I seem to be running out of things I can give away to charity. Does this mean that everything else has to be transported down to Kent? I suppose it does. What, even the packets of tea lights? Yes, even them. What's the alternative- throw them away? Unthinkable.
Wish the car was bigger.
Wish the car was a van.
We own so many books. I've winnowed the shelves but there still so many. Here's a big glossy guide to museums I didn't even know I had. I sit down to browse. This fellow (contemptuous snort) only gives the Corinium Museum two stars out of a possible five. That's ridiculous! Ailz calls to ask me what I'm doing because it's tea time. Ah, yes, tea...
Wish the car was bigger.
Wish the car was a van.
We own so many books. I've winnowed the shelves but there still so many. Here's a big glossy guide to museums I didn't even know I had. I sit down to browse. This fellow (contemptuous snort) only gives the Corinium Museum two stars out of a possible five. That's ridiculous! Ailz calls to ask me what I'm doing because it's tea time. Ah, yes, tea...
no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 03:55 pm (UTC)Consider every item you have to have a ticker on it, slowly ticking up cost. That's the cost of keeping it around. Getting rid of a thing gets rid of that ticker. If it's a thing that is useful, then the ticker of usefulness stays above the ticker of keeping it around. Otherwise, you're losing money on it. Because space is money, just as time is money, just as the fuel to transport a thing is money.
However much you paid to get the thing in the first place is irrelevant. Pretend that you picked up everything you own from a trash bin somewhere. It's all very good stuff for coming from a trash bin, but you don't lose anything by putting it back there.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 04:26 pm (UTC)And then again, while I don't need these things, I do rather like them. Books, pictures, tea lights- they're all good. They make me happy. Most of them have a value to me that transcends their value in the marketplace.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 04:30 pm (UTC)Ideally, at least two of the above.
The reason for thinking of the cost ticker in storage is because storing things you don't need is wasteful. Having a thing which is not being used, which is unlikely to be used, is waste. Getting it to a person who could use it avoids that waste, because it brings it to usefulness.
And if there is nobody who wants it? Then it is CLEARLY wasteful. A thing which NOBODY can use is pure waste in itself.
At least, that's what I'm trying to convince myself.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 05:17 pm (UTC)We're having to decide whether to take big items of furniture with us. Hiring a van would almost certainly cost more than the things are worth.
We did try to get a charity to take furniture, but the guys they sent were very picky and left most of what we were offering behind.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 05:19 pm (UTC)If you take it, you are being wasteful. If you leave it, you are being thrifty and prudent.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 05:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 05:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-10-20 09:11 pm (UTC)It it were me, and I had storage space in the new place and a few pennies, I'd hire a couple large big lads with a truck to dump everything non-breakable in boxes and drive it down.
Then you can winnow a box a day. At your convenience. In Kent.
no subject
Date: 2014-10-21 07:15 am (UTC)The stuff could go into storage in my mother's garage. The buyer is talking about having everything finalised by Christmas which is- what- ten weeks aaway?