Digital Minimalism, from 3 to just 1 domain name
I remember reading the book āDigital Minimalismā by Cal Newport some years ago. What I remember from that book was that it argued among other things, for not using āsocialā media. It has taken me many more years to fully wean myself off of these āsocialā media. I put social in scare quotes because Iāve come to feel there is very little social about it. Twitter/x is mostly a platform where very few gain traction and all the plebs, me including, are left to linger in the comments under these messages. But that is an aside.
Today I want to tell you, dear readers and fellow travellers, that I will fold my 3 different websites into just one. For almost 20 years Iāve written on Seriousaboutech.com (previously titled Janstechtalk) and janromme.com. Also Iāve been dabbling a bit with IndependentlyPoor.com for a while. These 3 projects on 2 different tech stacks and 3 different domains cost me both money and time. To simplify things I have decided to move all my articles over to Janromme.com and deprecate the other domain names.
All articles will be hand checked. If I feel they are still relevant then Iāll republish them with their original date stamp at Janromme.com
Thank you for reading and supporting this independent writer.
A modest anti-FIRE manifesto.
This āindependently poorā project of mine, whether you want to call it a blog, a website, or, dare I say it? Manifesto, whatever this is, itās meant to explain how you can live the good life, on a budget, without the need of FIRE (Financially Independent, Retired Early).
If you can save 50% of your take-home pay starting at age 20, youāll be wealthy enough to retire by age 37. If you already have some assets now, youāre even closer than that. If you can save 75%, your working career is only 7 years.
For those who donāt know how FIRE is supposed to work, Iāll try and explain briefly:
You start young: work hard and earn a lot.
You save most of what you earn. Like 50% or more.
Everything that you save, you invest. Aim to get 7% annual return or more.
When your total wealth becomes so much that you can live off 5% of the annual return on your investment, you can retire.
To illustrate #4, look at this example: If you have 1 million and if you can take up 5% annually, thatās more than four thousand euros per month.
Savings | 5% annually | Per month? |
---|---|---|
⬠1.000.000,00 | ⬠50.000,00 | ⬠4.166,67 |
⬠500.000,00 | ⬠25.000,00 | ⬠2.083,33 |
⬠350.000,00 | ⬠17.500,00 | ⬠1.458,33 |
⬠150.000,00 | ⬠7.500,00 | ⬠625,00 |
⬠75.000,00 | ⬠3.750,00 | ⬠312,50 |
I started this project because I was vehemently opposed to FIRE. Why? Not because I donāt think it can work, I know for a fact it works (more or less) for some, but because it works for some. But what about average people? It so happens that I (and many others) did not to study engineering and get a job at Google or Apple at age 20 that immediately paid ā¬100.000,00 annually while I still lived in my parentsā basement. I didnāt start a company that I can sell for a million or more. And no, my parents didnāt leave me that much wealth, either. What about people like me? You know, the rest of usā¦
For us, normal folks, there is āØindependently poornessāØ. I know, poorness, it has such a negative connotation. But I hope that these past 1,5 years I have, by the examples and practical observations that I shared, helped you, my dear readers, to see the upside of things. Before highlighting those, letās see why FIRE is a bad idea that doesnāt work for most people.
Deconstructing the madness that is FIRE.
To get back to those four steps that we just saw, here is why there are mostly impractical or impossible:
We are supposed to start working young and immediately earn lots. This is already an impossibility for those of us who donāt live in California near the Googleplex and studied something other than a STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) field. Most of us start working at age 25 and earn very little until we are in our mid-30ās.
Most people need to spend most of what they earn. It is true, and a returning subject of my own laments, that many people confuse needs and wants, but that aside, if you donāt earn a lot to start with, the laws of math dictate that youāll also end up with less. The emphasis on saving and investing instead of mindlessly spending is the only wonderful thing in all the fire-sphere. But here is the thing: Iāve always lived within my means, but then there have been many years when I would be thrilled if I had saved, say ā¬200, at the end of every month. At that speed, no matter how good you invest that money, youāll simply not save very much over long time periods.
I mostly agree with the investing part of FIRE. Itās plain nonsense to have money that is not working for you. But I also want to point out the wisdom of just holding cash or equivalents. Why? Because when markets go down, thatās usually when youāre most likely to lose your job and need to dip into your own savings. And wouldnāt it be absurd to sell those expensive stocks that you just bought, at a steep discount, just because you need the money now? Far better is it to have diversified your savings in things that return in the longer term (stocks or bitcoin) and have some cash just sitting on the sideline for emergencies.
Unless you have a physically demanding job, retirement is bad for your health. The entire idea that you just stop working seems silly to me. I know the FIRE-ists (or is it FIRE-ites?) would defend their cult by saying stuff like ābut retirement means different things to different peopleā or ābut I didnāt really stop working, Iām still flipping housesā or my personal favourite: ābut living only on my savings means Iām now growing my own cotton and weaving my own t-shirts. Do you know how much time it costs to live this frugally!?ā Some who are truly retired, of course, quickly discover that unless you have some very cool and interesting hobbyās itās just boring to sit at home all day.
True happiness is on the Middle Ground
An observant reader might realize that what I advocate is a form of FIRE too. But itās more realistic, more obtainable for the average Joe, it is, FIRE lite, if you will.
I, too, think itās a good idea to spend (far) less than you earn
and I, too, think itās a good idea to invest with long-term goals in mind
and yes, I too think mindless spending is not only nonsensical, but actively hurtful for our own wellbeing as well as our environment.
This is why Iāve written about how to dress for less, get around on a budget, and how to have fun with a small purse. And why Iāve coined the phrase āmoney efficientā to replace ācheap.ā
But thatās where the comparison stops. I do not believe focusing on getting a high-paid job is a wise life-choice, not even if itās just for a couple of years with early retirement firmly on the 15-year horizon. Why? Because focusing on money, even for a few years, will make you miserable. Hoping that those investments that you have will pan out is a rocky road with many pitfalls, and simply living for decades hoping for a better life if things work out eventually, is again, undermining happiness today.
The Independently Poor lifestyle doesnāt promise a way to get rich later in life, it instead tells you to focus on today, enjoy your time now, not by spending money but by spending time with friends, and maybe spend some money (that you can miss) on them while youāre at it.
Learning to live well within your means will result in your ability to save for when you need it. The peace of mind that comes from knowing you can easily replace your washing machine or car because 1. you have savings and 2. because youāve trained yourself to look for a cheap second-hand replacement, will minimize stress in your life.
Remember that chart earlier? The one that assumes youāll save up to a million, make a 7% return of investment on average every year, and then scoop 5% off the top to live on? What if we instead assume that youāve āonlyā saved ⬠75.000,00 (sadly, that is more than large cohorts of society). That amount is not enough to retire on, but if we assume the same 7% ROI and 5% payments to yourself, youāll have an extra three hundred bucks per month to spend if the need arises. Or simply if you want to work fewer hours.
Instead of maybe retiring at some future date, working fewer hours now and having time and energy to spend on friends and family is the option that Independently Poorness offers today.
A comparison of supermarket prices.ļø
The independently poor lifestyle is one full of choices. Iāve often said itās better to optimise your life for happiness than for money effectiveness. What I mean by that is that if my lifeās happiness is greatly improved by spending a little bit more, well, then so be it. Iāll spend a little bit more.
On a related note: I dislike the word ācheapā. I hereby coin the word āāØmoney-efficientāØā. Other usages of this word include āmoney-usefulā, āmoney-capableā and āmoney-effectiveā to mean similar-ish things.
Of course, living on a small budget means that plenty of choices are pre-made. As independently poor persons, we simply donāt have a lot of money to āburnā on certain luxuries. I donāt need to choose between a new Fiat or a new VW, for example because it is much cheaper to simply buy a second-hand Toyota. I donāt need to spend time and resources comparing these new cars because I already know any old Japanese-made car will be much more āØmoney-efficientāØ.
Anyway, back to todayās topic: weekly food groceries. Iāve bought at the local Picnic supermarket for years now because I like the convenience of selecting my required items inside an app and having everything delivered to my doorstep. I like to think this also saves a lot of time. After all, the alternative is that I walk to a supermarket, peruse the shelves manually, stand in a queue to pay and walk back home. Compare this to clicking āorder againā and paying inside an app for letās be generous and say a whole whopping 2 minutes.
But what if we have more time (but not more money) to spend? How much difference would there be between shopping at Picnic or shopping at Lidl? (Full disclosure here: Iām based in the Netherlands and this experiment was conducted locally. Your mileage may vary in other countries since we are expensive, food-wise, as this recent news item highlights).
So today I took the time to conduct a quick experiment. I walked to my local Lidl and bought some foodstuffs. Then, I opened the Picnic app and selected comparable items (as far as one-to-one comparisons were possible).
The results? The bill at Picnic comes to ā¬59,62. Lidl to ā¬41,42. So, Picnic is more convenient, but itās ± 40% more expensive. I knew it wasnāt the cheapest option, but this is mind-blowing. From now on, Iāll once again do my groceries at Lidl.
July 2, 2024 food supermarket comparing how to choose budgeting
The link between Salary and Importance.
When looking for a job, I will always check the salary range first. If there is no salary range, Iāll not even open the job description. Why waste time on a company that clearly has no intention of being upfront and open with me? Why waste my time on a job that probably pays poorly?
The other day I overheard a conversation at work. We are hiring and need to draw up some job advertisements. A consultant was hired to help us think about nice job descriptions and the feeling we want to get across to a potential candidate. To people who have a real job, all this talk about getting the feeling across and job descriptions sounds like a lot of hog wash. Just tell people what you will pay and what you want from them, and of course, if salary alone isnāt justifying somebodyās input alone, tell them about the free fruit and high-quality coffee for example.
When I mentioned this to a friend, I told him I could never do such a silly thing as that consultant was doing. I could never sit at a table and talk for two hours with a straight face about how a job description should make somebody feel. Unless it paid a lot. I mean a lot a lot. If it really paid buckets of money, I could probably silence that voice inside that told me I wasnāt adding value to humanity, or making the world more beautiful, or even helping a company make next quarters numbers look better.
And then something clicked for me.
Something Iāve been wondering about for a long time. Why do the most bullshitish jobs pay the best? Itās because they must! How else can anybody be convinced to come and do the work that they, their family and friends and all their colleagues know is nonsense? They can only be persuaded to do the useless work if, and only if their inner voice is silenced by lots of money.
The lesson here? Next time you meet a consultant, donāt look down on them for doing nonsense work.
A little sidetrack here: how can you spot workers who add no value to the world? Itās simple really, once you realize they get paid the highest salaries. They will look the part. Their car will be unnecessarily bulky and shiny and so will their clothes. They must compensate for so much, after all.
So, when you are forced to interact with them, donāt make them feel bad. If they want to talk about how to increase shareholder value, just give them your list of 13 things you think the company can save money and time on and tell them to read through it and only come back with questions. This way they can feel important (they have something of substance to read) and your valuable time is saved. If they are paid enough (if their inner voice is silenced) they might even use your list and claim it as their own.
That a win-win. Your time isnāt wasted and maybe your company will also prosper more, because bosses tend to listen to highly paid consultants, at least as long as they are within eyesight.
If you arenāt sure if this article is very serious advice, or a sarcastic piece of inner life of a desk jock, then my point came across well enough. We live in a deeply sinical world. If we take ourselves too seriously or see our jobs as important, our mental health will suffer.
Also, if anybody wants to hire me as a public speaker, itās just ⬠200 per hour plus travel expenses.
Identifying and cutting down on āhidden costsā
A good way to live on a small budget is by not spending money on crudāāāme, 2023.
I always feel a bit sad when I hear friends and co-workers moan about their need to work full time to just afford a living, while at the same time I see them spend money like it is water, and they donāt even seem to notice. š¦š¦
For example:
Preparing a lunch at home instead of buying on-the-go. If you simply buy a loaf of bread and take 4 slices out of the freezer every morning and put letās say Salmon on your bread, then you can eat 5 days a week for ā¬8, thatās ā¬1.6 per day. And you are eating fresh bread with Salmon, a meal of kings. Iāve we had to buy the same meal in a store we would pay about ā¬5 per day, so thatās ā¬25 for a week vs. ā¬8. ā¬17 saved in one week is ā¬884 per year. š„Ŗ
Commuting by bike instead of by car. This, of course, only works if you live on a biking distance from your workplace. But why on earth would you seek employment further away? Instead of spending time lucked up in a tiny fish tin (a car) you get to spend time outside in the (hopefully) fresh air while doing a little healthy and light exercise as a bonus. Moreover, ever seen bikes in a long queue? Exactly, chances are youāll save time on your commute as well as fuel. Say that you live 15 km from work, so back and forth is 30 km per day or 150 km per week, or 650 km per month. That is a full tank of gas, or about ā¬125 per month, spent on a commute that could be virtually free. I bought my bike for ā¬50 nine years ago, and it still works with only once needing maintenance, and that was for about ā¬25. So ā¬125 per month or ā¬1500 per year saved, while also getting in better shape⦠not bad eh? š²
Get a sim-only plan instead of one where a phone is included. There are scarcely any people who need to replace their phone every two years, and yet that is what most phone plans will force you into. This is a waste of money and the environment. So instead of paying ā¬30 per month for a plan you donāt need, you could probably do with one that costs ā¬5 to ā¬10. Therefore, thatās another ā¬20 per month or ā¬240 per year saved. š“
Bonus. Donāt buy gadgets, or, when you do, be realistic in what you need. Our sister blog āJanās Tech Talkā has a great post about buying a new iPhone on a budget, you can read it here: iphones-have-been-getting-cheaper. š²
Did you notice that all these saving tips have a few things in common?
- You need to think ahead, like, go shopping and have food in your house, instead of thinking only about food when you start to feel peckish. š¤Ø
- You need to be willing to endure some minor physical discomforts. Biking is fun, except when it stops being fun in the sweltering summer heat or freezing winter cold. š¶
- You need to be aware of needs and wants. Yes, Iāve had an unlimited data plan on my phone too, and yes, like you, I never burned more than 10 GB per month either, so why on earth did I pay for it? š
Those three simple ways to save a bit put together meant we saved ā¬2624 per year.
I donāt have grant theories or big plans that I work towards here. I just want to show you that with a little thinking ahead and making conscience choices, you too can live on a much smaller budget and save much more money. Not because itās useful to just have more money on the bank, but because now you can spend it on the people and experiences that really matter to you.
Itās not about saving money, itās about not having to spend at all.
Boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. Thatās impossible. Instead⦠only try to realize the truth. Neo: What truth? Boy: There is no spoon.
Wearing something new gets old quickly š
We all need to cover our naked bodies, as much for our sake as for the mental well-being of the rest of mankind. And yes, wearing a new apparel for the first few times āØfeels like magicāØ. Everybody stares jealously at you. Your boss takes you more serious, maybe now that you are wearing those new shoes youāll even get that long wanted pay raise?
And then, slowly and imperceptibly, that newness, that cozy feeling when you look at your attire, fades away. Your outfit becomes once again what is always was to begin with: a thin layer between you and the outside world.
The sooner we realize that spending money on clothing, like spending money on so many other kinds of stuff at best a necessity and at worst a waste of money, the better of we will be financially.
Spending too little on clothing? š
As we just saw, spending too much money on clothing is generally a bad idea. But we all do require some attire. So, how can a independently poor person dress up as the trans-financial (rich person born in a poor personās body), and look the part? Moreover, is there such a thing as spending too little on clothing? According to Vimes, there is:
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ⦠A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots thatād still be keeping his feet dry in ten yearsā time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was written in 1993, a time when $50 could still get you a high-quality pair of boots. But, is the general gist of this story true? Was it ever so?
In my humble experience, it depends. Socks and underwear can last 1ā3 years, pants and shirts 5ā10 years and coats endure up to 15 years.
Say, I spend ± ā¬400 on a nice coat. That sounds like an awful lot of money. And it is. But what if this delightful high-quality coat (it should be high quality for this trick to work) holds out for about 15 years, then, really, Iāve only paid ā¬27 per year for it!
My point is this: itās better to buy fewer pieces of attire but of a generally better quality then the fast-fashion peddlers would like us to. As is so often the case, the capitalists of this world are not working in the best interest of you and me, the hardworking proletariat that this society is truly built on. We must resist the temptations of advertisement and throw off the burden of āfashion trends.ā
So, expensive is better? š©
No. Some brands are costly because they must spend truckloads on marketing. This does not guarantee their quality. It just guarantees that you are paying too much. In our minds, some brands have comparable quality and price, but this isnāt necessarily so.
For example, both Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger have similar prices for comparable garments. But from my experience, I know that the colors in my Hilfiger pants fade out after only one year of wearing them, whereas my Laurenās still look good after three years. The same goes for Leviās vs. Superdry: both have nice t-shirts, but my Leviās shirts have holes in them a lot faster than the Superdryās. And so on. Find out for yourself which brands last the longest.
Are we there yet? š
No. So far, we have seen that buying fewer cloths and buying quality stuff is a good idea. But we still need to do this on a restricted budget, after all, this is what separates us independently poor, from the poor plebeian classes who simply spend all their disposable income on, letās face it, colored pieces of cotton.
How to dress for less? š
Now that we have established that we should look for high quality and aim to buy less in general, we can truly get started on our shopping spree.
The best time to buy any apparel at all is before you need it. Why? Because when you do need it, you are likely to rush into a decision based on an urgent need instead of a cool and detached vantage point. Imagine itās the time of the year that all clothing stores put up big āsalesā signs. Itās a good exercise to ask yourself 1. What do I require? 2. what is on my nice-to-have-if-cheap-enough list? Only when both answers are sharply in focus, you can go shopping.
But what if the sales-season is months away, and you require something sooner? Or better yet: you are thinking ahead and want to buy something before youāll need it?
First grade, but second hand š
- Some platforms allow users to sell second hand clothing, like Vinted
- Sellpy goes one step further by enforcing quality pictures and a realistic description of size and wear-and-tear.
- Other platforms and shops no doubt exist near you. Since marketing budgets are naturally limited, you might have to go out and look a bit harder than usually for them.
Now that all is said and doneā¦
An independently poor person isnāt too concerned with āstuffā, be it shoes, clothes, apparels, or other kinds of things. Instead of always pondering what to buy and wear next, we can enjoy the better things in life, like spending time with friends ā¹ļøāāļøš¤½āāļø or in nature.āļø
If we do need to buy something, we try to spend as little as possible on the most enduring and high quality we can find.
Still having trouble making sound choices? The article How Can I Improve My Wardrobe? maybe of further assistance.