Could you live with only 100 items?
One of my favorite websites, The Consumerist, asked their readers to answer the question, above. (Visit the link to vote in their poll!)
My initial reaction was “Sure! I don’t need that much stuff.” Then, I started thinking. 100 is not a lot of things, especially when you start to include those items that you take for granted – things like your bed and spatulas and toothbrush. I am positive that I have more than 100 items in my closet, right now. Hell, let me go ahead and be truthful – I have multiples of that. I mean, there are sixteen items, alone, in my purse!
Do I really need that? No, of course not. In fact, one of my goals is to go through each article in the closet and give away things that I don’t need. It’s a major undertaking and one that is in progress, slowly. Eventually, I hope to substitute the word “house” for “closet” in that sentence. Some people are comforted by possessions and while there are things I treasure, I think I would be happier and more at peace if I had less extraneous Stuff. I feel guilty when I see how many things I have and don’t use, properly. I feel stabby when I have to clean all of those things!
With that project in mind, lately, I have been making an effort to be more purposeful in my consumption. That’s the larger point of the New York Times article that prompted this question. It profiles a woman and her husband who succeeded in paring down their possessions to just 100 items (per person, I presume). They scaled back their living arrangement, she reduced her working hours and they seem happier because of it. She was able to hop off the “work-spend treadmill.”
Doesn’t that sound nice?
How much smaller a salary could I live on if I sold or donated my extraneous goods? I could use the proceeds to pay off debt. My belongings wouldn’t merit such a large home, which means I could downsize not only my space, but my mortgage, too, and my insurance costs, my utilities, etc. The ability to live on a smaller salary could open up a world of opportunities – including my dream of a home business. Would my husband and I need two vehicles – two insurance payments, two fuel expenditures – if one of us had a home business? Would I need such an extensive work wardrobe if I had a home business? Would I have time to raise a garden, thereby reducing our grocery expenditures?
I realize that this sounds pie-in-the-sky. (My poor husband is probably rolling his eyes. He is pragmatic. I am pie-in-the-sky.) It is a revolutionary idea. Without effort and a conscious and radical change in mindset and lifestyle, it would not be possible for me. I was never raised to want less. How many American children of the 1980s and 1990s were? Not many. I also realize that the idea of 100 items is extreme, but it’s something to think about.
How much happier could I be with a lot less?
Good luck with that and I’m not trying to be sarcastic. 100 items isn’t very much.
I don’t think I’ll be going for the literal 100 Things, but I think the general idea of “less is more” is something I could get down with.
I was so intruiged by this too. My goal is 1000 posessions by feb 2011, not counting books or papers. Maybe also excluding silverware and plates. not sure if I will include socks, and how to count them (1 pair, or 2 socks). I may need to leave out more things (pens, pencils, markers?) but it is a step in the right direction.
Pingback: Pancakes and French Fries » Two Weeks
interesting to think about. my husband and i were having this conversation last night, because one of our options for governor in the minnesota primary is a man, mark dayton (heir to the dayton/target fortune) whose budget deficit-fixing idea is to raise taxes on the “wealthy” minnesotans who make 150k or more a year. now, i don’t know if mark dayton has ever *lived* on only 150k a year, but in minneapolis, where the average home price pre-recession was near the 250k mark in a not-t0tally-great neighborhood, 150k isn’t going to go far. so my husband was telling me that he and some co-workers had the idea that all income taxes should be dropped, that it seems to work in new hampshire, but sales tax should be something like 30% on everything. this, of course, led to a big back-and-forth discussion (our politics aren’t exactly the same), but end result was we both agreed people spend way more than they need to for stuff they don’t NEED, but WANT, regardless of the economy of their salary. it comes down to personal responsibility, etc. and i got to thinking later, what would i NOT buy if i knew that sales tax would raise the price significantly? would i so casually buy a double latte on a wednesday morning while browsing target? would i buy my daughter that dress she doesn’t really need from gymboree? would i get my son that lego set he probably won’t play with all that often? when you really think about what you NEED to live, how many WANTS would you include on that list because certain things just make you happy that you have them around? i think about my ancestors, and the ONE doll that my great-grandmother had as a child that was her only toy. could my kids live like that? could i live without all the books and magazines and stuff i find on etsy that bring a smile to my face? 100 things is a nice notion, but i’m not sure we’re geared that way anymore. would we really be able to pare down our belongings to what a family of four really needs and make it all fit in a covered wagon? hmm. interesting.
Ooh, Michele, I like that idea of “make it all fit in a covered wagon.” That’s a good visual for me!
Something I was thinking about, after writing this post and while doing the dishes, was, “Why in the world do two people need a complete set of dishes to serve 8?” We registered for it when we got married, last year. My husband and I are the only people who have used these dishes. When we are camping, we don’t even notice that we’re making do with one plate, one bowl, one set of silverware, one cup for each of us. It’s totally not a big deal. Why should it be when we’re at home?
Pingback: C is for Clutter
Pingback: 2010 in review | Nothing Rhymes with Lydia…