I live in a safe, quiet neighborhood 15 minutes from Atlanta.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure 99% of people in the US wouldn't consider my house "patheticaly small". I'm confused as to why you need an abundance of living space anyway, given that you never cook and apparently don't spend a lot of time at home.

Roger Clemens is like bizzaro world EmpireMaker2. Where instead of bragging about how much money you have, you brag about how little you have.

When I was single I didn't which is why I went form 3200sqft to a one bedroom that is 1300-1400 sqft. It is basically two rooms so works fine because it is all open. My issue isn't with needing an insane amount of space but with the trend toward taking a reasonable about of space and trying to subdivide it into so many rooms that the space becomes completely useless. Now that I have a serious GF who lives with me the place is just too small so we have been looking for over a year for a larger place. The place I'm negotiating to buy currently is a little ridiculously large but still a two bedroom.

The reason you need space is because it makes life easier and more enjoyable. Take something like a closet. If your clothing is all crammed in you can't take proper care of it, you don't have the ability to best assess your options, dressing is just harder. If you have the space to properly store your clothing it is just a better quality of life. Likewise, I enjoy wine -- if I have space I can have a small wine cellar. I hate mess which is one of the reasons I don't like cooking but the place we are looking at has a small butler's kitchen so that all the messy prep happens off in a small room and so not visible. Having a huge bedroom just leads to a happy start to the morning. Likewise having a large living area allows you to have people over and entertain in ways that are simply not possible with smaller spaces. Having a large bathroom or two full bathrooms allows for two people to get ready at once rather than having to share a sink and be in each other's way. It is just better in every way. Other than cost and maintenance I don't see any other reason not to have as much space as possible.

I'm pretty sure being thrify != bragging about being poor.

I kind of feel like you, and to a much lesser extent, Henry, use some of your posts to brag about how you have tons of money and therefore don't have to go around shopping for deals on things. But it's not as if Roger Clemens is claiming that he's broke and this is the way he lives his life, he's just claiming that it is possible to do so, and pointing out ways in which you can save money on things without sacrificing a lot of quality.

For example, it was claimed that an oil change cost henry 480 dollars, which is pretty much completely ridiculous unless you own a $200,000+ car and want to get the best oil imaginable. For any normal person, even people in the upper middle class, this is an outrageous cost and they're not going to pay 1/3 of that price.

Also, I just believe that it's incorrect to say that people who are rich don't shop for the best prices on things. I believe that in general people who have a lot of money probably try to save money on things more than anyone else, excluding the extremely poor. I doubt that anyone who knows anything about money management is every going to pay even close to sticker price for a new car, while most people who aren't so savvy end up paying 90%+ of sticker price.

It's very strange that you brag about getting ripped off all the time.

Claiming a $10 oil change is about as realistic as claiming a $500 oil change.

Time value is supremely important and underestimated. Much of what is suggested is purely doing bitch work in the guise of being "retired".

Ripped off is a misnomer and projection. I don't have the time and inclination to search for cheap products. The additional expense of time/travel cuts into already thin margins of savings. This also assumes that the substitutes are equal quality. I may pay a premium to avoid hassle of a scam, whereas you run a predictive risk of that hunting for a deal.

For example only an idiot would suggest the fruit I buy is of comparable quality to that sold elsewhere. In season, I could find cheaper produce at the farmer's market, but this is typically of lower quality (obv where I shop the veggies are preselected so I don't have to deal with a bruised apple or a deep cut on a potato or what not) and out of the way. I'd have to make an additional trip to purchase vegetables. Is the savings of a few dollars and the waste of an additional 30 minutes of my life every 2-3 days worth it? Obviously not. If I retired, I wouldn't want to trade back that 1.5 hours a week in exchange for $6 net savings. I'd want to spend it on something useful.

Lol at living in a 1500 square feet house and being poor. Most people would consider people who can afford to live in any house instead of an apartment middle class. Even if the house itself is on the cheap side, upkeeping a house costs so much that someone with a mcjob type of job can't afford it, let alone a jobless person.

Poverty = Living in a very small apartment in a poor neighbourhood, eating nothing but pasta every day. Once you can afford ketchup you exit the poverty zone.

It is because the claims are ridiculous. I'm still at my sweatshop fantasy camp and I got hungry but not being even close to presentable I decided to go with a slice of Pizza Pizza and a can of diet coke -- that was over $5. Now Pizza Pizza is one of the worst pizza options and really other than being open 2-3 hours later than the others and having a phone number that is easy to remember no one would ever choose to eat this. A slice of pizza and a pop isn't enough food and if I hadn't been under the delusional of escaping in time to go somewhere non-horrible for an early dinner I would have had two slices which would have put me at over $10 when you factor in the coffee I got from Tim Horton's after. I'm not even drinking Starbucks or going to fancy coffee places but just the standard coffee place that everyone goes to.

I'm curious how we don't spend time at home, but we go places for free. I assume we either loiter or go to the library (lol) or some variant of parks (for the times its nice outside). There really aren't many free places to go without mooching. The mall if you want to join the people that get dropped off as quasi-day care.

Even just going to the mall though isn't an option. You will get hungry and you will get thirsty. So even if you do nothing but walk around and look at stuff you can't afford to buy you'll still have biological needs that have to be met that you also can't afford. Of course I'm sure the answer to that will be pack a lunch and yes that is poverty.

Nah. You just spend your time driving back and forth. You just don't air condition the house for your lunch and sweat. Then you shower again and change clothes (Obv water is free and toiletries/laundry is as well. Since we ****ing love washing clothes.) Actually, we can just camp inside our house.

I don't agree that claiming an oil change is $500 is similar to claiming that it is $10. They're both off, but one is off by several hundred dollars, while the other is off by at most $100, and that's for far better oil than a typical car needs.

I completely agree with everything you said in the last paragraph for anyone living a normal life. Time is very valuable to most people. But I don't think you and henry are being honest in your arguments. On the one hand, you argued earlier that someone who is without a job must spend a great deal more money each week due to having more free time. But on the other hand, you are trying to say that time is valuable and that you won't trade an hour to save some money. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Presumably if you are bothered by having too much free time you won't mind driving an extra hour or two to find the best places to buy quality products for cheap. Obviously this is dependent on your disposition, but some people enjoy shopping and getting deals on things (I personally don't, but I also wouldn't mind driving to a farmers market, as long as the drive isn't through some place in the city with no view whatsoever, nor have I ever felt bored because I had too much free time).

As for how to spend time for free outside the house, my preference would be mostly in parks, and in some places the weather is nice enough year round for this. Clubs (chess, go, whatever else you are into, not the ones with dancing) are many are free (or charging some kind of small year-round fee of $20-50, hardly worth mentioning). Many museums are free. It is very feasible to travel within the states and stay within budget, so long as you aren't averse to camping and eating lower quality food for the duration.

It costs more than that to change the oil on my car. Your post is ridiculous. Learn wtf you're talking about. I drive a reasonable import car. Not some 200k+ supercar.


Umm... wtf? I spend my leisure time at the beach, by the pool, going to the gym, reading, partying, learning obscure tasks, etc. All these things cost money. I don't want to clip coupons and scour the town for cheap fruit and discount beef.

If you need to do something distasteful in order to make a budget work, you're essentially just shifting the definition of "work" and what your job is. That is ****ing ******ed.

Yes. We're making the assumption that the average person doesn't like running errands, clipping coupons, scouring fatwallet, changing oil, doing manual labor for < $10 an hour, instead of actually doing wtf they want. Again, the point is that budgets don't work unless we start taking away from "free" time for reasonable activities and put it into activities that create money. Clipping coupons and searching for deals may save up $10 a week and take up 5 hours of time. So we reduce our desire for entertainment by engaging in some silly bull****. Obviously the argument is that people who don't enjoy changing oil, doing manual labor, etc are frivolous people. As opposed to the average woman, the elderly, or anyone ****ing normal. I choose to do some home repairs. I don't view this as something I want to do my entire life, but more as interesting problem solving and subset of learning esoteric skills that interest me. Will I ever patch holes again? Probably not. Can I patch holes? Sure. I suppose I would patch it if the urge struck me, but to rely on doing this to make my budget work is ridiculous. Much like the poker example. If you need $400 a month to pay your bills, that is no longer a hobby. You must play poker to pay your bills. Its a job.

Where exactly is the weather nice enough year round to go to city parks? I can't really think of anywhere sans Southern California (GLHF with your budget) and maybe Florida, but again... enjoy the budget. Going camping is ****ing ridiculous though. You camp because 1) you want to 2) camping is pretty ****ing expensive 3) it is ridiculous to suggest this as a "average" way of travel. Not even a motel 6? GMAFB.

To be fair I also need to get oil changes considerably less frequently. I believe the normal amount is every 5000km while I'm only required to get one every 25,000km. I also realize that what I pay isn't normal since I do drive a car that you can't just take to OilChangers but Roger Clemens's claim that individuals with IQs above 50 don't pay much for oil changes was annoying since intelligence and income are correlated so intelligent people are much more likely to own expensive cars that need special care.

The point we are trying to make is that they basically end up trading employment for spending more time and effort trying to make their miserable life fit in the budget. The absurdity is that they have the ability to avoid this by simply getting a job. It is just amazing that people would entertain the idea of eating ****, doing nothing, and living at the standards of someone on social assistance when they don't have to. The last part if what is critical. They have the option to avoid this but they are so socially ****ed up about dealing with employment that they rather live like a pauper than interact with people.

lol

I know. lol @ me for taking you seriously. I expect more posts about freeganism.

It's completely reasonable to say that it's not worth doing it because getting a decent job is easier and more rewarding for most people (I think most people doing unskilled labor would disagree with you here, though). But this is not the same as claiming that it isn't possible, and I think you exaggerate how miserable a life it is.

I'm loling at you because you put words in my mouth or misinterpret practically everything I say, and I can't imagine that you're even attempting to be serious or think critically.

As for the poker example, poker is another thing you can do outside your house for free, as long as you are a winning player. Even if you don't use your earnings to help your budget at all, you can just keep a separate bankroll for poker that you use to play with.

As for parks, I enjoy the parks in maryland year-round. Obviously I can't go every day during the winter, but there are plenty of days where it is 40+ and sunny for several hours, and this is good weather for physically demanding activities. I can't imagine there are many states that don't have days this warm during the winter, unless you're living in the northern midwest.

EDIT: Camping is not expensive. Most (probably all, but I can't say since I haven't been there) states have a plethora of free campgrounds, especially in the southeast and mountain/northwest states. I know that most that don't have campgrounds for $10 or less per night.

EDIT 2: I'd like to know your opinion on allowing things like chess tournaments, etc. as a form of "free" entertainment. If I am a winning enough player at some variety of competition, am I allowed to claim these are free entertainment, since I know I can cover my entrance fees with my winnings?

At no point has anyone said it isn't possible -- only that it isn't possible while maintaining any kind of quality of life that isn't utterly so depressing that you'd want to kill yourself. Of course it is possible if you buy the cheapest of everything, buy only the most basic of essentials, and have no life. The argument that you can go out and do stuff and have anything that resembles an enjoyable life for a normal person is what is in question.

As for what people would choose I don't know. I'm not being paid but the last week I've worked a lot harder than pretty much any job and I would take this over being a broke guy with a lot of free time. At least this way I'd be too tired to realize how much my life sucked. I'm also at least trying and while failure isn't much comfort it is better than just accepting loserdom with open arms.

Now we're bundling up and going hang out in the park. Brilliant. This is exactly what people are talking about when they cite "The life you describe, sucks".

Because 40 degrees and sunny requires so much bundling up when you're playing soccer or trailrunning or climbing. Good joke.

not everybody has to spend money to enjoy themselves ya know

People keep saying this yet no one gives actual examples of stuff that involves leaving the house and is enjoyable and doesn't cost money.

I'm also curious about personal relationships under the scenario. I'm assuming our hypothetical guy wants an SO eventually. So what does he do about stuff like getting her flowers, lingerie, birthday gifts, anniversary gifts, Christmas gifts, etc..

Lets just focus on flowers -- how often can he send her flowers?

I think I understand whats required to wear in the cold for exercise, but hey... thanks for the pretentious attitude.

And what would you call your attitude exactly? Your response was "Now we're bundling up and going hang out in the park. Brilliant." and you expect me to respond in a completely non-confrontational way? Are you serious?

Informed.