[Tade0]

My spending habits changed considerably when I started to include the cost of real estate required in my calculations.

I encountered this first in a forum discussion about boilers - someone pointed out that the largest cost component isn't even the unit itself, but all the space it takes.

Anyway whenever I think of buying a treadmill, I remind myself that the actual cost is an additional €4500 just for the real estate and perhaps a gym membership would have been cheaper, but since I still haven't gotten one, perhaps it's less important to me than I think.

[The-Bus]

The extremely sad fact is that doing this calculation for storage costs in a major city means you are often better off simply throwing out or giving away the item instead of storing it, and buying a replacement when you need one.

[clircle]

If you don’t buy the treadmill, you don’t save money on the real estate you already own. It either goes unused or is used for a different purpose. Is this really the right way to think about the trade offs?

[elil17]

Makes a lot of sense if you're space constrained, could see yourself getting space constrained in the future, or value open space. Even then, though, if you needed the space for something else, you could recoup all of the real estate cost and some of the cost of the treadmill by selling it.

[Tade0]

It keeps my hoarding habit, passed on through generations of people who lost everything in wars, at bay.