Sometimes, people are reluctant to get rid of items they own because they paid a lot of money for them. I’m talking here about items that are no longer useful or loved or important, but are kept simply because the owner perceives them, rightly or not, as valuable. After all, why would you get rid of something if you paid a lot of money for it? Well, I can see that point, but… Have you ever thought about the ongoing cost of ownership?

First of all, an item takes up space. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a grand piano or a diamond ring, it takes up space in your home, and you pay for space. If it’s a piano, the amount of space is significant! Think about what else you could do with that space if the piano that you don’t use weren’t there. Could you turn that room into a dining room? A home office? A reading nook? Do you have so many unused large items that you are essentially paying rent or a mortgage for a room you don’t need? Are you getting your money’s worth from your space?

This photo was taken by Geert Pieters for Unsplash.

Plus, any object needs to be managed. You have to clean it, clean around or under it, maintain it, repair it, insure it, pick it up and put it away… It costs you time and energy, in addition to mental bandwidth! Managing this item will cost you, and you need to make sure that the cost is worth it in this season of your life.

Then it comes down to the sunk cost fallacy. When we have invested heavily in an item (because we paid a lot of money for it, because we believe that someday we will use up all those scrapbooking supplies, etc.), we are reluctant to let it go, even when we know that letting it go would be more beneficial than keeping it.

Crafting supplies — This photo was taken by volodymyr proskurovskyi for Unsplash.

There are two quotes on this topic that I’d like to share, and I say variations of these things to my clients often. First, Peter Walsh wants us to keep in mind that just as “inexpensive is not a good reason to buy something, expensive is not a good reason to keep something.” Also, Cassandra Aarssen says, “Remember that the money you spent on your item is gone. You will not be richer because you store this item in your home, and you won’t be poorer if you let it go.”

An obvious solution, in those cases, is to sell the item. Or at least, it seems easy in theory, but is less so in practice. Ask yourself whether selling the object is really worth your time and effort. Will you post pictures of it online and field inquiries from people who might be interested, or pay to ship it to the buyer? Will you really have a yard sale or go to multiple consignment stores? Will you be satisfied with getting only a fraction of your money back after all that effort? If yes, then go for it!

Here’s another solution: look at the cost you already paid as a rental fee. You’ve gotten whatever use you were going to get out of this, and now it’s time to let it go. If you must try to sell it, give yourself a deadline after which you will just donate it. Move it along to its next owner, and your payment will be the peace this brings into your life. Besides, the money you spent on it is gone already, even if you were to keep the item! At least this way you get your life back.

Let it go! — This photo was taken by Fuu J for Unsplash.

As I start my journey into professional organizing, I’ve noticed that there’s a chasm between what the word “minimalism” means and what the general public envisions. I bet some of you are already picturing a monk’s room, devoid of all material possessions. While that may look peaceful to some, it can lack warmth and comfort, not to mention that it is not at all practical for most people! However, I’m here to say that what you’re thinking of is actually asceticism, not minimalism. The Oxford Dictionary defines “asceticism” as “severe self-discipline and avoidance of all forms of indulgence.” That’s not what I preach.

I like the way Joshua Becker, of Becoming Minimalist, defines it: “Minimalism is the intentional pursuit of the things we value the most and the removal of anything that distracts us.” This essentially means that it’s about removing clutter from your life, whether we’re talking about clutter that is physical (my specialty) or not (overloaded schedule, for example). He says that “minimalism isn’t about removing things you love. It’s about removing the things that distract you from the things you love. It’s about living more by owning less.”

You see, removing distractions allows you to focus on what is most important to you. You own your stuff, not the other way around! When you aren’t distracted by clutter taking up your mental bandwidth (what we might call “visual pollution”) or by objects taking up your time (maintaining them, cleaning them, putting them away), you are then able to focus on what you actually want to do.

I’m aware that some people are vehemently opposed to minimalism, because they see it as “just another boring product wealthy people can buy”. However, to me, that’s missing the point. It’s really just criticism of a certain aesthetic that, granted, we see often, but is not minimalism per se. Minimalism will look different for every household, but to me, it always seeks to improve one’s life by simplifying it.

Of course, that’s easier to say when minimalism is a choice, but it’s not pleasant when it is forced upon us. Did you know that over 60% of Americans can’t deal with a $500 emergency? And that was BEFORE 2020 hit!

In Quebec, where I’m from, I often heard the concept of “voluntary simplicity,” which doesn’t seem as widespread in Anglophone culture. It’s essentially about mindfully choosing how we spend our money and being satisfied with less. In an article titled “The Voluntary Simplicity Movement: A multi-national survey analysis in theoretical context ” (published in the Journal of Consumer Culture), Samuel Alexander and Simon Ussher say that “the Voluntary Simplicity Movement can be understood broadly as a diverse social movement made up of people who are resisting high consumption lifestyles and who are seeking, in various ways, a lower consumption but higher quality of life alternative.”

In my line of work, I’ve seen that the initial effort (decluttering, organizing, and changing habits) is time-consuming, but the rewards are reaped later and are well worth it. Don’t let people scare you with tiny living and drastically down-sizing, because that’s not at all necessary! Simple living is the way to go.

If you want to read more on the subject, in addition to Becoming Minimalist, I also recommend Be More with Less. That blog is run by Courtney Carver, who created the fashion challenge Project 333, which I believe was the original capsule wardrobe. If videos are more your thing, there’s the lovely Minimal Mom on YouTube. And let’s not forget Minimalist Baker, whose food blog has recipes call for 10 ingredients or fewer, 1 bowl only, or 30 minutes or less to prepare.

As always, I’m available to answer your questions on the topic!