I had nothing more than those boxes that we move from room to room, then from house to house. While I have always been known for being a bit of a packrat. Now, I am not talking about someone like Horters, but rather keeping things because someday I may need to use it again. It doesn’t matter if it is electronics or clothes or sporting equipment. I may use it one day, or will I.

I agree with so much of the logic shared by Graham Hill. This make sense especially when you live in NYC and the jump in square footage can be the difference in thousands of dollars. I think this logic also makes sense in the suburbs of Dallas or Detroit, or anywhere. Do we really need the square footage that we have? I have a friend going through that contemplation right now. He has a big beautiful house, but he is no longer wanting to be in there because of everything else it brings. I admire his internal look and assessment.

While I agree with this logic, the practicality often loses out. This video below, with Graham Hill, he dives into the use of less. It makes total sense for a single guy living in the city, but as a father of three young kids, it often feels like we are bursting at the seams in our home. How do you find a minimalist living style while having young kids? This is our on-going pursuit as parents!

How can you live with less?

How does living with less to empower you to have more?

How do the “Jones’” affect this theory? (meaning the competition to have more and live better than your neighbor)