Author Topic: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering  (Read 8436 times)

Nudel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Location: Great White North...Koo-lo-ko-ko-koo-lo-ko-ko!
NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« on: July 20, 2016, 08:59:18 AM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/opinion/the-class-politics-of-decluttering.html?_r=0

Lots of us have been on the poorer end of the scale, I don't believe this article applies in the way it was intended. The desire for more stuff is out there. Letting go of items you no longer need/use/love is important. Being suckered in, consumer-sucka-style, touches everyone not just the poor, not just the rich, not just the in betweeners.

While I was reading I was thinking, "No, it's still just stuff." The memory of the item will not be taken away if you give the item to a charity.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #1 on: July 20, 2016, 09:23:35 AM »
Let me get this straight...
The author thinks that the well off who decide to own less should not celebrate owning less because it shames those not well off who have the desire, but not the means, to own more.


..what?!    In what world does eschewing the material items that instill a notion of class perpetuate a notion of class?

I still... just don't get it.. why exactly should we give a free "consume sucka" pass to the less well to do? Haven't we learned the lesson (furniture rentals, anyone?) that it is the consume sucka lifestyle that exacerbates financial insecurity?!
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 09:26:16 AM by JZinCO »

rosaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2016, 09:32:08 AM »
Yeah I thought that was a bit off, especially since poorer people (at least in cities) will generally have smaller homes, and the effects a bunch of unnecessary stuff will have on their house will be that much greater.

I could see an argument for poorer people to place a greater weight on usefulness - like, maybe a rich person who hasn't worn a suit in 10 years would throw out his one suit, knowing he can buy another one if the occasion does arise, but a poor person in the same situation should keep it, in case the need for a job interview crops up or something. But that still doesn't justify cluttering up a small place with stuff that is neither joyful nor useful.

MrsDinero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #3 on: July 20, 2016, 10:07:03 AM »
I've gotten into this conversation with a friend of mine who makes considerably less than I do.  Over the years when I would go visit she would ask me to help her organize her house. At first I would try but everytime I suggested she get rid of something she would say "I can't because I can't afford to replace it."  Even though she had a lot of clothes I knew she would never wear again (hot pink, puffy sleeve jacket) she refused always with the same response.

In her defense she doesn't want to be a minimalist, she loves having all her little knicknacks all over the place, every surface covered, etc, whereas I like to see clean, uncluttered spaces.

As I've gotten more in minimalism and purging I can see that she is partly right.  One of the things about tossing something out, is I know that if I ever need it again I can go out and buy another.  For example I toss out a widget that cost me $30.  I haven't used this widget in years, but 6 months later I find I actually need this widget, I can go out and buy it again for $30 because $30 equates to less than 1 hour of work for me.  My friend on the other hand would need to work 3 full days in order to be able to afford to replace the $30 widget. 

Im some case junk is still just junk like that puffy hot pink jacket.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #4 on: July 20, 2016, 10:31:06 AM »
Minimalism doesn't mean getting rid of everything. It means being very discerning when you consider purchasing something and being considerate of the (monetary, emotional, etc) costs of ownership.
If your friend asked me I would say: Keep it if it brings you joy or utility. If it doesn't or hasn't done either than you made a mistake purchasing something, something you cannot afford. Being poor is not an excuse to hoard.

MrsDinero, I really believe that the logic is faulty when you say: "One of the things about tossing something out, is I know that if I ever need it again I can go out and buy another." and when you say your friend can't afford to replace something. Minimalism isn't about buying things waiting for obsolescence, trashing it and then repurchasing. It's about breaking the chain of mindless consumerism on the front end and realizing that life still is amazing living without product X. So really we need to focus not on "I can't afford" but on "replace it".

I'm currently in a months long process with my SO helping her pare down her clutter. One of the things we have gone through is the emotional pain of producing landfill waste. Most people see two options: Send it to the landfill, buy it later if needed, or avoid the pain of landfilling by hoarding and make one's domicile a landfill in the process. But minimalism is about option 3: Recognize that when considering a purchase, know that everything goes to the landfill at some point. The same thing applies when we consider the effect of ownership on pocketbooks. Another issue we face is that "decluttering" for her means having options for owning new items whereas I see the cycle of decluttering and consuming as a sisyphean curse.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 10:33:46 AM by JZinCO »

MrsDinero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #5 on: July 20, 2016, 10:53:50 AM »
Minimalism doesn't mean getting rid of everything. It means being very discerning when you consider purchasing something and being considerate of the (monetary, emotional, etc) costs of ownership.
If your friend asked me I would say: Keep it if it brings you joy or utility. If it doesn't or hasn't done either than you made a mistake purchasing something, something you cannot afford. Being poor is not an excuse to hoard.

MrsDinero, I really believe that the logic is faulty when you say: "One of the things about tossing something out, is I know that if I ever need it again I can go out and buy another." and when you say your friend can't afford to replace something. Minimalism isn't about buying things waiting for obsolescence, trashing it and then repurchasing. It's about breaking the chain of mindless consumerism on the front end and realizing that life still is amazing living without product X. So really we need to focus not on "I can't afford" but on "replace it".

I'm currently in a months long process with my SO helping her pare down her clutter. One of the things we have gone through is the emotional pain of producing landfill waste. Most people see two options: Send it to the landfill, buy it later if needed, or avoid the pain of landfilling by hoarding and make one's domicile a landfill in the process. But minimalism is about option 3: Recognize that when considering a purchase, know that everything goes to the landfill at some point. The same thing applies when we consider the effect of ownership on pocketbooks. Another issue we face is that "decluttering" for her means having options for owning new items whereas I see the cycle of decluttering and consuming as a sisyphean curse.

My point was that it is easier for me, higher income, to replace something.  For her it is not so easy which is why I understand her wanting to hang on to everything regardless of what it bring to her life.


JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2016, 11:33:54 AM »
Being poor is not an excuse to hoard.

I think you missed the entire mark. If your friend cannot afford to replace something they never could afford to buy it in the first place, hence they should break the chain! I don't want to own things that I can't replace. Can you imagine fretting about what if this does or does not break? Or thinking, would my life go to shit if I lost this item?

I just don't buy into the need to live that lifestyle where your material goods put you at financial insecurity. It is entirely possible in our county of rich and abundance to not have to worry about costs of replacement. Going back to my prior post, the problem isn't about "afford", the problem is the desire to own things that probably shouldn't be desired.

One more example, person A owns a house and has a spare water heater, just in case and it clutters the garage. They can't afford to go buy a new one or even a used one. Is the problem they can't afford a water heater if the one in use breaks? Or that they desired to own a home even though it put them at financial insecurity?

Geez, I don't understand why it is so hard to envision the idea that you don't have to own shit. It's a voluntary luxury to go beyond the basic neccesities. It shouldn't trap you or force you to change your lifestyle and behavior.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2016, 11:37:56 AM by JZinCO »

dcheesi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1309
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2016, 01:10:31 PM »
Being poor is not an excuse to hoard.

I think you missed the entire mark. If your friend cannot afford to replace something they never could afford to buy it in the first place, hence they should break the chain! I don't want to own things that I can't replace. Can you imagine fretting about what if this does or does not break? Or thinking, would my life go to shit if I lost this item?

I just don't buy into the need to live that lifestyle where your material goods put you at financial insecurity. It is entirely possible in our county of rich and abundance to not have to worry about costs of replacement. Going back to my prior post, the problem isn't about "afford", the problem is the desire to own things that probably shouldn't be desired.

One more example, person A owns a house and has a spare water heater, just in case and it clutters the garage. They can't afford to go buy a new one or even a used one. Is the problem they can't afford a water heater if the one in use breaks? Or that they desired to own a home even though it put them at financial insecurity?

Geez, I don't understand why it is so hard to envision the idea that you don't have to own shit. It's a voluntary luxury to go beyond the basic neccesities. It shouldn't trap you or force you to change your lifestyle and behavior.
A couple of points here:
  • Peoples' circumstances change; they may very well have been able to afford an item when they bought it, but now they couldn't afford to replace it.

  • There's a difference between wants and needs. Some items lay there unused until a specific situation arises, at which time they become indispensible. Obviously safety and medical items fit this category, but some less obvious things may too. The suit example that rosaz mentioned is a good one: sometimes a decent suit makes the difference in getting hired or not, or influences the outcome in a court case.

  • Finally, I don't think it's reasonable to expect ever poor person to be a perfect stoic sage, foregoing even the most basic of comforts just because they can't afford to replace everything. People are human, they're going to want some decent things even if it's temporary.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2016, 02:10:36 PM »
"Those are people teetering on or even below the poverty level, desperate for comfort in their homes. To point to them as a reason to start an anti-consumerism movement is just another form of social shaming. Those aren’t the people who would benefit from a minimalist life. They can’t afford to do with less."

I'd argue that they're the primary beneficiaries of doing more with less and that social shaming might actually push them into benefiting from a more minimalist lifestyle change by pushing them to reevaluate their priorities and what makes them happy. This is whole idea behind what Financial Freedom Through Badassery is, at least my interpretation, and how everyone can in some way benefit from it even if it's just a better understanding of oneself. Moreover, I dislike articles that seek to divide us by categorizing large swathes of the population into classes, attributing broad behaviors and situations to classes, and pointing to a group and labeling them as victims who we shouldn't 'shame'. It's patronizing for the people at or below the poverty line, and it's not conducive to real change.

Squirrel away

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Location: United Kingdom
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2016, 03:45:19 AM »
When she said she had to downsize when she moved into a 400 sq foot studio she said she got rid of carloads of stuff, why didn't she keep some of the most precious things? She mentions paintings she did as a child and artwork which could have been hung up on the walls. I still keep a couple of childhood things and some old photos as a minimalist living in a small home. To me it's all about keeping the things in your lfe that mean something to you and getting rid of all the unnecessary crap.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2016, 06:53:27 AM »
Eh...I didn't read the article, but I sort of see the point.  In my experience, houses of poor or lower class people tend to be more cluttered.  However, they aren't really cluttered with useful stuff, but mostly knick knacks and junk, figurines, collectables and such.  So the idea that they are saving all these useful things in case they need them later doesn't really ring true. 

Papa Mustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
  • Location: Humidity, USA
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2016, 09:08:29 AM »
It disguises their poverty for them. They feel like they have stuff even if it isn't good stuff. Something to show off a bit. For some I think it is consumption therapy but they are buying knick-knacks vs jetskis.

Quantity vs quality.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 08:34:05 AM by Mybigtoe »

Rural

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5051
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2016, 01:20:57 PM »
The article is spot on and is exactly what I've been saying in the Kondo thread in this forum. Buying and then throwing out "stuff" is offensive to those who can't buy the basics, is detrimental in the extreme to the environment, and is the best example I know of antimustachianism.


Though I don't buy the justification of Black Friday shopping for televisions there at the end. Tools, maybe.

Squirrel away

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Location: United Kingdom
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2016, 01:30:30 PM »
The article is spot on and is exactly what I've been saying in the Kondo thread in this forum. Buying and then throwing out "stuff" is offensive to those who can't buy the basics, is detrimental in the extreme to the environment, and is the best example I know of antimustachianism.

I have donated or gifted the vast majority of stuff I have decluttered from my home. :)

MrsDinero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2016, 01:40:46 PM »
The article is spot on and is exactly what I've been saying in the Kondo thread in this forum. Buying and then throwing out "stuff" is offensive to those who can't buy the basics, is detrimental in the extreme to the environment, and is the best example I know of antimustachianism.


Though I don't buy the justification of Black Friday shopping for televisions there at the end. Tools, maybe.

I donate, gift, recycle, or sell most of the stuff I declutter. The things I can't I usually feel very guilty about putting them in the landfill.  For the most part we don't being new stuff in the house that can't be easily gotten rid of through non-landfill means.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2016, 01:57:24 PM »
Buying and then throwing out "stuff" is offensive to those who can't buy the basics, is detrimental in the extreme to the environment, and is the best example I know of antimustachianism.

As I said above, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of minimalism.
What you describe is hyperconsumerism

Rural

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5051
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2016, 02:11:40 PM »
Buying and then throwing out "stuff" is offensive to those who can't buy the basics, is detrimental in the extreme to the environment, and is the best example I know of antimustachianism.

As I said above, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of minimalism.
What you describe is hyperconsumerism


But the article is about decluttering. That means the hyper consumerism is in place. A lifelong practicing minimalist doesn't have to declutter, and someone who makes a real change to minimalism will never have to declutter again (which we know isn't what happens in most cases) and won't have to plan to re-buy anything.

Squirrel away

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Location: United Kingdom
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2016, 02:32:53 PM »
I think it is easy for someone who lives in certain areas, eg: rural areas with very large plot sizes or an area with low/medium house prices to be unappreciative for the space they have, but other people aren't so lucky. Marie Kondo is from Japan and I live in London and space is at a premium here unless you are very rich.

Mindful decluttering and minimalism has been very valuable to me as it has made me value the space I have by getting rid of the stuff I don't need or use.:)

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2016, 02:38:29 PM »
Buying and then throwing out "stuff" is offensive to those who can't buy the basics, is detrimental in the extreme to the environment, and is the best example I know of antimustachianism.

As I said above, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of minimalism.
What you describe is hyperconsumerism


But the article is about decluttering. That means the hyper consumerism is in place. A lifelong practicing minimalist doesn't have to declutter, and someone who makes a real change to minimalism will never have to declutter again (which we know isn't what happens in most cases) and won't have to plan to re-buy anything.
I agree with your premise that there is a difference between the behaviors between a minimalist and a "hyperconsumer" (i.e. exhibiting cycles of consumerism and decluttering). However, the author specifically notes she (1) is using "decluttering" as a synonym for minimalism and (2) references minimalists Marie Kondo, Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus as flagbearers of the decluttering movement. Hence I think your critique is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Saying it again: It makes no sense to begrudge a philosophy of owning fewer material goods, regardless of how well to do they are (in fact I would argue that the poorer should be more engaged in the discussion as consumerism puts them at greater financial risk). I'm really baffled; minimalism is loosely a tenet of mustachianism since Pete decries spendy pants wastefulness.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 02:44:59 PM by JZinCO »

Rural

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5051
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2016, 03:29:51 PM »
Buying and then throwing out "stuff" is offensive to those who can't buy the basics, is detrimental in the extreme to the environment, and is the best example I know of antimustachianism.

As I said above, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of minimalism.
What you describe is hyperconsumerism


But the article is about decluttering. That means the hyper consumerism is in place. A lifelong practicing minimalist doesn't have to declutter, and someone who makes a real change to minimalism will never have to declutter again (which we know isn't what happens in most cases) and won't have to plan to re-buy anything.
I agree with your premise that there is a difference between the behaviors between a minimalist and a "hyperconsumer" (i.e. exhibiting cycles of consumerism and decluttering). However, the author specifically notes she (1) is using "decluttering" as a synonym for minimalism and (2) references minimalists Marie Kondo, Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus as flagbearers of the decluttering movement. Hence I think your critique is irrelevant to the topic at hand.


No, really, she doesn't re: the bolded above. She puts "minimalism" in quotation marks, problematizing the word deliberately, as opposed to decluttering, which is not in quotation marks in the same passage. Here's the quote:


Quote
To its advocates, decluttering, or “minimalism,” is about more than just maximizing space: “By clearing the clutter from life’s path, we can all make room for the most important aspects of life: health, relationships, passion, growth and contribution,” say Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus, hosts of “The Minimalists” podcast.

You may not agree, but the author, like me, sees the minimalism movement as mostly a trend of maybe-serial decluttering and rebuying. And that's a problem and a reflection of mindless privilege.

ETA: the "movement" is the problem and a reflection of mindless privilege. Any mustachians who actually make a lifelong change excepted, but as in most things, we are the exceptions.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 03:33:44 PM by Rural »

Rural

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5051
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2016, 03:35:46 PM »
I think it is easy for someone who lives in certain areas, eg: rural areas with very large plot sizes or an area with low/medium house prices to be unappreciative for the space they have, but other people aren't so lucky. Marie Kondo is from Japan and I live in London and space is at a premium here unless you are very rich.

Mindful decluttering and minimalism has been very valuable to me as it has made me value the space I have by getting rid of the stuff I don't need or use.:)


The point is, if you had a bunch of stuff you didn't need or use, you were already part of the problem. You can, of course, mitigate that and make a change going forward, but it shouldn't be a society-level trend because having too much stuff should always be an exceptional circumstance.

Squirrel away

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Location: United Kingdom
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2016, 03:52:49 PM »
I think it is easy for someone who lives in certain areas, eg: rural areas with very large plot sizes or an area with low/medium house prices to be unappreciative for the space they have, but other people aren't so lucky. Marie Kondo is from Japan and I live in London and space is at a premium here unless you are very rich.

Mindful decluttering and minimalism has been very valuable to me as it has made me value the space I have by getting rid of the stuff I don't need or use.:)


The point is, if you had a bunch of stuff you didn't need or use, you were already part of the problem. You can, of course, mitigate that and make a change going forward, but it shouldn't be a society-level trend because having too much stuff should always be an exceptional circumstance.

Thanks, it makes me laugh as I haven't been on this forum for a while and I forgot that some of the people on here are always so sweet and non-judgemental. That is sarcasm obviously.

I did have stuff that I didn't use or want and I donated it to charity, I'm not sure why that would be a negative thing.

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2016, 04:12:44 PM »
The article is spot on and is exactly what I've been saying in the Kondo thread in this forum. Buying and then throwing out "stuff" is offensive to those who can't buy the basics, is detrimental in the extreme to the environment, and is the best example I know of antimustachianism.


Though I don't buy the justification of Black Friday shopping for televisions there at the end. Tools, maybe.
I agree with you that buying and then throwing out stuff isn't mustachian, but I think a lot of clutter comes about in a different way.

Most of the stuff I have decluttered have been things inherited from older relatives, from my children outgrowing things and moving out, and from moving from a house (with the requisite tools and yard care stuff) to an apartment.  Although I will admit to making a purchase or two in my life that were mistakes...

Rural

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5051
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2016, 04:13:17 PM »
I think it is easy for someone who lives in certain areas, eg: rural areas with very large plot sizes or an area with low/medium house prices to be unappreciative for the space they have, but other people aren't so lucky. Marie Kondo is from Japan and I live in London and space is at a premium here unless you are very rich.

Mindful decluttering and minimalism has been very valuable to me as it has made me value the space I have by getting rid of the stuff I don't need or use.:)


The point is, if you had a bunch of stuff you didn't need or use, you were already part of the problem. You can, of course, mitigate that and make a change going forward, but it shouldn't be a society-level trend because having too much stuff should always be an exceptional circumstance.

Thanks, it makes me laugh as I haven't been on this forum for a while and I forgot that some of the people on here are always so sweet and non-judgemental. That is sarcasm obviously.

I did have stuff that I didn't use or want and I donated it to charity, I'm not sure why that would be a negative thing.


Because we're trying to avoid excessive consumerism, but I didn't mean to single you out as if to say, "you're part of the problem and I am not." I see how it came across that way,and I apologize. I too am part of the problem at times.


But if we are getting rid of functional or repairable items, we are part of the problem. Giving to charity helps, and I think there's a real argument that could be made that we can nearly eliminate our addition to the waste stream if we only bring in secondhand items in the first place. But celebrating "minimalism" when what we actually mean is a massive getting-rid-of project overlooks the environmental toll of too much stuff in the first place (my primary objection to the trend) and also overlooks the privilege associated (a secondary concern for me but what the NYT article is about). Oh, and the primary problem from a mustachian perspective: it overlooks how neatly the trend feeds into hyperconsumerism on a social scale,as the trend will end and most proponents will then re-buy more and "better" stuff when the next trend comes along.


We need a better way of talking about it, not Marie Kondo's emphasis on getting rid of things that don't "spark joy" for us.

Squirrel away

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Location: United Kingdom
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #24 on: July 21, 2016, 04:21:10 PM »
I think it is easy for someone who lives in certain areas, eg: rural areas with very large plot sizes or an area with low/medium house prices to be unappreciative for the space they have, but other people aren't so lucky. Marie Kondo is from Japan and I live in London and space is at a premium here unless you are very rich.

Mindful decluttering and minimalism has been very valuable to me as it has made me value the space I have by getting rid of the stuff I don't need or use.:)


The point is, if you had a bunch of stuff you didn't need or use, you were already part of the problem. You can, of course, mitigate that and make a change going forward, but it shouldn't be a society-level trend because having too much stuff should always be an exceptional circumstance.

Thanks, it makes me laugh as I haven't been on this forum for a while and I forgot that some of the people on here are always so sweet and non-judgemental. That is sarcasm obviously.

I did have stuff that I didn't use or want and I donated it to charity, I'm not sure why that would be a negative thing.


Because we're trying to avoid excessive consumerism, but I didn't mean to single you out as if to say, "you're part of the problem and I am not." I see how it came across that way,and I apologize. I too am part of the problem at times.


But if we are getting rid of functional or repairable items, we are part of the problem. Giving to charity helps, and I think there's a real argument that could be made that we can nearly eliminate our addition to the waste stream if we only bring in secondhand items in the first place. But celebrating "minimalism" when what we actually mean is a massive getting-rid-of project overlooks the environmental toll of too much stuff in the first place (my primary objection to the trend) and also overlooks the privilege associated (a secondary concern for me but what the NYT article is about). Oh, and the primary problem from a mustachian perspective: it overlooks how neatly the trend feeds into hyperconsumerism on a social scale,as the trend will end and most proponents will then re-buy more and "better" stuff when the next trend comes along.


We need a better way of talking about it, not Marie Kondo's emphasis on getting rid of things that don't "spark joy" for us.

Thanks. x Sorry, actually I probably did snap at you.

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #25 on: July 21, 2016, 04:24:39 PM »
Squirrel and Rural - you two should've written the article - you would've done a better job.  Ms. Land's "woe is me" attitude just made me tired.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 04:38:33 PM by stoaX »

Rural

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5051
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #26 on: July 21, 2016, 04:33:42 PM »
I think it is easy for someone who lives in certain areas, eg: rural areas with very large plot sizes or an area with low/medium house prices to be unappreciative for the space they have, but other people aren't so lucky. Marie Kondo is from Japan and I live in London and space is at a premium here unless you are very rich.

Mindful decluttering and minimalism has been very valuable to me as it has made me value the space I have by getting rid of the stuff I don't need or use.:)


The point is, if you had a bunch of stuff you didn't need or use, you were already part of the problem. You can, of course, mitigate that and make a change going forward, but it shouldn't be a society-level trend because having too much stuff should always be an exceptional circumstance.

Thanks, it makes me laugh as I haven't been on this forum for a while and I forgot that some of the people on here are always so sweet and non-judgemental. That is sarcasm obviously.

I did have stuff that I didn't use or want and I donated it to charity, I'm not sure why that would be a negative thing.


Because we're trying to avoid excessive consumerism, but I didn't mean to single you out as if to say, "you're part of the problem and I am not." I see how it came across that way,and I apologize. I too am part of the problem at times.


But if we are getting rid of functional or repairable items, we are part of the problem. Giving to charity helps, and I think there's a real argument that could be made that we can nearly eliminate our addition to the waste stream if we only bring in secondhand items in the first place. But celebrating "minimalism" when what we actually mean is a massive getting-rid-of project overlooks the environmental toll of too much stuff in the first place (my primary objection to the trend) and also overlooks the privilege associated (a secondary concern for me but what the NYT article is about). Oh, and the primary problem from a mustachian perspective: it overlooks how neatly the trend feeds into hyperconsumerism on a social scale,as the trend will end and most proponents will then re-buy more and "better" stuff when the next trend comes along.


We need a better way of talking about it, not Marie Kondo's emphasis on getting rid of things that don't "spark joy" for us.

Thanks. x Sorry, actually I probably did snap at you.


:)


I think the interwebs would be more functional if everyone posting were British and Southern (or behaved in a way that exhibited the stereotypical politeness of our two cultures).

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2016, 05:39:12 PM »
Let me get this straight...
In what world does eschewing the material items that instill a notion of class perpetuate a notion of class?

This touches on something that's been rattling around my brain for a while. One of the fundamental benefits of middle and high income is choice. The choice of what neighborhood to buy a house in. The choice of vacations and food and clothes.

Choosing not to buy stuff even though you could or getting rid of things you could easily repurchase is relatively easy. I mean that's what most of us here are doing right? We're mostly high income, able to afford a middle class lifestyle AND save a decent chunk for FIRE. I don't think anyone would deny that MMM is more mainstream popular than ERE and there's a reason for that.

I don't agree with the author's conclusion, but I do see her point. Telling the family that's choosing between the electric bill or car insurance to declutter since you sold your 400K house for a 200K one does show a class gulf.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2016, 08:39:17 PM »
:)


I think the interwebs would be more functional if everyone posting were British and Southern (or behaved in a way that exhibited the stereotypical politeness of our two cultures).

Oh bless your heart. :D

Rural

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5051
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2016, 09:04:42 PM »
:)


I think the interwebs would be more functional if everyone posting were British and Southern (or behaved in a way that exhibited the stereotypical politeness of our two cultures).

Oh bless your heart. :D


As I'm sure you know, that ain't one little bit polite. :-)

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2016, 09:10:47 PM »
I don't agree with the author's conclusion, but I do see her point. Telling the family that's choosing between the electric bill or car insurance to declutter since you sold your 400K house for a 200K one does show a class gulf.

Except when you separate people and behaviors into broad social classes you fall into the standard trap of pitting 'us vs. them.' Reality is never that simple and realizing that in many cases your financial situation is a series of micro-decisions have led you to your current state. Micro-decisions lead to macro-results. This is why people do behavioral studies on the rich and the poor and look for lifestyle trends and habits that have contributed to financial success. The Millionaire Next Door, Rich Dad Poor Dad, MMM's blog, and tons of other sources have looked at how small things add up to big things and how wealthier people often attribute their wealth to these micro-decisions.

We should be encouraging those behaviors instead of saying "Oh, it's okay that you keep buying Starbucks everyday on your minimum wage paycheck. You're poor and you deserve it." Instead we're encouraging a culture of victimhood and irresponsibility which breeds nothing but resentment and hate.

NorCal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2016, 10:38:51 PM »
And I thought Catholic guilt was annoying.  Liberal guilt is truly obnoxious.

JZinCO

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2016, 10:14:09 AM »
Let me get this straight...
In what world does eschewing the material items that instill a notion of class perpetuate a notion of class?

This touches on something that's been rattling around my brain for a while. One of the fundamental benefits of middle and high income is choice. The choice of what neighborhood to buy a house in. The choice of vacations and food and clothes.

Choosing not to buy stuff even though you could or getting rid of things you could easily repurchase is relatively easy. I mean that's what most of us here are doing right? We're mostly high income, able to afford a middle class lifestyle AND save a decent chunk for FIRE. I don't think anyone would deny that MMM is more mainstream popular than ERE and there's a reason for that.

I don't agree with the author's conclusion, but I do see her point. Telling the family that's choosing between the electric bill or car insurance to declutter since you sold your 400K house for a 200K one does show a class gulf.

What are you talking about? Everytime someone quotes me they go on to make conclusions irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Don't forget that clutter doesn't have a price floor. It doesn't matter whether the declutter-er is a 200K income individual ridding themselves of expensive vases or a 20K individual ridding themselves of porcelain unicorn knick knacks. Everybody renting or owning a home has the option to declutter. Everybody renting or owning a home has the option to clutter. Choosing not to clutter is not a distinguishing characteristic of the well to do.

You really need to divorce wealth from the behavior of consumerism. It does not take wealth to be indiscriminate buyers and collectors of items (seriously look at <$1 softcover book aisles) nor does it take wealth to be more deliberate in purchases.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 10:21:27 AM by JZinCO »

NorCal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1464
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2016, 10:04:41 AM »
Articles like this by the NY Times are one of the reasons I can't stand the paper.  I'm starting to put my finger on why.

The NY Times constantly ruminates about how the upper middle class should feel guilty about everything they have.  We should be guilty about the stuff we have, the stuff we've gotten rid of, the stuff we eat, and just about everything else.

Yet what about those we're supposed to feel guilty to?  They never specify, but it's implied that we should feel guilty to those that either make less than we do, or just those that don't live the NY lifestyle.

When was the last time the NY Times actually talked to someone from this demographic?  When was the last time they took an editorial position consistent with what someone from this demographic actually wants?  How many assumptions have the NY Times made about this populations needs and desires?

The only ones that should truly feel guilty are the writers at the NY Times.  They consistently make incredibly insulting assumptions about those they feel superior to, and then they write about their guilt.

Squirrel away

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
  • Location: United Kingdom
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2016, 02:35:43 AM »
Squirrel and Rural - you two should've written the article - you would've done a better job.  Ms. Land's "woe is me" attitude just made me tired.

Lol. Thanks.:)

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #35 on: July 25, 2016, 01:12:54 PM »
My other thought on this article is that this is an awful lot of thinking, speculating, ruminating and mental effort devoted to finding a political issue in a quirky book by a woman who is good at organizing stuff. Marie Kondo is one of the last people in the world who I would find offensive. 

And The Minimalists strike me as 2 guys who quit the rat race so they could make a living writing and had to figure out how to live on less - I'm not sure I see this as a battlefield for class warfare. 

Am I the only one who believes Ms. Land is overthinking this? 

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2016, 01:59:52 PM »
Now that I have had a few days to digest this, maybe the author is right. When I look at other books about domestic stuff I find the following:  "Hints from Heloise" has all sorts of suggestions about the uses of WHITE vinegar, obviously she's a racist.  And I took a look at "The Joy of Cooking" - a little reading between the lines and you realize it is full of hate speech. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: NY Times - The Class Politics of Decluttering
« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2016, 08:24:36 PM »
Now that I have had a few days to digest this, maybe the author is right. When I look at other books about domestic stuff I find the following:  "Hints from Heloise" has all sorts of suggestions about the uses of WHITE vinegar, obviously she's a racist.  And I took a look at "The Joy of Cooking" - a little reading between the lines and you realize it is full of hate speech.

There are many things that can be seen if one goes looking for them.