Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

44% Positive

Analyzed from 4555 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#storage#stuff#more#things#don#unit#need#parents#cheap#away

Discussion (97 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

epochbtc•about 2 hours ago
This article takes the view of the consumer, "Why do so many people pay to store items they almost never use?". But in actuality, the interesting part of this is why is there so much supply of self-storage businesses?

The answer is: cash flow. Self-storage businesses are the almost perfect solution for someone with a good size (but not enormous) bucket of money that they want to put to work generating cashflow:

1. Cheap build out (cheap land, cheap facilities) 2. Almost entirely hands-off (no employees, automated entry) 3. Low liability (low risk of customers suing you) 4. Low overhead (just pay for taxes, electricity, minimal maintenance) 5. Reliable monthly cash flow

The abundant supply of these businesses, I suspect, tends to generate demand: it's easier to pay $80/month to store your junk than spend the time and emotional labor of picking through what you want to keep and what you want to get rid of. That ends up being captive long-term revenue.

dlcarrier•24 minutes ago
Demand is outpacing supply, so new supply is serving that unmet demand, not creating it.
browningstreet•about 2 hours ago
I disagree with the last point -- it's a pain to gather a bunch of things up, put them in vehicles (or rent a truck), find a storage facility that isn't full, rent the unit, haul your things over to the unit.. all the while ignoring that you're putting off whatever culling and disposal ceremony you should actually be engaging in.

My local town gives you two free visits to the garbage transfer station per year. Choosing storage over that seems harder.

OutOfHere•about 1 hour ago
Why do you assume that disposal is warranted? Sometimes, people actually reuse what they store. Also, it's better to donate than to dispose.
browningstreet•about 1 hour ago
Sure.. donation is easy, doesn't require a storage unit.

When I've had storage units and spent time there, and saw open doors and what people had in theirs, I stand by my take.

The whole point of the article posted above was that it's a bit weird how numerous and prevalent self-storage has gotten in the US.

neutronicus•about 2 hours ago
You're hauling the stuff regardless.

Dealing with renting a storage unit vs deciding to throw away your Pokemon cards feels like kind of a wash.

diskzero•41 minutes ago
Are you infinitely wealthy? Storage units are a slow leak on finances, just like uncanceled subscriptions and mobile phone plan features.
bluGill•about 2 hours ago
You are missing one other issue: it seems easier than it really is. There are only so many people who would use self storage. You see a full self storage place in town and thing you can get a share if you just build one. What you don't understand is demand is not elastic: if you build a second site in town you go from 100 units with 90 used (a good usage rate), do 200 units in town but still only 90 used.
cucumber3732842•40 minutes ago
Eventually price crashes far enough below retail that commercial users start filling out a lot of the space because the cost per square foot is lower than their own space.

Like you shove your winter PPE, your emergency stash of spare parts for process equipment, etc, etc, in some self storage lockers and get the same job done using less square footage with extensive compliance burden (or get more job done using same square footage).

rootbear•about 2 hours ago
I'm in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC, and self storage facilities are popping up around here like weeds. I have a storage unit and I'm trying to clear it out. I'm tired of the monthly fees that keep going up. I got it when I had to clear out my late sister's house and I wanted time to go through things and decide what to keep. When I moved last year, I got a larger unit, thinking I would need to declutter my townhouse prior to showing it. It turned out my agent wasn't that concerned about my clutter, but I did move some idle tech stuff into the unit. I was hoping to get a house with a big basement for my future tech hoarding needs, and I wanted to keep this stuff. As it turned out, I ended up in a rancher with no basement, so now I'm getting rid of old tech I'll never have space for. I'd have saved a lot of money if I'd just done that a year ago. I now have a much smaller unit that I hope to be rid of next year. Self storage units are definitely a mixed blessing.

I also have all of the family antique furniture, some of which goes back three or more generations. I have no heirs and no idea what I'll do with it all, but I don't want to leave it for my executor to deal with. At least it's in the house and not in an expensive storage unit.

memcg•about 1 hour ago
I'm also in the Maryland suburbs and I'm trying to dispose of several generations worth of stuff while avoiding having to use a storage unit. Thankfully, we have a lot of deserving organizations that take charitable donations. However, my old tech collection just seems to grow and fill any space I gain from getting rid of what I consider junk.
Jaauthor•about 3 hours ago
Taking this moment to remind everyone that 'Swedish death cleaning' is a healthy, holistic way to not give a storage unit your money.

https://www.thespruce.com/swedish-death-cleaning-4801461

dylan604•about 2 hours ago
I'm in the midst of trying to decide on getting a storage unit or totally downsizing like this. To the point I was thinking of asking my landlord who they would use if a tenant died and left their rental property full of stuff just to see who I could call to make it all go a way. A one time fee vs monthly fees seems like a decent trade off to me.
AdmiralAsshat•about 2 hours ago
Do they blast Entombed albums while performing Swedish death cleaning?
emj•about 2 hours ago
Anything produced by Max Martin is ok.
milkytron•about 1 hour ago
There was a solid analysis of these facilities done by Modern MBA. https://modern-mba.com/case/self-storage

tl;dw - As far as businesses go, they require low capital to construct, have low operational costs, and also operate as a way to hold real estate/land while also generating revenue.

The people that use them are usually dealing with some life event such as moving, a death in the family, divorce, and just want some solution to house possessions.

bluGill•about 2 hours ago
Most people I know with a self storage place are not using them like the article. (though some do - YMMV). Some use it as a warehouse for their business - they rotate stuff in and out. A carpenter might buy a pallet of nails once every few months and use the storage every few days to refill the truck. Several people keep off-season holiday decorations in storage and rotate it back home for the season. Others keep fishing stuff in storage and stop by storage on their way to/from the fishing spot.

If you have anything in storage you should look at it at least once a year to decide if it is worth saving. It is okay to say that "I love this thing from Grandma even though I don't have room for it", but you need to decide it is still worth it.

stuff4ben•about 2 hours ago
I have 2 kids in college and I'm trying to sell my house. So I've decluttered to make the house presentable and I'm waiting for my kids to graduate and get their own places so I can give them their crap back. Storage unit makes sense for me. But this is likely to last only 2-4 years and then I'll have downsized enough.
zeroonetwothree•about 2 hours ago
Are you sure they even will want it back? Might be better to just donate it all now and save the money.
SubmarineClub•about 2 hours ago
If my parents had done that I would have been pissed.

They just recently cleared out the attic and unloaded my childhood stuff on me, and I gladly took it all back.

diskzero•about 2 hours ago
This must be a generational issue. My kids took “their” things with them when they became autonomous adults. As parents, we raised our children that they would move out and establish their own identities and futures. We never created any expectation that their childhood home would serve as a storage facility, extended stay facility or even exist. We of course offer help and support when needed.

I know this is in conflict with a lot of modern parenting for many reasons. Our primary goal was to create independent, autonomous, fully functional adults capable of funding their own lives and determining their own future.

neutronicus•about 2 hours ago
They gave away my Charizard ;_;
bluGill•about 2 hours ago
Probably not - but it isn't his decision, and the kids are not yet in a place in life where they can make the decision.

Until the kids figure out where their life will take them they can't know. I have some heirlooms that I'm really glad to have now, but when I was in college living in dorms I wouldn't have had space for them.

You have no clue what somebody else finds important and will throw the wrong things.

w0m•about 2 hours ago
> Are you sure they even will want it back?

75 y/o MIL is still fighting my wife to take her middle/highschool 'stuff' back to this day. She won't throw it out though.

gboss•about 2 hours ago
Your wife should just pick it up and throw it out then to relieve her mother of the burden.
diskzero•about 2 hours ago
My parents gave me my “crap” back and it went straight into the trash. When my kids moved out, their “crap” went to Goodwill or the trash.
bluGill•about 2 hours ago
Going to college should not be considered moving out. They have moved out only after they have been done with college for at least a year. Until then they are trying to figure out life. Home is still your house, they are just not living there.

Once they are out of college and on their own though they need to figure out what to do about their stuff.

diskzero•about 2 hours ago
This is a difference in parenting approaches. For our kids, going to college, or in one case the military and another no college, was moving out. You have your approach, we had ours. They were perfectly capable and successful in figuring out their lives without flying back to the nest every summer.
SubmarineClub•about 2 hours ago
On the other hand, I’m very glad my parents hung on to my stuff until I could take it back. I see no reason to throw it out.
ryandrake•about 2 hours ago
> There’s probably a fifth D: the delusion that your children will want the items you’re planning to bequeath to them, especially the kind of furniture that used to be called antiques

I'm at the age where a lot of friends are starting to deal with parents passing away, and it is very stressful for the next-of-kin to not only have to deal with the grief of loss, but then have to figure out what to do with houses and storage units full of junk. Some attempt to pick through the crap to find the 0.1% with legit sentimental value, others have more energy and try to do yard sales / estate sales, but most just call the truck and haul everything to the dump.

I don't know where people get this idea that their children are going to appreciate garages full of falling-apart furniture, "fine china" and 1970s era stereo equipment. If you want to pass on something to your children they will appreciate, pass them a cleaned-out home or pre-arrange a junk hauler.

rootbear•about 2 hours ago
When my sister died five years ago, her best friend, who was local and I wasn't, was a huge help to me in getting her house cleaned out. While neither my sister nor I have kids, my sister's two best friends do have kids who were her effective nieces and nephews. So we offered the kids anything they wanted that I didn't want (which wasn't much - just family stuff) and they took a surprising amount of it. Most of it was more modern furniture in good shape, which I didn't want. I got the antiques. One of the nieces wanted the very old china and crystal. So it is possible to get rid of a house full of things without trashing it all, but it can take time and that's not always practical.
bluGill•about 2 hours ago
There is the problem: the people who need your old stuff are rarely your heirs. You are still using your perfectly good furniture when your kids (and grandkids) first move out on their own and so you can't give it up to them unless you buy all new. Then you die (downside, go to a nursing home...) and no longer need it - there are lots of people who need/want your old stuff (at least some of it), but good luck finding them.
rootbear•about 1 hour ago
It is a logistic problem at some level. A bunch of my parent's and sister's stuff went to Habitat ReStore or Goodwill. We have an architectural salvage place nearby that takes some things (like light fixtures) that the others don't.
Ekaros•about 2 hours ago
If they are sufficiently adult. Just ask them now do they want it. I can manage to pick stuff I want and then later dispose if I made mistake. If all children refuse just get rid off it already.
browningstreet•about 2 hours ago
Those parents will neither ask, nor accept the answer they hear.
m_w_•34 minutes ago
Woah woah woah - don’t lump 1970s era stereo equipment in with that. If any of these friends have vintage Pioneer (SX-##50/80) that’s “junk” to them, I could take it off their hands ;)
ThrowawayR2•about 2 hours ago
The Silent Generation had a standard of living, particularly among the working classes and rural folk, well below what millenials/GenZ are used to. They kept stuff, took good care of it to make it last as long as they could, jury-rigged things with what they could to conserve money, and so forth. No ordering cheap stuff from Temu, no electrical devices so cheap that they're disposable, no fast fashion, none of that. That submitter recently who broke apart a book for their own convenience probably would have been soundly thrashed for it. So, yeah, of course, at the end of their lives they wind up with a pile of worn out household items and what their grandchildren view as a hoarding problem. But one can hardly blame them.

We live in an era of immense wealth and convenience relative to them.

ethagnawl•about 2 hours ago
> 1970s era stereo equipment

Some of what glitters _is_ gold!

neutronicus•about 2 hours ago
It's just the ultimate procrastination. Like you can literally put this task (getting rid of junk) off for your whole life. Why wouldn't you?
bell-cot•about 2 hours ago
> I don't know where people get this idea that...

Kinda legit: Most people who lived through the Great Depression learned a "never throw any possibly-useful thing away" ethos as a survival skill. And they often taught that to their own children. And stuff became obsolete far more slowly back then, and furniture repair was a normal things, and ...

More commonly - "leave it to my children" is an excellent self-delusion...er, I mean psychological dodge, if you don't want to deal with the physical work, time required, or mental grief of proper sorting and disposal. But note that the "mental grief" may not be internal to the person deciding to procrastinate. If some of their family really don't get along with each other, then paying rent to put off the angry family drama may be their least-bad option.

applfanboysbgon•about 2 hours ago
For most of human history, children very much would appreciate inheriting crafted goods. The kind of rampant, commoditized consumerism where we routinely snub our noses at and throw away perfectly useful goods is a rather recent trend.
intrikate•about 2 hours ago
My parents aren't leaving me any crafted goods when they pass.

They had beautiful, carved wooden dressers and wardrobes from their parents that they, naturally, did not appreciate and take care of, so they turned into garbage and were thrown away when they became too dilapidated to move to another building. They were replaced with the standard fare particle-board-and-laminate Ikea-type trash that I definitely do not want. It's falling apart already and they've only had it a few years.

If they had maintained the furniture they were given by their parents, I would love to keep them around in my home and give them to my children when I pass, too. But I don't want cheap, mass-produced garbage from my parents simply because it belonged to my parents.

xionon•about 2 hours ago
For most of human history, children and parents lived together or close by, and parents died earlier in the child's life. If your parents died and left you an heirloom dining room table, it was quite likely you just didn't have a table, and at most you lived a few blocks away, so acquiring it was easy.

I'm in my 40s. Both my parents are alive, and have a house full of stuff. I live in a different house, 3.5 hours away at highway speeds, full of different stuff. It doesn't really matter to me if my parent's dining room table is a nicely crafted table - I have a nice table, and I don't need two dining room tables. Getting it to my house is a tremendous hassle. Picking between them is a tremendous hassle. And then I still have all the other stuff - the hutch, the chairs, the couches, the beds - and only one sibling to split them with.

"Rampant, commoditization consumerism" didn't cause this, longevity, freedom of movement, and independent living caused this, and I wouldn't trade those away for an heirloom table.

scottLobster•about 2 hours ago
For most of human history we were riddled with parasites and children would appreciate being less riddled with parasites.

My wife and I are both the youngest in our families, and all of our extended family uses us as a dumping ground for stuff to they're too guilty to throw away or donate. About 10% of the time it's something actually useful, 90% we already have a better version of whatever it is or simply don't want or need it.

No, I'm not taking my father in law's perfectly good TV. I have a TV, and the one he bought was mediocre at best when it was new.

applfanboysbgon•about 2 hours ago
> No, I'm not taking my father in law's perfectly good TV. I have a TV, and the one he bought was mediocre at best when it was new.

Look, I'm not saying there aren't reasons for it. Obviously the economic value of a TV is now low. If you're posting on HN, chances are you can afford a new TV in a day's work, which may be less overhead than storing a TV for when you or someone else might need it in the future. At the same time, this is a historical abnormality. A television is a miracle device made with extremely advanced, relatively speaking, technology. 50 years ago, it would have been insane to snub your nose at that. To you it's a disposable good, to an older generation there is no reason to view it as such (and, I'd argue, this cultural value of disposability that is being forged is extremely bad and not actually sustainable for our society long-term).

BigTTYGothGF•about 2 hours ago
> The kind of rampant, commoditized consumerism where we routinely snub our noses at and throw away perfectly useful goods is a rather recent trend.

By and large the kids already have perfectly useful goods but no room for more.

Ekaros•about 2 hours ago
Well for most of human history if you inherited something you inherited the building that contained that stuff. And the industry around it that used that stuff.
CalRobert•about 2 hours ago
It’s the perfectly useless goods that are the problem.
close04•about 2 hours ago
These days the inheritance will include mostly junk. Old, worn out, low quality items, clothes, furniture, appliances, etc. Nobody says no to the one thing they need but can't afford, they say no to having yet another item they have no need for and its only value could be sentimental but otherwise it's a burden, one other thing among many to store somewhere, or throw out/donate/sell.

Do you need and can afford to keep somewhere another 6 creaky chairs, a big worn out dining table, bags of old clothes that don't fit anyone, outdated and broken electronics that probably don't work anymore, and so on? Even memories like pictures and videos are sometimes too much. They used to be a couple of photo albums, half with people you wouldn't even recognize, now there are TB of digital ones.

pseudolus•about 3 hours ago
ethagnawl•about 2 hours ago
It's to the point where whenever I see vacant land being cleared around me in NY, I assume it's for a new storage facility.
eth0up•about 3 hours ago
We also happen to have an extremely serious homelessness problem, which is not relegated to CA.

Go to any warm state in the country and ride through the parking lots at night. If you are the observant type, you should see an astonishing number of folks living in their vehicles.

And home ownership is not only downward, but no longer part of the American dream for most people now. Storage facilities for many, are a place to lay down, or rent hope that things won't always be "this way".

We need to fix this. It's not just drugs and mental problems anymore.

DanielHB•about 3 hours ago
It is very interesting that in most big cities around the world, but especially Europe having a car is a big luxury while in the US homeless people have cars.
diskzero•about 2 hours ago
Cars are plentiful and cheap in America and can be had next to free in many cases. They will be in terrible shape, operated without insurance, registration and driven by someone without a license. They will also be gross polluters but won’t be taken off the street unless there are a series of criminal actions. Many states will only cite and not tow for lack of insurance or a valid license. The chance of getting pulled over is also quite low in many areas due to distribution of police resources. These vehicles are allowed to be parked and serve as shelters in many cities who choose to allow this as a tacit form of shelter. Just look at the transformation of the streets in Seattle, parts of the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and more. This is an ad hoc solution to a situation that can’t be addressed effectively.
DanielHB•about 2 hours ago
It is not even the cost of the car, but the upkeep. In large European cities parking alone can be prohibitive. In Sweden cars older than 2006 pay extra tax because they don't have emissions testing data.
AbsurdCensor•about 2 hours ago
And that per capita Europe has a bigger unhoused problem than the United States. There aren't simple solutions, because the real solutions would change how society needs to work. Maybe less about money and more about the right to survive or something.
huurtehoog•about 2 hours ago
Not all European countries. There are 20 European countries bellow the per 100.000 level of homelessness than the US.
neutronicus•about 2 hours ago
I assure you we have plenty of homeless people without cars.

When people are falling into homelessness, they keep the car for longer because (a) it generates income, either directly through something like Uber or by getting you to a job on time, (b) lower cost of ownership and (c) it serves as shelter in a pinch.

eth0up•about 2 hours ago
I find little of interest in that. The US enforces private property in a far more aggressive manner than most other countries, and the definition of public property, and functional amount thereof, are also very different. Merely laying down behind a bush can be a violation of "Illegal Camping within City Limits"/

Additionally, rent can easily be inaccessible for the employed. And for those who don't have vehicles, 'just moving to a cheaper area" is not a practical option.

zulux•about 2 hours ago
One problem that poorer American people have is too much food, leading to obesity.
bronco21016•about 2 hours ago
Do they have too much food? It seems to me that calorically dense foods that provide almost no nutritional value are “cheap” and abundant while healthy food choices are expensive and require time and effort to store and prep.

For example, if I’m living out of a car I’m more likely to use EBT to buy some bags of chips I can toss in the car rather than some cheap chicken and fresh veggies or eggs. How would I store chicken or cook any of it if I live in a car?

Yes, I know there are solutions here like small fridges and hot plates. But those cost money and require time and effort. Again, scenario is living in a car or the streets.

diskzero•about 2 hours ago
One problem with what? Also, a problem is not “too much food”. This is an absurd statement. The problem is non nutritive, unhealthy food loaded with calories. Work in any troubled urban center and you will encounter a complete lack of actual grocery stores selling healthy food. Instead you get fast food, bodegas and convenience stores selling low quality, cheap items. We have known of this problem for decades. The poor are poor and certainly don’t have the income for “too much food”.
CalRobert•about 2 hours ago
Cheap carbs and starches but expensive vegetables and protein sources.
diskzero•about 2 hours ago
As someone who has worked directly with these people in Los Angeles and Seattle, I tend to focus locally, otherwise the enormity of the situation is overwhelming and fills me with despair.

When you say “we need to fix this” no one can agree what “this” is. There is no one “this” and it becomes a morass of generational systemic issues, localized problems, competing views on economics, morality, government and more. It reminds me of when tech people show up to “fix” education. It just isn’t a single issue.

I agree we need to fix something, but as soon as I think about the big picture it feels futile and I have been involved in efforts for decades.

api•about 3 hours ago
Required link I always leave in these discussions:

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...

IMO high housing prices are destroying civilization.

Swizec•about 2 hours ago
> IMO high housing prices are destroying civilization.

It's like a game of musical chairs. There aren't enough houses to go around. You go around and the music stops. Everyone scrambles to their nearest chair. Obviously the person on crutches will be the first to fall out of the game. The rest then talk about laziness, drugs, bootstraps, and all the rest. But add 1 more chair and there's no problem, even the dude with the broken leg can sit.

cobbzilla•about 2 hours ago
Someone tried to build the extra chair but the endless required studies and legal challenges from existing chair-sitters bankrupted the would-be chair builder.

Also the chair, if actually built, would be so expensive that one legged guy can’t afford it. His best hope is someone with a worse chair takes it, then he tries to take their seat, but there’s already a dozen two-legged guys in front of him.

ricree•about 2 hours ago
Surely at least part of it is the concentration of wealth and economic activity. There's large masses of decaying rural towns where houses are cheap, but at the same time the whole reason they're decaying is because there just isn't enough economic opportunity to afford even these cheap houses.

I have no clue what the overall balance of housing looks like, but surely it doesn't help that big chunks of the housing market are being deprecated at the same time.

titzer•about 2 hours ago
Well, for generations now, exponential growth in all things has been state policy and it was good (tm). Because of population growth, there's always a shortage of housing. Population is projected to peak this century. Whatever will we do when there are already enough houses for everyone to have one?
cousin_it•about 2 hours ago
Yeah. I like how Kat Woods phrased it: "You can give the slowest child sprinting lessons, but there are still nine chairs."
mschuster91•about 2 hours ago
> It's like a game of musical chairs. There aren't enough houses to go around.

Actually, there are. In Germany for example, we have millions of units left empty... the catch is, these are in (extremely) rural areas. Areas that used to be populated, but no longer are because the government has let them fall extremely behind in modern amenities. Some even do not have cellphone service.

Normally, you'd expect people and companies to do a pricing arbitrage and move where housing is cheap, but unfortunately, when there is no local employment or the infrastructure does not support remote employment, or other crucial requirements (safe potable water, electrical grid, grocery stores, schools, some sort of entertainment) are lacking, this does not work out any more.

ecshafer•about 2 hours ago
The solution is deregulation and land-value taxes. Tax land so that it reaches its maximum utilization. Deregulate so that buildings can actually be built.
micromacrofoot•about 3 hours ago
Of course the storage unit living has been romanticized in literature too, I recall the unit in Snow Crash being a whopping 600 square feet. A palace compared to the reality of storage unit and car living today.
chrsw•about 2 hours ago
600 sq ft is about the size of my apartment, which at market rate is about $3k/mo.
diegolas•about 2 hours ago
i always thought they were a neat idea (they only barely started appearing where i live in the last ~10 years) but it seemed a bit strange that they were so common
Advertisement
pelagicAustral•about 2 hours ago
It's crazy the kind of crap people keep, of course is not crap to them, but I've known people that have literal container loads of unorganized crap they will never ever see again... Most of the people I know that have loads of stuff store always claim they'll need these things at some point and so they rather have them there in storage instead of dumping or giving them away, and I have never seen them pick a single item, because of course after a few years of storing things there is literally no way to know where things are.

It's infuriating... I dump stuff all the time... I probably have like 50 things in my life including t-shirts, which obviously contributes to my enragement.

ToucanLoucan•about 2 hours ago
I often think about this while watching Hoarders, and this is hitting similar neurons so if you'll forgive the off-topic-ish nature...

I think more than anything this is the ooze you get out of the sides of societies that focus so terribly much on consumer culture. Advertising nowadays is absolutely incredible at driving the creation of what feels like "needs" in people. In my thirties I started transitioning to a woman, full time, and as a result I've bought and donated shit tons of clothes. This experience has made me realize how bizarrely attached I am to those clothes, and also to so many other things I own that I wouldn't have remotely called sentimental. Yet between growing up in a heavily consumerist society, and my environmental side, I feel so much regret and shame when simply throwing things away. Worthless things. Things my rational mind knows damn well I have no use for, that have no reason to exist in my home.

Mind you I'm someone who is familiar with facing down my inner demons. I can't fathom trying to deal with this if you're not someone like me who has gone to lengths to educate myself, to get therapy, and not only gone those lengths but had the resources to do so!

Then I watch hoarders and I see these old, broken down people who have massive, beautiful homes I would love to have, and they've stacked every room to the ceiling with... shit. Sometimes literally shit, but more often it's just junk. Things that were on sale. Each thing advertised to them, promised that it would make them the person they were meant to be, or to help them lose that weight they've been trying to lose for 50 years. That piece of furniture that would finally complete the room. And they did that on, and on, and on, and now their beautiful home is ruined, and most of the stuff is too. And oftentimes the person themselves are harmed too, with early onset illness and injury.

America needs to get our shit together. And worse still we've exported our disease in great quantity to the rest of the world, both as trash, and as the vacuous hollow culture that consumerism drives.

freetime2•about 2 hours ago
Personally I have an almost neurotic aversion to recurring monthly payments. I'll cancel a $6/mo Netflix subscription if I feel it's not being used, and start it up again later when there's something I want to watch.

I also hate junk. If anything I own doesn't get used for more than a year, I'll sell it or trash it (with a few exceptions).

So even the thought of paying a monthly fee to store junk gives me real anxiety.

fedreg•about 2 hours ago
...you may be my long lost twin...
OutOfHere•about 1 hour ago
Since when does Netflix cost only $6? Anyhow, I am sorry but your logic of "trashing what's not used for a year" is extremely aggressive, unreasonably so. There are way too many exceptions. Examples are critical medicines, emergency food and other products, weapons, that are good to store indefinitely or until real expiration. Medicines can actually become useful at times and they easily last several years after the official expiration. Other examples are certain expensive electronic gadgets that are needed sometimes for diagnostic purposes, rarely, but absolutely. Books too.

Yes, one should donate/dispose what's never going to be needed, but the criteria have to be more discerning than a simple one year limit. I think ten years is a better limit, although I easily have worthwhile unused items going back further.

bell-cot•about 3 hours ago
tl;dr; version:

While there are good use cases -

> The United States is the world leader, with roughly ninety per cent of global capacity. [...] there are more self-storage facilities in the U.S. than there are Starbucks, McDonald’s, Walmart, Home Depot, Domino’s, Dunkin’, and Costco locations combined. Annual revenues are estimated to be more than forty billion dollars.

> I asked a Welsh facility manager I met in Las Vegas what his customers keep in their units, and he said, “It’s . . . it’s . . . rubbish.”

> My wife and I have a friend whose mother died in 2006. She and her siblings decided to sell their mother’s furniture and donate the proceeds to a charity that she would have approved of. “We put everything in storage temporarily, and it’s all still there,” our friend told me. She figures that they’ve spent at least fifty thousand dollars in rental fees so far—more than they could get from selling the furniture.

micromacrofoot•about 2 hours ago
People can get unusually attached to their stuff regardless of its objective value.
close04•about 2 hours ago
> She figures that they’ve spent at least fifty thousand dollars in rental fees so far—more than they could get from selling the furniture.

That probably doesn't even consider inflation, $1 in 2006 was worth $1.60 in today's money. People are really bad at long term financial planning but also get really attached to objects with some sentimental value. So this is a market where it's even easier to exploit that poor financial education.

lateatdesk•about 2 hours ago
Even without the sentimental part, cancelling means sorting everything out and finding people to take it away.
bell-cot•about 1 hour ago
In theory, one can just hand the keys to a Junk Busters-type company. But yeah - actually doing that is another barrier to action.