I've got a loose rule: if I've not used it or worn it in the last six months, it should go, no matter how much it originally cost. Some seasonal clothes and and a few tools are exempt. For books, I ask if I'm likely to re-read it, and if the answer is no, it goes. In the post-Amazon world, books are very rarely hard to re-acquire. In short, "The Possessions Exercise" is useful: https://jakeseliger.com/2010/02/13/the-possessions-exercise-....
America had entered a time of peak stuff, when we had accumulated a mountain of disposable goods
Right.
It's strange to read the article and not see "cost" and "trade offs" mentioned. My guess is that we're psychologically wired for a world of limited and scarce stuff, but many of us no longer live in that world. A similar problem can be seen in our predilection for refined sugar.
Interestingly, acquisition is often pleasurable, disposal is a relief but the actual day-to-day owning is the painful bit that weighs on you.
My issue isn't cost; it's the emotional investment. Everything has a memory attached.
A tip for getting rid of sentimental items if you need the space: take a photo before getting rid of it. The photo can bring back the memories as well as the original item.
I have a photo of a well-used no-longer-non-stick saucepan. The pan was the only physical item I inherited from an uncle and my only physical connection to a lost family member and for years I couldn't get rid of the pan despite it's uselessness. The photo helps.
[0] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/theres-a-japanese-word-f...
[0] http://www.openculture.com/2017/03/watch-umberto-eco-walk-th...
This link also contains a video of Eco walking through his library at home. It is sort of breathtaking!
Personally, I never even expect to find these words in any text unless the author is either an economist or writing about something ostensibly associated with economics.
Which literally applies to the topic of "stuff".
According to Wikipedia:
> Economics is "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services".[1]
I'd say (loosely) "goods" == "stuff".
So according to your expectation defined, you should've expected to see "cost" and "trade offs" mentioned.
When did you last 'use' the pictures on your walls?
> For books, I ask if I'm likely to re-read it, and if the answer is no, it goes
Why is a full bookshelf different?
I would live by a similar rule if I didn't already live in Chicago.
The last time I moved house, I paid a removalist to get rid of a bunch of my stuff. Paid them by volume of removed material; they did all the work to take the stuff away. (I basically said "take everything in that room over there"). Took a couple hours, and it was done.
They disposed of everything responsibly, and would try to sell things which were reusable or salvageable. The cost to me was dead cheap, because most of their profit (I assume) came from reselling the stuff that could be salvaged.
It's too bad because that seemed like a reasonable system: people would get to be proficient at pricing, describing and listing items on eBay and the sales price at a public auction seemed like a pretty accurate value for what something was "really worth".
My wife used to take things that our kids outgrew to resale shops. She still is able to take some things that we no longer use but was easier with kid stuff.
You'd get a load of garbage that people are too lazy to sell on Ebay, and too sentimental to throw out.
I don't tend to keep useless things around as it is. I imagine there are quite a few people like that. I imagine at least in some strata of tech workers, who are into the latest and greatest, there are quite a few who'd have pretty decent things to recycle.
I've worked with people who just have too much disposable income as either singles or DINKs and buy/consume "accordingly."
She doesn't mind of you have stuff. She wants you to only have stuff you enjoy. All those extra things that are like a load on you, weighing you down, get rid of those.
In this case I'd have no clothes then. Maybe I'm weird, but I just see clothes as a utility, not as something that gives me joy.
I'm interviewing for jobs (finishing phd) and our income/cost ratio will hopefully increase, and I think we'll end up in a place with more space. But I don't have the experience to have calibrated to the exact amount of space I'll need. We'll probably overreact and be gluttons for space. Then we'll fill up the excess with stuff.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. It just feels like you want space, then you get it, then you fill it with stuff you don't want.
Currently 'at war' ensuring the next move will require far less effort and stress.
