Top 5 of 2018

Here are the But Wait There's Less Top 5 most popular posts of 2018. The ones you read the most.

I considered a Top 10 but, like most things, less is better.

1. Minimalism: A Documentary

Two long-time friends ditch "success" for happiness. They debunk the consumerist message and find we can have more happiness and less stress by simply having less stuff.

2. It's so good - we DIDN'T buy one

Sharing items can be way better than owning them. This story also shows how you can share items in your area.

the handy travel pack you don't need to buy

2b. Do we have affluenza?

An oldie but a goodie. This post about consuming less and Buy Nothing New Month was written a while ago but still gets lot of reads in 2018.

3. Jerry Seinfeld and the finance guy

I'm guessing the Seinfeld stand-up is the big drawcard here. Both guys give good reasons to have less junk at home. One very funny. The other very insightful.

4. The best day for a garage sale

I'm a big fan of downsizing by selling online (check out my book Less Clutter More Cash). In this post I give tips for a garage sale - including the best day (for Aussies) to hold one.

5. Tiny House, Big Living

This is about one of my favourite shows. People moving to smaller houses and talking about how freeing it is to finally have less stuff.

Thanks for being part of this journey in 2018. I hope your 2019 is a year of less. Less stuff, less clutter, less expenses, less debt, less pressure and less stress.

Comments

My mug shot

This is every mug I own. How many did I buy? Zero. They seem to just appear. I don't even drink tea or coffee. In winter I have might have a hot chocolate or cocoa. So 9 mugs seems like a lot. How does this happen? I reckon most mugs are gifts. There are two reasons for this. 1. It's a safe bet. People need to drink. It's kind of like buying your dad socks for father's day. But the difference is that socks wear out and need replacing. Cups don't. One of these mugs i received as a kid in the 90s. It still works fine. Now it has 8 friends. 2. It's often for what's on the mug. It might be a greeting card-style message, or a sports team logo, or something humorous. It's a good thing that something functional can also provide an inspiring message or pleasant memory as you use it. But the problem comes when we have too much. If I use the cup my sister gave me at Christmas, then I'm not using the 'awesome brother' one she already gave m...

Adam ruins work

The TV show Adam Ruins Everything took a look at the workplace - and the 40 hour work week. It confirms my thoughts that the 40-hour work week (or at least it's relevance today) is a figment of our imagination. Very enlightening. Watch it now . The first 7 minutes are the most relevant. There were some astonishing stats coming out of it. For example, we spend only 45% of the work week doing our actual job (not including meetings etc). That's about 18 hours per week. Interestingly, that's what experts predicted. With rises in productivity, the 1950s brought talk of a 4-day work week. By 2030 they reckoned we might work just 15 hours per week. But instead we work longer hours. That results in more mistakes and safety mishaps. It also reduces brain function. We might think that it's being productive but Adam points to countries that have as much prosperity as America while working much shorter hours. A classic case of 'less is more'. PS. for the basis of ...

Investing Less, Earning More

Could investing $13,000 be better than investing $70,000? In this case, the answer seems to be yes. In Making Money Made Simple , Noel Whittaker compares two hypothetical investors: Person 1: Invests $ 1,000 a year from age 18-30. Person 2: Invests $ 2,000 a year from age 30-65. You might think that person 2 would be better off, but here's how it goes (in chart form): Person 1 stops investing at 30, but their investment keeps growing. At that point, person 1's yearly growth is more than person 2's yearly contribution. That's why person 2 never catches up. Person 1 ends up about $ 150,000 ahead, despite investing about one-fifth of what the person 2 invested. What if growth isn't so good? These calculations assume 10% growth. What if it isn't that high? Fair point. I've run the numbers at lower rates of growth. At 9%, person 1 is still better off. At 8% it's close, and person 2 comes out slightly ahead. But that's not really the poin...

But wait... there's less!

Search This Blog