Who Lives in these Rooms Anyway

I was watching Decorating Cents last night, and as usual they had a segment on interior redesign. In that segment, interior redesigners move the furniture in the room around, then scout throughout the house looking for accessories to bring the room together.

To accessorize they bring in lamps, tables, throws, pillows, plants, candles, art, knic knacs, etc. Once the room is accessorized it looks good. Well, it looks like it's ready for a magazine shoot.

The problem with these rooms is that once they are accessorized, they aren't really comfortable to use. I mean, the room looks great but how are your guests going to sit down when the sofa is covered with pillows and throws?

How do you manage to see the person you are talking to with tall candles or a bunch of flowers on the coffee table? Someone please tell me - what's the point of a coffee table that is so full of accessories (things you don't use) there is no room for your cup of coffee?

Don't people intend to use these rooms? Are the rooms just for looking at? Do the people who live there constantly straighten the throw on the sofa or rearrange the pillows once someone leaves the room?

Are our "living" rooms really supposed to look like magazine ads? Aren't we supposed to live in these rooms? That's what the den is for, you say. Then your intention is to pay for a living room that you can't use, you can only look at, obsess over, and worry about, right?

I don't get it. I mean, I understand that everyone wants their home to look nice. But, who decides what looks nice? Is it up to the designers, or the TV shows, or the mother-in-law...or us?

If you ask me, a room is meant to be used. If you can't use the room without having to worry about everything being straight, centered, fluffed, and unwrinkled, then you have a showcase - not a room for your family to use.

Veterinarians are Salespeople - Be Aware

We've changed vets. To my disgust, I learned the hard way that veterinarians are salespeople, too.

The first vets we chose were chosen for convenience. A husband and wife veterinarian team's office is less than 2 miles from our house.

In the beginning, we always saw the husband and he was great. Our first appointment was made because we had found a 7 week old kitten, covered in fleas, with obvious eye infections, outside in the rain.

At that time we were still renting and pets were not allowed at that property, but we just couldn't let the little thing suffer out in the rain. We explained to the vet that we were not supposed to have animals, and we had very little money to spare on a kitten that we would probably have to get rid of (if the landlord demanded it).

That vet reduced his office fee and didn't charge us for one of the tests, and we were grateful. So, when we bought our own house and adopted a dog from the Humane Society we took our dog (and that once-ill cat) back to him for their health-care needs.

That was when we started seeing the wife in that team. She was entirely different from her husband. Where he had been happy to discuss the costs of high-end pet foods and their more affordable alternatives, dog shampoos and which worked fine while costing less, and flea treatments and over-the-counter alternatives, she pushed every line of every high-end product they sold.

Now, I'm not saying this woman shouldn't sell products that make them money. After all, every business is in the business of making a profit, but when this woman began pushing puppy shots every two weeks I started getting irritated.

I didn't have a problem with the first three shots. I understood that it was difficult to be sure that the immunization had "taken" and was not neutralized by immunity received from the mother. But on the third visit I asked if this or the next one would be the last and this vet proceeded to tell me that my puppy may need more than five puppy immunizations.

Now, that is rediculous. I knew from doing research on this issue that too many immunizations were worse than too few. And, the timing was equally important in determining whether the shots would "take" (every two weeks is too close together, but she insisted on that interval).

Combining this pushiness about giving shots indefinitely with the fact that this woman didn't even want to discuss cheaper alternatives for basic dog care (brushing dog's teeth rather than paying for a cleaning, etc), led me to believe that she was simply trying to make money and had no interest in the health of my pet.

So, we found another vet. This doc doesn't push his sales products on us and is willing to discuss cheaper alternatives for basic pet care.

If you want to stay in control of your money, do your own research. Don't take your vet's word for everything. Some of them are just as hooked into consumerism and greed as any other salesman you might encounter in a store or on TV.

Voluntary Simplicity - My Definition

I’ve been reading about Voluntary Simplicity (VS) for a while now. I like the idea of living a simple life – a life with reduced stress, a life without all the “hurry-up-and-go”, a life where making a ton of money is not the goal, a life where the people matter more than the things.

But after reading scores of web sites, I’ve realized that what I am looking for isn’t a typical VS life. My goal is not to live off the grid, or learn to grow all of my own food, or learn to cook on a wood stove.

All of those goals are wonderful, and they can certainly lead to a reduction in needed money, but in my opinion, they do NOT lead to a simpler life. I’m looking to make my life easier, not more complicated. I have no interest in going backward when it comes to technological progress. I like having water, electricity, heat, A/C, and automatic appliances at my fingertips.

I’m not trying to be political or save the planet (although that is certainly a noble goal). I'm trying to make life better – for me and my family – while making as small an impact on the planet as I can.

So, what do I mean by living a simple life? A simple life to me means an unpretentious life – a life in which a façade is unnecessary. I want to go back to the “good old days” when simple living meant frugality and non-consumerism were the norm, not something to be ashamed of because you were poor and couldn't do any better.

I want to have a simple house, and not be looked down upon because of it. I want to buy furniture that is good enough for us, whether new or used, and not feel anxious when I have company. I want to clothe and feed my family as decently as possible, based on what I think is important rather than on what advertisers tell me I must have.

I want to feel good about turning the heat down in the winter, and turning the air conditioning up in the summer. I want my old – but functional – appliances to be a testament to how well I am managing our money, rather than an embarrassment that we hope no one will comment on.

I want to be proud that I don’t have to work outside our home, and not have to feel that I am judged as lazy, nonproductive, and a drain on society’s resources. I want my lifestyle to be considered an acceptable alternative to consumerism, rather than a pitiable way to live.

Voluntary Simplicity has as many definitions as there are web sites about VS. I thought I’d add mine to the mix.

Keeping up with the Jonses

Yesterday, I wrote How Big does your House need to be. There is another issue in that story that I didn't mention. That issue is Showing Off; more commonly known as Keeping up with the Joneses.

As I watched that episode of House Hunters, it dawned on me that the reason this couple wanted to move was not just because they had alot of "stuff," but also because they felt compelled to Show Off. This came clear to me as I answered the questions that kept running through my head.

What conclusions do you come to when you ask yourself these questions:

• Why would someone need a house with a formal dining room when they had an eat-in kitchen?
  
  
• Why would you need a formal living room when you have a family room or den?
  
  
• Why aren't members of a family "allowed" to use certain rooms in their houses?
  
  
• Why is it "bad" to have the TV as a focal point in a room?
  
  
• Why must we pay to heat and cool rooms that we aren't allowed to use unless company is in the house?
  
  
• Why do we spend the most money to furnish and decorate rooms that aren't meant for the people we love the most?
  
  
• Why do we feel that making an impression on a friend, co-worker, or relative is more important than our own immediate family?
  
  
• Have we bought so far into advertiser's propaganda that we now believe that our image truly is an indicator of our value?
  
  
• Have we really assimilated that message into our belief systems, and now accept that spending money to impress others is a quest that is worthy of our time, money, and limited energies?
  

The answer, for me, is easy.

I will not use any of my limited resources in an effort to impress anyone. My value lies, simply and automatically, in being alive.

How Big does your House need to be?

I was watching an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the other day. In that show, HGTV featured a couple who had 3700 square feet of space and were looking for another house because they needed more room.

"More room," I thought? "How can they need more than 3700 square feet of space?"

They had two small children, so they were a family of four. That means they need 3 bedrooms, right? Well, they needed four bedrooms. They wanted a guest room. No, maybe it was five. I think they wanted a separate home office, too.

Where does it end?

Obviously not there. They also wanted a "formal" dining room and living room. That means they need a separate "informal" eating space, and a den or family room so that they can actually sit somewhere and watch TV. God forbid they watch TV in the formal living room!

Oh, and I forgot to mention that one of the criteria for their new house was that it have a 4 car garage. They had a boat, a jet ski, and two cars.

OK, it was becoming clear to me. They needed more room because they had alot of stuff.

Now, obviously, it's not up to me to tell people how many "things" they should buy. If they have the money to buy and maintain boats and jet skis and cars, that's their choice.

But, when you think about it, you begin to see just how expensive these things become. Think about it - These people had to buy a bigger house because of their things. I would say that significantly increases the cost of these things.

How much are you willing to pay for a boat, and a jet ski, and two cars? Is an additional $50,000 for a bigger house with a 4-car garage too much? If we divide $50,000 by 4 we get $12,500 added to the cost and maintenance of each item.

I don't know how much this couple paid for their boat, jet ski, and two cars, but that extra $12,500 puts them in the way-too-high category, in my opinion.

This show illustrates a question that I think we all have to ask ourselves. How many "things" do we really need to buy?

When do we finally have enough?

I'm Cheap

That's right, I'm cheap. I could try to dress it up. I could try to make it sound better, more appealing, softer. I could call myself economical, thrifty, canny, prudent, careful, wise, commonsensical, levelheaded, balanced, prudent, circumspect or any of a number of other words. But why bother? Cheap fits me just as well.

First, let me define what I mean when I say I'm cheap. Cheap, for me, means I won't spend a pile of money for "quality" items that I don't expect to last very long. I won't spend more money for pretty packaging. I won't spend more for something that has a particular label on it. I won't spend any money for things that advertisers try to convince me I need in order to be more popular, cool, or more loved (those are just lies anyway).

I won't go to Sears to buy something that I can get at Walmart. I won't use coupons to buy a brand name something that I can buy cheaper in a store brand. Of the few brand name items that I do buy, I get them at the Dollar store where they are cheaper, not at a grocery or drug store.


I won't go to a restaurant to eat. I think eating at restaurants is one of the worst ways of spending your money. You have nothing to show for it. Nothing. The satisfaction of a full belly doesn't even last 1 day. You have to eat again within a few hours of dropping $40, $60 or $100 on one meal. How crazy is that?

For clarity's sake, I will say that I don't expect much of anything to last very long. Food is an extreme example of this, but most of the things that we buy fall into the category of money spent on items that won't last long.

Don't agree with me? Then tell me how long you expect these things to last:

• Clothes - 1 year or less? Even if you buy good quality clothes that could survive the washer and dryer for more than 1 year, what are the chances that you will get a stain of some sort on them? What about the fashion or style, will this dictate how long you will wear something?
  
  How about your kids clothes - 6 months or less? Isn't that why we have to buy new summer and winter clothes every year? They either grow out of them, ruin them, or peer pressure says they are out of style.
  
  
• Furniture - 5 years or less? Now, 5 years sounds like a long time. It sounds like a good investment, right? Not when you've paid $1500 or more just for a sofa. That's $300 a year I'd have to add to my budget just to replace a sofa after 5 years. I don't know about you, but I'd rather save that $300 for something that adds more value to my life than a sofa.
  
  If you've got kids, or just like to eat or drink while you're sitting on the furniture, it won't last 5 years. Some stains just won't come out.
  
  
• Home Decor - 2 years or less? If you care about decorating your home, you are being influenced by advertisers. Now, that's not a slam. All of us have some area that we are interested in, and we follow the trends just to see what's out there. But, if you are being influenced by advertisers, you will feel more pressure to change your decor with the trends.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. You can listen to the advertisers and plunk down a big chunk of money to buy "quality" products that "last."

Or, you can be cheap like me, and realize that most of what you buy isn't going to last long enough to make it worth paying that "quality" price tag to get it.

Anti-Consumerism – a class distinction

I’ve been searching for articles on “anti-consumerism” and I’ve come across an interesting article in This Magazine, called The Rebel Sell, by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter. I agree with this article but I disagree with it as well. Let me explain.

Heath and Potter write,

We find ourselves in an untenable situation. 0n the one hand, we criticize conformity and encourage individuality and rebellion. On the other hand, we lament the fact that our ever-increasing standard of material consumption is failing to generate any lasting increase in happiness. This is because it is rebellion, not conformity, that generates the competitive structure that drives the wedge between consumption and happiness. As long as we continue to prize individuality, and as long as we express that individuality through what we own and where we live, we can expect to live in a consumerist society.

I agree that, “As long as we continue to prize individuality, and as long as we express that individuality through what we own and where we live, we can expect to live in a consumerist society.” I also agree that there is a class of people in the US (and Canada?) who express their individuality through what they own and where they live (and what they drive and what/where they eat, etc., etc.). This class of people is referred to as the “middle” class or the “upper” class.

I am not a member of either of those classes. I am a member of the “lower” class, therefore I disagree with the following part of Heath and Potter’s statement.

On the other hand, we lament the fact that our ever-increasing standard of material consumption is failing to generate any lasting increase in happiness. This is because it is rebellion, not conformity, that generates the competitive structure that drives the wedge between consumption and happiness. (emphasis mine)

This statement seems to beg the question that conformity would generate an increase in lasting happiness, as it relates to our ever-increasing standard of material consumption, if conformity was indeed the issue.

In other words, according to Heath and Potter, giving in to the pressure to conform and buy what “everyone” has, would bring us lasting happiness … if only we resisted the urge to take the next step and rebel against the masses who copy us. That rebellion causes us to search for something else to buy that no one else has.

This spiral of having to buy something new and even more unique (or costly?) is what causes our loss of lasting happiness (according to our authors), not conformity.

Not only is this statement ludicrous, it entirely misses the point of anti-consumerism, at least for those of us in the “lower” class.

Anti-consumerism is about rescuing our hard-earned dollars and our self-esteem from the greed driven motives of giant corporations who want us to believe that the only way we can be accepted (loved) is by purchasing their products.

To those of us in the “lower” class, anti-consumerism has nothing to do with being cool, or unique, or “better than” the Jonses. It has to do with being “good enough.”

We don’t hear comments like, “[My] place is the real deal, a genuine factory loft, steeped in working-class authenticity, yet throbbing with urban street culture and a “rock-video aesthetic.”” (We are the authentic working-class, fergawdsake!)

We hear comments like, “You don’t have a TV in your bedroom?” “Your car is old, don’t you think it’s time for a new one?” “You bought that old house? I would’ve thought they’d have torn that house down by now.”

The message the anti-consumerist “lower” class hears is, you are not “good enough” (you should feel shame) if you don’t buy what we have bought.

It doesn’t seem to matter that they (our peers) can’t afford a TV in every bedroom, or a new car, or an expensive house, either. What matters is that they bought it (on credit- because advertisers told them they wouldn’t be loved if they didn’t). They “own” it (along with the bank), and if we don’t have the same things we should feel Ashamed and Embarrassed.

The burden of the “lower” class anti-consumerist is to resist this pressure to conform, to spend, to buy what we don't need. This isn’t an easy thing to do. Even for the most stalwart of us, this type of peer pressure can be overwhelmingly difficult to swallow without tasting some of the shame and embarrassment that is being dished out.

Therein lies the pain of non-conformity. However, to conform is to lose sight of our goals, to put our self-esteem in someone else’s hands, and to lose all hope for the future.

Conforming will not generate happiness, much less lasting happiness. It generates only a feeling of confusion, and at some point, it comes clear to us that we’ve surrendered our lives to line the pockets of the greed-mongers.

Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter write an interesting article that I believe offers some insight to the “middle” or “upper” class. But for us poor folk, it misses the boat entirely.

How Much Clothing do You Really Need?

Do you want to save money, be more organized, and know exactly how much clothing you have? Then print this list, grab a pencil, and dig into your closet and dresser.

Let's take it down to the basics. How many outfits do you need, and how many do you now have?

Fall or Spring

1. Five lightweight pants. ___ pants
2. 3 - 5 lightweight sweaters. ___ sweaters
3. One jacket. ___ jacket
   

Winter

1. Five pants or skirts or a combination of both. ___ pants ___ skirts
   
2. Five long-sleeve tops or blouses. ___
   
3. One pair of dress shoes. ___
   
4. Two or three sets of pajamas. ___
   
5. One coat. ___
   

Summer

1. Five dresses, skirts, or shorts. ___ dresses ___skirts ___shorts
   
2. Five short-sleeve tops or blouses. ___
   
3. One pair of dress shoes. ___
   
4. Two or three sets of pajamas. ___
   

For both Winter and Summer

1. Five sets of underwear. ___ ___
   
2. Five pairs of socks, knee-highs, or stockings. ___
   
3. Two - three pairs of dress socks or stockings. ___
   
4. One pair of comfortable shoes. ___
   
5. One bathrobe. ___
   

All of these clothes should easily fit into an averaged sized closet and one dresser or chest of drawers. I would suggest that you only buy more clothing when you've worn out something to the point that you are ready to throw it away.

Something in? Then something has to go out. Both your wallet and your closet will thank you.

How many clothes do you have?