The art of dumpster diving

[aerius]

I have been recycling cans and 28 lbs of cans netted me $15 and I also recycled an old dryer worth $10 at a scrap metal place.

You could make a living recycling appliances dumped on the curb

One of my friends says there's been a lot of people with pickup trucks going around her neighbourhood offering to dispose of old fridges and other large appliances for a small fee. Yeah, those suckers are netting 20-50 bucks at the scrapyard and the guys are charging money to haul it away. Nice way to make easy money if you own a pickup truck.

[Melchior]

You're one of those tards who camp out in front of a shoe store the moment they release the latest brand name sneaker for several hours just so they can get a pair before anyone else, aren't you?

I'm not, actually. I would only do such a thing there was only a small run produced and while I'm extremely picky ("brand name" doesn't cut it), I don't care about exclusivity.
Could we go back to talking about how people can be forced to dumpster dive in the land of the free?

[Melchior]

There is no way to concievably justify that price for shoes, no matter how fucking pretty they are. Sneakers/Trainers even less so. I've hit nearly the $200 mark for shoes, but those were heavy duty, waterproof, steel toecapped work boots...those were a saftey concern.

Few, handmade by well-paid artisans with first quality lambskin and really well designed. The price is inflated, yes, but it doesn't matter that much to me. I don't actually need to, but I avoid a lot other kinds of wasteful spending (by only using mass transit, for example).

[Superman]

And I agree - food pantries/shelters are preferable to eating out of dumpsters.

If anyone on here is so hungry that they're eating from dumpsters, I would personally send them a couple cans of soup. I don't know about anyone else, but the only time I see things like maggots and rodent shit is when I take trash out to the dumpster.

[Zixinus]

Man, how hard up are you guys for cash?

It isn't just literally diving the dumpster for food. People sometimes throw out stuff that can be scavenged or is even perfectly functional, merely bored with with.

Furniture is the most common thing to recycle and use. Plus, you can get iron that you can sell as scrab in some stuff.

Also, if you have some electrician training, you can salvage some of the electric stuff people throw out. For example, there are some organizations that pay for batteries (hell, some stuff like laptop batteries can be quite salvegable, I am told that usually only one of the many smaller inner-batteries go dud) or you can make a sale with used electric items that are hard to come by. In a larger area, that may be common. My father knows a guy who collects old TVs and makes use of them (somehow).

Even if you can afford to buy most of your stuff, if you like to make your own stuff, you can salvage plenty from dumbsters. A banged up stereo will never again turn Mozart alive but it's transformer may be useful for other appliances. Transformers and similar items require a specialtly stores that may not sell for cheap. Sometimes people may throw out stuff that merely needs repair. I wouldn't be surprised someone threw out a 1000 dollar hi-fi tower only to find out that some wiring was not properly welded.

Gypsies here often walk around and even help when it comes to throwing out shit that they can take money out of.

Few, handmade by well-paid artisans with first quality lambskin and really well designed. The price is inflated, yes, but it doesn't matter that much to me.

Is that lamb grew gold by any chance? Even if it was an artisan work, there is no fucking way that that shoe was 500 dollars.

[Melchior]

If anyone on here is so hungry that they're eating from dumpsters, I would personally send them a couple cans of soup. I don't know about anyone else, but the only time I see things like maggots and rodent shit is when I take trash out to the dumpster.

Well, I would too (in Europe, I suppose), even if I have mixed feeling about "preferential", personal charity. I greatly prefer higher taxes to pay for well-managed (ah-ah) social programs.

[Finagle]

Also, I apologize for the digression (and suspect that I am going to look like a total asshole, but the sentiment is sincere), I am startled by the fact that educated persons that presumably live in first world countries and have access to an internet connection have to seriously contemplate this option...

Wait, are you talking about dumpster diving for food specifically, or just dumpster diving in general? If the former, then yeah, it's surprising to me too (although I've heard of people with plenty of money who choose to get all of their food from the trash - they're called "freegans" or something like that). If it's the latter, then I don't think it's a case of having to settle for that option, I think it's the bargain hunter in us. The best bargain is to get something that you want for nothing. Personally I've always been very picky about what I've got out of the trash - if it's not good enough to be in a halfway decent consignment store, I won't even look at it. Also, I never actually venture into dumpsters. I'll pick up a piece of furniture that's sitting in an alley beside a dumpster (assuming it's not filthy), but if it's actually inside a dumpster, I won't touch it.

[Melchior]

Wait, are you talking about dumpster diving for food specifically, or just dumpster diving in general? If the former, then yeah, it's surprising to me too (although I've heard of people with plenty of money who choose to get all of their food from the trash - they're called "freegans" or something like that). If it's the latter, then I don't think it's a case of having to settle for that option, I think it's the bargain hunter in us. The best bargain is to get something that you want for nothing. Personally I've always been very picky about what I've got out of the trash - if it's not good enough to be in a halfway decent consignment store, I won't even look at it. Also, I never actually venture into dumpsters. I'll pick up a piece of furniture that's sitting in an alley beside a dumpster (assuming it's not filthy), but if it's actually inside a dumpster, I won't touch it.

I was talking specifically about dumpster diving for food, there; while I find the whole activity unsettling, I can see the point in scavenging usable furniture.

[Melchior]

Is that lamb grew gold by any chance? Even if it was an artisan work, there is no fucking way that that shoe was 500 dollars.

Well, the exchange is currently unfavourable for the dollar (I paid in euro), I don't know the US price policy. Still, some of it is designer-name mark-up. Really, have you ever stepped into a designer boutique? They range from the very expensive to the insanely expensive. Vivienne Westwood is even worse (fortunately I usually don't like her work).

[General Zod]

Well, the exchange is currently unfavourable for the dollar (I paid in euro), I don't know the US price policy. Still, some of it is designer-name mark-up. Really, have you ever stepped into a designer boutique? They range from the very expensive to the insanely expensive. Vivienne Westwood is even worse (fortunately I usually don't like her work).

Precisely why "designer" clothing is a joke. Most of the time it doesn't look drastically different from regular retail stuff, and the quality benefit is questionable, but it's about 50 times more expensive.

[Melchior]

Precisely why "designer" clothing is a joke. Most of the time it doesn't look drastically different from regular retail stuff, and the quality benefit is questionable, but it's about 50 times more expensive.

Quality is usually (not always, but I don't buy the low quality examples; Dolce & Gabbana are the worse culprits, here) better, and, about the look, I personally see and value the difference (look at something from Ann Demeulemeester or Yohji Yamamoto).

[General Zod]

Quality is usually (not always, but I don't buy the low quality examples; Dolce & Gabbana are the worse culprits, here) better, and, about the look, I personally see and value the difference (look at something from Ann Demeulemeester or Yohji Yamamoto).

The quality can actually be measured to a degree, but appearances are extremely subjective for placing value on them. I sincerely doubt you could tell the difference between generic brand x and designer brand y from just visual appearance without some sort of huge label advertising who made it, which is my biggest gripe about designer clothing. The vast majority of the time sheeple are buying it for the label, not the design.

[Melchior]

The quality can actually be measured to a degree, but appearances are extremely subjective for placing value on them. I sincerely doubt you could tell the difference between generic brand x and designer brand y from just visual appearance without some sort of huge label advertising who made it, which is my biggest gripe about designer clothing. The vast majority of the time sheeple are buying it for the label, not the design.

I actually can, but it's only because I know rather precisely the exact content of the current and past collections of the designers I am interested in.
Also, only tastless, low-quality clothes marketed to exhibitionist nouveau-riche have recognizable indications (the obscene "EMPORIO ARMANI" line, for example) of the maker on the outside; I am not a walking billboard and will not wear anything of the sort.

[Eulogy]

I hope I never have to scavenge food out of dumpsters. But I was thinking that if a guy can buy used veggie oil from McDonald's, why can't he purchase about to be discarded but still fresh food from restaurants at a discount, at least? You could even sign a waiver if you had to.

But yeah, dumpster diving for nonedibles is mainly what we're talking about here. It may even have nothing to do with your financial situation - it's the principle of the matter. Some people are packrats and don't like seeing good stuff go to waste. By dumpster diving they feel better at reducing pointless waste and get something out of it, even if it's just a few bucks at the scrapyard, or a practically new desk. Then there's extreme situations like college students tossing out perfectly fine electronics.

And as for $500 shoes... if I'm going to pay half a fucking grand for shoes, then either the currency I'm using has really inflated, or those shoes had better let me fly, grant remote internet access, protect from muggers, and give me superstrength, for starters. In short, those shoes had goddamned well be worth it, and a label is not worth the dye used on it.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I hope I never have to scavenge food out of dumpsters. But I was thinking that if a guy can buy used veggie oil from McDonald's, why can't he purchase about to be discarded but still fresh food from restaurants at a discount, at least? You could even sign a waiver if you had to.

Health code. If they can still use the food, they sell it full price. If they can't sell the food anymore, they can't sell it. No way around it. It's very black and white, unfortunately.


Yuppie asshole: (Or whatever materialistic shitstains are called where you live) Why not spend a reasonable amount of money on your shoes and give the remaining $450+ to a charitable organization? I've got a pair of shoes I bought four years ago for under $40. They're still in fantastic shape. Or would that be spending your money in a way that doesn't essentially wag your dick in front of the have-nots? People like you make me sick.

[Raesene]

I hope I never have to scavenge food out of dumpsters. But I was thinking that if a guy can buy used veggie oil from McDonald's, why can't he purchase about to be discarded but still fresh food from restaurants at a discount, at least? You could even sign a waiver if you had to.

Last month a new store opened in Vienna - it basically accepts donations of older but still good food (e.g. bread baked yesterday) or damaged packages (dented cans, etc...) from producers or other market chains and sells it at much lower prices. You have to have proof of being in need (monthly income below a certain amount).

Germany has "Die Tafel" (german members correct me if I'm wrong) which offers food packets from donations of shops and restaurants to poor families. I don't know whether you have to pay for that or whether it's free of charge.

EDIT: typos - why do I never notice them when checking the preview...

[Melchior]

Yuppie asshole: (Or whatever materialistic shitstains are called where you live) Why not spend a reasonable amount of money on your shoes and give the remaining $450+ to a charitable organization? I've got a pair of shoes I bought four years ago for under $40. They're still in fantastic shape. Or would that be spending your money in a way that doesn't essentially wag your dick in front of the have-nots? People like you make me sick.

I suppose that you don't buy anything above what you need to survive and give everything else to charity (this isn't a strawman, I don't see why your argument shouldn't be brought to its logical conclusions)?
Before judging other people, you should probably try to get the whole picture.Yes, I indulge in objectionable fashion spending, no, I'm not a selfish asshole at all (and not an exhibitionist too). For example I'm in med school mainly out of need to feel useful.

But I was thinking that if a guy can buy used veggie oil from McDonald's

Please, tell me that people don't use that oil for cooking.

[Broomstick]

Yuppie asshole: (Or whatever materialistic shitstains are called where you live) Why not spend a reasonable amount of money on your shoes and give the remaining $450+ to a charitable organization?

Judgmental asshole: it's his money, he can spend it however he wants, on whatever he wants. Obviously, shoes are important to him. As long as he isn't stealing the money from other people, his other responsibilities are met, and he's not asking for advice telling him how to spend his money is out of line. It's no more or less foolish spending $500 on anything not essential to life or limb, be that a bottle of wine, a pile of nose candy, a new electronic gizmo, a coat, or a vacation. It's not a choice I'd make either, and personally I think it's a ridiculous price to pay for a pair of shoes, there are a lot of people in the world who disagree with you and me. While I would sure as hell like someone to drop $500 into my lap right now I'm not entitled to anyone else's money.

But I was thinking that if a guy can buy used veggie oil from McDonald's

Please, tell me that people don't use that oil for cooking.

No. They refine it into biodiesel.

[Spin Echo]

Quality is usually (not always, but I don't buy the low quality examples; Dolce & Gabbana are the worse culprits, here) better, and, about the look, I personally see and value the difference (look at something from Ann Demeulemeester or Yohji Yamamoto).

The quality can actually be measured to a degree, but appearances are extremely subjective for placing value on them. I sincerely doubt you could tell the difference between generic brand x and designer brand y from just visual appearance without some sort of huge label advertising who made it, which is my biggest gripe about designer clothing. The vast majority of the time sheeple are buying it for the label, not the design.

As a guy, you may not be able to tell Zod, but it is often very easy to see the difference in quality between the original item and the knock off item.

While there is a fair amont of inflation in price, you are often getting a better product. I used to bitch and moan about my shoes never lasting more than three months (literally), until I started buying more expensive shoes. So they may cost me 4 times as much, but they last me 8 times as long, so in my book that's a good deal.

[Melchior]

While there is a fair amont of inflation in price, you are often getting a better product. I used to bitch and moan about my shoes never lasting more than three months (literally), until I started buying more expensive shoes. So they may cost me 4 times as much, but they last me 8 times as long, so in my book that's a good deal.

I never had to throw away a pair of shoes (or any piece of clothing, actually, save for an unfortunate incident involving solvents a few years ago) because of damage or excessive wear and tear. Now, I'm very careful (I've never scratched a cellphone screen, for example), but I still stand up and walk a lot, so it should be at least partly be due to quality.

[Spin Echo]

I never had to throw away a pair of shoes (or any piece of clothing, actually, save for an unfortunate incident involving solvents a few years ago) because of damage or excessive wear and tear. Now, I'm very careful (I've never scratched a cellphone screen, for example), but I still stand up and walk a lot, so it should be at least partly be due to quality.

I think part of the problem is a trend towards "disposable" clothes; the clothing isn't meant to be worn more than a few times. I used to be able to get nice, decent t-shirts and tops from Hennes & Mauritz back when I was in college. I stopped buying from there when the clothing starting falling apart after a few washes. A lot of the chain women's clothing stores around here are like that as well. You can just look at the clothing and tell it won't last two months.

[ArmorPierce]

If I went to a public library I would have free internet access. Also, at least in Indiana, there are local "employment offices" run by the state for the benefit of those seeking employment which also allow on-line access at no charge to the user. During the worst part of my recent bout with unemployment I actually investigated that possibility, as so many employers now want you to apply on-line. So poverty is not a bar to internet access in the US, although having to leave home to get your e-mail is inconvenient.

One of the things that sucks about poverty is the attitude of other people that if you aren't completely destitute you must be faking it somehow. For instance:

If you're poor, how come you have a car? - because I bought and paid for it years ago.

If you're poor, how come you have internet access? - see above.

If you're poor, how come you have that new designer clothing item? - I bought it used.

If you're poor, how come you can afford steak? - because after a month of living on rice and beans I have a few extra pennies to put towards a slightly different form of protein.

If you're poor, how come you have a new winter coat? - because someone took pity on me and bought it for me.

If you're poor, how come you have a cell phone? - because I bought pre-paid minutes and poor people have emergencies/need to keep in touch, too.

And so on.

Exactly same thing I go through over here. I am poorer than most of these ghetto wannabe "I'm from the hood people" but I don't look it. People tell me that I am lying, that I am middle class or even laugh at me when I tell them that. It's like I have to prove to people that I am poor. Newsflash, most people that are on welfare or food stamps or whatever do have the internet or a cell phone. It's not like we go around wearing rags like a homeless person. Another thing I don't like is when people insist that 150,000 income a year for a household isn't a lot of money.

Really, get off Melchior's case. He has every right to do with his money as he wish. He is right about good quality clothes, they tend to have a higher thread count. I once decided to buy a cheap shoe from payless (and this was when pay less sold sneakers at about $16 now it's more in the 30 range I believe) and the shoe fell apart after a couple weeks. Better quality clothes while they might not look vastly different (it is noticeable if you look however) tend to last longer. However that doesn't justify buying $500 shoes. If that's how prerogative, it's his prerogative. It don't make him any worse than someone that shelves $650 to buy a ps3.

[Phantasee]

That's one thing I've always found amusing: I wouldn't shell out that level of cash for shoes, but the people criticizing it loudest are the sorts who bought PS3s at launch, and don't think twice about dropping a grand on a piece of audio or computer equipment. If a person wants to wear nice things, how is that wrong? And unless you live the life of an ascetic, I don't see how you can criticize his shoes without being hypocritical.

Some people make do with cheaper footwear, and some people make do with cheaper computers. The difference in spending usually shows up elsewhere.

Furniture though...oh man, I'm pro at finding furniture in Edmonton. I worked in the rental business last summer, and I learned where to go to find perfectly good refridgerators and stoves, sofas and tables, anything you need, usually from people moving out into a bigger/smaller place, and are either buying new stuff or can't fit the old stuff in.

We need about 5 sofas to furnish our truck yard, to have some space to just sit and relax after work, and I know I can pick them up for average price of $15 to $30, with a couple for free, probably. Don't need to match the pieces, don't need to coordinate with the interior design, so don't need to be picky.

Stove and fridge as well, I know a couple places in Edmonton that sell refurbished units for decent price, I'm picking up a pair for $200 next week. A full fridge/stove with oven, and sofas and chairs to sit on, what more could we need? The buildings already came with a full bathroom, with two urinals, a toilet, and a shower. I'm thinking of setting up a small apartment in one of the upstairs offices that no one is using...

[General Zod]

That's one thing I've always found amusing: I wouldn't shell out that level of cash for shoes, but the people criticizing it loudest are the sorts who bought PS3s at launch, and don't think twice about dropping a grand on a piece of audio or computer equipment. If a person wants to wear nice things, how is that wrong? And unless you live the life of an ascetic, I don't see how you can criticize his shoes without being hypocritical.

There's a difference between buying nice things, and buying things that are grossly overpriced. Can anyone honestly say that a $500 pair of "high quality" shoes will last longer than a "cheap" pair of $60 shoes of relatively the same design with the same amount of usage? Automatically translating high cost into high-quality is a ridiculously simple-minded way of thinking about purchases.

[Spin Echo]

There's a difference between buying nice things, and buying things that are grossly overpriced. Can anyone honestly say that a $500 pair of "high quality" shoes will last longer than a "cheap" pair of $60 shoes of relatively the same design with the same amount of usage? Automatically translating high cost into high-quality is a ridiculously simple-minded way of thinking about purchases.

I can't say I ever bought shoes that were $500, but considering I was tearing through the soles and leather of ~$60 shoes in three months, I can say, yes the more expensive shoes of similar design will last you longer (or at least me). The more expensive shoes of similar design also tend to fit better. My feet and legs feel better after walking and standing a bit, I don't get blisters and spots rubbed raw on my feet.

No, high cost does not always translate into high quality, but sometimes it does.