Hacker News Reader

Comment by gaius | Hacker News Reader

how profoundly and easily replaceable

It is no great virtue to think that when you have wealth, but try living like that when you are poor and all of your meagre possessions were hard-earned.

Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

View on HN

>> It is no great virtue to think that when you have wealth, but try living like that when you are poor and all of your meagre possessions were hard-earned.

>> Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

Those are separate things. Minimalism would be the opposite of buying things that are easily replaceable. Surely you would buy things that don't need replaced often/can be repaired and are higher quality/more expensive.

Using plastic dishes, throwing them out after every meal, and buying new ones isn't minimalism. Spending money on 4 good quality ceramic plates which will last the next 10 years is.

> Spending money on 4 good quality ceramic plates which will last the next 10 years is.

Are there bad quality ceramic plates? Mine costed $1-$3 each and they're great.

Yup, if you can trust the glaze not to contain cadnium or lead, pretty much the cheapest will do. Same with stoneware.

Only if you don't care about beauty. And you should care, looking at something beautiful every day makes you happier.

I think it's just a bad example. Unless you mishandle them these things never break and are basically free at the next good-will or fleamarket.

Maybe shoes are a better example? Though identifying good quality is a lot of work in itself and may signal status I guess.

Shoes: definitely. But it applies to other, seemingly mundane things. e.g. Cookware, Vacuum Cleaner, Furniture etc. The quality differential b/w a dyson and the cheap $20 vaccuuum is staggering; using a dyson is a pleasant experience while the $20 cheapo? Not so much.

Don't get me wrong. When I was a grad student, I bought the cheapest vacuum, cheapest shoes and clothes. But I did know that better quality things did exist, and didn't hesitate to purchase them when I could finally afford to.

Do the Dysons suck more?

Dyson vacuums have interesting industrial design, but in terms of function they don't even make the CR top ten[1], so yes, I expect they are better than some, but they are also more expensive than most.

1: https://www.consumerreports.org/products/upright-vacuum/rati...

Those reviews are paywalled, so I can't really see what criterion they are using to rate a product high/low. I agree though that Dyson's are pricey, but they last long and are a joy to use. Not saying there aren't other models that do the same.

DSW has a rack in the back of every store with heavily discounted (50+%) shoes. Good quality, great price, limited selection. 10/10

Too bad the worth of this information is regionally constrained. (The internet is truely amazing to bridge this gap so easily.)

It's a terrible example. I was in a hurry and for some reason it was the first thing that came to mind.

> Minimalism would be the opposite of buying things that are easily replaceable.

I believe what parent is referring to might be better termed "mental minimalism".

In that the optimization is for not having to think about physical goods. Good qualities here are durable, reasonably priced, reliable, simple, and effective.

To tease the thread apart from what separates the well-off doing this from the poor doing this, I'd say it's the "reasonably priced" criteria. An ideal good under this lifestyle is cheap enough that one isn't weighed down by worry over caring for their devices.

F.ex. If something happens to my refurb XPS 13 on the road, I wouldn't be annoyed. If I had a brand new MBP, I might be a bit more disappointed. Thus, with the former, I don't even have to worry about that eventuality, whether or not it ever happens.

> Using plastic dishes, throwing them out after every meal, and buying new ones isn't minimalism. Spending money on 4 good quality ceramic plates which will last the next 10 years is.

No, using cheap plastic plates, which will easily last a decade (my mom I think, still uses ones my family got free as promotional items with cereal purchases ~30 years ago when I was a kid) and making them last is minimalism.

Ceramic plates break a lot more easily then cheap but durable plastic ones.

Obviously if you need a car/house/refrigerator/whatever to live your life and are not wealthy then replacing that item is not easily done, because it costs weeks of salary (or more) and needing a replacement can be profoundly disruptive to your life.

However, I can see no chain of logic suggesting that means you're forced to live less minimally than a wealthier person is able to.

I don't think GP was under any illusions on this front - hence "the more money I have". "Profoundly and easily replaceable" by expending money.

Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

Or living within your means?

Minimalism is a different thing. Living within your means is about budgeting, its arithmetic. Minimalism is about owning very few physical things, but often very nice things. Like only having 3 pairs of pants but they all cost in excess of $200 each. Basically it boils down to owning the just essential and carefully chosen artifacts or modern life.

Note, I'm not endorsing this idea, just trying to describe it.

Well, I suppose everybody is going to have a different opinion. To me, it's more about avoiding excess, mostly to keep spending down.

There's a certain level of minimalism though that actually increases spending. For example, not keeping a toolbox around the house means having to call someone for even the smallest maintenance work you might need.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point, if you need tools then keep them, the point is to own what's necessary rather than what society and marketers think you should.

Not keeping a tool box around the house very rarely means not having access to tools. Tools are commonly borrowed/shared amongst friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, borrowed from work, co-ops[1], makerspaces, or rented[2].

[1] https://www.houselogic.com/save-money-add-value/save-on-util...

[2] http://www.homedepot.com/c/tool_and_truck_rental

> Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

Care to explain? I've seen this line of thought a lot, but don't understand at all. Maybe minimalism attracts people who have grown up wealthy and realize that money doesn't solve all problems, but that's different. It's a luxury in the metaphorical sense that not having to worry about money is a luxury, but I don't think that is the same as or as ostentatious as purchasing luxury items.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com