What does Simple/Intentional Living mean to you?

[NikiSC]

I once thought it was a place I would arrive at after decluttering and being particular about commitments, etc. Now I feel that it's all of these things and more.

I was personally pursuing this lifestyle for selfish reasons 😕.

I now see it as a spectrum. The number of items aren't as important as how *i* live out my days.

Just my musings as I think I've nearly purged my home!

[Guest]

To me, it's not about the actual amount of things I have or do, it's about whether or not I am keeping things or doing things for optimal reasons. Am I keeping this Doo-Dad out of guilt? Because Grandma gave it to me or my mom worked on it for twenty hours (which she was certain to tell me) or I spent too much money on it? Am I keeping it for reasons that make me feel like a failure ("If I were a Good Person, I would read Les Miserables instead of leaving it to gather dust...if my belly were flatter, I would wear that skirt...")?

[gardenmom5]

that sentence says to me someone has too much time on their hands, and aren't "just living".

[Crimson Wife]

Minimalist living- just enough, and nothing more.

 

If it's the whole "Kon Mari" thing of getting rid of stuff that hasn't been used in [insert length of time], that's actually a privileged attitude IMHO because it relies on the ability of the person to re-acquire the item if it turns out that he/she actually DOES need it. I learned the hard way not to get rid of any functional item because I might turn out to need it precisely when there is ZERO room in the budget to re-acquire it even at thrift store/eBay/Craig's List prices.

[HTRMom]

Simple living to me means not being carried away by wanting stuff and fancy events, but a more homey, maybe old-fashioned lifestyle.

 

Intentional means keeping things in your home and people and activities in your life on purpose, because they mean something to you somehow.

 

Minimalist means having a small amount of stuff, possibly new, perfect stuff.

 

Intentional means the most to me of those things. I've done the whole konmari purge thing. I don't have very much stuff by 21st century standards, but it's still a lot of stuff in a bigger perspective.

 

The fact that minimalism is a choice at all and that people have 30 trashbags of garbage in their home is immense privilege, whether you keep it in your garage indefinitely or trash it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crimson Wife]

 

The fact that minimalism is a choice at all and that people have 30 trashbags of garbage in their home is immense privilege, whether you keep it in your garage indefinitely or trash it.

 

I'm not talking about garbage but perfectly functional items that simply don't get used very often. I have no problem with getting rid of things that are broken or clearly on their last legs.

 

So long as the person has the storage space, it's cheaper to store the item in the attic/garage than to get rid of it and later re-acquire it. You've now paid twice for the same thing when you should've just hung onto it in the first place. And the need always seems to arise precisely when the budget doesn't allow for discretionary spending.

[Sherry in OH]

Simple living is a backlash against consumerism and debt.  It is not paring down your possessions to an arbitrary number.  It is about differentiating between wants and needs and being mindful about how you are spending your money.

 

The two books that come to mind are Your Money or Your Life and Tightwad Gazette.

 

Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin wrote Your Money or Your Life in 1992.  They urged their readers to practice frugality and end the cycle of working to pay for more and more consumer goods.  Each purchase should be considered in terms of how many hours of the buyer’s life it took to earn the money to pay for the item.  Was the item worth it?

 

Dominguez and Robin did suggest paring down possessions.  The goal was to sell the excess to generate cash to pay down debt.  The person was to live modestly, putting as much income as possible toward debt repayment.  Once debt was paid, excess earnings were funneled into investments.  Once investment income exceeded living expenses the person could quit his/her job.

 

Amy Dacyczyn, author of Tightwad Gazette, also promoted frugality.  Her newsletters (1990-1996), reprinted as a book, offered practical advice for families.  While a fraction of the advice is dated (and in some cases now illegal), the majority of her advice is remains valid. 

 

 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's the sort of thing that people who have plenty worry about IMO.

 

I don't mean that to bash or anything like that.  I have plenty myself.  It's just I really could not be bothered with this shi*.  I just want to live.  Ya know?  So maybe I've mastered simple and intentional.  LOL 

[regentrude]

dp

Edited May 2, 2017 by regentrude

[regentrude]

being intentional about possessions:

carefully evaluating whether I need, or find great joy, in an item before acquiring it; not using possessions as a status symbol; no conspicuous consumption;

 

being intentional about activities:

choosing activities for the value they bring to my life, nurturing body and spirit; spending time wisely

Edited May 2, 2017 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

For me it's largely about conciously working against the consumerism that's built into my way of thinking and acting.

[NikiSC]

Simple living is a backlash against consumerism and debt. It is not paring down your possessions to an arbitrary number. It is about differentiating between wants and needs and being mindful about how you are spending your money.

 

The two books that come to mind are Your Money or Your Life and Tightwad Gazette.

 

Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin wrote Your Money or Your Life in 1992. They urged their readers to practice frugality and end the cycle of working to pay for more and more consumer goods. Each purchase should be considered in terms of how many hours of the buyer’s life it took to earn the money to pay for the item. Was the item worth it?

 

Dominguez and Robin did suggest paring down possessions. The goal was to sell the excess to generate cash to pay down debt. The person was to live modestly, putting as much income as possible toward debt repayment. Once debt was paid, excess earnings were funneled into investments. Once investment income exceeded living expenses the person could quit his/her job.

 

Amy Dacyczyn, author of Tightwad Gazette, also promoted frugality. Her newsletters (1990-1996), reprinted as a book, offered practical advice for families. While a fraction of the advice is dated (and in some cases now illegal), the majority of her advice is remains valid.

I love Amy Dacyzyn! I consider her advice timeless.

[NikiSC]

It's the sort of thing that people who have plenty worry about IMO.

 

I don't mean that to bash or anything like that. I have plenty myself. It's just I really could not be bothered with this shi*. I just want to live. Ya know? So maybe I've mastered simple and intentional. LOL

I think you have because if it ain't broke don't fix it, lol.

[kewb]

To me it means kiss, keep it simple, stupid.  

 

I try to keep on top of the clutter (not easy when you live with pack rats).  It is getting rid of things when they no longer serve.  Not things like the food processor I use once a year, but things like a shirt I never wear.  I had a beautiful shirt from Italy.  It was a gift.  It was beautiful.  It required a camisole.  I had great difficulty finding the right camisole.  I rarely, almost never, wore that shirt.  It moved from my home, to my married apartment, to our first house before I could finally say that it didn't matter how beautiful the shirt was if I was never going to wear it and I needed to donate it.

 

I am still storing my 36 cup coffee urn.  I haven't used it in at least 15 years, if not longer.  I am not getting rid of it.  It works and you never know when I might have a gathering that requires that urn.  I did finally sell the hot stone grill set we received as an engagement gift and used once.  We were married 20 years before I stopped storing it. The espresso maker that we used once, stored it for 10 years before getting rid of it. I stored our black and decker coffee maker that was an engagement gift for years when dh replaced it with one that brewed into his travel mug.  Eventually, he lost the mugs and I was able to use the old pot again instead of buying a new one.

 

Long explanation for being intentional about what I keep, activities I choose to engage in, and purchase.

[Pawz4me]

I was a born minimalist/intentional living person.

 

For me it has absolutely nothing to do with debt or spending or frugality. I've been blessed to have always been able to afford needs and most wants w/o worrying about debt. I just don't like the clutter (physical and emotional/psychological) that too much stuff brings to my life. Never have.

 

For me it also means not cluttering my life with commitments or activities that aren't necessary or don't provide something meaningful, a good return on the investment of my time.

 

I agree with Sparkky that this is only a "problem" for those who have plenty. Definitely a first world issue.

[HTRMom]

I'm not talking about garbage but perfectly functional items that simply don't get used very often. I have no problem with getting rid of things that are broken or clearly on their last legs.

 

So long as the person has the storage space, it's cheaper to store the item in the attic/garage than to get rid of it and later re-acquire it. You've now paid twice for the same thing when you should've just hung onto it in the first place. And the need always seems to arise precisely when the budget doesn't allow for discretionary spending.

I know. What I mean is, stuff that you own but don't really use or question whether you need. Lots of it. Maybe you keep it because you may need it next year or maybe you trash it or donate it or sell it, but what I'm saying is having a large quantity of stuff that you don't use or aren't sure you really need is very privileged. Yes, being able to get rid of questionable utility items with the possibility of rebuying in future is one step further. But if we were really in poverty, would we have these things in the first place? And if we didn't need them often, we might try to sell anything of value lest we starve. Never mind the privilege of all that storage space for rarely-used items.

[mom of 2 boys]

For me, it's about reducing stress. There are so many things in life that we have no control over, but we can choose to not clutter up our lives with things and commitments that don't even matter to us. That being said, I think there is an even better concept out there...and that is BALANCED living. If it doesn't make sense to get rid of something, or you're not sure if it makes sense, then don't! If we purge too much from our lives, we'll run into the opposite problem - emptiness and boredom.

[solascriptura]

Simple living is how I've been most of my life unintentionally. I just don't like the feeling I get with clutter around me.

[Crimson Wife]

being intentional about possessions:

carefully evaluating whether I need, or find great joy, in an item before acquiring it; not using possessions as a status symbol; no conspicuous consumption;

 

If you saw my car, you'd know I don't do that :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

The whole "simple living" trend goes beyond just living modestly within one's means. It has become a status symbol in itself.

 

[regentrude]

If you saw my car, you'd know I don't do that :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Since you are the only person I know who does that, would you allow me to ask why? What is the motivation behind demonstrating one's wealth through one's possessions? Why is that important to you? (This is a serious question, not snarky)

Edited May 2, 2017 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

I though CW meant she didn't try and show status through posessions?

 

I think she's right though, it has become something of a status thing in itself.  Which doesn't necessarily mean it is bad, much like making a point of buying things that are ethically produced.

[Crimson Wife]

Since you are the only person I know who does that, would you allow me to ask why? What is the motivation behind demonstrating one's wealth through one's possessions? Why is that important to you? (This is a serious question, not snarky)

 

I think you misunderstood me. I've got an old high mileage economy vehicle- the exact opposite of "conspicuous consumption". It gets me from Point A to Point B without costing an arm & a leg in gas. We intend to keep it as long as it's running reliably.

 

In some lines of work, however, it is important to project an image of "success" in order to attract clients. My dad had always driven basic vehicles but when he started his own financial consulting business he bought a late model luxury car because he knew that he had to "look the part". It was stupid that people will make assumptions based on something as shallow as the car driven. After my dad fully retired he went back to driving a Camry. But for that period of his life, it was a strategic business decision.

[Rosie_0801]

Maybe to me it means having only good quality problems, lol.

[Guest]

It means a lot of boundaries to me.

 

In a good way. Intentional with time, with relationships, with self care. Possessions are the least of it.

[Catwoman]

 

Since you are the only person I know who does that, would you allow me to ask why? What is the motivation behind demonstrating one's wealth through one's possessions? Why is that important to you? (This is a serious question, not snarky)

I know she has already explained that she doesn't do that, but I'm wondering why anyone would judge another person for buying high end luxury cars.

 

Many people like cars and enjoy luxury features, and they buy the cars because they like them, not because they care about impressing other people. If they can afford them, why would anyone care what kind of cars they have?

 

That goes for other things, as well, whether it's big houses, a Rolex instead of a Timex, real diamonds instead of Diamonique, etc. I don't think there is any shame in wanting and buying nice things, and I have often found that threads like these tend to try to shame people who don't live simply and who like to go shopping for fun and not just out of necessity.

 

I guess I just don't know many people IRL who are into the "simple and intentional living" thing. :)

[Catwoman]

It means a lot of boundaries to me.

 

In a good way. Intentional with time, with relationships, with self care. Possessions are the least of it.

But you can be all of those things and still have the possessions. :)

[Catwoman]

I though CW meant she didn't try and show status through posessions?

 

I think she's right though, it has become something of a status thing in itself. Which doesn't necessarily mean it is bad, much like making a point of buying things that are ethically produced.

I think it's absolutely fine if it makes people happy. :)

 

What isn't fine is when people use it as a way to criticize other people's lifestyles.

 

I'm all in favor of people living the way that makes them happy as long as they aren't harming anyone else. If one person is very minimalistic and it works for them, that's great, but if that same person mocks everyone who doesn't live minimalistically, I don't have a lot of patience for that. (Obviously, the reverse is true as well.)

 

I guess I'm a "mind your own business" kind of person when it comes to that sort of thing. :)

Edited May 3, 2017 by Catwoman

[Desert Strawberry]

It's the sort of thing that people who have plenty worry about IMO.

 

I don't mean that to bash or anything like that.  I have plenty myself.  It's just I really could not be bothered with this shi*.  I just want to live.  Ya know?  So maybe I've mastered simple and intentional.  LOL 

 

 

i disagree. i had to put the absolute most thought and effort into living simply when we were broke. because there really was no other way. we could live a good and simple life, or we could suffer and splurge, suffer and want. i had to teach my children to play simply and enjoy the simple things because we could not afford the expensive things. 

 

now we have plenty. i think far less about simple living, because i have the option not to. i gifted a child cash for his birthday. i did not make a homemade gift for him or take him out for a very inexpensive outing. i had the cash to spare. that has not happened before. 

 

i am going to buy bedding for that child this weekend. i'm not crafting him a quilt out of recycled sheets because i don't have to. we have $15 to spare and access to ross and marshalls to zip on over and buy a blanket. and gas to get there. a hand crafted quilt would arguably be nicer, and i would enjoy making it, but it's not a necessary endeavor anymore. 

 

we have the cash because we still live simply. we don't have a lot of stuff. one blanket per bed. 10 outfits per child. two pairs of shoes each. 8 dishes for 6 people. one extracurricular per season. books from the library. inexpensive furnishings. house and cars are paid off. and old, and very used. 

 

we have a lot more wiggle room. we can enjoy nicer things. i have a smart phone with unlimited data. we have central ac and heat. we go out whenever we like. we eat out more often than we should. but we make choices. we can choose to get takeout after a long day, instead of eating the co-op harvest i canned and froze. we have those choices because we have more buying power and more options than we had before. 

[NikiSC]

It means a lot of boundaries to me.

 

In a good way. Intentional with time, with relationships, with self care. Possessions are the least of it.

That's one thing I've realized. It's important to have boundaries with others and myself. This is something I struggle with as I am a "yes" person.

[Guest]

Edit for clarity in brackets

 

But you can be all of those things and still have [a lot of superfluous] possessions. :)

Some people can. Some people can't.

[Crimson Wife]

I think it's absolutely fine if it makes people happy. :)

 

What isn't fine is when people use it as a way to criticize other people's lifestyles.

 

I'm all in favor of people living the way that makes them happy as long as they aren't harming anyone else. If one person is very minimalistic and it works for them, that's great, but if that same person mocks everyone who doesn't live minimalistically, I don't have a lot of patience for that. (Obviously, the reverse is true as well.)

 

I guess I'm a "mind your own business" kind of person when it comes to that sort of thing. :)

 

Exactly. We all have our own priorities for how we choose to live our lives. I'm not a car person but if someone else is and has the budget for a fancy one, that's their prerogative.

 

I do think it's stupid that some shallow people will make assumptions about how successful or unsuccessful someone is based off of the choice of car driven. Buying a luxury car didn't make my dad a better consultant than when he had a Camry any more than wearing suits from Brooks Brothers vs. Men's Wearhouse did. It should be seen as nothing more than personal preference.

[Catwoman]

Edit for clarity in brackets

 

 

Some people can. Some people can't.

I'm not sure why you "edited" my post to change it to "a lot of superfluous" possessions. :confused:

 

I think I'm missing something because that makes no sense to me. If people like and enjoy the things they buy, why would you judge those possessions as being "superfluous?"

 

I'm sure there are plenty of people who live minimalistically who aren't particularly intentional about their time, their relationships, or their self-care, so I don't get your point.

 

Living minimalistically does not make anyone a better person than anyone else. It simply means that the person has made some different lifestyle choices.

 

Different. Not better, not worse. Just different.

[unsinkable]

Edit for clarity in brackets

 

 

Some people can. Some people can't.

b

 

Some people need find a way to make their point without altering other people's posts.

[Bluegoat]

I think it's absolutely fine if it makes people happy. :)

 

What isn't fine is when people use it as a way to criticize other people's lifestyles.

 

I'm all in favor of people living the way that makes them happy as long as they aren't harming anyone else. If one person is very minimalistic and it works for them, that's great, but if that same person mocks everyone who doesn't live minimalistically, I don't have a lot of patience for that. (Obviously, the reverse is true as well.)

 

I guess I'm a "mind your own business" kind of person when it comes to that sort of thing. :)

 

Buying things to impress other people is fine?

 

I don't really think it's a very healthy way to think.  It suggests a pretty low view of one's own value, and it's unlikely to lead to much happiness.

[NikiSC]

I love reading others thoughts on this.

It is definitely a first world problem. And it's very much a fad. I had never heard of such and definitely grew up in a cluttered home with a mom who enjoys shopping. I read an article on Tsh Oxeneider's old blog back in the day on intentional living. I was intrigued. For a long time I would focus on purging and organizing and that's how I spent most of my free time. I was definitely missing the forest for the trees.

Last year I had to care for my disabled father and I went into survival mode (he's better now🙌ðŸ»). Anyway, it took a lot from my family, homeschooling, etc. I had to guard my free time more.

Just as an aside, we struggle financially.Every choice that we make or money that we spend HAS to be intentional or we're in trouble.

More to share but I've got to go!

[Bluegoat]

Bingo.

 

I guess it does take some level of privilege to do this, but I'm not sure it takes financial privilege. I mean, globally, of course. Globally, I'm privileged at being able to waste a few lentils, let alone donate clothes which no longer bring me joy.  Locally I do not fit into the financially privileged at all, although there are plenty of people with less than me. I am somewhat buffered by family. A lot of what I own - my sofas, kitchen tables, bookcases etc were all hand me downs from my parents.

 

I don't think there's any reason working class people can't also aim for simple or intentional, or work against consumerism.

 

I think they can.  But it can actually be more difficult, I think.  One issue is just the time and space to think about it, as opposed to thinking about how to get what you need.

 

And there is a kind of virtue signaling that can go on with simplicity, which doesn't seem to resonate so much with people in lower economic brackets.  I see a lot more mums determined their kids will only have wooden toys and waldorf dolls, for example, rather than plastic things and stuff from the dollar store.  Now, I would argue that isn't real anti-consumerism, it's actually consumerism fitting itself to a niche market and taking over that anti-consumer message.  So - a trick.  But I can see why people perceive that as relating wealth and minimalism.

 

It's a lot easier to have a minimalist wardrobe, for example, when you can afford a few really beautifully made and excellent quality things.  I think it's more than just the practical aspects of having things that last and are always appropriate.  It's satisfying to have beautifully made things.  It's difficult to get that same aesthetic satisfaction from crap from H&M. 

[Catwoman]

Buying things to impress other people is fine?

 

I don't really think it's a very healthy way to think. It suggests a pretty low view of one's own value, and it's unlikely to lead to much happiness.

I think you're making some pretty big character judgments here.

 

You actually kind of misinterpreted my post, but I'll run with it and say that there is no reason why it's terrible for people to want nice things, and I would suspect that most people want to impress others in one way or another, whether it's with material possessions or by being smarter than someone else or by being the best volunteer or any number of other things that make them stand out from the crowd.

 

Why do people buy lovely clothes? Sure, they want to look good for themselves, but they also probably like it when other people tell them how attractive they look. Why would a woman bother to wear makeup? Again, she wants to look pretty for herself, but she probably also wants to look her best for others as well. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

I'm not sure why you equate wanting luxury items with a lack of one's own value. Plenty of very self-confident and self-assured people still want to have beautiful things and yes, to look successful.

 

I'm always surprised at the judgmentalism toward people who are financially successful and who like to enjoy the benefits of that success by owning and displaying nice things.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Catwoman

[Bluegoat]

I think you're making some pretty big character judgments here.

 

There's no reason why it's terrible for people to want nice things, and I would suspect that most people want to impress others in one way or another, whether it's with material possessions or by being smarter than someone else or by being the best volunteer or any number of other things that make them stand out from the crowd.

 

Why do people buy lovely clothes? Sure, they want to look good for themselves, but they also probably like it when other people tell them how attractive they look. Why would a woman bother to wear makeup? Again, she wants to look pretty for herself, but she probably also wants to look her best for others as well. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

I'm not sure why you equate wanting luxury items with a lack of one's own value. Plenty of very self-confident and self-assured people still want to have beautiful things and yes, to look successful.

 

I'm always surprised at the judgmentalism toward people who are financially successful and who like to enjoy the benefits of that success by owning and displaying nice things.

 

Enjoying the things isn't really the issue.  It's the idea that they reflect on us somehow.

 

I wouldn't equate wanting to look nice with wanting to look sucessful, particularly, though it can, for some people, be similar.  When it is, I don't think it's particularly healthy either.  It's very human for people to struggle with valuing themselves on their own appearance, I think because our body is in fact part of who we are. Our stuff, though?  Who really wants to impress the kind of person who will think our possessions reflect on us?

 

Why do people buy lovely things?  Because they appreciate their beauty, think they are better quality, they wish to support artisans.  There are many possibilities that are not about appearing more successful or about what others think.

 

If we know our own intrinsic value, we know it is not about our success, much less other peoples perceptions of that.  I don't actually know many adults who don't realize that, and the few that think acquiring things to impress other people is a good idea are not emotionally healthy.

 

The idea that this is inappropriately judgmental - meh.  The whole idea of displaying success or wealth depends on judgementalism - the observer must be there to see the item that confers the status and know that it is that kind of item.

 

There are some people who have a kind of class hatred towards the well-off.  Don't confuse that though with distaste for using bought objects to confer status or deliberately display wealth, because they aren't the same.  Many wealthy people do not do the latter and also find it distasteful.  And you can  use possessions to confer status without being wealthy.

[regentrude]

 

I know she has already explained that she doesn't do that, but I'm wondering why anyone would judge another person for buying high end luxury cars.

 

Many people like cars and enjoy luxury features, and they buy the cars because they like them, not because they care about impressing other people. If they can afford them, why would anyone care what kind of cars they have?

 

As I explained, I was genuinely interested and not judging. I understand about quality, and buying a high quality item if one can afford makes sense to me.

But in the post CW replied to I had said specifically "conspicuous consumption" and "possession as a status symbol".

This was NOT about purchasing quality - but rather about the need to conspicuously display a label so that other people know it was high end (there are many people who can afford, and do buy, expensive items and make sure no external label advertises this because they would consider that tacky) and about using items as status symbol.

None of this has anything to do with the expensive object being simply better (nicer/more functional/prettier/longer lasting/whatever).

It was about the motivation being the need to display that this is an expensive item to the outside world. Why do people do that?

Edited May 3, 2017 by regentrude

[Guest]

I love Amy Dacyzyn! I consider her advice timeless.

I'm still not sure how to pronounce her name though :p

[Rosie_0801]

I'm not sure why you equate wanting luxury items with a lack of one's own value. Plenty of very self-confident and self-assured people still want to have beautiful things and yes, to look successful.

 

I'm all in favour of people wanting luxury goods, particularly if my poor people friends can sell them those luxury goods. :D

 

If people in my area want to buy premium condiments to show off at their restaurants and dinner parties, all the better for my dv survivor friend who is caring for what we might call differently able or maybe just downright disadvantaged family members.

 

Fads aren't all bad!  :cheers2:

[Guest]

I'm not sure why you "edited" my post to change it to "a lot of superfluous" possessions. :confused:

I think I'm missing something because that makes no sense to me. If people like and enjoy the things they buy, why would you judge those possessions as being "superfluous?"

I'm sure there are plenty of people who live minimalistically who aren't particularly intentional about their time, their relationships, or their self-care, so I don't get your point.

Living minimalistically does not make anyone a better person than anyone else. It simply means that the person has made some different lifestyle choices.

Different. Not better, not worse. Just different.

  

b

Some people need find a way to make their point without altering other people's posts.

I edited the post because it was MY quote about "possessions being the least of it" originally, and it better reflected what I meant.

 

NM the rest

Edited May 3, 2017 by OKBud

[NikiSC]

I'm still not sure how to pronounce her name though :p

It's pronounced "decision". She stated that in an article I read, lol.

[Desert Strawberry]

As I explained, I was genuinely interested and not judging. I understand about quality, and buying a high quality item if one can afford makes sense to me.

But in the post CW replied to I had said specifically "conspicuous consumption" and "possession as a status symbol".

This was NOT about purchasing quality - but rather about the need to conspicuously display a label so that other people know it was high end (there are many people who can afford, and do buy, expensive items and make sure no external label advertises this because they would consider that tacky) and about using items as status symbol.

None of this has anything to do with the expensive object being simply better (nicer/more functional/prettier/longer lasting/whatever).

It was about the motivation being the need to display that this is an expensive item to the outside world. Why do people do that?

ime this is done by people who have risen in socio-economic status. it's a sign of accomplishment to be able to flaunt a custom painted mustang or a designer bag (even if it's really a knock off, but we're all pretending not to notice). having a a flashy thing is intended to convey the person's status as having risen out of poverty. look at me, i'm valuable. i'm an achiever. 

 

in more affluent circles, this behavior is considered tacky, materialistic, and classless. it's assumed that you have enough resources to provide for yourself. showing it off is unnecessary and looks a bit silly. emphasis is placed on quality instead. 

[Sherry in OH]

Intentional living means consciously choosing your focus.  You decide what is most important to you then strive to align your time, energy, and money with those values.  It often includes practicing frugality in some aspects of consumer consumption, but the frugality is a means to an end rather than a goal.  For example, a family choosing homeschooling will in many cases do without a second income.  This means less disposable income.  Less disposable income means the family buys less, buys less expensive goods, and/or incurs more debt. The idea behind intentional living is work to live rather than live to work.  For propenents of the movement, buying less or buying less expensive goods are valid options.  They avoid incurring consumer debt. 

 

Although many high-earners were part of the intentional living movement, so were lower earners. The Dacyzyns were not weathly when Amy wrote her newsletter.  The family wanted to save a substancial down-payment on a large farmhouse on a small income. The family sought ways to reduce spending to allow them to funnel money to that goal.

 

Unlike minimalism practiced as part of the intentional living movement, 21^st century minimalism seems to be a goal rather than a means to an end.   

[regentrude]

The idea behind intentional living is work to live rather than live to work..   

 

I don't think this is the case. I know many people who live with great intent and purpose who are passionate about their work and for whom this is an integral part of their lives and identities; they would work even if they were independently wealthy. This is true for all the artists, scientists, writers, and healers in my circle of friends.

[Guest]

I don't think this is the case. I know many people who live with great intent and purpose who are passionate about their work and for whom this is an integral part of their lives and identities; they would work even if they were independently wealthy. This is true for all the artists, scientists, writers, and healers in my circle of friends.

 

Those people would be working to live, because they are throwing their resources (namely time) toward what matters to them the most.

[Guest]

I think a lot of the rhetoric around Intentional Living is just making a way for people of lesser means to do what people of more means have always been able to do: mostly what they want.

 

 

When you have less, to do what you want to do with your resources (time, money, emotional investments) more often than not, you have to swim upstream a bit. It's not a matter of "just living," you have to figure it out. The internet has given people a way to share ideas about how they have figured it out.

 

As noted above, there are different camps. Some people absolutely do need material minimalism to get their head in the place they want it to be in. But some people don't. Think about the kitchen cleaning before bed thread. Some people can't "hear themselves think" when their house is messy, and some people barely notice when their house is messy. Likewise, some people feel oppressed by their belongings and some people revel in them.

 

THAT some people in all camps are jerks should be neither surprising, nor used as a way to shut down conversations about 'intentional' or whatever living.

 

Jerks stay all over.

 

[Desert Strawberry]

 

 

Unlike minimalism practiced as part of the intentional living movement, 21^st century minimalism seems to be a goal rather than a means to an end.   

 

i'm seeing the current trend of minimalism as strictly an aesthetic. it's not about living simply, or having less. it's about having great storage, and lots of wide open, largely unfurnished space. no visible possessions, lots of rich, bare woods, and an abundance of white paint with no adornment. 

 

in that sense, minimalism is definitely for the wealthy. the ability to live in such a way that it appears no one is living in the space at all. humanity sacrificed for cleanliness.

 

i'm a minimalist, in that i live a simple, frugal life, with few possessions and unobtrusive clothing. i abhor clutter and embrace basic, effective things.  

 

according to those i'm interacting with now, i fail at minimalism because i chose to have a family-a large one at that- instead of living alone. i live in a small, close house instead of an airy loft. i have furnishings, textiles, open shelves, and -heaven forbid- brightly painted walls. 

 

i live in a bunker in the desert. i own 8 outfits-mostly black, and 3 pairs of shoes-all black, two sets of sheets-one dark gray, one pink, one blanket-colorful. i school my own kids with ebooks and a single basic math text book, and the public library. i cook our meals from scratch-mostly beans and rice. i spend my time reading, gardening, knitting, and snuggling my dogs. i shop once a month, if i can't avoid it. 

 

but yeah. not minimalist enough. 

[Catwoman]

As I explained, I was genuinely interested and not judging. I understand about quality, and buying a high quality item if one can afford makes sense to me.

But in the post CW replied to I had said specifically "conspicuous consumption" and "possession as a status symbol".

This was NOT about purchasing quality - but rather about the need to conspicuously display a label so that other people know it was high end (there are many people who can afford, and do buy, expensive items and make sure no external label advertises this because they would consider that tacky) and about using items as status symbol.

None of this has anything to do with the expensive object being simply better (nicer/more functional/prettier/longer lasting/whatever).

It was about the motivation being the need to display that this is an expensive item to the outside world. Why do people do that?

They probably have the same motivation as the people who brag incessantly about being minimalist and who go on and on about how they would never be caught dead displaying a possession with a designer label on it.

 

ime this is done by people who have risen in socio-economic status. it's a sign of accomplishment to be able to flaunt a custom painted mustang or a designer bag (even if it's really a knock off, but we're all pretending not to notice). having a a flashy thing is intended to convey the person's status as having risen out of poverty. look at me, i'm valuable. i'm an achiever. 

 

in more affluent circles, this behavior is considered tacky, materialistic, and classless. it's assumed that you have enough resources to provide for yourself. showing it off is unnecessary and looks a bit silly. emphasis is placed on quality instead.

 

Honestly, a person hasn't really risen in economic status if she's carrying a knock-off version of a designer bag, so I would assume that most people would consider that person to be a phony and not be impressed with her posing as being something she's not.

 

I was raised in those "more affluent circles" you mentioned, and while quality is certainly a priority, you can also bet that most people aren't wearing a Rolex and driving a Mercedes entirely because of the quality. They aren't trying to show off, but many do wear fine jewelry and designer clothing, and they drive luxury cars, and they do feel successful and they are proud of their homes, their possessions, and their achievements -- they just don't go around telling everyone what brand of shoes they're wearing or whatever, and they know that their possessions don't make them better people than anyone else.

 

The difference between them and the people who brag and act all superior to others isn't necessarily that their possessions are so different, but that their attitudes toward those possessions are different -- some people realize that having better stuff doesn't make them superior to other people, while others use their possessions to try to show that they're better than other people. If those people didn't have money, they would find something else to brag about to try to prove that they're better than others.

 

But I don't know that we should be so quick to judge the people who are newly able to afford nice things and who like to display their wealth a little. They're excited about their newfound success and if showing everyone their new designer bag makes them feel happy and proud of their accomplishments, good for them. I think it only becomes a problem when they start looking down on other people and using their possessions to try to make others feel inferior to them. Otherwise, who cares? Basically, I'm saying that if someone says, "Hey, I just got this great new handbag," it's fine, as long as they don't follow it up with, "and it's too bad you'll probably never be able to afford one," because that's the part that makes it not fine.

 

And again, the same obnoxious thing happens in reverse. I have seen people act as though they are better than other people because they can live with few possessions, and they try to make others feel inferior by referring to them as shallow and materialistic. With those people, it's a competition to see who can live with the least instead of who can buy the best. Those people are just as irritating and obnoxious as the people who show off their possessions. They're doing the same thing from a different angle.

 

In the end, it's not about the stuff. The problem is when people try to act like they are superior to others. If people live the way they want to live and buy what they want to buy (or not buy much at all,) it's all good, as long as they don't use their possessions or their lifestyle as a weapon to try to make other people feel badly about their own lives.