NY Times: Spending Less and Finding Happiness

But Will It Make You Happy?

By STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM
Published: August 7, 2010


SHE had so much.

A two-bedroom apartment. Two cars. Enough wedding china to serve two dozen people.

Yet Tammy Strobel wasn’t happy. Working as a project manager with an investment management firm in Davis, Calif., and making about $40,000 a year, she was, as she put it, caught in the “work-spend treadmill.”

So one day she stepped off.

Inspired by books and blog entries about living simply, Ms. Strobel and her husband, Logan Smith, both 31, began donating some of their belongings to charity. As the months passed, out went stacks of sweaters, shoes, books, pots and pans, even the television after a trial separation during which it was relegated to a closet. Eventually, they got rid of their cars, too. Emboldened by a Web site that challenges consumers to live with just 100 personal items, Ms. Strobel winnowed down her wardrobe and toiletries to precisely that number.

Her mother called her crazy.

Today, three years after Ms. Strobel and Mr. Smith began downsizing, they live in Portland, Ore., in a spare, 400-square-foot studio with a nice-sized kitchen. Mr. Smith is completing a doctorate in physiology; Ms. Strobel happily works from home as a Web designer and freelance writer. She owns four plates, three pairs of shoes and two pots. With Mr. Smith in his final weeks of school, Ms. Strobel’s income of about $24,000 a year covers their bills. They are still car-free but have bikes. One other thing they no longer have: $30,000 of debt. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08consume.html?hpw

Purging "stuff" prior to retirement has been the best thing I have ever done. We each have 2 pairs of jeans, 5 t shirts, 2 pairs of tennis shoes each, our hiking boots, a few flannels for the winter, one coat each and socks and underwear. I kept some things I really love like my pottery collection and of course hubby's art work, only useable furniture remains and since I am a kitchen person, I kept all my kitchen stuff. We will be making all of our own soap, laundry soap, shampoo and other toiletries, perfumes, herbal supplements etc so all that store bought junk went out the door.... Before my mother passed on, she hand quilted me a sign in a frame that says "SIMPLIFY" I keep it hanging in my kitchen to remind myself of those things I don't need.

and left me an embroidered fridge magnet that says "Screw the Golden Years."

However, I've been paring things down considerably. The things that have been hardest to let go of are things I bought for art projects I never did. The easiest things to let go of were clothing items, especially work clothing. I am hanging onto my homemade sweaters knit with homespun yarn.

I was once reduced to only a wok, a small covered saucepan, a hotplate and a toaster oven for a kitchen. I managed. I'm still keeping my kitchen gear because I use all of it.

There are days I dream about hiring a dumpster and putting 90% of what I own into it and having it hauled away. Then I get a grip and realize I'd only drive myself nuts afterward, looking for what I'd gotten rid of.

I can't say that owning next to nothing made me any happier. I can say that buying stuff never fills up the empty places we all have from time to time.

As long as the thrift shop taketh away, I'll still be paring it all down.

Last year I spent a bundle to pack up my Mom, Grandmother and Great-Grandmother's china, crystal and sterling and ship it to my Nieces. Let the next generation deal with formal dinner parties! Now I have to work on the wardrobe of clothes I will never fit into again.

If only I could get B.O.A. to downsize my mortgage.

I read this and got a different take. Talk me down.

I see this piece telling us it's OK to be poor(er). "Hey... the economy is shit, wages are down, unemployment is up, and you're hurting.... but... look on the bright side, you don't have all that clutter anymore."

What next... helpful tips about organizing your remaining possessions in your car, where you are living?

I am truly for simplicity, but whatever happened to the message from the Powers That Be that we need to consume.

The 'consume or die' message has had its bubble burst.

We are presently in a deflationary spiral.... going down.

"Please hold the handrail"

I'm sure the NY Times understands this.

Tikki
p s I agree with you, that's how I read the article.

Don't worry, be happy slaves.

Not that everyone needs to over-consume, but I doubt you're going to see the top 1% giving away their china.

It's so obvious.

The Ownership Class is phoning it in at this point!

and can now spend more time penniless at home.

The Times is Wall Street propaganda.

Don't miss their glowing articles on the joys of starting your own business with no capital.
They are published regularly and are quite amusing.

I was gonna say +1,000, but thought that was too big...

She was only making $40K? that's not very much. Funny how these "stories" are not about people in mcmansions giving it all to charity. No, it's about a woman living in a two bedroom apt when she should have been happy in a 400 ft studio.

I agree it's nice to get rid of junk, but it's also nice to have what I need.

Any how, sorry I can't talk you down. I think you're right about the message - it's scary.

in that article?

That's where people who are really worried about money or who want to simplify shop!

I'm all for simplifying, but this article was more about trying not to piss off the big box stores and wall street investors instead of about simplifying or about the realities of the Great Depression 2.

those aren't cheap at all.

It seems that more and more people are becoming interested in downsizing. Here's a group dedicated to that end.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smallhousesocietyonline/

That's sort of why I expected more Democratic legislators to finally form a solid block to push our president and their fellow Democrats to put the people's needs ahead of corporate campaign contributions (a.k.a. bribes) and get Medicare for All for us after the BUSH CRASH.

I strongly hoped our Democrats would band together to give us a basic floor of security with Medicare for All because of basic compassion for the millions being evicted from their homes and bankrupted by privatized medical expenses.

But serving multinational corporations and preserving their campaign contributions was more important than the Democratic tradition of compassion, even if millions of voters crossed over to vote for the Party of FDR after the Republican ethical and economic crashes.

my disappointment and disgust on this issue knows no bounds.
The ONLY developed nation where people have to worry about paying for healthcare...

So strong that it could prevent Democrats from forming a solid block and pushing through Medicare for All after the Republican Great Recession. But that happened the last time some Democrats pushed for national health insurance too.

The US government has allowed itself to be overly privatized. Too much of our legislation is dictated by lobbyists because of our legislators' need for millions of dollars in campaign donations (bribes).

What a web we have woven for ourselves. When basic compassion in a national economic emergency just doesn't count for much in the discussion.

HR 676 is still in the house...grass roots still building...

certainly NEED to downsize. Hope to be in a position to work in a much smaller home in the next few years. I'd like to keep my old pickup truck, get a reliable bike, and eliminate all of my bills.

Creating a list of goals is the first step.

I love reading the NYT, but man was it full of it today. With this story, the magazine article about the writer's 20 years of psychotherapy, and the article about "I'm not young and hot anymore, boo hoo hoo!" -- well, it just reminded me that even though it's a hoot to read, it's a hoot because it's very much a New York paper.

Perhaps if she had a decent wage, she'd be happier and not on the work and spend treadmill. They make it sound like she was spending on shoes and purses, but after car payments, insurance, healthcare, etc, I'm guessing there wasn't much left. So in reality, they gave up.

And this is supposed to be inspiring? There is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a house (not a mcmansions, a simple house) and owning china.

through school. How retro is that? And now he has a doctorate in physiology and a busload of student loans.

Mr. Smith is completing a doctorate in physiology; Ms. Strobel happily works from home as a Web designer and freelance writer. She owns four plates, three pairs of shoes and two pots. With Mr. Smith in his final weeks of school, Ms. Strobel’s income of about $24,000 a year covers their bills.

wonderful.

The article nowhere mentions student loans. In fact, it specifically mentions that they are no longer in debt.

You can't have student loans and be debt-free at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

There's a good chance someone getting their PhD will have student loans. Student loans don't become due until 6 months after graduation.

The article says: One other thing they no longer have: $30,000 of debt. it doesn't say they are debt free.

Really has nothing to do with the point anyhow, being that she gave up her career to support him while he's getting his PhD.