Being Frugal Makes You A Loser

I don't think that being frugal has ever been about going cheap.<p>Frugality is not about consuming but <i>investing in your</i> life: that often contradicts with cheap.<p>Frugality is about not buying things you don't need but buying things you can't live without. A frugal person will typically invest in quality because he knows he'll be using the item for years and doesn't want to replace it every few.<p>I wouldn't consider myself extremely frugal but my favorite shoes I'm wearing today I bought in the year 2000. They feel great, they have never had to been repaired, they resist water enough, the leather is in good condition and actually they didn't cost much (guesstimate in today's currency: 100-150€). But I have this mindset that I don't <i>need new shoes</i> just for the sake of new shoes. That's frugality. I will wear mine for another ten years if only they'll hold together and still look tidy enough to walk into the public. (They look used of course, but still tidy.) If they don't, I'll have to buy a replacement pair.<p>Frugality is also sometimes buying the cheapest thing. Buying a cheap electric drill is frugal if you only drill a few times a year, which makes the drill last for decades. Buying the best that money can buy would be frugal if you're a carpenter or do renovations every week and need a professional grade durability; however, if you're not doing that you're not frugal but rather just going on the hifi tangent and in reality you want to buy the expensive model because of your ego only.<p>Frugality also brings focus to—I was going to say consumption but I'll say personal investment instead. It makes sense to buy quality items for what you love: if you love riding a bike then investing in a quality bike is frugal because it saves you and the environment from unneeded consumption and hair-pulling. But you can't love everything either. You can't have the top of the line computer, screen, home theater, coffee grinder, washing machine, mattress, toilet seat, motorcycle, car, bike, camera, video camera, clothes, shoes, accessories and consider yourself frugal. You can have one or two because you simply can't be spending all of your time only grinding coffee, coding, washing laundry, riding a motorbike, and shooting photos.<p>And yes, being frugal inevitably <i>does make me look like a loser</i> in the eyes of some people. But then what?<p>Other people's opinions about me are none of my business anyway.

On one hand I kind of agree with this, there certainly is something to be said for buying nice stuff now and then, especially when it is stuff you love doing.<p>For play, I use a ratio I call the Fun Factor. Essentially, that's the $/hr of fun I get out of something. So if you go see a movie and it is $10, and it is the rare money that is actually fun to watch, then the fun factor is roughly $5.<p>So then you apply it to other things. Sure, $2,000 is a lot to spend a mountain bike, but divided out by the number of hours I've had on it, I'm way below $5 these days, so I consider it a fair deal.<p>A smartphone and laptop I love is always worth it in fun factor dollars.<p>That said, I do take issue on the 'lasting forever' bit, because wow, stuff just isn't made to last forever anymore and nor would you want to. I think it is a clever trick that we play on ourselves, oh, "This will be the last [blank] I ever have to buy", but how often is that really the case?<p>I can think of a few things I have that qualify, but they are few. I bought a $100 chef knife about a decade ago, still use it daily, still love it. I don't see my Ortlieb messenger bag ever breaking down, so maybe that's another. A few hand tools, but most hand tools last forever regardless of quality.<p>What are yours, what have you bought that you think you might keep forever?

I agree. Personally, I'm more sick of the culture of bargaining and haggling over increasingly small, pedestrian items that has gained a lot of fashion in the recession, even among people for whom it is not a financial imperative. It was a movement with a lot of momentum even before the recession, though, so there must be some other more enduring dynamics at play, too, not just cyclical stuff.<p>There's a social cost to making an ass of yourself arguing +/- $0.30 on a loaf of bread, so I don't do it. And--I jest not--I get chided by "frugal" people for not spending a half hour going through my pile of 50+ coupon clippings in front of the register in the express lane, ten people waiting in line behind me be damned.<p>Nobody in the startup scene here likes a customer that rides them about price no matter the discount, and appears to be fixated solely on price and not on value. Nobody likes the message that sends about the customer's priorities, their character, or the value they attach to the product or service. There is a moral and a psychological valence to the whole thing. It's off-putting, because it says that you don't realise that sometimes there is more to life than cold, rational economic calculus. So why do it to others?<p>Negotiating big-ticket items like salaries, houses and cars has always been okay in this culture, and there are considerable practical reasons to do it; thousands of dollars are on the line, and the people on the other end of the table have a pricing structure and a sales methodology designed specifically to maximise gains on people reluctant or unable to negotiate. Obviously, I'm not saying you should allow yourself to be screwed for the sake of eschewing confrontation.<p>However, at the risk of sounding culturally chauvinist, as a Soviet immigrant, one of the things I have always liked about the US and for which I have taken pride in my adopted homeland is the fact that we're above petty bazaar culture here--haggling for the sake of haggling, or being obscenely preoccupied with price. Let's not lose that. Those of us from other cultures that have fewer compunctions about wheel-dealing in petty crap know where that leads, and it's a really detestable trait when not mandated by the necessities of poverty.

I have learned over the years that not spending 'enough' on tools is always a bad choice. Like mgarfias I buy Craftsman hand tools from Sears because they really do replace them no questions asked. I know a guy that would buy beat up, nicked and dingy craftsman screw drivers or socket wrenches at garage sales for a dollar and then go to Sears and get a replacement that they would put in their toolbox.<p>My experience of wearing out shoes was interesting. I used to buy 'cross trainers' or whatever the 'general use' canvas/plastic tennis shoe was at Big-5 when they went on sale every year. Every year I'd get a new pair of shoes for $10 to $15 and think "Wow look how much I'm saving over buying leather shoes for like $100 - $150." And then someone pointed out that they had leather shoes that they hadn't replaced in 10 years and it occurred to me that maybe I was looking at acquisition cost and not lifetime cost.<p>I did the math and bought my first pair of Clark's. They lasted 7 years and came out costing roughly $11/year for those 7 years. I replaced them with the same exact model that was on sale for $75. Not only did they look better than tennis shoes, they fit better, and 'wore' better. If I added the time spent shopping, the cost to get the car to/from the Big5 every year, the Clarks were 'cheaper' by being more expensive but of better durability.<p>So it was still being 'Frugal' but it was being a bit more intelligent about going about calculating the costs. I've long since learned to value my time more reasonably than 'free.'

I disagree.<p>I find this ode to consumerism quite distasteful. Sure, buy quality items if you can afford them, they'll often be worth the investment - but choosing to be frugal because of difficult financial circumstances is <i>a good thing</i>.<p>Most people don't need half of what they buy.<p>As for 'being fugal makes you a loser'; I think if the choice is being seen as a loser by the author of the article, and being broke and / or in debt - I'd definitely choose the former.<p>I'd possibly understand if this kind of rationalisation came from a government wanting its citizens to spend their way out of recession. Coming from a free thinking individual, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I tend to buy in two strategies. Either so cheap but functional I don't mind throwing it out later (as eco bad as that might be), or buying good quality wares. I believe that if you can afford good quality wares, that that will both make you happier and leave you with something of substantial resale value. So it may be a better financial strategy. Compare cheap Target cabinet with "Handmade Amish Furniture."<p>That said, the tone of the article is well, smug and obnoxious, and makes no effort to understand that many people cannot afford the quality goods the author can, or just have different values.<p>For example, I use to drive sports cars and convertibles, but now I drive cheap econo-boxes. Why? They tend to be more reliable, less expensive per mile to maintain, and I drive too damn much and drive them into the ground. (And I have a poor resales strategy -- I don't get rid of the cars fast enough.) I sure do miss my convertibles. Really miss them too at this time of year. But they just had accelerated decrepitude in my hands.

There is a hidden cost to owning "lifetime" stuff- you have to keep track of it, maintain it, and ensure it doesn't get damaged or stolen. sure, having a nice tool is nice, but it is also /more work/ for as long as I keep it. The $150 'paladin tools' brand cable tracer? it's pretty nice, but I've got to spend effort keeping track of it. I've ended up buying a bunch generic of $5 'continuity testers' and leaving one at each data center and one in my car. the nicer tool doesn't do me any good if it's across town. Also, if I drop something heavy on one of these or if someone steals it? who cares.<p>I mean, sometimes you need the quality part to do the job, and sometimes maintaining quality tools can even be a pleasurable experience, but recognize that there is a cost to owning stuff you can't just walk away from.

The strange hate for people who are "cheap" is one of the more bizarre about Americans. I don't think I've ever heard of frugality used as a pejorative anywhere else in the English-speaking world.

Besides the incredibly aggravating link-bait title—frugal is not equivalent to cheap. I consider myself to be quite frugal, but for the stuff that I do own, I have no objection to spending extra for the quality, luxury version—I couldn't agree more with the post's message.<p>I try to live my life in the most minimalistic fashion (see my apartment[1]), and am constantly looking to throw away things that add no value to my experiences. I strive to keep my desktop and mailbox empty. But by no means does that make me cheap: I pay for music, video streaming services. I buy premium items and food, because I know that improving my quality of life is the purpose of having money in the first place.<p>The cliche but somewhat true statement is: what good is all the money in my bank account going to do me when or if I'm not around to spend them. I'd rather live a good life now than the possibility of a better one in the future.<p>[1]: <a href="http://kswizz.com/post/5032419362/new-apartment" rel="nofollow">http://kswizz.com/post/5032419362/new-apartment</a>

The privilege of spending extra on "nice things" is almost purely in the realm of the well-to-do. This is the rationale Rich White People™ use when buying L.L. Bean backpacks (LIFETIME WARRANTY GUYS) that end up piled in attics and covered in dust from neglect. Also, a downside of 'nice stuff' is you have to lug it everywhere. If you lead even a moderately itinerant lifestyle, this <i>totally blows</i>. Don't listen to some guy on the internet telling you your stuff sucks, just buy what you damn well please and what you think will do the job. Your tools don't make you great, your skills do.

The number of Tony Robbins-esque rah-rah lifestyle articles here has gotten entirely out of hand lately. Seeing this at #1 on the site today makes me want to delete my HN bookmark and be done with it.

I'm in a state of disbelief that this is the top article on HN right now.<p>Reading this article made me feel like I was shopping in the discount aisle of the pop-psych megalo-mart. This article is cheap shoes. It is poorly written, contains numerous abuses of the English language, and aims low at an obvious insight; the comments have been an order of magnitude more insightful. The author utterly misunderstands the meaning of the main thing he impugns: Frugality. Sorry, but this is a cheap knife with a flimsy blade.

For mattresses buy pocket spring or latex foam. When me and my girlfriend switched to pocket springs we literally felled asleep the first time our heads touched the mattresses ... in the middle of the day, right after we set it up in our apartment. It's incredibly comfortable.<p>For shoes buy some trekking shoes with goretex membrane. You'll never have wet feet in your life again. My Garmont's served me well for last 8 ears. I just had to do minor adjustment year ago because soles have rubbed off not evenly. And I am yet to find shoelaces that don't break. I think about the ones made of kevlar. Before that I was buying sneakers and leather shoes that fell apart after 0.5-1 year and had to watch out for every puddle.<p>For your torso buy something from Polartec, as thick as you can find. And something thin, light breathable, waterproof and windstopping to wear it when it rains. Again you'll not get wet from the rain and dry up as fast as if you were wearing only t-shirt.<p>Always spend money on things that make you life easier or the things you have to do more comfortable. But when you don't have idea how good are the things you consider buying are always pick cheaper ones. High price never guarantees quality. It's often even strong indicator that seller is dishonest.<p>Oh. And don't make stuff up and don't buy things that will require from you doing additional things.<p>I also almost never bring damaged things to the store to have them replaced. It's easier to toss it away and buy something else. Much less unpleasant social interaction.

It's simple.<p>Just count the number of hours you use an item in a week. Anything you use for a large part of the week should be of high quality.<p>Bed, office chair, desk, computer screen, computer, cooking utensils if you cook a lot, phone - in my case.<p>My car is 10 years old and doesn't have an a/c but I use it irregularly for Kiteboarding purposes and don't care.<p>In essence, it's much harder to bear a small pain for a long time than it is to bear a big pain for a small amount of time. And the mental stress from the smaller and longer pain is much much more IMHO.

I kind of agree with the author about willing to spend big money on things that matter. Mattresses, computers, chairs, desks, things like that are all things that you use regularly.<p>Though that's now that I consider being Frugal. Being frugal is not only being practical with my money (buying what I need and knowing what I won't use). I had a strong desire of buying an iPad, but really I know I won't use it. It also involves making sure I take care of my things, I check my tires and oil on my car regularly. Doing the little things to keep your stuff going and not spending frivolously is being frugal.

These days, more and more I find that the sensible option is unfashionable. Fashion seems to disregard the practical and applaud foolishness.<p>I'm not talking haute couture, mind - but everyday people. Didn't get a new car? Weird. Still wearing your old shoes? Weird.<p>I seriously expect this trend to continue, Idiocracy-style, until utterly stupid is fashionable, like back in high school. Diesel has made a strong start.

My old boss used to say "Sometimes, you can't afford the cheapest thing."<p>Buying the <i>right</i> thing can be less expensive in the long run than buying the cheapest.

Being cheap just for the sake of being cheap/frugal if the cost is not a constraint is not wise and often times produces little to negative return. Additionally, if the price tag is the only thing you are looking at and considering when buying something, you are most likely overlooking equally important costs down the road.<p>It seems people who are frugal/cheap fall in to a few categories:<p>* Little income and need to maximize runway<p>The best way to maximize your runway in this case is to reduce monthly/repeated expenditures, especially food and housing. Being frugal here is not only logical, it's a must.<p>* Saving for the long-term<p>Although you will net a bit of money this way over the really long-term, it's far more efficient and gratifying to figure out a way to disconnect your income from the the amount of time that you put in to making that income (e.g. making a smart investment with a high rate of return) in order to maximize your savings. Most people simply do not spend enough to see large savings through being frugal, at least not enough to significantly change their economic standing.<p>* Gaming factor<p>Some people just like the gratification of having gamed the system, which is understandable.<p>* Mental cobwebs<p>It's often the case that people who grow up poor are far more price conscious despite their current economic standing.

One thing I do is to allocate a bit of money each week to "lifestyle", This is the amount of money you allow yourself to waste every week. In my case it's around $25.<p>Situations to use it:<p>* Treat myself to a $10 lunch instead of a $5 one once a week<p>* Just pay for parking instead of driving around of 10 minutes looking for a free park.<p>* Catch a Taxi instead of walking or waiting for a bus<p>* Want a coke and the nearest store charges $4/can? just pay it rather than spending 10 minutes looking for a more reasonable price.<p>* See a cheap toy or a book that looks interesting. Just buy it.<p>Depending on how rich you are it could be more or less than $25/week. Somewhere between 0.1% and 1% of your income perhaps.

I think I may already practice everything this blog post tells me to, but I still feel insulted, both on my behalf and on behalf of people I know. The author comes off as a real dick. I can't point to any recommendation in the post I specifically disagree with, but I'm pretty confident if he met me he'd find some reason to think I'm a loser. And my whole family. And most of my friends.<p>Maybe it's because I don't take the same snotty attitude toward the "mediocrity" of consumer purchases. Maybe it's because I recognize that the "draining" and "grating" experience of using "piece of shit" stuff is, in many cases, entirely relative. My car is less a draining piece of shit than a $15,000 car and more a draining piece of shit than a $30,000 car. My television is less a piece of shit than a $1000 television and more a piece of shit than a $2000 television.<p>There's no magical way to get beyond "piece of shit" when there's always a better, more expensive item available. The shirts I buy are not as nice as the $200 shirts I'd buy if I were not paying careful attention to my spending. I tried to buy a sport coat a few months ago. I'm not really comfortable buying fancy clothes, so I just wandered around randomly for a week before giving up, but what do you know, the perfect jacket I found (not in my size, but perfect fabric) at Armani Exchange cost $2000 marked way down. Apparently I will not be buying a sport coat that makes me feel "quality" and "worth it." My favorite restaurants in town easily run into triple digits for two people or even for one -- I go occasionally and watch what I spend, and on rare occasions I have whatever I want. I don't feel like I'm eating shit and reinforcing the mentality that I'm a cheap piece of crap when I spend $15 on a meal, even if I usually would prefer the $50 meal.<p>There's no way I can escape those compromises. There's a hell of a lot of <i>better</i> stuff I would buy if I made twice the money I make now. There's no way I can escape consciousness of that better stuff, and there's no way I can escape the fact that there are plenty of people in town who don't have to make the same compromises I do. There's no way I can escape the fact that the fabrics I wear do not feel as nice as the fabrics they wear. There's no escaping the fact that I chose my apartment as a trade-off between niceness and location. I have a crappy apartment in a perfect location; most of my coworkers have beautiful, new houses in distant, desolate suburbs; and a few blocks away from me there are beautiful high-rise condos that are nicer than my coworkers' houses and more centrally located than my crappy apartment. I could afford one of those condos if I stopped contributing to my 401k and stopped saving for a down payment on a house.<p>Does my choice of apartment make me frugal? I pay more for a central location, which is what I want, so maybe I am following his advice. On the other hand, I pay less by accepting a crappier apartment, so maybe I am not following his advice. Actually, now that I think about it, I cannot be following his advice, because my apartment does not fill me with gratification and self-esteem. Even when I make the right decisions for myself, I never think <i>"Damn, this is great, I am so totally worth this."</i> Instead, I think, "This isn't the best or the worst, but it's the best trade-off for me. Some people who make the same money as me will spend more and have something better, and others will spend less and have something not as good."<p>I really don't feel bad about it until I run into people like this who ram it down my throat that not having the stuff I <i>really</i> want is supposed to make me feel cheap and unworthy compared to the people who can afford it.<p>And finally, not that anybody gives a shit anymore, it's just morally wrong to equate possession of higher quality stuff with a higher level of worthiness. If you indulge in the gratifying thought that your nice stuff reflects your superior worthiness, that generalizes to the perception that people with higher quality stuff are higher quality people. It's an inescapable mentality, you can't <i>not</i> think that way, but shouldn't we be working to moderate that prejudice instead of intentionally aggravating it?

It's easy to say "spend $30 extra" when you actually have that money. There were times when I was in debt, and had like $10 on my bank account, and so many personal problems I couldn't handle work. His advice was pointless at the time. That advice is pointless for anyone who doesn't have free $30 to spend around.<p>My verdict: the author lives in a bubble that he has created and paid for. However, that bubble is also his prison; it suppresses his ability to make sudden changes in life.<p>I am fairly ok with sleeping on the street, since I've done it a number of times, so when it comes to making a mildly life-changing decision I'll be more confident about taking a risk.<p>Look, I like sitting here in a nice couch, typing on a Macbook about how hardcore I am, just as much as everyone else does. But ultimately, a nice couch is just that -- a nice couch, and a candle in the bathroom is just a fucking candle. And in a hundred years, no one will care if you had a nice couch or a candle in your bathroom, but they will if you wrote a book or created something beautiful.

Bruce Sterling said some similar stuff in the Last Viridian Note, and he said it far better: <a href="http://www.viridiandesign.org/notes/451-500/the_last_viridian_note.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.viridiandesign.org/notes/451-500/the_last_viridia...</a><p>It's a little unfortunate that viridiandesign.org is basically unreadable due to that terrible background image.

"I get as much pleasure watching my bank account grow as I do from buying things or taking trips"<p>Pleasure from amassing wealth or things is misplaced. It's a dangerous addiction to nothing. Work on that before you lecture the frugal about being cheap.

Wow, I disagree. Starting with expensive shoes. I wear flip-flops, shorts, and a t-shirt to work everyday. I'm pretty comfortable. I don't see the correlation between expensive footwear and comfort.<p>Beds. Yes, you spend 1/3 your life in bed. And you spend it unconscious. You spend about 0.03% of your conscious life in bed while falling asleep (30 mins a day).<p>But more importantly: Relax. Just because you make a certain decision doesn't mean everyone else needs to.

There are studies that indicate that runners wearing $100+ shoes are much more prone to injury than runners wearing sub-$50 shoes. In fact, what's initially "comfortable" insulates our feet from important physical signals, leading to a lot of physical pain. (read the recent, excellent book "Born To Run" if you find this interesting)<p>My point is that not thinking about decisions "makes you a loser", and equating price with quality is often a mistake.

Bed and chair manufacturers must love this post. While I agree that it's pointless to skimp on things which would make you more productive, it's not necessarily true that the really expensive ones are better.

A friend's uncle gave some very abrupt advice which has stuck with me. "There are people who figure out ways to save money and there are people who figure out ways to make more money."

I think it's perfectly acceptable to buy a cheap version of something if you're not sure how much you're going to be using it. For instance, if you decide to take up guitar, you'd be an idiot to spend $3000 on a nice Fender Stratocaster, because chances are you're going to play it for a week and then never touch it again. Same goes for a lot of hobbies. If you <i>are</i> going to use something a lot, however, I agree that you should eventually upgrade to the nicest stuff you can afford.

The surest way to be happy is to have a large safety net in all the things you really need.<p>You can skimp on the things you merely want, and still be happy.<p>Think of all the things you really need, the things you would be really miserable without. These are the ones you should splurge on. I mean, really, spend 2x as much as you think the average person would spend on them. Totally own it. Then you will always feel like your life is good. Because you don't sweat the small stuff :)

Absolutely agree with this post.<p>I didn't grow up with a lot of money, and was raised on the 'If it's available Wal-Mart, buy it at Wal-Mart' mentality.<p>Looking back on this, I wasted so much money on crap that just got replaced.<p>Now, I spare no expense (within reason....) to buy the nicest of what I want. End result? I'm more picky about what I buy, so I have fewer, but nicer things. and I am rarely left thinking "Well I wish my X could do Y".

Wow, this guy is a loser.<p>I don't disagree with his suggestion that the primary tools you use in life and your trade should be high-quality. He's right about that specific statement. If I must eat a Ramen-equivalent to buy the tools I need, I will. However, most of us cannot afford his tastes in every area of life after paying for crappy health insurance, a mortgage, and children. He reads like a child who has never been forced to live on less and to value the tools we have.<p>Most normal people are aware that every purchasing decision we make involves trade-offs. We perform a cost-benefit analysis with many purchases. We think, if I cut back on buying fancy coffee over the course of a year, I will save up enough to afford a better laptop or a lower health insurance deductible.<p>The author has issues that need to be addressed. The whole article reads like someone rationalizing bad choices on luxury-branded products and criticizing in advance anyone who may one day point them out.

Invest in yourself and those you care about at every opportunity. Enjoy life from the proceeds. And never spend to simply impress others.<p>And value your time. If you don't, no one else will.

Obviously this article has hit a nerve. Its true, the tone is somewhat rude and I don't agree with all he says, but I'm happy about the discussions. I'm a cheap bastard and so are most of my friends. But I used to be the cheapest. Hell, in my climbing bum days before Uni, I even got called "cheap bastard" by fellow climbers on the campsite!<p>However, I'm changing. More into the direction that the author proposes. This year, I got a Mac. It was almost forced on me by a friend. I always liked Apple products but thought the price/value was just not good enough for a poor student. I think I was wrong. I never want to go back. I would probably clean toilets to afford a Mac if I have to.<p>The author touches an important point, especially for aspring entrepreneurs, when he says: "Using well designed stuff reinforces the mindset of earning and creating. “Man, the world needs more well designed and well made stuff like this.” “Man, I’m going to earn more so I can have more well designed and well made stuff like this.”" I couldn't agree more. How can you get costumers to buy quality from you if you don't choose quality over price in your daily life? Its hard to build something, that you have no experience with.<p>One advantage of buying cheap, though, is that its easier to get rid of them later. Hence, you might feel more freedom and flexibility. However, I'm starting to pay attention to aspects like weight and robustness so I don't have to leave them behind when I leave. What I really want to get rid of the next time I move is all the cheap stuff. On the other hand, having lots of cheap stuff is a good reservoir for hacks!<p>I also agree with the author on "The mental aspect [being cheap] is huge." I'm trying to get rid of this problem, too. In the last month I've bought two free Apps [1] on online stores. I just felt they were worth the money. Later, when I learned this was actually true, I checked for the license and was pleased to see they where under GPL and Apache 2.0<p>[1] touch.txt for Android ($2) and Brisk ($15) for the Mac

The first blog comment somehow underlines the truth in this post:<p>&#62; You’re such a dick, Scott.

Replace the word frugal with cheap in this article and it becomes much better.

There are two points here - the practical one (don't buy cheap stuff, you save money but it costs you time because it doesn't work as well, breaks and causes more grief than it's worth) and the mental one (because you're worth it).<p>The first one is fine and bang on the money, but are people actually getting their sense of self worth from the quality of their nail clippers or having pot pourri in the bathroom? Seriously?<p>If that's really the case then I'd suggest that people look at the underlying issue of why this is rather than papering over the cracks by buying nice stuff. The idea that your self worth comes down to your stuff is horrible and should only be true in the world of advertising and marketing.

So we have two sides of capitalism here: consumers who want to buy at a cheaper price, and consumers who want to spend more on quality/brand/etc.<p>I should change my nickname to "socialist_commentary" or something. Why not argue about <i>why</i> you need all these things and what you're doing by supporting particular companies (some of which may treat their workers like shit)? You're smart enough to talk about the price of the product, but not smart enough to talk about the companies and our consumerist culture in general? I don't buy that.

The author definitely makes a solid point: quality always wins. But the tone and delivery of this article made me feel like an idiot for ever buying anything on the cheap. Generally, I felt like I was back in high school being put down for buying the wrong pair of shoes. Reiterating that point, the author's delivery makes me feel like I've done something wrong, not put me on the path to being naive about frugality.

What is Frugal is subjective to your income. What makes a person feel good or bad is consequential of his social circle and what his friends/acquaintances have.<p>For eg: a person making $1 million a year, could buy a $40K car and feel like he was not compromising if all his friends had $30K cars.<p>However, a guy who is making a similar amount of money might not be too happy if he had to buy a Jag and all his friends had Ferraris.<p>Ignoring the whole loser argument that the author is making, the one good thing to consider here in the article is, its a good idea to spend proportional to the time you will be spending with the product.<p>For eg: If you are spending a lot of time on computer, you probably want to get something that is "good" quality and which is good for your eyes and has other benefits.

Article directly contradicts the definition of frugality, talking about being cheap instead.

AJ is saying don't cut spending on things that affect your production. That's absolutely a no-brainer. Buy yourself good tools, ensure you get good sleep, keep your health up, keep your ability to walk.<p>Always spend more to increase your production by a bigger amount. It pays for itself in the end.<p>Now, how much should you cut on pure consumption? That's a tricky one. I tend to cut my consumption as low as I can without hurting my production. But do always spend well on tools, on getting your production up, on your health, and on taking good care of people who do right by you. Absolutely don't go cheap on that stuff, you wind up with less in the long run if you do.

There is a difference between cheap and frugal. In accepted parlance "cheap" means making purchasing decisions based solely on price. "Frugal" means paying for value, which is what this post is ultimately recommending (despite the title) - a "lean" mentality, where you avoid needless cash burn (or saving) in favor of those things that really matter.<p>Ramit Sethi likes to go on about this topic - see his "Cheap vs. frugal" blog post, for example: <a href="http://sandbox.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/archives/2005/09/cheap_versus_fr.html" rel="nofollow">http://sandbox.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/archives/2005/09/ch...</a>

As someone who just voluntarially went from a house, 3 cars, and tons of junk - down to what I can fit in my hatchback (including furniture) and a basic apartment, I can tell you that nothing is more liberating to me than throwing away / selling junk that I didn't need, and being able to live without stuff owning me.<p>Sure, my backpack has a nice laptop, iPad, etc. - but to me those are true conveniences. I've slept for years on shit mattresses, and I've come to conclude that it's how hard I worked that most affects my sleep.<p>Just my two cents...

Frugal: performing intense cost/benefit analyses on everything, including the analysis itself.<p>Cheap: not spending more _only_ because the price is higher.<p>Frugal builds wealth. Cheap squanders it.

The cheap vs frugal debate can go on forever. I think it comes down to cost vs. convenience. If you're spending a ton of time and inconveniencing yourself trying to be frugal maybe it's not worth it. When I'm trying to save money on something I just ask myself whether the savings are going to inconvenience me a ton. If so, I just buy a better, more expensive product. If not, hey just get the cheaper product.

A better intelligent article would have address the total cost of ownership and efficiency of the product over its lifetime.<p>In that sense, buying better quality products which might be more expensive at first is a better deal. In this way I am willing to concede that you shouldn't sell yourself short. But this can honestly be all summoned up by saying, do your research before you buy.

Most of you are dicks. The guy makes sense, don't cheap out on the things that matter. Don't waste 30 minutes looking for nail trimmers every 2 weeks to save an extra $3.85.<p>Take what he says with a grain of salt and apply to your life what you think is right.<p>Hacker News comments are created by a bunch of self-righteous, over-generalizing trolls.<p>Live and let live and don't be a cheapskate :]

I'd just like to point out that true frugality doesn't lower your status. It raises mine because I have a higher standard of living and thus appear to have higher income than I actually do.<p>Miserly-ness is the result of something I call <i>naive cost benefit analysis</i>, which is an analysis that leaves out important variables.

Another thing not touched on, when you are buying the cheapest you can find you are often buying the product made from the lowest quality materials and assembled by the cheapest workers in the world often in terrible conditions.

A high quality mattress and king size bed, quality (and ALWAYS fresh) bed linen, good duvets etc is the best investment you can make no matter what your income bracket is, everyone needs this. Totally agree.

I've bought $1 screwdrivers and $10 screwdrivers, and I can saw with some assurance that 1) there wasn't a 10x difference in utility and 2) my annoyance at #1 made it a far worse experiencs

Am I the only one who thinks his definition of 'frugal' is typically described by 'cheap'?<p>Agree that he's just a total unlikeable dick all throughout the post. Heh.

I live with a belief that I cannot bring my money with me when I die.

A great post that will be misread by most people. Adam Carolla has a similar rant in his book about why your bed should be one of the nicest things you own.

Who the fuck is this guy to tell me what I <i>should</i> buy? It's not as if frugality is rampant in America today.

One of the keys in all of this is differentiating between "cheap crap", "cheap crap with a big price tag", and "expensive but worth it". I recently went shoe shopping. I was looking for a pair of comfortable, casual shoes. What I came across were:<p>$50 bunch-of-choices, made in China<p>$150 Boss/Diesel/etc, made in China<p>$225 Mephisto, made in France<p>$325 Ferragamo, made in Italy.<p>There is one obvious "wrong" choice here, yet it's the one that many people end up with when they think they're going to "buy something nice".

I've heard of an idiom "expensive is cheap" (kinda reminds you of "less is more").<p>The idea being, or rather my interpretation of it is: something of high quality that's 2x the price of something else of low quality is probably wroth 10x more, so it's actually "cheap" in the sense that you get a lot more than what you pay for.