apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Complexity is the spice of life.

I agree 100%, Maxwell.
Just reading this makes me feel encouraged.

We were amused yesterday at the Container Store to see how aggressively they were flogging Real Simple, the magazine that tells you what 17 items you need in order to do PERFECTLY something that worked just fine before their intervention.

(No, I was not buying storage. I was buying a silver wire CD rack to turn into a repair garage and donut shop for 1:24 Homies.)

Interesting. It's funny because in some ways, I was thinking how my avid reading of this blog has turned me MORE obsessed with not just having stuff but having the *right* stuff for my apartment which almost turns the focus MORE on consumption. That might not be the *intention* of the blog, but I'm just saying that sometimes, all this "information" that is available here and elsewhere on the web and in magazines, and most of it centered around advertising products, well, it makes me kind of a crazy consumer. I agree with you, I just don't know how this can happen...I guess I feel fortunate to be in the upper eschelon of people in this country and on the planet that has the luxury of worrying about simplifying my life instead of how I'm going to make next month's rent payment or put food on the table (and not whether that table is Eames or a knockoff or whatever...)

In my opinion, it's rooted in fleeting comfort of accumulation and consumption meeting an economy that seems to hinge on people buying more than what they need. Depression and WWII-era home economic values, once handed down as something to be admired and hopefully adapted for one's own life, are now viewed as quaint and archaic, and by some, faintly un-American or at the very least sanctimonious. I'm seeing this in my own family as my husband and I make decisions for our lives and our daughter's. Some dear, beloved relatives can become defensive and somewhat aggressive when we talk about limiting toys, television, etc. They assume judgement of their lifestyles, battlelines of a sort, and perhaps on some level they are right. But I often remember something my father said when I was young, "Don't forget we're only three generations away from poor dirt farmers" (I think it was in response to our family's buying a bigger house and possibly my own sixth grade snobbery). Three generations isn't that long. At the risk of sounding alarmist, I just don't want to be that encumbered by things if the economy once again takes a disasterous turn... plus, it's easier to keep the apartment clean.

Hipsters don't have money and they always think they're cool. I'm not so sure being a yuppie is cool, but it does allow you to buy more things at DWR.

You are selling "life style" on Apartment Therapy as well. You can use modify this with whatever adjectives you choose ("balanced" "quality"
"simple" etc), and in opposition to the "the Donald Trump lifestyle," as you put it, but in the end it amounts to the same thing: life + style. Which is to say: I access my life through the creation of "style," ie buying things.
Attention AT shoppers, discount in aisle 4.

correction: it's 'cool' to affect a slightly poorer aesthetic if you are actually a right wing bazillionaire in the public eye. but only during photo ops on TV. for instance GWB four-wheelering it around his huge zillion dollar ranch in dirty old wranglers from walmart. or Toby Keith, Larry The Cable Guy, and the rest of those guys who've staked a career as salt-of-the-earth downhome types.

but if you're not famous and actually super-wealthy and doing it for strategic PR purposes, no, it's consume consume consume all the way.

as to Christine's comment -- yeah, i sometimes get wrapped up in that, too. there's a little bit about the whole 'design' culture that projects an attitude that actually, a $5000 dining room table is downright economical. luckily for me, however, i'm way too poor for that sort of thing to be in any way realistic, so it's not like this site actually influences me in that direction. more often it helps me to see how silly some $50 gadget really is, or how i could actually fake that same look for a tenth of the price via thrift shops and DIY.

Long before AT I tried to live by the mantra "Have nothing in your homes you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful."
Reading this site and things like it have helped me rid my life of certain possessions in favor of others. In doing so I've had the opportunity to donate many things - furniture, dishes, clothing - to organizations that will pass them on to people who really need them. In that way, me consuming "more" - meaning filling my life with DIFFERENT things than those I used to have - is doing some good for both my own psyche and, hopefully, in some small way, the lives of others.
So maybe certain consumption isn't so bad?

It's hard not to be depressed about not being wealthy when you're living in a city where people who make 100k + are considered middle-class and the average apartment price is a million bucks. Knowing that, unless you win lotto or make a mid-life career change into finance, you'll never own your own place is a pretty sad state of affairs.

One of the best pieces of movie wisdom that's wormed its way into my brain is Brad Pitt's line from Fight Club:

"The things you own end up owning you."

I've made up my mind to be stay mostly with affordable high-carb furniture. Money's not a huge problem for me, but I'd much rather buy a cheap Ikea chair and customize it with a can of spray paint, rather than invest in a Kartell chair or BluDot shelving. Since joining Netflix I've stopped collecting DVDs for the most part. I can go window shopping the whole weekend and not buy a single trinket.

It's really liberating, to not own anything.

Now if my next door neighbor wants to plonk $1000 on a coffee table because of the magic letters E-A-M-E-S or whatever--that's his lifestyle and if he can afford to keep it up, I'm happy for him.

But for me, I've got everything I need, and there's nothing I want.

Except good food. But that's another topic.

Maxwell -- right on! Unfortunately we live in a country where our president encourages us to go shopping after 9/11, and where folks are delusional about where their energy comes from; and what impact their glutonous lifestyle has on the world.

Simple is the way to go, especially when done with style!

Amen. I'm one generation away from a very close-to-the-bone existence -- my parents did what I now see was a great job of making do with very little. That, combined with my half-assed environmentalism, has influenced my outlook enormously. But I guess it's eaiser to understand all this consumption if you think about how hard life was for so many people until, really, the 1940s -- for example, my mom grew up on a farm and they didn't have electricity until the mid- to late 1930s, and that was thanks to the New Deal . . . So maybe people are swinging too far in the other direction, with plenty of nudges from marketers who insist that we deserve luxury and comfort and if we don't go out and buy a lot of crap we'll be at a huge disadvantage vis-a-vis everyone else. I feel like I'm the only person in America who doesn't have (and/or yearn for) an ipod, a cell phone, a dishwasher, a microwave, a (large) house, a car, etc., etc. Most of the time I don't think twice about it but every once in a while it occurs to me, for example, that most people (even the ones I know and love) find it unfathomable that I would opt for for mass transit and/or self-transit, because these are seen as "loserish" ways of getting around -- they are beyond the pale. It's not that I don't consume -- because I do, most certainly. And it's not that I think everyone else should necessarily do without any or all of these things, if they really enjoy having them. It's just that most people, my friends included, tend to speak of things that I would consider luxuries (or, even worse, as wasteful items) as absolute necessities -- they wouldn't think of NOT having them. And don't get me started on the parents who justify wasteful consumption because it's for the kids!

If you really want to be simple, there's this group called the Amish...honestly, there are other people out there living simply, too. But, I have found it difficult to live simply, living where I do in the sort of "professional class." Every time I try to reel in my budget, it's blown out of the water by things I feel I'm expected to do...but I'll save it for my journaling!

Anyway, opoponax, no $5000 dining tables here either...though sometimes I get the impression that there's a gaping hole in my life because I don't have one... :)

Mary, ditto here...my mom's family didn't have indoor plumbing until they moved when she was 10 or 12--and that would have been, oh, 1958. And, I totally respect your lifestyle, because I've gotten to that point where I'm used to silly things like dishwashers, central air, and garbage disposals that I myself didn't have until a few years ago! (could do without the disposal and dishwasher, but the central air...call me a consumer! :))

To the opoponax: couldn't agree more. Well put. The "just folks", "aw-shucks" tone of some current pop and presidential culture has muddied the already dark waters obscuring genuine struggle. The trust-fund cowboy can "yee-haw" til the cows come home, but he's never been hungry and has never known that he can't afford to eat until he works a few hours. Millions (me among them) don't know that feeling either, but most don't pretend we do for the downhome points the pose might earn.

And regarding your approach to AT, I see it the same way. Great to read it. Wonder how many out there do see it the same way. This site seems to be the unexpected common ground of those with constrained means and those with far less limited ones, all of us trying to see life, space, and yes, lifestyle, as an active, thoughtful process. I think the range of what the various readers of AT would be willing to pay for the ideal sofa would be illuminating and actually pretty great. Beauty is a big tent. It's too much stuff, flat out over-consumption, that seems worrisome.

I'm sorry, but I have mixed emotions on this.

I love nice things. I buy things others would think too expensive or frivolous. But I don't travel extensively or eat out a lot so I *can* acquire the things I like.

I also collect art. By doing so, I'm helping to support a system of creativity. Yes, it is a consumer industry as much as the Gap. But, um, consumer industries pretty much keep food on all our tables, no?

I'm kind of tired of having to feel sheepish or apologetic about the things I can and chose to afford.

I don't have an ipod, cellphone, dishwasher, microwave, or more than broadcast tv cable ($9/mo!). Mary, you are not alone. Some of it is that I can't afford it, some is that I can't be bothered. But I also don't register any flak for these choices. Sometimes AT falls into that "Real Simple" make everything perfect, pretty, pretty lifestyle territory and it really annoys me and I have to take a break.

Funny... P2 would rather collect nice things than eat out or travel. I'm completely the other way around.

I'd much rather spen $500 on a memorable but fleeting French Laundry meal than buy a good solid Eames chair.

Just goes to show, it's what you do with your money. If it makes you happy, and you're not hurting anyone, you shouldn't have to apologize for your lifestyle.

now wait. we do realize that 'carb' vs. 'protein' furniture has little to do with price and designer/brand, and everything to do with quality, right?

i mean, do i need to spend $2500 on a brand new solid wood custome shelving unit from Room & Board just to display a few knicknacks? no. but just because i'm poor doesn't mean i have to have shitty particleboard ones from k-mart, either. in fact, i would consider most of my furniture at this point to be 'protein' -- yet i spent very little money on it, and none of it is from DWR. you CAN have high quality without forking over thousands for frivolous designer names. there's a difference between 'protein' furniture and 'bling' furniture.

P2:
Part of what I took from the post was the sentiment that you should feel good about what you choose to own.

Choosing quality often means that what you purchase may be considered "too expensive" by others. The fact that you choose to make your home beautiful with art and that you make other compromises (eating in, limiting travel) to do so, feels like the point of the whole issue to me. It's about balance, not thoughtless acquistion.

I feel like your comment was in keeping with the spirit of the piece, at least to me...

and one more thing.

yes, i have a cell phone. it's my main phone number, and i spend less on it than most people do on their landlines. and since i move every couple years, it saves me the connection and disconnection fees.

yes, i have an ipod. but i also have an hour long subway commute every day, and being able to slip the ipod in my pocket and go and not having to worry that i'll get tired of this CD, or need new batteries, or whatever is more practicality than luxury for me. i've had my ipod for two years, and considering that a discman eats something $10-20 a month in batteries which then have to go to a landfill, it's not a terribly un-economic choice either.

now it's true that i don't have a dishwasher or central AC or cable, but i'm sure there are people who would choose those over an ipod and a cell phone for their own similar reasons. i don't think it's fair to say "i'm not part of the problem because i don't have an ipod" or whatever. i mean if you don't feel you need one, bravo. but that doesn't make those of us who find them useful evil consumerist villains.

Shelby, loved your last paragraph.
And opoponax - you made me proud ;)

Did I say you were an evil consumerist villain? Because I'm sure you're not, any more than I am. Although I might be, because when a sponge looks a little too gross to me I don't monkey about washing it in a dishwasher or nuking it or whatever--I toss it and get a fresh one. Just to reference a recent discussion that drove me nuts.

But there are certain things that others assume everyone has or wants--the cable tv or cellphone assumption is one I've gotten. In the AT book it's that of course having your music on the computer is a good idea. Sometimes it's a little tiring to keep saying, "No I disagree, that's a stupid idea for me."

it's not that i saw you as accusing me of that, it's just that these discussions (in real life as much as here) often degenerate to "I'm not a consumerist whore because i don't have x." and it's just not that simple. it's much more about having what you need and doing what is practical for you. which both of us apparently understand. so no hard feelings.

I think there's a very interesting little relationship between spending and eating and filling up (and/or emptying) space.

Diets and budgets are very similar, and de-cluttering (often referred as "purging"!) is considered to be about freeing things up and allowing you to be able to move around more, which dieting tends to sort of be about.

I think that song that Maxwell refers to came about during The Great Depression when not having money was just about the way everyone lived. Some people dealt with it more creatively than others. My grandmother bought one of the first washers and dryers on her block, but then she bartered the use of it for eggs that one neighbor sold, and other vegetable that others grew. So, much of the same stuff ended up happening and yet there were still classes; people who had no money weren't necessarily considered poor, because no one really had any.

Several songs from that era referred to valuing love over money -- "just Molly and me and baby makes three; we're happy in My Blue Heaven" for instance.

I think in Manhattan, we're all so much in each other's faces that we're just very, very aware of what each other has, and so it's pretty easy to covet other people's stuff. And if you DON'T live here, the TV still shows you everyone's stuff.

Some people consider the very fact of living in a big city its own reward.

People tend to be offended by other people spending too much, eating too much, and filling up too much space, whether it's with their bodies or just their "stuff", and in some ways people are marking their territory in those same ways.

I really like things to look nice, and even though I'd love to believe that I work out because it will keep me healthy, the truth is I want to look better AND make my apartment feel bigger! Do I need more money? Absolutely. But not if it's going to make me HAVE to spend even more money on exponentially more impressive clothes.

The new "keeping up with the Joneses" will apparently be "keeping up with the simple, pared-down life of the Joneses".

Feeling guilty about not being a 100% conscious consumer is the same thing as feeling sorry for yourself because your neighbor has MORE stuff, IMO.

However, working your fingers to the bone to be able to afford a $5,000 table you're too busy working to visit is a mistake.

One of ongoing tensions in this site as a whole is between "protein" goods (which tend to be spendy) and "fashion" goods (which appear under slinks, among other places). Unless one has a lot of loose change in the sofa cushions, what is the point in buying best-quality items that will soon go aggressively OUT of style?

My theory is that one should buy housewares at a price point that leads to the happy result of the item wearing out just as you're sick of it anyway, with an initial capital cost where you don't feel guilty about replacing it.

We tried the "everything classic forever" simplicity approach, and for me, it's just a way to end up hating one's dishes in two years. And it's not like Real Simple doesn't change its mind about what's "classic" each year.

But wende, I think there are exceptions...

I bought a Tizio lamp full retail in college for an apartment I didn't even own yet, made with tip money working as the coatcheck boy in a gay bar in Providence... did my friends think I was crazy at the time for spending my money that way? You betcha.

Do I still have, love, and use the lamp? You betcha.

And I don't care what other people choose to do or not do, buy or not buy... as long as:
A) They do not judge me if my choices are different.
B) They don't resent me because my choices are different.
C) They don't try to preach to me about how their choices are superior.

That's not buying trendy to update your fashion, though, p(too). That's buying an item that *happens* to be trendy, but buying it because it speaks to you and you love it forever, and it makes total sense to pay for quality because it's YOU.

But I have no problem with people defining themselves through their purchases -- or spending money they have on stuff they want. You had the money, however much you had to scrimp to get it. You bought the lamp. It brought you more happiness than other ways you could have spent the money. Happy ending!

The consumer goods we eschew are ones that would not personally bring us happiness. It's not an anti-consumerist position so much as an anti-dusting, anti-paying-more-rent one.

But, P2, are you unhappy? What I saw at my last workplace were a lot of people who spent a lot of money on a lot of things and were profoundly unhappy. Because of debt, they couldn't take a break from working. Because of peer pressure, they overspent on things like clothing and home improvements, and they were angry about the peer pressure and angry about the overspending. They had no free time because they were either shopping or maintaining their possessions. One expense led to another: the big house led to the gardener and the housekeeper and the commute and so on and so forth. These people felt very trapped.

I don't want to live that way, and I suspect you don't either. I think simple living is less about what you buy/how much it costs than being conscious about money and spending, as well as how possessions and maintaining status can trap you.

"Side By Side," "Any Place I Hang My Hat Is Home," "Give Me The Simple Life" . . . weren't all those songs written during the Depression? The Gold Digger movies from the 30s provide a very entertaining education in how much American values have changed thanks to consumerism becoming the dominant ideology.

JefferyK--

Good points, all.

Sadly, the only thing making me feel trapped these days is Manhattan real estate prices. :P

“… that most people (even the ones I know and love) find it unfathomable that I would opt for for mass transit and/or self-transit, because these are seen as "loserish" ways of getting around...” Word, Mary. Sometimes I serioulsy think that my suburban friends and family perceive city-living like I’m living in a developing country –without an SUV, central air, and no jacuzzi! And you have to share transportation with other people! Mercy!

On public transportaion (and sorta on-topic) I saw the excellent documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” this weekend and I strongly recommend seeing it if you are part of the anti-Hummer, anti-corporate, pro-environment, simple-living choir. The argument that the filmmaker makes about the Hummer killing the electric car movement is really a sad commentary about not “living simple.”

On "protein" vs "carbs" the point is to have some of each - my cookware is All-Clad and I hope to never have to buy pots again. My sofa is comfy down and when I tire of the slipcover I think white will be the next choice. Sure, it's consumerism, but it's more earth-friendly to buy a new slipcover than to toss out a whole sofa.

I've had the same big piece of art on my wall for 13 years and I still love it just as much.

But bedding? I change the look so much it's unbelievable.

The lucky among us know our tastes very well (that Tizio lamp, yum!) but there is a human need for novelty, too, which is why some people love to live in places where there are differentiated seasons, why we go to museums when the exhibitions change, and why we look forward to the next photo on our calendars.

Obsese glutton or anoxeric, the issue is still food, or in the case of this site, furniture.

Interesting the anxiety that the topic of consumption generates here, with the catalogs of things bought or not bought, relative poverty among family members past.

Americans manufacture very little; our consumption drives the global economy. Boats come here filled with goods and leave empty, for lack of exportable items. Although this should be disastrous for the value of the dollar -- and interest rates should have to go up, cooling your next home purchase or credit card spree --- so far this has not happened, thanks to China buying US bonds. Good thing that they shot those people on Tiananmen Square!

So instead of dithering about IKEA or DWR, you might think about who wins and who loses under current circumstances, dear Shopper.

"Unless one has a lot of loose change in the sofa cushions, what is the point in buying best-quality items that will soon go aggressively OUT of style?"

i think it depends on scope, as well as on the degree to which it will really go out of style.

i bought the $2 crate & barrel stemless wineglasses rather than the $30 reidel 'originals' because, let's be honest here, the current trend of stemless stemware is just that -- a trend.

but i'd pay $300 for a substantial solid-wood bookcase over $50 on the Ikea Billy line because i really don't think i'm going to suddenly start hating simple solid wood bookshelves or they're going to magically go out of style or something. how much more 'basic' and 'classic' can you get than quality wood and solid construction?

and i don't think an occasional splurge on a tizio lamp or an eames chair is such a terrible thing. but i think there are intelligent ways of doing that, and wasteful ways of doing that. i don't mind gradually saving up for that eames lounger -- if it's still "a timeless classic" and something i crave in 5 years when i've finally come up with the cash, then sure. i spent 2 years deciding that getting an iBook was the right choice for me over a PC or a desktop or one of the other Mac models. and 6 months into owning that iBook, i know i made the right choice. there's nothing wrong with spending money that way.

i think as long as people are honest with themselves and use honest language about the purchases they're making and the reasoning behind those purchases, sure whatever.

I find this discussion interesting. We have tried to scale back and find that with a few categorical exceptions, we do well on less. We do not limit kids books, or most kids toys, but we don't buy the disposable type of toy anymore. We do find ourselves in strange company in our "professional" class because we do not have plasma or flat screen tvs (our 1987 and 1995 tvs work just fine). We don't have ipods. We just bought a digital camera. We have an american car. We have a decent although not luxurious apartment in a good neighborhood. We can afford and choose private school. But on the whole, we still find the comparisons to others' consumption amazing. I am less concerned than my husband, but I do feel that between marketing and innovation, there is a constant pressure to expend and consume in this city and to do it qualitatively. Sometimes for fun I make myself do the whole day on $5 excluding transportation. I feel like I beat the system on those days.

I am definitely part of the anti-Hummer movement.

Wait, that's not *entirely* true...!

Rick, I think I love you.

AS the catfood commercial kitty says, "I have very simple tastes. I only want the very best." (Why should a cat give Oscar Wilde his props?)

I have more "classic" tastes than a lot of the things shown on this site, but I appreciate the emphasis on reducing the overall volume of out & out crap in our lives, so I keep coming back. And for the record, I've seen some pretty carb-like things at DWR compared to my $50 yardsale deco dresser, bought in about 1989. I admit I'm getting a little tired of it, but every time I shop for a replacement, I find that I can't get anything like the solid quality of it for a price I pay without selling an organ or two.

I may need to go to more suburban yard sales. (Gahhh, trees & SUVs!)

Alex, I'm impressed you can do the whole day in this city on $5. I haven't been able to do that since the mid 70's. Rent excluded of course.

And p(too) I so feel your pain about NYC real estate.

I think buying an ipod/cell phone/piece of furniture/etc. is very different than upgrading said device every time a new model is made available.

I buy what I love and can see loving for years to come. Sometimes that is a current trendy item and sometimes it's something that my friends respond to with "You paid money for that?" And I always opt for quality.

Funny aside - Only last week did I replace my original cell phone that I bought 7? 8? years ago. The guys at the store had a good laugh at my expense. It only now stopped working, why replace it any sooner?? Yes, I know that prettier models have been available for some time now...

I think three things have helped me limit my consumption:

- Take time to make a purchase decision: research it, think about it, take time to get comfortable with it, determine the durability of it.

- Think about how often I'll use it. If I'll use it only a few times no matter how little it costs, I try to borrow or to rent it.

- Don't use debt to buy it (with the exception of a home).

Jimkk,
I don't mean to mislead. That $5 does not include the daily share of rent/utilities/groceries etc. It means that between leaving and returning home, I don't spend more than $5. I do it by packing lunch, drinking office water and office coffee and usually splitting an afternoon fruit salad with a friend. That plus one huge coffee does it. I don't do it often but I do it when I feel like I'm bleeding cash, and it makes me feel strong to get through those days.

I just find it strange though -- i look around and everyone drives a bmw or a lexus or an audi, and they have summer homes and fancy vacations and I wonder how they achieve this. We are debt averse, and I suspect that is the difference. We save a substantial portion of our pretax income. But with the RE market, that savings has limited value if you can't invest in anything that keeps up and in recent years, you just can't (unless you become a landlord, which we can't do) - we just can't move every year or two to trade up.

A, the people around you are most likely supporting their lifestyle through debt. When home values were going up 30% a year on the coasts, people pumped their homes for equity to buy SUVs, boats, big-screen TVs, you name it. As recently as seven months ago, newspapers routinely ran articles about how being able to borrow against rapidly increasing equity made people rich (as if they weren't just taking on more debt). This site is a favorite of mine:
http://www.housingbubblecasualty.com/

Sure, it's also possible that some people are scrimping in other areas, have great investments, or otherwise came by their pricey toys without taking on debt. (We can afford to travel because we don't spend in so many other areas, but anyone who knows us sees that we don't have the SUV, the big-screen TV, etc.) But the overall pattern of American life has been the highly debt-leveraged lifestyle.

Out here, housing value in the Central Valley (where investors and the middle class flocked to buy homes semi-affordably) is deflating. Prices have dropped year-over-year; sales are slow; inventory is headed for record highs (even when adjusted for greater population); incentives are everywhere; and adjustable ARMs are starting to adjust in large numbers. While there probably isn't a nationwide housing bubble, the economy in places that *were* bubblelicious will be in real trouble when all that nice home equity loan money dries up, as it's set to do. A lot of people will be selling their toys on eBay or Craig's List.

Sorry for the long posting -- this is something I have strong opinions about.

Do people actually feel pressured into having iPods or mod televisions?

Is this 1957, when people still believed in bandwagon advertising and the like, or just junior high school loserdom fear? Who cares what other people think? Who cares what they have? This is a lower level of consciousness we're talking about. This is the uneducated street kid who has to have Nikes to salve some sort of psychic longing, but do literate grown adults actually worry about what others think about their purchases or lack of?

I do admit to being nonplussed when I'm invited to someone's place and they don't have any books, but that's the limit of my snobbery, and they don't have to be expensive books, just the kind with some pages in them.

L'etranger,
I don't feel "pressured" to acquire stuff, most of which I am too old or tired to learn how to operate until I am forced to in order to surveil my kids' usage. But I do think that in NYC, you are unable to avoid being faced with what people "have". The pressure is to have/acquire/choose things that are "good" or "the best" in some aspect - the best apt for the lowest price/carrying cost in the coolest/smartest/most convenient neighborhood, etc. That you work so hard and so long you should have premium everything because NY is a premium environment. This site, about extracting the premium through deconstructing/decluttering, is merely one reference point to this aesthetic.

I personally do not want to expend more than about $500 total on a TV. It is not important enough in my life to spend that kind of money - that is still a round trip ticket to Europe which is a way better usage if you ask me, even though I can watch the TV every day. I don't want TV to be so important in my life that I do without a trip to Europe for it. And yes, I do not want to be perceived by others as someone who thinks that a TV is worth $500.

We don't suffer that insecurity of keeping up, except in quality. More like, we look at our contemporaries and wonder, are we screwing up? or are we too conservative and debt averse? Are we making a mistake by not adopting a complex capital structure and leveraging our income to live better? (yes, Wende, I agree with you, but here in NYC, apparently everyone and their brother shares in a huge pot of bonus money, so there is not so much debt as you would think). If we had acheived our "number," we would buy the plasma tv and the fancy car - because we would not be concerned with consumption at all. Its not that we can't appreciate those things - we think our funds are better spent elsewhere now and we like not spending.

My questions are not about do I have the cool stuff. I personally want to have less stuff and to consume less by not buying into the "upgrade" mode. There was a great exhibit on this issue at Cooper Hewitt when I first moved to NY. About how product manufacturers decided to use excess production capacity post WWII to convince people that consumer goods, previously having a useful life of 7-10 years, now had a reasonable useful life of 3 years. They did this by changing the external features, not the internal, so that everything looked dated 3 years out.

But L'etranger, that's not my issue. Its not am I choosing the right look to dress up my lack of knowledge/ability/success. I can afford the items, and I have my own taste. I do not want to expend in that area if I don't have to because I do not want to expend at all if I don't have to. It does, however, feel strange to be in this position in an economy where spending money like water when you leave your apartment is the norm. Because we don't invest in plasma screens, and in some ways we live below our means. And the willingness to suffer lower quality in a population that thinks it is/should be the "best" is what makes us feel weird.

To answer your question, however, certainly you must know that there are reams of magazines that are directed to telling people what is "cool" to buy. And in recent years, I think the exponential growth in that field has been in magazines directed at men, and directed at electronics.
A

Also, Maxwell -

there is a great version of this song by Dan Zanes off one of his early kids records (not the del feugos). find it on the festival five site. Very folky, unfinished.
A

Thank you for the well-thought-out reply, A.

I just think it's odd that with a generation of people now who are supposed to be media-literate and supposedly not as susceptible to ad pitches, that this pressure still exists. I used to work in marketing, and remember the "Gen X and Gen Y are so cynical!" pitches. I guess bling won in the end, because people are going into immense debt to upgrade to "the best" or newest instead of to a cell phone that is merely functional. It's got to have bluetooth and a camera and GPS and fit into a lipstick tube. The kitchen counter has to be GRANITE. Hey, it's fine to spend in a profligate way when you're Paris Hilton, but average working stiffs are not satisfied with something that's just very good or supremely useful anymore, and are disappointed when they have to settle.

It's not just NYC. This is an American disease, and it's spreading.

It's one thing to buy a beautiful item from Moss for your own enjoyment but another to covet something as a symbol of one's success for others to admire so that we may be validated. "Check it, I'm discerning!"

It's going to be a hard fall if the economy takes a nosedive and people are going to be left with obsolete status symbols bought on credit to bolster their self-esteem instead of well-funded retirement accounts.

yes, we are all pressured, encouraged, sung to, shown images to buy, buy, buy. we live in a consumer society and we can't escape it and some of us heed the call more than others. so i bought that commes de garcons jacket at barneys on 17th street in 1988 when i couldn't afford it but i loved it, wore it it hung in the closet untill 1998 when i donated to a charity thrift shop. it was a thing that was used and reused by someone else.

L'etranger, ALL people define themselves in some way by what they buy or don't buy or what they have and don't have...that's just the way it is. It's not a matter of "believing" in bandwagon advertising. Humans have an innate desire to compare themselves to those in proximity to themselves as a measure of how they "fit," whether that is by calling themselves by the title of Camus works and holding people in disdain who don't have a sufficient library or by comparing their Honda to their neighbor's Lexus. That is how advertising works...by making you think you're missing out on something essential in life. Not everyone succumbs to every single ad--but everyone succumbs to engaging in some kind of social comparison through their possessions.

I feel like A sometimes....wondering why, what I'm doing wrong, that I don't own real estate or have a fancy car when it appears everyone else does. The fact of the matter is that not everyone does, just many people in areas where I circulate. I'm listening to a book now during my commute "The Cheating Culture" by David Callahan, who credits (partially) this comparing to the Joneses on your block to the rise of cheating in many echelons of society.

Going back to Maxwell's original query/statement, the "simple living movement" is still very very much alive and well. Check out the "Mother Earth News" which has been around for ages. Please, everyone, go to the AT achives and check out the early articles that Maxwell and Oliver wrote on simplicity. Personally, the best use of my money is to buy my freedom. I don't have tons of unneeded and unwanted stuff, but I live close to paradise, eat far too well, create my art, write, and work only when I want to - on my terms.

Some part of me thinks there is a level of this that is unique to NYC - because the density here makes people's choices more obvious in some ways. Yes, there is an advertising component, but there is also more visibility to consumption. (That said, I could furnish homes multiple times over from the retail sites linked on this blog from time to time).

I think advertising says, on some levels, hey, working stiff, these (ipods, decorative objects) are little luxuries - you work hard, you deserve it - think about how much time you spend on the subway, that ipod will pay for itself in 6 months. There is an environmental friendliness - no more baggage of CDs, download it when you want it - buy only the songs you want.

When I first moved to NYC, I bought myself cut flowers all the time. Because I kill every green thing I touch, but I loved coming home to flowers, even when they were on their last legs. It was a little luxury I thought I deserved. Now I have two little flowers to feed and grow so I don't have cut flowers unless someone brings them to me or I buy them for a special family occasion. I respect the flowers I see on other people's tables, I don't denigrate them if they are on their last legs and I don't think ill of people who don't have flowers. I walk by a townhouse in my neighborhood with a spectacular garden pretty regularly, and I go to the conservatory garden, just to enjoy the flowers. I can certainly see how someone wants flowers or ipods or moss vases of CdG jackets. But flowers are just flowers - when did it move up to the big ticket items? Probably it was always there but I never thought about it. Until the last turn, when wealth became a much different concept. Not what was in the bank, but what you consumed and how well you consumed over time.

My apartment risen significantly in value, although the cost is basically the same. It does not provide substantially more joy, just the same basic security - good neighborhood, fair cost. I cannot understand, however, tripling my outlay for 20% more space. I am stuck in a value purchasing rut, but I do not know that the fundamentals on which this is based hold true. Or maybe they do hold true now, after 18 rate increases, and I missed the leveraging opportunity that lower rates offered. That might be my real problem - other people were smarter about their debt because they took better advantage of the lower rates. I never had credit card or student loan debt to repay, so I did not need to refinance non-deductible interest into deductible interest, but I know people that did that, and that certainly created more "disposable" income.

But I think we all deal with competing feelings - successfully not consuming, and the feeling that we are not consuming wisely, based in part on the information we have about what others consume. That's why this is not really about labeling or cheating or keeping up with the Joneses. Its more like, am I correctly weighing the risks/rewards of consuming or not consuming based on the information I have accessed? Am I looking at the right information? Even savers face this issue - am I overpaying for this investment opportunity over the term of its expected life? Am I living as well as I can on the amount I am willing to spend? That, I think, is what people compare themselves to.
A

Right on Christine. No matter how anti-establishment or individual, unique etc. we think we are, there are certain human traits that seem unchangeable.

As to what you said A, a lot of it makes sense and I am impressed with the amount of thought you have put into it. However, your comment about how nyc is different in that you cannot escape the tremendous shows of wealth and the huge disparities between the just one group as an example, such as the shrinking middle class vs the wealthy (there are many many areas in the US where 100K salary will let you live "wealthily" but not in nyc) does lend itself to more comparisons between self and others.

I commend you on your way of thinking in your last paragraph but I don't think it is that easy to do for a lot of ppl in nyc.

More thoughts on that here:
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/apartment-therapy-on/aparment-therapy-on-mania-002287

I think I'm thinking a lot about this because of that book I'm listening to (I actually think it would be better to be reading it, but it's nice to have something somewhat interesting to listen to in the car)...it's so spot on and something I recognize in myself, talking about how lifestyles portrayed in the media and our neighbors' consumption encourage us to up the ante. I think the thing is that when we see people around us or characters on TV/in films that we identify with living a certain way (whether it is with high end cars, a certain sofa, or electronics), we expect that we should have them and if we don't, we're doing something wrong. It creates dissatisfaction with our own lives. This morning's chapters were quite illuminating, saying how the way "normal" people are shown in the media has gone from truly being "normal" (on an income needed to live that way basis) to being very upper class. There's nothing particularly earth shattering in the book, but it's made me think about it in a way I had not...and to reflect on lifestyle choices I make every day. Like getting Starbucks coffee when I have coffee in the office...do I REALLY like the coffee more, or do I just buy it because that's what I see others doing? From small things like that to bigger things...I definitely know that my perception of what is an appropriate expenditure on products and services has expanded faster than my income has increased!

This thread reminds me of an old roommate. He moved in when another old roommate, who left me her old TV, moved out.

The new roommate, an old friend, was utterly dismayed by the old TV, and had to run out to buy a new, huge one immediately. He was convinced that a TV without a remote control could not be connected to cable! It was like it was some prehistoric thing in our house and it was probably 10 years old.

I didn't blame him for wanting a new TV (although I was way more productive with no cable!), but his utter horror at the lack of the remote still cracks me up.

When did "simple living" go from "build one's own hut from mud bricks, with solar panels and a well" to "don't go into debt to buy things you don't want much anyway"?

I'm all for avoiding debt and clutter and waste, but I find it fascinating that what used to be common sense now requires a social movement behind it.

Loving the FEVOR of this thread! Wende, it's true, simplicity isn't what it used to be.

Just wanted to comment on the fevor (righteous/defensiveness) a bit: this (STUFF, whatkindofSTUFF, howmuchSTUFF, allabouttheSTUFF,mymostamazingbetterthanyoursneighborhoodSTUFF is really all about that fact that we (collective US) have no political voice/nerve anymore. Our power is more quickly 'voiced' with shopping trends (including simplicity etc.) than it is politically, despite the fact that we all can (and should) vote, become informed, know what Congress is talking about etc.

A very interesting book which details the confluence of 'lifestyle' and politics is "A Clustered Workd" by Michael Weiss, which profiles all of the 64 US (and related overseas) clusters of consumer spending, and how they correlate to larger socio-economic and political trends.

No one wants to be 'in the cluster', alas, we all sound very "Bohemian Mix", "Urban Gold Coast" or "New Eco-Topia" - inlcuding yours truly.

J

I'm not too surprised, wende, when I read about average credit card debt in the US and realize what people are spending it on.

People used to have savings, but now it seems that surplus cash is mostly spent on "lifestyle accessories".

Shopping seems to be the number one weekend activity for many. Most Americans don't declutter - they just add to the stack o' stuff.

Having a $5,000 table is not the same as having a fully-funded retirement account, no debts besides a mortgage, three months expenses in the bank and a $5,000 table. Having things that rich people have doesn't make you rich.

Fiona -
Your room mate was sooooo wrong about not being able to hook up cable to a remoteless TV!

That 1981 Zenith that I customized to make look Baroquen in the early 1990's, which you see in my pictures had no remote and STILL doesn't.

The way I change the channels on it is with the cable remote itself!

Since mine was kind of ugly, I went ahead and had fun with it, and now I'd rather eat glass than have it go away, because there is no plasma TV in the world that I'd rather have than mine which looks like Queen Victoria, or Mae West or Liberace or Louis XVI owned it.

Michael Weiss has got to be affording $5000 tables with all the money he's made on the clusters...my company alone spends $$ on getting this info from Claritas. We use it to try to determine who will live downtown or in a certain area for our downtown revitalization projects, but most people use them for marketing STUFF. It's all based on what stuff you buy...very revealling. Good call, Jess.

On the topic of TVs, someone told me the other day that in a few years, all tube TVs will be obsolete--as in, completely unusable because they'll be incompatable with the format of data coming into them. Anyone know if this is true?

Christine -
I shan't take it well when that happens, but methinx I had heard that would be in 2004, and it didn't happen. I shall put off worrying about it until I have to, and then I'll be on here with the "good question" of who knows where mine can be retro-fitted with a tiny plasma.

Meanwhile, I'm set.

HOWEVER... as far as all kinds of other ways, like buying new clothes to fit my slightly smaller carcass in? I'm still pretty much of a consumer there.

I agree that many Americans worship at the altar of the mall and give in willingly to marketers, and I am dismayed by conspicuous consumption of all stripes. I've stopped buying "lifestyle magazines" because I know I can't live up to ideal they represent, and I'll try to convince myself that I can afford the $5,000 table. (I tell my husband they're bad for America, because they encourage us to buy things we don't need to live up to an rarified ideal. Same reason I won't buy fashion mags...)

But I have to point out, in response to Valerie's concern about the average consumer debt, that not everyone who carries these debts have been spending recklessly on "lifestyle accessories." The fact is that millions of Americans have had to rely on credit cards to get by, day by day. They charge groceries, clothes and school supplies for their kids, prescriptions, gas...the list goes on and on. I can imagine that in some circles, like those most who post here probably travel in, you never encounter these people.

There's a book called The Two Income Trap that talks about how two-income, upwardly mobile, middle class families in America are in financial trouble, not because they live lavish lifestyles, but because the basics cost more today.

I know this sounds sanctimonious, but if you've got $5000 burning a hole in your wallet, you might consider more charitable things to do with it besides throwing it at a dining room table, especially knowing that some of your fellow citizens are paying 24% interest on a $3 package of bologna so their kids don't have to go to bed on an empty stomach again.

I don't know if simplicity isn't what it used to be. People are still choosing to drop out of the dominant culture. Maybe the usage of the terminology has changed to reflect recent social and economic developments.

One difference today is what Valerie pointed out: the incredible amount of debt Americans are taking on. The U.S. savings rate is a negative number, most Americans don't put any money away for retirement, and most Americans don't have the means to cope with emergencies. It's true that housing and health care costs have shot through the roof while wages haven't kept up with inflation. But it's also true that living within your means--which, as Wende pointed out, used to be considered common sense, and not that long ago--now seems like a radical idea.

Debt--like consumption--has many personal, social, economic, and political implications. I've learned a lot about these implications from reading this thread.

The timing of this thread is remarkable. Despite (or perhaps because of) all the cultural taboos surrounding discussions of money, we're scrambling to turn over this neglected rock and see what's really underneath -- examining individual inclinations as well as larger demographic ones. Oh god, is this the vanguard of a soon-to-be-named cluster: the consumption conscious consumers? (ulg)

Along the lines of something Wende wrote, when did living within ones means become a self-conscious act? Or perhaps the question might be, when did "within our means" become fluid to the point of having almost no meaning at all? Yes, consumer credit offers a certain illusion, an artificial extending of the horizon, but it found a population ready, with variying degrees of passion, to embrace the illusion. Debt is so ubiquitous that it's easy not to see it anymore, but as I sit here about to make a credit card payment, the memories of debt clusters pop out like some previously unseen pattern in the wallpaper: me, my husband, nearly everyone in my college dorm, nearly my whole family, nearly my whole class in grad school, nearly all my students, friends, coworkers, bosses, neighbors...

I for one hate hearing myself talk when the subject of our own recent austerity measures comes up -- almost nothing I say, no matter how I say it, doesn't feel tinged with self-rightiousness. Yet, collectively and indivisually, where are we headed if we don't talk about it? All we can do, I think, is to keep it out there, living down the rough edges until the self-consiousness is worn away away and it becomes just the way we live now.

Shelby,

Well, if we are talking debt, I am still astonished that there is not more of an outcry about academic debt in this country. As tuition continues to grow, it's definitely contributing to the widening gulf between the rich and poor. And to stay middle class (receive a college education and even, increasingly, get a graduate education), many people choose to go into debt.

Sure, it's "good" debt, like a mortgage, but it just seems as though we are passively sitting by until the tuition becomes so huge that only the rich will be able to go to a 4-year college. Meanwhile, there is no move towards affordable technical education or even apprenticeships, to help those who don't go to college find viable alternative employment that is not dead-end.

My friend went to grad school at Oxford and was astonished that people were protesting that their tuition was $1000/semester for UK students. I was like, "Heck, they're smart. We just sit around while ours is hiked to $15k/semester!"

FYI for Christine(in DC) and Curtis: You're thinking of the deadline for all TV signals to switch from analog to digital. The original deadline was April 1, 06, but after some political dickering, it was extended to April 7, 2009. (Click on my name for a news blurb on it.)

This thread has been fascinating. I too have often wondering how people can afford such material comforts on salaries that ought not support such things after the requisite deposits into one's 401(k), IRA and savings accounts. I have a hard time believing so many people are living so spendthriftily! But I guess they are, if things like those declutter programs on TV are to be believed.

Regarding the analogue to digital cutover, not all tube TVs will be obsolete. The first commercial HDTVs (which came out a few years ago) were tube TVs and, because these are digital, they will not be obsolete. Something else called the broadcast flag may make them obsolete though but that is not guaranteed. Max is always better at explaining these things than I am so maybe he could chime in about that.

Thanks TV commenters...though I'm still perplexed!I'm wondering if my current TV is digital. I'm guessing my old tiny TV that I couldn't even hook up to a DVD player isn't...hmmmm...

re: analog and digital TV. Isn't it the broadcast signal that's changing from analog to digital? If you have digital cable hooked up to a non-digital TV now it should still work since you aren't receiving the old analog broadcast signal anyway. Or am I just confused? If you depend on the broadcast signal you'll probably have problems down the road if you have an old analog reception TV.

I am not convinced that people live so frugally. I do think, however, that education debt numbs people to debt in general. I have long wondered what the difference would be if true education debt - e.g., the actual tuition, and not the living expenses component - were deductible like mortgage debt. I suspect one result would be that even "trade" schools of minimal value would hike their tuition. Long term, the cost to the US treasury would be significant, but at the same time, colleges would be actually able to charge what it costs to attend. Which should redirect some wealth.

I had zero debt in undergrad and compromised my grad school choice to remain debt free. But I have friends who graduated with $130k in debt. They drove new cars. I had little sympathy for them, they made few "style" sacrifices during school. There was a sea change that said, basically, just because you have no income, you don't have to struggle. Why?

I don't think people are putting the money into 401ks and retirement. Most people I know don't put in the full contribution amount, and even if they do, they don't save other significant amounts of money. I think, however, that in addition to learning to live with debt, people also expect to work until they die. I wonder how this will play out with defined benefit plans out the window and retirement plans just not paying off. The boomer generation will die with wealth but Gen X and Gen Y? We will have huge tax bills and no savings to fall back on.

A- This Frontline episode really brings that point home. It was my retirement moment of clarity. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/view/

Around here we've been talking about treats, the treats you give yourself when the day is bad, when the weather is bad, when you just don't feel like cooking and ordering in is so easy. I'm all for treats, but damn it's a slippery slope, at least for us. Even when we were "on a budget" every day seemed to involve one or more little feel-good purchases and we'd saved nothing. So now we have far fewer treats (still more than some - part of the reckoning was realizing that we were lucky as hell to have dependable income... but that luck can run out) and we save and aggressively pay down debt. Little left over, but it's worth it. As you say, what's the alternative?

Fiona, I really agree. But I'm stumped on where to begin. It seems the only thing people in the US collectively object to paying is taxes, meaning, among other things, that tuitions will continue drift beyond the grasp of more and more students.

In a VERY weird way, I was just lucky that my folks didn't own a house when I was in college, because their relative poverty made me eligible for so much financial aid that I had VERY little debt when I finished college.

But seriously, that SHOULD be deductable, but that will seriously not happen the way the country is going, because there is such a serious anti-intellectual movement afoot now because they only want people to read Bibles.

Because that's the only way they can make people vote in such a way as to undermine their own pocketbooks in the total fear that gay people might get a chance to marry each other and in so doing, ruin the world some kind of way.

Do not look for any relief in the whole college way any time soon.

Just a humorous thought from a longtime lurker and AT fan--
I remember a quote, I believe of Eastern origin, Buddhist maybe, that went along the line of (paraphrasing) a person is truly rich when they realize they have everything they need.

By that estimation, as Dave Chapelle would say, I'm rich, Biaaaatch. ;)

I often dream about an empty apartment (brought on no doubt by the shots of Frasers apartment in Due South where he appears to have nothing but his bed roll).

I think about how great it would be to source out furniture one item at a time and to live without until I find exactly the right thing.

Its not going to happen though as I have a house full of stuff already

and anyway I imagine my empty apartment wouldn't stay that way long as I ENJOY shopping...

Curtis,
I got some hefty financial aid in college, too, because of my parents' income...though I still had federal loans. Then, brilliantly, i decided to go to grad school. This was good, because it did increase my earning potential, but it also increased my debt. I was always royally pissed off in grad school because somehow, the financial aid wonders looked at my $30,000 income and said "my, this girl can afford our yearly tuition of $30K annually) or whatever outrageous amount it was. But, the pampered kids who were just out of college, living on their parents' dime, and not earning anything because they never had to work a day in their lives got more than sufficient packages because their parents' income wasn't reflected in their applications. So, anyway, I'm not bitter or anything! :) The irony here is that any tax deduction I can take for student loan interest is now dwindling as my income increases...not that it's increased to the point yet where I could afford to buy a condo and take THAT deduction.

I will say, though, this discussion, and the book I'm reading, has really gotten me to think harder about my budget. I haven't supported my getting coffee out habit in the past 2 days because it's ever-present in my mind! My personal financial woes now are peanuts when I think about my future--my parents' lack of retirement funds, namely. I am only thankful that Social Security will probably hold out at least that long, but I know that won't be enough. It makes me want to hide under the covers and never come out sometimes!!!

Thanks for everyone's enlightening comments...I've really really enjoyed this discussion!

Hey there, been checking out this site for quite a while...very cooool!
As for possessions...I get so bored that I not only move my furniture around every month or so but I like to haul "stuff" up the street to the SallyAnn and pick up something completely different in return. 2 years ago I did a complete de-cluttering and ended up sending an entire pick-up truck load of furniture to a friends homeless kitty shelter for her to sell in her annual garage sale. It left my place quite barren but I took down all my pictures, filled all the nail holes and painted every wall white. Lived the extreme minimalist lifestyle for more than a year before finally feeling inspired to redecorate. The impetus that kickstarted me was finding an old wood bed frame out by the dumpster.... took 2 boards, painted them brilliant orange and turned them into shelves in my livingroom....and away we went!!!! Anyways, I would love to be able to afford a 1,000.00 coffee table but in the end I would still get bored with it!!
My motto is to live purely and simply and leave a small footprint on the Earth...
Cheers all...