s/o of sharing thread: Could you live with 100 personal items?

[boolady]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08consume.html?pagewanted=all

Heard about this on the radio this morning, and read the article. It's pretty interesting to me, because I really am (ideally, mind you) an anti-clutter minimalist. I don't have very many things that are mine and I feel possessive about. I love reading, but don't have a huge need to own the books I read or to keep them, I do like clothes and shoes, but could do with less than I have, considering that I wear less than half of what's in my closet, and there are a few things I definitely would have to keep that aren't "familial"-- my cell phone, my car, my iPod, my bicycle, etc. I don't know if I could pare things down to 100 personal items, but I think I could get fairly close. This is the website that inspired them:

http://www.guynameddave.com/100-thing-challenge.html

DH, on the other hand, comes from a family of "collectors" (read: pack rats) and I honestly believe he probably has far more than 100 movie ticket stubs in a shoebox, so it would be a lot more difficult for him. He attaches a lot of meaning to the things he keeps, I just really don't.

Also, do you interpret a lack of need for mementos and souvenirs as being emotionally distant? DH seems to think that there's something wrong with me because, with a few exceptions, I just don't attach lots of deep meaning to souvenirs and physical items. I just can't get all weepy over most material things.

[kijip]

I don't know but I am inspired to count what I do have. :wink2: Because of books and cds, I don't think I would ever hit 100 but I did and do cull things out considerably.

I do have a very, very small wardrobe. Aside from a few pjs and 3 sets of workout clothes I have, right now:

1 pair of cropped black pants
1 pair of long black pants
1 pair of jeans
1 suit
1 sundress
1 cocktail party dress
3 silk shells
2 tank tops
1 white button down
2 t-shirts
1 cardigans and 1 open front jacket.
1 sweater

I had to add shirts to make it work well for work and business stuff.

I have a few scarfs and a fair number of shoes.

[citymama]

I liked that article - the "experiences are better than stuff" philosophy which I pretty much grew up on and mostly live by (although as a family we have more stuff than I'd like). We don't own a home and have a single yr old family car, but we've traveled to 35 countries!

Could I live on fewer items? Sure. Do I need to right now to prove a point? Nope. We are a family of 4 living in 850 sq feet of space, so we have to be somewhat minimalist by necessity. Although the boxes of diapers and wipes and gymini playmats at every corner are kind of driving me nuts!

My friend had a rule she lived by which was "stuff in, stuff out" - if you buy new stuff, it has to displace something in the house. (I was always the beneficiary of her clothes purges ;).) Unfortunately, I'm too much of a "it might come in handy some day" type of person to do that, but nonetheless, I aspire to a more clutter-free existence. But our book and music collection alone will make the number 100 completely impossible!

[conniez]

Great article...I think I'm like the woman who stated it doesn't have to be an "either-or" situation. I've been trying to go through some of our old things to sell/donate, but there are certain pieces of clothing I keep even if I never fit back into them again; I keep these pieces because they either make me feel really good about myself when wearing them or I might have some memory attached to it.


Unfortunately, I'm too much of a "it might come in handy some day" type of person to do that, but nonetheless, I aspire to a more clutter-free existence.

citymama - r u my 2nd BB forum twin? :p

[citymama]

citymama - r u my 2nd BB forum twin? :p

Maybe - who's the first? ;)

We could try and inspire each other to declutter - or to hang on to stuff, coz you really never know when that 70s style black vest might come back into fashion! :ROTFLMAO:

[maestramommy]

I read the first article last week on my cousin's FB. Thought it was very interesting, and inspiring. BUT I want to point out that she and her Dh don't have any kids. Now I'm sure that even before I had kids I probably had more than 100 personal items. Just our book and CD collection would've pushed that number way up. But I don't think it has to be so black and white. It makes more sense to me to reuse, recycle, restore, repurpose. Dh started this "useful box collection" back when we were living in an apt. While he did cull from time to time, most of those boxes DID come in handy. Boxes, like anything, cost money to get new, and hanging on to a perfectly good packing box that will get used again down the line makes sense. Same with scrap paper, takeout containers (they are MUCH nice than they used to be!), even perfectly good gifts that we know we will never use.

It also makes more sense to me not to buy stuff automatically with the "I will need this down the line" thinking. I don't mean TP or soap. I mean clothes, shoes, books, toys. Maybe it costs more money up front, but I almost never buy ahead. I buy something when I know I absolutely need it and can't make do with something I already have, and I look for the best deal going at the time.

On some level I do agree with the "more experiences, less stuff" philosophy, but again, with small children, sometimes the experiences are temporarily out of reach. Esp. the ones mentioned in the article! I do think my kids have way too much "stuff," like stuffed animals. And in our defense I can only say WE DID NOT BUY THOSE THINGS! :p

[LadyPeter]

Wow...this is really intriguing. For the last couple of years I've had a rule about clothes - I don't buy anything new without selling two items at consignment and giving two items to charity. So basically, four items out for every one item in. I haven't always been the most faithful to this plan, but I do try. This may inspire me to try harder.

[MoJo]

Thought it was interesting that he counted the "Library" as one thing, not hundreds of individual books, in the "100 Thing Challenge." And I think many people have their music in an electronic format, so CDs wouldn't be a problem either. (Just wanted to point that out, since several people said those things would be their hang-ups.) He also only counted things that were primarily his. . . so he wasn't counting pots and plates. THAT would make a difference too. And he counted all of his socks as one item, all of his underwear as one item. Photos/photo albums would be my downfall if I had to count them. I think that ties with the first article that talks about the pleasure of experiences instead of stuff, actually.

I'm sure I COULD do it, but I wouldn't want to. I'm not sure I did this even in college sharing a little brick dorm room--MAYBE then. Although I remember thinking a person could buy everything they actually needed at Family Dollar when I got my first apartment!

This weekend, I counted pants to make a point. . . one family member, who isn't in the process of recovering from pregnancy and who isn't a fast-growing little girl, owns over 50 pairs of pants.

I don't have any plans to be such a minimalist. . . however, I am inspired to do a FLYLady "27-fling-boogie" where you find 27 items to donate or throw away. OK, off the computer to do it now while DD#2 is asleep!

[TwinFoxes]

Thought it was interesting that he counted the "Library" as one thing, not hundreds of individual books, in the "100 Thing Challenge." And I think many people have their music in an electronic format, so CDs wouldn't be a problem either. (Just wanted to point that out, since several people said those things would be their hang-ups.) He also only counted things that were primarily his. . . so he wasn't counting pots and plates. THAT would make a difference too. And he counted all of his socks as one item, all of his underwear as one item. Photos/photo albums would be my downfall if I had to count them. I think that ties with the first article that talks about the pleasure of experiences instead of stuff, actually.

I'm sure I COULD do it, but I wouldn't want to. I'm not sure I did this even in college sharing a little brick dorm room--MAYBE then. Although I remember thinking a person could buy everything they actually needed at Family Dollar when I got my first apartment!



I didn't read the article, but that sure sounds like he was fudging a little! If he counts pots and pans as one item, I'm counting "shoes" as one item. Same for the library, I'm counting "wardrobe" as one item! ;)

I agree, I'm sure I could do it, but I don't want to. I like my stuff. I purge regularly. But what I have, I like, and I don't think anyone's a better person just because they have fewer dresses than me. :)

[boolady]

But what I have, I like, and I don't think anyone's a better person just because they have fewer dresses than me. :)

I certainly didn't mean that in the OP. I just thought it was interesting to think about.

[TwinFoxes]

I certainly didn't mean that in the OP. I just thought it was interesting to think about.

Oh no no no! I wasn't implying you did!!! Seriously!!! Many apologies, I really didn't mean my post that way AT ALL!!!!!

ETA: it wasn't directed at anyone else on the thread either!

[boolady]

Oh no no no! I wasn't implying you did!!! Seriously!!! Many apologies, I really didn't mean my post that way AT ALL!!!!!

ETA: it wasn't directed at anyone else on the thread either!

No apologies needed at all. I didn't know if because I'm not really a "stuff" kind of person it came off that way. I kind of look at it like the question of how much living space do we really need...does everyone need a 3,000 sq ft home when years ago, folks did fine with so much less? It's an interesting question, but I don't think there's any right answer.

[wellyes]

This is kind of the plus of the wretched economy - frugality and minimalism is socially laudable. No way could I do 100 items but I've been purging and simplifying like crazy during my maternity leave. It's been very liberating.

[lizzywednesday]

No apologies needed at all. I didn't know if because I'm not really a "stuff" kind of person it came off that way. I kind of look at it like the question of how much living space do we really need...does everyone need a 3,000 sq ft home when years ago, folks did fine with so much less? It's an interesting question, but I don't think there's any right answer.

What I actually found most interesting in your OP was the way you look at your minimalism and the way your DH looks at his "pack-rat-ism."

I am a self-avowed pack rat.

I would find it very difficult to pare things down to 100 or fewer personal items, especially if I did not "fudge" a bit, like counting my "Library" as one item. (For example, I love to read and am a re-reader, so I tend to buy books rather than borrowing them from the library so I *can* re-read them whenever I choose. This also means I have a great number of hardcover books because they hold up to the strain of frequent re-reading!!!)

However, I am capable of purging ... and sometimes I go a little overboard with my purges, leaving me without night-out clothing or whatever because I got carried away with feeling like I was doing something constructive!

Our house is small and there's a lot of storage space, much of which we're not fully utilizing to its best advantage, but we're going to try and fix that over the next few weeks.

[boolady]

What I actually found most interesting in your OP was the way you look at your minimalism and the way your DH looks at his "pack-rat-ism."

I'm not sure how that's the most interesting thing to come out of what I had to say, but if so, I guess the article and topic aren't very interesting. I meant it in a light-hearted way, and I thought that was clear, but since you've decided to be passive-aggressive about it, I guess not. I get it...you think you're calling me out on something when I really was just having fun. Sheesh. I just thought it was an interesting topic. Now I'm wishing I hadn't bothered.

[lizzywednesday]

I'm not sure how that's the most interesting thing to come out of what I had to say, but if so, I guess the article and topic aren't very interesting. I meant it in a light-hearted way, and I thought that was clear, but since you've decided to be passive-aggressive about it, I guess not. I get it...you think you're calling me out on something when I really was just having fun. Sheesh. I just thought it was an interesting topic. Now I'm wishing I hadn't bothered.

It looks like I misunderstood what you meant while looking at it through my own lens (DH is currently on a cleanup rampage and I'm struggling with that) and twisted it into something you didn't mean, especially after not reading the article, which I've now bookmarked for later today.

[maestramommy]

I kind of look at it like the question of how much living space do we really need...does everyone need a 3,000 sq ft home when years ago, folks did fine with so much less? It's an interesting question, but I don't think there's any right answer.

That's another interesting question, although a detour from OP. I'm we don't NEED the 2500 sq ft we have right now, esp. since we were living in less than 1500 just fine before (at least before Laurel came:p). But I have to admit it has its perks. Also, partly because of the economy, people are spending a lot more time at home. Having more space is helpful, at least for our family, because individuals can have their own space and be alone sometimes.

[egoldber]

does everyone need a 3,000 sq ft home

DH and I are in this negotiation now. We currently have a 3000+ SF home. I think it is just too big. We fill it with crap we don't need and seldom use. Is it nice to have lots of extra space, yes. But we end up paying for a lot of extras (utilities, cleaning bills, furniture, etc.) for very little payback.

It is nice to have the space because we do sometimes have a lot of family/friends visit. And then I appreciate having 4 bedrooms and a large finished basement. But in general, I think we could easily live in 1/2 to 2/3 the space.

[AbbysMom]

The article was interesting. I always think it's amazing when people manage to pay off all their debt and get by on $24k a year by living simply. But the goal of 100 things isn't realistic for a family in a home. 2 pots would not cut it. I lived in a hotel with my husband pre-kids for 8 months while my home was being repaired and we each had less than 2 weeks worth of clothes, a couple of personal objects and only a few pots and pans, glasses plates etc. You don't need much to get by in life. But now we have our home and kids, we eat almost every meal in, have friends over instead of going out, and couldn't live happily with 100 items. But I am thinking of decluttering a bit more :)

Thanks for sharing - I love articles like this. It validates my feelings that it's better to pay for experiences like vacations rather than $1000 handbags even though you don't have tangible things at the end!