Top 5 articles of 2019

5. Books. Do we need them anymore?

Why do we keep books? To read them again? How many do we ever read a second time? I worked it out.For me not many.

This lead to a second post on my technique for streamlining my book collection.

4. Living in a converted barn.

This was something my wife and I tried on a trip away this year. Check out the pictures. I still reckon it could be possible long-term. We really don't need as much space as we have.

3. What's your retirement age?

It's not 67. At least it doesn't have to be. If we spend less, compulsory work can become optional at a very early age. It could even be in your 30s.

2. The automatic guest room

On the same trip as number 4, we stayed with a friend who (with some clever furniture) converts her living room into another bedroom. It's a clever way to be able to have guests, but without paying a heap of money for a bigger place.

1. Don't dump on charities

This time last year, Marie Kondo's documentary hit Netflix - and decluttering became trendy. Combined with post-Christmas cleanup, new year's resolutions and (in Australia) summer holidays) donations to charity surged.

Trouble is that it already costs charities 8-figure sums each year to dispose of the "donations" left outside their store.

In my post I put forward a better solution

Want more?

If you'd like to read more in 2020, you can follow on facebook, or sign-up for the monthly-ish update. It's a quick convenient way to catch-upon all that has happened on the blog.

Happy New Year

Hope your 2020 is a year of less. Less stuff, less clutter, less expenses, less debt, less pressure and less stress. :)

Comments

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 ...

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...

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