Comments on: When Is Frugal Living Taken Too Far?

By: harm

harm — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:05:10 +0000

Trent MENTIONS politics occasionally on TSD, but
I never notice him harping on it. Too many readers
jump on him when he mentions a slightly liberal
view on an issue, as though they are offended by
the existence of such views. I have no problems
reading a blog by someone with different views than
myself, and indeed welcome such views….
go Trent!

By: rodgerlvu

rodgerlvu — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:00:45 +0000

Trent, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about politics.

By: TJ

TJ — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 02:39:49 +0000

I must have read a different article about these folks, because it had a very different slant, the one mentioned by Suzanne. (It also didn’t have any of the examples you quoted!) This wasn’t about being frugal, this was about reducing your environmental impact by “reusing” items – reducing consumption and production. It’s not just “what’s the cheapest way to get X?” but “do I really need X? If so, does X need to be brand new?”

“Talk radio” – our NPR station carries ‘talk’ shows all day, so don’t assume talk radio means conservative! (or maybe the newspaper article mentioned specific shows?)

The Targets in my area doesn’t have any toys open to play with (although you can read, peer at, or caress the boxes all you wish), but all of the high-end toy stores do. They expect kids to play with them, it’s one of their best sales techniques!

By: MousePotato

MousePotato — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 04:59:03 +0000

Letting their kids play in a store is no different than what the poor generally do at thrift shops. They come in, plop their kids in the toy aisle and go shopping. The kids destroy whatever is packaged and the parents don’t buy them toys.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 07:17:06 +0000

As a (non-original, but for seven months now) member of The Compact, I wanted to add my point of view here. What the original post and most responses seem to miss is that this group is not about frugality as I understand it. The principle idea behind not buying new products is to reduce the impact we have on the earth by stepping out of overconcumption and overuse of resources. The group doesn’t take itself too seriously (apart from the purchasing thing), and I think you shouldn’t take some of their comments so seriously. I think the dog comment, for example, was intended to be a joke. And food (and drink) purchases are exempt from the compact (though people are encouraged to buy foods that are organic and local), so I don’t think the wine was bought used. There is, in general, a focus on supporting local businesses and artisans–thus people are allowed if not encouraged to patronize restaurants and other services as a way of strenghtening their community. And members are allowed to buy stuff used. True, there is no prohibition on driving, buying gas, etc., but most compact members were already environmentally conscious, and not buying new is a step on top of the usual recycling, driving less, composting, etc. So, again, perhaps some of the complaints here are misunderstanding the goals of compacting. You don’t have to agree with those goals–just understand that this is not a poor attempt to avoid spending money.

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:13:51 +0000

Ok, having read the full Washington Post article, I have to say, the Compact is… weird. Un-even. Unfocused. An odd challenge for the sake of a challenge, moreso than a political statement. I mean,

“One Compactor points out that the group’s members are not really denying themselves much. Boyd says that, for example, by buying less new, ‘I drink way better wine now.’ Also allowed: services. So they could buy a massage if they wanted to. They can go to movies, theater, concerts, museums, bars, music clubs and restaurants. They can fly, drive (and buy gas), stay in hotels.”

My first thought is “Eew, how do you buy used wine?” and the second is “Wait, they’re buying wine out of private cellars, right? That’s not used, that’s snobby.” At least, it seems that way to me. And the third thought is that they’re not really consuming less (re: the WW2 comment), they’re just consuming differently.

I appreciate the challenge of spending less, of looking for pre-owned options, or waiting a while to see if I REALLY need or want the item. Taking that challenge and applying it solely to goods, but not service, and solely to new goods, not all goods, seems incredibly limited.

Maybe some people “just need to start somewhere” but I appreciate a more wholesale approach.

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:57:29 +0000

FYI the link to the original article is no longer working, but I found a similar story at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/17/AR2006121701122_pf.html

and it reminds me a bit of the gal who did the Brown Dress project, her new project is “The Recycling project” http://www.littlebrowndress.com/recycling%20journal.htm

By: Trent

Trent — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:14:18 +0000

As long as politics stays as partisan as it currently is, I will have a chip on my shoulder about politics. That’s why I usually try to avoid politics on The Simple Dollar.

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:46:28 +0000

Trent, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about politics.

By: Trent

Trent — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:12:22 +0000

My concern here is that partisan talk radio is a place for people to reinforce their own beliefs and deride the beliefs of others. Listen to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken and ask yourself where the fair and even discourse is. If the people really wanted to make an impact, they would go on National Public Radio, a reasonably nonpartisan audience that’s open to new ideas.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:05:19 +0000

Your right about the toys (both child and dog types) but I am almost 180 degrees apart from your POV in the rest of this post.

The group’s philosophy of reuse needs to be on conservative radio. Why preach to the choir on KPFA. Sure this cause discourse and drama but its needed. This type of dialog is “trial by fire”; after the smoke clears listeners can think about the ideas that survived in the crucible.

Also the idea of using used toilet brushes sounds bad but don’t underestimate the power of bleach to kill almost everything.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:45:54 +0000

I think you need to re-read the part about the talk show. The participants in the compact did talk about appearing on a talkshow, Kalle Lasn of Adbusters did. I didn’t read anything that led me to believe she was a member of the compact.

I also don’t see why buying a new toilet brush should be considered always necessary. Without knowing the specifics of the vote I find it hard to judge. Was the brush actually so unsanitary that it couldn’t be sanitized with household cleaners? Was it falling apart? Or did someone just have a weakness of wanting to not clean it.

As for the toys so what? Target isn’t going to resell those demo toys as new. Toys are put out there to be evaluated, if the kid gets what he needs in that amount of time then why should a toy be purchased? Who says they aren’t buying their underwear and other basic health items from Target?

You seem awfully judgmental towards a group of people who are willing to experiment with what their actual needs in life are and share the experience with others.

By: David

David — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:01:05 +0000

Ahhhh you beat me to it. I was prepping a post on this just now when your post came up in my reader. God job though, you said mainly what I was going to say, its a noble thing to try to do, but these people seem to take it a little too far. Thanks for the post. I think I might link to your post now!