Replacing Consumerism

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

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.

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.

*Ahem.* There are some of us who believe that by seniority we have the right to have the opportunity to work a few more hours rather than letting part time (and cheaper) workers take over. Don't throw gasoline on that fire!Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Because in the long run, seniority is fairer than favoritism, which often happens. The most efficient employee often turns out to be cheaper than the senior employee. The better a store manager controls expenses(such as labor) the bigger their bonus. Having a union is a check and balance against this type of favoritism.Less money always equals greater efficiency in the corporate labor world.

Well...one could argue that the more money in the pocket, the more things that can be bought(that are unneeded) Lets just say that in general, at my store and across America, people are working harder for the same thing they got cheaper a few years ago.

I might add, in addition to what Jon said above...that the problem is compounded by the fact that China itself will be needing more resources for its own economic rise...some estimate that China would need 5 earths worth of resources if they followed the Western model of consumption.The bottom line is that change must happen sooner versus later. Even Politicians are slow to realize this, however. What solution was offered both after 9-11 and after the 2008 recession to Americans to help pull us out of crises?A) Pray More
B) Bomb Iran
C) Spend Spend Spend...Consume more.

From what I understand, our entire global financial system actually depends on debt. The Money Fix --The film documents three types of alternative money systems, all of which help solve economic problems for the communities in which they operate. The Money Fix Trailer Under three minutes...explains longer documentary above)I say screw this global economic debt based system. We owe nobody anything that they are not holding through ulterior motives. They sought to make the borrower slave to the lender . Only problem I can see is the evaporation of our pensions....somebody in some country/culture will be left holding the bag! Any better solutions?? And if that money is being lent out by banks and governments to stimulate the economy, it is just adding to the debt based system.Edited by Phat, : add by edit

(After watching that documentary)...now that my eyes were opened, i think i agree with what you say about consumerism...the corporations (Kraft, General Foods, Proctor&Gamble) create more and newer stuff to fill the shelves at safeway...heck, we could sell 1/3 as much and still stay open if the price were fair.From what safeway tells me, we essentially rent them shelf space however...so the ball is in their court.

Ahhh yes...John Lennon and Imagine...except that I don't optimistically believe that everyone will share the global debt equally.Even the US Debt is, I think, a global concern and I would like to see it negotiated away based on some sort of global plan....but to believe that the 1% would share proportionately and equally with the 99% is in my opinion not indicative of observations of human nature.The shift away from consumerism is idealistic yet obviously not seen as practical by the powers that be.Thus, to see any change, the powers that be need to surrender some of the power to the rest of us.

Yes. It will protect the American Middle Class from getting wiped out, hollowed out, and thrust to the back of the line. It will prevent the decimation and internal destruction of this nation.

We Americans need to negotiate from a position of strength while we still have an advantage. Our global advantage is shrinking, and if we dont negotiate a settlement now, the world will simply pass us by. Thailand can be helped. Tourism is one of their main industries, but if we dont have the money to travel, it will hurt them. Americans are slipping, and there could come a day when the world wont need us.The only problem with my solution is, ironically, that it depends on continued consumerism. And yes, I am suggesting we negotiate with the world while we still have leverage. Otherwise, jar...our wealthier citizens will simply leave...(1% leave 99% holding the bag)

well...we still have the military umbrella

hey, the topic is about reducing consumerism...not stepping aside and letting Thailand and every other third world country become consumers also...and while we struggle to pay our debts, they move ahead of us and the world passes us by, as if we were some simpleton country like Britain became....IF the world sticks us with the bill right when im about to retire, I will of course be mad and will become an AARP militant, voting down everything the blasted younguns try and pull to help them raise babies while Grandpa starves to death.But im not Hitler. Im simply one of many aging US middle class who will try everything short of war to retire with grace and dignity after a lifetime of work. These other countries cant do what we did. We already used up most of the resources and if they try and copy our pattern, the planet itself will be in danger.

Yes, but all im saying is that cutting back does not mean accepting being poor.We need to work with the other countries rather than compete with them.