| Learning how to predict what stuff will and will not reduce risk is a learned skill. One should not be too hard on oneself while learning it. (The laptop hinges sitting in a box under my bed right now--perfectly good laptop hinges!--are probably going to be one of those learning experiences.) The point of both pg's and NYT's stuff article is that this prediction is a learned skill. Our instincts suck. Whereas this article's point is that the opportunity cost of hanging on to stuff is different for rich and poor. True. But the rich and poor are united in one thing: their stuff instincts suck. Especially since things like Amazon and Ebay have changed the relationship to stuff. With no real effort, I have sold 57 things on Amazon since 1/1/2012. The fact that I can readily convert almost anything I own to cash, usually with only 15 minutes of actual work (listing and shipping), changes the game. The cost of each market transaction used to be the big drag. 50% commission plus the work of finding an agent, transporting the stuff to your agent, and receiving payment from the agent when it finally sold. And then if you needed to repurchase that same item down the road, the work of finding and transporting the repurchased stuff. Amazon and Ebay have reduced that whole process (cost of sale transaction + (cost of repurchase transaction * probability of repurchase)) to what, 25% of the price of any individual item? Depending on how much it costs to ship. Sold a 2GB stick of DDR2 RAM today. Received: $16.49
Amazon fee: 2.31
Shipping: 1.76
Cost of transaction: 4.07
Cost of transaction as percentage of market value of stuff: 24.7%
|