Stuff - Paul Graham | Hacker News Reader

Stuff - Paul Graham

paulgraham.com

105 pointssamb92 comments

Too much stuff is a bad thing. Everything I owned in 2000 would fit in the back of my station wagon. If it wouldn't fit in the wagon, it was out. Now I'm married, and covered up with stuff. When you get married, it's custom for people to give you more stuff. Most of it you don't need. Or want. But you can't just throw it away, after all, it's free stuff. (Sorry if this has already been posted, I didn't see it in the list and can't search....)

Open articleView on HN

"How do you protect yourself from these people? It can't be easy. I'm a fairly skeptical person, and their tricks worked on me well into my thirties."

It's much easier to never get in the habit of buying things in the first place. I remember two particular childhood events that dramatically shaped my consumption habits:

In the first, I was 4 years old and in the toy section of Spag's (a discount warehouse near Worcester), and really wanted a new Transformers toy. My mom said "Oh honey, we can't afford it. We can come back next month and get it." And then ran over to take care of my sister, who was throwing a tantrum over not being able to have a My Little Pony doll. I realized I could be the "good child" by never asking for stuff. From then on, my parents and I had a tacit agreement: they would buy me anything I wanted, and in return I wouldn't want much. Lesson learned: sibling rivalry can be a powerful motivator.

For the second - my parents refused to let us watch any TV other than PBS until they'd sat us down and told us about advertisements. And when they did, the conversation was basically: "The commercials are just trying to sell you something. They want to control your behavior, so that you'll go out and buy what they want." I was 5 years old at the time and couldn't bear the idea of anyone controlling my behavior. After all, it was bad enough when my parents told me what to do. The idea that some nefarious marketing guy would reach through the TV and make me spend money was just abhorrent. Lesson learned: make marketers seem like parents, but with only the evil "You have to do this!" parts and not the comforting take-care-of-you parts.

The end result of all this? I'm 26 years old and still using my high school allowance for spending money. Essentially every penny I've ever earned has gone into the bank and stayed there.

Key to Karma(k2k)

1-Agree with postings

2-Anecdote from real life humanizing yourself by mixing in family

3-??

4-Profit!!

I kid I kid. I enjoy your posts but am unsure how a anti-consumer/anti-corporate/anti-advertising posting is modded up so high on a entrepreneurial board that guess what, mostly relies on advertising to generate revenue.

"a anti-consumer/anti-corporate/anti-advertising posting"

Saying "ignore manipulative ads" isn't anti-consumer. Nor is it anti-corporate -- it just means, roughly, "Buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable."

The quote "ignore manipulative ads" is not in his post. His post appears to demonize advertising in general.

Also, how can you say "Buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable."

The context is totally dependant on who the individual is. Who is to stay something is valuable to other people? It is the advertisements job to show to the potential customer why the product is valuable.

Lastly, how does 'ignore manipulate ads' equate to 'buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable? That is quite the jump.

The quote is not in his post. I got the impression from "I have too much stuff," followed by "Companies that sell stuff have spent huge sums training us to think stuff is still valuable. But it would be closer to the truth to treat stuff as worthless." Is there some other meaning I could divine from those statements?

"The context is totally dependant on who the individual is."

That's true. There's an information component to ads -- which is why I advocated skepticism over censorship. But in general, if you have two companies that are both pursuing a value-maximizing strategy selling the same product, and one does ads, the other is going to have higher quality (have you seen ads for McDonald's? Have you seen ads for, say, Beffa's (http://www.beffas.com/home.html)?).

'Lastly, how does 'ignore manipulate ads' equate to 'buy stuff when the focus is on creating something valuable, not convincing you that something is valuable? That is quite the jump."

If you don't spend the money, you either a) destroy it, b) save it, or c) spend it on other stuff. If b), remember that saving is deferred spending, so b) and c) are the same with different timing.

Your quoting PG's essay. I was responding to the comment that mine is under. I should not have responded as confrontation is bad on boards that could lead to meeting others in real life.

Basically I found the comment that I commented on deceptive. It used anecdotes from childhood claiming X is bad, then mentions full savings as if that is the direct correlation between the two. I regret commenting in this thread and will stick to more agreeable topics.

"It used anecdotes from childhood claiming X is bad, then mentions full savings as if that is the direct correlation between the two."

I actually believe there is a direct correlation - anecdotes (sometimes) lead to habits, and then habits lead to savings. It's much easier to form habits in childhood, which is why I picked childhood anecdotes. But it can be done late in life too - I think that was part of the point of PG's essays.

You are doing it again. You try to make a point but suddenly mention an irrelevant point that is correct but unrelated to the argument you are trying to make.

Yes that is one of PG's themes(habits can be changed) but it does not relate to believing that advertising is behavior control and holding this to be true will lead to full savings.

rot13: cyrnfr qb abg srrq gur gebyyf

Startup News relies on advertising to generate revenue? We don't have either.

Apologies. I meant a large amount of YC companies.

It doesn't seem like even that's correct, though.

When they get acquired by Google or Yahoo, advertising revenue is what bought them.

Correct, but I don't think most YC companies rely on that. And if most do, I'd bet it's around 55%. Loopt, Xobni, Heysan (yet), and Justin.tv all don't. And I don't think Zenter would've, either.. I can't see how text-based ads would be very useful while creating presentations.

Loopt is on a pay service; they don't need money from ads because they're not a "free" service, but check out all the web-based ones: Zenter was bought by Google, so advertising applies, as mentioned. Xobni hasn't released anything yet, but once they have something, we'll see if there are ads, and if an ad-based company acquires them. Heysan will need to make money at some point -- obviously if you don't mind operating at a loss then you don't need income from ads, but deficit operations can't last. Going public is extremely unlikely so both Xobni's and Heysan's investors presumably invested based on an expectation of acquisition, probably by a large ad-based company. Justin.tv? "There are a number of ways to advertise on Justin.tv - both within the show itself and on our webpage" (from the FAQ). Even the site you're reading now is financed with money made from advertising dollars, since Viaweb was bought by Yahoo and that sale is what's paying the bills around here (and so by extension, all YC companies are initially financed by ads, too; and doubly so when Paul Buchheit of GMail and AdSense fame is one of the investors, as with Auctomatic).

The whole topic reminds me of Feynman's story about his father teaching him about how life on Earth moves because the Sun shines.

Advertising revenue is the solar energy incident on Earth of the web.

Okay, okay, you took my specific examples and hammered them into the ground. I probably muddled up what I meant. Look at the whole picture.. YC companies intrinsically create value for users, not show ads, as their primary function. What that means is, I doubt any of them are going "Okay, what can I make to show off these awesome ads?" Instead they're going, "Okay, how do I make this useful to a large number of people?" Then when they've accomplished that, only then do they think about ads. Reddit was a perfect example. They didn't even put ads up 'til post-acquire. Yes, ads are a bodily function for web startups, but it is not their primary function.

"Reddit was a perfect example. They didn't even put ads up 'til post-acquire."

Reddit had ads before the acquisition, it's just they ran infrequently enough that most users never noticed them.

Look, that is so not my point. My point is, YC companies create value, not serve ads.

That's not necessarily the case. For example, consider IRC, once the bane of many college students' academic records: Many sites and services actually have negative value, by being addictive time sinks.

Economic theories tend to neglect considerations like people's self-destructive behavior; or they re-define it to make the theory work ("it's not a bug, it's a feature!"). The classic example is of a destructive drug habit.

The addictive element creates a larger user base, but its value is highly debatable: EverQuest was nicknamed EverCrack and World of Warcraft is similar; addictive elements also play into gambling sites, collectible card games, instant messaging, and even sites like Reddit. Anything that sucks up your attention and wastes your time is a net liability. Television sitcoms create the "value" of watching someone else's fake life by withdrawing your attention from your own, real one. (And it initiates a cycle, as the more you watch, the less of a real life you have, the more you'll turn to the comforting artificial alternatives.)

Thus, I don't subscribe to the idea that merely because people are using something, it must have value for them. It has value for the purveyor of the service or substance; and due to corporate self-interest, that is often confused in business with value for the user.

If lacing a drug with plutonium made it a hundred times more addictive, most corporations would have no problem selling radioactive crack (and killing off all their users), as long as it made the numbers work for this quarter.

If life is made torturous so that selling an anesthetic is big business, claiming it "creates value" is begging the question in accepting that life should be like that in the first place. Almost all mass media, including sports, and including the aforementioned addictive games and services, are forms of anesthesia.

The real value would be stopping the death by a thousand cuts, not anesthetizing ourselves to it.

The function of most of these sites is to acquire a large user base, so that it can later be monetized. Currently, the dominant strategy for doing so involves advertising, which means you want broad enough appeal to get large numbers of relative technical unsophisticates that aren't using AdBlock or similar.

While I can agree with some of what you said, penny-pinching can be really bad if you take it too far. One of the Xobni guys wrote something like, "A good startup founder can create (some value >= $50 per hour) of wealth. So if you spend an hour and save $10, it costs you."

I think we're in a transitional moment in history, where stuff has become close to free but we're still locked into a mentality that values it. I don't think it'll be much longer before we come around to realizing it.

Funny that Paul should mention kids. When my son was born, I was given a lot of plastic toys that make noise. I've seen them on the shelves at ToysRUs, and they are remarkably cheap.

Thing is, my parents and their friends (who are crossing 60 these days) came of age at a time when a toy was a rare and expensive treat. They were generally made in the US, and required a lot of capital and first world labor. A large room full of toys was a sign of the very well to do. When they were kids, a new toy was a truly wonderful gift, and so they continue to give them.

And yet their houses were relatively cheap relative to their incomes. For 20 and 30-ish people, the great financial challenge is housing, not plastic toys. So stuff is very cheap, but a place to put that stuff is prohibitively expensive.

I have a feeling my 2 year old would really enjoy a toy workbench. The item itself is awfully cheap, and I could probably get one for $25 on craigslist, but the real estate it's sitting on is worth about $2k.(I live in one of the few remaining unfashionable blocks of San Francisco for the low low price of about $650/sq ft- on nob or russian hill this workbench would probably cover closer to $10k worth of floorspace).

So here's another way to test a purchase. Think about how much floor space the item would cover, and ask yourself if it's worth the are*$/sqft.

just to add - I've noticed that most of the parents around my neighborhood now buy and sell used toys very frequently, much more often than parents did when I was a kid. This is partly because the web is much more efficient than the newspaper, and it's cheaper to buy used. But the real benefit is that it gives us the ability to essentially rent the toy. There's little doubt that I'm going to end up with a plastic workbench, but my $50 is really more of a deposit - a promise to take good enough care of it to pass it on to the next 2 year old.

When I was a kid growing up in the USSR, "stuff" was really important to everyone because everything was really hard to get. Those who grew up in the West can't possibly understand how valuable even the most insignificant stuff seemed there. Petty theft was rampant. If you left a load of laundry unattended you could come back and find even your socks missing.

The "stuff" mindset is very difficult for some people to break. Over the first few years living in the US, my mother had accumulated more useless stuff than most people who'd spent their whole lives here. After 15 years in the US, she still worries about leaving her stuff in the laundromat.

I've been thinking about the subject a lot over the years and Paul's essay is spot-on. The more money I make, the more I dislike "stuff". I hardly bought anything since I started my first job after college. In contrast I used to buy a fair amount of junk before. My room was always cluttered and I hated being at home because I felt like the stuff drained all my energy.

It's true that stuff owns people and not the other way around. My neighbor in Cambridge, MA keeps a backyard (more like a junkyard) full of used construction materials and equipment, including 3 dead trucks. He spends every single evening trying to straighten it out, but ends up just wheelbarrowing stuff from place to place without any noticeable progress. I, on the other hand, am now able to spend every evening working on my startup, and not having stuff makes me feel great!

Procrastination works well for me. Instead of not buying stuff, I just put it off until later, repeatedly.

In some ways, having money actually makes it easier to not accumulate stuff, because you don't feel as pressured by "good deals".

Starting a startup has led to big improvements for me in this area. Back when I worked for other people I was constantly buying stuff. Oh, the rationalizations I came up with for purchases of very dubious value. I felt that I had to have every piece of the puzzle, only I didn't realize that the puzzle can never be completed.

Now that I've gone out on my own I don't have the time or money to spend like this anymore. It's such a change for the better.

Here are some stuff-reduction techniques I use:

Books: I have one large Ikea bookshelf. Several of the shelves are reserved as a 'rotating collection' - when the shelf gets full, I make myself sell some books on Amazon before I get new ones. The collection can never exceed the capacity of the one decent-sized bookshelf.

Every August, I take an inventory of everything I own and how often I'm using it. This includes books, clothes, office supplies, everything. Everything gets divided into three categories based on usage: heavily used, not used at all, and marginal. I keep everything in the 'heavily used' category. I sell, give away, or throw away everything in the 'never used' category. Then, I make a list of everything in the 'marginal' category and keep it until the next year. If any given item is still 'marginal' the next year, I sell it.

You'd be surprised how effective this is. What's especially amazing is the crazy stuff you can sell over the net - someone paid 50 bucks for a t-shirt I hadn't worn in 15 years. Last year I made enough cash doing this to buy a new Mac. The reduction in clutter is even better.

An idea on top of this would be use the information that you gather from your own "heavy use items", and buy more - or spend more on those. Get better quality items. About the ones that you didn't use ever, when you get an urge to buy them remind yourself of this pie chart that you made!

Absolutely! This past year I took the proceeds from all the lesser-used items and bought one pricey, high-quality, heavy-use item. It has completely paid off - I use the new computer (completely loaded iMac) constantly and it positively blows away any other computer I've owned. It does more for me in one week than all the junk I sold to buy it did for me in a year.

Which brings us to the subject of quality. I used to buy budget PC's - the cheapest thing I could find that would run what I needed. What a mistake that was. I have found that for heavy-use items it almost always pays to get the best I can possibly afford. I'm more likely to use higher-quality stuff and it performs better under heavy use.

There's a corollary to this: I have also found it preferable to buy the cheapest available product if it's a marginal or lesser-used item. Like a cheese grater or something. It's also good to question whether you need such an item at all, as you point out.

I ditched 700+ books the last time I moved. From a purely physical perspective, books have an ownership cost that is as bad as anything else. Once you have more than 100, they become heavy and tedious to move around, require a lot of space, shelving systems, etc.

I wrote a personal wiki type program that hooks up to a barcode scanner and lets me keep track of the books I have read. I just scan the book, it populates an entry, and then I have places I can store quotes and thoughts about the book. (I wrote this before Delicious Library and other such programs were widely available)

I've found keeping track of what I read has made me a more careful reader and alleviates the need for keeping the physical book around. However, I still have a number of old books that I wouldn't bear to part with.

Yeah, I've probably bought and given away more books than anything else, and the vast majority of books are not worth keeping around after you've read them once.

I look forward to the day when all or virtually all books are available for download. Webscriptions.net is a wonderful example of this for fiction, given that they have pure HTML books, and not just PDF or some proprietary reader format.

Amazon Prime makes this even worse -- especially easy to accumulate books that you'll only eventually skim through or half-read.

Moving out of a bigger apartment/house into a smaller one, especially under a tight deadline, can be a great way to shed some stuff as well. (inc. a 50lb FedEx package to the parents back home =))

I don't understand how people, other than those with perfect memories, can be satisfied only reading a book one time. Any book that I thought worthwhile enough to finish the first time, is at least worth picking up again to see if I still think the same way. Even if I don't find it as useful the second time through, I recognize the perspective I've gained.

Well, a novel is less likely to be rereadable than, say, _ANSI Common Lisp_, because you'd use the latter as a reference. I sometimes reread novels, but only the really especially good ones, if I remember that I've read it before. In general, I don't read novels for perspective, though it's really nice when there's some to be gained, rare though that is.

I've probably read somewhere around 10K books, the vast majority of which were novels, and way more than half of which were not really worth reading had my time been as limited as it later became. When I was a teen, it was easy to finish two or three books a day of stuff I'd throw against the wall by chapter two, now. The fact that I've read it and finished it is no indicator of worth. :)

Anyway, I used to own a coupla thousand books, but after moving several times without having looked inside most of them, it dawned on me that carrying around all this dead tree was not very useful.

I think the main difference between us then, is that I don't have a great interest in reading lots and lots of books. I generally don't have the patience to finish a book once, unless it's a book that I'd read several times. I wind up reading far fewer books than yourself.

So for me, the comments I made apply to novels as well as reference material. Second reads give me another chance to observe things like structure, or enjoy knowing what's going to happen.

Actually though, the biggest factor for me was recognition of my own mortality. When I was a kid, I'd keep books and reread them 5 times. When I was a teenager, I'd reread them twice, and keep them expecting to read them more. Now, I realize there's a limit to how much reading I'll be able to fit into the rest of my life.

Books were hard to part with, but I did it, too. Actually, the easiest books to donate were CS and math, especially programming related books. I refuse to part with my copies of CLR and Common LISP, though. In the end, I shed a couple hundred books and it was cathartic, kind of like start over with a beginner's mind.

P.S. Local universities are great places to make instant friends when you have books to donate.

"Stuff - Paul Graham"

Am I the only one who thought this was going to be about someone's taxidermy startup?

In all seriousness though, I think the best reason to keep relatively unused things around is if they are objects of sociability. That is, things that bring people together such as alcohol, homemade bread, board games, etc. At one point I was even smart enough to buy a tea set because I thought it would help me meet girls. (Of course I wasn't smart enough to see that my gf would be Asian, but hey, who's complaining.) By definition objects of sociability are used less often because you need at least two people, but they seem to be worth keeping around.

It's weird because we seem to be entering this phase in history where social status is signaled more by what you don't own than by what you do. For example, clothing with logos is generally considered tacky and lower class. At this point probably only another world war or a major recession could change this.

The sellers of stuff have convinced us (especially americans) that you can't just USE stuff. You need to OWN stuff. Need some specialized tool? Home Depot will sell it to you, but no one will lend it to you, unless it is large and very expensive.

Worse, these sellers of stuff have realized that they can't sell you durable goods! God Forbid! Durable goods last forever! Instead, they've convinced americans that there is value in disposable stuff! Paper napkins and plates, disposable diapers, disposable tupperware, etc etc. Now they've turned those one time purchases into subscription plans.

More stuff in your house. More stuff in landfills.

What about sentimental value of things? What about accumulated worth of a box of things after opening it every few years? Little overhead -- it's just a box.

Why save books, besides the memories? Convenience of being able to look things up? I like books, but my wifes parents are book sellers. They have hundreds of thousands of rare books for sale.

She doesn't like to save anything but the most essential books.

The mental load of throwing something away that _might_ have value is pretty high. It might be higher than the integrated attention paid to it in your basement -- unless you move often.

If you have some kind of attachment to something, then you shouldn't throw it away. It has real value to you. The kind of stuff you should toss is the stuff that you're keeping because you think it's valuable in the abstract.

Indeed. I have a box in my basement with an incomplete set of work for school since grade school and other junk. Each individual piece is pretty useless, and has low sentimental value. The box is easy to store.

"Every thing you own takes energy away from you."

Wonderful sentence. This is how I feel too.

However, I think its some kind of special mental handicap of nerds.

There are people, who are living perfectly energetic and well in a huge pile of crap.

Too me it looks like analytical people are scared by complexity of stuff, while intuitive people like it.

>Too me it looks like analytical people are scared by complexity of stuff, while intuitive people like it.

It seems more likely that analytical people are aware of complexity of stuff, while non-analytical people are not.

PG missed a couple of points in this essay. First, the proliferation of PODS and self-strorage businesses (at least in my part of the country) is further evidence that people have too much stuff. In my neighborhood, folks with two car garages park on the street because the garage is filled with crap.

The other point is why people accumulate stuff (crap). Shopping addictions aside, people get more stuff to keep score. Stuff is a scoring mechanism, especially for folks with low self-esteem. It would be useful to collect data to see if there is a correlation or causation between education / achievement levels and accumulation of stuff. I would posit that high achievers and PhDs have less stuff than the norm.

I'm not so sure about the PhDs comment. Nearly every professor's office I've been to is filled with crap.

I think the best way to avoid stuff accumulation is to throw away your TV. Or at least disconnect if from the outside world. Whether you think so or not TV makes you buy more stuff.

I like to buy verbs, not nouns. While I was working in the corporate world I lived very simply and saved a lot. I spent all my money on travel. Later I dumped it all into a startup. People talked about the riskiness of startups but I just thought of it as paying to do something cool.

I like to buy verbs, not nouns.

Really? I like to buy adjectives. Example: Cool.

I truly prefer to buy adverbs at Lolly's. Love that place. Tremendously. They even have an "LY attachment" for my old adjectives.

I like to buy vowels best of all.

"The average 25 year old is no match for companies that have spent years figuring out how to get you to spend money on stuff. They make the experience of buying stuff so pleasant that "shopping" becomes a leisure activity."

Vance Packard's 'The Hidden Persuaders' was one of the earliest books to deal with this topic in depth. It's scary how they understand us better than ourselves. Book URL:http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Persuaders-Vance-Packard/dp/067...

When our kids play room is filled with a mess of toys, they mostly ignore all of them and act bored.

If those toys are put into storage in the basement and just a select few toys are chosen to leave out, they show a lot more interest in those toys.

We have also decided to hold an annual yard sale with other families on our street to get rid of as much stuff as possible every year.

So true, so true.. ... I even stopped buying most books. With the public library database, I can order a book for 75c from anywhere in the Peninsula -http://catalog.plsinfo.org/ thanks Paul.

Excellent article - and the point about mental overload from stuff is a good one. This is the same point made for stuff in the form of information in GTD.

A great technique for de-stuffing and making $: craigslist.

Best productivity boost I've made: Selling TV on craigslist - it sold in 2 hours. (The extra time has been great for working on the startup)

Duuuude. Like, the stuff we own? It owns us, dude. You know? It's all like, Fight Club redux, man.

pause

Deep, man.

I appreciate your sarcastic humor.

Paul's essays on entrepeneurialism are incredible, but this one seemed really sophomoric to me. (e.g. about as intellectually complex as the other stoned conversations I could have had after watching Fight Club!)

Completely agree, but even question books. If they are especially valuable, sure, but I recently got rid of most of my books as I felt even they were weighing me down. Still not satisfied though... probably need to get rid of even more stuff.

Books were actually my first hint that I had a problem with too much stuff. (Though it wasn't until I was faced with the prospect of moving to a small room in Boston that I actually forced myself to get rid of stuff). When I got my first job, one of my favorite things to do was visit Barnes and Noble. I bought a bunch of books that I didn't touch for at least 6-12 months, during which time they did nothing but clutter my bedroom.

Someday I hope to have a nice big personal library, but until then I only keep as many books as can fit in a couple of plastic bins under my bed.

Things with sentimental value: I have a folder with printouts of a bunch of code I wrote back in 1997. It was one of the coolest projects I ever worked on, and I keep meaning to go review it to see what sort of stupid mistakes I was making in my ignorance. It's been 10 years and I haven't spent more than 2 minutes looking at it, yet I lug it with me wherever I go. Other examples are pictures, concert tickets, recordings, papers, articles, contacts, etc... I accumulate stuff without having to buy anything.

Like paystubs, bills, insurance paperwork, receipts, and all the other bureaucratic garbage that you never know if you'll ever need or not.

And pennies.

Sometimes I feel like I waste half my life trying to get rid of all the stuff that winds up in my apartment.

I've been practicing this minimalist form of existence for some time now. For those that have too much stuff, here is how you get rid of stuff:

1. Mark a portion of your basement or apartment for some of your "stuff"

2. After a year or two if you have not had to use something at all from this pile get rid of it - ebay, craigslist, garage sale or donate.

3. You will feel good about less clutter.

4. Repeat till you're left with only stuff you really need.

The only place this hasn't worked for me is electronics "stuff".

Finally... I'm not the only one that feels this way! This was a very well articulated essay. I obsessively avoid accumulation of objects because they dilute the actual value (to me, not a dollar amount) of the few things I actually enjoy.

"In fact, the poorer people are, the more stuff they seem to have."

Why would poor people have more stuff Paul? I see rich people living in McMansions have a lot more stuff than poor people and I am pretty sure Bill G has more stuff than me :).

Rich people can afford finer stuff sold in richer places. If you earned 10X what you earn now and spent it at Bang & Olufsen instead of Walmart, you'd probably buy one tenth as much stuff (in volume and mass) for the same fraction of your disposable income.

I live in a place he'd probably characterize as poor (my neighbors probably all make less than 20K), and everyone has LOTS of stuff around here, often including the mentioned cars in the front yard. When you buy cheaper stuff, it breaks more often, and it's usually cheaper to buy a new one than fix the old one, but if you're poor, you spent too much of your income on the old one to be comfortable just throwing it away. So the old microwave that doesn't work goes in the closet in case it can be fixed, and you buy a new microwave for less than you paid for the old one two years ago. You keep the broken chair in your living room because eventually you'll have enough money and time to fix and recover it, and then for years tell people not to sit in it when they come in to visit, because "it's just broken right now, but we'll get it fixed".

Keep reading 2 more paragraphs.

I've had the same epiphany, and was doing something about it as recently as today. One thing that stops me from getting rid of my stuff is that my dad has been associated with Goodwill Industries for years, and he is always talking about how he's donating stuff to Goodwill (but not before asking me if I want some of it first---which I sometimes take because even I get tired of saying "no" all the time). But Goodwill is like 15 minutes away, you have to put stuff in a box or a bag and haul it over there, and I've never been there before so I don't know exactly how to get there. My trash can, on the other hand, is right here. That doesn't seem like a big difference, but it's big enough that it has kept probably 50 lbs. of clothes in my closet and drawers that I never wear. I'm as resistant to guilt as anyone I know, but even I have a hard time throwing away "perfectly good" clothing that's only been worn once.

Good one! Some comments:

Moving across the atlantic, or to some other suitably distant locale is a great way of convincing yourself that you don't really need that much crap. The problem gets to be when you move back and forth too much and end up getting paranoid about buying anything at all that you know you're going to throw out. We're contemplating going back to the states again at this point...sigh.

Books... all I can say is "right on!". I'm glad my wife understood when I paid a bunch of money to have mine shipped over here.

In terms of food, after my latest trip back to the US, I think people there are just starting to wake up to the fact that more/bigger is not necessarily better, and it will take them a while to really catch on, and start really aiming for quality. I actually think my best business idea concerns food, but it will have to wait till we go to the states to try and implement it.

Paul makes a good point, though I have to say George Carlin made it much funnier! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac

I was starting to get down about all this 'stuff'. Great Link.

I am going to bookmark this essay with the tag girlfriend.

i hope you're planning on ridding yourself of all those old girlfriends in your basement :-P

On a serious note, I think this was a good essay for guys and girls. The reason we buy so much stuff is everyone inherently wants to be noticed and to feel important. Like Paul said, companies have done a terrific job at making us think stuff makes you important. On my high school senior trip one of the girls brought an entire suitcase just for her shoes. Each of the 14 pairs of shoes made her feel more important. My question is how do we make people think that our web applications will make them as important as their shoes do?

"My question is how do we make people think that our web applications will make them as important as their shoes do?"

The standard answer is to make the application that would be your homepage if someone else had made it by now.

Don't most people have blank home pages to have faster browser start times? I haven't had a home page for years.

I meant it figuratively (I usually do the blank homepage thing, too).

I figured :)

Google loads REALLY quickly. I don't notice the difference between a blank page and Google, and I live in the US, where broadband speeds are supposed to be woefully inadequate, per some recent article on reddit. :)

Google toolbar in firefox is faster

That's probably not a very good thing to pursue. People who feel important on account of their shoes do so out of stupidity. Capitalizing on people's stupidity is generally unfulfilling, and the success is hard to predict, because you can't relate to your customers. And why bother, when you can instead create something genuinely useful, for smart people and idiots alike?

Following up on comments about buying good things that get heavy use...

I'm typing this comment on a PowerBook G4 that has probably seen over 6 000 hours of use. At an initial purchase price of ~$1800, that's a bargain. I use this thing all the time and have realized so much value from it.[]

Compare this to my "good suit" which cost about $600, and has been worn a total of < 50 hours (job interviews, special occasions, etc).

Both are tools with a specific purpose but I get much more of a warm feeling using this computer, knowing that I bought a high quality tool and am using it to the fullest extent.

[] This isn't a Mac vs PC comment - if you got a top quality ThinkPad or Vaio notebook and are using it daily, then you know what I mean.

oops, my footnote turned into markup... that was the point of the paired square brackets that italicized the middle of my comment above.

I agree that Americans are too consumed with stuff. More importantly, though, we don't even make our own stuff any more -- the Chinese do. While stuff might not seem important, if that supply line ever gets cut, we'll see how important it really is.

The making of stuff also factors into global power. The US was able to win a war on two fronts in WWII in part because of its ability to make stuff. Remember the guns vs. butter axes on the production possibility curve in ECON101?

in 2000 i was moving around a bunch. everything i owned had to fit in the back of my station wagon. that included bed, furniture, musical instruments, computers, books, etc.

i slept on an inflatable mattress for several years. i also lived in a walk-in closet for 6 months. all those things were actually really good. it was an exciting time. living in a closet added to the subversion factor. i was invisible.

with marriage came the consolidation of things, and wedding presents, and now i'm one of the people with a garage full of stuff. strange things. not useful things. bags full of old hammers. children's things that we're saving. the good silverware. a desk that's too big to go in the house.

we live in a large-ish 3 bedroom house and i only spend time in a closet/office, the bathroom, the bedroom, the deck, and the kitchen. i have no use for 800-1000 square feet of my home. but the kids like it.

it's still a very exciting time, but there's lots of stuff. marriage is compromise, and stuff can be a part of that compromise. we have 2 gravy boats. one for everyday gravy and one for special gravy. of course, we only have gravy once every few years. but that's ok. i still work in a closet. somewhat invisible.

Stuff isn't really all that illiquid. Ebay and its ilk have created a reasonably efficient market for random junk. There's still a lot of overhead, though: writing the ad, monitoring the auction, and packing and shipping the item is time-consuming. No matter how good I got at it, it would probably still take $20 worth of my time. But if you're poor, it might still be worthwhile.

I don't think poor people have more stuff, so much as it is that poorer people tend to be less able to organize it effectively.

Rich people have whole rooms or houses full of stuff that hardly ever gets used, but since it's indexed appropriately (eg "Summer Home" or "Ballroom" or "Gallery") and maintained that way by hired help, it doesn't bother anyone.

Honestly, I hate buying stuff, and I'm pretty depressed every time I have to. It takes time to go to shopping mall, a very loud place, and there's always risk that a new thing won't serve me well. Later, even if it turns out that the thing is not that bad as I thought, time destroys it, what forces me to repeat the whole pain.

I used to put my hopes onto the computer, but by now I am worried that it will merely shift the problem. While space is not a problem on todays hard drive, too much "stuff" still makes navigating it strenuous...

Still, I can't wait for good ebook readers to appear, books are my single biggest "stuff problem".

Unfortunately it's not only useless stuff we are buying. We are also buying lies in mass media. Basically, both are result of our inability to reason quickly and independently.

The more possessions you have the thicker the prison walls constructed around ones life. Minimalism creates freedom.

What kind of heuristics do you use, besides "Buy it if you know who will be happy to inherit it"?

i wonder if these advices applies to bookmarks as well.Where i have 5000 bookmarks to be read, look,store share but don't have time where my mind always echoes the importance and usefulness of these bookmarks i own.

Just a week or so ago I went through the process of getting rid of all my stuff. My main reason for doing so wasn't to free up space in my room, it was to free up space in my head. I'm down to approximately one suitcase full of things---I even tossed out the empty suitcase. You start out with a huge mental block against throwing things away, but every time you throw something out you actually feel better, and the more things you throw out the easier it becomes. Eventually I got down to the bare essentials: a toothbrush, a few changes of clothes, and a lockbox full of important personal effects like my passport and birth certificate. The things I didn't want to carry around but couldn't bear to throw away I shipped to my parents' house. In fact, I shipped one of the last boxes there this morning (old photographs, letters from friends, postcards).

If you have to ship a lot of books---are you really going to need your Sipser book anytime soon?---you can do it media mail for next to nothing.

This is something I've wanted to do for years and I can't tell you how relieving it is to finally do it. I'd like to get down the level of the monk with just a rice bowl, or a hobo with a sack tied to a stick, but really I can't give up things like nail clippers and deodorant and razorblades, and little things like that still manage to take up space. (How much? About another laptop-case sized container.) Of course, it helps to have saved up some money first so you know you could reacquire things if you turn out to need them later. Luckily the process of saving for my startup has given me enough to do that. When I was a student I could've never tossed out my hairdryer...that's another thirty bucks. What if I grow my hair out again? With a little money in your pocket you can let the drugstore keep all of these things for you. Durable goods become disposable. America is totally geared for this. Every time I moved I would go to Wal-Mart and buy a whole new collection of silverware.

One of the rules I used to use was to inspect my stuff before moving it out of an old place. If I hadn't used something in the previous year, chances are I wasn't going to use it in the next, and I'd throw it out. I found this to be a good way to reduce clutter. Of course, now I've gotten rid of a lot of things I did use in the previous year, I just found I didn't really need to use them anymore.

On the extreme side I've gotten rid of my bed, though that's perhaps the one thing I miss. Sleeping on the floor is hard. It's kind of invigorating in a way, though it's downright uncomfortable at times. I'm enjoying it now, but when I finally buy my own place I'll definitely be repurchasing a bed.

When you throw out your stuff you just feel better about your day, and when you get rid of things you really don't need, you find it simplifies your routine. When I wake up in the morning I spend less time primping and preening. I grab my laptop case and I head out to my workspace, and then I work without worrying whether I made my bed or if my dresser needs dusting. The experience is a lot like refactoring code. It's extremely liberating.

Marked up when I read that you threw out your bed. That gave me a good laugh, as I didn't realize at first that you literally meant that you're down to "one suitcase full of things".

Paragraphs 8 & 9 are obviously allusions to ClutterMe.com

"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet."

The first rule of YCombinator is..

This is a good essay. My mother has a basement full of stuff, hallways full of stuff, and recently moved into my grandmother's house and filled her living room with stuff. Magazines, boxes.. Any average person would be appalled.

She'd probably read this essay and go "Hmm.. Yeah, that's about right", then go buy another piece of furniture from Ikea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com