I think this is poorly argued by the author. "Now that even the poor can afford material goods, let’s denigrate goods while highlighting the remaining luxuries

I think this is poorly argued by the author. "Now that even the poor can afford material goods, let’s denigrate goods while highlighting the remaining luxuries that only the affluent can enjoy and show off to their friends." The author turns to classism, claiming that experience-ism is some Rich person's luxury to put down the poor...this sentence comes across as assuming rich people delight in the misfortune of the poor. Further, he casts aside the obvious environmental degradation that the acquisition of things causes, claiming somehow that experiences are all heavily lush and use tons of resources. "The advocates of the new minimalism are, by and large, urban dwellers..." Where is the evidence for this? He's just pulling this out of a hat. Furthermore, he blurs the lines between experiences and things so far to make his entire argument banal. If, as he claims, things lead to experiences, and they're not mutually exclusive, then there's no counter-argument...all experience-ists are actually thing-lovers in disguise, because experiences rely on things to occur. This is like saying "everything is a thing, so experiences are a thing, check-mate". To me, the author decided on the clickbait title, then wrote a few meager, one-sided points which don't hold water.