Tell you one thing though: I’d eventually get pretty goddamn annoyed if my rich actor neighbor came over to my house twice daily to use the head.

The idea of giving up the books and music I’ve fallen in love with over the years would be unbearably painful.

If they were waiting safe for me somewhere, then I’d be happy (and only a little bored) with a bed, a computer I could program connected to the internet, and a bathroom. Oh, and the guitar I’m supposed to be learning to play…

In useless information news, Christina Hendricks actually went to my high school (albeit about 10 years before I did). My theater teacher wouldn’t shut up about her even before she did anything on TV.

How does not having things make it any more difficult to pay the mortgage? Or feeding or clothing children for that matter?

I mean, presumably he eats food and wears clothes himself.

I don’t mean to insult you, but I seriously think your reactionary response is merely a knee-jerk justification, a shallow excuse for a reason, to keep you from legitimately asking yourself whether you need that crap either… Really think about it.

If there is ever a disruption in water service, his life will be better for lack of a flush toilet, and the neighbors might have to use his facilities.

In Hollywood, I might recommend that the cover material be coffee chaff, if there’s a business nearby that roasts beans.

If you’re trying to avoid material things, do you remove toilet and kitchen from your home, or move somewhere without them? Are lights or doors too materialistic?

Would you count it a success in your quest to avoid materialism if you’re using your neighbor’s toilet (or other possessions) instead of your own? If owning a toilet is actually too materialistic, then wouldn’t you come up with some viable long-term solution, maybe a pit latrine with lots of compost materials?

Dude must be getting his house remodeled and mentioned the toilet as a joke. Maybe he’s really going minimalist, but this is just silly.

Not saying one choice is better than another … just that they are all still things you have to choose to do in order for them to happen :)

Making a million dollars in Hollywood isn’t really like making a million dollars anywhere else. Trying to hang onto money in show business is like trying to carry around a fistful of sand.

I don’t think he’s claiming that he can’t afford a toilet, but I certainly wouldn’t call him “rich” just because his salary was a large dollar amount. For example, writer Andrew Nicholls made millions of dollars working in L.A. on a whole pile of shows, but is still eating canned beans today, because living and working there is ridiculously expensive. I’m sure it’s no cheaper for actors in major shows.

Rent a flat above a shop,
cut your hair and get a job.
Smoke some fags and play some pool,
pretend you never went to school.
But still you’ll never get it right,
cos when you’re laid in bed at night,
watching roaches climb the wall,
if you call your Dad he could stop it all.

“I don’t have a lot of money. I get some from Mad Men. But I don’t think I’m rich…”

Jon Hamm (Don Draper) gets $75,000 an episode, so I’m guessing Kartheiser isn’t far behind. Even at half that, he’d have made $1,500,000 over three seasons, plus free toilets and residuals and rather good fringe benefits.

Now, does he not CARE that he’s made a million and counting in a few years? Sure, I could buy that. But that person is more likely to say, “Oh, yeah, they pay me an insane amount of money. I’m very, very wealthy in terms of money. But I’m really more about the whole toilet-free lifestyle thing right now.” What he said just sounds disingenuous. Maybe it’s a bad quote.