5 ms·

> The average American home contains around 300,000 “things” If I broke everything down into its components, that figure wouldn't even be close. In fact, I kno

by m0nty 11y ago

> The average American home contains around 300,000 “things” If I broke everything down into its components, that figure wouldn't even be close. In fact, I know of so few people who would come close, I'd question where this figure came from. I'm not in the US, btw.

koralatov 11y ago
That figure, thrown in without anything to back it up, seems truly insane. I'm British, but have an ongoing battle with keeping stuff I don't really need (and buying in bulk too), and I'm pretty sure even including all of my fianceé's possessions we wouldn't come anywhere close to 300k items. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of American homes don't contain anything like that number of items, unless you count each individual piece of pasta and grain of rice as a thing.
- zimpenfish 11y ago
  Also British, also ongoing battle, and even if I counted every piece of (pointlessly) hoarded paper, I'm not sure I could get to 300k items. Maybe 100k in a pinch.
  - gknoy 11y ago
    Americans buy larger homes, and junk expands to fill the allotted space. Then you move into an apartment, or the the Bay Area, and cry. ;)
ams6110 11y ago
Seems maybe an order of magnitude off, depending on definionion of "thing." I cleaned out my mom's house after she died, and if I counted individual photo prints, 30 years worth of tax returns, canceled checks, paid bills, etc. she had a lot of "things."
- m0nty 11y ago
  Someone else did some digging: http://www.ourhappy.space/2015/05/25/count/ http://www.ourhappy.space/2015/05/25/count/ tl;dr - The figure seems to come from Regina Lark, a "Professional Organizer" who "specializes in working with people with chronic disorganization, ADHD, and hoarding disorders, as well as folks who have way too much stuff," although she suggests 30,000-300,000 items. I still think 30,000 is way off, however. I'd struggle to get to 3,000.
kwhitefoot 11y ago
> I'd struggle to get to 3,000. I have that many books plus 500 CDs and 200 vinyl albums. My wife has a couple of hundred handbags and a similar number of coats and jackets. But books are by far the largest class of thing in my house. I can't imagine having 300k items, even 30k seems rather unlikely in a house where you can see the floor! Edit: I'm not in the US either so my house is probably smaller than the average US on though possibly larger than the other Brits commenting here; I'm in Norway.
- rogeryu 11y ago
  So that may account for the 3000 things. Add another 3000 for the things you don't collect, and double that, and you're still not close to 300k.
- mrtron 11y ago
  Classic media is easily organizable in a few bookcases. A few hundred handbags and coats? That is an incredibly large number. Could that not be reduced by an order of magnitude?
- distances 11y ago
  A couple of hundred handbags, and a couple of hundred coats? How can you even store that many, let alone use them? I know the classical exaggerations of these items, but I had no idea someone would actually gather such a collection.
  - kwhitefoot 11y ago
    Alright, I exaggerated about the coats, it just seems like hundreds, but the handbag count is literally true. Some of them are too decorative and fragile to use.
- miguelrochefort 11y ago
  > My wife has a couple of hundred handbags and a similar number of coats and jackets. There aren't that many in actual stores... this can't be right.
logfromblammo 11y ago
As an American, I must have missed the "thing census" that objectively gathered the data for that average. The number is clearly an estimate, as getting the real number would be a colossal undertaking for no real benefit. A rational person does not count the pill bottle as 251 things because it contains 250 pills. But that's the only kind of bloody-mindedness that could ever get you to an "average American home" filled with 300k "things". If you have any LEGO sets, each one of those little one-stud circular pips would have to count as a separate thing. But your dining room table would also be one thing. We already have cromulent measures for the muchness of one's stuff in terms of kilograms (or pounds) and liters (or cubic feet). If I plug an old ATA drive into an old chassis, does my thing count decrease by one, because I have the same number of computers but fewer loose hard drives? The volume remains the same, though it is arranged more efficiently. You traded empty space inside the case for empty space outside of it--in theory, you could store baby clothes in there instead of hard drives. The mass also remains constant. In any case, I would not get that number from an anti-hoarding or de-cluttering consultant. I would objectively measure the change in mass of a moving truck after a household has loaded all their possessions essential enough to move between houses, but not essential enough to keep it under direct supervision. And by assuming that the truck is packed as densely as possible, you can also get a subjective estimate of total volume of possessions. That would be a really easy way to estimate the median mass of possessions in an American home, without any of the temporary clutter that gets trashed instead of moved. And there would be no thing-equivalence between a dining room chair and a pencil stub, or between a television and one coupon in the junk mail, or between a refrigerator and an ice pack. Mass: x kilograms. Volume: y liters. Numbers where an average actually makes sense.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  I'm with you. I'd call a thing 'a thing' if you could haul it out to the rubbish in one go.
johncch 11y ago
I think it's more apparent if you have to move and you're forced to pack everything into boxes. If you've stayed at one place for long enough, there'll be enough "trinkets" accumulated such as plates, mugs, spoons, forks, knives, mugs, wine glasses, lunch boxes, peeler, graters, freezer bags, candles, lighters, etc. etc. It's the things that are in the cabinets and drawers that we frequently unaccount for.
- memco 11y ago
  > such as plates, mugs, … mugs, … I see you also have too many mugs.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by m0nty 11y ago

koralatov 11y ago

That figure, thrown in without anything to back it up, seems truly insane. I'm British, but have an ongoing battle with keeping stuff I don't really need (and buying in bulk too), and I'm pretty sure even including all of my fianceé's possessions we wouldn't come anywhere close to 300k items. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of American homes don't contain anything like that number of items, unless you count each individual piece of pasta and grain of rice as a thing.

zimpenfish 11y ago
Also British, also ongoing battle, and even if I counted every piece of (pointlessly) hoarded paper, I'm not sure I could get to 300k items. Maybe 100k in a pinch.
- gknoy 11y ago
  Americans buy larger homes, and junk expands to fill the allotted space. Then you move into an apartment, or the the Bay Area, and cry. ;)

ams6110 11y ago

Seems maybe an order of magnitude off, depending on definionion of "thing." I cleaned out my mom's house after she died, and if I counted individual photo prints, 30 years worth of tax returns, canceled checks, paid bills, etc. she had a lot of "things."

m0nty 11y ago
Someone else did some digging: http://www.ourhappy.space/2015/05/25/count/ http://www.ourhappy.space/2015/05/25/count/ tl;dr - The figure seems to come from Regina Lark, a "Professional Organizer" who "specializes in working with people with chronic disorganization, ADHD, and hoarding disorders, as well as folks who have way too much stuff," although she suggests 30,000-300,000 items. I still think 30,000 is way off, however. I'd struggle to get to 3,000.

kwhitefoot 11y ago

> I'd struggle to get to 3,000. I have that many books plus 500 CDs and 200 vinyl albums. My wife has a couple of hundred handbags and a similar number of coats and jackets. But books are by far the largest class of thing in my house. I can't imagine having 300k items, even 30k seems rather unlikely in a house where you can see the floor! Edit: I'm not in the US either so my house is probably smaller than the average US on though possibly larger than the other Brits commenting here; I'm in Norway.

rogeryu 11y ago
So that may account for the 3000 things. Add another 3000 for the things you don't collect, and double that, and you're still not close to 300k.
mrtron 11y ago
Classic media is easily organizable in a few bookcases. A few hundred handbags and coats? That is an incredibly large number. Could that not be reduced by an order of magnitude?
distances 11y ago
A couple of hundred handbags, and a couple of hundred coats? How can you even store that many, let alone use them? I know the classical exaggerations of these items, but I had no idea someone would actually gather such a collection.
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  Alright, I exaggerated about the coats, it just seems like hundreds, but the handbag count is literally true. Some of them are too decorative and fragile to use.
miguelrochefort 11y ago
> My wife has a couple of hundred handbags and a similar number of coats and jackets. There aren't that many in actual stores... this can't be right.

logfromblammo 11y ago

As an American, I must have missed the "thing census" that objectively gathered the data for that average. The number is clearly an estimate, as getting the real number would be a colossal undertaking for no real benefit. A rational person does not count the pill bottle as 251 things because it contains 250 pills. But that's the only kind of bloody-mindedness that could ever get you to an "average American home" filled with 300k "things". If you have any LEGO sets, each one of those little one-stud circular pips would have to count as a separate thing. But your dining room table would also be one thing. We already have cromulent measures for the muchness of one's stuff in terms of kilograms (or pounds) and liters (or cubic feet). If I plug an old ATA drive into an old chassis, does my thing count decrease by one, because I have the same number of computers but fewer loose hard drives? The volume remains the same, though it is arranged more efficiently. You traded empty space inside the case for empty space outside of it--in theory, you could store baby clothes in there instead of hard drives. The mass also remains constant. In any case, I would not get that number from an anti-hoarding or de-cluttering consultant. I would objectively measure the change in mass of a moving truck after a household has loaded all their possessions essential enough to move between houses, but not essential enough to keep it under direct supervision. And by assuming that the truck is packed as densely as possible, you can also get a subjective estimate of total volume of possessions. That would be a really easy way to estimate the median mass of possessions in an American home, without any of the temporary clutter that gets trashed instead of moved. And there would be no thing-equivalence between a dining room chair and a pencil stub, or between a television and one coupon in the junk mail, or between a refrigerator and an ice pack. Mass: x kilograms. Volume: y liters. Numbers where an average actually makes sense.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
I'm with you. I'd call a thing 'a thing' if you could haul it out to the rubbish in one go.

johncch 11y ago

I think it's more apparent if you have to move and you're forced to pack everything into boxes. If you've stayed at one place for long enough, there'll be enough "trinkets" accumulated such as plates, mugs, spoons, forks, knives, mugs, wine glasses, lunch boxes, peeler, graters, freezer bags, candles, lighters, etc. etc. It's the things that are in the cabinets and drawers that we frequently unaccount for.

memco 11y ago
> such as plates, mugs, … mugs, … I see you also have too many mugs.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]