Frugality vs. technology

[Walt34]

That's about what we do. My 2003 GMC pickup truck runs fine and at 97k miles is hopefully just getting broken in.

Believe me, I am generally all in favor of the "buy and hold" strategy when it comes to cars. But buying a new one recently really made me rethink the idea, especially when it comes to advances in safety. The technology on newer vehicles that helps avoid forward collisions and also scans for potential obstacles while backing up (especially in places like cramped, busy parking lots), not to mention the advances in air bags and crash resilience, makes hanging onto a 15+ year old car kind of unnecessarily dangerous, relatively speaking. Would you agree?

You make a good argument, but here in WV the traffic just isn't that heavy so the new tech stuff in cars is of diminished value to me. The Honda we have does have a backup camera but none of the other stuff.

If we were still living in the D.C. area I might come to a different conclusion though.

 

[Nature Lover]

Similar to many here. I buy quality, and use it until either it breaks or technology advances bring meaningful/desirable improvements. I'm not much of a DYI repair guy, so that may mean replacement a little earlier for some things....but the car is a 2002 with 190,000 miles on it, the mattress is 25+ years old, the HVAC is 23, and the refrigerator 30+. TVs and computer/tablet/phones newer (of course), but still not bleeding edge.

All of the older larger ticket items are candidates for replacement, and I have looked into their replacements (good forward planning, I think); but I'll wait for the value proposition to be right before actually replacing them.

 

[akck]

Currently, we have 2004 and 2009 model vehicles, purchased new. We'll likely drive them until they start breaking down. Recently, we rented a mid-sized SUV and were given a 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee with all the bells and whistles. I really liked it, but didn't rent it long enough to know everything the technology could do. I decided our next/last vehicle will be fully upgraded.

 

[OldShooter]

I think that, fundamentally, it is a question of "want" versus "need" and an ability to recognize the difference.

Hopefully we all have the resources to take care of the "need" items and to buy at least a few of the "want" items as well. Few can afford all of the "wants." For example, I "need" a cattle class ticket for international travel. I "want" a Gulfstream 5.

 

[Texas Proud]

This is a prime example of frugalality vs. technology "valuation" to me.

If you add up the number of hours you spend in front of your computer (especially if you are still using it for w*rk), and amortize the cost over that, spending $1000 every 2-3 years is PEANUTS compared to the efficiency, security, and reduced aggravation that it can provide.

I laugh (inside) at folks bragging about how they are still "getting by" on their Window XT machines with a 512MB hard disks...... Why?

But why My computer is at least 7 years old as I have that many tax programs on it right now. I do have 8 GB of memory and have Win 10 so not as ancient as you mentioned.... but the machine does what I need and as fast as I need it.... I spend 95%+ of my time on the internet or typing in a worksheet or drafting a letter... none of this needs a newer machine..... so why waste money to get a 'newer and better' one... when I will see zero improvement....

 

[meierlde]

I recently struggled with this idea of frugality and value when I realized that I haev several old 100W incandescent bulbs left in some of the less used areas of my home. The idea of tossing a perfectly good bulb that probably has a few more years of use left in it just bothers me so very much. It seems so wasteful. Yet, everything I have read indicates that replacing them with new LED bulbs or even an old fashioned florescent bulbs will pay off several times over.

So I struggle. Toss a perfectly good incandescent bulb in the trash or waste perfectly good energy? No matter what I do I will be racked with guilt. Truly a first world problem.

The answer is simple wait till they burn out then replace. If its an incandescent bulb it has a life of about 1000 hours, so at a max that is 100 kwh, but one must assume that at least some of the life has already been used up.
The only real exception is if the bulb is in a hard to replace space, and your going to do a mass replacement.

 

[LOL!]

I don't see how you can seriously claim that 2017-18 cars don't have any safety improvements over cars from 15+ years ago. There are numerous studies that show cars today are much safer than in years past. I just read one that reported a 50% reduction in automobile fatalities (mostly due to increased safety technology) since 2000.

I didn't claim that. I claimed that a 2011 vehicle already had advanced safety features. Check it out:
Driver death rates

A 50% reduction in 0 deaths probably means bringing people back to life or something like that.

 

[meierlde]

I recall when I went from a 2001 to a 2011 car being suprised in first the ability to set a timer to have the lights stay on for two minutes after the engine was turned off. This meant if I had to unlock a door there was time do get it done and switch a light on inside. The 2016 has lane departure alert, forward collision alert, a backup camera, parking assist, and best of all the side blind spot detection system. Which BTW makes passing on a freeway easier since you can also use it to tell you when it is safe to pull back into the original lane.

 

[ERD50]

.... and best of all the side blind spot detection system. Which BTW makes passing on a freeway easier since you can also use it to tell you when it is safe to pull back into the original lane.

I am going to disagree with that. The side blind spot detection system (and other systems like it) are to give you a warning of something you may have missed. I would not use the lack of a warning to tell me "it is safe" to proceed. Check and verify, then proceed with caution.

It's like I told my kids when teaching them to drive - you don't proceed because you don't see any cars approaching. You proceed when you can see that there are no cars approaching.

-ERD50

 

[Music Lover]

When in front of my computer, the biggest impact to my enjoyment is the view, so a few years ago, I upgraded to 2 big monitors (27").

I was going to upgrade my computer monitor but instead I now send the display to my 67" TV. All it cost was the price of a 15' VGA cable.

 

[NW-Bound]

I am going to disagree with that. The side blind spot detection system (and other systems like it) are to give you a warning of something you may have missed. I would not use the lack of a warning to tell me "it is safe" to proceed. Check and verify, then proceed with caution.

It's like I told my kids when teaching them to drive - you don't proceed because you don't see any cars approaching. You proceed when you can see that there are no cars approaching.

-ERD50

On the Web, people talk of a car that overtakes them so fast that the blind spot detector does not warn them until it's too late. That makes sense when we consider that the typical system uses ultrasonic proximity sensors, and the range of that they cover can be traversed by the overtaking vehicle quickly if the speed difference is high.

This is not the fault of the system of course, but rather resulting from a pure physical reason. Hence, knowing how the system works is important, and one cannot blindly trust it.

In an earlier thread, a poster mentioned that her car did not detect a semitrailer in the adjacent lane when she intended to merge right, most likely due to the height of the trailer with respect to her sedan. Of course, this means the truck engine should be parallel with or ahead of her car, and could not be missed if she looked (and she did).

 

[Music Lover]

I'm somewhat flabbergasted that blind spot technology has become so popular and immediately embraced because the side mirrors can be adjusted to make the blind spot disappear. I've being doing this for my entire life, yet it seems that so few people are aware of it. I was reminded of this when test driving newer cars a few days ago...the salesman was going over all the features and this was one of the ones he highlighted.

Regarding frugality and technology, this was certainly apparent when I was looking at newer (2014-15) vehicles...there is so much technology built in these days that some cars look like a fighter jet on the inside. You may like and want 20% of the features, but you're stuck paying for 100% of it...it's like cable bundling.

 

[LOL!]

It's like I told my kids when teaching them to drive - you don't proceed because you don't see any cars approaching. You proceed when you can see that there are no cars approaching.

-ERD50

Great advice!

I've also taught my kids to not drive continuously in another driver's blind spot. If you must pass through it, then get out of it as soon as safely possible.

 

[Souschef]

The right balance for my family is to get newer car sooner, like every 10 years. For mattresses, we bought 2 brand new ones for us, in case one goes, we still have the other for replacement. They cost a pretty penny, but we value sleep. These mattresses in tandem should last up to 40 years, by then I will be close to 100.

My DW drives a 1998 Cadillac (One that LOOKS like a Cadillac), And I drive a 1993 Hyundai. For the short distances we drive (20-30 miles RT) we are going to keep them.

 

[Fedup]

My DW drives a 1998 Cadillac (One that LOOKS like a Cadillac), And I drive a 1993 Hyundai. For the short distances we drive (20-30 miles RT) we are going to keep them.

Trust me, we're in this category as well. We still have a 1997 Ford Explorer and that's why we promise to ourselves to not be like that again. Even if we buy a new car every 10 years, at most we get to buy is 3-4 new cars going forward.

 

[Winemaker]

Our 2004, 2006, and 2007 vehicles run fine. My 2004 has 215,000 miles on it. My Dell desktop with my Quicken 99 still does the job. This 2010 Dell laptop lost it's first hard drive and needs a external dvd drive to use a dvd. The keyboard jumps all over.
My new laptop is still in box upstairs.

 

[meierlde]

I am going to disagree with that. The side blind spot detection system (and other systems like it) are to give you a warning of something you may have missed. I would not use the lack of a warning to tell me "it is safe" to proceed. Check and verify, then proceed with caution.

It's like I told my kids when teaching them to drive - you don't proceed because you don't see any cars approaching. You proceed when you can see that there are no cars approaching.

-ERD50

Since the ones on my car are on the outside mirrors it provides a cross check, you don't move until you can see the car headlights in the regular mirror, and the check with the outside mirror that the car is far enough away.

 

[Chuckanut]

It's like I told my kids when teaching them to drive - you don't proceed because you don't see any cars approaching. You proceed when you can see that there are no cars approaching.

-ERD50

+1

One thing that stuck into this teenager's rather porous brain was what I learned in driver's training class - "Safe driving is a habit even when it seems like a waste of time, until something totally unexpected happens". So, that is why I still stop at all STOP signs even at 2:00 AM in the morning when I can see 500 yards in every direction and no car is in sight.

 

[NW-Bound]

Completely agree.

In aviation, pilots are taught to follow every rule to the letter, and not to cut corners. One stupid mistake or overlook, and one pays with his life and those of innocent passengers.

My son once parked his car too close to an apartment alley one night, and his car corner was hit by a guy exiting the alley. It was a hit-and-run, so I surmised what happened. The guy did not stop before emerging from the alley and making a right turn onto the road, else he would have seen my son's car. He thought that there was no traffic at night, so why bother to stop and look.

Now, he could have run over a pedestrian or a bicyclist. And he would have fled the scene. These guys, if caught, should be castrated.

 

[Texas Proud]

Completely agree.

In aviation, pilots are taught to follow every rule to the letter, and not to cut corners. One stupid mistake or overlook, and one pays with his life and those of innocent passengers.

My son once parked his car too close to an apartment alley one night, and his car corner was hit by a guy exiting the alley. It was a hit-and-run, so I surmised what happened. The guy did not stop before emerging from the alley and making a right turn onto the road, else he would have seen my son's car. He thought that there was no traffic at night, so why bother to stop and look.

Now, he could have run over a pedestrian or a bicyclist. And he would have fled the scene. These guys, if caught, should be castrated.

How do you know it was a guy

 

[brucethebroker]

I recently struggled with this idea of frugality and value when I realized that I haev several old 100W incandescent bulbs left in some of the less used areas of my home. The idea of tossing a perfectly good bulb that probably has a few more years of use left in it just bothers me so very much. It seems so wasteful. Yet, everything I have read indicates that replacing them with new LED bulbs or even an old fashioned florescent bulbs will pay off several times over.

So I struggle. Toss a perfectly good incandescent bulb in the trash or waste perfectly good energy? No matter what I do I will be racked with guilt. Truly a first world problem.

+1
I think many of the comments are confusing frugality (involving thrift) with being practical or safe. Upgrading a car to get the newer safety features (a very good thing) does not seem to be frugal-just practical, even smart. Driving a car 250k miles would be frugal, period, until you began losing more money (repairs) than it would cost to replace it. It would not be frugal to replace a bad mattress, but it would be practical to replace it, since good sleep is important.

 

[brucethebroker]

I forgot to add that replacing a perfectly good car (10 years or older?) with a new one that gets better mileage, is cheaper to insure, less expensive to repair, could be in the frugal category if the numbers work. There must be a financial/thrift element.

 

[Totoro]

Most budget cars flatten out in the total cost / mile metric after a few years. What you win in depreciation is lost in maintenance & break/fix (when done by others), especially if you can find a good deal second-handed and time it right (a few 10ks before major overhaul). Not to mention less risk and hassle.

I went overly cautious on my phone as a 'too frugal' thing. I replaced it because basically it is a complete write-off, and had to buy a new one.

As it turns out .. the new phone cost me 120 euros, has better specs across the board and a huge gain in battery life. More snappy too. Should have upgraded sooner instead of buying a new battery (at 40 euros) for the old one. It's a daily appliance so investment = worth it.

 

[Music Lover]

I forgot to add that replacing a perfectly good car (10 years or older?) with a new one that gets better mileage, is cheaper to insure, less expensive to repair, could be in the frugal category if the numbers work. There must be a financial/thrift element.

I would think that those cases make up the minority, though. It takes a heck of a lot in savings to make up the difference.

 

[joeea]

For those of us who are fairly frugal by nature (and I suspect that might be the majority of us), have you given much thought to the idea that hanging on to older things as long as possible before “tossing & replacing” can actually run counter to the goal of getting maximum value for your money?

I have thought about that.

Each of us makes tradeoffs in different ways. For some, a new car every two years feels reasonable. For others, driving a car until it dies seems right.

Take cars, for example. Looked at in a straightforward, simplistic way, holding onto a car for, say, 15 years does give you maximum transportation value for the dollars spent on the car. But if you consider that technology advanced substantially in those 15 years and you missed out on some major improvements in crash safety, engine/fuel efficiency, personal convenience features (e.g. Bluetooth, adaptive cruise control), then might you have been better off not waiting 15 years to upgrade? Maybe the best “value” proposition, all things considered, was upgrading to a new car after only 11 years, or 10?

There's no magic number.

For me, most of those convenience features are a complete waste. And spending extra (or trading in my current car early to get them) would be foolish.

I choose not to get on a neverending chase for the most current features.

Another example could be mattresses. Is it really better to sleep on the same mattress for 12 years and wait until it’s lumpy and misshapen and not as pillowy soft and supportive before replacing it? Sure, keeping it for 12 years did make the most of those original dollars spent to purchase it, but what is the true value lost by foregoing the advancements in “mattress technology” that could have resulted in more restful, enjoyable, healthy sleep by purchasing a new mattress sooner?

If my mattress were interfering with my sleep, I would replace it immediately. We recently did just that - getting rid of a too-soft mattress that was just a few years old (a failed experiment) and replacing it with a firm mattress.

I’ve been wrestling with these kinds of thoughts recently, triggered by a long-overdue upgrade of my A/C and furnace and also my recent purchase of a new car to replace one that was 17 years old. In both cases, I feel like I actually waited several years too long, and as a result, deprived myself of meaningful value in life that I could have easily obtained were it not for my excessive frugality.

Meaningful value in life? Seems a bit dramatic.

As long as your longer-terms goals aren't sacrificed, don't beat yourself up over your purchases of creature comforts.

How do you do these types of calculations when trying to decide when to replace older things? Obviously there is a balance between constantly buying the latest and greatest in order to always have the most beneficial technologies and hanging on to something until it basically falls apart in order to minimize the money spent on that class of item over your lifetime. But what is the right balance?

The only "right balance" is the one that feels right for you and your family.

I never feel the need to purchase the "latest and greatest". When something has outlived its usefulness for me, I'll replace it, but not until. I had no cell phone longer than most. Then I had a flip phone longer than most. Now I have a smart phone that is 2 generations old. Works for me (and when it doesn't, I'll replace it).