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.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.