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.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS