Comments on: The True Nature of Fulfillment

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 28 May 2011 20:36:07 +0000

Debbie M: I like your way of thinking and think it is applicable for me. Thanks!

By: Debbie M

Debbie M — Sat, 28 May 2011 17:47:06 +0000

Although this curve may not be exactly the right illustration for this idea, I quite like the idea of figuring out which way you tend to err, and then adjusting your behavior in accordance. I have done this in the following areas:
* When I’m injured and I’m resting the injured part, how do I know when it’s time to stop resting? I tend to err toward the macho side, so if I ever don’t feel sure, I keep resting. Same with if I’m trying to decide whether to see a doctor–if it even occurs to me at all, I should go see one (or at least call the nurse line). (Other people err toward the hypochondria side.)
* When I’m trying something over and over and it’s not working, how do I know when it’s time to give up? I tend to err toward giving up too soon, so when I’m not sure, I keep trying.

I like the idea of applying this strategy to purchases, too. I’m now to the point, though, where I’m erring in both directions about the same amount of time. Sometimes I buy things that I end up not using; sometimes I refrain from buying things which I later wish I had bought. I’m pretty good at knowing how much I’m willing to pay for varying levels of quality, too.

So, rather than your advice to aim for a 2 or a 3 on this scale, I’d recommend finding out if you tend to err in one direction or another first, and if so, then aiming a little differently.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 28 May 2011 16:45:39 +0000

If Trent had bought a Saturn Vue he would now be saddled with a vehicle made by a defunct line, with no resale value at all, and with available parts in ever-diminishing supply. Seems like the Honda was the smarter decision (even though I admit hindsight is 20/20).

By: Joan

Joan — Sat, 28 May 2011 15:13:39 +0000

I have enjoyed all the comments as well as the post. Everyone who commented seemed to be thinking about the post and not just disagreeing or agreeing with Trent. I get the idea of a bigger car. With a family you always need room for all the extra items you take with you especially with three small children. It isn’t just how many people it will seat. My car replaced a pickup, which had very little room in the second seat, but which I had gotten use to carrying everything in the back of the pickup. Solution, a honda odyssey which has plenty of room for carrying items and seats seven. Most days this is to much car; but when I take a trip with the family, or need to take several items to a family get together, it is just right.

By: Genny

Genny — Sat, 28 May 2011 13:53:54 +0000

Given that the news media has been chock full of stories about people who have overextended themselves on their housing and are now in foreclosure, and stories about people who have huge amounts of credit card debt, I wonder why people complain about Trent thinking that (in general) people who have a a great deal of material things and large mortgages may be overextended. Yes, many people may very well be able to afford what they have. However, many people cannot afford what they have or we would not be bombarded with news of record foreclosures and credit card debt. So pointing out that some people can afford nice things is stating the obvious, and complaining about this writer’s point of view may be ignoring the obvious, in my opinion.

By: Kate

Kate — Sat, 28 May 2011 11:52:57 +0000

I can’t understand why people continually think that Trent says that ALL people who have big houses/fancy cars are overextended. I thought that the point of this blog was to help people who are finding themselves in debt over their heads and sinking fast. If that is so, then the majority of people who come here looking for suggestions and are living in McMansions quite likely ARE at risk of foreclosure (especially if they are overextended and have an unforseen circumstance arise).
“Trent thinks of cars as just transportation yet has a Honda Pilot that seats 8 for a family of 5. He could have spent thousands of dollars less for the same year model Saturn Vue with the same Honda engine and transmission, though only seating 5 people.” I can definitely understand the need for a bigger car for a family of five–to have enough room for friends and extra family to come along.
What a luxury it would be to have a dedicated guest room in a house with three kids. Sheesh!

By: moom

moom — Sat, 28 May 2011 07:35:41 +0000

An economist would break this down into benefits and costs. Mostly the benefits will rise at a slowing pace like some of the commenters have said and not actually decline. The costs should should be measured relative to income and are likely to rise at an increasing pace as you go to a larger and larger house say. The net benefit will rise and fall in the way that Trent showed. But where the peak is will depend on your own preferences and income. The example that Trent gave would likely be true for the average middle class household.

By: almost there

almost there — Sat, 28 May 2011 02:13:20 +0000

#19, Troy. I agree with your post. The curve was taken from YMOYL book and illustrates the example that increasing anything leads to less fulfillment. I have read the book twice and come away agreeing with it as far as furgality but realize that is is socialistic in that the authors depend on government subsidized transportation and services to live their lives. I still don’t see how investing in fixed savings can generate income fast enough to reach the break even point with today’s rates even with the revised book. Some of my thoughts are Trent values family yet doesn’t set aside a room as a guest room? Trent thinks of cars as just transportation yet has a Honda Pilot that seats 8 for a family of 5. He could have spent thousands of dollars less for the same year model Saturn Vue with the same Honda engine and transmission, though only seating 5 people. Remember how T writes, he establishes a conlusion and then writes the post to arrive at it. Most writers do.

By: Allie

Allie — Sat, 28 May 2011 01:47:52 +0000

Sure, but there’s a difference between a diminishing return (in which you still get benefit but it becomes progressively smaller) and a negative return.

By: kristine

kristine — Sat, 28 May 2011 01:39:47 +0000

Interesting post, and conversation. I think it is accurate, for the majority of the middle class (though we shrink by the minute). But this graph key addresses an assumed paradigm, not a universal truth.

I know many very wealthy people who simply CAN afford the huge home, the fancy cars, and dinner out 3 nights a week. And they pay their taxes, and for their kids to goto college. What can I say? A lot of dot.com millionaires around here- the ones who got out in time.

This post correlates more to the study that once you are lifted from poverty, and can meet basic needs without worry, happiness tied to money has a diminishing return.

By: WhiteCedar

WhiteCedar — Fri, 27 May 2011 19:48:03 +0000

Ted’s 5600 sq ft house is just the right size for his family. He feels comfortable having any and all guests over. He isn’t overwhelmed by housework because he’s hired both a housekeeper and a landscaper. Because of his generous professional salary, the bills are completely manageable.

Ted’s house is a 4. He briefly considered an 8,000 sq ft. house like his senior partner, but decided he wouldn’t use the extra space. That would have been a 5. Instead, he’ll get that cottage in the Keys.

The beauty of Trent’s scale is it’s flexibility. Ted get’s to decide what’s “just the right size,” what’s overwhelming, what’s manageable. Trent was careful to relate the scale to how it affects the person making the decision, not some arbitrary dollar amount.

Then, he gave some personal examples from his own life.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 27 May 2011 19:14:32 +0000

Wow, I thought the whole bell curve example was just a general example for explaination purposes only, rather than getting into specifics. As for Trent’s advise aiming for a 2 or 3 to see if it meets your needs, I get it. I like to go to the spa, and it can be pricey. I “downgraded” to the student school spa, and found out it was actually better then the pricey spa for a lot less money. My perceived 2 ended up being a 4 in reality.

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 27 May 2011 18:48:52 +0000

Issues with this post are similar to yesterdays.

Yesterday T man pointed out that cars are not important to him. Ther are simply something to provide transportation. Point a to b.

Yet he strives for a dream house in the country.

But a house is just a place to live, or can be viewed that way. Just a box. Just as material as a car, and just as utilitarian.

But perception changes the feelings associated.

Same with this post. According to T #4 is right where you should be and no more.

But many don’t live according to T. Many live in a 7, except they can afford it. Most people can’t. That is part of the appeal.

Many people see cars as more than a functional form of transportation. Some see them as expression.

And this notion that the fulfillment curve looks like a bell curve is complete opinion, one which I do not share. I think the curve continues to increase, though sometimes at a slower pace.

It is nice to justify this type of curve to support your existing situation, and to make yourself feel better about your own situation, but it simply isn’t true. Yes, some people that have nice homes and cars are barely getting by, or worse.

But many people that have nice things and nice lives DESERVE them. They EARNED them. They didn’t inherit it, they didn’t finance it, they aren’t in debt, they simply worked their fannie off for it. And they can afford it.

They do what they love, but that love pays them very well. Their spare time is spent doing other things than reading and playing bored, I mean board games. Believe it or not, many wealthy people watch TV. People sacrificed time to go to school, become professionals, start businesses, etc.

This blog is starting to become irritating becasue the central theme is nearly continuous praise of total frugality and minimalism, and shunning of work, success, and real financial freedom.

Though it is difficult to admit, because it many times exposes your own shortcoming and mistakes, there are young people that have built themselves from nothing, are great parents and spouses, and very successful in their careers. They have ample funds, extremely large incomes, nice homes, nice cars and clothes and experiences and live great lives.

There were sacrifices, but those that really know what’s up made them long ago, when everyone else was ignorant to the idea and living it up.

Everyone gets it eventually. Some people simply got it right up front. You can’t continually bash them just because you didn’t.

By: Allie

Allie — Fri, 27 May 2011 18:08:15 +0000

Thank you, Tracy and Johanna.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Fri, 27 May 2011 17:44:50 +0000

@6 Johanna – When Trent mentions that his current house a bit too big for his 3 children, he does say that they could use the same square footage but with a different layout. So perhaps what he means is that they could use the same amount of space but rather than having say, a formal living room and a family room, take one of the living spaces away and give a bedroom to the 3rd child. The first house I lived in as a child had a formal living room and family room, the formal living room was pointless space, and myself and a younger sibling shared a room. I can easily see how my family would have been happier in a house with an extra bedroom and only one living room. I doubt Trent wants a home with fewer bedrooms. :)

By: Steven

Steven — Fri, 27 May 2011 17:44:03 +0000

This example might have been better explained with chocolate…

1) You only get a small taste of the chocolate, and are left craving more!

2) A nibble of the chocolate…better than a taste, but still not enough!

3) A bite of chocolate…fulfilling, but you’re still left wanting more.

4) A whole chocolate bar, enough to fulfill your craving, and just enough that you’re satisfied and content.

5) Two chocolate bars…more than enough, and you’re left feeling a little queezy after eating it all at once.

6) Even MORE chocolate…too much, and now you’re feeling sick to your stomach…

You get the point.

By: Joanna

Joanna — Fri, 27 May 2011 17:30:13 +0000

I think that #1 MollyH has an excellent point. The fulfillment curve wouldn’t really dip back down after it’s “peak”, it would just be increasing at a much slower rate. Thus every $$ spent after the peak brings less satisfaction, much like eating a lot of ice cream. Seems like the only way you get it to dip back down is to add in the affordability factor. I mean, is Oprah really thinking, “man, I’m so much *less* happy w/ my 60,000 sf house than I would have been with a 30,000 sf house”? Or is it rather the case that she would probably have been just as content with the 30,000 sf house? I also think Trent put the house size/features & affordability into his own terms. But really the curve would be very different for each person or family b/c what they need/value is very different *and* what they can afford is very different. Agree w/ the other posters in that it’s a valid point, esp wrt the pre-purchase perception, but an awkward execution.

By: valleycat1

valleycat1 — Fri, 27 May 2011 17:19:47 +0000

I think the example would work better if Trent isolated a range for one variable instead of arbitrarily linking multiple variables.

By: LB

LB — Fri, 27 May 2011 16:43:54 +0000

I agree that it’s judgy to assume that all families in McMansions cannot afford them and that having too much or too little space will cause all people embarrassment, pain, or guilt. Before I looked at the comments, I thought about the curve Trent describes as a personal curve for each household. My retired parents might be at a 4 on the curve in a 600 square foot retirement apartment, and my cousin with 5 kids might have the budget and space-needs that his 4 would be a 2400 square foot house with a furnished basement. I think the analogy works better if it is taken to be a personal curve- not a one-size-fits-all judgement of the “right” size of house.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Fri, 27 May 2011 16:39:29 +0000

@Derek: “What else is new?”

Certainly not people who have nothing to say themselves telling me to shut up. That hasn’t been new for a long time.