:03 PM on December 16, 2015 [3 favorites]


Midwest me gets shit about living in a more-expensive apartment downtown, but when I point out that I save $80 a month by not having to pay for parking, people look at me like I have two heads, because who walks to work when they could live in a nice residential neighborhood and drive to work like a normal person.

I am actually pretty pro-frugality. I'm certainly more pro-frugality for myself than Helaine Olen would think I should be. I'm also in favor of moderation, and I think you can watch your spending without working 100 hours a week and subsisting on boxed meals.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:08 PM on December 16, 2015 [4 favorites]


I think frugality is great to a point, but it's easy to abuse that trait if you're not careful. I have many frugal people in my family and they tend to be hoarders, but are OK with it because they buy all their crap from Goodwill.

A couple weeks ago, one of my aunts visted me and we spent a whole day thrifting. She bought random tchotchkes, a time clock (like punch in, punch out time clock) and a framed picture that she spent an additional $65 to ship home.

I have another aunt who is a preschool teacher who also thrifts constantly. She has multiple bins of just Playmobil people stacked in her stairwell that are never used. One of her (out of the house) sons' rooms is lined with VHS movies on every wall.

They make fun of me for buying "expensive" stuff, but I buy waaaaay less stuff than they do. I might spend a few hundred dollars a year on clothes, but I make sure that it's stuff that fits me well and that I'll wear all the time. If I buy things when I'm thrifting I can't just love it, I have to be in love with it.

It's similar with extreme couponistas I've known. They'll go to the grocery store and buy a can of olives and three boxes of Hamburger Helper for ten cents. That just doesn't seem appetizing.

It's great that this guy paid off his mortgage in a couple years (and had $170K to put down!), but I have a hard time justifying that level of stress and discomfort even if it's only for a few years. His is one way to be frugal, but it requires constant attention and deprivation. To each their own.
posted by bendy at 7:14 PM on December 16, 2015 [4 favorites]


I've tried the living frugally thing. Drove a beater car when I could afford a nicer one. What happened? In middle class suburbia my car got spat on, people threw garbage on it, I'd get tickets for parking on one part of the street where I noticed other cars did not when parked there for days.

Whoa. I've lived in more-or-less middle-class neighborhoods in New Hampshire, Illinois, North Carolina, and Florida. My crappy cars have never attracted spit, garbage, or tickets. (Actually I always thought driving a crappy car was a good way to stay off the radar of thieves.) Who has so much time on their hands they put garbage on other people's cars?
posted by Daily Alice at 8:10 PM on December 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


Whoa. I've lived in more-or-less middle-class neighborhoods in New Hampshire, Illinois, North Carolina, and Florida. My crappy cars have never attracted spit, garbage, or tickets. (Actually I always thought driving a crappy car was a good way to stay off the radar of thieves.) Who has so much time on their hands they put garbage on other people's cars?

Maybe it's New Jersey, then. I've also had people yell at me from their cars that I'm a "faggot" and a "pussy", so YMMV. NYC isn't much better with the aggressive materialism/social status stuff, but at least I fall on the right side of that one in some respects.
posted by gehenna_lion at 8:32 PM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


EmpressCallipygos: I think there are two such shows alone on TLC. As well as one about "Extreme Couponing"

There's no way that these extreme coupon shows aren't staged. For starters, stores always put in the fine print that they reserve the right to limit quantities. That takes care of someone trying to octuple-coupon their way to buying fifty bottles of Uncle Al's Beeper Polish for eighteen cents.

Not to mention the cashier effort and reconciliation that such a sale would demand. Trying "extreme couponing" sounds like a great way to get the sheriffs department called on you if it wasn't pre-arranged by a TLC producer.
posted by dr_dank at 9:00 PM on December 16, 2015


"You should spend within your means" and "the game is rigged" are not mutually exclusive propositions. Most financially responsible and minimally astute people recognize that there are systemic failures and personal failures, and both contribute to economic hardship. Minimizing personal fiscal irresponsibility, as if this is all a zero sum PR war between two competing ideas of why people struggle, doesn't help anyone.
posted by echocollate at 9:22 PM on December 16, 2015 [10 favorites]


Except that what winds up being advised isn't "live within your means" (which can also mean using debt responsibly), but "you must eschew anything unnecessary in order to avoid debt at all costs." You should listen to Dave Ramsey or Suze Orman sometime, and how they easily talk about privation as fiscal responsibility.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:38 PM on December 16, 2015 [4 favorites]


There's no way that these extreme coupon shows aren't staged. For starters, stores always put in the fine print that they reserve the right to limit quantities. That takes care of someone trying to octuple-coupon their way to buying fifty bottles of Uncle Al's Beeper Polish for eighteen cents.

Even if they are staged, that still proves my point. Because - consider what impression of reality this staging is trying to present.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:12 PM on December 16, 2015 [2 favorites]


The whole moral dimension of debt is weird because I mean - we should definitely teach people to avoid e.g. credit card debt for anything optional because they are trying to fuck you over. But I don't understand why it is morally superior to pay off your mortgage in three years - it may be financially preferable if you can but a mortgage is a well-trod path to a common goal. There are mortgages you shouldn't get but again it comes down to an attempted scam a lot of the time.
posted by atoxyl at 1:00 AM on December 17, 2015


The whole moral dimension of debt is weird because I mean - we should definitely teach people to avoid e.g. credit card debt for anything optional because they are trying to fuck you over

The moral dimension here is the most frustrating because it presumes that living "within your means" is a moral virtue as opposed to simply good practical advice. Implicit in that is the assumption that one is only morally entitled to the things you can afford and that people with more money have earned the right to have more and nicer things. The typical justification for this, which we've seen in this very thread, is that idea that they earn this right through "hard work," but anyone with a functioning brain can see that in our capitalist society hard work and financial success are, at best, only occasionally related. I work significantly less hard than huge numbers of people who are less well off than I am. I have no moral entitlement to be making more than they do, and I'm not going to judge them morally for buying on credit the things I can afford easily on account of how the system works.

Absent some moral justification for wealth inequality, I don't see that there's a single moral argument for "living within one's means." A moral argument for reduced consumption across the board? Sure, but not for allowing me to live with one set of consumption choices and a single mother with two jobs to live with fewer (which is of course, what "within your means" entails). So sure, don't run a ton of credit card debt because it will screw you and the make the people richer than you (or me) richer, but it's not a moral failing if you do. You're just as entitled to a big screen TV as I am.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:47 AM on December 17, 2015 [21 favorites]


because it presumes that living "within your means" is a moral virtue as opposed to simply good practical advice.

It's not even good practical advice for a lot of people and it never has been. Higher education and house buying are completely unreachable goals for most people without taking on debt. Medical situations and family emergencies also mean debt for most people. If you have an layoff or other income issue, your savings may or may not last until you have a new job and it's not like you can magically stop eating in the meantime.

"Live within your means" often needs to be interpreted as "be lucky," "be privileged," and "have lots of external sources of support."

Over and above that, many people make very poor financial choices and indeed live way above their means. We all know people on low salaries who buy expensive cars, for example. But poor choices aren't nearly as big an issue as are the very real constraints that people face.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:08 AM on December 17, 2015 [11 favorites]


My issue isn't so much with the idea of idolizing people who are especially thrifty but a step back from that. The idea that debt is inherently bad is just idiotic. Owing someone else money, in and of itself, isn't a problem. It's the terms of that debt compared to the alternatives that make it good or bad.

If just having debt was a bad idea, every company on earth would have something pretty close to zero on the liabilities section of their balance sheet.

They don't get into the details of his mortgage loan but he looks young enough that he doesn't old enough for it to have been at a high rate and he would have refinanced sometime during the last decade of low rates (I'm assuming that mortgage rates in Canada have been low too). The guy is even a financial analyst. You're telling me that he can't get himself better than a 4% return over the 30-year life of his mortgage? I don't buy it and someone in finance should know better. A house with a mortgage is a leveraged appreciating asset. Leveraged assets increase risk so you need to make sure that you're smart about buying the house and make sure that the payment will be affordable in most likely circumstances. But leveraging assets also increases the rate of return since your 20% down payment is buying you five times as much house/investment as the cash you have on hand would if you didn't borrow to do it. With rates what they are today, paying cash for a house, even if you can do it, is a mistake.

This guy cheap and people shouldn't be cheap, they should be frugal. To me, the difference is that a cheap person seeks to minimize expenses and just turn themselves into a money-making machine. They work, they earn money, they breath, that's about it.

Being frugal is about extracting maximum value from your lifestyle. And frankly, it's easier to do if you have decent income. If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, you might not have any choice in the matter.

Instead of working my ass off to pay my mortgage off early, I think rates are so low that they're basically zero percent when compared against long-term inflation rates. So, as long as I can get rates like that, I'll never pay off my mortgage. My spouse has student loans at just over 2%, if I could, at that rate, I wish we could turn that into an interest only payment and we'd just pay the interest on it. We just did $4,000 worth of home-improvements, we have the cash (or at least in some pretty liquid investments) but they offered 12-months-same-as-cash financing so you bet your ass I financed that.

It also means that I buy good, high quality clothes whenever possible. Sometimes used on e-bay or from a thrift store, or just on sale. They might cost twice as much but they lost way more than twice as long and will look and fit better the whole time too. Good shoes will not only last longer and look better but they'll be more comfortable too. When it's cheaper to buy in bulk, I do, if it makes sense but used, I buy used, and more generally I carefully consider the value that any purchase will bring to my life. The other end of it is that I worked in branch banking for a while (and saw a lot of examples of how NOT to manage money), I've been desperately poor and in debt in bad way, and I have degree in finance. So I've developed a pretty effective and easy way to budget and manage my finances and I think I'm especially well equipped to make smart financial decisions.

Living frugally is still about living. You work hard to make smart purchases so that you afford go on vacation, spend money on hobbies, go out and have fun.
posted by VTX at 8:20 AM on December 17, 2015 [11 favorites]


Living within your means *is* a moral issue because to not do so is to have an unsecured debt load which sets you up to break your promises (and therefore is a moral issue). When you borrow money, you promise to pay it back. That's a moral vow. If you spend beyond your means you jeopardize being able to make good on the promise. It's a health issue too, because living beyond your means makes you a virtual slave to your paycheck and your debtors which is a very stressful situation and means that an illness or other job loss cause can unravel your entire life.
posted by TestamentToGrace at 10:54 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


VTX, in Canada the mortgages are different. You don't get a 20 or 30 year loan like in the USA. You get a much shorter loan and refinance regularly. This is their normal thing; it's not just subprime loans that do it. Not sure what the term is or if they vary, but it's only a few years rather than decades.

So this guy might have a 3% interest rate that is currently fixed - but still he's at risk to get socked with a higher rate when the refinance date comes around, and if he loses his job he might not get the favorable refinance he hopes for. And that refinance date is coming around regularly.

So it's not quite as silly for him to pay off that 3% loan more quickly. There are more variables in his future, than if he were a similarly placed USAin.
posted by elizilla at 10:56 AM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


That's one way of looking at it. The way that I look at it is that it's a moral and health issue to look the other way about the fact that you live in a society where a lot of people have no choice but to go into debt to get necessary medical care. You can forgo all the lattes you want and still end up bankrupt because you had the terrible, terrible judgment to get sick when you didn't have fabulous insurance.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:57 AM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


Well moral sanction is sometimes a good way to teach people a practical lesson - but as already discussed the actual messages out there are decidedly mixed.
posted by atoxyl at 10:57 AM on December 17, 2015


When you borrow money, you promise to pay it back. That's a moral vow.

That's not how the 1% sees it. When the foreclosure crisis hit, it was the formerly wealthy who were more likely to just walk away, not the lower and middle class who were more likely to fight to clear those debts. It's this attitude that also enables the ghouls who use morality to get people to take over the debts of loved ones who have died.

So no, not only do I see viewing debt as a moral issue as wrong, I see it as dangerously so, because it's this attitude that all too often convinces people to work against their own interest.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:51 AM on December 17, 2015 [5 favorites]


When you borrow money, you promise to pay it back. That's a moral vow.

No, it's actually not a moral vow. It's a legal vow, governed by legal exceptions and outs and with risk. That's why creditors get paid interest, to compensate them for the risk that I might not pay it back. Moreover, as with all things, our society is structured so those exceptions and outs are more available for the people with resources than the people without. Viewing debt as a moral issue is a weapon that class uses against the lower classes; that view is harmful and ruins actual people's lives to enrich people who already have plenty. Fuck that view. It is evil.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:03 PM on December 17, 2015 [20 favorites]


That's a fair point, Elizilla.

I would argue, however, that his rate is pretty much always going to be close to the current rate of inflation making it advantageous to always have a mortgage. He could have taken the extra money and invested in something so that, if the day ever came that he couldn't refinance and get a mortgage that still made sense, he could just pay it all off and wait until he can get more favorable terms. After some digging, it looks like a 5-year term would be the sweet spot (2.39%) for doing that but that is still significantly riskier than a 3-year fixed rate mortgage like you'd see in the US.

There is risk in owning a home free-and-clear too. It's this big, appreciating (usually) asset and adds a lot of wealth in most cases but it's not a very liquid asset. To capitalize your gains (and you haven't gained squat until you sell) you need to sell the house and move.

That's not to say that paying off a mortgage and owning a home free and clear is always a bad idea for everyone. If you're some kind of free-lancer, for example, you might have a much more erratic cash-flow so minimizing your fixed expenses might be more important than a bit of extra interest.

My point isn't that no one should ever pay off their mortgage. Any time I've ever heard someone talk about paying off a mortgage early, everyone else assumes that it's always a good decision. I think that most people should pay off their mortgage as slowly as possible depending on the rate/terms and those terms have been very advantageous for borrowers for a LONG time.
posted by VTX at 12:26 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


I think that most people should pay off their mortgage as slowly as possible depending on the rate/terms and those terms have been very advantageous for borrowers for a LONG time.

And this comes back to the big issue - public financial education is shit. Most people have little understanding of finance, and worse, many of the supposed "educators" out there on the topic are selling incredibly dangerous snake oil to the masses, by serving up a big toxic helping of debt as moral hazard to the masses.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:31 PM on December 17, 2015


Bulgaroktonos, keeping one's word and legal agreements is to display integrity. Integrity (or lack thereof) is a moral issue, no?

In any case, being beholden to others who can ruin your life (with lawsuits and judgments and debt collecting phone calls and destroying your credit) if you come into hard times is a stress inducing life strategy. Much better, if possible, to get out from under unsecured debt as soon as possible. Of course a home is secured debt, but even then owning it outright (unless you have the money saved in the bank to pay the mortgage off in full) means no worry that if you lose your job you lose your home. Financial security, including ownership of your residence and/or emergency savings to cover you for at least 6 months if you're renting is the way to go for a less stressful life and I'm not sure why anyone would demonize someone who worked hard to get into that position. When he loses his job for whatever reason he will have a much easier time of it than a neighbor who didn't work so hard to pay off the mortgage or build up emergency savings. You can rail against the system and raise your fist at the injustice but it's you who gets hurt if you don't plan ahead for the hard times (ie no job, emergencies, etc). I have been poor and on food stamps and living paycheck to paycheck and it was incredibly stressful. So kudos to those who finds safe ways out of that situation as he did.
posted by TestamentToGrace at 1:24 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


When you borrow money, you promise to pay it back. That's a moral vow.

I can tell you first-hand that the people at the bank only care about anyone paying back their loan in so far as default rate is a metric on which their job performance (and at a higher level, the company's stock performance) is measured.
posted by VTX at 2:01 PM on December 17, 2015 [2 favorites]


Bulgaroktonos, keeping one's word and legal agreements is to display integrity. Integrity (or lack thereof) is a moral issue, no?

It's weird how the lack of integrity always on the person borrowing money to pay for shelter, or medical treatment, and not the person profiting massively off the misery of others. The system is rigged. It hurts some people so that other people can live lavishly. Any analysis of the morality of the system has to start and basically end with that fact. To do anything else actively supports evil in the world.

In any event, contracts are different animals than "your word" or a private promise. A contract means simply that if you don't keep you pay damages; they aren't moral documents. Debt, specifically, is bound by laws that acknowledge that a certain significant portion of people aren't going to pay back their debts. Some mortgages are signed with the knowledge that under certain circumstances (varying by state, obviously) I can walk away. Every credit card and loan is issued against the backdrop of laws that let me declare bankruptcy and not pay back the debt. The ideas you're expressing are just class warfare of the haves against the have-nots.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 2:03 PM on December 17, 2015 [9 favorites]


Viewing debt as a moral issue is a weapon that class uses against the lower classes

It is interesting in that context to note how many times Trump has failed to repay his debts, and how despite what should be a financial and moral abyss, is somehow "respected"* as a businessman and leader.

*sorry, I just can't without the quote marks.
posted by Dashy at 2:44 PM on December 17, 2015 [4 favorites]


Viewing debt as a moral issue is a weapon that class uses against the lower classes; that view is harmful and ruins actual people's lives to enrich people who already have plenty. Fuck that view. It is evil.

It's funny to see the split between the blue and the green, or even other threads on this site. There's been asks where almost every response was something about how you had a Moral Duty and were a leeching drain on society if you defaulted on a loan.
posted by emptythought at 3:25 PM on December 17, 2015


Bulgaroktonos, keeping one's word and legal agreements is to display integrity. Integrity (or lack thereof) is a moral issue, no?

As VTX says I guarantee that people who actually work in finance don't tend to think of consumer credit in moralistic terms. Your "integrity" as a borrower is assessed by credit rating agencies, condensed into a number, and attached to your name for all to see. It's not much like a loan from your friend. The consequences of insolvency are real and no one here means to suggest you should not carefully avoid the possibility, just that you shouldn't feel bad about taking full advantage of the mechanisms that are in place to protect you as a borrower. Richer people than you sure aren't, and they are the ones you have to worry about exploiting the system in a meaningful way.
posted by atoxyl at 3:28 PM on December 17, 2015 [1 favorite]


There's been asks where almost every response was something about how you had a Moral Duty and were a leeching drain on society if you defaulted on a loan.

Recently?
posted by atoxyl at 3:31 PM on December 17, 2015


I'm personally frugal and always have been, but my adherence to thrift is based in notions of balance, want, living light, and resource management (along with a gamification of it - I love being able to reduce, reuse and recycle as much as I can - although this does lead to an occasional purging of empty glass jars that I've hoarded). I've seen the thrift culture bubble up over the last decade or so, and have come to the conclusion that for some, it was a revelation about the quality of their lives, while for others it was just another indication that The Dream is massively rigged and they're just trying to get by. You can stretch a penny into a copper line, but it's not going to fix the systemic problems with our profoundly broken economy. And honestly, even with sane housing, healthcare and transportation systems, with BGI and free, well-funded education, with state spending on infrastructure, with a thousand other things that could be done to make everyone's life better, at the relatively small cost to a few - even with all that, there will still be space for people like me, the frugal and thrifty.

There will always be pennies to pinch. Let's just try to have a world where we're not reduced to pinching pennies.
posted by eclectist at 3:49 PM on December 17, 2015 [3 favorites]


The poor failing to pay their debts is a massive moral issue. The rich failing to pay their debts is just How Things Are Done.
posted by rmd1023 at 5:00 AM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]


I agree it's immoral to break promises made to people but, no matter how much anyone disagrees, corporations are not people and they are not moral entities. Some companies might try to instill some morals into corporate culture but that is the exception than the rule, especially with banks. They don't have morals and they don't expect you to have any either. All morality requires is that you don't break the law, anything else is fair game.
posted by VTX at 8:18 AM on December 18, 2015 [1 favorite]


On preview: no one is attacking this particular guy. It's the larger phenomenon, which the Slate piece shows arose post-2008 Recession, of scolding people in financial straits for not being frugal enough. It's the people using stories like this guy to wag their finger at the poor and say, "See, if only you wasteful cretins could control yourselves you would have no problems."

I don't know, I'm judging him a little. Between working 100 hours a week and not spending any money except on essentials, I'm kinda surprised he has friends to show up to his "I'm finally free" party. Maybe this is a little too close to home for me, as I have a few friends at this point in their life where they're buying big houses, then immediately going into austerity mode and you barely see them anymore. I just can't imagine being a single guy in 2012, seeing the economy and thinking 'I need a big, $425,000 house right now'.

I can see I'm pretty biased in this anyways, but congrats to this guy. I hope he actually enjoys the fruits of his labor.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:03 PM on December 18, 2015 [2 favorites]


« Older Myth and reality of the Hardanger fiddle and...   |   Seasonal Hazards Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments