COMMENT OF THE DAY: A QUICK AND EASY WAY TO DECIDE WHAT TO KEEP AND WHAT TO GIVE AWAY “I can create a cost model for any particular item based on the cubic feet of space it requires for storage vs. the price per cubic foot of space in the house.* (Actual monthly cost, NOT “sale price per foot,†because taxes and interest are real things.) Measure the cost of keeping it for X period of time, vs. replacing it at an expected point in the future combined with the fuzzy application of inconvenience factors (can it only be purchased via a 1-hour drive, or week-long wait for delivery?) and criticality (would I have a broken pipe for days if I don’t have this pipe wrench?) and I have a good, solid grasp on any individual item and whether its worth keeping based on the expected frequency of its utility.
If the cost of keeping it during the periods of uselessness exceeds the weighted replacement cost by more than 10%, it’s gone.
Unfortunately, this model -can not- be applied to items with a sentimental factor value of greater than 0.3. Sure recipe for a very long argument with the SO.
* – in a more functionally perfect model, the overall value of a particular sq. ft. of space would be [weighted] on many factors such as its visibility, ease of access, specialized design, etc. However, these factors complicate the model to such a degree that I’d then have to write some software to handle it, and then I’d have the further conjoining restraint of cost of permanent storage for the data as well as the physical items. I usually determine that the feedback cycle that rears its head in the process isn’t worth the effort, and the generalized model works well enough.” [drone, commenting on Comment of the Day: How Houston’s East Enders Have Rid Themselves of Clutter]