A couple of weeks into a new year and the shine of “new year, new you” has started to dim — but one personal finance trend, “No buy 2025,” has taken hold for millennials and Gen Z on social media. Whether it is in response to a few years of post-COVID-19 pandemic “revenge spending” or just balancing the books after the holidays, people are locking down their wallets in the hopes of a changed relationship with consumerism or at least a fattened-up savings account.
In a “no buy” (or “no spend”) challenge, participants aim to go an extended period without making purchases beyond the essentials. The rules can be modified to fit the participant’s life — many people continue to shell out for haircuts and other beauty routines, for instance — but the spirit of the challenge is to minimize discretionary spending.
There are plenty of aspirational tales of “no buy” adopters who went on to make healthy long-term changes to their consumption and saving habits. However, more often, noble intentions are hard to sustain. That is not surprising: Sudden and steep spending reductions are an extreme reaction to financial frustrations. The more pragmatic, but less “Instagrammable” approach is to slowly shift toward healthier practices.
Illustration: Yusha
That means making small, manageable changes, one at a time. So, someone who wants to get better control over their spending could decide to boost their contributions to their retirement accounts by a percentage point or two, leaving less cash to deploy on everyday purchases. If the “no spend” effort is aimed at paying off debt, it makes more sense to eliminate one consistent but unnecessary expense than to attempt to go cold turkey on all spending.
At this point, I should disclose that I tried a “no buy” challenge in 2019. In February — notably the shortest month — I cut my spending drastically and shared the experience on social media as a form of accountability and education.
For me, permitted spending included bills, groceries, public transportation, and a weekly stipend of US$25 for networking-related social activities and attending events to which I had already committed to. Explicitly prohibited spending included coffees, ride share or cabs, drinks with friends, restaurants, ordering takeout, online purchases beyond essentials (e.g. food for my beloved mutt), shopping, and new events such as plays, concerts and movies.
Taking on the “no buy” challenge made me realize that it is important to identify the emotional trigger behind a purchase. In my experience, cravings to buy a daily latte, an unfortunately trite example of mindless spending, were less about the delicious, frothy beverage and more about having interpersonal contact in my day as work-from-home writer.
The cost-benefit analysis was not just about the value an afternoon latte brought to my day, but the reward of getting out of my apartment, into fresh air, and interacting with adults. However, participating in a “no buy” month did challenge me to consider other ways I could achieve a similar benefit without spending money on a coffee every day.
Engaging in meaningful social interactions without opening one’s wallet is one of the biggest hurdles of a “no buy” challenge. Socializing does not have to involve spending money, but it often does — even if that is just the cost of transportation to a free activity. It is usually easy enough to get loved ones to accommodate free activities for a few weeks or months, but eventually, friends might tire of adhering to a “no buy” participant’s restrictions. Spending moratoriums can quickly turn into unhealthy social isolation that takes a toll on mental health.
Building a social life around free interactions highlights a common source of financial pain: other people. We often spend money on behalf of others. Birthday dinners, weddings and performances are all ways people are asked to show up in support of a loved one. Being there to celebrate someone’s milestone or achievement is a form of investing in a relationship. However, it also can be a financial imposition.
People would wrestle with that challenge differently. However, what is important is to learn how to set boundaries that allow you to feel in control of your financial life.
That would be hard to achieve with a sudden suspension of spending. In fact, it is more likely to leave you primed for a spending binge once a sense of deprivation takes hold or postponed outlays become more urgent. “No buy 2025” can easily give way to “Spending spree 2026.”
Those who want to try a “no buy” challenge should first commit to analyzing their spending and their impulses to spend. It can help identify why they spend on certain things and what they truly need in the monthly budget to live a comfortable life. Doing that extra layer of self-evaluation could be the difference between building a fleeting cash hoard and setting yourself up for long-term financial stability.
Erin Lowry is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering personal finance. She is the author of the three-part Broke Millennial series.
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS