This is the rationalization that I've used successfully before.
Every item takes space, and space costs money. Space often costs quite a bit of money. If I'm paying $2000/m for a 750sqft apartment (not unreasonable for many metros), then every square foot costs me ~$3/month minimum (often quite a bit more because I also have to heat, clean, and organize it as well).
How many months of storage does it take to mean you're literally losing money by keeping an item?
For old shoes? Not that many... if you haven't worn a pair of shoes in a few years, you've likely spent more than $100 storing it.
For bad furniture? Not that many... it takes a lot of space. That crappy couch no one wants to sit on anymore can be costing you almost $100/month.
For that old bag you overpaid on and don't even like that much? Now you're just lighting more money on fire for every month you hang onto it.
---
Mentally shifting the equation to a more realistic "opportunity cost" model for items is healthy. Posts like the top level article are, respectfully, a chock of bullshit. Those kids might have messed up when they originally overpaid for a luxury item, but I don't believe for a heartbeat they're messing up when they choose to let it go.
Go work in a place that takes donations, and you'll quickly see they do exactly the same calculus. Goodwill might take your whole bag of donations, but they will absolutely throw 70%+ of it away right off the bat.
They can't afford to try to reuse your crappy stuff for months, quietly losing money storing it.
The nicer consignment shops won't even pretend - they'll just flat out refuse to accept most of your junk. It's not even worth sorting through.
There is absolutely an opportunity cost for all of the stuff you own. I won't publish my entire thinking on this, but after seeing my parents collect, hoard and store things for years and years, I place a high value on not having something (I tell myself that I am letting the store hold it for me.)
I still have too much stuff and its a fraction of what my parents had.
Every item takes space, and space costs money. Space often costs quite a bit of money. If I'm paying $2000/m for a 750sqft apartment (not unreasonable for many metros), then every square foot costs me ~$3/month minimum (often quite a bit more because I also have to heat, clean, and organize it as well).
How many months of storage does it take to mean you're literally losing money by keeping an item?
For old shoes? Not that many... if you haven't worn a pair of shoes in a few years, you've likely spent more than $100 storing it.
For bad furniture? Not that many... it takes a lot of space. That crappy couch no one wants to sit on anymore can be costing you almost $100/month.
For that old bag you overpaid on and don't even like that much? Now you're just lighting more money on fire for every month you hang onto it.
---
Mentally shifting the equation to a more realistic "opportunity cost" model for items is healthy. Posts like the top level article are, respectfully, a chock of bullshit. Those kids might have messed up when they originally overpaid for a luxury item, but I don't believe for a heartbeat they're messing up when they choose to let it go.
Go work in a place that takes donations, and you'll quickly see they do exactly the same calculus. Goodwill might take your whole bag of donations, but they will absolutely throw 70%+ of it away right off the bat.
They can't afford to try to reuse your crappy stuff for months, quietly losing money storing it.
The nicer consignment shops won't even pretend - they'll just flat out refuse to accept most of your junk. It's not even worth sorting through.