Making a case for living frugally
Being wealthy has supplanted modest living as a virtue, much to the detriment of civilization
MANY people associate happiness with wealth. But is it wise to have a taste for luxury? Is it morally or economically sound to incur debt in order to buy things? And is it wrong to be a spendthrift? Throughout history, thinkers have praised the art of simple living. Frugality was viewed in the past as a smart and dignified activity, which nurtures our ability to reason and become self disciplined.
In this book Emrys Westacott explores the pros and cons of living frugally. He tries to explain why, despite its benefits, many admit they prefer a taste of luxury to the harshness of frugality. Westacott also argues that in view of the environmental problems threatening our planet, it may be finally time to listen and follow those who believe in a simpler way of life.
But what does it mean to live frugally? The concept of thrift and frugality carry in fact many meanings. One of them is the idea of fiscal prudence mostly associated with Benjamin Franklin. A self-made man, at his death, he was celebrated as one of the greatest men of his time. An entrepreneur, politician, diplomat, scientist, inventor, philanthropist and a writer, Franklin mentioned in his autobiography the importance of cultivating 13 specific virtues. The fifth on his list refers to frugality: “Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e. waste nothing.” Franklin warns especially against the dangers of debt, which he says “exposes a man to confinement, and a species of slavery to his creditors.” Franklin also gave us another good piece of advice: “Beware of little expenses, a small leak can sink a ship.” Some people like Oscar Wilde believed the opposite: “The only thing that can console one for being poor is extravagance.” And indeed, Oscar Wilde lived as he preached, above his means. He died impoverished in a hotel in Paris.
Living cheaply brings to mind a lifestyle using few resources like that of Diogenes, a 4th century Greek philosopher who believed that material goods had little or no value especially when compared with simple pleasures. During his famous encounter with Alexander the Great, when the latter asked him what he could do for him, Diogenes replied: “Don’t block my sunlight!” Enjoying the sun is a pleasure.
What people considered necessary in ancient Greece has little in common with 21st century basic needs such as electricity, running water, central heating, air conditioning, a smartphone and an Internet connection. However, some communities like the Amish prefer not to use modern technology. The Amish work toward communal rather than individual well-being and self-sufficiency. They farm without tractors because they can rely on each other’s help. But then we can argue that in some ways, technology can help us become more self-sufficient like when we use a washing machine instead of having servants.
However, the desire for riches can reach a stage when one is never satisfied. One is so easily caught in a vicious circle of always wanting more. There are examples of very rich people who instead of becoming more generous become increasingly mean. This was the case of Hetty Green, known as the witch of Wall Street. At the time of her death in 1916, she was the richest woman in the world and yet such a miser. She insisted that only the dirty hems of her dresses should be washed to save soap.
Seneca, Diogenes and Benjamin Franklin would be disappointed if they lived in today’s consumer society. People are more than ever eager to make money and willing to live beyond their means.
According to the Pew Research Center, 64 percent of Americans aged between 18 and 24 said that becoming rich is their most important goal in life. A Gallup Poll in 2012 found that the same percentage of Americans wanted to become rich, which is the reason why in 2010 US lottery ticket sales totaled $58 billion.
However, “Wealth can also be less than the blessing it is expected to be when its distribution is highly unequal... among wealthy societies, those where income inequality is greater suffer more from a variety of social ills, including higher rates of physical illness, mental illness and violence, along with lower levels of education, social mobility and trust,” wrote Westacott. But in countries where economic and social inequalities are less pronounced like in Denmark and Costa Rica there are higher levels of happiness. Denmark’s high standard of living, decent health care, education for all and a fair distribution of wealth contribute to the happiness of the Danish people. But does wealth make you happy? A consensus has emerged among social scientists that people living in poverty tend to be significantly less happy than those living above the poverty line.
However, when a certain level of comfort and security is attained, more wealth will not enhance one’s feeling of happiness.
This satiation level is said to be around $75,000, which means that increasing the number and quality of pleasurable experiences does not make one happier. “It seems that our culture is still torn between accepting acquisitiveness as a necessary condition of economic growth and denouncing it as an undesirable character trait that bespeak false values and encourage unethical conduct” wrote Westacott.
This brings us to the pros and cons of extravagance, one of the most interesting chapters of the book. The concept of extravagance means going beyond what is wise. Although few people would defend the idea of living beyond one’s means, capitalism constantly encourages us to buy on credit and capitalism also persuades us that “to be an enthusiastic consumer is to be a good citizen: that consumerism is a form of patriotism.” This was the case after World War II when buying American-made goods was considered a patriotic action to rebuild the country.
Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, reiterated the same idea after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. He declared in a radio interview: “There is a way everybody can help us, New York and everybody all over the country. Come here and spend money, just spend a little money.” And even Newsweek made a similar appeal following the 2008 recession under the headline “Stop Saving Now!”
How do we feel about the way rich people behave? Do we approve of Paris Hilton, who had a house that was modeled on her own mansion built for her dog at a cost of $325,000, and the pop star Bono who while attending a fund-raising event in Italy had an urge to wear a particular hat. He had it flown from Ireland at a cost of $1,700.
Some rich people think that we might feel envious of such a behavior but on the other hand, this extravagance encourages others to act in the same way. The top salaries and bonuses given to the CEOs of the world’s biggest companies push other people lower down the ladder to demand a rise in their salaries. The extravagant lifestyle of rich people gives birth to a materialistic culture, which encourages a disparaging individualism as well as a desire for personal wealth. Yet one can also argue that extravagance is economically beneficial since one person’s extravagance is another person’s income.
Spending money on luxury goods creates jobs, which enables those employed to earn more and spend more and this in turn stimulates the economic activity. Most of the palaces, gardens and museums that tourists visit today were built thanks to the generosity of enlightened monarchs and well-intentioned philanthropists combined with the government’s efforts to spend great sums of money to maintain them.
Interestingly enough the food, clothes, computers, smartphones, cars and kitchen equipment, to name but a few, are not very much different to those owned by rich people. No one will be impressed by a new iPad. To arouse people’s interest, you need to mention that you had breakfast in Paris, lunch in New York and dinner in Rio de Janeiro!
According to psychologists, spending our money on holidays, concerts, and social gatherings makes us happier than buying material things. “We quickly adapt to having the new stuff, whereas good memories remain a continuing source of pleasure,” wrote Westacott.
Showing off one’s wealth is still viewed as an act of vulgarity, and people who live beyond their means are considered foolish, but rich people who spend their money on a worthwhile project can genuinely be considered virtuous.
Paradoxically, some of the same factors that have lessened the appeal of frugality are also responsible for sparking an interest in the ideals of a simple life.
Life nowadays is characterized by constant change and movement, which triggers complexity, instability and confusion. This creates a feeling of nostalgia for a time when life was simpler. Bob Dylan, incidentally, captured this sense of loss in “Dream,” a wonderful song where he looks back on the easy-going innocence of his teenage years “It was all that easy to tell wrong from right.” Dylan realizes that simple issues have now become so complex. The singer is ready to renounce material wealth and return to the simple life he had, but he knows that is a wishful dream.
This nostalgia for more peaceful times is also felt in China where the most popular art hanging in restaurants and sold to tourists represents pristine landscapes symbolizing peace, serenity and harmony.
This longing for another lifestyle is manifesting itself in Europe in the form of the Slow Movement, a desire to fight the fast pace of life.
Frugal simplicity is critical of consumerism and of the capitalistic values of Wall Street. Though many acknowledge the multiple benefits brought by economic growth, they also criticize the fact that these sources of enjoyment are not distributed equitably; they are not available to everybody.
However, provided that a person’s basic needs are satisfied, “many kinds of life may be fulfilling, including some far removed from the life of frugal simplicity. But that life still has much to recommend it for the values it expresses and the responsibilities it accepts. It remains one of the surest paths to contentment, and there are good reasons to associate it with wisdom,” concludes Westacott.
Westacott sheds light on the conflict between the virtues of a frugal life and the economic imperative for growth. Frugality is a smart and dignified activity, which should not be confused with poverty. Living frugally is essentially soul satisfying and it leads us to a more meaningful way of life.