Is your spending in line with you values?

[Laser_Cat]

I try to live and spend in alignment with my personal values. For example, I buy organic produce and humane meat not because I'm thinking about the health benefits (but of course that is a bonus) but I want to help the Earth in any way I can so I know that organic is easier on the land. Of course organic from new zealand (for example) isn't but I try to balance local with organic.

Bunnys, I know what you mean though. I actually struggle sometimes with the idea of buying anything, even if I know I will use and enjoy it, especially since I am trying to pay off my student loans faster, and yup one small thing can lead into an avalanche of purchases.

Personally I love learning new things and taking classes make me very happy but I do find that it's always a struggle to part with the money (generally because it's a larger amount) to take a 12 week class or so. Yet it would definitely be in alignment of my personal values. =)

This is a super interesting topic thanks for bringing it up!

[awakenedsoul]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies. You've made me see how fortunate I am, location wise. We have very mild winters, so I don't have to use much heat. Having a tiny house makes cleaning and utility costs minimal. As I've said in recent posts, this neighborhood is a challenge, but I am close to many things. The Pacific Crest Trail is awesome for hiking, the mountains are just 45 mins. away...same with the beach. The longer I live here, the more I realize how lucky I am to have a patch of land for growing food. I can bike to the train station, which goes to all the LA museums. You people have got me thinking...I need to get out more! I appreciate my location after reading these posts.
When I went house hunting, the thing that struck me was that I couldn't find any one bedroom one bathroom homes anymore. Everything they build now (where I live,) is two bedroom/two bathroom.

[Life_is_Simple]

The categories where my spending is in line with my values:

• Investing in my health
• Investing in the health of my friend
• Spending on things that make my life easier
• Spending on travel to visit family
• Spending on some things that are fun
• Investing in my business

That's a little vague, but I look at my Quicken report, and almost everything goes to one of the above categories.

When I look at it that way, there isn't much wasteful spending. There might be some areas I could spend more efficiently (like groceries).

So.... Interesting! Good question!

One thing that I have mixed feelings on, is I spend on NFL Audiopass. I feel I am condoning violence in the sport, and the concussions, by doing so. But I really like following the Vikings!

[iris lily]

When I went house hunting, the thing that struck me was that I couldn't find any one bedroom one bathroom homes anymore. Everything they build now (where I live,) is two bedroom/two bathroom.

Conventional real estate wisdom is that anything less than 2 bedrooms is not worth your investment.

My own experience tells me something different after watching the popularity of certain small houses on the market.

As an aside, we own 3 tiny houses (none of them habitable) that range from 450 to 600 sq feet. We kind of just have them for the grounds to grow stuff on, but they would be fun to live in were they finished.

[pinkytoe]

For the most part, yes. Access to good food and paying quite a bit more tax-wise to live in a convenient neighborhood are our priorites (along with saving) right now.
The only thing I ever buy with wild abandon is plants or anything to do with gardening since that is what I love.
On the subject of housing, I think for various reasons there will be a desire for much smaller detached houses. Not all os us want to live in condos and apartments. They are very hard to find since 2500sf and up seems to be the norm around here. All the little houses from another era with 800-1200 sf are being torn down. I actually think someone is missing the boat on not developing housing for people who want smaller homes and yards.

[SteveinMN]

Not all os us want to live in condos and apartments. They are very hard to find since 2500sf and up seems to be the norm around here. All the little houses from another era with 800-1200 sf are being torn down. I actually think someone is missing the boat on not developing housing for people who want smaller homes and yards.

Houses are supersized for the same reasons restaurant meals and cars are supersized. For example, preparing and serving a restaurant meal incurs variable costs, like the food and the labor to prepare it -- and fixed costs, like the costs of plates and flatware, lighting the restaurant, staffing. That's why some restaurants serve such huge portions -- for a little extra in the cost of food, they can increase the price of the dish even more and make more money. And most diners think they're getting a deal because there's a doggie bag at the end.

Building smaller houses would save some on concrete, wood, drywall, wire, and a little labor. But once the electrician is on site, for example, installing a few less outlets doesn't save you all that much. Permits cost the same; assuming there are minimum requirements for housing lots, building a smaller house on the same lot does not save money. As a result, a house that runs maybe 1200-1500 square feet really will not be much less expensive than one that runs 2000-2500 square feet. Many buyers will look at what they get for the little additional money and choose the bigger house. Only the ones who think about the total lifecycle cost of the house will stick with the smaller house.

[awakenedsoul]

Conventional real estate wisdom is that anything less than 2 bedrooms is not worth your investment.

My own experience tells me something different after watching the popularity of certain small houses on the market.

As an aside, we own 3 tiny houses (none of them habitable) that range from 450 to 600 sq feet. We kind of just have them for the grounds to grow stuff on, but they would be fun to live in were they finished.

I know. Especially since there are now more single people than married people! I guess since I lived in hotels for so long, (15 years,) and in a NYC apt., 567 square feet feels spacious and airy to me. The utilities and repairs are so low, too. It's also less maintenance.

[awakenedsoul]

I completely agree with you pinkytoe. I'm so glad no one tore down this cute little house. All of the others here have additions. There's something about the original size that I find charming and sweet.

Steve,

I've had two older women tell me that they wish they just had a tiny house like mine. One is having to rent a room out in her home to a college student. (Her husband got Alzheimers at 60. It was a shock to her and a financial strain.) Another woman was in assisted living and hated it. She missed her chores and her garden. I think we need more small cottages.

[Tammy]

Awakened soul - I'm interested in hearing about your living in hotels. Whenever we stay in one I think about how simple it is, and how I would love to live that simply someday.

[SteveinMN]

Steve,
I've had two older women tell me that they wish they just had a tiny house like mine.

Within your circle, a smaller house is likely a popular choice. However, those women saying they want a smaller house and their actually buying them are two different things. Certainly a builder would be happy to assemble houses of 1000-1200 square feet for them; all it takes is money and a place to live until the house is built. But they likely will discover that building a 1000-1200 square foot house will cost almost as much as a 2000 square foot house.

And, unfortunately for them, many buyers are looking for bigger houses for their families, home offices, etc. Builders would not be putting together 2000-2500 square foot houses if there were no buyers. So a 1200 square foot house in this market will have fewer potential buyers -- a consideration in resale.

We have 1800 square feet in our house and, honestly, until I got married, I really never used about 600 square feet of the space. I certainly understand what you're saying about smaller homes. It's my preference, too. But it is not yet the preference of most of the market, largely for economic reasons. Perhaps as our population gets generally older, there will be more demand for smaller homes. But I don't see the market there yet. Certainly not here in Minneapolis/St. Paul.