Most people in the US are pulled into living on credit straight out of school. You get a student loan, then a car loan, then a credit card, then a mortgage. You finance vacations, appliances, kitchen remodels, smartphones - mostly to keep up with friends and coworkers who finance their lifestyles too. A lot of people are in non-stop debt from the age of 18 to 55, if not longer. By most estimates, only about 10-20% of US households are debt-free.
Spending and getting into debt are useful tools. But I don't have any friends in tech who need to be told "hey dude, you should be spending more". I have quite a few friends who would be better off spending less.
For sure it's more common for people not to save enough. But for people who are frugal and save diligently for most of their lives, there often comes a point where they cross a threshold where they have met all of their financial goals, and the "problem" is no longer how save money but to enjoy spending it. And this can be a real challenge for people who have built up deeply ingrained saving habits.
My mother, for example, refuses to replace her iPhone SE with something with a larger screen despite 1) having failing vision and difficulty reading the screen, 2) using her iPhone every day, 3) easily being able to afford it. The idea of spending $1,000 on a phone is just something she is unable to bring herself to do, even though I think it would help alleviate a real source of frustration in her life.
My father, when he started shopping for his most recent car (and probably his final car), set out with the intent to buy a luxury car. But again, despite being able to easily afford one, all he was able to bring himself to buy was a well-equipped Toyota. Don't get me wrong - it's a great car and has served him incredibly well. But it makes me a little sad that he wasn't able to bring himself to finally treat himself to a luxury car after a lifetime of hard work and saving. They did a lot of long road trips together in that car in retirement, and I think they would have enjoyed something a bit more luxurious (though on the other hand, the reliability of the Toyota is not to be discounted).
I think what you're attributing to frugality might be a more a matter of age? Many older folks are just wary of change.
I'm not that old, but every time I upgrade my PC or phone, some of my workflows break and I need to pointlessly re-learn things I'd rather not re-learn. UI buttons get moved around, icons change, some settings are removed and others are added... this was exciting the first ten or twenty times, but it's just tiring now.
Basically, I'm at this stage in life where my reaction to systemd wasn't "oh wow, this is progress" but "ugh, I need to learn how to start, stop, or modify services again". In another ten years, I'll probably just say "no, I'm not doing this again, just let me use my old computer for as long as possible".
> my reaction to systemd wasn't "oh wow, this is progress" but "ugh, I need to learn how to start, stop, or modify services again"
I must be young at heart while >60 years old; my reaction was "why is everybody whining about it, it's pretty nice, I like it". Same with jj vs git, jj is amazing!
Possibly there’s an element to this. The iPhone SE still has the home button, which may have been a factor when she bought it. And my father was a bit put off by some of the bells and whistles on luxury cars.
When I started driving my car had vinyl seats that you had to peel yourself out of on a hot day, a plastic steering wheel that you could barely touch when the sun was out, hand wound windows, fixed seat belts and a handbrake that barely worked.
Even the cheapest car on the market feels luxurious now.
In comparison the difference between a Toyota and a Lexus is marginal.
Expensive cars are mostly about status signalling, we are long past good enough.
I'm perhaps pathologically frugal myself. I've found for myself the best compromise is to force yourself to pick at least one feature other than cost. We've got a 17 year old Toyota Yaris that I tell myself is for fuel efficiency, and an old Ford Ranger because I wanted at least one of our vehicles to be able to move sheet goods. Technically I could probably walk onto most any lot and pay cash for whatever I wanted, but I know there's zero chance I'll ever do that.
With cars if you wanted to bias yourself towards newer cars you could prioritize safety features alongside cost.
A Yaris and a Ranger (who doesn’t love a Ranger!) are going to serve you well, but they’re not going to have the active and passive safety features of a more modern car. Put next to cost it makes it a bit harder to perform maladaptive frugality.
[dead]
>Expensive cars are mostly about status signalling
Uhm, only if you are counting the most basic utility, then you're right.
However if you actually enjoy driving (A->A driving), there is a HGUE difference and it's not just signaling. It's that you probably can't tell the difference, or don't care.
There is no comparison between driving a new Porsche or Bentley vs a new Toyota or even a Lexus.
When you actually get to drive it as it can be.
Maybe you live somewhere that's possible, or not too far from such a somewhere. Rare to find such places within 50 miles of a big city though, unless you're in Germany and have the autobahn.
I suspect most premium cars get to spend a tiny fraction of their mileage doing the kind of driving where they'd measurably beat a mid-market model.
If you compare a Porsche SUV to a Lexus SUV, there's almost no difference.
If you compare a Porsche Boxster to a Toyota, the Porsche is much more of a driver's car and if you're the right kind of driver, there's simply no comparison. (We'll ignore the FT86 / 86 for the moment ;)!)
If you buy a Bentley... you probably pay someone else to drive it for you.
Something to remember in all of this is hedonic adaptation. Buying a Porsche will feel in the moment different from buying a Toyota. But a few months later, you will be driving "your car" and much of the time, you'll be thinking about driving, traffic, signs, speeds, lights, pedestrians, bikers, the song you're playing, your next turn, a dozen other things. For the most part, you won't be thinking about how much "better" your car is in comparison to the alternative. You'll be used to it. You'll have adapted.
Different cars are certainly different for a personality who is drawn to the merits of automobiles. My favorite car was a $20K used Mazda 3 hatchback. I liked it much better than some much more luxurious cars (including the Polestar 2 Performance Plus I have now.) But that wasn't because of luxuries (the Mazda had luxury and heated seats and climate control and swivel headlights and adaptive cruise control and... and...) but because I enjoyed pressing the clutch, pulling the gear lever into second, releasing the clutch, putting my foot down, and steering through a corner. (The Polestar has some merits as well, but they are very different merits.) The Mazda 3 had a whopping ~186 HP... but it was fun. (Don't get me started on my 2007 Honda Fit... oh the memories!)
Can you explain why?
They cannot, because they are wrong. And I say this as a person who has owned no small number of fancy cars (but I got better).
A new base-model Prius is absurdly luxurious compared to a base model car of 1975 or 1985 or even 1995. If you have lived long enough to see this change, then dropping 2x or 3x or 10x the cost of the Prius self-evidently puts you wildly beyond the point of diminishing returns.
The Prius is going to have excellent climate control, and a phenomenal stereo. It's going to have adaptive cruise control, and will warn you when you drift out of your lane, or if you're about to run into an obstacle.
Outside of motorsports-sorts of things, what you get out of more expensive vehicles is of limited utility. Mostly, it's just showing off.
Now, if you want a track weapon, then yeah, you DO get more by spending. But for a regular person who wants to get from point A to point B comfortably and safely? The Prius is fantastic, and it's hard to justify spending more unless you're willing to admit that it's a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses kind of thing.
My own parents are in their late 90’s. Because they grew up in the wake of the Great Depression, I always assumed their extreme frugality was a function of the economic distress in their formative years. They also properly accounted for the fact that old-age care is very expensive. Parenthetically, most do not seem to anticipate that accelerated burn rate near the EOL. It’s also a phase whose duration is hard to predict.
> The idea of spending $1,000 on a phone is just something she is unable to bring herself to do
She wouldn’t need to spend that much. You can get a perfectly fine refurbished iPhone 16e for $400.
I agree your mother should get a new phone with a big screen, but what qualifies as a luxury car? There are Toyotas that cost 6 figures USD.
I think he was considering a Lexus RX. I doubt he even looked at BMW, Mercedes, etc (not really his style).
His Toyota was probably under $40k. This was back when cars were quite a bit less expensive than now. Nice car for sure, but the Lexus probably would have been a bit more refined.
How old is your old man?
Or get a previous gen used iPhone, then she can have both a big screen and feel good about the cheap phone.
But what is 'luxury'? You may have in mind a Rolls Royce. But maybe he doesn't want that.
If they've been frugal their entire life, they aren't as far along the hedonistic treadmill, a new reliable car is a luxury.
If you're used to darning socks, buying new socks is a luxury.
If I buy a PS2 today, why is that not a splurge, if I didn't have one previously? Yes it doesn't have the best graphics but it's a step up from my PS1. Getting the latest and greatest just because, is keeping up with the Joneses. And that's a path to spending money, not happiness.
The knowledge that you have enough in your bank account if things go to pot, itself brings happiness
Heavy debt is a part of the US culture. You can probably imagine the responses folks would have when they found out I was 40, a tenured professor with a family, and didn't own a house. Nobody had a heart attack but I'm sure some were close. I was just violating cultural norms too much by not going into debt to buy a house as anyone in my position was supposed to do. Then they'd find out I drove an old vehicle and didn't take expensive vacations...sometimes you have to go with the math rather than cultural norms.
Debt is also a way of normalizing, essentially, wage theft. You're encouraged to use credit to bridge gaps when what you're paid doesn't cover your necessities, let alone other expenses that you're expected to take on. When you can't pay back the debt you took out to live what is considered a normal or even frugal lifestyle, the justice system is used as a cudgel against you, often in the form of professional debt collectors and their attorneys suing you in small claims court (a venue which was established for laymen), where they abuse the lax rules to extricate full payment on a debt they bought for pennies on the dollar.
Somewhat related, here is a video from a guy trying to avoid just this sort of scenario by refusing to put his company's business expenses on his personal credit; follow-ups show the price he's paying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFZIxJyKgE8
If society expects you to consume, you should be paid enough to support it. A system that leverages greater and greater amounts of its future to pay for the present eventually reaches a point where it is statistically unlikely that the debt will ever be paid back. That's when all hell breaks loose.
I have zero consumer debt and pay off any credit card at the end of the month.
But I don’t mind work expenses on my personal card? I get reward benefits for a sizable chunk of expenses that I’m directly reimbursed for?
(EDITED)
Otoh, have a few friends in tech (and high finance) who need to be told "dude, we'd be better off if you worked less hard"
(Sorry.. I grew up deprived of data teaching me that "Schlep quickly compounds into Interesting Times")
Having a credit card is like having a video game passive that makes everything permanently 2% cheaper. Everything should be put on a credit card for that discount as well as fraud protection provided you are disciplined enough to never ever ever ever ever ever carry a balance.
This is US-specific advice; EU capped merchant fees, and therefore you don't get a free 2% reward at their expense.
The fraud protection and insurance can be useful though.
You still get a 30 day interest free loan. Assuming you pay the full balance.
The "provided" part is the reason I'm staying away from credit cards.
I don't get the down voters, it is, or should be a tool.
Although we are talking about it being an issue. Which you have already covered.
Problem is, most people don't spend that much time thinking about it. So I suspect "don't get a credit card" or "only use it in emergencies" are generally good advice. Although perhaps we should just be better at teaching house hold type finance