Frugaling

Save more, live well, give generously

  • Home
  • Start Here
  • Popular
    • Archives
  • Recommended
  • Contact
  • Save Money
    • Lifestyle Downgrade
    • Save Money with Mindfulness
    • Save at Starbucks
    • Psychological Trick To Reduce Your Online Shopping
    • Best Freebies
  • Minimalism
    • 8 TED Talks To Become A Minimalist
    • We Rent This Life
    • Everything Must Go
    • Lifestyle Downgrade
    • The Purchase Paradox: Wanting, Until You Own It
    • Nothing In My Pockets
  • Social Justice
    • Destroy The 40-Hour Workweek
    • Too Poor To Protest: Income Inequality
    • The New Rich: How $250k A Year Became Middle Class
    • Hunter Gatherers vs. 21st Century Desk-sitters
  • Make Money
    • Make $10k in 10 Months
    • Monetize Your Blog
    • Side Hustle for Serious Cash
  • Loans
    • 5 Rules To Follow Before Accepting Student Loans
    • Would You Marry Me?
    • Should I Have a Credit Card If I’m In Debt?
    • $50k in Scholarships in 70 Minutes

The Partitioned Life Destroys Creativity And Fosters Income Inequality

By Frugaling 13 Comments

Share This:

Ralph Steadman Art Cartoonist
I Am Not Like The Others by Ralph Steadman

Recently, I watched a documentary of Ralph Steadman. He’s an infamous cartoonist whose work graced the covers and pages of Hunter S. Thompson’s rowdy reads. Steadman has a natural ability to start with a splash of paint and envision the result. Sometimes what starts as a mean dragon, turns into a wicked politician. It’s a beautiful form of art.

The other day I set out to write a brief update on how much biking is saving me. But something larger was calling. What I realized in crafting my next article was that biking was part of a grander picture. This article is about life, partitioned; perhaps more catchily titled, “The Partitioned Life.”

The specialized workforce we never wanted

The separated, divided, specialized life is largely due to our strict capitalistic culture. Adam Smith, writer of Wealth of Nations and oft-cited theorist about the “invisible hand” of markets, suggested that capitalism would succeed via economic specialization. Essentially, with professional expertise emphasized, we could separate the economy into different vocations. These vocations would enable society to produce at faster rates, because time would simply be spent on one’s expert area.

Lawyers, doctors, and teachers all take distinctly different directions to accomplish their career goals. Most go to graduate school and receive mind-numbing didactic training. But each is partitioned and specialized.

The days of da Vinci are gone. Leonardo da Vinci was a polymath — a man with various skills. This painter, sculptor, philosopher, and anatomist was responsible for early explanation of medicine, astronomy, art, and more. Without his versatile background, each would suffer. He was the antithesis of singular specialization. But our economic interests have destroyed this path. The generalist is less valued compared to the highly-specialized “expert.”

We are partitioned beyond our wages

With disparate workforces, specialized employees are needed for a variety of tasks. Now we need a secretary, assistant, web designer, etc. But each of those three jobs could be accomplished by one person. This is the conundrum and false growth that’s associated with Adam Smith’s legacy. The more specialization associated with our jobs, the more employees that are needed for administrative needs.

Now, we need to partition even further. Picture your local city. What do you see? I see a series of shops, restaurants, bars, research parks, industry, fast food, and gyms. Break it down even further, and I see the burger flipper, salt and pepper shaker, and checkout representative. I see management, accountants, lawyers, bosses on bosses on bosses. We are operating within this highly specialized economy that works beyond vocational structure — it fundamentally affects how we shop.

The following is highly dependent upon your age, demographic, socioeconomic status, and personal interests, but the partitioned life also affects your monthly costs. Last time I flew into New York City, I asked a Millennial what she recommended I do in the city. She talked to me about the bars, restaurants, and museums. Then, she asked if I liked exercise. I do! She suggested Soulcycle.

When I landed, I Googled the name and found the chain was all over the city. Soulcycle has developed a sort of cult following. It intrigued me until I saw the price: $39 for one class. I’m always ballin’ on a budget, and $39 for a bike class was senseless. Needless to say, I didn’t go.

That price, class, and exercise studio impacted me. Here we have an economy so separated and partitioned that people decide to work all day, go home, and then go to a workout class. This Kubrickian hallway seems to be an endless procession of work on work — working to work out.

Bike in Autumn LeavesCrush the divides for creativity, clarity, and savings

Buying and riding a bike 90% of the time has changed my relationship with our economy. Every day I choose my bike, I feel a minor pang of anarchy. I’m doing my own thing to contribute to the collective — not contributing to climate change, capitalistic malignancies, and health problems that are affecting us all.

As mentioned, I started this article with the desire to focus on a number — the true savings associated with riding a bike. Instead, I’ve decided to talk about the bigger economic effect of our partitioned lives. But let me briefly entertain some calculations. With a bike, I pay for my gym membership ($0) and fuel up with food ($0 in gasoline). If you were to analyze your car-less savings, you’d need to immediately start with a couple hundred dollars every month.

Over the last 30 days, I’ve biked about 200 miles. There have been no parking fees, maintenance costs, or police to worry about. If I drove those 200 miles, AAA estimates that that would cost me $156.60 per month. But the savings goes beyond this and works to break the traditional partitions that our economy has parcelled off for us.

Recognizing and appreciating the generalist in all of us

We currently live in one of the most unequal times in American history. We have followed the wizened advice of economic thinkers like Adam Smith, and it’s led us astray. The “invisible hand” and free market principles have led to broken roads, broken budgets, and broken families. We are a country of financial elite and impoverished masses.

Economic specialization is no longer working. We must recognize the generalist is more powerful. Knowing how to repair a bike, being fit, planting your own garden, collectivising, and democratizing are our last hope. It’s our world’s last hope.

We must create an economy and emphasize the power of the generalist. We deserve to give ourselves the opportunity to be radicalized and empowered by the next da Vinci, don’t we?

Filed Under: Save Money, Social Justice Tagged With: Adam Smith, bike, Biking, Business, Economy, Generalist, Income Inequality, Inequity, Leonardo da Vinci, Partitioned Life, Polymath, saving money

Mark Cuban’s Horrific Student Loan Debt “Solution”

By Frugaling 15 Comments

Share This:

The stock market’s been horrific. Volatility has been at record levels. Stocks are at 6, 7, and 8-month lows. The losses prompted me to stay glued to CNBC. Every morning this week, I woke one hour earlier and listened — rapt to the dancing futures and opening moments. Then, I’d be off to work, school, etc.

But this article isn’t about stock market woes. Instead, I want to focus on a CNBC guest and favorite, Mark Cuban. Cuban is an entrepreneur and billionaire (about $2.6 billion). He’s an owner of the Dallas Mavericks and serially invests in startups, businesses, and other money-making ventures. This week, he decided to speak out against the rising tide of student loan debt — something we can all agree is crushing our future economic potential.

At first, I welled with excitement and thought, “Finally, someone is going to start critiquing our financial destruction via student loans and provide sensible solutions to the $1.2 trillion debt.” Cuban exclaimed that we couldn’t continue this and that we were hurting the entire economy with this burden. But after complaining about the problem at length, he provided no solutions.

The CNBC anchors recognized this and asked him to elaborate on his answer. And that’s when I nearly soiled my pants. His big fix to this growing problem was to — ugh, it’s hard to write this — cap the federal governments tuition aid to students. More specifically, he proffered that students shouldn’t receive any more than $10,000 each year in aid.

The billionaire entrepreneur, successful businessman, and all-around sports guy said that a cap like this would force schools to reduce tuition and fees. This is when I began screaming at the TV with a rebuttal, desperate to be heard by the conservative messengers on CNBC. That didn’t work, so I took to my keyboard to muddle a rebuttal.

Unfortunately, there’s a growing movement among “experts,” pundits, and pretenders that solving the student loan crisis is as simple as cutting funding opportunities. Cut the funding and institutions will be forced to lower their costs. Economically speaking, they’re partially right. When you reduce the funding opportunities, this manipulates the “free market” for education.

With the “Cuban Plan,” the idealistic message is: cut aid funding and watch the tuition/fees crumble. With a $10,000 cap on tuition, Cuban expects institutions to follow in line. But that’s not what will happen. The reality is that the market for private loans and corporate, profit-hungry, debt-ballooning machines will take its place. Suddenly a controlled market of lenders by the federal government will be swamped and stalked by private lenders — only out to massage another percentage point (or more) out of desperate students who are eager to get educated and attempt to better themselves.

Many will be priced out of an education. The bloated budgets of higher education institutions won’t be able to simply adapt. Universities have been spending astronomical amounts on recreational centers, educational facilities, and residence halls (aka: dorms). While frivolous, the tuition and student fees are established. If they were to be reduced or cut due to federal aid money, schools may default on hefty loans to pay for these extravagances.

Cuban’s idea is a lose-lose. Schools will default, close, and/or fire massive amounts of educators. Students will be stuck with private loans to pay the gap, or be forced to relinquish their dreams of a higher education (and the future earnings potential). The only winner will be Cuban and his cronies — the 1 percent.

See, the rich will benefit because it’ll be another federal program that’s axed. And anything federal, governmental, or communally good is inherently bad among rapacious 1 percenters. Moreover, private funders such as Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America will be able to roll up their sleeves, sell some toxic loans, and collect for decades. Those holding stock in those companies could escalate their wealth — all off the backs of low income and desperate students.

What we need is government reform. What we need is debt forgiveness. What we need is a growing mass of people that believe in future generations and their education. What we need is a long view — not the myopic, shortsighted one that Cuban propagated.

He’s right about one thing: there’s a crisis brewing and we need to change our relationship with student loan debt immediately. Tuition and fees need to be cut. For-profit universities should be unable to receive federal funding whatsoever. Taxation to support higher education of public institutions needs to increase dramatically. Be it from estate taxes or net worth taxes or capital gains taxes, somebody’s got to pay for it. And we can’t keep giving the bill to future generations.

These are the people that will take care of you when you are aging. These are the people that will discover the cure to cancers. These are the people that will reduce climate change. These are the people that will pioneer ever greater technologies.

It’s time to support them and ourselves.

Filed Under: Save Money, Social Justice Tagged With: college, debt, federal aid, Fees, Mark Cuban, Student Loans, tax, taxes, Tuition, universities

You Know What Would Be Nice?

By Frugaling 6 Comments

Share This:

Ikea Store Nice!
I like Ikea a lot, but this place makes me think, “You know what would be nice?” Photo: Håkan Dahlström/Flickr

A dendritic response arcs across my brain, as a firing of emotional and processing centers make me think, “You know what would be nice?” It’s the beginning of a dangerous game for me; at times, that question begets rampant spending.

“You know what would be nice” is a phrase that envisions the bigger picture, better future, and more attractive self. It encapsulates my desire for nicer clothes, electronics, furniture, etc. I can see and feel how an iPhone 6 might complete my left pant pocket. The svelte thickness and aluminum texture captivate me in these moments.

“You know what would be nice” is the reason Ikea, Target, and other big-box retailers exist. They perfected the art of the ensemble. It wasn’t enough to get/have a couch; now, you needed the accoutrements. They suggest “what would be nice” and show you the pairing. Their catalogs and stores are expertly laid out to exemplify an orgiastic group of accessories.

A small rug could complement the dining room. That watch would make this outfit POP. This lamp shade would make my room cozier. This shirt would be great for a night out.

“You know what would be nice” is the dream hypothetical that only lives in marketers’ models. Realizing this is one of the most painful lessons in consumerism. No matter how many “nice” things I own, the question will continue to putz around my little mind — craving me to cave and spend.

I’m not sure when I started saying this phrase. It’s led to horrible spending habits at certain times in my life. And I’ve heard others, mouths agape, vomit this treacherous line, too. The reality and solution is far simpler.

All we need to do is change the desired answer — a détournement to the prescribed answer. “You know what would be nice?” To be content with who I am today, the things around me, and the life I lead. “You know what would be nice?” To quiet the racing mind that suggests I need anything consumeristic to complete me. “You know what would be nice?” To make purchases out of necessity and enjoyment, rather than compulsion and marketing pressure.

Filed Under: Save Money Tagged With: buying, Consumerism, Consumption, Ikea, money, Save, stores, Stuff, Target

Going Green Is A Scam

By Frugaling 12 Comments

Share This:

going-green-bike-ride

The World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) announced that the world lost 50% of species in the last 40 years. Directors at the WWF credit this to human consumption. For climatologists and scientists, there’s a bleakness to the future — one that includes starvation, exoduses from low-lying areas, droughts, and wild weather year round. It’s clear that we need to reduce our fossil fuel usage, but how we do that is still a complicated endeavor.

The flawed governmental approach

Going green is often framed as a decision to buy “certified organic” foods, choose energy-efficient technologies, and chuck your empty plastic bottle into a blue recycling bin. While these conscious choices are more environmentally friendly and better, they seem to ignore the very real consequences of our consumption. To illustrate this point, the U.S. government suggests, “switching all the light bulbs in a home from conventional incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs…” Going green is seen as an additional item; without the latest energy efficiencies, you’re not green.

Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb (CFL)
Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr

As the government site shows, they exclaim the ills of conventional bulbs and recommend purchasing CFLs. Unfortunately, that mass waste and consumption of a new product goes unnoticed and unaccounted for. By immediately trashing all your old bulbs for the latest and greatest green tech, you’re simply ignoring the true life of a product and upgrading before it’s necessary.

The U.S. government should be encouraging people to take full advantage of the natural lives of products; instead, we hear how we should switch every bulb in our home. They are training you to have a faster turnover and consumption rate. Eventually, they’ll be recommending you switch all the CFLs with LED lights, which last longer and take even less energy. This technology is definitely better for the environment, but each transition creates massive amounts of waste, and the new products require marketing, packaging, shipping, storage, warehousing, and a consumer that will likely drive (consuming fossil fuels) to purchase the new bulbs.

Big green is big business

For the federal government, going green cannot mean consuming less. Pro-business entities and lobbying groups would launch a massive critique and attack if that was stated. Our economy is not equipped for people to stop buying. This capitalistic system is predicated on infinite growth; a pyramid scheme that will end at some point, but whose leaders hesitate to bring its early demise. Unfortunately, the government can’t properly advise its citizenry regarding climate change prevention.

At some point, going green was co-opted by “big green” — the big business approach to energy efficiency. Big green needs you to keep spending, too. With this aim in mind, they’ve warped the dialogue into a justification to purchase more. The irony is that by buying more — in order to be efficient — we’re digging ourselves into a deeper hole.

Just look at the first sentence from this Huffington Post article: “Saving energy and water can be difficult, but now there are plenty of gadgets on the market that aim to make the process easier for you.” This comes from the “Huff Post Green” section! Articles like these (which are everywhere) advocate buying more gadgets and technology, and are only contributing to this horrible, repetitive consumption.

Even at my alma mater, Colorado State University, the institution had a habit of touting its green initiatives. All the brochures advertised the push to use renewable energy and active involvement in recycling. These are commendable efforts, but there’s a hypocrisy to it all. Throughout my years there, they were always building — I never knew the campus without yellow construction taped areas, sounds of construction, and digital photo representations on the buildings to come. All that development adds tons of pollution to the air and creates epic proportions of waste. Cranes, bulldozers, and industrial materials would all be necessary to complete the buildings. The carbon costs for these components often goes uncalculated and unnoticed.

Then there’s the story of the Toyota Prius. In 1997, the company released this awfully designed hybrid monster. Getting around 50 miles per gallon (MPG), the Prius became a popular vehicle with a clear message: “I care about the environment.” When considering the technology and energy that’s required to make it, it’s scary. The battery cells, which recharge when braking and coasting, harness energy that would otherwise be lost. But they are an environmental nightmare and difficult to dispose of properly. Moreover, the Prius gets about the same gas mileage as Honda Civics from the late 80s and early 90s. The Honda Civic Hatchback from 1992 got about 48 MPG; no hybrid battery cells needed, and for a fraction of the cost on your wallet and the environment!

Finding a real solution

We’ve been duped into believing the solution to climate change is another purchase. In reality, the better answer would be to say, “Stop where you are, turn off lights, protest for change, and don’t buy anything for a year!”

Cracked Earth Climate Change
Photo: Alosh Bennett/Flickr

Most moderate voices understand that we cannot become Luddites to combat carbon emissions. The world has become increasingly connected and globalized — it’s hard to imagine regressing whatsoever. Technological development is only ratcheting up, and people are embracing the progress fervently. But our course is not sustainable.

We need to consider movements to buy local crops and goods, collective markets and organizations, and ignoring the message to buy more to save. Going green doesn’t have to hurt your budget. It should be about consuming less and supporting sustainable development. What could be better for your budget?

Filed Under: Save Money, Social Justice Tagged With: carbon, change, Climate, Development, Economy, Going Green, Green, Growth, Honda Civic, Prius, Scam, Sustainable

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • …
  • 131
  • Next Page »

Follow

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Best Of

  • 5 Tricks To Save Money At Starbucks (Updated)
    5 Tricks To Save Money At Starbucks (Updated)
  • How Media Makes More Money Publishing About Fake Self-Made Millionaires, Whiz Kids
    How Media Makes More Money Publishing About Fake Self-Made Millionaires, Whiz Kids
  • Ownership Isn't Real, We Rent This Life
    Ownership Isn't Real, We Rent This Life
  • Who's Responsible For Poverty?
    Who's Responsible For Poverty?
  • Living For The Moment – Not Spending It
    Living For The Moment – Not Spending It
  • Who Are Your Financial Role Models?
    Who Are Your Financial Role Models?

Recent Posts

  • Débuter en photographie sans se ruiner
  • How to Eat Healthy on a Budget
  • How To Live Stream Your Art
  • 5 Fun Summer Activities on a Budget
  • How to Pay Off Medical Debt

Search

Archives

  • August 2025 (1)
  • June 2023 (1)
  • May 2023 (2)
  • January 2023 (1)
  • March 2022 (3)
  • February 2022 (2)
  • November 2021 (1)
  • October 2021 (2)
  • August 2021 (4)
  • July 2021 (5)
  • June 2021 (3)
  • May 2021 (2)
  • January 2021 (2)
  • December 2020 (2)
  • October 2020 (2)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (3)
  • June 2020 (1)
  • May 2020 (2)
  • April 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (2)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • November 2019 (5)
  • September 2019 (4)
  • August 2019 (1)
  • June 2019 (1)
  • May 2019 (1)
  • April 2019 (1)
  • March 2019 (3)
  • February 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (1)
  • June 2018 (2)
  • May 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (5)
  • March 2018 (6)
  • February 2018 (4)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (10)
  • November 2017 (3)
  • July 2017 (2)
  • June 2017 (5)
  • May 2017 (2)
  • April 2017 (8)
  • March 2017 (4)
  • February 2017 (3)
  • January 2017 (2)
  • December 2016 (2)
  • November 2016 (4)
  • October 2016 (2)
  • September 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (4)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (3)
  • May 2016 (3)
  • April 2016 (4)
  • March 2016 (5)
  • February 2016 (2)
  • January 2016 (2)
  • December 2015 (3)
  • November 2015 (5)
  • October 2015 (5)
  • September 2015 (4)
  • August 2015 (6)
  • July 2015 (8)
  • June 2015 (6)
  • May 2015 (14)
  • April 2015 (14)
  • March 2015 (13)
  • February 2015 (12)
  • January 2015 (15)
  • December 2014 (10)
  • November 2014 (5)
  • October 2014 (6)
  • September 2014 (7)
  • August 2014 (12)
  • July 2014 (11)
  • June 2014 (12)
  • May 2014 (16)
  • April 2014 (13)
  • March 2014 (13)
  • February 2014 (9)
  • January 2014 (20)
  • December 2013 (9)
  • November 2013 (18)
  • October 2013 (15)
  • September 2013 (11)
  • August 2013 (11)
  • July 2013 (27)
  • June 2013 (18)
  • May 2013 (16)

Best Of

  • 5 Tricks To Save Money At Starbucks (Updated)
  • How Media Makes More Money Publishing About Fake Self-Made Millionaires, Whiz Kids
  • Ownership Isn't Real, We Rent This Life

Recent Posts

  • Débuter en photographie sans se ruiner
  • How to Eat Healthy on a Budget
  • How To Live Stream Your Art

Follow

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2026 · Modern Studio Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in