I have a hunch that minimalism is “wrong”, and only looks “correct” (to borrow your sense of “correct” here) if the alternative is keeping excess stuff. What I think is actually “correct” is have just enough, not too much and not too little. But when the default problem is having too much stuff, minimalism starts to seem like the solution mostly because it’s directionally correct and may get to you to the ideal enoughness set point.
But on its face, I think minimalism is not what would make most people happy because they derive some pleasure from stuff, including stuff they only use rarely. For example, I’m very glad to have a space in our garage that’s full of boxed up holiday decorations, because throughout the year we rotate through what’s in those boxes to put them up. But naively, at least, minimalism might say to get rid of that stuff because it’s been months since we used what’s in the boxes. I feel the same way about clothes and other things that get used rarely, but I’m glad to have them when the occasion calls for them.
But on its face, I think minimalism is not what would make most people happy because they derive some pleasure from stuff, including stuff they only use rarely.
I don’t disagree with that people derive some pleasure from stuff, including stuff they use only rarely. Part of my position is that the magnitude of pleasure here is relatively low. I’m not sure whether or not you agree with that. It’s also hard to operationalize.
But the more central part of my position is that since housing is expensive, you have to pay a relatively high price to have enough room for this sort of stuff, and the amount of pleasure it generates is a good amount lower than this price. Do you disagree with that?
Kind of. Housing is not priced linearly, at least not in places like the Bay Area and Manhattan, with the cost per square foot declining as the size of the house increases. This means that the marginal cost of more housing to store more stuff can be worth it. For example, my house in SF costs me only about $1000 more per month in rent than apartments that are a third the size because there’s such high demand for any housing at all in the city that it raises the price floor quite high. For the relatively low price of $12k/year I get the space to host parties, have parking, enjoy beautiful views, and store extra stuff that I’m glad to have when I need it.
That said, I’m not a fan of having too much stuff. I just want to have enough stuff that I don’t find myself missing out on things I would have liked to be able to do.
I have a hunch that minimalism is “wrong”, and only looks “correct” (to borrow your sense of “correct” here) if the alternative is keeping excess stuff. What I think is actually “correct” is have just enough, not too much and not too little. But when the default problem is having too much stuff, minimalism starts to seem like the solution mostly because it’s directionally correct and may get to you to the ideal enoughness set point.
But on its face, I think minimalism is not what would make most people happy because they derive some pleasure from stuff, including stuff they only use rarely. For example, I’m very glad to have a space in our garage that’s full of boxed up holiday decorations, because throughout the year we rotate through what’s in those boxes to put them up. But naively, at least, minimalism might say to get rid of that stuff because it’s been months since we used what’s in the boxes. I feel the same way about clothes and other things that get used rarely, but I’m glad to have them when the occasion calls for them.
I don’t disagree with that people derive some pleasure from stuff, including stuff they use only rarely. Part of my position is that the magnitude of pleasure here is relatively low. I’m not sure whether or not you agree with that. It’s also hard to operationalize.
But the more central part of my position is that since housing is expensive, you have to pay a relatively high price to have enough room for this sort of stuff, and the amount of pleasure it generates is a good amount lower than this price. Do you disagree with that?
Kind of. Housing is not priced linearly, at least not in places like the Bay Area and Manhattan, with the cost per square foot declining as the size of the house increases. This means that the marginal cost of more housing to store more stuff can be worth it. For example, my house in SF costs me only about $1000 more per month in rent than apartments that are a third the size because there’s such high demand for any housing at all in the city that it raises the price floor quite high. For the relatively low price of $12k/year I get the space to host parties, have parking, enjoy beautiful views, and store extra stuff that I’m glad to have when I need it.
That said, I’m not a fan of having too much stuff. I just want to have enough stuff that I don’t find myself missing out on things I would have liked to be able to do.