I think a lot of times this philosophy is just rich people justifying paying a lot for high status items.
a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the highest quality pairs of shoes you'll buy for the price. you could buy 10 pairs of Crocs for a $500 pair of Alden's so even if the crocs only lasted a year, it would take a decade to recoup the investment on the Alden's.
but the crocs don't have the same status that Alan Edmonds or Alden or Fiorentini does.
Same thing with the G-Shock watch versus a Rolex.
If you really want quality look at what middle class people are doing. Crocs, Kirkland, G-Shock, Corolla etc.
All this stuff is top quality but rich people wouldn't be caught dead in them.
Another thing rich people like to do is repurposing something completely trivial. This dude probably paid as much or close to shipping the shoes than a new wallet would have cost.
This guy gets a feeling of satisfaction that they're making the world a better place by repurposing their shoes. Then they go to their job where they earn a lot of money defending companies who gave a small town cancer or a massive oil spill or wholesale invasion of privacy.
Completely agree. People love to tout the boots theory but the reality is that the people who claim this are often far beyond the point of optimal cost. Mass manufacturing inherently allows for better value to be delivered at greater scale, which tends to occur at the lower end of the price range. Beyond a certain point you're paying for prestige rather than lifespan.
I've had the same wallet for 10 years. It cost me $16 and was made from recycled leather scraps (thanks, Phil's wallets!). I plan to use it at least another 10 years. Will the $115 wallet pushed in this article really last 7x longer than my scrap wallet? I doubt it.
It really depends what you mean by “optimal cost” and “better value”. For example, if you want something that’s handcrafted rather than made in a factory on the other side of the world, you have to pay for the skills and labor that go into that. Depending on what it is, it might not last longer - but could be a better value in other respects than simply cost. Not everything has to be about making widgets for the lowest amount of money possible.
$50/$500 is a 10%/year yield, which is hard come by in any guaranteed investment. The Crocs will likely have no retained value, while the $500 shoes may be worth something after 10 years.
However, that ignores the cost of maintaining a nice pair of shoes (both money and time) as one needs to clean, polish, and resole every so often.
You might want shoes in two or three colors/styles, which would make the Crocs last 2-3x longer, same for the other shoes, but are you really going to want the same expensive shoes in 30 years?
I think the higher end stuff that retains value and requires less maintenance might be a better example, like if someone is good at buying watches they could get a Rolex that appreciates in value and ends up costing them nothing vs a series of cheaper watches. Or compare to a $500 Apple Watch you replace every couple years. I don’t wear watches, though, and I’m not good at buying or selling them.
Really, I think there are some expensive, durable goods that last longer and are cheaper you might think, but still more expensive once you take into account the maintenance and time value of money. But nice stuff is nice to have, and it’s helpful that you don’t have to replace it so often.
Oh completely agree. My beef is with this smug patronizing attitude rich people have like theyre wise for buying expensive things that will last longer and the rest of us peons should learn from these wise sages. When thats not the case at all. You want to learn how to buy quality things look at a middle class family of four wearing big old granny Kirkland panties and driving a Subaru.
Their overhead on purchases is low AND their returns are high.
A Rolex still requires very expensive maintenance every couple years (hundreds of dollars) just to do basic timekeeping. Absurdly, an Apple Watch upgraded every 4 years is probably cheaper to maintain. A high quality quartz is probably the financially smart option.
This isn’t a totally fair comparison. When people buy shoes, their criteria isn’t normally as low as “covers my feet”. They have a specific style they want, a specific material, and will shop amongst shoes that fit that description. Crocs and dress shoes are not interchangeable to a lot of people.
A better comparison is to look at, for instance, Johnston and Murphy vs. Alden. Then you get a more fair comparison. For instance, one has welted soles and so they can be replaced without changing out the upper. Those soles are leather and provide excellent comfort. One uses full grain leather uppers, one does not. Everyone doesn’t need those, but if you’re someone who is wearing dress shoes to the office every day, it may be worth the benefit. You also don’t have to worry about replacing the shoe every year (though you do have to maintain it).
Agree. Theres alot of factors involved in buying anything.
So we need to stop acting like we have great wisdom for "Paying more for quality" when in reality status and fashion had as much to do with the purchase as well.
My criteria is maybe less fancy than other people. Covers my feet + isn’t embarrassing + durable + potential arch support + cheap.
I’ve never found shoes that meet all those criteria. I’ve actually never found any shoes, ever, that were even durable or had usable arch support. So cheap + not embarrassing is pretty much the bar to cross
But I learned recently that crocks have amazing arch support!
For the shoes example, there's also value in reducing waste. 10 pairs of rubber Crocs that you throw out every year create much more waste than 1 pair of 500 dollar leather boots that can be repaired and are much more environmentally friendly when they are eventually disposed of.
I'm not so sure about this comparison even. There are multiple factors at play that you're just assuming, that the $500 leather boots are going to be worn for 10 years to be equivalent to the crocs, but I'm not sure that's the norm. Excluding those who have the means easily for $500 leather boots, who likely will just buy more of them to rotate (thus creating waste). Surely someone who spends $500 on leather boots is also going to care about their status, and therefore might get them repaired far more often.
These repairs, while likely less wasteful than full-on recycling, have costs attributed to them. It costs to produce the goods required to repair. These goods often aren't super sustainable products either. With these factors in mind, is the comparison equal? Can we absolutely stand by the idea that paying for $500 leather boots will be better for the environment and you for 10 years?
Which is why when making these comparisons we should really get into the nitty gritty details, otherwise we're just handwaving a bunch of things and making assumptions to justify our position. By doing so, we'll be able to make better choices with proper information rather than shifting the burden of environmental impact elsewhere (to a repair shop or shoe makers, etc).
Note, this is not a defense of crocs vs leather boots. The product categories are just throwaway examples.
Corolla is a terrible example. It’s not a nice car to actually drive compared to almost any other. In that price range: Subaru and Honda will be as reliable and much better cars.
From the documentary Idiocracy: Idiocracy director Mike Judge revealed that they went with Crocs both because they were cheap and that "no one would ever wear them." To the surprise of Judge and Idiocracy's wardrobe department, by the time the film came out after a delay, Crocs were all over the place.”
In fact you could save more money by wrapping your feet in used burlap sacks. Just need to be creative.
I would say rich people who want to signal status would not get caught with those. But there are plenty of rich folks who want to fly under the radar, your millionaire next door types.
Crocs are not utilitarian (no structure or support for physical activity) and they aren’t appropriate in the wider spectrum a nice pair of shoes are.
I settled on some classic Vans after a deep internet dive signaled that they’re the most popular among homeless people for being durable and comfortable without being too expensive. They look fine, and I have a lot of freedom regarding when to replace them. I’m very happy with the decision actually. As an added benefit, they’re a welcome donation to the homeless if I don’t completely wear them out (which is basically impossible).
$500 sounds about right to me for the leather equivalent of the Vans. By the time you’ve accounted for durability and comfort without sacrificing appearances (and done it such that they can be attractively resoled) you’ll spend around that much.
I don’t have a wardrobe to match leather shoes, but the logic holds here if I did. You don’t have to be rich to daily drive a single pair of nice shoes, and the author’s tone didn’t strike me as snobbish or smug.
It’s just a different attitude. Lots of more expensive clothing gets you added features, better style, and better comfort than Kirkland. Expensive athleisure brands like Lululemon and Alo, for example, have pockets in better places and are more attractive than their Kirkland equivalents. The directly equivalent spending on the two makes for a smaller wardrobe that gets worn more often. If you have a ChatGPT Plus subscription, have a quick discussion with it about fashion. Its training is not among content from the rich but rather the internet at large, and even it will tell you that fewer nicer fashion choices make a better wardrobe than more less expensive pieces.
Every pair of vans I bought fell apart in a year. I think they used to be quality back in the day before they got popular and shipped their manufacturing overseas. I've never seen a homeless person in vans but that's just me.
The way I would put the Crocs thing is that they are not versatile. Maybe you could live a whole life with a pair of Crocs and a pair of well made leather shoes. But in that situation a minimalism extremist might ask: what are the Crocs for? You can wear the leather shoes around the house but you can't wear the Crocs to a wedding.
But I think your point is generally true, though I'm not convinced it is very responsive to this specific article. I didn't get much preachiness from this article, but maybe it was there, or maybe you are familiar with this person's other writing, I dunno.
My take is that "minimalism" is indeed often a status game as you say, but that it also has good insights for the rest of us who aren't interested in those games, but do feel this sense of having too much junk cluttering up our lives.
I'm far from a "true" minimalist, but reading stuff like this over the years has totally impacted my thinking. When thinking about buying things now, I do think about whether I could spend a little more for something I'll be able to use a lot more. Or even ignoring price differences either way, I just evaluate things from this perspective of durability. And I think that's good.
I think even more accurate is that quality/longevity and price are almost completely decoupled.
Spending more doesn’t guarantee higher quality it mostly gets you exceptional graphic design and deftly nested packaging that makes you feel good when you open it.
But it’s not like all the cheap stuff is better. A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable. So are Festool tools, and so on.
But like so is G-shock and a random and difficult to pin down subset of Harbor Freight.
The broader point is that none of this really makes a fucking difference most of the discussion is just people preening about their choices instead of admitting it’s mostly a roll of the dice.
And the old stuff wasn’t “better” it was just different. When I was a kid in the 70’s and 80’s garages were full of shoddy junk from the 50’s and 60’s. That stuff is just all gone right now.
Yeah completely agree that price is decoupled from quality nowadays and it's pretty random.
Price seems to be based a lot more on marketing and brand saturation than quality. And quality brands get bought up all the time and the new company will coast on the brand while outsourcing manufacturing to the lowest bidder.
And you can't trust reviews with affiliate marketing around.
So pretty much the only thing to do to identify quality is to experiment or share info with people you trust.
I've wasted a ton of money on shitty products on the way to identifying quality products.
I'm not even railing against status. I bought a pair of Alan Edmonds specifically for job interviews to signal status but I wear LL Bean shoes and Crocs the rest of the time.
Also, there's other factors besides just durability and status. There's aesthetics, variable utility, ease of replacement, warranty availability, price, etc.
The area in which this drives me the craziest is furniture. I have no idea how to find high quality durable furniture. Price signals definitely aren't it, but I have no idea what signals I can look for, or where to go to find them.
Crocs aren't shoes. I understand what you are trying to say. But that was a lousy comparison. Even if you consider Crocs shoes, you typically won't wear them the same place you will wear Aldens.
But "buying for quality" and "buying for status" are different, and I don't think rich people conflate the two (or the people here). The person buying Louis Vuitton luggage (or whatever rich people buy these days) knows they are buying it for status among their similarly wealthy friends. Although, you also get counter-signaling among "old money" types, where it's seen as déclassé to try too hard; they wouldn't be seen dead with something as vulgar as Louis Vuitton luggage.
However, I don't think this conversation is about them.
The smart middle class family buys the best they can afford given their budget, but the less-smart family buys the cheapest 'Buy well, buy once' encourages the first approach.
But your comparisons don't factor in total cost of ownership and usage, and in fact many quality brands you do pay up for quality and better cost of ownership.
I can wear crocs at home. I would look disrespectful wearing them to a funeral. I can wear Alden anywhere though I might be overdressed for many occassions.
Aldens can be resoled and repaired and can last decades, the cost-per-wear can be very low. And many models of Aldens can be sold for a pretty penny (as an example these https://www.ebay.com/itm/394665864763 still go for nearly $300 even after years of wear). So if you bought Aldens new for $500 and wore for a decade and sold for $300 your cost per wear would be lower than that of the crocs. You would also be doing better for the environment by reusing the clothing and requiring less total material for your feet over a lifetime.
This also applies to a very few select watchmakers (and in fact increase in value). A Rolex or Patek Philippe has essentially beat inflation and would be considered a smart investment that made you money even while you wear it. A G-Shock would not offer similar returns.
Actually a lot of quality clothing can be like this. I thrifted a Tom Ford shirt for $40, wore it for a decade to weddings and funerals, and then sold it for $150. Certain makers are heavily discounted on second hand but retain their value. Borrelli shirts are some of the best on the planet. Would I pay retail? No. But you can buy them, wear them, and sell them second hand and pay virtually 0 to wear them over time.
Furniture is one where I've yet to find cheaper furniture paying off. A lot of particleboard furniture is awful. And it's all over Wayfair. The stuff I've had passed down or that I've bought that's lasted decades are all from North Carolina furniture makers. Not all of that stuff is expensive or high status but it is well made.
Expensive things are not always bad. Oftentimes the price is not justified. But it's not exclusive.
This a 1000 times. Those kind of articles are just rich people showing off, seeking attention, they must have indeed a miserably or fake life to even think that other cares about the brand of their shoes or mattresses (except other equally unhappy people. A shoe is a shoe, a mattress is a mattress, a sofa is a sofa. There's more important things in life that those details.
Fun way to think about it (borrowed from James May): A Toyota Corolla is higher quality than a Rolls Royce. Because Toyota makes 10,000,000 vehicles per year. Rolls makes only 6,000. Meaning Toyota is better at making cars just by virtue of having 4 orders of magnitude more practice.
The original formulation of this theory (in Car and Driver iirc) was that it’s harder to make a water pump for a Chevrolet than a Mercedes, because you had to meet a tight cost objective for the Chevrolet.
In practice, it just meant Chevy often cheaped out on the water pump and you got water pump failures after the warranty expired.
This however is balanced by material quality. Rolls Royce can use more expensive alloys and premium leather that do not degrade as quickly and still have plenty of margin.
The other end of this is companies manufacturing products that are questionably eco-friendly and certainly less durable leading to a worse off situation to everyone except them.
An observation I have made of my grandparents, who certainly had a bit of money, is everything they own is high quality and has lasted them years.
My grandfather still has his Hickey Freeman suits and sports coats tailored and repaired by a local menswear shop. Their Dualit toaster still works while I have personally gone through many Cuisinart toasters. Their technics AV components still work with their high quality speakers. Their Sony Trinitron TVs still work. Their pots and pans from their wedding are still in active use. Their Pyrex continues to store leftovers decades on. I am currently using the Minolta film camera and lens that my grandfather bought in the 80s for traveling around the world with.
When I go to their home, I am always in awe of the high quality objects that still function perfectly fine and can all be passed down. When I look at many of the things my parents own and most of the things I own, I see less and less of that. Our clothes are cheaper. Our pans less resilient. Our technology is less repairable.
Buying well certainly leads to a longer lifespan for objects. However, I find that’s becoming tougher and tougher to find these days.
This sounds to me like a combination of survivorship bias and cost preference.
You see the resilient things at your grandparents' house because those are the only things that have survived. All the poor quality things they purchased over the years are gone by now. Also, you and your parents probably favor lower-cost items (as do most people these days) over longevity. This may simply not have been possible in your grandparents' time, pre-globalization. It's still very possible to get high-quality and long-lasting goods (the buyitforlife subreddit is a good starting point), but you're going to pay a lot more for them than most people are willing to in comparison to the "replace it when it breaks" mass-produced-in-China goods.
I personally don't favour cheap over longevity, and I don't really believe most consumer do either.
The problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to discern if something will last.
An expensive product, from what was a trusted brand, can be just as short lived as a cheap one these days. Cost does not always reflect quality.
And brands that build long-lived products struggle as they don't have the repeat customers of products that are good, but contain forced obsolescence features.
It's a hidden cost to consumers that is often hard to figure out without extensive research.
I definitely agree with you. I would also add that I believe there’s an element of the period of time in which they had the money to purchase their goods. Many goods had been iterated upon and become the best versions while having been around long enough to make an informed decision on high quality products.
Today, we have been in a period of rapid change as technology advances. My grandparents bought the best of the analog world. Their CRT TVs were the peak of consumer sets. The world switched to LCDs when I was looking to buy a TV, which took a long time to catch up to the height of CRTs (not until OLED in my opinion). Their film cameras took exceptional pictures. Only recently have most consumer DSLRs begun to achieve the same level of quality. Their cars had battle-tested V6 engines while the cars I looked at had newer, unproven inline 4 engines that came with carbon build up issues.
So a mix of survivorship bias and cost preference but also the current state of the market. Fortunately for me, I have been able to purchase a nice PVM to play my old video game consoles on, have made use of my grandfather’s film camera and can develop the film at a local studio, and am able to buy a used car with a proven V6 engine since they are still available in the market. When buying products that will hopefully last, I first look to what my grandparents own as a starting point. Often, purchasing older goods let me take advantage of those points you mentioned.
For a current product on the market that is pretty great, I have been pleased with a Moccamaster coffee maker.
My very-elderly parents have a house full of stuff, from appliances to towels, that they bought as a young couple on a tight budget. They were always the type to buy the cheapest thing that would do the job. Even that stuff, though, would last practically indefinitely if you didn't abuse it. Except for some cameras, all the old items I can think of there were made in USA. My own view on this is that manufacturers didn't necessarily have more integrity, they just hadn't yet figured out how to make things more cheaply.
My grandparents grew up during the depression. They buy everything on sale, including food. They have olive oil in their cabinets that’s from 2009 (it survived a move.) My grampa, in his own words, loves buying “junk” and “crap” and holding into it forever. They probably spend most of their money on gifts, dining out, cruises, and trading stocks. I love them so much. But I fear the day I have to accept their hand-me-downs. I’ll probably end up with the oil.
> I'll bet modern engineered speakers will beat those high quality speakers, at a fraction of the price.
You'd be surprised how shitty most "modern" speakers are.
Size is still king. Doesn't matter how fast your fancy microcontrollers are. The big-ass cabinets from the 80s and 90s still sound incredible when you put them next to the typical experience you'd find on the shelves of Target or Best Buy.
There's a useful function in limited lifespan - things are much easier to update and upgrade. My tastes have changed a lot over the past 20 years. If my clothes lasted longer I'd have a wardrobe full of things I don't like now and wouldn't wear. If my TV lasted 20 years I'd still have an old, inefficient SD CRT box in the corner, or I'd have passed it on to someone else and maybe they'd have scrapped a functioning item now.
It's less true for basic things like toasters and pots and pans, but I suspect the lower quality is partly due to being cheaper to make and therefore more accessible. If everything is made well and costs more then wealthy people have things that last and poor people don't have things. Cheaper things balances that inequality a little.
> My tastes have changed a lot over the past 20 years. If my TV lasted 20 years I'd still have an old, inefficient SD CRT box in the corner
Societal context is important here.
Did your taste really changed on itself or did the constant marketing pressure changed your taste for clothes and your expectations for what is an acceptable TV ?
I mean : of course, I’m a tech enthusiast : I love big modern OLED screens, I love 4K movies and beautiful video games. I’m truly amazed by what we can do.
But, does all of this makes me truly happier than when I played with my Nintendo 64 on a cheap CRT screen ? I don’t think so. The pleasure I feel playing video games alone and with my friends never changed with technology evolution.
And it’s just an example that can apply to mostly everything. We just change things because we are encouraged to by marketers. Sometimes things are more robust or more efficient and that’s really worth changing, but that’s pretty uncommon.
It's not useful that the thing happens to be broken at the point of time where you don't like it anymore anyway. If it wasn't broken and you didn't like it anymore, you could pass it on to someone else.
Poor people go to Goodwill or the Salvation Army store for high-quality, inexpensive items. Or they used to when high-quality items were in greater abundance.
It's not that much more difficult to periodically clean out your wardrobe and donate it compared to throwing it in the trash.
Strange article. It is about an unrepairable pair of shoes that need to be recycled but its title is "Buy well, buy once". Not really the case, then ?
Then he mentions that he has only 192 "worldly possessions". I'd like to see the actual list, because if it is accurate he mustn't have many forks or boxes of food in his cupboards. So he probably lives in a big city, eats out very often, takes public transportation, and basically relies on external services for things he does not have. Which is a kind of lifestyle that has a lot of externalities and does not really have a minimalist impact on society as a whole, so it feels less appealing to me.
I'm rather in the opposite camp, if I have some fixing to do in my house, rather than call a plumber for example I'll buy the tools, learn by watching youtube videos of experts, and do it myself. Not because of a philosophical view of the world but because I like to learn skills and be self-reliant. My possessions also last a long time because I'm often able to repair them.
> Then he mentions that he has only 192 "worldly possessions". I'd like to see the actual list,
Author didn't even seem to read the LA Times link he linked. I've personally got close to 5000 staples in a drawer. And I'm sure the author has some similar huge amount of an object. He's undoubtedly not counting his shoelaces as separate objects, where it seems likely the authors of the research on items in a household are.
From the LA Times piece:
> The average U.S. household has 300,000 things, from paper clips
emphasis, mine. A box of paper clips is considered multiple items.
That seems like a pretty bad statistic. No source online, possibly just an oft-repeated estimate from "professional organizer Regina Lark". There are only 100 paperclips in a box of paperclips, so that's not a major source of items. This statistic requires 150 items for every square foot in a 2000-square-foot house. Not even things like my laundry basket or spice rack manage that.
> So he probably lives in a big city, eats out very often, takes public transportation, and basically relies on external services for things he does not have. Which is a kind of lifestyle that has a lot of externalities and does not really have a minimalist impact on society as a whole,
Not sure how living in a big city and taking public transit has more negative externalities than the alternatives, care to expand?
He didn't say they are negative, he said they are externalities. I've come to the same conclusion that minimalism is only supportable by other people not being minimalists. That's not necessarily a judgment on whether it is good or bad, but a statement of fact.
Maxi checking in. I have racks of labelled drawers full of bearings, screws, glues, specialty tapes, oodles of hand tools, power tools, ad infinitum. I'm honestly not super competent or anything (I barely know what I'm doing, in any domain) but I do learn new things all the time and it brings me joy.
I miss the clarity of minimalism, but I can also have a different view on wallets - they're just leather and some stitching and such, and I can change them to be what I need.
Of course it's a very particular type of programmer disease to fixate on having equipment that can compile any possible wallet to solve the problem of having a wallet.
I get a kick out of dumb stuff like fixing the dishwasher latch by bending a new spring rather than getting the $70 replacement part (... probably spending $100 of my labour, good thing my free time is worthless!).
I spend a lot on storage systems and need a lot of discipline around stuff like deciding a place for things before acquiring them. It's a tradeoff I'm OK with.
I love bring the extra screw up from the basement I saved 4 years ago knowing this moment would one day come where I need it. Now is it on the bottom of the red or the blue folgers coffee can.
That said - tools and home improvement objects are allowed in the maximum as long as they fit in the basement workshop, that’s my only rule.
My box of wires in the attic is often the butt of my wife’s jokes, but every once in a while I find that satellite coax connector I’ve been saving, or the scart cable that is the only thing standing between old vhs tapes and nostalgia.
I was using a broccoli rubber band as a wallet for years but they have a tendency to break after a while. Have settled on a metal binder clip and it’s worked much better - less friction in/out of pocket too
I use a broccoli rubber band as a minimalist iPhone 'case'. [1] It makes the back and bottom of the phone grippy, so it's easier to hold. It does slightly block the corners of the screen, but not much. It doesn't provide much protection in case of a drop, obviously. But the added grippiness makes drops much less likely!
I have occasionally bought broccoli that I didn't need just so I could get another rubber band, after my previous one broke. They typically last 2 months or so.
Unless you repair it yourself. I’ve done things like replacing the bearings and a cracked spider arm in our clothes washer. Not only was it cheap to do so, I also learned a lot about how a washer is put together by dismantling one down almost all the way. Same with replacing the heating element in the dryer.
I used to be interested in minimalism, but I realised that they just obsess over objects in a different way.
I wanted to save money, avoid maintenance and reduce my mental load. I found people who keep spreadsheets of their stuff and debate whether it's okay to own tools or multiple coffee cups.
> I used to be interested in minimalism, but I realised that they just obsess over objects in a different way.
This is really interesting, particularly since you use the word “obsess”. I meet all of the criteria for OCPD (obsessive compulsive personality disorder — NOT the same thing as OCD), except for “unwilling to throw out broken or worthless objects, even if they have no sentimental value”. In fact, I’m quite the opposite because I try to be as minimalist as I can and am constantly throwing away or donating objects that I don’t need or that don’t meet my quality standards.
I always thought it was strange that I don’t match this one specific symptom of OCPD, but then I started thinking some more, and I realized that I do obsess over objects in a way but not by hoarding them. If I want to order nail clippers for example, I have to spend hours online researching the best pair of nail clippers. I am currently wiring my house for networking, and everything has to be of the highest quality using data center components. Even rented a Fluke network tester. Closet needs repairs? Now I’m learning about drywall and level 5 skim coats. It’s a nightmare because I can’t do anything in a way that I consider half-assing it — I feel compelled to either do nothing at all or go into an extreme level of detail with it.
This constantly causes relationship and work problems, but to a lesser degree than I suppose hoarding stuff would.
Thank you for this, it put into words my uneasiness with this practice. Our household definitely has too much stuff and we always seem to be at battle with it but minimalism just feels like a mirror image problem.
As soon as I read they store every item they own in a database, that seemed like unhealthy obsessive-compulsive behavior to me. Using technology to shame yourself does not seem like a path toward happiness. I wasn’t sure why I want to take advice from someone that has that level of anxiety around owning things.
That's has become my goal for new purchases. For some items that means getting higher quality that will last longer, for others it's get the cheapest that will work and replace it if it breaks. It does lead to weird purchases like higher quality charger cables, but cheaper a cheap TV.
It sounds kind of woo, but I tried the Konmari method and it really was helpful without being overly prescriptive. It definitely felt good to get rid of a lot of that stuff. Though there are a couple that I'd probably take back if I could do it over.
well, i think it is mostly a form of self-therapy where you project a mental stressor onto something you can touch, see and deal with. then you try to manipulate that stressor and heal your trauma by manipulating that object or set of objects - or maybe an animal, a spouse or your child. of course that won't work.
One also has to admire Whitstable man's marketing genius if he's able to live of his $100 "wallets" (which mostly amount to two badly sewn together pieces of leather). This article feels a bit too on the nose though. But he probably knows his audience.
They're really more like card holders, but I looked up that term and found they've now been rebranded as "minimalist wallets." Hey, even minimalism can be commoditized and sold. All that is solid melts into air after all.
I'm a bit of a recovering minimalist, though it was never really a choice to become one.
I spent the better part of 15 years living out of a small backpack, travelling ~9 months a year then flying home to work short software contracts and save up for the next trip. As a consequence, I got used to not having very many things. One pair of pants, one pair of shorts, that sort of thing. I think my policy was something like "If I haven't used this thing in the last 3 days, I don't really need it along".
At one point, I revisited my storage locker, filled to the roof with everything I had owned in my 20s, and couldn't really find anything that I wanted to take out of it. "This isn't the shirt I wear", and "I already have enough socks" (meaning four socks: 2 on my feet and another pair for when I wash these.) I ended up just letting the storage company auction it all off.
It was really weird buying a house and starting to fill it with things. I bought a couch and a TV. I got my old guitar back from the friend I'd lent it to 20 years earlier, then eventually bought a second one and a bass to go with it. It's actually kinda nice to have a few possessions.
The attitude is still there though. At one point I had to buy five iPhones in a single day as test machines for a job, and it was all I could do to physically force myself to click the buy button. It was like fighting every natural impulse in my body to overcome my aversion to consumerism.
I guess it has left me in a healthy spot in regard to "stuff ownership."
I find the thought of minimalism interesting, and we don't buy endless crap and try to get rid of things every now and then, but then again, if it's Christmas we've got a few boxes with decorations, if I go camping we've got our tent/mats/fridge/etc, when I go snowboarding I have clothes and my own board. Also I have hobbies that require stuff. And so on. I don't want to give up on these activities and I don't want to make them into a nightmare collecting/arranging everything each time.
In a way I admire committed minimalists. But I often wonder what their long term lifestyle is like. Surely many of them are single (or they only count the items which are solely theirs). They surely rent at a higher rate than own property. They surely own vehicles at a lower rate. And so on. I just get this picture of a person in an urban area, living alone in a studio apartment, dependent upon everyone else for basically everything.
I’m fond of the conspiracy theory that the rise of minimalism is actually propaganda to placate Millennials who can’t afford the same level of material comfort as their parents and other earlier generations enjoyed.
To me, minimalism seems like a natural reaction to the transient lifestyles that people live now. A generation or two ago, many would grow up and settle down in the same town or county with 4 years of college being the most time that one spent outside their hometown. If you have a permanent home, it's easier to invest in filling it with stuff.
Today I hesitate to buy anything that I can't pack in a suitcase or wouldn't feel comfortable throwing away or donating to Goodwill in ~2 years.
What if its just Millennials discovering it own their own as a result of their reduced standard of living? The powers that be would want maximum consumption and minimalism goes against that no?
Same probably goes for "vanlife". It is millennials just realizing they cant afford a home ever and so they improvise with what they can resource.
OTOH, if you're poor, it might be best to save every item in case it becomes useful later, whereas a rich minimalist can afford to give away or sell for cheap everything not needed right now, knowing that replacements can be bought when necessary.
At least it’s not true for me. For all my life I’ve been drowned in objects. My parents are still telling that I had so many toys.
Minimalism is a way for becoming aware of the objects around me. Not so much about the pure number of objects.
Since, I started thinking about what should be part of my life and also letting go of things I don’t really need, my savings rate has skyrocketed. Also, many things I own have much higher quality than my parents or grandparents.
I guess minimalism is a counter-movement to super-cheap consumerism.
The massive carbon emissions campaigning seems to be this. Since generations of young and hard working people are being so heavily exploited that they can't afford things, blast out the message that they are saving the world from being doomed by not having a vehicle, not traveling, not having land, not eating quality food, and most importantly: not having children so that they aren't interrupted in their duties of paying taxes and profits.
It is completely free to convince people they are saving the planet by living less than others.
Dunno, seems like we might be past peak materialism. Do people really need 2000 ft^2 with a 2 car garage just packed with crap. So much so that they often buy things because they can't find what they own. Even renting storage units on top of a full size house is surprisingly common.
China closets, album collections, file cabinents, many book cases packed, shelves of games/cartriges/cdroms, many different kinds of sports equipment not used for a decade, dead appliances, 3 toolboxes filled with crappy tools, drawers filled with disposable pens, large closets packed with clothes not worn in a decade etc. Every trash day with overflowing garbage cans from all the disposable stuff.
Buying decent shoes, tools, a decent pen, a decent razor, and decent wallet can last decades. Even more disposable things like cars, computers, stereos/electronics can last a decade or more, but often have a somewhat higher cost up front/but cheaper to own per year. In general if it's made in plastic my first conclusion is that it's not worth it. Don't eat out of plastic, drink out of it, don't use a plastic keychain, even cans these days are plastic lined. Don't even touch it if you can avoid it.
Yes this kind of attitude is possible even with wife, kids, and a dog. If it's not been used in the last year considering upcycling, donating, giving it away, or pitching it.
To be honest it's not like the guy in a suburban home is self-reliant either; it's just easier to kid yourself. But I do agree that a picture-perfect minimalist lifestyle will face some challenge if you live with others, especially kids.
Steve Jobs was known for living in such a way that I don't think was entirely a put on. He did own vehicles but refused to put license plates on them apparently for aesthetic reasons. Ironically, it seems like having a lot of wealth helps with the minimalist thing.
Heh, don't think that fits. I heard he figured out the related california law that you had 1-3 months before you'd get a legal penalty for not putting a new plate on the car. So he worked it out with the car dealer to swap cars every 1-3 months, so he could park whenever he wanted and never get a ticket.
This article, and people posting in this thread are saying that they own 100 or 200 things.
I can't believe this at all.
My utility room, which basically just has stuff like cleaning products and rags/cloths etc, has more than 200 items in it. It's all useful, we're talking things like bleach, deodorant, shampoo, handwash, etc.
My house probably has 50 or more pieces of art on the walls and then another 50 pieces of furniture. My computery odds and ends bin easily has more than 200 items in it.
Either you guys are all just-moved-out kids, single and living in a single room, or we're defining "thing" differently. Which is it?
"Either you guys are all just-moved-out kids, single and living in a single room, or we're defining "thing" differently. Which is it?"
It's just a different lifestyle, there are obvious exceptions to it - but I was there once with a house and countless things - most of them I forgot I had and such.
The idea is to do inventory and then catalog and see what you need and don't need. But no, I can say with assurance my life right now is basically two suitcases, by choice - and airbnbs/hotels. 20 lb of clothes/about 80 pieces total.
Misc electronic stuff takes a ton of space, spare usb - chargers, usb cables, etc - having spares for spares.
> This article, and people posting in this thread are saying that they own 100 or 200 things.
> I can't believe this at all.
> Either you guys are all just-moved-out kids, single and living in a single room, or we're defining "thing" differently.
I feel like the assumption in this is that people who are single and living in a single room are not "people", and shouldn't be posting about how much they own? My utility room contains a washer, a dryer, one bottle of Tide, and a paper bag for dryer lint. I'm not posting "people say they have 2000 square feet in their home, I can't believe this. Either you guys live in houses, or we're defining 'feet' differently".
They might not be yours, but someone uses these? Maybe the cleaner brings them?
I don't think that people who are flatsharing or whatever are not people. I just think that it's a super narrow slice of life. You might do it from 25-35 maybe and then get a partner and like, not do that any more.
I used to travel for extended times, and I actually counted the items in my backpack. It was about 70 items (if you count a money wad as one item and each sock pair as one item). That's all I needed.
Of course, much more items are accumulating while staying stationary. Easily approaches 1000, and I'm not a hoarder type. If some item has not been used for 1 year, out to the garbage it goes.
To be fair, I don't think it really makes sense to count consumable items like the bleach, deodorant, shampoo, handwash, etc. examples you gave. I wouldn't expect him to count the milk in his fridge or the olive oil in his pantry, either. Point being that just the natural day-to-day use of that stuff uses it up.
> I don't think it really makes sense to count consumable items
On the other hand if I count something it is more likely to be consumable item, so I have track of what is missing. Why bother with other stuff? That sounds like opposite of minimalism.
Readit News
a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the highest quality pairs of shoes you'll buy for the price. you could buy 10 pairs of Crocs for a $500 pair of Alden's so even if the crocs only lasted a year, it would take a decade to recoup the investment on the Alden's.
but the crocs don't have the same status that Alan Edmonds or Alden or Fiorentini does.
Same thing with the G-Shock watch versus a Rolex.
If you really want quality look at what middle class people are doing. Crocs, Kirkland, G-Shock, Corolla etc.
All this stuff is top quality but rich people wouldn't be caught dead in them.
Another thing rich people like to do is repurposing something completely trivial. This dude probably paid as much or close to shipping the shoes than a new wallet would have cost.
This guy gets a feeling of satisfaction that they're making the world a better place by repurposing their shoes. Then they go to their job where they earn a lot of money defending companies who gave a small town cancer or a massive oil spill or wholesale invasion of privacy.
I've had the same wallet for 10 years. It cost me $16 and was made from recycled leather scraps (thanks, Phil's wallets!). I plan to use it at least another 10 years. Will the $115 wallet pushed in this article really last 7x longer than my scrap wallet? I doubt it.
However, that ignores the cost of maintaining a nice pair of shoes (both money and time) as one needs to clean, polish, and resole every so often.
You might want shoes in two or three colors/styles, which would make the Crocs last 2-3x longer, same for the other shoes, but are you really going to want the same expensive shoes in 30 years?
I think the higher end stuff that retains value and requires less maintenance might be a better example, like if someone is good at buying watches they could get a Rolex that appreciates in value and ends up costing them nothing vs a series of cheaper watches. Or compare to a $500 Apple Watch you replace every couple years. I don’t wear watches, though, and I’m not good at buying or selling them.
Really, I think there are some expensive, durable goods that last longer and are cheaper you might think, but still more expensive once you take into account the maintenance and time value of money. But nice stuff is nice to have, and it’s helpful that you don’t have to replace it so often.
Their overhead on purchases is low AND their returns are high.
This is the core of the “secret” to wearing high quality shoes at a low cost. Buy good used shoes and get them resoled as necessary. E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/comments/1jhp8o/a...
A better comparison is to look at, for instance, Johnston and Murphy vs. Alden. Then you get a more fair comparison. For instance, one has welted soles and so they can be replaced without changing out the upper. Those soles are leather and provide excellent comfort. One uses full grain leather uppers, one does not. Everyone doesn’t need those, but if you’re someone who is wearing dress shoes to the office every day, it may be worth the benefit. You also don’t have to worry about replacing the shoe every year (though you do have to maintain it).
So we need to stop acting like we have great wisdom for "Paying more for quality" when in reality status and fashion had as much to do with the purchase as well.
I’ve never found shoes that meet all those criteria. I’ve actually never found any shoes, ever, that were even durable or had usable arch support. So cheap + not embarrassing is pretty much the bar to cross
But I learned recently that crocks have amazing arch support!
100% agree about the Corolla though.
These repairs, while likely less wasteful than full-on recycling, have costs attributed to them. It costs to produce the goods required to repair. These goods often aren't super sustainable products either. With these factors in mind, is the comparison equal? Can we absolutely stand by the idea that paying for $500 leather boots will be better for the environment and you for 10 years?
Which is why when making these comparisons we should really get into the nitty gritty details, otherwise we're just handwaving a bunch of things and making assumptions to justify our position. By doing so, we'll be able to make better choices with proper information rather than shifting the burden of environmental impact elsewhere (to a repair shop or shoe makers, etc).
Note, this is not a defense of crocs vs leather boots. The product categories are just throwaway examples.
In fact you could save more money by wrapping your feet in used burlap sacks. Just need to be creative.
I settled on some classic Vans after a deep internet dive signaled that they’re the most popular among homeless people for being durable and comfortable without being too expensive. They look fine, and I have a lot of freedom regarding when to replace them. I’m very happy with the decision actually. As an added benefit, they’re a welcome donation to the homeless if I don’t completely wear them out (which is basically impossible).
$500 sounds about right to me for the leather equivalent of the Vans. By the time you’ve accounted for durability and comfort without sacrificing appearances (and done it such that they can be attractively resoled) you’ll spend around that much.
I don’t have a wardrobe to match leather shoes, but the logic holds here if I did. You don’t have to be rich to daily drive a single pair of nice shoes, and the author’s tone didn’t strike me as snobbish or smug.
It’s just a different attitude. Lots of more expensive clothing gets you added features, better style, and better comfort than Kirkland. Expensive athleisure brands like Lululemon and Alo, for example, have pockets in better places and are more attractive than their Kirkland equivalents. The directly equivalent spending on the two makes for a smaller wardrobe that gets worn more often. If you have a ChatGPT Plus subscription, have a quick discussion with it about fashion. Its training is not among content from the rich but rather the internet at large, and even it will tell you that fewer nicer fashion choices make a better wardrobe than more less expensive pieces.
But I think your point is generally true, though I'm not convinced it is very responsive to this specific article. I didn't get much preachiness from this article, but maybe it was there, or maybe you are familiar with this person's other writing, I dunno.
My take is that "minimalism" is indeed often a status game as you say, but that it also has good insights for the rest of us who aren't interested in those games, but do feel this sense of having too much junk cluttering up our lives.
I'm far from a "true" minimalist, but reading stuff like this over the years has totally impacted my thinking. When thinking about buying things now, I do think about whether I could spend a little more for something I'll be able to use a lot more. Or even ignoring price differences either way, I just evaluate things from this perspective of durability. And I think that's good.
I think even more accurate is that quality/longevity and price are almost completely decoupled.
Spending more doesn’t guarantee higher quality it mostly gets you exceptional graphic design and deftly nested packaging that makes you feel good when you open it.
But it’s not like all the cheap stuff is better. A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality and durable. So are Festool tools, and so on.
But like so is G-shock and a random and difficult to pin down subset of Harbor Freight.
The broader point is that none of this really makes a fucking difference most of the discussion is just people preening about their choices instead of admitting it’s mostly a roll of the dice.
And the old stuff wasn’t “better” it was just different. When I was a kid in the 70’s and 80’s garages were full of shoddy junk from the 50’s and 60’s. That stuff is just all gone right now.
Price seems to be based a lot more on marketing and brand saturation than quality. And quality brands get bought up all the time and the new company will coast on the brand while outsourcing manufacturing to the lowest bidder.
And you can't trust reviews with affiliate marketing around.
So pretty much the only thing to do to identify quality is to experiment or share info with people you trust.
I've wasted a ton of money on shitty products on the way to identifying quality products.
I'm not even railing against status. I bought a pair of Alan Edmonds specifically for job interviews to signal status but I wear LL Bean shoes and Crocs the rest of the time.
Also, there's other factors besides just durability and status. There's aesthetics, variable utility, ease of replacement, warranty availability, price, etc.
I hate shopping so I think alot about this haha
But it's fundamentally worse at being a timepiece than a digital watch synchronized to an NTP time server.
Deleted Comment
However, I don't think this conversation is about them.
The smart middle class family buys the best they can afford given their budget, but the less-smart family buys the cheapest 'Buy well, buy once' encourages the first approach.
But your comparisons don't factor in total cost of ownership and usage, and in fact many quality brands you do pay up for quality and better cost of ownership.
I can wear crocs at home. I would look disrespectful wearing them to a funeral. I can wear Alden anywhere though I might be overdressed for many occassions.
Aldens can be resoled and repaired and can last decades, the cost-per-wear can be very low. And many models of Aldens can be sold for a pretty penny (as an example these https://www.ebay.com/itm/394665864763 still go for nearly $300 even after years of wear). So if you bought Aldens new for $500 and wore for a decade and sold for $300 your cost per wear would be lower than that of the crocs. You would also be doing better for the environment by reusing the clothing and requiring less total material for your feet over a lifetime.
This also applies to a very few select watchmakers (and in fact increase in value). A Rolex or Patek Philippe has essentially beat inflation and would be considered a smart investment that made you money even while you wear it. A G-Shock would not offer similar returns.
Actually a lot of quality clothing can be like this. I thrifted a Tom Ford shirt for $40, wore it for a decade to weddings and funerals, and then sold it for $150. Certain makers are heavily discounted on second hand but retain their value. Borrelli shirts are some of the best on the planet. Would I pay retail? No. But you can buy them, wear them, and sell them second hand and pay virtually 0 to wear them over time.
Furniture is one where I've yet to find cheaper furniture paying off. A lot of particleboard furniture is awful. And it's all over Wayfair. The stuff I've had passed down or that I've bought that's lasted decades are all from North Carolina furniture makers. Not all of that stuff is expensive or high status but it is well made.
Expensive things are not always bad. Oftentimes the price is not justified. But it's not exclusive.
Fun way to think about it (borrowed from James May): A Toyota Corolla is higher quality than a Rolls Royce. Because Toyota makes 10,000,000 vehicles per year. Rolls makes only 6,000. Meaning Toyota is better at making cars just by virtue of having 4 orders of magnitude more practice.
In practice, it just meant Chevy often cheaped out on the water pump and you got water pump failures after the warranty expired.
Corolla designers are highly constrained by cost.
My grandfather still has his Hickey Freeman suits and sports coats tailored and repaired by a local menswear shop. Their Dualit toaster still works while I have personally gone through many Cuisinart toasters. Their technics AV components still work with their high quality speakers. Their Sony Trinitron TVs still work. Their pots and pans from their wedding are still in active use. Their Pyrex continues to store leftovers decades on. I am currently using the Minolta film camera and lens that my grandfather bought in the 80s for traveling around the world with.
When I go to their home, I am always in awe of the high quality objects that still function perfectly fine and can all be passed down. When I look at many of the things my parents own and most of the things I own, I see less and less of that. Our clothes are cheaper. Our pans less resilient. Our technology is less repairable.
Buying well certainly leads to a longer lifespan for objects. However, I find that’s becoming tougher and tougher to find these days.
You see the resilient things at your grandparents' house because those are the only things that have survived. All the poor quality things they purchased over the years are gone by now. Also, you and your parents probably favor lower-cost items (as do most people these days) over longevity. This may simply not have been possible in your grandparents' time, pre-globalization. It's still very possible to get high-quality and long-lasting goods (the buyitforlife subreddit is a good starting point), but you're going to pay a lot more for them than most people are willing to in comparison to the "replace it when it breaks" mass-produced-in-China goods.
The problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to discern if something will last.
An expensive product, from what was a trusted brand, can be just as short lived as a cheap one these days. Cost does not always reflect quality.
And brands that build long-lived products struggle as they don't have the repeat customers of products that are good, but contain forced obsolescence features.
It's a hidden cost to consumers that is often hard to figure out without extensive research.
Today, we have been in a period of rapid change as technology advances. My grandparents bought the best of the analog world. Their CRT TVs were the peak of consumer sets. The world switched to LCDs when I was looking to buy a TV, which took a long time to catch up to the height of CRTs (not until OLED in my opinion). Their film cameras took exceptional pictures. Only recently have most consumer DSLRs begun to achieve the same level of quality. Their cars had battle-tested V6 engines while the cars I looked at had newer, unproven inline 4 engines that came with carbon build up issues.
So a mix of survivorship bias and cost preference but also the current state of the market. Fortunately for me, I have been able to purchase a nice PVM to play my old video game consoles on, have made use of my grandfather’s film camera and can develop the film at a local studio, and am able to buy a used car with a proven V6 engine since they are still available in the market. When buying products that will hopefully last, I first look to what my grandparents own as a starting point. Often, purchasing older goods let me take advantage of those points you mentioned.
For a current product on the market that is pretty great, I have been pleased with a Moccamaster coffee maker.
Do you think people are getting new suits because they are "worn out", or perhaps because they're no longer in style?
>Their technics AV components still work with their high quality speakers.
I'll bet modern engineered speakers will beat those high quality speakers, at a fraction of the price. That's modernity.
You'd be surprised how shitty most "modern" speakers are.
Size is still king. Doesn't matter how fast your fancy microcontrollers are. The big-ass cabinets from the 80s and 90s still sound incredible when you put them next to the typical experience you'd find on the shelves of Target or Best Buy.
Mainly because the market did large speakers is so much smaller now. Feels like the price/quality trade off is about the same as it was 40 years ago.
The speakers that are “a fraction of the price” now are there, but they’re really terrible Chinese-made junk for the most part.
There's a useful function in limited lifespan - things are much easier to update and upgrade. My tastes have changed a lot over the past 20 years. If my clothes lasted longer I'd have a wardrobe full of things I don't like now and wouldn't wear. If my TV lasted 20 years I'd still have an old, inefficient SD CRT box in the corner, or I'd have passed it on to someone else and maybe they'd have scrapped a functioning item now.
It's less true for basic things like toasters and pots and pans, but I suspect the lower quality is partly due to being cheaper to make and therefore more accessible. If everything is made well and costs more then wealthy people have things that last and poor people don't have things. Cheaper things balances that inequality a little.
Societal context is important here.
Did your taste really changed on itself or did the constant marketing pressure changed your taste for clothes and your expectations for what is an acceptable TV ?
I mean : of course, I’m a tech enthusiast : I love big modern OLED screens, I love 4K movies and beautiful video games. I’m truly amazed by what we can do.
But, does all of this makes me truly happier than when I played with my Nintendo 64 on a cheap CRT screen ? I don’t think so. The pleasure I feel playing video games alone and with my friends never changed with technology evolution.
And it’s just an example that can apply to mostly everything. We just change things because we are encouraged to by marketers. Sometimes things are more robust or more efficient and that’s really worth changing, but that’s pretty uncommon.
It's not that much more difficult to periodically clean out your wardrobe and donate it compared to throwing it in the trash.
I wonder if the original saying has been translated multiple times before getting to English.
Then he mentions that he has only 192 "worldly possessions". I'd like to see the actual list, because if it is accurate he mustn't have many forks or boxes of food in his cupboards. So he probably lives in a big city, eats out very often, takes public transportation, and basically relies on external services for things he does not have. Which is a kind of lifestyle that has a lot of externalities and does not really have a minimalist impact on society as a whole, so it feels less appealing to me.
I'm rather in the opposite camp, if I have some fixing to do in my house, rather than call a plumber for example I'll buy the tools, learn by watching youtube videos of experts, and do it myself. Not because of a philosophical view of the world but because I like to learn skills and be self-reliant. My possessions also last a long time because I'm often able to repair them.
Author didn't even seem to read the LA Times link he linked. I've personally got close to 5000 staples in a drawer. And I'm sure the author has some similar huge amount of an object. He's undoubtedly not counting his shoelaces as separate objects, where it seems likely the authors of the research on items in a household are.
From the LA Times piece:
> The average U.S. household has 300,000 things, from paper clips
emphasis, mine. A box of paper clips is considered multiple items.
Not sure how living in a big city and taking public transit has more negative externalities than the alternatives, care to expand?
I miss the clarity of minimalism, but I can also have a different view on wallets - they're just leather and some stitching and such, and I can change them to be what I need.
Of course it's a very particular type of programmer disease to fixate on having equipment that can compile any possible wallet to solve the problem of having a wallet.
I get a kick out of dumb stuff like fixing the dishwasher latch by bending a new spring rather than getting the $70 replacement part (... probably spending $100 of my labour, good thing my free time is worthless!).
I spend a lot on storage systems and need a lot of discipline around stuff like deciding a place for things before acquiring them. It's a tradeoff I'm OK with.
I love bring the extra screw up from the basement I saved 4 years ago knowing this moment would one day come where I need it. Now is it on the bottom of the red or the blue folgers coffee can.
That said - tools and home improvement objects are allowed in the maximum as long as they fit in the basement workshop, that’s my only rule.
I have occasionally bought broccoli that I didn't need just so I could get another rubber band, after my previous one broke. They typically last 2 months or so.
1: https://imgur.com/a/E2yO6XX
Appliance repair usually starts at a $100 house-call fee and goes up from there. It is cheaper to buy a new dishwasher than get it repaired.
They replaced the entire dishwasher. They said they couldn't get a replacement rack.
I wanted to save money, avoid maintenance and reduce my mental load. I found people who keep spreadsheets of their stuff and debate whether it's okay to own tools or multiple coffee cups.
This is really interesting, particularly since you use the word “obsess”. I meet all of the criteria for OCPD (obsessive compulsive personality disorder — NOT the same thing as OCD), except for “unwilling to throw out broken or worthless objects, even if they have no sentimental value”. In fact, I’m quite the opposite because I try to be as minimalist as I can and am constantly throwing away or donating objects that I don’t need or that don’t meet my quality standards.
I always thought it was strange that I don’t match this one specific symptom of OCPD, but then I started thinking some more, and I realized that I do obsess over objects in a way but not by hoarding them. If I want to order nail clippers for example, I have to spend hours online researching the best pair of nail clippers. I am currently wiring my house for networking, and everything has to be of the highest quality using data center components. Even rented a Fluke network tester. Closet needs repairs? Now I’m learning about drywall and level 5 skim coats. It’s a nightmare because I can’t do anything in a way that I consider half-assing it — I feel compelled to either do nothing at all or go into an extreme level of detail with it.
This constantly causes relationship and work problems, but to a lesser degree than I suppose hoarding stuff would.
That's has become my goal for new purchases. For some items that means getting higher quality that will last longer, for others it's get the cheapest that will work and replace it if it breaks. It does lead to weird purchases like higher quality charger cables, but cheaper a cheap TV.
“This is too <whatever> to get rid of!”
Wrong. Throw it away and don’t replace it.
either it finds its way to somebody who will value it, or somebody will throw it out for you. either way is a win.
I spent the better part of 15 years living out of a small backpack, travelling ~9 months a year then flying home to work short software contracts and save up for the next trip. As a consequence, I got used to not having very many things. One pair of pants, one pair of shorts, that sort of thing. I think my policy was something like "If I haven't used this thing in the last 3 days, I don't really need it along".
At one point, I revisited my storage locker, filled to the roof with everything I had owned in my 20s, and couldn't really find anything that I wanted to take out of it. "This isn't the shirt I wear", and "I already have enough socks" (meaning four socks: 2 on my feet and another pair for when I wash these.) I ended up just letting the storage company auction it all off.
It was really weird buying a house and starting to fill it with things. I bought a couch and a TV. I got my old guitar back from the friend I'd lent it to 20 years earlier, then eventually bought a second one and a bass to go with it. It's actually kinda nice to have a few possessions.
The attitude is still there though. At one point I had to buy five iPhones in a single day as test machines for a job, and it was all I could do to physically force myself to click the buy button. It was like fighting every natural impulse in my body to overcome my aversion to consumerism.
I guess it has left me in a healthy spot in regard to "stuff ownership."
And on top of that, now we have a kid ;)
Today I hesitate to buy anything that I can't pack in a suitcase or wouldn't feel comfortable throwing away or donating to Goodwill in ~2 years.
Same probably goes for "vanlife". It is millennials just realizing they cant afford a home ever and so they improvise with what they can resource.
All true, but having kids was never a choice for you given your financial situation so let’s not pretend you had a say in the matter.
At least it’s not true for me. For all my life I’ve been drowned in objects. My parents are still telling that I had so many toys.
Minimalism is a way for becoming aware of the objects around me. Not so much about the pure number of objects.
Since, I started thinking about what should be part of my life and also letting go of things I don’t really need, my savings rate has skyrocketed. Also, many things I own have much higher quality than my parents or grandparents.
I guess minimalism is a counter-movement to super-cheap consumerism.
It is completely free to convince people they are saving the planet by living less than others.
China closets, album collections, file cabinents, many book cases packed, shelves of games/cartriges/cdroms, many different kinds of sports equipment not used for a decade, dead appliances, 3 toolboxes filled with crappy tools, drawers filled with disposable pens, large closets packed with clothes not worn in a decade etc. Every trash day with overflowing garbage cans from all the disposable stuff.
Buying decent shoes, tools, a decent pen, a decent razor, and decent wallet can last decades. Even more disposable things like cars, computers, stereos/electronics can last a decade or more, but often have a somewhat higher cost up front/but cheaper to own per year. In general if it's made in plastic my first conclusion is that it's not worth it. Don't eat out of plastic, drink out of it, don't use a plastic keychain, even cans these days are plastic lined. Don't even touch it if you can avoid it.
Yes this kind of attitude is possible even with wife, kids, and a dog. If it's not been used in the last year considering upcycling, donating, giving it away, or pitching it.
Dead Comment
I can't believe this at all.
My utility room, which basically just has stuff like cleaning products and rags/cloths etc, has more than 200 items in it. It's all useful, we're talking things like bleach, deodorant, shampoo, handwash, etc.
My house probably has 50 or more pieces of art on the walls and then another 50 pieces of furniture. My computery odds and ends bin easily has more than 200 items in it.
Either you guys are all just-moved-out kids, single and living in a single room, or we're defining "thing" differently. Which is it?
It's just a different lifestyle, there are obvious exceptions to it - but I was there once with a house and countless things - most of them I forgot I had and such.
The idea is to do inventory and then catalog and see what you need and don't need. But no, I can say with assurance my life right now is basically two suitcases, by choice - and airbnbs/hotels. 20 lb of clothes/about 80 pieces total.
Misc electronic stuff takes a ton of space, spare usb - chargers, usb cables, etc - having spares for spares.
Deleted Comment
> I can't believe this at all.
> Either you guys are all just-moved-out kids, single and living in a single room, or we're defining "thing" differently.
I feel like the assumption in this is that people who are single and living in a single room are not "people", and shouldn't be posting about how much they own? My utility room contains a washer, a dryer, one bottle of Tide, and a paper bag for dryer lint. I'm not posting "people say they have 2000 square feet in their home, I can't believe this. Either you guys live in houses, or we're defining 'feet' differently".
antibacterial spray
bleach
cleaning cloths
washing up liquid
floor cleaner
dusters
etc?
They might not be yours, but someone uses these? Maybe the cleaner brings them?
I don't think that people who are flatsharing or whatever are not people. I just think that it's a super narrow slice of life. You might do it from 25-35 maybe and then get a partner and like, not do that any more.
My house is a fairly normal sized house, there are millions of it in the UK.
Of course, much more items are accumulating while staying stationary. Easily approaches 1000, and I'm not a hoarder type. If some item has not been used for 1 year, out to the garbage it goes.
But yeah, I agree with the general point.
On the other hand if I count something it is more likely to be consumable item, so I have track of what is missing. Why bother with other stuff? That sounds like opposite of minimalism.