- 10:53 am - Sat, Feb 23, 2013
- 383 notes
Carl Richards’ The Case for Spending a Little More Sometimes, which ran last year in The New York Times’s Bucks blog, is written from a financial standpoint, but could be viewed through an environmental lens: Why not buy fewer things — higher-quality items that we really need or want — with the intent of keeping (and using) them for a long time? By doing so, we reduce our ecological footprints, generate less waste, and send less stuff to landfills. Simple.
An excerpt from Richards’ piece:
Here is the issue: when we settle for stuff that we don’t really want, and instead buy stuff that will be fine for a while, it often costs more in the long run.
Too often I think we convince ourselves that buying for the long term doesn’t matter. We can always replace it, right?
But how much simpler would life and our money decisions be if we bought with the goal of owning that item for a long time? Taking this approach puts a new spin on how we spend our money. Maybe it makes us think a little harder about what we’re buying. Maybe it makes us wait a little longer so we can afford exactly what we want. Maybe it makes us a little happier about what we have because we’re buying things we want around for a long time.
Do you agree?