Hacker News Reader

My thoughts are that when you have plenty of money, you don't worry about getting rid of things. If I find later that I really did need that thing, I can easily get another one. On the other hand, if money is tight, it's hard to get rid of anything that has any value at all. I might need it later, and not be able to purchase a replacement.

Udo, I think you are onto something here. An important aspect of going minimalist is getting rid of (so called) superficial possessions. That means, to a large extent, only those who have stuff to get rid of can do so as a part of going minimalist.

The second important aspect is taking care of basic needs of daily living: food, clothing, shelter, healthcare (when absolutely needed). For someone engaged in the daily struggle to have such basic needs satisfied, the very idea of getting rid of anything they possess would be an anathema.

Clutter and hoarding are, thus, in (some ways) the unintended results of that struggle. Every item that has been acquired by (very) hard labor, or (minimal) lucky breaks is, from that point on, almost a lifeline. The question: What if I need this again? rings out every time an item is about to be discarded.

However, the other side of the same argument is the definition of needs (as opposed to wants). There are always going to be genuine needs and the point of comfort one feels with their net worth in satisfying those needs is going to define the point at which fear of the unknown ceases to be a driving factor in their decision making process. Including the decision to go minimalist.

That point is, understandably, different for everyone of us. In the end, I feel, it is easier to make the minimalist choice with (a). a solid net-worth (bank balance, property etc.) OR (b). absolute courage when a sense of security is lacking such as when (a) is absent OR (c). a combination of (a) and (b).

------

TL;DR : I think, it is easier to be minimalist if you are materially secure; have sufficient support for a minimalist lifestyle from your life-partner or rugged courage and self-confidence if you are single/dependent-free.

A striking minor point in the book "Xenocide" (third in the "Ender" series) is how a major political leader's office was decorated with little more than a nice desk, small statue, and suitable ornate rug ... all of which were replaced with new ones every night. Easy to go extreme minimal when objects can, and are, replaced on a regular frequent basis obviating any conflicting need to "get it right" once and live with the choice for prolonged periods.

To some degree, to get ahead in business you must personally present as clean. This would carry over somewhat into your personal life - it's hard to be wearing thousand dollar suits to work while living in a rat's nest, I guess.

Personally, I like clutter. Random toys people give you, buildup of projects and jobs and whatnot. It personalises a place. I understand the appeal of not caring about items - I don't particularly care about most of my clutter - but minimalism is so... sterile. Walk into a minimalist's house and there's nothing really there of their personality, nothing particularly different from any other minimalist's house. I don't have a problem with other people living that way, but for me, it's just so sterile and sometimes even feels unwelcoming.

EDIT: I wonder if part of your rich/poor thing is that the rich have the opportunity to move around a lot for both business and pleasure and so can get a variety of memories and backdrops, whereas the poor see the same thing day in day out, and so personalisation of spaces (or making them more varied) is more important to them?

  This would carry over somewhat into your personal life - 
  it's hard to be wearing thousand dollar suits to work while
  living in a rat's nest, I guess

Yeah, maybe, though the rich people I know are generally not suit-wearers.

I like your backdrop/decoration thing though, it's an interesting theory. But I still believe that having a nice bank account makes people feel independent and free, in the end causing them to see a lot of superfluous things as they are: clutter.

Marcus Aurelius is considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers, yet he was a Roman Emperor, probably the mightiest and richest man on earth at that time.

Yeah, but he did spend a good portion of his life on the Danube fighting German tribes. Probably did not carry much with him.

Maybe we have diverging definitions of minimalism, but I think minimalistic design leads to a sterile feeling but that you can still have a warm, personalized space with remarkably less stuff than the norm.

For example my desk was once home to three computers and various pieces of computer hardware laying around. I don't need three computers, I really don't need a desktop computer at all anymore. Removing the desktops and the rat's nest of cabling makes things much easier to maintain and it looks much nicer. I also don't have to track what's going on with multiple computers anymore. No more sorting out cables, no more putting away bits and pieces, and the room looks cleaner now too.

Another, I like to cook so my kitchen tends to accumulate things either via stupid impulse buys, upgrades or gifts. I don't need a small toaster oven, I don't need a huge serving tray, I don't need four spatulas, three paring knives and two can openers. I have a wife and kid I feed -- we don't need a stack of 10 plates and 10 cups at hand (I can't even seat 10 people, let alone serve that many). Keeping the kitchen to a minimum means cleaning a few more things on demand while prepping and serving food but it reduces the cleaning, sorting and storage time requirements overall. This form of minimalism doesn't mean we can't have pictures on the wall or a vase of flowers on the table, but it's a huge win for reducing the total time spent in the kitchen every day.

For me, minimalism is about identifying my real requirements and removing the rest. Toys and old projects may be a requirement to keep the creative juices flowing, but I'd try to strike a balance between keeping stuff simply because there is sentiments attached and keeping stuff that really matters.

I agree that a person's surrounding clutter (as you put it) does give a sense of personality (I did a photo project on posessions).

However, I think you're missing a bigger picture. A minimalist's house speaks TONS about the personality of its owner. And there are no two minimalist houses alike. The differences are, shall we say, minimal, but they're there.

PG may have a point that since humans use spacial memory to organize things, a cluttered environment may put more stress on the mind than an austere one.

Poor households are absolutely cluttered.

While I don't disagree with your observation, one contributing factor is that wealthy people can pay for housecleaning, decorating, landscaping, and other services that contribute to a neat, tidy household. Poor people cannot, and especially if the household is a working single parent with kids, there is not a lot of spare time in a day to make sure the windows are polished.

Being poor means that when you throw something out, you count the cost. It's more practical not to throw things out that you don't need right now, because if you have to buy it again, it'll be xyz dollars, and you don't want to spend xyz dollars again.

I'd paint a contrasting viewpoint, that minimalists are more likely to be rich. My anecdotal evidence comes from the millionaires next door, who live well below their means, purchase quality over quantity and value experiences more than personal belongings and material wealth.

interesting anecdote. Though not as extreme as your example, my wife comes from a lower middle class background, and my parents are a bit more well to do. Her parent's house is much more cluttered than mine.