Depending on how you look at it, I either own 20,000 plus five things, or just two plus five things.
I'm exaggerating, but I've got a core point:
There are two things that I spend a LOT of time on and get a lot of enjoyment from:
* cooking
* wood and metalworking
I've got two meticulously organized sets of things that reflect that:
* a great kitchen with all sorts of implements, frozen stocks, a hundred spices, etc.
* a great workshop with all sorts of tools and supplies
I keep those two areas perfectly organized, because this increases my enjoyment of them on a daily basis. ...and I have no desire to prune them. My workshop has a long tail: I may not need the #3 dental pick every month, but when I want it, I really really want it. So it's in a drawer with a label. I may use it just three times a year, but I use SOME long-tail item every day or two.
Outside of my kitchen and shop, though, I abjure clutter. I own one coat, one sweater, five shirts, etc.
I entirely agree with Paul that one of the biggest expenses is the mental expense of keeping things cataloged.
My advice: if there's something you really enjoy that requires tools, get them and use them. ...but aside from that, yes, be a minimalist.
That is a great distinction. Sadly I've got a bunch of robotics stuff that realize I'll never make into robots.
I gave away all of my 68HC11 gear, the boards, the chip programmers, the data books, the spare chips, everything because I realized I was never going to build another robot with a Motorola 68HC11 at its core.
Now of course, I don't miss it, but at the time, shipping it out to the silly silly folks who offered to take it off my hands it felt like giving up some precious treasure. And I realized the 'treasure' was the memories of what I had done with this stuff, not the stuff itself. I've been slowly reconstructing my robotics site to honor those memories.
I also find that I have a hard time with stuff that "could" be useful to "someone" but I can't just throw it away. I put a box of stuff like that on the table at Hacker Dojo with an exhortation to use it to hack cool things, but there was no one there to "accept" it so I don't know if it was useful or not. It was sufficient for me though to create the possibility that it "might" be useful.
The "long tail" on tools is very true, and something that took me a while to learn. I used to think I could get away with a smaller toolset of more general tools, and to just 'wing it' by using them creatively to solve the problem. But tools are a bit like OO classes: its better to do one job completely right than a dozen jobs not quite right.
I agree. Compartmentalizing things is key. I'm ok with having a toolbox with 50 tools in it. I'm not ok with having 50 tools scattered around my apartment.
I think it's fair to think of a toolbox, or a kit, or a kitchen as one thing just as you can think of a bookcase as one thing. The only time it's ten thousand things is when you move, and maybe not even then. Ever since college I've had a "fix it" crate filled with cables, toolboxes, a sewing kit, etc. and whenever I move, I just move the crate.
The amount of stuff you have is the difference between the amount of stuff you acquire and the amount of stuff you sell or discard. This essay does a pretty good job of covering the former, but the only mention of the latter is the following:
And yet when I got back I didn't discard so much as a box of it.
Throw away a perfectly good rotary telephone? I might need that
one day.
I wish this idea was expanded upon more. One of the contributing factors as to why poorer people tend to have more stuff is because the cost of discarding or selling and subsequently replacing stuff is higher than simply storing it. If you have a well-paying job or are otherwise independently wealthy, it's easy to throw away a $20 rotary phone because you know you can just go out and buy a new one without inconvenience.
There's also the compunction against discarding something that still works or is still useful. For example, I know quite a few people that have old computers gathering dust because their owner has subsequently replaced them with faster machines, but hasn't discarded the old ones because they're still operable and might be useful for a side project or something.
I'm not really sure what the solution to either of those things is. Perhaps we need some sort of market where stuff is more of a liquid commodity than it is now - if there's less of a financial penalty to selling and repurchasing, and if it's easier for perfectly good items to be sold for another's use, it might enable people to have the option to have less stuff.
Garage sales! Seriously, though, garage sales exist because most stuff is so cheap and disposable to begin with that if you tried to sell it for what someone would actually pay for it, you'd be lucky to break even after any shipping, transaction fees and the value of any personal time/effort you put into the process. So, you have a garage sale: you sell it (or at least show it) in all bulk, all at once to minimize effort, with zero transaction or shipping fees. Of course, making the effort to visit a garage sale has a non-negligible cost for the (potential) buyer.
There are already thriving markets for stuff that's not cheap and disposable - electronics/phones, recreational/sports equipment, furniture, cars, etc.
As for the compunction against discarding something that still works, my solution is to donate it to Goodwill (whatever you do, don't throw it away if it's "perfectly good") and take it as a lesson learned - think harder before buying this item, or an item like it, again.
For stuff that is hard to characterize (like the aforementioned "vintage" computers) garage sales don't really cut it. At my previous garage sale I had a VAXStation 4000/VLC with a VT-220 terminal on it running VMS for sale ($25 or make offer). A lot of "Oh I remember those!" but no actual interest in acquiring it. Whereas EBay used to be a good venue for that, because there was a critical mass of people you could often find at least one person who would buy something.
That said, I bought my HeNe laser at a garage sale nearby for $15. It is of course much less convienient than a laser pointer and at 2mW not very bright, but scores for me on the coolness factor. I always wanted a laser as a kid and being able to acquire one scratched that itch.
I distinctly remember offloading a standalone midi recorder on eBay (pretty much useless with the advent of cheap computing) to an ecstatic older man with crazy white hair who would use it to create DIY automated church organs. Felt very good having it find a home!
Unfortunately yes, and that is rapidly making our world a worse place to live. We keep throwing away stuff and making more, instead of reusing the old, thus wasting resources and unnecessarily polluting.
Waste of resources is self-correcting. If we were ever to run short of e.g. aluminium, scrap prices would go up and it would become worth selling old things rather than throwing them away.
Yes, but entropy is not self-correcting. We're wasting (as in, destroying, foerver) easily extractable material and energy. It's much easier to drive 10 000 tons of aluminium out of the mountain with trucks than to collect and melt enough scrap to get the same amount of metal for your factory from junk.
Economy is a leaky abstraction, it is ultimately subject to physics and it will break down if we push it too far hoping that market will correct all side effects of bad decisions.
I used to think books were special, too. Having thousands of books is expensive: they are literally expensive, you buy or build shelves for them, they take up a lot of space, they're extremely painful to move, you have to organize them, and you keep mental space for them -- I own this book, I don't own that one -- otherwise, you might as well not have them. You don't use them constantly. Moreover, you can get an instant electronic copy or a physical copy in minutes, or at most a day (Amazon prime).
Also, you confuse quality (good) and fragility. Most of the stuff I have is very high quality, which is why I use it every day and I don't have to worry about it falling apart.
Yeah books are like kryptonite to a frequent mover. I got rid of all my books about 5 years ago except for 5 engineering and maths textbooks that I would like to have around if I ever have to try and rebuild society after the apocalypse :)
Exactly. Unless you make notes (most) books are instantly replaceable. I have one shelf of my absolute favourite books & dvds (so I can loan them out). Plus a kindle for everything else.
The reality is knowledge is even cheaper than food these days, and books are backbreaking whenever you move. A rational cost/benefit analysis will tell you to rid yourself of books before clothes. A favourite shirt is nearly irreplaceable, a favourite book can be replaced in a day.
Honestly, if a book is good enough that you'll want to read it again after some indeterminate DRM expired/download limit exceeded threshold, it's probably good enough to pay for twice. I bought Kindle versions of all my favorite paperbacks, even though the paperbacks were sitting about ten feet away. It wasn't a hard decision to make.
That's the thing- I own many, many books (CLRS, Tufte's work, Graphics Programming Black Book, and dozens of others in the same vein) that I'm never really "done" with because I refer to them at least several times a year. As a researcher/engineer/professional, they're as valuable to me as some of other of my tools (computer, arduino, breadboard, etc.).
I suspect that that's what Paul implies in his essay, and that he refers to such books rather than "50 shades of grey".
(but sure, when it comes to novels or such books, yeah you can just give them away after you've read them).
You can also rip out and burn each page as you go along, as a Spanish writer had his protagonist do habitually. I shuddered the first time I came across that, but it may have its advantages ...
(Detective Pepe Carvalho in books by Manuel Vázquez Montalbán. Only book-reading detective that comes to mind besides Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe. Also cooks, if memory serves.)
It's all well and good to minimize the amount of stuff you accumulate, but I wonder how you handle having kids. Children are natural hoarders--I can't remember a single Christmas where I didn't want more and bigger toys. I spent almost as much time flipping through Lego catalogs fantasizing about playing with the biggest and most elaborate Lego sets as I spent playing with my actual Legos. Sure, you can just get your kids less toys, but then your kids have friends who have more toys and they pick up this kind of greed as a consequence of that. Is minimalism something kids can learn, or is it something you have to mature into?
On another note, my parents passed away awhile back, and the single most overwhelming day-to-day challenge was how much stuff they had, which in effect meant how much stuff I had. It didn't really hit me all at once, though, since every single object was its own epiphany. By no voluntary effort of my own, I own a chainsaw! A shotgun! A bookshelf filled with deranged right-wing books! A C-band satellite dish! Another chainsaw! Another shotgun!
Fortunately, there's such a thing as an "estate sale" where other people will actually come in and sell all of your stuff out of your house for you. All you have to do is go through and pick out the things you actually want to keep, as well as papers and photographs. The trick to this is, you don't actually have to be dead to have an estate sale, although you probably need to have so much stuff that it's worthwhile to take the time whitelisting the possessions you want to keep rather than blacklisting the ones you don't want to keep. Ironically, this only exists on the backs of the hoarders pg writes about. You can get amazing deals on "perfectly good" stuff at estate sales.
The papers and photographs alone, though, can be overwhelming. Easily most of the stuff I kept were papers and photos. [1] I could justify all the advances ever made in computing simply by looking at an attic full of papers and photographs and contemplating the fact that they would all fit in my hand were they digitized.
[1] The rest were either items of genuine sentimental value or--my own weakness--"perfectly good" "vintage" computers, including a pair of NeXTs! If anyone here knows of a good Apple museum, by the way, please email me, because I don't want my attic to be it.
In these modern times, Craigslist, Ebay, and Amazon exist as wonderful ways to offload items that may contain value for someone else that no longer contain any value for you. Goodwill stores exist as great places to donate things that have become clutter that will not sell quickly. When I have children, I plan to regularly donate or sell toys that are no longer played with. The old legos will of course be added to the standard Giant Bin of Legos.
Ebay and Amazon require you to separately list and ship each item, and Craigslist is both unreliable and requires much of the same thing. But they, along with Goodwill, were what I was referring to when I mentioned blacklisting the things you don't want. At some point--and estates are certainly one of these--it's so much easier to whitelist and outsource the getting-rid-of process for the rest.
Unless you're talking about my NeXTs. I'd rather make a personal connection with someone who would appreciate them more than I would than just let anonymous hooligans on Ebay buy them.
Nope. Craigslist means having sketchy people come over to your place and examine your unit of stuff while you talk about why you're selling it, when you got it, etc. Ebay and Amazon mean the work of putting the stuff online and then mailing them off. It's time consuming. Screw it - load the crap up and drive it to the thrift store.
I suppose a garage sale might be worth the effort since you can do everything at once.
Books are big, heavy and don't hold much value#. They cost a lot to store and a lot to move from place to place. I got rid of almost all mine, and now use the local library extensively, which is very enjoyable.
# Unless you have a signed first ed. or something, in which case you're collecting antiques, not books
Even back in 2007 I knew pretty well that books are no better than any other stuff.
But it does not end there. Pure information (stored in the cloud or wherever) is also "stuff" and should be constantly cleaned. Keeping pure information does not cost as much as physical stuff, but it still has quite some overhead: you have to index it, back it up, remember how to access it etc.
Agree strongly with this. Because pure information lacks a clear limiting factor (space in your apartment) I find it to be even harder to handle. It builds up fast, and if I don't clean it out every few months the noisiness of it makes it almost unusable.
Similar story here. I used to own several hundred books but decided to pare down to about 20 over the last few years. Aside from making moving a breeze, the best part is that my favorite books are now conversation pieces for my friends/visitors and I. People come over and immediately dive into my coffee table books about SF's architectural history and will usually mention something about one of the biographies I have on a shelf nearby.
After being in Central and South America for two years, the biggest shock upon retuning to North America was the amount of stuff people have, and how easy it is to buy.
It blows my mind that most houses I drive past every day have two cars, a boat, an RV, a snow machine (or two), a quad, skis & snowboards and that's just what I can see when they have their garage door open in spring.
Not only do people have lots of stuff, they have so much they have to pay people to store it for them (self-storage). I had completely forgotten about those, because they simply don't exist in places where people don't have excess stuff.
I highly recommend getting out of the developed world for a while to get perspective on how much stuff everyone has.
I had some stuff in self-storage when I once went away for several months. Spending some time there made me want to get rid of all my stuff. It's a very strange and sad place. One could write a novel about it. It's a place of transitions, and I got the impression that most of the transitions were not for the better.
Ever watch that show where they get people to bid on abandoned self storage lockers? It's so weird that people pay money to store a bunch of junk. Not that the people are weird, just that humans are wired in such a way that we'd pay $150 a month to store a comparable dollar amount of stuff, because of the way it makes us feel. Maybe it's to avoid the way it makes us feel to get rid of it. That's what people are paying for. So they're basically being held ransom by their stuff I guess.
Funny this was posted, I just came to this realization myself recently. I've always known it, but I didn't really /realize/ it until about two weeks ago. So, I've begun selling things on craigslist. I've made $147 so far, which doesn't seem like a lot, but it's probably the $147 I'll be most proud of earning this year.
Stuff is generally like lines of code in software: writing it (acquiring it) is fun, but the real fun starts when you figure out how to delete it. A good refactoring with a net negative number of lines brings me great joy, just as getting rid of this stuff on craigslist has.
In fact, it brings me so much joy that for the forseeable future, I have a new rule: if I buy something, I must figure out how to sell/recycle/trash something of equal or more mass. This will force me to physically reduce the amount of stuff in my life. Obviously, mass isn't a fantastic approximation, but neither is the number of lines of code.
I grew up in the back of a junkyard and watched my father collect "stuff" my entire life. It's a minor mental disorder, irrationally rooted in a fear of having nothing. To my father it was his security blanket. He would look out across the junkyard and see money. Everyone else would just see junk. As long as my father had something in the yard, he felt financially safe. Junk can't fire you and no one was going to steal it. (Only tweekers steal junk) Try stealing a broken down steam roller or a 1 ton gold smelting machine or a 10mb hard drive so big it had wheels. It's pointless. To my father, everything had value, but to everyone else it was just junk. The only people who ever purchased anything were other junk collectors.
Watching this as a child and eventually as an adult, I've put the collection of "stuff" on a 10 point scale. 1 being a pure minimalist and 10 being an extreme horder. We all fit somewhere on that scale. I'm probably a 3 or 4. My father is a 10. Understanding where you are on this scale is important to de-cluttering your life.
Sometimes value gets set by factors other than price. Value & price are not equally correlated. Value can be translated as functionality, prestige, vanity, security, companionship, etc. People get value of things beyond price and each person sees a different value for each product based on their psychological needs.
All PG seems to be saying is to question an objects value before you purchase it. Otherwise, you could end up with a house full of junk that you and no one else will ever use again. In other words...Question everything, including value.
The local library doesn't have my collection of tech books (semiconductor physics, circuit design, math math and more math, physics, physics, and more physics...)
When a book is requested at my local library they'll either purchase it to add to the lib catalog, or they'll borrow it from any other library in the country that has it so I can borrow it.
It's amazing how much stuff you can accumulate when you're not paying attention. I had so much stuff and it didn't help me at all. It only prevented me from moving when I wanted. So I recently sold all my stuff, threw out all the rest and moved country.
I live a just as luxurious life as I did before. I just find solutions to stuff that doesn't require owning the physical goods. Keep in mind half of this stuff is only possible because i'm living in the US now. And the rest is pretty obvious. eg.
- Rent a furnished apartment.
- Use car sharing services
- Buy ebooks instead of physical books
- Use Netflix/Hulu instead of owning a tv
- Use pdf digital signing software instead of owning a printer/scanner/fax
And really the only physical things I need now are some clothes and my laptop.
I don't mean this as a criticism of you, but instead the minimilist movement in general: There is something self-indulgent about middle class, talking about how "cool" it is to throw away stuff, and be minimalistic... It's almost a statement about how privileged you are.
I don't see how it is at all related to privilege; in almost every case he cited, it's cheaper to go minimalist. Let's look at his (perfectly reasonable) list of examples:
- Rent a furnished apartment.
This one you do need more $$ for. I don't have a furnished apartment, but I've spent less than $100 on my furniture (including getting some off the side of the road). I will feel no qualms about leaving it on the side of the road when I move.
- Use car sharing services
This depends. If it's more economical to use a car service, do it this way. For me it's not, so I own a car (but not a nice one, which keeps insurance and body-work costs low).
- Buy ebooks instead of physical books
Here there's no privilege either, since in my experience e-books cost about the same as regular books. (Maybe slightly less, but that will only offset the cost of the reader.)
- Use Netflix/Hulu instead of owning a tv
Again, no privilege. A reasonable cable subscription in the US is going to be $30, a hulu plus subscription is $10. Plus, you can sell your TV.
- Use pdf digital signing software instead of owning a printer/scanner/fax
This doesn't work all the time, because you still do have to print stuff every once in a while (trust me, I've not owned a printer for the last 7 years). However, usually you can just print stuff at work, or in a pinch, at kinko's. I've probably spent less than $5 over the last seven years at professional printing places, and their printers are much nicer than the crappy ink jet you get at best buy.
I think my definition of privilege and yours are at very different levels.
> - Rent a furnished apartment.
You have your own place to sleep at night, with (nice) furniture.
> - Use car sharing services
You have access to cars!?
> - Buy ebooks instead of physical books
> - Use Netflix/Hulu instead of owning a tv
> - Use pdf digital signing software instead of owning a printer/scanner/fax
You have access to high speed internet, and advanced electronic devices, and live in a society that supports them.
Most of the people in the world, don't have these things. It's easy for us to sit in 1st world countries and talk about how we aren't privileged because we didn't go to private school, or we buy cheap ebooks on our iPad... but even these things are out of reach for most of the world... that is what I define as "privilege".
> You have your own place to sleep at night, with (nice) furniture.
> You have access to cars!?
> You have access to high speed internet
Let's be fair - relative to the people around him he's abated his consumption of things considerably and relies on services that are shared or transferable. Sure, if he wanted to be super edgy he could live in a mud hut and write code on a paper pad, testing it out whenever he can access the local community center computer. But relative to the people around him, his consumption profile is conservative and doesn't deserve ridicule.
Even if harping on about it is self-indulgent, it is not nearly as bad as the conspicuous consumption and hoarding that so many 1st world citizens take part in.
I think my definition of privilege and yours are at very different levels
I didn't downvote your previous post in this thread until I read this one. Almost everyone who can read this website is privileged by your standards. Everyone in my apartment block here in Shanghai is privileged by your definition. Some of them are from Anhui province, or other poor ass provinces, where there are people in the Bottom Billion, people who live on less than a dollar a day.
If you are politically tone deaf, you should confine the use of political/sociological terms of art to arenas where you will be understood by everyone or where everyone agrees with your already.
Yes i'm privileged now ... But I grew up in a shed and a caravan in regional QLD, Australia. Went to shitty public schools. Slowly I worked my way to Silicon Valley. It took a LOT of hard work running business in Australia to get the cash to move here.
Life isn't fair. VERY few people are raised in a life privileged enough to move country.
Your post makes me angry. You are privileged and you have no idea. You're on the goddamn internet. You have the opportunity to make a lot of money if you get your shit together. STFU
> Your post makes me angry. You are privileged and you have no idea. You're on the goddamn internet. You have the opportunity to make a lot of money if you get your shit together. STFU
Sorry to have upset you like that. I meant the comment as something to reflect on (I myself have thought "How can I be more minimal")...
As a side note:
Australia (in general) doesn't have 'shitty public schools'. If you were to compare its schools on a global scale. You were born into privilege and became more privileged. It is difficult to see it that way (as I'm sure things were never 'easy') but the "bottom" in Australia is much much much, higher than the bottom elsewhere in the world.
One sure fire way to cure stuff-itis is to move house a lot. I have moved at least every 2 years since I was 16 (I moved a lot before that, too but I wasn't in charge so I didn't really notice).
EDIT: I'm 32 now
In some cases I would live somewhere only 6 months, so I've moved a LOT.
I am now completely allergic to stuff. I throw things out wantonly and refuse gifts. I buy things only when they are something I critically need, and even then I wait a while.
There is not only the mental cost of stuff that PG mentions, but the cost of transportation, storage and disposal (a cost which has become much more significant - garbage tip costs in Australia seem to have gone up several orders of magnitude faster than everything else since I was a kid).
I'm not sure if you can achieve a cure vicariously or if you actually have to go through the mentally scarring process of moving the same 12 old PCs that you'll freecycle one of these days through 8 houses, but try asking yourself "If I buy this now ... How would I feel about moving it?"
EDIT: several typos (after moving off my mobile keyboard)
A lot of people just have a workaround--their parents have a house, so they'll stash all their stuff that they want to keep but don't actually use at their parents' house. The last laugh is on them, though--when their parents die, not only do they have to deal with all that stuff again, but also all their parents' stuff, and that can be the hardest stuff to worry about.
Attitudes toward stuff change slowly because you learn them from your parents.
My grandmother used to save everything starting from plastic bags, strings, plastic food containers, used nails and screws to electricity, water, heat and money. I suspect it is because when she was young there was a serious lack for everything from food to building materials.
I can see the same attitude in my parents except that they hoard a bit more expensive stuff like books, tools, electronics, music containers and furniture.
I used to collect electronics, music, comic books and MTG-cards but at some point I just stopped. The need to collect more stuff that I had learned from my elders wasn't useful anymore. It is also apparent that some companies are trying to market and exploit this behaviour for their own gain.
I still own too much stuff to fit in my apartment. I find it extremely hard to throw away 'perfectly good' stuff if I feel that it could be useful to someone. Yet it is quite laborious to sell it or to find someone who needs it.
"Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off. "
Does this mean that the first rule of Hacker News is nobody talks about Hacker News?
But seriously, the movie (and Paul's article) hits a nerve because we are indeed consumed by our stuff. There is a carrying cost for everything - every idea in our head, every physical item, every piece of clothes.
Similar to what others have said, going abroad helped me realize how little I really need. I remember shipping all these boxes with me, only to not open most of them after I arrived. If I didn't think of something back home in storage over 6 months, would I ever need it? But it's still hard to avoid the weight of possessions.
A common thing I find many people don't realize is that they accumulate too much stuff, find their home is too small, and then move to a bigger home. They are accumulating stuff often thinking they are saving money (e.g. buy wholesale from Costco), or not throw old stuff that still has some future utility to them. The money they are subconsciously paying just for the space for these things may actually be more than their worth.
I wonder if video games warped my view. My characters in Ultima III could carry a practically unlimited amount of equipment, and the price for buying and selling was the same, so stuff was as good as cash if you were in a towne.
In reality, it's very hard to sell random stuff yourself, especially if you want even a fraction of the "market price" someone would pay to get the equivalent object at the store.
Definitely something I've had to realize as I got older. One of the lies that I tell myself is that I can buy new stuff because I can easily sell it a year later for so close to what I bought it for, I'd be a fool NOT to buy it!
Apple products are the only things that this has been true for ultimately.. And honestly, having a laptop around enables me to make money so it's a no brainer.
Love this, so so true. I've done rather well for myself financially and can buy most things I want, or thought I wanted, and now realise that rarely does stuff, beyond the essentials of life, bring much happiness. My recommendation is to spend more on experiences.
reading that piece made me think of an article that I came across a while ago, about a photographer who went around rural China convincing people to cart all their 'stuff' outside their home and would take a photo of it all...amazing to see their life possessions on display; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19648095
I was 50/50 on posting this, because contrary to the point of the article it wouldn't work if stuff was universally valueless, but I made FreelyWheely (http://www.freelywheely.com) precisely as a means of getting rid of completely usable but, to me, less than worthless stuff.
What I have discovered is that there are some things that are almost universally worthless (e.g. CRT tvs and monitors), not so surprising, but there are also a lot of people out there who really are quite desperate for very basic things, front yard full of cars or not.
My favorite hack to avoid buying stuff that I really don't need is to photograph it in the store with my phone. I tell myself that I need to look into the product reviews when I get home to my computer, and the photograph is a reminder and documentation of the price and model. If it checks out ill come back and buy it.
95% of the time I've completely forgotten about it when I get home.
"Four variety of items: Beautiful things; emotionally important things; tools, devices and appliances that efficiently perform some useful function; and category four, everything else."
Loved this essay. I think pg nailed it when he said that after some point, it's like you don't own stuff anymore. They own you. And the stuff we keep may become serious dependency in our life, which reduces our flexibility and freedom to do new stuff.
I just read this article, glad I did in a point of my life where it really makes a huge difference.
I have a hard time getting past the "poor people have more stuff" idea in the beginning. This is akin to thinking that rich people are cleaner. My observation is just that rich people have help. I'd be highly curious to know if there are good numbers into these claims.
I ran a quick search for articles or data to support pg's idea but couldn't find any.
I'm wondering if, on average, "rich" and "poor" people have a similar amount of stuff/junk, but the rich have higher-quality junk and more room to spread it out so it looks cleaner or more minimalist.
When you're poor you have to be more risk-averse. You can't afford to follow the recommendations of many people here and throw out everything you think you probably won't need, then re-buy the stuff you actually need. Even something trivial like the rotary telephone he mentions - if you ever needed a new phone you could get a new one for $10, which to you or me is nothing, but could be a lot if you're poor.
I'd also be interested to see better numbers, but the observation seems to make sense.
Apologies for missing this while this article was live. Not sure if you'll see my response.
My assertions are A) more that richer people generally just have more than they realize, and B) having help decluttering is huge. It is easy to have the appearance of less stuff when you have a 5 bedroom house. Or, multiple houses. Not so much when you live in a 2 bedroom apartment. Similarly, if you can hire cleaners, it is not shocking that you can stay clean. Even relatively inexpensive cleaners. ($50 every two weeks, for instance. Easily doable for anyone wiling to drop cable. So, not exactly reserved for the super rich.)
I disagree with his assertion that clutter doesn't bother kids as much as adults. My kids always play more contentedly for longer periods after we've done a big purge or simply organized their toys. I think they get overwhelmed but don't know how to articulate it.
This is a great essay, especially a great timing for me. As a 22 year old graduate student, I've only just saved enough money (from my assistantship) to consider spending on leisure items (a portable gas range was particularly hard to say no to at a garage sale).
I'm greatly comforted by his opinion on books though. I never sell my books (except really bad textbooks). So, I've already accumulated a somewhat large library. I was considering donating it to a library, but I'll think more about that now.
I'll argue that you'll get more utility out of a portable gas range than out of almost any book randomly pulled from your shelf, or any 10 books. I could go to my bookshelf right now and probably select 20 books that I have never more than glanced through and quite honestly will likely never read. Maybe someday I'll find a burning need to refer to a VAX architecture manual, but if I want to go camp out even once or twice a year, the portable range would be more useful.
Now, a portable gas range won't get you the massive HN/San Francisco cred you'll get from a house full of books, that's a given.
I think stuff to facilitate experiential travel is ok. You have to go camping with that range though.
Planning the trip, the trip, and reflecting on the trip provides far more happiness than the instant temporary gratification of a new thing. Not the greatest support for my argument, but there it is: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/10/happiness.possessions/i...
I've moved 7 times in 9 years and figure I've discarded, given away or sold over 2,500 lbs worth of stuff. Crazy when I think of it this way. Feels great.
I'm exaggerating, but I've got a core point:
There are two things that I spend a LOT of time on and get a lot of enjoyment from:
* cooking
* wood and metalworking
I've got two meticulously organized sets of things that reflect that:
* a great kitchen with all sorts of implements, frozen stocks, a hundred spices, etc.
* a great workshop with all sorts of tools and supplies
I keep those two areas perfectly organized, because this increases my enjoyment of them on a daily basis. ...and I have no desire to prune them. My workshop has a long tail: I may not need the #3 dental pick every month, but when I want it, I really really want it. So it's in a drawer with a label. I may use it just three times a year, but I use SOME long-tail item every day or two.
Outside of my kitchen and shop, though, I abjure clutter. I own one coat, one sweater, five shirts, etc.
I entirely agree with Paul that one of the biggest expenses is the mental expense of keeping things cataloged.
My advice: if there's something you really enjoy that requires tools, get them and use them. ...but aside from that, yes, be a minimalist.
My two cents.