I live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle. I have a car, a nice home, computers, gizmos and all the other things that define "modern western lifestyle". And I do like that lifestyle.
But on the other hand there is part in me that dreams of giving all that up. That dreams of simple life far away from the crowded cities.
Few months ago I saw a story on TV about this Norwegian man, who quit his job, and moved to a remote location in northern Norway. He built himself a house that was similar to the old Viking-dwellings. He had no electricity (well, he did have a generator for cases when he absolutely needed electricity). And he didn't have any clocks. It was peaceful, stress-free existence.
I could see myself doing something like that. But the thing is that it's the two extremes that appeal to me, the things in between do not seem appealing at all.
I couldn't really see myself making _some_ cutbacks to my life. If I do "cut back", then it needs to be all the way. Either I live this lifestyle, or I live the complete opposite lifestyle. But no half-hearted attempts somewhere in between.
I guess that I see the middle ground as combining the worst of the two extremes. If I make some cutbacks, I sacrifice on the material wealth, but I don't really gain that much in the lifestyle. I would still have to go to work, and it return I would have less of the modern luxuries. So it has to be all or nothing.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Green is the color of money
The Greens in the Helsinki metropolitan area released their proposal for congestion-charges for the city. I wont comment on the actual idea of congestion-charges, but I DO want to comment on their proposal, which is downright stupid.
The charge works as you might expect: you need to pay if you drive to the metro-area. You can either pay per kilometer, or you can buy a monthly "pass". If you buy that monthly pass, you also get a 30-day ticket for the mass-transport in the metro-area. Which is a good idea.
Everything else about their suggestion sucks though.
Their idea is to basically charge money from commuters who drive to the metro-area (Metro-area in this case is the cities of Espoo, Vantaa and Helsinki) from the surrounding counties. Also, if you drive inside the metropolitan area and cross a city-limit (like, driving from Helsinki to Espoo) you need to pay.
Well, what's the problem here? Simple: if you just drive inside one city (like, inside Helsinki), you do not need to pay one dime extra.
Why is that a problem? Well, it's the idea behind all this. Fact is that further away from the metro-area you are, the less viable alternative mass-transit is. And now those who live outside the metro-area would be punished because they commute to the metro-area. And while they are punished, the people inside metro-area (to whom mass-transit IS a viable alternative) are not encouraged to use mass-transit. People who live in Helsinki can keep on driving inside Helsinki, without having to pay one cent extra. Even if they had a tram/bus/metro 50 meters from their home. People outside metro-area who have no other alternative but to use their car, are expected to pay more.
I commute by train, since my workplace is right in the downtown of Helsinki. The Mrs.'s workplace is not in the downtown, so she carpools with her father. The reason for that is that there is not one mass-transit connection between our home and the place she works. Not one.
The Greens' proposal would make it quite a bit more expensive for her (and her father) to go to work. And the mass-transit-ticket they would get in return would not even be useful for her, since it's not valid here. We would have to live closer to Helsinki to be able to use it.
Her only "viable" alternative is to get a 30-days train-ticket (costs 106 euros/month) and in addition, a 30-day bus-ticket from Helsinki to Espoo (where she works, costs 114e/month). It would cost her 220e/month just to go to work. Daily commute would be 60-90 minutes in one direction. So she would spend 2-3 hours a day commuting, and she would pay 220e for the pleasure.
I have mailed two Green politicians about this (one of them my representative in the parliament), but I have received no reply.
why did Greens suggest something like this? Why aren't they suggesting new fares for people who live in Helsinki (or Espoo, or Vantaa), but still use their own car? I guess the reason is simple: This was one of their themes in the communal-elections. And it's not politically smart to tell the voters "if you vote us, we will make you pay more". No, what they said was basically "If you vote us, we will make these other people pay more". People outside the metro-area would be asked to pay more, but those people do not vote in the metro-area communal elections.
The charge works as you might expect: you need to pay if you drive to the metro-area. You can either pay per kilometer, or you can buy a monthly "pass". If you buy that monthly pass, you also get a 30-day ticket for the mass-transport in the metro-area. Which is a good idea.
Everything else about their suggestion sucks though.
Their idea is to basically charge money from commuters who drive to the metro-area (Metro-area in this case is the cities of Espoo, Vantaa and Helsinki) from the surrounding counties. Also, if you drive inside the metropolitan area and cross a city-limit (like, driving from Helsinki to Espoo) you need to pay.
Well, what's the problem here? Simple: if you just drive inside one city (like, inside Helsinki), you do not need to pay one dime extra.
Why is that a problem? Well, it's the idea behind all this. Fact is that further away from the metro-area you are, the less viable alternative mass-transit is. And now those who live outside the metro-area would be punished because they commute to the metro-area. And while they are punished, the people inside metro-area (to whom mass-transit IS a viable alternative) are not encouraged to use mass-transit. People who live in Helsinki can keep on driving inside Helsinki, without having to pay one cent extra. Even if they had a tram/bus/metro 50 meters from their home. People outside metro-area who have no other alternative but to use their car, are expected to pay more.
I commute by train, since my workplace is right in the downtown of Helsinki. The Mrs.'s workplace is not in the downtown, so she carpools with her father. The reason for that is that there is not one mass-transit connection between our home and the place she works. Not one.
The Greens' proposal would make it quite a bit more expensive for her (and her father) to go to work. And the mass-transit-ticket they would get in return would not even be useful for her, since it's not valid here. We would have to live closer to Helsinki to be able to use it.
Her only "viable" alternative is to get a 30-days train-ticket (costs 106 euros/month) and in addition, a 30-day bus-ticket from Helsinki to Espoo (where she works, costs 114e/month). It would cost her 220e/month just to go to work. Daily commute would be 60-90 minutes in one direction. So she would spend 2-3 hours a day commuting, and she would pay 220e for the pleasure.
I have mailed two Green politicians about this (one of them my representative in the parliament), but I have received no reply.
why did Greens suggest something like this? Why aren't they suggesting new fares for people who live in Helsinki (or Espoo, or Vantaa), but still use their own car? I guess the reason is simple: This was one of their themes in the communal-elections. And it's not politically smart to tell the voters "if you vote us, we will make you pay more". No, what they said was basically "If you vote us, we will make these other people pay more". People outside the metro-area would be asked to pay more, but those people do not vote in the metro-area communal elections.
Vicious circle
In some ways, this is related to my previous blog-post, but I decided to dedicate a separate post to this.
I have a dilemma. Every proper household needs equipment that can be used to listen to music. We (that is, Mrs. and I) have none. Which is ironic, considering that we own more music than we have ever owned before. What do we have? Well, we have two radios and a laptop. And those aren't really ideal for this purpose. Yes, you can play back music through the laptop-speakers. But can you really LISTEN to music with it? Add to that the fact that the laptop is not ideally located for music-listening.
So we need something to listen to our music with. First thing would be to buy some speakers. Of course we need something that will play back/store our music. For this use we are looking at something like AppleTV or maybe Playstation 3. PS3 costs more, but it also does more, and it could replace our old DVD-player as well. But anyway, I mention those just to give you an idea what I'm looking for.
So, so far we have the speakers and the actual playback-device. We might also need an amplifier, in which we will hook up the speakers and the playback-device (although Genelecs are active speakers, they do not need apmlifier as such). This is optional in the beginning, but might come handy if we (for some reason) get more devices that need to use the speakers/television.
Since we are talking about devices that will hold thousands of songs (and video), it needs to be hooked up to a television for proper usage. But the thing is that my TV is an older model that does not properly work with AppleTV and other devices like it. So I would have to get a new television.
Could someone tell me how and when this thing got so damn complicated?!
I have bought few stereos in my life. And the process was relatively simple and exciting. I read the reviews and compared products. I went to the store, bought the components I wanted, put them together and I was all set. Now, if I want to upgrade, I need to upgrade everything!
Excitement is still there, but simplicity is nowhere to be found.
Granted, this problem is caused by the fact that I'm still on "old" technology (that is, tube-televison) which doesn't work with the "new" technology. If and when I buy in to the new technology, things should work quite smoothly. That is, until something new and better come along.
I have been planning this upgrade for few years now, and I guess I will be planning it for some more time. But I try to aim for longevity. The television? I could get one of those "HD-Ready"-televisions quite cheaply. But I think that FullHD has more legs in the long run. For speakers, I want Genelecs. The thing with Genelecs is that they might cost more, but they are so good and high quality, that you might not need to replace the speakers for the next 30 years. And I can buy a pair now, and build the system up in the future.
But still, doing all this would mean spending thousands of euros! Sheesh! Back to the drawing-board it seems....
I have a dilemma. Every proper household needs equipment that can be used to listen to music. We (that is, Mrs. and I) have none. Which is ironic, considering that we own more music than we have ever owned before. What do we have? Well, we have two radios and a laptop. And those aren't really ideal for this purpose. Yes, you can play back music through the laptop-speakers. But can you really LISTEN to music with it? Add to that the fact that the laptop is not ideally located for music-listening.
So we need something to listen to our music with. First thing would be to buy some speakers. Of course we need something that will play back/store our music. For this use we are looking at something like AppleTV or maybe Playstation 3. PS3 costs more, but it also does more, and it could replace our old DVD-player as well. But anyway, I mention those just to give you an idea what I'm looking for.
So, so far we have the speakers and the actual playback-device. We might also need an amplifier, in which we will hook up the speakers and the playback-device (although Genelecs are active speakers, they do not need apmlifier as such). This is optional in the beginning, but might come handy if we (for some reason) get more devices that need to use the speakers/television.
Since we are talking about devices that will hold thousands of songs (and video), it needs to be hooked up to a television for proper usage. But the thing is that my TV is an older model that does not properly work with AppleTV and other devices like it. So I would have to get a new television.
Could someone tell me how and when this thing got so damn complicated?!
I have bought few stereos in my life. And the process was relatively simple and exciting. I read the reviews and compared products. I went to the store, bought the components I wanted, put them together and I was all set. Now, if I want to upgrade, I need to upgrade everything!
Excitement is still there, but simplicity is nowhere to be found.
Granted, this problem is caused by the fact that I'm still on "old" technology (that is, tube-televison) which doesn't work with the "new" technology. If and when I buy in to the new technology, things should work quite smoothly. That is, until something new and better come along.
I have been planning this upgrade for few years now, and I guess I will be planning it for some more time. But I try to aim for longevity. The television? I could get one of those "HD-Ready"-televisions quite cheaply. But I think that FullHD has more legs in the long run. For speakers, I want Genelecs. The thing with Genelecs is that they might cost more, but they are so good and high quality, that you might not need to replace the speakers for the next 30 years. And I can buy a pair now, and build the system up in the future.
But still, doing all this would mean spending thousands of euros! Sheesh! Back to the drawing-board it seems....
Cash-flow
I have been out of control lately. I have been spending money of all kinds of things. I guess it started around October (IIRC) when I bought the new camera. It cost me quite a bit, but it was one-off thing. Soon after that I got the new car. Well, I took a loan for that, but still. You could say that that's a one-off purchase, and a bigger purchase that was required due to the circumstances. Then came the Christmas, and I spent money on presents. But that too is a natural thing to do, right? Last weekend I bought a Nintendo Wii (comments about Wii will follow this blog-entry). No, there's no excuse for that one, apart from "I really wanted it". Just another gadget for the home. Rationally, what I should have said to myself is "You have already bought all kinds of things lately, give it a rest already". But I didn't.
So, I'm making a promise here and now: I'm going to start saving money. Yes, even through this spending-spree I have managed to save money (There's a fixed amount of money set aside every month), but my cash-flow has been negative. Yes my "savings" have gone up, but the amount of cash I have has gone down. It's time to become cash-flow positive again. And still, there are things that I would like to get. In short-term there's a scanner/printer/copier that I would like to get. Printer is a good thing to have, and it would be convenient for printing photographs. We shall see. Fact is that I have managed without printer for several years, so I could manage in the future as well. Maybe the Buddhists are right, the root-cause of suffering is desire?
So, I'm making a promise here and now: I'm going to start saving money. Yes, even through this spending-spree I have managed to save money (There's a fixed amount of money set aside every month), but my cash-flow has been negative. Yes my "savings" have gone up, but the amount of cash I have has gone down. It's time to become cash-flow positive again. And still, there are things that I would like to get. In short-term there's a scanner/printer/copier that I would like to get. Printer is a good thing to have, and it would be convenient for printing photographs. We shall see. Fact is that I have managed without printer for several years, so I could manage in the future as well. Maybe the Buddhists are right, the root-cause of suffering is desire?