"Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk. When rich people present the idea that they’ve learned to live lightly as a paradoxical insight, they have the idea of wealth backwards. You can only have that kind of lightness through wealth."
Edit (additional thought): the privilege is the ability to move about as unencumbered as one pleases, (re)acquiring anything they need at their discretion.
So true. After you pass a certain income level, discounts and such stop being as attractive as they would be, because the utility that you get from saving money but keeping stuff around is probably less than not having stuff until you need it, albeit paying more for it.
By choice I've been living out of a suitcase for 19 months now. As a stuffoholic and someone that kind of likes fashion it's been an interesting experience.
Dumb stuffoholic examples. I hate that I can't have more than 2 pairs of shoes. I need one dress pair for when I go to a wedding etc and I need one pair I can hike in, exercise in etc. I'd really prefer 2 or 3 more but there's no room.
I can't buy anything without throwing something away except software, ebooks... I'd prefer more computers (had 6 before this episode) all of which I used (Windows, OSX, & Linux). I run VMs on my laptop but the perf isn't there to be able to run various apps I'd like to run (games and other graphically intensive apps). Similarly I can't own an XBoxOne or PS4 as much as I would like to play.
Another interesting thing when preparing to do this and getting rid of lots of my stuff was just how much stuff is probably actually useful but only seldomly. An obvious sample might be a winter coat. You only need it in winter so it stays in storage for 9 months of the year. But, there's plenty of things I use less often. A paper cutter. A mac screw driver. A drill. An xacto knife. A hole punch. A pizza stone. A casserole dish. A printer. A scanner. I could list 1000s things. I don't know if having them is really having too much stuff. It seems rather it's semi freeing. If I want to make some crafts today I don't need several days of running around acquiring the stuff as I have it and can start immediately. If I want to cook something I most likely have all the utensils even if I only use them a couple of times a year. If I want to make something or repair something I have several drawers of tools.
So sure, we can have too much stuff (I had 44 pair of shoes of which I only ever used 5 or 6) but it's hard to say where the balance is.
I find I very rarely mind not having lots of things. I moved country a year or so ago, planned to spend around 10k at IKEA, ended up getting tired and leaving after spending 3. Planned to get all those little things I "need" on another big trip. I never went back. Apparently I didn't need that pizza cutter after all.
I suspect most of us have much more than we really need. I suspect most of us do just fine with that. Some people it can be an improvement to remove some clutter, others it doesn't really matter.
I'd love to live out of a suitcase again, it really sets your priorities straight when you have to choose what to remove when you "need" something new.
Out of curiosity, what do you do in winter? Follow summer? or simply get a larger suitcase? (re the jacket conundrum)
I moved countries a couple of times too and it was educational how much stuff I didn't miss, all my books for example, all my memorabilia as well.
At the same time over time I did replace tons of stuff. Examples: Had to buy scissors, a tape dispenser, knives, pots and pans, lots of tools, serving dishes, cupcake sheets, cookie sheets, craft utensils, etc... All stuff I already had before I moved.
As for the jacket I've just been carrying it the last 19 months.
> Apparently I didn't need that pizza cutter after all
A plain old knife would be enough for cutting pizza, wouldn't it? But then again, I've used the same knife for unscrewing screws, with a 50/50 success rate.
I now feel obligated to contribute more to the conversation than some YouTube videos.
I've been a kind of move-around-a-lot person for about 6 years now. I've lived in 4 cities. I guarantee you, if it's going to cost several thousand dollars to move your stuff, it's much easier to purge. I'm also glad that moving forced me to have a purge occasionally. I think you'd be surprised how many things you hold onto just in case. I've had a rare pang of lost nostalgia, but in general, I haven't missed anything.
I believe her technique is effective because it tries to combat hoarding using the same kind of emotional response that gets us to stockpile on stuff in the first place.
Others will suggest attacking the problem with logic: “Do you need this now? No? Get rid of it.” But stuffocation is as much a problem with our emotional attachment to things as it is to our evolutionary hardwiring. In my case I was finding it easier to find reasons not to keep something by doing what Mari suggests: take items into your hands and ask yourself if it actually brings you joy.
Came to post this, actually. It's an incredible technique. She recommends doing it all at once, though we've had to split up the work over several weekends. I've tried in the past to reduce clutter, but her method is the first I've tried that works.
We donated a ton of clothes, and the best part was that afterwards I had a new appreciation for the clothes I kept -- like, "oh, I've got some really nice stuff and I hadn't realized it for a while, because there was so much clutter."
It might be largely due to the fact that her technique involves actually holding every item you own before you decide whether or not to keep it. And you end up keeping the stuff that matters to you _now_.
One anti-stuffocation tip: Invest in a good camera. Get one that can take decent close-ups.
Why? So when you have something you don't want to get rid of for one sentimental reason or another, you can just take a few pictures of it for archival purposes, then toss it. Years later you can still look through the photos for a trip down memory lane.
I wonder to what extent a lifetime of exposure to advertising contributes to our craving for stuff. The article claims an evolutionary psychological explanation: anyone know of any research to back that up? Our ancestors were nomadic, so acquiring a lot of stuff wouldn't have made sense, would it?
I wonder whether the super rich of the 17-century wanted to acquire stuff as much as we do. They would have had the means to buy a lot, but would not have been exposed to as much marketing as us. I concede there would have been a lot less stuff to buy then.
Surely the important distinction between the 'super-rich' and us mere mortals is that they can afford to acquire stuff that is inherently worth keeping to an extent?
Advertising pushes us not only towards buying 'stuff', but towards buying disposable items, items with high margins built in, etc. I've seen tons of furniture adverts, but never one for antique solid wood furniture, or even its' modern equivalent. Always disposable tat.
Even luxury adverts are generally advertising disposables such as cars.
The "collector" instinct certainly predates the 20th century. A lot of our museums are built around the personal collections of rich individuals amassed in the 19th century when antiquarianism became popular.
Interesting thought! However, I think in the case of the super rich of earlier times, the amassing of 'stuff' was a sign of material wealth. Hoarding fine linens, brilliant jewels, and the like would've served a different purpose.
I think a parallel between the "middle class" (in quotes as I am unsure that term makes much sense depending on the period) of a time gone by and our era makes more sense. For them, I'd say the issue of stockpiling stuff would've been less problematic. Perhaps a large supply of tools or other utilitarian objects, but beyond that nothing of excess. They didn't have Billy Mays back then to sell them "As Seen On TV" goods.
The reason I mentioned the super rich of the past, is that they had enough money to buy whatever was available. Most other people couldn't afford to buy much at all, I imagine.
So the question is, were the super rich then as acquisitive as we are today? Were there rooms in their mansions filled with pointless things? Or were they surprisingly spartan by the standards of today?
I'm trying to figure out whether our insatiable appetite for more and more stuff is a modern thing, or whether it's always been there. And if it is largely a modern thing, what caused it? Non-stop advertising?
Your point about amassing wealth in the form of jewels etc. is a good one.
Well, when you have a rococo interior, the house looks filled even when it's empty :)
I'm hardly an expert, but from what I've read about the 18th century, the idea of filling your house with bric-a-brac and bibelots was very common - though probably more among the bourgeoisie than the aristocrats.
An example:
Victorian interior design was characterized by three words: gaudy, ornate and formidable. Following fashion, private and public rooms were stuffed with objets d’art, bric-a-brac, heavy velvet drapery, tables, chairs, paneled walls, Oriental rugs, potted plants, gilded reproductions of Louis XVI furniture—intricately carved, fragile sofas and chairs—Chinese ivory figures, German porcelain vases, ormolu clocks, and miniatures lined the fireplace mantle, the mantle itself shaded by heavy, ornamental fire-shades, and all was overlooked by wall to wall portraits and priceless paintings, richly framed in gold.
I read somewhere once that the average estate sale yields just $900. That made an impact on me as for all the personal value that we put on our stuff - be it jewelry, electronics, motorcycles, boats - whatever your toys might be, in the end aren't worth much to anyone else. The stuff that really bothers me is consumer packaging. I'm shocked each week when I take out the trash and recycling how much of it is redundant - a cardboard wrapper with a plastic wrapper or two beneath, only parts of which are recyclable locally. I really wish manufacturers, especially of high-volume consumables, would come up with less energy-intensive packaging. Stick it in a brown cardboard box with black ink and I'll still buy it, but will feel a whole lot better to not see so much waste.
Large cardboard boxes don't especially bother me - they're generally useful to have around and cardboard can be repurposed in a number of ways anyway.
More annoying are multiple layers of completely wasted plastic wrap. Or the notorious blister pack which is essentially designed to be _useless_ once opened.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean - you are right, cardboard or really any paper I'm fine with because its reusable, recyclable, and a renewable resource. But all the endless layers of cellophane, plastic wrap etc.
The only part I disagree with a bit is the one where he exempts books. I think it is possible to buy too many. I've probably engaged in this behavior myself. I find it hard to resist buying a good book, but I have a bunch of them now piling up physically and electronically which I find it hard to find time for.
Books piling up exert pressure to be read, but simply succumbing to the pressure to read them all might result in falling victim to what Einstein talked about:
"Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking."
I think it is possible to buy too many books, but how many that is really depends on the books, and the upper limit is perhaps higher than one might think.
I don't feel books piling up exerts any pressure to read them all. I have a lot of books I don't feel compelled to read, but find it beneficial to have ready for me to use whenever: reference books.
I also have a lot of books I already have read, and have no plans to reread, but will keep regardless, in case I ever need to refer to them to refresh my memory. As an example, I still occasionally will find reason to refer back to a book I read twenty years ago, to confirm something so that I can confidently cite it in a discussion I am having.
Everyone is going to have their own special exceptions. I also don’t agree that books are easy to move: they are heavy, take up a lot of space and require special care to package properly. Which sucks because I much prefer the experience of reading a paperback compared to an ebook, especially for reference material like artbooks.
Makes me wonder if the world will turn out like wall-e in the future or if we will recycle. It also makes me wonder if the central banks outcries that we need to consume more to boost economics is good for the environment?
You don't own stuff your stuff owns you. That's why you need a larger home when you can't fit your stuff anymore. You also worry about your stuff, home burglary somebody taking it's, car some taking it or damaging it, dropping your phone or computer etc.
I think the future depends on whether energy continues to get cheaper or not (cheaper energy probably leads to increased consumption, but it also makes it cheaper to clean stuff up, and gives people more time to worry about cleaning up, etc.).
I also think that one of the many factors involved with the fall off of crime is that (the typical) stuff (found in a house) isn't worth as much anymore.
In 1990, a "nice" TV might have cost $1,000 (inflation adjusted, $1,800). Today, a fantastic TV costs $400.
I agree on the point about 'stuff not being worth as much any more', though this may be a UK centric viewpoint. Housing has just dwarved everything else.
The entire contents of a typical flat I've inhabited would have a resale value of about one month's rent if sold for the best price possible.
If you went for just the big ticket items and sold them on the black market you'd likely get less than a week.
Tangible assets are becoming devalued compared to intangibles (rights to things rather than mere possession; homeownership, bank accounts, etcetera).
I feel bad for criminals who had to team up to haul 36" televisions out of a house during a burglary. These days one robber could haul out a pair of 60" thin LED televisions by themselves.
Man, I'm having flashbacks of when my friend's mom bought a 36" Sony trinitron. 4 skinny teenagers trying to move this behemoth up a flight of stairs and position it into it's cabinet. I think we aged our backs a few years on that one project.
In 1990, a $1000 TV was much higher end, relative to the market as a whole, than a $400 TV now. The idea that $400 today is a fantastic TV is, well, not well-grounded in reality.
The fall of crime is probably more about age demographics than anything else.
That doesn't make any sense as an explanation for changes in the crime rate. If the quality descriptions were relative to each periods common expectations, then -- while it would still be desperately in need of support -- it would be a not-implausible conjecture as to a potential contributing factor to the effect it sought to explain. In absolute terms, is just a complete non-sequitur.
It's sloppily written. I expect that the increase in quality of what is on the market has moved the average buyer down. Thus, today, there are fewer $1500 TVs available for stealing than there were in 1990 (there are likely many more $500 TVs though, so maybe it wasn't a good example). Anyway, setting that example aside, I still have the idea that stuff is worth less today.
We live in a four unit building and one of the units just went on the market. The former tenants cleared out everything for their open house and just brought in some minimal, modern "staging" furniture. It was astonishing to see essentially the same apartment layout but with none of the stuff — a kind of bizarre alternate reality. It prompted our new year's resolution: we will get rid of (at least) 5 things a day for a year. So far so good, and we've cleared off and removed an entire set of shelves.
You really have thousands of things you can get rid of? My house is a mess because my wife won't stop buying things for the kids but even so, I'm sure there's not 365x5 things in here I could get rid of, unless I could every sticker and crayon separately.
The goal is just 5 * 365 = 1825 things. I'd wager that most of us over the age of 30 have/had at least that many things we could get rid of before our first experience in purging.
We don't have to go back to 1750 as they mention in the article... In 2000 earning much less CDs cost over £15 and I am still surprised to find price tags on old things like that...
I recently moved and made a decision to only take with me what I could fit in my car. I have a cot, small 3-drawer chest, collapsable desk & chair, computer, a box of office supplies, a box of dishes, and not much else.
In fact, I've been pretty happy with this arrangement, so I don't really feel the need for anything more. It was easy to commit to, since I had deployed in the military with far less and when I would return, I would see a big pile of stuff that I didn't even miss.
I would love to own absolutely nothing, but have a portal follow me around, and anything I needed appeared through the portal, then disappeared as soon as I didn't need it anymore.
I bet something like this is one day possible and it happens.
People hoard for the same reason they overeat. Because scarcity has been the rule until very recently. When scarcity hasn't been the rule for for a long time I think these things won't be a problem anymore.
When there'll be drone delivery, you could imagine a service where you rent for example a hammer for one hour, when you need one, for a few cents it'd fly to your window, then you send it back.
Personally, when I overeat it tends to be because the food just tastes too good and overwhelms my self control. It used to be the same with stuff ("that will be awesome, too!"). I've managed some success on both sides, but the idea that over-consumption is driven by scarcity only applies to a subset of the population.
Not only have we too much stuff, a big part of it is crap: low quality but cheap, often produced with obsolescence in mind. If you focus on quality items you automatically buy less. An excellent example is clothing.
"Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk. When rich people present the idea that they’ve learned to live lightly as a paradoxical insight, they have the idea of wealth backwards. You can only have that kind of lightness through wealth."
Edit (additional thought): the privilege is the ability to move about as unencumbered as one pleases, (re)acquiring anything they need at their discretion.