Boston Gal's Open Wallet

I believe it's fully possible to live that way forever. You should read: Graceful simplicity : toward a philosophy and politics of simple living.

Once you give someting up, after a while you get used to it and don't miss it. Worked for me with cable TV, Tivo, Los Angeles, etc. Once you give up the "wants" (and unfortunately many things we think are needs, really are wants), then life is pretty cheap.

 

Cheap yes, Free no.

I struggle with this myself Adrienne. I am single, no credit card debt, paid cash for my car, live well below my means.

But I could not even think about ditching the day job and devoting my time to growing my own food, thrift store shopping, simplicity circle meetings, etc. until after I was mortgage-free, had spent enough years working to qualify for adequate social security, vested into some sort of pension plan, accumulated enough in the retirement accounts to reach the tipping point (where investment gains are more than yearly contributions) and created enough of an alternative income stream to ensure I could pay taxes, have health coverage, insurance, etc.

Voluntary Simplicity still means you have to do the responsible thing like ensure you can take care of yourself in the future.

Meeting current needs is great - but it is not enough.

 

As for the featured family and your questions: I would guess that the businessman former husband is paying child support and may be responsible for things like health insurance and future education for the children.

Just a guess, of course.

 

So her cottage in the woods lifestyle and ability to work "Mother's Hours" and be available to pick up her kids from school, etc. is possible because of her ex husband and those payments.

If she was really doing this on her own those kids would not be playing in the woods, they would be in after-school YMCA or Boys and Girls Club programs while she would be stressing out and working long hours to provide benefits.

 

The Danish apartment certainly wasn't typical at least not of typical houses in Sweden which look a lot more conventional (though much nicer than typical British houses of the same size). These people in the video are heavily into design obviously...

 

It's good that she bailed on the life that was making her sick, but I feel bad for the husband - there he is, living the dream, and it's all crumbled at his feet. And yeah, he's probably paying for some part of his ex's freedom.

However I think that putting off all pieces of voluntary simplicity for some day in the future is not necessary. There are many things we can do in the here & now that are parts of simplicity - living without debt, having the option of using transit if you want/need to, cooking for yourself - these are all pieces of that puzzle. It won't magically come into focus the day financial independence is possible.

 

I live in a small college town where many people are underemployed to live in this little heaven. However, I don't think working minimally actually makes your life simpler. Work is work and if I can earn more using an education and skills then that is better than if I am simply employed and struggling.

I agree with other's comments, like Frugal Scholar, that her lifestyle is probably underwritten by a divorce settlement and child support.

Don't think that working minimally will make you happier. It might if you can persue other interests and make your bills, but there is nothing romantic about not being able to pay your bills. There is only so much simplifying that can be done.


Barb

 

Is there something inherently wrong with the fact that the father is paying child support for his kids? If she's living with and has primary custody of them, then that is as it should be.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is anything wrong with receiving child support or alimony.

The problem is the article implies that she alone is funding this life style with her part-time job.

The couple from FL also featured in the article are clear on how they are living a voluntary simple life while at the same time holding down full-time jobs. If I remember correctly the couple who wrote the book Your Money or Your Life funded their voluntary simple lifestyle by giving up the house and traveling to national parks (working in the parks part-time).

Amy Dacyczyn of The Complete Tightwad Gazette was famous for her simple lifestyle - but her husband was working full-time for the military. So the family was covered by his benefits.

I have yet to read about a single parent who is the sole provider for the family able to pursue voluntary simplicity. Maybe once the children are all launched from the home...

 

If I remember right, Amy Dacyczyn also admitted to certain luxuries that she and her husband purchased for their house--like nice antique furniture, for example. She said they were able to buy these niceties by scrimping on other things. Although I may be splitting hairs, this seems different to me than a completely simple lifestyle: it is more of an approach to cutting back expenses for the sake of spending less, rather than enjoying simple living for the sake of enjoying simple living.

On the other side of this is Mary Jane Butters, who is making an almost Martha Stewart-like reputation for making "simple living" a popular movement. This then becomes "living simply" even if it costs you a lot to do it. A fashionable trend in a way. I should clarify that my intent is not to put down Mary Jane Butters, whose columns I enjoy reading, but to point out that "simple living" has many interpretations.

 

She may have simplified her life, but I can't help think that she may have complicated her kids' lives by taking them away from their father. I shouldn't judge, because the story doesn't reveal much about how much interaction goes on between the kids and their dad or what the real reasons behind the divorce were--and nobody should live in an unhappy marriage. But I kept thinking "what about dad?"

 

I enjoyed that story. Thanks for finding it BG. I'm always looking for new ideas for making our household more "green." We started doing vermicomposting this summer in a homemade worm home. the story incented me to put some rain barrels in next Spring.

 

This woman sounds like a complete tool. "Oh, woe is me, having stuff is making me ill!" Come on lady. Was your husband physically forcing you to buy things? Did he demand you collect Hummel figurines or something? She could clearly have found more meaning in her life without leaving her husband and forcing her 8 year old children to share a bedroom with their mother.

 

If anyone is interested Kristen's blog is:

http://simplymartini.blogspot.com/

Patti

 

Her 800 sq foot "cottage in the woods" sounds like most of the 2 br pre-1970 housing stock in north Florida. Now she's moved to a 1400 sq foot-- bigger than most pre-1970 3/2 ranches. Big yards, built to take advantage of the breeze, low ceilings so not too hard to keep warm in the winter. It's not exactly a sacrifice. For people with money, this is "simplicity". For the rest of us, it's just life.

I, too, found the complete blow-off of dad kinda hinky.

 

From her blog:

In the interest of full disclosure and for those who are curious. As of July 1, I am getting set support from my ex husband. Its good. I can breathe easier. We will still live a very rich life on $1200-$1400 a month and put anything above that in the bank.

So yes, her current simple life is underwritten by the divorce. She has also been selling a lot of "stuff" she had accumulated during the marriage for the past two years. The sale of those items has also helped her avoid the 9-5 grind and spend time with the children and take up hobbies like mosaics.

This may all be working for her now, but what about 10 years from now when both kids are gone from the home and she is nearing 50? Will she then regret not making hay when she was younger and setting aside more for her later years? The ex-husband support will not last forever.

 

Yeah, I grew up in a 700 sq ft apartment in London. Somehow it crammed 3 bedrooms into that space. We were on the ground floor so we could walk out into the garden (=yard). Now I live in a 1000 sq ft 2 bed apartment in Australia.

 

Many people do live simple lives and even sustain them on small incomes. Your approach is fine for you, but when I read that your goal is more than $3,000,000, I'm frankly appalled. That's a huge sum, and to me it feels like hoarding money that could be put to better use.

But that's the beauty of the world. People can make their own decisions and their own goals.

 

Hi Ann,

The $3,000,000+ retirement number goal was a figure I arrived at after doing a pretty simple calculation (if you click on the number you can read the post with the calculation).

Based on the calculation, that is the number I need to have by age 70 in future dollars to support myself in my retirement years.

Admittedly that number is pretty much a shot in the dark given how far out in the future it is. While I can control some things that will impact my retirement years (like having a mortgage or long term health care insurance, etc) I can't control things like inflation or future taxes or if universal health care will be available or not etc. So basically I did the safe thing and erred on the side of caution to assume I would need more rather than less in my numbers.

Another thing to note - I am single and don't have children. I assumed that would still be the case when I reach my retirement years. Having seen how expensive the last decade of life can be for some of my long-lived great-aunts and uncles - I know that having more money rather than less at the end can make a big difference in how and where you spend those last years.

But the important thing about that $3,000,000+ number is not if I ultimately need just that amount or if I have overshot - but that the amount needed for retirement is a very very large number and understanding that today hopefully means I will have a shot at accumulating enough to be comfortable.

 

The $3 million isn't so big when you consider inflation - it's not in today's money. And it includes her house too. With a 4% withdrawal rate (the normal advice) and assuming prices double by the time Boston Gal is 70 that gives $60k per year in today's money. And probably only $40k in actual money if one third say is the value of her house... Now maybe she doesn't need that much if social security works out etc. But it's not a highly luxurious lifestyle by any means.

In the meantime the money is invested and if she has money left at the end of her life it can go to charities or to her nephews and nieces etc.

 

I am so tired about reading this glorification of "simple living." I don't see Oprah chucking out her multiple houses and numerous pets. This isn't a new idea at all. This "Asceticism" movement is just repackaged ideas for magazines like O and Real Simple.

 

I didn't mean for my comment to sound as judgmental as it did, and "appalled" was too strong.

It was mostly a counter reaction to some of the negative reactions to this woman's story. Presumably she's doing the best she can, and trying to live a life that makes sense to her. If her husband's support allows her to do that, I don't think that's a crime.

It is difficult to assess what we'll need in retirement. I always feel that a lot of the personal finance "experts" err on the side of too much, leaving many people to decide it's hopeless, throw up their hands and give up.

 

I notice that the comments on Martini's blog are moderated and she only allows positive ones to show (probably why she only has 3 or so comments per post, unlike the 22 on her story here).

I, too, am of the opinion that what she's doing isn't really simple living. She's living off the largesse of her ex -- it's only simple living if you're earning the money and spending it on simple needs.

How charming that on her blog she encourages everyone to "make a choice!" like she did. Honey, if I could sucker a guy into bankrolling a simple life for me and suffer so little moral qualms about it that I crowed about it on Oprah, believe me I would. But I, unlike Ms. Martini, would feel like a fraud.