apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

>

What !? Are those normal ''standards''? I do own a couple of sweaters but 5 pairs of black sandals? A dozen vases?

During the post-Christmas sale frenzy this past December, I found myself wandering the malls, "looking for good deals" and giving deep thought to questions like "should I get this black cashmere sweater with a tiny hole in it at a 70% discount? Or this black cashmere sweater with no hole in it at a 30% discount?" Never mind that I have 3 black cashmere sweaters at home already. To make a long story short, I realized what a habit shopping was and I was totally grossed out by my thoughtless consumerism. I recycle every last scrap of paper and plastic, but give no thought to all the impulse crap I buy on line or at sales etc. Lame.

So for the month of January, my bf and I pledged that we wouldn't buy anything except food and necessary toiletries (like the toothpaste tube has been cut open and every scrap used). And let me tell you, it's been HARD! The fact that I spent quite a bit of time being angry that I couldn't buy "stuff" made me realize what an addiction it really is. But I've made it one month and I'm so proud of myself for not buckling. And I've saved quite a chunk of money to boot! Though my pledge technically ends Saturday, I'm going to extend it through February as well. (Short month!)

One thing that helped get me through? I have the phrase, "I have everything I need" (thank you to Black.White.Yellow's Jessica for the inspiration!) as my screen saver, my computer wall paper, on my Blackberry screen, on a post-it note tacked to my ATM card...

I think it's a good idea, but they didn't mention anything (except the one month trial) about buying gas for their car. And vehicle maintenance. There are certain things beyond their three categories that are necessities. I think it'd be hard for me. But, if I can come up with good guidelines and a strict set of rules, I don't see why not to try it!

It does sound like they had too much to begin with or I have too little??
I really dont have too little, just enough.

Dropping out of consuming may be all well and good as an experiment and a philosophy, but frankly, all that will do is bring a certain death to the American economy. There are some who may want to live off the grid. To me that smacks of a "checking out" mentality that was also prevalent in the 1960's, which most of the bloggers here are too young to remember. But many good, hardworking people depend on others to keep their lives going. Small, local retailers, grocers and more need your consumption. How will any of us feel as we watch our neighbors and our local shopkeepers go out of business because of a referendum on spending? Consuming shouldn't be an all or nothing proposition. It should be about spending wisely and within your means. I hardly advocate consumer gluttony. But so what that this couple could live without spending? Were they such gluttons before that they had to prove that they could do it?

I am a high end retailer of sorts (I'd sooner not say in what specific area) and I, like hundreds of my colleagues are on the verge of losing our businesses. What good does that do for the local economy? How badly will my city be hit because of so many businesses shutting down? And will many of you feel when you walk the streets of your neighborhood and see the shops and restaurants that gave your neighborhoods the spirit that you love, now gone. Frankly, I read about a couple like this and all I can really read through the lines is how much it smacks of moral self-righteousness.

More power to people who decide to make do with recycled and repurposed items! It's not our obligation to buy things we don't need.

The full article was a little...hmmm, I think saying obnoxious is not quite right but self righteous is definitly it. They spout on and on and then have a shopping spree day? I believe that defeats the whole experiment. I'm annoyed

Well said BB: spend your money thoughtfully.

As a soon-to-be college grad, I've pretty much spent the last four years only buying food and toiletries (nevermind home improvement stuff--that's when you become really good at working with your realty company).

As an exercise in keeping mindless consumption in check, this experiment works. In today's economy, adopting this practice could destroy a lot of small, independent businesses. But could it also weed out some of the bigger corporations that don't really contribute anything to society except rampant consumerism and a 'keeping up with the Jones's' mentality (here's looking at you, Circuit City)?

And by looking more carefully at how we spend our money, and who we choose to give it to, can't we help change the way that products are made? By not buying cheap products made in sweatshops with life spans that hover around a couple of years, can we see a shift to products that actually last a lifetime and only need slight maintenance? I'm thinking about my grandmother's appliances from the 1950's that still run, while my mom has had to replace two refrigerators.

Maybe I'm being too idealistic. But I think that the problems in our economy could put us back on track, and take us out of a "BUY BUY BUY!" state of mind.

Meh...I'm not impressed. I would love to know how much these people make in a year. I bet they're pretty well off and don't need to carry out this experiment. I have to agree with BB and say that they do sound rather self-righteous. After reading the article all I could think about was all the poor people out there who live that way because they have to. I also thought about several of my friends who got laid off from Circuit City corporate here in Richmond, Va and I imagine they're going to be buying only necessities for a while until they are gainfully employed again.

It's a tough world out there and I personally don't really care to hear about these frugality experiments when it's a way of life for many people.

Buying only what you really "absolutely need" would render most content of this blog irrelevant, wouldn't it? After all nobody really 'needs' to buy new counter tops or to reupholster an old couch in a prettier fabric. But the aesthetic enjoyment of such purchases might also be a 'need' for some people - probably most readers here. I don't feel bad for spending what I can afford on small things that make my apartment a delight for me.

B.B. I agree that the balance comes with spending wisely and within your means. I struggle though with the idea that we should spend to keep the economy going, especially if it means continuing to spend on what is available especially if it is not where my priorities should fall. My family is looking at needing to readjust our life for this very reason. My husband has been an engineer in the automotive industry for 20 years. Clearly this industry is in dire straights. Even through it is struggling I do not believe the solution is for everyone that can to go and buy a car so the industry can continue. The car industry is struggling for a reason and in order for it to truly be healthy it is necessarily to re-evaluate it's existence. Maybe it will evolve and be even stronger and maybe its time has come to an end. Either way I believe that in the long run it is better to take this journey than to expect people to buy just to keep it going... even if it means that my husband will never be an automotive engineer again and our income is drastically reduced. Luckily my happiness is not dependent on our income.

Most people in the world live like this, or with much less, every day of their lives. That we have lived beyond our means, as individuals and as policy, for so long is the problem. There is no way it could have lasted forever.

I do ok not buying everything I see that makes me want it. I mean, though, buying drives the economy, but I do think people could be less impulsive or trying to feed some other part of them that's lacking with material goods. People often justify needing things that are simply luxuries to other people, it's like, the more money you have, the more money you have to rationalize what 'need' means to your lifestyle. Like cable tv, or the extra-good coffee and the best coffee/cappuccino/espresso maker money can buy. I do have my own impulses and wants and justifications for it also. I also think it's sad when a local business can't stay afloat because not enough people come in and buy, because that store has value to some customers who can't do the job of supporting it by themselves. In the end, How Economy Works, is that those stores weren't selling what enough people needed or wanted or couldn't find a way to appear less extraneous or convince enough people to need the things they sell at the prices they were charging. Having a little store like you want that sells things not enough people justify needing is another luxury. They may be able to start-up again when the economy is better, they may have to take dull jobs providing ordinary goods and services that people do spend money on, like tires or hearing aids. Not everyone gets to do what they like, nor are talented enough both talent-wise and business-wise to market enough reasons potential customers can agree with for them to stay in a business that they enjoy.

Echoing others' comments here, I think it's okay to be a little consumer-y once in a while. It's obvious our system can't support superconsumerism for a long stretch of time without crashing and burning, so maybe we can strive for smart consumerism. Support local businesses when you can, but don't feel bad for shopping chains either if they're generally ethical. The workers there need jobs, too. Last night I went to Target and the place was pretty much a ghost town. Made me feel less guilty for dropping $120 (on items I think of as "necessary" but probably really aren't for the most part).

BB- Thank you for voicing my thoughts. What America needs right now is a jump-start from within, not fear and withdrawal.

The only things I find commendable about this family are:
1. Their sense of responsibility for their own spending- everyone (from top to bottom income brackets) could learn from this example.

2. Buying from a "little guy" bookseller like Half-Price. After managing a bookstore, I know that the little guys are really suffering right now. If you love books and want to have your neighborhood bookstore around next year... save your money and buy from them instead of "saving money" at Costco. This economic climate calls for more thought from consumers, not only about how much they're spending... but also where.

I live like this all the time. When I get stuff I want and don't need, I can't afford it and have to put it on my credit card. So for people like BB - we don't want you to go out of business, but society's lust for all these products that they can't afford - high end or not - has led to our economy crashing down around us.
The people in the article are annoying. They must make a lot to be able to prioritize extra purchases. I don't have $50 extra so even though I see something on Craigslist that normally would be $500 - I still don't have the $50 to spend on it therefore I don't buy it. (Thank goodness I resisted the impulse to subscribe to Domino recently because of this very quandary - do I have $10? No.)
But this is a good concept for getting people out of credit card debt. I for one would rather live on beans and rice and never eat out than be beholden to a bank paying interest on stuff that I don't need, leading into a vicious cycle of more debt. Trust me it's not fun.

I've definitely considered trying something similar, but allowing purchases from small, local retailers too. Whenever I go thrift store shopping or hit up the flea markets, I'm always overwhelmed with how much STUFF there is in the world. I've always wondered what it would be like if the production of new, non-commodity items simply halted. I bet we'd be OK for quite some time...

After having read the article, I didn't get an overall great feeling.

1.I think they justified a number of items that, although weren't going to hurt anyone, betrayed their ability to afford whatever they wanted while in demonstration to do the opposite, come right out and make exceptions. Rationalizing sprees and buying used things she didn't actually need are another example of this.

2. Avoiding places like Target for their sales on necessary items to avoid the temptations to buy extra stuff that just looks so nice when you get there and wander the aisles is exactly the wrong thing. If you really want to test what you're trying to prove, walk away from the incidentals, have the conviction to stick to your list.

3. They started with an over-abundance first of all. When you already have 30 sweaters and 5 pairs of black sandals, you're proving to the world nothing. When you throw away lines like "Chip a vase? Who doesn't have a dozen more in a cabinet?", you're essentially proving to be a moron who would replace a chipped vase when your cabinet is full of other vases. Not everyone has so many sweaters or sandals or vases, etc. People go to Target to buy socks and picture frames and colanders, and that's ok. Deciding to "reject consumer gluttony" would be to also think about what it's like to need the things they already have, not to demonstrate that once you go shopping a whole bunch and kit yourself out, it does take the bite out of giving up the habit.

4. Food and toiletries. A huge category. If most people were mindful of their purchases, soda pop and hair gel companies would go out of business. If you keep this category in, as broad as it is, you will probably take your sweater budget and spend as much of it at the grocery store on cookies and eyelash curlers as you will on eggs and laundry detergent. Also, people with money protect their lifestyle by enjoying the better name, higher quality products at higher prices that they can afford. Food and other household necessities is a great place to spend more money than you intended.

5. Did anyone get a haircut all year or do any dry-cleaning? Eat out? That's technically food.

6. The use of the word "Zen" in the article.

--------------------------------

I think Ms. Visser came out a little more mindful in the end of her project, or such that she continues to proceed comfortably. I think mindfulness of your habits and how they contribute to your life and your goals is ultimately a good thing, but this article was so written in such a voice of privilege. I'm not asking for her to be monastic, but she really only became as mindful as she comfortably could, and even that was demonstrated as somewhat difficult at times. Perhaps the regular readers in the community could totally relate, but in effect, it came off weak and spoiled and out of touch.

Who doesn't have a dozen more in a cabinet?

Um, I don't. Nowhere near.

I, like most people, have to be pretty restrained about what I buy. Now that the economy has tanked I'm going to be more, not less, aggressive about spending. And I think it's idiotic for someone who's lost 25 pounds and has got the money not to go out and buy some new pants.

30 sweaters! Good god. The tone-deafness just boggles the mind.

Just the fact that someone can end up with 30 sweaters, 5 pairs of black sandals, and a dozen vases is to me an indicator that buying is so deeply ingrained that we do it whether we need to or not. I don't agree that it is my societal duty to continue buying more sweaters than I need, thus necessitating that I buy some type of storage arrangement to keep them in, possibly end up upgrading my apartment to keep all the storage in, etc, just to keep the sweater store in business.

This reminds me of a saying I heard once that I thought very wise:

"Success is about getting what you want.

Happiness is about wanting what you've got."

I recently spent some time living in a small, midwest town with the bf while he finished grad school. I left a high paying job in a keep-up-with-the-Jones field to do so. Since we knew that our situation was very temporary, we made a conscious effort to avoid buying a lot of things that we knew we'd not want to carry onto our next location. Also, given the change in my financial situation, I had to refrain from making frivolous purchases. Going from a job that enabled and encouraged a lot of "retail therapy" to living in such simplicity was an adjustment, but I was amazed at how much that I do NOT need.

We recently left our little town for a more permanent situation, and we've been buying things for our new place. The most surprising thing about it to me is that I actually feel anxious sometimes about all of the stuff we are accumulating. I want to create a home where we feel comfortable and happy, but I am more aware of letting that process unfold over time, and not rushing into buying a lot of of stuff just to fill the space. I'm also much more conscious of the line between need and want, and try to walk it in a more thoughtful manner.

We do not spend mindlessly for 2 simple reasons: we are down to one salary at the moment, and the shopping here in our little corner of Europe is not very enticing.


It is not a shopping-oriented society here, and it shows: for example, shopping hours are severely restricted compared to North America and the UK. In fact, the shopping hours are limited by legislation -- only grocery stores are allowed to remain open until 7 on weeknights, everyone else closes much earlier. Stores can stay open until 8 on Thursday, but that is it. Last week, our canton severely restricted gas station concessions, the only place to get milk or basic supplies on Sunday -- everything else is shut.

Saturdays are hell -- stores are jam-packed and the normally surly salespeople are horrid.

Needless to say, we buy only the bare minimum, and get what we can online.

France has similar legislation, although is slightly more relaxed. Salaries (in France) are low in comparison to North America (and Switzerland, where we live), and people buy less. People in France gain satisfaction from their métier, perhaps something we should be looking at too.

I've been posting lately decrying this trend towards economizing though -- like BB writes, small businesses mom and pop restaurants will soon be gone.

I agree with those who say this is a bogus effort. I heard (on the radio) a fellow who writes about saving money suggest that we should all go for a week without spending any money, and see what we learn from it. But it's fake -- any housed person who is not completely disengaged from the economy is spending money every day ... in rent or mortgage, home insurance and health insurance, power and phone bills, water bill, car loan and/or insurance and so on. It's pro-rated, even if you pay just once a month. It's the same with this silly "project". Everyone was already adequately clothed and housed, and they had a backlog of toiletries and other supplies. In other words, they didn't really need to buy new things. And buying used goods is nothing revolutionary anyway. I know people with plenty of money, who do it just because they like the challenge of the hunt.

So will this experience end up as yet another useless book on remainder tables everywhere? Isn't that sort of against the point?

... and I just read the article again and noticed that with all the cheating, this woman bought more stuff on her no-buy pledge that I did in a similar period! What is with the "special purchase" exception? And buying a car is okay -- just because it's used? Come ON! I have never, ever purchased a car new. No really sensible person does. A new car is devalued the moment you drive it off the lot.

This article made me very, very angry. I am going for a walk now. I abhor hypocrisy.

I agree that the person in this article started off with way more than most of us probably would and the self-justification of her breakdowns is just goofy. However. This person's made a lot of progress. We've all got to start somewhere.

And about this so-called self-righteousness. I've given up a lot of the things people around me are still guzzling, but now I'm also supposed to give up feeling good about it?? Tell me, what *do* I get?? Why should I even bother trying to live green?

I feel like breaking something now, but that wouldn't be eco, either.

There are things i can do without. I dont have to buy new purses all the time. I dont need to buy more shoes or more dvds. But i dont think shutting out consumerism as a whole is the best idea. I think like many here, its just about monitoring your spending. Do i really need starbucks every morning? no- I'll make my own instead. Can i treat myself once a week? yes. I personally feel like i've been spending more lately than before the holidays.

Yes whytephoenix, feel good about it! Forestdweller- why not buy a new car? why buy someone else's problem? a problem you probably just got rid of?

I really dont need more "stuff" but its not just about buying stuff. its about going out- having fun with friends. its paying bills.

if you can afford it, by all means spend away! if not, there is no shame in penny pinching.

As someone who as been unemployed for a year now (!!!!) and has had to live on unemployment benefits (sometimes) that equaled $12000 total last year, $500/month in rent and $400/month in student loans....and you learn to only buy necessities and sell what you don't need. Praising people like this is odd to me.

Oneformybaby, the worst thing for the economy is for all of us to cut up our credit cards and put away our checkbooks. Ben Stein spoke about that recently. He said it was the duty of all those who could to go out and spend. It keeps the economy moving.

As for why you don't buy a new car: the moment you drive it off the lot it goes down in value by ten thousand or even more, depending on the car. I suggest buying a barely used one under manufacturer warranty. I have always done so. My current car had 12k miles on it when I bought it. It is still under all-inclusive warranty three years later. It was not "someone else's problem". It was a dealer car. My previous car was a lease turn-in, and had similarly low mileage when purchased. I kept it for ten years. It was under warranty for four of those years. I drive very few miles.

Anyone who knows cars can safely asses a used car purchased privately. However, I would stress the "knows cars" part. And I'd urge getting an independent opinion from a trusted mechanic as well.

But if you need that "new car smell" (off gassing of plastics), spend away....

I'm currently working in retail and because no one is buying, I can't buy some things I NEED, let alone things I want.

I've been eating canned food from my "earthquake stash" to trim my grocery bill, and I routinely see upper-middle-class kids sigh and walk away from shoes that aren't on the clearance rack, even if their sneakers are full of holes.

Adopting a mindset of not being able to buy anything at all does not help anyone, and is going to kill off every small business on Earth if it continues. A better approach would be to buy wisely whenever possible, so as not to constantly find oneself replacing lower-quality items.

These kind of articles always baffle me, and they have been more and more common lately. I thought that this was the Normal way to shop and live. Who knew it was some kind of special ascetic lifestyle.

that sounds depressing as hell. I won't be doing it anytime soon.

I'm with labchick. The article reeked of self-righteousness, and frankly, I've had enough of that to last the rest of my life.

As others have pointed out, it's not about spending less, it's about spending smart. Buy local organic food that is MORE expensive because it's more nourishing and better for the planet. Buy clothes and furniture and appliances that are more expensive if that means buying something well-crafted that will last longer and bring you more pleasure.

The people in this article are so absurdly disconnected that they thought it would somehow be good for the soul to pretend to be poor, instead of being more conscious about the impact of their spending.

If thousands upon thousands of people go and do what these people did then there will be nothing left to buy on Craigs List or in the thrift stores. All of the local farms won't be able to meet the demand and then a new cottage industry will begin which will be the old cottage industry: Bloomingdales and Whole (Paycheck)Foods.

Awesome reporting, Seattle Times. What a think piece.

Seaside - It's a think piece because it makes you think how the woman could have supplied craigslist or thrift stores but didn't. It's a complete fluff piece.

whytephoenix - it's not really necessary to restrict yourself in every way, but I think the woman in the article made a decision to be someway and in the end was pretty proud of herself in ways that are shocking oblivious to most. It's easy not to spend so much money on groceries in January when someone gave you a steak subscription for Xmas. It's really senseless to make an arbitrary rule which attempts to deprive your husband of new pants and then make a separate arbitrary rule so you could get new sheets. I mean, the dude lost 25 pounds! How would she feel if she lost 25 pounds and her husband said she had to wear other people's old clothes?

It's ok to live your life and try, it makes the most sense to approach it with priorities and self-made limits if you want, but I think if you're pulling an experiment like this and writing about it, with broad allowances for some things and strict denial for others, the loopholes and excuses shouldn't be the parts that make you beam with pride. It's good she didn't try to sweep these little crumbs under the carpet, but she sees this as all perfectly rational, and her experiment successful. I guess there are a lot of people in this situation who would agree that she made a lot of progress for someone who was addicted to vases, never could say no to a new sweater, and found the aisles at Target too much temptation to bear.

I just think she gave herself too much credit for a trivial amount of denial - as an experiment, not as a lifestyle change. Someone who isn't writing an article to exemplify themselves is perfectly entitled to decide for themselves how much or little they want to modify their consumerism, if at all, and feel good.

It's interesting how many comments reflect people's needs to validate their particular values and how some are hostile toward the family in the article if their behavior challenges those values.

I think there's a balance between consumption for entertainment which is wasteful and consuming for improved quality of life. That balance is largely, but not entirely, subjective. Mainly, I think that the level of waste in your consumption is what deserves scrutiny. And "waste" isn't just what is tossed out, it's also about how long you use things before handing them off to other people.

Economic issues should not be a part of consumption levels and people shouldn't be using them as an excuse to compulsively consume. Part of the reason America is in the shape it's in now is that a bubble based on consuming more than we can afford created an unsustainable situation. Everyone suffers all the more for that excess. Consume quality goods infrequently rather than mass-produced junk frequently and there won't be so much economic difficulty as a result of reduced consumption.

What goes under "entertainment"? Movies, opera, a nice littlle French bistro? Because you are going to have to do some heavy lifting to convince me that these things are "wasteful".

By the way, I hardly ever go out to movies or the opera or little French bistros, but it's the year for Change.

Never mind, I misread you.

Meh. I regularly have 'buy nothing' months - and that means living out of the cupboards too with fresh veggies (bought from local green grocer) being the only permitted purchase. Its not hard.

But I stopped buying 'stuff' 2 years ago when I decided to use everything I owned. It took about a year before I had to buy any more toiletries or cleaning products. Now I only have one of exactly what I need - nothing more, and the 'one' of each that I do have is all top quality. When you stop buying unnecessary and excess crap you find you can have luxury basics which actually gives the feeling of a very charmed life.

This is really a matter of culture. In Europe the attitude is very different. Buying too much is tasteless. keeping good old traditional things turn them into treasures. The need to update constantly is really a creation of our civilization. Why on earth I need to spend on a car every 10 years and on an operative system of my computer every one and half? This is what does not let people settle comfortably and content on a relatively stable lifestyle. The whole system pushes everyone into the corner making it uncomfortable in all ways possible (specially in the technological area -software-) not to buy more and newer stuff. It will not change before we massively rebel (developed world) and stop our thoughtless consumerism, but I would not be so optimistic as to believe that it will happen in my lifetime.