apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I actually took a class about money through my church last year - we read the book "Your Money or Your Life," which says that frugality is more than just a way to save money - it's a way to honor your time. If you think about it, we spend so much time at our jobs making money, and for so many years spent it so easily. I found that I really changed my spending habits when I started thinking "It took three hours of my life to earn the money it would take to buy that item - is that shirt really worth that time?"

It's been interesting to see this ethic being adopted by more and more people. And I think it's a good thing. After all, it's looking like the "growth" that happened in this decade was just fueled by credit and consumer debt - and that isn't sustainable. I like the shift towards valuing things like time, home, family. I just hope it sticks around.

Growing up in France, I got used to the idea that you borrow money for only 2 things, a house, and a car.

I also grew up being told (and everyone I know for that matter) that you buy what you can afford and you buy what you need.

Even after living abroad for nearly 10 years, I still apply it to this day. Therefore I have a Ford Focus hatchback, because I don't have 5 kids and a wife. Between credit card and car I have approximately $3000 in debts which should be gone by August. I don't have a large flat screen tv because I cannot pay cash for it yet, I never buy anything on credit.

It seems common sense to only buy what you can afford now and that the first spending on the pay check are rent, utilities bills and food.

a lot of European realized that the American Dream was just that recently, a dream, because it was based on credit and people didn't own anything, it was a borrowed life.

I saw something in the NYT a few days that was sort of a "news from the front" tidbit about the economic situation. A woman in Atlanta wrote about the phenomenon of $30 pillows are emblematic of our non-self-sustaining consumption habits. I would link to the article, but I can't seem to find it!

Anyway, on the one hand, she definitely had a point, especially when it comes to luxury home accessories. On the other hand, as someone who knows a number of independent designers who hand-craft their lines of home accessories and the like, I appreciate the value in these goods. Looked at in that light, $30 for a pillow is not a fortune (nor do you buy pillows on a regular basis). I really love the recent surge of these artisan-created goods and hope that there won't be a backlash, even if we are all tightening our belts. I don't see supporting independent design as necessarily being conspicuous consumption.

I just commented on this article yesterday on my blog:
http://saltysweetsaltysweet.blogspot.com/

Here's an excerpt:
With the dark cloud of the recession continually looming, I've been thinking a lot about style and taste as a non-function of money. I've noticed that I've kept up a manicure from a bottle of polish that rivals those I've paid for in salons. I've noticed my DIY list around the house growing and getting more and more creative by the project. I've noticed how I've started looking at my closet in new ways, working a little harder to combine elements to create a different statement.

that generational issue only applies to people making a certain amount of money. i come from a working class family and was taught thrift growing up. the conflict comes from being surrounded by peers who's families make more money, have bigger houses and cars (or more expensive cars). there are those on the conspicuous consumption side of the line and those on the have-not side. the peer pressure builds hope and eventually expectation in the have-nots that distorts their common sense understanding of finance.

you will still find plenty of working people who see things in terms of needs versus wants.

I am reading William Morris's Useful Work vs. Useful Toil right now, and it is so, so applicable. He was one of the big players in the arts and crafts movement, and one of the most prominent socialists in victorian england.... I would reccomend it to anyone. (and the cover is cute, ok?)

I'm not suggesting we all become communists... but, there is a lot to be said about not buying junk and perpetuating a system that depends on a lot of other people working shitty jobs so we can have the newest this or that... this definitely applies to the wealth of mass produced design/decor stuff.

well said.

Lady J,

I agree with most of what you've said but I don't think it's all about how much money you make. Some of the people I know who make the most are also the most tight-fisted. They drive their cars into the ground and shop at second-hand stores, or in the case of one of my friends, rarely shop at all. The recession is not causing them to change their habits one bit, because they already had savings plans in place and hadn't been overspending.

I think where people live has a lot to do with it. In bigger cities, the have/have not issue is bigger. (Just read any post about apartments in NYC for further proof!) Where I live, in a small midwestern city, frugality and resourcefulness have long been prized above showy materialism. I remember when I first moved here 16 years ago from a bigger city I was embarrassed to be driving a Saab instead of a cheap domestic car--and my car was already eight years old! People have always been very environmentally conscious here too, and that limits the number of people who spend money on the perfect chem-lawn or the mega-addition or the "new" everything. Not surprisingly, the farther out from the core of the city you get, the more it looks like the suburbs of any bigger city. That's where you see the McMansions and the Hummers and the three-carat diamonds and other monuments to excess. And that is where you also see the growing number of foreclosures, not surprisingly.

Flobo - I agree with everything you said, except the last sentence, which struck me as just another bit of Eurocentric hype. "A lot of Europeans" may have seen this economic crisis coming, but so did a lot of Americans, and the bottom line is, nobody of any nationality stopped it from happening. Many Europeans are in very bad shape right now financially in exactly the same way Americans are - see England, Germany, and Iceland - and many Americans (like me) have no credit card debt, are making our mortgage payments, and even have savings. This is not an issue of nationality - it's an issue of corporate and personal responsibility.

Fabframes - I read that article too, and I have to admit, I immediately thought of all the $90, $120, $150 pillows I've looked at. $30 seemed like a very low amount to get so indignant over! =)

When I was a kid, I got a job as soon as I was old enough. Our family was comfortable, but I got only a small allowance, and new clothes were limited to a fresh pair of runners and some jeans before the new school year. I wanted cool clothes, so that I might look more attractive, and people might like me better.

Instead, I had no time to socialize because I spent many school nights and weekends working at a pizza shop for minimum wage. The money was so hard-earned that I couldn't bear to spend it. I bought some sweaters on sale from a fancy store, and they did not transform my life. Sweaters do not give one boobs, take away acne or big nose or glasses.

I saw peers around me spending money like it was... coupons about to expire at midnight. And they seemed to have fun doing it. Eating whatever they wanted, not, like me, the cheapest thing on the menu plus water. I was envious. But I could no sooner spend like they did than I could become popular.

Twenty years later, I'm still basically the same. I've learned to live a little, but I got married in a $20 wedding dress and I won't buy a new computer monitor until the current one is broken.

I think you can either be a spender or a saver. And if you're a saver, spenders always look like they're having more fun! The grass always looks greener on the other side.

I think Flobo has a point about France. I lived in Paris the year after college, and absorbed the idea that if you wear a good pearl necklace and Hermes scarf, the rest of your outfit can be from the thrift store. Same with home decor -- a couple of great classic pieces go a long way.

Great comments, everyone, and great post. I'm so glad this topic is being brought up, because like so many others, it's been on my mind a lot lately.

While I certainly agree that the current economic situation is devastating for the families and individuals who have lost their jobs, I hope that the many people talking about 'fixing' the economy DO NOT mean returning to a culture of wastefulness (both financially, environmentally and socially). It took some drastic and unfortunate turns to get us here, but I'd like to think we're finally the verge of a new way of thinking and living. I truly hope that the current focus on reusing, repurposing, making things last, making do, etc is NOT merely a temporary response to fear but rather a sincere and a long-lasting change.

Does no one here understand that the reason the economy is going over a cliff is because of a catastrophic loss of DEMAND??

While I will not argue about living within one's means, and personally found the "spend, spend, spend" culture wasteful and vapid, I think we need to strike a more cautionary note about drastically constricting spending, which I am hearing everyone here advocate.

By not eating at that lunch counter, you'll be driving a mom and pop operation out of business; by not buying that sofa, you will be threatening the livelihood of store employees and the factory workers who make it. They will have less money to spend in your etsy store, or on having you photograph their wedding, or will be unable to have you upgrade your website. They'll be unable to pay taxes, requiring local government services to constrict -- perhaps leading to the lay-off of your sister the social worker, or your cousin who works in the planning department....

We are all connected.

Here is Paul Krugman, the current Nobel Laureate in economics on the matter:

"Can America be saved?
So I read this:

Boehner said Americans want government to practice the same financial restraint they have been forced to exercise: “It’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it.”

and I wonder if this country can handle the crisis we’re in. Remember, John Boehner is, in effect, the second-most influential member of the GOP (after Rush Limbaugh). And while Democrats hold a majority, it’s not enough of a majority to make the minority party irrelevant.

So the fact that Boehner’s idea of economics is completely insane matters.

What’s insane about Boehner’s remark? He’s talking about the current economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we faced a shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this, when they think about it — we’re in a world desperately short of demand. If you consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create jobs and raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt — and that’s just as true if you’re “the government” as if you’re my neighbor."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc

A little balance to this "new reality" please.

MsChatelaine:
Interesting comment but I think the "new reality" and the shrinking demand for cheap consumer goods (just one factor in our tanking economy) is indicative of a larger creative failure of capitalism and the market to produce goods and services that are truly essential to improving the larger social order (nationally and globally). An example of "sustainable" goods and services would be technology and infrastructure to provide and conserve clean drinking water to populations in developing nations. An untapped market - but the business people aren't interested in a business line where they can make $1M a year when they can go and make $10M a year in finance. (I pulled those #s out of the air, but you get my drift).

We are at a point (I hope) where we have to question "WHAT KIND OF JOBS ARE WE CREATING" and "WHY DO WE NEED TO RAISE INCOMES"? You'd think the "income" question is a no brainer but it isn't. Real wages have stagnated in the US since the 70s (or so). That is to say...the rich and getting richer and the poor and getting poorer and the middle class is getting smaller. So any argument about "raising incomes" should be followed up by: FOR WHOM?

Benjamin Barber explores (and is more eloquent) about this idea: http://www.benjaminbarber.org/

"The issue is not the death of capitalism but what kind of capitalism--standing in which relationship to culture, to democracy and to life? President Obama's Rubinite economic team seems designed to reassure rather than innovate, its members set to fix what they broke. But even if they succeed, will they do more than merely restore capitalism to the status quo ante, resurrecting all the defects that led to the current debacle?
...
Economists and politicians across the spectrum continue to insist that the challenge lies in revving up inert demand. For in an economy that has become dependent on consumerism to the tune of 70 percent of GDP, shoppers who won't shop and consumers who don't consume spell disaster. Yet it is precisely in confronting the paradox of consumerism that the struggle for capitalism's soul needs to be waged."