This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.
Last year I went to Dallas on business and had the opportunity to meet up with an old friend from college. Tim, a fellow Long Island boy, had recently got a promotion and transferred to Dallas so he and his girlfriend could be closer to her aging parents.
I hadn’t seen Tim in at least ten years. But before the bartender delivered the first round of PBRs, I was transported back in time. It was as if I saw Tim just yesterday and we were now shooting the breeze at PJ Bottoms or some other godawful dive bar that parked itself just beyond the sweep of Buffalo University’s bucolic campus. Tim is that type of a guy.
But here’s where things get interesting. Tim is the quintessential liberal. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. He’s not a trigger-seeking SJW who can’t wait to preen his superior ethics in front of anyone who dares to run afoul of the progressive catechism. No, he has the “right” beliefs, not because they were handed down to him from the high priests of liberalism, but because they are the wellspring of his reason and intellect. In other words, Tim is an honorable man. And though we’re on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I’ve always respected him for his views. In fact, I’ve always looked to him as a sort of moral compass.
Okay, the stage is set. In one bar stool sits the cool liberal guy. In the other bar stool sits the deplorable right-winger. All of a sudden, the cool liberal guy whips out his smartphone and shows the deplorable right-winger a video he recently shot. For his girlfriend’s birthday, he bought her a brand new car, and he captured her reaction when she opened the garage and saw it. It’s a great video. And his girlfriend’s reaction is indeed priceless. But something about the video alarmed me. As Tim panned across the driveway to hone in on his girlfriend, he managed to catch a chunk of his house, and his house is huge. It’s a freakin’ McMansion.
Now don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against McMansions. And Tim can certainly afford his. But Tim’s a firm believer in man-made climate change, and it just struck me as odd that someone with his environmental concerns would own a home so big. It’s just him and his girlfriend, after all. Do they really need a 4,000 square foot house?
In Tim’s Defense
To be fair to Tim, I didn’t question him about the size of his home. I hadn’t seen him in at least ten years, and for me to imply that his housing purchase was an ethical lapse would have been beyond rude. So let me come to Tim’s defense.
First, I think part of the reason Tim bought a McMansion is because he lived in a 600 square-foot apartment in Manhattan. And while tiny homes are all the rage now, not everyone is psychologically suited to dwell in a confined space for eternity. So I can understand why Tim would want more elbow room—especially when the price of elbow room in Texas is remarkably cheap. I know this sounds ridiculous, but a 4,000 square-foot house in Dallas is cheaper to purchase and maintain than a 600 square-foot apartment in Manhattan.
Second, I think the main reason Tim bought a McMansion is because he’s human. Scarcity has haunted man ever since he emerged from primordial ooze, and it’s in man’s DNA to horde, stockpile, and prefer the larger over the smaller. Our ancestors who behaved otherwise were less likely to survive the next drought, plague, or war. Tim, therefore, is just obeying thousands of years of evolutionary biology. It’s not his fault that he lives in a country where the scourge of scarcity has been largely subdued.
Final Thoughts
I penned this post, not to chastise an old college buddy, but to comment on the powerful lure of stuff. Tim is a far better person than I am, and yet he couldn’t control his impulse for more. Despite all his concerns for rising CO2 levels, he chose a house with a prodigious carbon footprint over a house with a modest carbon footprint.
Now consider the 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians. They are now approaching an era where they too can subdue scarcity. Do you think they’ll forego such things as cars, paved roads, indoor plumbing, electricity, central heating, air conditioning, and, yes, McMansions in order to save the planet?
They may talk a good game at UN climate summits, but they have the same DNA as Tim. So my guess is that they’ll say, “Damn CO2 levels. Full speed ahead with modern conveniences.” And if this is the case, we’re all doomed. You can’t deliver modern conveniences to billions of people without a crapload of carbon.
Okay, groovy freedomists, that’s all I got. I’m a man-made climate change skeptic because I’m an eternal optimist. But what say you? Are 99% of climate scientists correct? Will our DNA and rising CO2 levels conspire to cook the planet? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Peace.
Haven’t been reading blogs for awhile and was pleased to find this one when hopping back on the net. 🙂 When I read this, I think of Dave Ramsey and his multi-million dollar mansion. When people started getting on him for his paid-in-cash mega mansion (on the Bible Money Matters site) he responded with something to the effect of “I know without a doubt God called me to build this house and we use it very regularly for charity events, etc to gives lots of money to the poor and needy.”.
Personally, I think climate change is a normal part of life and global warming is a bunch of hoo-haa. But I do think we all have a responsibility to be thoughtful with our care of all things, including the earth. Not sure that I’m against Tim’s McMansion, but instead am hoping that he won’t ignore his purchase when the debates about carbon footprint come along. 🙂 Well done, Mr. Groovy.
Agreed. I too am not against Dave’s or Tim’s larger than “necessary” homes, especially since they both can easily afford their big homes (although I doubt Tim paid cash for his). I see big homes more as an interesting reflection on the human mind. We all seem to want more and bigger. I don’t look at big homes as a moral issue because I’m very skeptical of man-made climate change. The more people tell me that the science is “settled,” the more I have my doubts. Thanks for stopping by, Laurie. It’s always great hearing what you have to say.
Funny enough, my sister in law just bought a 6,300 McMansion with 6 bedrooms and 5.5 baths! They are a family of four, but still.. 6,300 is crazy big imo!
But, real estate is cheaper in NC, and they were coming in from the SF Bay Area so I’m sure their eyes got real big when they saw the 80% discounted prices.
Sam
LOL! I love it, Sam. Your sister-in-law certainly bought a lot of house. But as you pointed out, when you see such bargain housing prices, it’s hard not to splurge. Another crazy bargain in NC is utilities. When Mrs. G and I were in New York, our electric bill for our 600 square-foot condo averaged about $170 a month. In the summer, it was around $250 a month. And this was back in 2006. Today, we have uniform billing for our 2,000 square-foot NC house. This year’s monthly electric bill is $112. Amazing. Thanks for stopping by, my friend. Maybe we can get together when you come to NC to visit your family. Cheers.
A similar thing happened to my cousin when moving from Washington to Texas.
Your point is very interesting, however I think that third world countries will acquire practices of first-world countries.
I personally don’t embrace the idea of a mansion that easily. Cleaning it up would be a nightmare. 🙂
So true, Benjamin. I’ll only consider a McMansion when they invent a robot house cleaner. Until then, I’ll just “suffer” with a modest home.
We do what we can to be eco-friendly. I don’t not a climate change expert, so I am going to refrain from commenting on it.
By default, homes in Texas are bigger. Cost of living is much lower and the home price and the cost maintaining a home is much lower compared to the east coast.
Setting climate concerns aside, if your buddy is happy, then so be it.
Humans may destroy the planet through wars (I hope not) before climate change gets a chance 🙂
LOL. Everything’s bigger in Texas! Great point, Michael. And great point about man’s violent nature. Yes, we’re more likely to destroy the plant through war rather than consumerism. Damn, the human species is so flawed! Thanks for stopping by, my friend.
I probably would be thinking the same thing (although I’m liberal so I’d probably only agree on the house thing-lol) and if I wrote this post, I’m sure many people would say, “personal finance is personal.” I personally don’t like McMansions because more than anything they seem to lack character, but there may be more to the story then you or I fully understand. The thing is despite all our differences, it’s great we can all still be friends in spite of that! 🙂
For all of my life, I’ve been the one with weird ideas. But I was never mocked or belittled by my liberal friends. They always treated me with respect. And that’s the way I approach things in my personal life and here. We’re all friends. And my ideological foes are good people. If I disagree with them about something, it’s not because they’re stupid or venal. It’s because they may be wrong. That’s it. Thanks for stopping by, my liberal friend. I love the way your mind works.
I wonder about climate change when Jon tells me things like “the polar ice caps on Mars are melting too.” (if you look at both NASA and National Geographic, this appears to be true.) But, I usually counter with “most of the things they want to do to counter global warming are also just plain good for the planet.”
I don’t know about your friend Tim and his carbon footprint, and I don’t know that I do enough to reduce my own. But I do know there are things I can do that help…buy less, waste less, compost, recycle, drive moderately, etc.
I will say that most of the time, when people give hints about saving the earth, they don’t involve your housing choices other than to suggest energy-efficient appliances and HVAC units, solar panels, etc. “Buy a smaller house” doesn’t seem to be part of the standard advice, even if it should be.
I hope Jon is right. If climate change isn’t a scam, we’re in serious trouble. The developing world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about carbon emissions. It’s had enough of sweating. It wants air-conditioning. But this being said, we could set a good example by being more responsible when it comes to housing. Buying a house sized more to our needs than our egos would be a delightful turn of events. Thanks for stopping by, Emily. You offered a lot of excellent points as always.
Knowing what’s “right” and doing what’s “right” are two very different things. I struggle with it all the time and don’t for a second question you pal’s decision to seemingly act counter to his belief system. Human nature is a powerful thing.
And welcome back! Glad you made it home safely through all that dodgy winter driving.
Thanks, Ty. Sunday was the worst. I left Great Barrington before noon and of course it was snowing. My top speed through Massachusetts and Connecticut was 30 mph. I didn’t hit normal speeds until I was on the doorstep of the Throgs Neck bridge. Meh. And your absolutely right about human nature. Beliefs and actions don’t always align–even for really noble people like my friend Tim.
Only one person can really speak to what Tim’s thinking, and that’s Tim. But I will say that I believe in global warming as much as I believe people want things “fixed” but not necessarily at their own expense. In my case, I own a small condo and share a car with my wife, but I do these things to help my finances more than to help the environment. I do believe the world would be a better place if more of us practiced green living though.
Same here, Gary. My new found fondness for minimalism and downsizing has nothing to do with helping the environment. It’s all about advancing my finances. And I’m really pulling for electric cars because I want a future with less oil changes and less repairs.
I get a little frustrated about science being debated in terms of belief – I feel like that is kind of the opposite of what science is, by definition. I think that people who dedicate their lives to science value provable facts foremost and are generally a more trustworthy source of information than those who pick and choose which science to believe based on economics. No one ever questions science at their doctor’s office. So why is it accepted in this one particular arena? I understand that lots of people care about their finances more than the environment at large- that is totally their right. People care about lots of economic issues more than the greater good. I just wish we could call it what it is instead of challenging the fundamental value and validity of scientific facts. I will say that sometimes I’m glad I am limited to a small apartment. Because I would definitely get a bigger place if I could. But I think that decision would ultimately not really make me any happier. So probably it’s a good thing I have no choice!
While I won’t weigh in on climate change or the science behind it as I don’t have the training to do so, I will point out to you that there is no being called “Science” that agrees on anything. The whole concept of the scientific method is that a theory can only be a theory by being provable false but no one being able to do so. I.e. A natural point of science is questioning. The scientific method is written on designing an experiment and trying to prove the null hypothesis true (i.e. No relationship). While I don’t keep up on this particular arguement, I’m sure there are a good number of scientists that disagree to some degree. There are scientists that argue even the most fundamental theories, global warming is no different.
As for large versus small houses, our house is moderate size, about 2500 sq feet. We could do with a smaller house but we bought the house as much for the home as the location. I wouldn’t want a home bigger then the one I have due to maintenance needs and heating costs. I.e. Less house is in my best interest regardless of global warming.
Thank you, FTF. You made an excellent argument against the case that science is ever “settled.” Climate science is very complicated, and my bullcrap meter goes off the chart whenever some politician, academic, journalist, or activist claims that the science of climate change is “settled”. Oh, really? We can measure and predict climate change with the same precision we measure and predict, say, gravity? If that’s the case, why are we wasting billions of dollars annually on something that’s already “settled”?
Hey, Linda. It is frustrating. And that’s mainly so because science has been corrupted in the past. Check out The Case Against Sugar by Gary Taubes. It’s amazing what big industry and Washington can do to twist the results of “science.” FullTimeFinance’s contribution to our conversation extrapolates on this point. We got to be on our guard and we can’t assume that every scientist is motivated purely by the quest for knowledge.
You are right. But my concern is that the government generally subverts science in order to protect business interests and I feel like the Case Against Sugar is a perfect example of that. Tobacco is another. We’re not even allowed to do any public health studies on guns. I just don’t think these climate scientists are off getting rich somewhere by on putting forth a hoax. If someone could show some proof that “big solar” was behind a disinformation campaign, and making money off it, I would pay attention. Otherwise, I can’t help but trust the motivation behind broad scientific consensus over that of for-profit businesses. So sorry to get into a climate debate on your blog – I will shut up now!
Agreed! Agreed!! Agreed!!! Excellent rebuttal, Linda. I do, however, think that big education is just a venal as big tobacco and big sugar. The only way to know for sure is to open up the black box of climate science and allow skeptics to view the data. Are the temperatures gathered from various points and times valid? Have they been fudged? Are the models used to predict future temperatures reliable? Will other scientists and analysts using the same data draw similar conclusions? The plot thickens.
I’m sure this happens to many people that make the move from the Northeast to somewhere South. Between the purchases price and taxes in the NE, you almost always feel like you are getting a deal when moving outside the area. I think it would be hard to resist “the deal” no matter what your beliefs.
Excellent point. I couldn’t resist as well. The 2,000 square foot home we bought in North Carolina was two-thirds the sale price of our 600 square foot condo in New York. Property taxes on our new home were only two-fifths of our condo property taxes. We certainly didn’t need a 2,000 square foot home, but at the bargain prices we found in NC it was impossible not to over-consume. Meh.
Yep, moving to Texas, it’s really cheap to buy a McMansion. We were looking to modestly upgrade our old house ~2k sq ft to something a little bigger like 2800 sq ft. We had to limit our searches to sq ft under 4000 when we looked in master planned communities. It was insane.
We ended up with a McMansion that is definitely the pinnacle of our square footage forays. We’re really looking forward to downsizing when we move. A few factors led to getting that house though.
First, it was a short timeframe due to a work move – so a lot of our initial options weren’t on the market or they were overpriced and needed loads of updates.
Second, Mrs. SSC was 7 months pregnant – haha. I actually picked out the house without her even setting foot in it until the day of closing… Risky business there, but she didn’t want to make the trip because the last one was so hectic with her pregnancy and our 3 yr old. Yipes!
Finally, it was about $100k cheaper than the smaller non-updated homes we had been looking at, while still being within 30 min. of work. Seriously, the house and “big” lot was right at $300k for about 3900 sq ft. Add in the pools, parks, playgrounds, lakes, and it’s been awesome. Just a lot to keep clean – hence the cleaning service once a month, lol.
I’d do it again, because the locaiton has been awesome, but we will definitely be downsizing when we move. To Tim’s defense, we didn’t go looking for a McMansion either, it just sort of happened… 🙂
Thank you, Mr. SSC. I was hoping someone would come to Tim’s defense. And I think your experience holds true for Tim as well. He didn’t have a McMansion built. It was already there. And consider this. A 600 square-foot apartment in Manhattan could easily cost $900K. Now Tim moves to Dallas and sees he can buy a gently used McMansion for about a third of that! Can you blame him for kicking his green impulses to the curb? I probably would have done the same thing.
I think there’s a lot about his house that we don’t know: Is it possible that he has solar panels? Does he use rain barrels? Is his yard entirely grass or is the landscaping something easier to care for that requires less water? There are a lot of things that can be done to make even a large home have a smaller carbon footprint and it’s possible that he’s done these things or he’s working on them.
Or it’s possible that he doesn’t care as much as he says he does. Totally within the realm of possibility and the most likely conclusion.
I keep hoping that technology will make things less expensive so that they can be used more widely. I agree that cost is the main driver with most decisions, no matter how much you care about the environment.
Good questions, Kate. There’s no question that I’ve been somewhat cruel to Tim. Like I said, he’s one of the most honorable people I have ever met. And I never even gave him a chance to defend himself. Not cool. So let me be clear: By no means am I trying to point the steely finger of indignation in his direction. This post was just my ham-fisted way of commenting on human nature. And I love the point you made at the end of your comment. Technology will save us. I have my fingers crossed, anyway. Thanks for stopping by, Kate. You made me think as usual.
I can tell you first hand the Indians and Chinese leaving rural areas for the cities want a second meal each day and a new iPhone. They don’t want to wait and they don’t care about CO2–that’s a developed western “high class problem.”
Great stuff Mr. G!
LOL! Thanks for the confirmation, Ian. I’m not surprised. Nature is wonderful in theory. But in real life (i.e., mosquitoes, pestilence, drought, floods, temperature extremes, etc.), nature sucks the big one. If I were living in rural China or India, I would want all the DDT, vaccines, sanitation, GMO food, carbon-spewing engines, and air conditioning I could get my hands on.
I’m definitely all about saving the climate – but not always at my expense. I think this could be Tim’s stance, as well. There are celebrities that say they will move to a different country if this or that happens to negatively impact our earth, right before they hop on their private plane to jet across the country. I think, as humans, we all view ourselves as being more consistent with our thoughts and actions than we actually are. I was able to stop myself and my husband from purchasing a similar home. We are now much happier in our smaller pad and will definitely reach financial independence much sooner because of that single decision. And, although I’m happy we made the right choice and are saving the environment in the process, our main goal was to protect our own wallet and wealth-building activities. *sigh*
Excellent points, MMM. We are very good at spotting the hypocrisies and logical failings of others rather than our own. I was very bad on this front up until about 10 years ago. I’m much better now, but I still have a long way to go. So I try not to throw too many rocks in the bevy of glass houses I find myself in. But I’m with you. Mrs. G and I first became intrigued by minimalism and small homes because of our wallet, not because we gave a hoot about the environment.
I mean, I do believe in climate change. It’s a natural part of the Earth’s cycle, but the issue is that man-made emissions are speeding up this natural cycle. I don’t think it will destroy us, but I do think it will make things more difficult–water prices will probably go up, weather-related deaths and damage will increase, etc.
But yes, if you identify with green living you need to … live green. And that means reducing your carbon footprint. Maybe Tim pays off his carbon emissions each year? There are several programs that allow you to do that so you can be “guilt-free” about your carbon emissions. That sounds like Church indulgences to me, so I think it’s best to limit your emissions in the first place.
Mr. Picky Pincher and I moved into a home in September and have been trying to outfit this 1960s monstrosity into a greener (and cheaper!) home to live in. Mr. Picky Pincher and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum too (good lord, the election season was rough lol), but we do agree that we can always do better to live green. On a home level it does limit costs and honestly, what’s the harm?
I too believe that climate change is a natural part of the earth’s cycle. If I’m wrong, and the climate scientists are promoting true science rather than agenda science, things are going to get rough. I don’t think advances in green technology will move fast enough to forestall a dramatic rise in CO2 levels. Sigh. But even if the climate scientists are wrong, I still look forward to better green technology. After all, I’d much rather have an electric car and not have to deal with oil changes. And I’d much rather have solar power and not have to deal with electric companies. Thanks for stopping by, Mrs. PP. And I’m glad you and Mr. PP survived the election season. This past election was particularly brutal.
I’m skeptical of CO2, but there’s a broader “nature of man” issue here.
Most folks want “society” to sacrifice for the good of “the world”, but they’re unwilling to make that sacrifice themselves.
Everyone pursuing their self interest leads, many times, to a “society” (made up of individuals, after all) acting as a whole against the best interest of the world.
I don’t care if it’s credit card debt or global warming, it’s in man’s nature to live a “Do as I say, but not as I do” type of life. Tim’s house, I’m afraid, is a classic example of this all too common mentality.
“Most folks want ‘society’ to sacrifice for the good of ‘the world’, but they’re unwilling to make that sacrifice themselves.”
Wow. In one sentence you pretty well summed up the essence of man. Bravo, my friend. And I’m sure if I ponder long enough, I’ll have more than a few examples of how I’ve embraced this sad shortcoming. Damn, being an ethical person is hard.
Yep, great comment recognizing the “tragedy of the commons!”
One thing I struggle with is that it is in Tim’s “best interest” to own a McMansion. I don’t think it is in anyone’s best interest to waste money and contribute excessively to waste of resources. The problem here isn’t that “everyone acting in their self-interest leads to a society acting as a whole against the best interest of the world,” the problem is that so many people, given the freedom to choose, will choose poorly and against their rational self interest! (“rational” being the key word)
“Tragedy of the commons.” I love it. Haven’t heard that expression in a while. Thank you for bringing it back into my consciousness. And excellent point about “rational” self interest. Throw that one codicil in there and things change dramatically. I like the cut of your jib, sir. Awesome contribution as always.
I’ve never really waged into the climate change arena and the science of it all, but I think we all can agree that less CO2 is better than more. But I’m not a living role model of this lifestyle myself. I think your point is interesting though as developing nations continue to adopt modern conveniences. Like you said, it is human nature.
Regarding the house, I love the idea of owning and living in a Mansion, but I despise the thought of cleaning and maintaining it just as much as the thought of paying someone to do it for me. So I think I will continue living in modest / easy to maintain homes.
Haha! Couldn’t agree more, TGS. Mrs. G and I can’t wait to downsize. In fact, the only thing we really argue about these days is the size of our future home. I want it to be in the 900 to 1200 square foot range. She wants it to be in the 1200 to 1500 square foot range. But whatever size we choose, we’ll have a smaller carbon footprint, which will mean less space to heat, cool, furnish, and clean. Yeah!