<i>Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk.</i><p>Thats about the best way of putting it I've come across. It can be <i>perceived</i> risk as well. One thing I noticed when clearing out my depression-era grandparents house is that they basically saved everything they had a hard time getting at any point. My grandfather had a garage full of glass jars because there was a time in his life when he literally could not afford/find a simple glass jar when he needed one. The more I think about that, the more it freaks me out. I have a hard disk full of MP3 files...
I'm traveling the world and living on $40 a day. I have a $300 netbook, an iPhone 4S which i could live without because it isn't unlocked so it is just an mp3 player, and a $70 kindle. No you don't have to be rich to live a minimalist life style. You have to be vigilant about it. For food I am living frugally, making lentil soup or pasta. These things don't require much room.<p>All the things that I own at this point in time fall into at least one of these three categories.<p>1. Help me reach goals or aspirations (computer, camera)<p>2. Make my life simpler and safer (Water bottle, Telephone, multi-tool, clothes, accessories)<p>3. Provide or improve an experience (kindle, speakers/headphones)<p>The one thing these three categories share is function. Everything you own should have function and it should be consistently used/appreciated.<p>Here is to a life, instead of bought, lived.
"Poor people don’t have clutter because they’re too dumb to see the virtue of living simply; they have it to reduce risk."<p>Close but not quite. In my case at least it's true that when I was poor I accumulated stuff largely out of fear of scarcity, but the various "perfectly good" bits of junk I accumulated didn't actually reduce my risk in any way. If you replaced "to reduce risk" with "because they unconsciously and mistakenly believe it will reduce risk" you'd be close to the truth.<p>And while it would be harsh to call people still living in the grip of that illusion "dumb" on account of it, it is in fact an illusion.
I shared some similar sentiments about owning things in previously submission. (<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5364482" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5364482</a>)<p>---<p>To each his own for me. Having less didn't allow me to enjoy or experience special things that having more somehow prevented from experiencing as the author would describe. In fact, having more was way better than having less for me.<p>Last 5 years, I moved around to various cities Canada and US every 4 to 8 months or so going to school and working on internships. By necessity, I had to pack light, really light. No car obviously. I was a poor student. I had only one furniture, a bed, and I got that only after I started to have lady friends over. Before that, I slept in sleeping bag for months. I had very few cloths and only thing I had extra were my underwear and socks. And I guess only thing of value I carried around was my Macbook. I didn't even have a smart phone until this last month. I used cheap Huawei prepaid phone drug dealers use as their second phone. I probably had a little more stuff than an average homeless person in that I had a roof over where I slept.<p>It was definately an "experience" alright. I had ended the life of plentifuly that I took granted in high school, and went onto a subsistence living by the North American standard of extreme minimalism for 5 years. Sure, I learned to inspect what my true needs were and had a good discipline to spend on things I needed, not wanted. However, was that learning worth 5 years of discomfort and annoyance?<p>Since January this year, I finally decided to settle. I was done with school and I found a good roommate to share furnitures and kitchenwares with. I had a lot of fun decorating my room, living room and kitchen. It's been awesome since then. I felt so much more comfortable with things around.<p>To put it bluntly, there wasn't anything romantic about living with less stuff. I haven't experienced or felt different things that you would not feel through living with plenty of things.
In 21st century western civilization, most of us are incredibly wealthy. We live like kings of old able to eat produce and spices from the far corners of the earth.
Yes, if you have more money you don't need as many things. But in the long term I think that minimalism is going to recede as a social indicator. The reason why has been sneaking up on us for a while: The digital world is becoming more encumbered. People are realizing that they don't have much control over their data and their 'purchased' media. Services disappear regularly along with what we've invested in them.<p>What's the alternative? Well, currently, there is more freedom in the physical space, and people are slowly realizing that physicality has an upside.<p>I think we're due for a `Neo-Materialist' movement. <i>Maker Culture</i> is growing and moving beyond bohemian. I have friends with cluttered living spaces and in most cases it is not due to not having enough money to have fewer things. It is just a choice away from the <i>Eastern-esque Steve Jobs-ian</i> "let's have fewer things" aesthetic.<p>It's becoming more common to have a set of <i>maker</i> and <i>made</i> things that you love and show, and to treat living space as workspace. Buzz around 3D printing may accelerate the trend. Culturally, I'm not sure that this will completely overtake design minimalism, but it has a decent chance.
While I mostly agree with the author's conclusion, which matches my anecdotal experience, the argument presented seems a little weak... I'd be interested to see some data backing it up, though I imagine it's a hard thing to quantify.<p>Somewhat related: I lost ~90% of my belongings when my apartment flooded during Hurricane Sandy, which has totally changed my perspective on the inherent risks of material ownership. It may seem like a good idea to pay a 50% (or even more) premium for some items because "it'll last way longer than the cheap alternative" but if it gets catastrophically destroyed, the point is moot. The <i>best</i> thing you can do for yourself as a renter (assuming repurchasing everything you own would make a significant dent in your savings) is to buy renter's insurance WITH natural disaster coverage - most standard renter's insurance coverage does NOT cover natural disasters but it is usually available for not too much more. In general, you can expect to pay less than $200/year (often around $100/year) to insure an apartment, which is a small price to pay for peace of mind.
I'm not rich but I hate material things. I don't even own a laptop and I'm glad I don't need it.<p>It's frustrating for me when physical things break. It's not just because things break, but because you have to either repair then or buy a new stuff to replace. Both are burdens to me because I hate buying and I absolutely loathe not repairing things myself (which is kind of usual because most things are not repairable nowadays).<p>My solution was to have as few as possible and keep it low-tech so I can repair it myself.<p>It works because I can't afford travelling and my town is small, so I'm close to everything I need. I can relate to the post there: when I travel I pack an awful lot.<p>But... does @vruba really need all that stuff he carries around? Maybe it's his lifestyle and not his income what forces him to have so much. I rarely carry anything but my keys and a credit card for emergencies (which I seldomly use...)<p>When you don't need, there are no risks.
I would agree with the author that living with less may not be as applicable to his particular situation.<p>However, I don't believe the original article, which he is criticizing, was ever targeted at those with lower incomes. In fact, it is quite clear in the second paragraph of _Living With Less_ that the author is writing for the benefit of other better off folks like himself.<p>It's a common pitfall to buy more and more stuff as you become more and more wealthy and there is merit to the advice that if you are doing well enough, you should focus on living with less. It will help you stay nimble and focused and will probably help you maintain your trajectory and find true happiness to compliment your wealth.
Reminds me of a rich-guy I knew who liked to travel light. For some trips he wouldn't pack stuff. Instead he'd obtain new clothes at his destination, wear them while there, and then simply leave them behind. No muss. No fuss. No clutter.
For a funnier and lighter response to Graham Hill, I highly recommend this piece from bike snob:<p><a href="http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-walls-kept-closing-in.html" rel="nofollow">http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-walls-kept...</a><p>"Sure, life can be a bit easier if you trim the proverbial fat now and again, but this is hardly a revelation to anybody except a minimalist like Graham Hill, for whom even the basic mechanics of life are all transcendent."
Consumerism is driven by our natural susceptibility to peer pressure coupled with the evolution of symbiotic corporate entities that have adapted to make advertising ever more effective and ubiquitous. The problem is that consumerism is now the dominant way we distribute wealth. If everyone suddenly started living simpler, the economy would collapse. Quitting consumerism cold turkey would be like quitting heroin.
> If you see someone on the street dressed like a middle-class person (say, in clean jeans and a striped shirt), how do you know whether they’re lower middle class or upper middle class?<p>Nonsense! You don't know anything about someone's economic class based on their appearance.
I guess it's natural for successful people to be treated like sages, but I've commonly had the same feeling the OP expressed - you have to wade through people's 'wisdom'. Sometimes they are just out of touch.
This is accurate. Being poor is expensive (paradoxically?) in a lot of ways. One of them is the amount of attention that you have to give to stupid details, and the amount of stuff you end up lugging around. It clutters your life to be poor.<p>That NYT article was just douche-tastic. As someone who genuinely detests consumerism, I can't tolerate that whole "I'm rich and enlightened so I've given up stuff" braggadocio. That <i>is</i> consumerism. Only an idiot wouldn't see that. (Of course, there are genuine minimalists out there and I have no problem with that.)<p>I also hate the people who think <i>travel</i> makes them more interesting and virtuous. Most people, most cases? No, not at all. You might become more interesting if you spend a month in an Indian monastery, or building schools in Africa. However, going to clubs and getting drunk doesn't count. You can do that here. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's recreation, not automatically a promotion of the spirit.