Replacing Consumerism

I think a vast majority of the U.S.'s economic problems, if not all of them, can be traced to our nation's deeply rooted consumerism.Accordingly, I don't think there is any realistic solution to the problems our economy is facing that don't involve some how lessening and, perhaps getting rid of, consumerism.The problem: I cannot also think of a quick way to do this that won't have horrible economic consequences as bad as the problems that we'd face were we to transition away from consumerism more slowly (thus allowing it to wreak further havoc on our welfare).What are our options?What's the best approach?Some no-brain stating points I can think of:Education
Political reformBut then what comes next? Once we have the mindset and leaders in place to bring about the transition, what steps do we take?JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

Define "consumerism".Thank you.

Maybe, but consumption is income. We can't all reduce our consumption at the same time.I dunno, though. Do you think they buy less in Europe, or something? My guess is that they just buy different stuff. Do you just not like the stuff Americans buy?

Sure:

quote:

---

Eric Olin Wright in "Consumerism" (PDF):

​

Consumerism is the belief that personal wellbeing and happiness depends to a very large
extent on the level of personal consumption, particularly on the purchase of material
goods. The idea is not simply that wellbeing depends upon a standard of living above
some threshold, but that at the center of happiness is consumption and material
possessions. A consumerist society is one in which people devote a great deal of time,
energy, resources and thought to "consuming". The general view of life in a consumerist
society is consumption is good, and more consumption is even better.
...
Nothing illustrates the problem of consumerism better in the United States than the
growth in the average size of new houses since the early 1980s. From the 1960s until the
early 1980s, the median size of a new home in the United States varied up and down
around 1,500 square feet. As Figure 7.2 indicates, from 1983 from 2007 this increased
from 1,500 square feet to over 2,200 square feet. In the early 1980s about 25% of all new
homes were under 1,200 square feet in size while 15% were over 2,500 square feet. By
2007 less than 3% of new homes were under 1,200 square feet and over 40% over larger
than 2,500 square feet (Figure 7.3). What is more, this dramatic change in the size of new
homes occurred in a period when average family size was declining, so this constitutes an
even greater increase in the amount of living space per person. These large new houses,
of course, need to be filled with stuff, and this too reflects hyper-consumerism: bigger
televisions and "home theaters", exercise equipment, spacious designer kitchens, three
car garages. (p. 1)

---

That's something I was shown by another member and which prompted me to start this thread.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

Hi Jon, It's far from just the US. You probably remember that we had some riots in Britain this summer; a lot of people, including some of the rioters, think that consumerism is partly to blame for that. Instinctively, I think think, hell yes! Consumerism is destroying our societies and our natural environment.On the other hand, I work in a department store. You see my predicament.Mutate and Survive

It's also an expense...

quote:

---

Eric Olin Wright in "Consumerism" (PDF):

​

Consumption norms outpace earning capacity. (p. 5)

---

In fact, it's become more of an expense than an income. Hence:

quote:

---

Eric Olin Wright in "Consumerism" (PDF):

​

The size of the total consumer debt grew (in constant dollars) nearly 3 times in
size from $898 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 2008. (p. 6)

---

Perhaps true. But that's something I mentioned in the OP. I specifically asked for suggestions on ways to move away from the consumerist societal model that would produce the least drastic negative side effects.I think we can all agree that change can be difficult; but sometimes change is necessary nonethelessin spite of all the difficulties. I am not sure of the situation in Europe, which is why I focused my OP on the U.S. But if there is a consumerism problem in Europe, it would be worth talking about here for sure.Jon

No, what I mean is that economically, consumption has to equal income. Consumption does equal income. They're the same thing. This is just a bromide. "Change is difficult but necessary" doesn't accomplish the impossible, and its impossible for consumption not to equal income. I guess I'm still not clear on what you think is different, exactly. Ok, houses are larger now than they were before. Does that represent a vast change in US attitudes? Or does that represent the fact that Americans are larger and taller now than they were 50 years ago and may actually need more space? Does that represent the fact that it's cheaper to build a larger home than it was 50 years ago, because of technological improvements in home construction? Isn't a larger home just a function of the market equilibrium of price per square foot?

And I work in a grocery store! But people need some food and they need some clothes. Is two cloaks too many?Edited by Phat, : sub title

I think the bigger problem that I have with consumerism is:
"Shouldn't we adapt the economy to our needs instead adapting our needs to the economy?"
The way people think we should consume to get the economy working always seemed backward to me, the economy should be there to fill our need, it's not an end in itself but a tool that allows us to live confortably.

And so are cars. But how would a non excessive standard be established? There will always be folks like my Dad who love Cadillacs.(Were he alive he would probably have an SUV as well. He despised "tin can" imports that would be death traps in a wreck.As far as houses go, my Dad was a home builder. He built far smaller houses than the behemoths on the market today.But again....larger houses would never be built were there no demand for them.

And the demand for them is a function of the cost premium for a larger home. When technology (for instance, pre-fab joist systems) makes it easier and faster to construct a spacious home, it becomes cheaper to construct a spacious home. And at the margin - since people usually buy as much house as they feel they can afford - that results in people buying larger homes.Is that "consumerism"? Or is that economic actors acting rationally to maximize what they can get for their dollar? I bet your father probably prized getting as much as he could for his dollar. Did you think that was "consumerism" when he was doing it, or did you think that was just plain horse-sense?

Perhaps system-wide. Again, a nice technicality that applies to the system as a whole, but not to most of the folks living in it. I think you're hopelessly confused when it comes to economic matters.But all your questions don't address the issue I raised in the OP.Jon

Of course, a larger home uses more water. More electricity. larger cars are harder on roads(road surfaces) and on bridges. Thus an entire infrastructure also needs to be factored in to the overall costs and benefits of the freedom to consume.

No, by definition it applies to all the folks living in it. You can take a small subset of that and trivially observe that their income and consumption may not be identical, but that's only a function of the fact that you're looking at a subset of the whole.But now it sounds like your problem isn't with consumerism per se, you just think some people should consume more and others should consume less. So, you're less concerned with the overall level of "consumerism" and more concerned with its distribution. I think you hopelessly have no idea what you're talking about. Rising home sizes don't a priori establish some putative increase in "consumerism." And any analysis of the rise in home sizes has to - has to - include the fact that it's cheaper to get a home at a certain size now than it was 50 years ago in today's dollars.

You obviously haven't paid attention to the numbers I've been citing. Again; pay attention to the numbers. They can't afford the larger houseor the TV, or the [insert other luxury item here]. Hence the debt.Read the chapter in my links. Crushing debt is one of the side-effects of consumerism, along with, among other things, decreased leisure time.Jon