So then how do you decide if it will add meaning and benefit to your life?
i.e. you decide you want to ride a bike instead of driving all the time.
So do you therefore "need" a bike? Or do you "want" a bike?
And then, how do you decide which one to get? A rusty old one which will do the same thing, a mid range comfortable one, or a really good one that will last many years and the cost/enjoyment factor will be high?
The difference is, you get an item best suited to the job you want it to do, and also will forward you toward financial independence. Multiple uses/benefits are even better, i.e. getting a bike not only saves you money from driving your car, it also saves money by giving you exercise, reducing your medical bills, and so on.
I can spend $2000 on a bike that will last me 20 years that does everything I need it to and works well, or I can spend $200 every 2 years on something that will need constant repair and cause frustration. Financially, they come out the same, but one of them will make your life easier and more efficient.
You have to think long-term. For the record, I don't *need* a bike, but I *do* need exercise. I choose to further my badassity by saving money and increasing my fitness at the same time.
There is definitely a bell curve for cost/benefit in most manufactured goods. I shoot for the low end of the upswing on the curve, i.e. to me, a $2000 bike doesn't work twice as well as a $1000 bike. A $60K car doesn't work twice as well as a $30K car. It's better, yes, but is that betterment increasing your financial independence, when a $30K car will do the job perfectly well, be cheaper to operate, and last longer?