Living With Less. A Lot Less.

[bondi688]

Trying to de-clutter and first off trying to do something about years of magazines I have accumulated : New Yorkers, vanity Fairs etc. Looking at them, I am amazed at how many back issues I have and how I had plans to read them and never had the time when I was working. I also think printed editions of magazines are wasteful of space, load, resources such as papers they are printed on. I am glad for the evolution into digital magazines.

 

[Letj]

+2 Articles like this strike me as so condescending. Who is this guy to tell me how many dishes or CDs is the 'right' amount? Am I some little baby who can't decide that for myself?

Ten little dishes? Fine for this guy I guess, but we entertain groups from time to time, sometime large sometimes just one other couple. DW likes to have dishes for different seasons and different occasions. It's a 'luxury we can afford', so who cares?

And he doesn't have a single CD? So? He probably doesn't have a high quality stereo either. Maybe he doesn't love music? I love music, why would I deprive myself?

Why would anyone aspire to this? If the message is 'consider what is really of value to you', I think the author fails.

Right, this is just column filler, IMO. I'm amazed that people see any value in this sort of thing. Can't they think for themselves? I just don't get it.

edit/add: OK, I just had to LOL at this: Hah! I have NEVER (and I'm the guy who always says never say never), ever seen a five-disc CD player in a true 'audiophile' magazine. These guys are ALL about single function, and do that function well units. Even to the extent of mono-block amplifiers (completely separate units for right/left channels - less cross-talk, no draw on a power supply from opposing channels). A lot of that stuff is snake-oil, but a 5-disc changer - no way!

-ERD50

I am sorry but I think that some might be misinterpreting the author's intention. I think the point of the article is that real joy and purpose can be achieved with limited consumption and living on less. I happen to think that if that lesson can be absorbed by more in society not only will it be a boon to our pocket books but makes for a more sustainable world. Even with all the material success in modern American society, I am not sure that people are better off today. Success certainly seems to bring it's own level of problems and unhappiness. There is something to be mourned for a society in which children can no longer free play with their friends whenever they feel like it because parents are all working and can't accomodate and everyone is afraid of the boogey man. There's so much success, that people have now retreated unto themselves behind their mini mansion and have lost the art of casual conversation and social interaction. People no longer know who lives around them.

 

[marko]

Ok, so this guy made a small fortune as an Internet entrepreneur but hired a guy who took Polaroids for him to look at??

I do like his point, but it's a lot more romantic to live "with lot less" when you've got a coupla Mil in the bank. There are those who have no choice but to live that way...it's not so cool for them.

 

[kevink]

This take-down of the original bit of narcissism is much more wortwhile than the original, IMHO:

It Would Be Great if Millionaires Would Not Lecture Us on 'Living With Less'

 

[ERD50]

Where does the author attempt to tell you what to do? Do you think his point was to tell us how many dishes is the right amount?

He simply shares his journey and experience, some will relate (and aspire in varying degrees) to it, others will not. How you react to the authors POV is yours to decide.

Is it "condescending" to ask "why would anyone aspire to this" after several members have said they share the authors POV?

I think it was (heavily) implied.

There isn’t any indication that any of these things makes anyone any happier; in fact it seems the reverse may be true.

So isn't he telling me I would be happier with less? And then he lectures on the 'carbon footprint'. I may have more 'stuff' than him, but I bet I travel less, might even use less utilities (even in a larger house), and I fix stuff and keep it for a long, long time. That turned me off.

Other's can share his POV, that's not a problem. In fact, I somewhat share his POV, but I think it's common sense, not something I need to be shown (why would I own stuff I don't truly value?). I don't like the lecturing, or the implications.

My space is small. My life is big.

To me, this implies that if your space is big, your life is small. Bug off, to each his own, I say. If he had said, "I chose a small space and it works well for me, this is my experience, and it is something for you to think about", I'd be fine with that. I like to read of different people's approaches to life. But I read a heavy handed implication that his way is the 'right way'.

Is my reading unfair to the author? Perhaps, but that is the taste it left in my mouth.

-ERD50

 

[Koogie]

The only part of the article that bothered me is this part: (if true)

""The Natural Resources Defense Council reports, for example, that 40 percent of the food Americans buy finds its way into the trash.""

If true, that is to disgusting for words.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I didn't feel that he was telling other people how to live. He was just describing his life and what works for him.

His story has been very inspiring on the simple living forum. It is the forum based on the Your Money or Your Life book.

I don't know the number of people in the U.S. interested in simple living, but we have Real Simple magazine, the long lasting popularity of the Money or Your Life book, the faircompanies videos, the Mr. Money Mustache, extreme early retirement and permies forums, lots of urban homesteading blogs, and much more. I don't think all of those readers, viewers and forum members are manic depressives. They just want less stuff in favor of more freedom, financial security and greener living.

If you watch House Hunters International, they often refer to larger houses or appliances "American style". What is normal in the U.S. today in terms of house size and shopping isn't how many people in the world live, and it isn't how people lived in the U.S. in the '50s and before.

Most people in the U.S. don't have six figure household incomes like many posters here. If they ever want to retire early the only way they can do it is by simple living.

 

[Texas Proud]

I find this quote interesting...

"Aside from my travel habit — which I try to keep in check by minimizing trips, combining trips and purchasing carbon offsets — I feel better that my carbon footprint is significantly smaller than in my previous supersized life. "



I always wonder about the tree huggers who think that buying carbon offsets actually make things better.... IOW, if you are consuming carbon, you are consuming carbon.... paying someone else to comsume less carbon does not help.... they might have consumed less anyhow and you feel good even though you are a polluter...

 

[Marita40]

I spent several semesters teaching abroad, and brought only 1 large suitcase with pretty much everything I needed for 6 months in it. Although I live pretty simply anyhow, I found it enormously liberating to have just one small closet and one drawers of clothes and possessions. I didn't find myself lacking for anything and gained an enormous amount of time. I was also without a TV and did not miss it. Here in MN I moved to a condo a few year's ago and while it is plenty big for one person (1400 sq ft) the storage space is minimal. I very much like the fact that I have so little storage. No storage = no accumulated "stuff." Less stuff = less maintenence and more time. It is really not rocket science to figure that out.

 

[Walt34]

After decluttering my parent's house, I took a good look at myself. I have too much stuff. But just a little too much. I still need some stuff. It has all been mentioned above... and I think the term moderation is good. I just need to back off a bit.

We are having that experience too, after selling FIL's house. He didn't have much stuff, almost Spartan, but even we were surprised at the volume. And it is making us taking a new look at us and our stuff.

That said, preferences are all over the map, just as people are and one size does not fit all.

 

[Texas Proud]

I also think this article is a self promotion of his new business...

He said he has designed the small living space he is in now and is going to try and sell everybody else on the same thing...

"Buy from me because I know better"..... is what I think he is saying...

 

[rodi]

From the article

Seventy-five percent of the families involved in the study couldn’t park their cars in their garages because they were too jammed with things.

I can vouch that this is true in my neighborhood of old-school 2 car garages. Very few of our neighbors park their cars in the garage. Because their garages are full of "stuff".

Typically your car is your second largest expense to purchase (behind your home). Yet we fill our garages full of stuff that would bring in a few hundred dollars at a garage sale, and park our cars outside to be subject to the elements.

My husband has made a point of us keeping both our cars in our garage. It takes work. Stuff accumulates. Bikes are hung off the ceiling and the walls. We have shelves on the perimeter to hold the stuff that needs to be kept under cover, but not in the house (paint, fertilizer, gardening tools, the push reel lawn mower.)

I would estimate there are only 3 or 4 houses on our street (of about 25 houses) that have both cars in the garage. Another 5-6 park one car in the garage. The rest have their cars outside the garage.

One of my first goals, upon ER, is to declutter... or my term "de-crapify" my house. Get rid of the college text books I've hung onto. Scan and shred the paper I've hung onto. Go through everything and purge.

 

[Nemo2]

Hello, my name is Sarah, and I have a travel problem. And a great big honking carbon footprint! And I'm okay with that, myself.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

One of my first goals, upon ER, is to declutter... or my term "de-crapify" my house. Get rid of the college text books I've hung onto. Scan and shred the paper I've hung onto. Go through everything and purge.

I don't even know how many car loads of stuff we have sold, donated and recycled and haven't missed a single thing. The scary part is we aren't even half done. The cool part is that when we are done we will be able to slash our expenses and free up a lot of time by having a much smaller and easier to maintain house. And we can find things easier these days!

Another plus is that we've made a bit of extra cash, too, from the stuff we sold.

 

[bondi688]

I also think this article is a self promotion of his new business...

He said he has designed the small living space he is in now and is going to try and sell everybody else on the same thing...

"Buy from me because I know better"..... is what I think he is saying...

I agree. It was a unpaid ad for his designer small living space business, courtesy of the NYT.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I agree. It was a unpaid ad for his designer small living space business, courtesy of the NYT.

Bingo.

 

[Grigori]

To each his own. I'm inspired.

I think this guy reminds us that we can choose how much "stuff" we have. He isn't trying to force anybody.

That's 8 less books I buy this month that will fall on DW's head. Another $100 for retirement.

 

[FIREd]

I generally appreciate the "living with less" mindset. But this article didn't do it for me for several reasons that others have touched on (it's an ad for his business, it's a lecture from an extreme consumer turned extreme minimalist, it's easy to be a happy minimalist when one has lots of dough in the bank).

 

[ERD50]

I agree. It was a unpaid ad for his designer small living space business, courtesy of the NYT.

Bingo.

Ah-hah! So I guess my 'spidey-sense' was right when I felt like I was being 'sold' something, rather than having someone 'share' an experience with me?

I don't even know how many car loads of stuff we have sold, donated and recycled and haven't missed a single thing. The scary part is we aren't even half done. The cool part is that when we are done we will be able to slash our expenses and free up a lot of time by having a much smaller and easier to maintain house. And we can find things easier these days!

Another plus is that we've made a bit of extra cash, too, from the stuff we sold.

That's fine, but I guess I still don't see the value in this guy telling/selling us that, we don't instinctively know this?

I'm not living in a largish house to hold my 'stuff', I hold some 'stuff' because I happen to have a largish house, and have the space. We raised three kids here, and have it re-modeled to the point we don't really care to move right now. One day we will downsize, and it will be easy to get rid of lots of stuff. W/O a workshop, I don't need that stack of wood that I might use someday, or extra plumbing parts, extra tiles, carpet remnants, and other spare parts from re-models that I might use one day. The CDs and LPs that I've now got on a hard drive (and backed up) could be done away with - but as long as I have room, why not just keep 'em (there are some legalities/ethical issues in giving them away or selling them)?

I guess I'm saying, I control my stuff, my stuff does not control me. I think that is the measure, not 'how much' you have.

-ERD50

 

[Meadbh]

I don't even know how many car loads of stuff we have sold, donated and recycled and haven't missed a single thing. The scary part is we aren't even half done. The cool part is that when we are done we will be able to slash our expenses and free up a lot of time by having a much smaller and easier to maintain house. And we can find things easier these days!

Another plus is that we've made a bit of extra cash, too, from the stuff we sold.

When we buy stuff, do we ever think about its life cycle cost to us? Let's say I bought a spiffy new Betamax player 30 years ago, and it has been obsolete for decades. Other than as an antique, it has no value. In fact, it's value is negative, because it is taking up space. Perhaps I moved long distance and had it trucked at considerable expense. I may never be able to sell it. So there is a great deal of waste involved in acquisition of stuff. Nowadays I find myself thinking of the product life cycle whenever I am considering a purchase. Do I really need this? Living in a smaller space is also an incentive to sell or donate stuff that I no longer have a use for.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

That's fine, but I guess I still don't see the value in this guy telling/selling us that, we don't instinctively know this?

If you instinctively know this you are much smarter than me and a lot of our former co-workers. It took a lot of reading, forum participation and watching House Hunters International for us to get it.

Many of the people we used to work with would like to retire, hate their jobs, have long commutes, work overtime, live in big houses with garages filled with stuff, own expensive cars that sit out in the elements, have storage units for stuff they never use, and they don't see an easy way out. Simple living / the Money or Your Life book could provide that way out for them.

 

[marko]

I agree. It was a unpaid ad for his designer small living space business, courtesy of the NYT.

In some countries it might be viewed as a propaganda piece on the wonderfulness of "living without".

"See, you don't need all that stuff those capitalists throw at you. All you need is a meager roof over your head and a bowl of soup...everything else leads to misery (now get back to work!)"

 

[imoldernu]

I'm not living in a largish house to hold my 'stuff', I hold some 'stuff' because I happen to have a largish house, and have the space. We raised three kids here, and have it re-modeled to the point we don't really care to move right now. One day we will downsize, and it will be easy to get rid of lots of stuff. W/O a workshop, I don't need that stack of wood that I might use someday, or extra plumbing parts, extra tiles, carpet remnants, and other spare parts from re-models that I might use one day. The CDs and LPs that I've now got on a hard drive (and backed up) could be done away with - but as long as I have room, why not just keep 'em (there are some legalities/ethical issues in giving them away or selling them)?

I guess I'm saying, I control my stuff, my stuff does not control me. I think that is the measure, not 'how much' you have.

+1

Stuff is a hobby for me. House is not cluttered, but tons of stuff that I buy from the resale shops, (never spend more than $2), take apart, get to work, then play with... and eventually return to another resale shop where they price it higher, and the proceeds go to 'PADs' our local homeless shelter.

A cross between American Picker, and Hoarders.

At no time more than will fill a few canvas waste management tubs.

+1 also on spare parts... the few times is toss them, I end up needing them the next day, and have to pay top dollar.

With all of that, after being in a Japanese household in Tokyo, am sure I could live like that... family of 4, in about 200 s.f. Tatami mats, paper screens, single electric plate, two changes of clothes, and 3 cu. ft refrigerator.

http://freshome.com/2012/10/01/bes-small-apartments-designs-ideas/

"Stuff expands to overfill the space allocated to it's intended use."

 

[HFWR]

Sheesh, and I thought I was cynical...

 

[kevink]

I have no problem with the article's recommendation to own less stuff and take up less space, but the fact that the author is a multimillionaire using the piece to make still more money = right message, wrong author IMHO.

I know plenty of people in the U.S. who have no choice but to "live on less," and then there's the small matter of the rest of the world. Remember this slide show with the total household possessions of various people around the planet? Kinda eye-opening:

Everything You Own In A Photo: A Look At Our Worldly Possessions : The Picture Show : NPR