I read the piece through to the end, and while I don't really like the way he presented it -- there's no need to call anyone a loser -- there is an important message to be shared. That is: care about the experience you give yourself. You clearly get this. Sometimes having fewer possessions results in the experience that we value more. Your views might share more with the author than it appears on the surface.

Where the author and I differ is that I don't always believe "spending more" is the key. More appropriately, spend where it matters. As a corollary, don't spend where it matters as well.

There was a great post on Quora that made a similar end argument, but presented much more logically and respectfully: http://www.quora.com/Life-Advice/What-life-lessons-are-count...

"1. Chasing more and more money is not a route to happiness. You shouldn't try specifically to acquire more money in the hopes that it will make you happy but rather, once you have money, think carefully about how you can use it to increase your happiness.

2. Using money to buy the wrong things (often: things which are popular, things which other people desire, things which require much manual upkeep or worry - see #3) does not result in happiness.

3. People often use money to buy things which they then spend time worrying about, rather than purchasing things which allow them to worry less."

The main argument is that it's not a good idea to be frugal just for the sake of being frugal - both extremes of materialism and the opposite are an unhealthy relationship with money or possessions. Buying better things isn't because "you're worth it", but because in some areas it will genuinely make your life a better experience. It's about evaluating all the circumstances and making the best decision rather than applying one credo constantly and repeatedly.

> That is: care about the experience you give yourself.

The key thing is, if you care about the experience you give yourself, it will be easier for you to give the same level of experience to others -- and they more likely than not will appreciate it.

Not quite; the point was, better stuff will last longer, you never have to replace it. It was a utilitarian argument.

No, he did point out some false economies, but the main thrust was the psychological effect of feeling that you've bought nice things for yourself. Buy yourself nice things, then you feel like a princess, and that feeling of self-worth rubs off on the rest of your life. The problem with it is that there's an ugly logic that you can't avoid. If getting what I want makes me worthy, what does it mean when I don't get what I want?

If getting what I want makes me worthy, what does it mean when I want something I can never have?

If getting what I want makes me worthy, what does it mean when others have more than me?

If getting what I want makes me worthy, what does it mean when others have less than me?

If you could isolate the positive, useful aspect -- "I got what I want, and therefore I'm a worthy person" -- then there would be nothing wrong with it. It's good and useful to believe you're a worthy person. Unfortunately, your brain has a certain capacity for logic (even if you're not an engineer or programmer type of person :-P) and you can't prevent it proceeding from that benign intention to its ugly logical reflection. It's logically a zero-sum game, and some of the logically "neutral" effects (assuming a rich person is more worthy than a poor person could be seen as logically neutral) are not really neutral because they are unjust.

Come on, every time I Don't get a piece of candy, I don't think "I must be a bad person". That logic is flawed. It is definitely NOT a zero-sum game. We're talking emotional logic here. Having something nice, for once, can make you feel good. And Not having nice things most of the time, for emotionally well-adjusted people, does not destroy our selfimage. Maybe just the opposite for some.

There's even the spite angle - I buy a crappy screwdriver, it breaks, I swear at it, I feel better. That's a payoff too. So its complicated.

Really? It's a poorly framed one with questionable premises (better quality stuff doesn't always mean the higher priced item), as well as extrapolating his utility function onto that of any reader. For example:

> So what if they’re $100. Unless you’re some sort of foot messenger, you only need to buy one pair a year.

Or buy $30 shoes that last 2 years and are subjectively just as comfortable. Maybe if you're a foot messenger you need better shoes (or go shoeless), maybe if you have bad feet or a bad back you need expensive shoes with Dr. Shoels. Another example?

> Buy scented candle or some potpourri and a stack of washcloths for your bathroom counter. It smells awesome and you feel great when you grab a fresh towel to wash your face every day.

I hate that crap. My point is that people have different utility functions.

I think I can do that too. I think he never really implied that the highest price meant better quality. If you try, you can read that from the article, but there is something else you can read from it.

I think what he was saying was more like: if the difference in costs is smaller than the appreciated gaining in life comfort, then do it, spend the money in the expensive one.

The point being, don't be cheap if not being cheap can make your life better.