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.

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.

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

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

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

Consumerism isn't just the consumption of stuff. It's not just the transaction on the books, the acquisition of a Christmas gift.It is a beliefa mindset. A subset which, of course, is still made up of human beings living under crushing debt. You may write it off as merely 'a function of the fact that you're looking at a subset of the whole', but others of us see it as a serious societal problem that needs a solution. And I never said it does. Feel free to bring in those cost numbers so that we can figure out the effect they have on increased home size and rule them out of our calculations.Jon

It depends on the way in which it is larger.But, feel free to bring in those numbers.

Good thing no one has advocated getting rid of consumption. Yes. We are all aware that the wealthiest folk continue to get wealthier while others go in debt to fund their consumerism.We know. We get it. And we know you think that such a thing is just cool beans and wonderful - so long as it all zeros out in the end.Your system sounds great. Us 99% should be thankful we've got companies like Visa to rape us... and folk like you to hold our hands while they do.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

I actually defined that back in Message 4. Less consumerism, perhaps. But the question you've asked me is primarily the question I asked of everyone else at the beginning of the thread.So I don't have a sure answer.Jon

Since Crash seems bent on insisting that house size isn't a valid measure of consumerism, I figure I'll post a relevant tidbit:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Conspicuous Consumption:

​

In the U.S., a trend toward larger houses began in the 1950s, with the average size of a home doubling over the next 50 years. This trend has been compared to the increase in SUV purchases, also often a symbol of conspicuous consumption. People have purchased huge houses even at the expense of the size of their yard, the inability to save funds for retirement, or a greatly increased commute time. Such large homes can also facilitate other forms of consumption, in providing extra storage space for vehicles, clothes, and other objects.

---

Jon

quote:

---

Crashfrog in Message 42:

​

The actual crisis is that nearly everybody responded to a liquidity trap by reducing their spending, which caused a crash in aggregate demand.

---

This is precisely the problem with consumerism.Without a continuous chain of consumption, the system falls to pieces. Everything comes crashing down the moment people start being content with what they have and happy to only consume what they need; when they rid themselves of the desire to endlessly acquire ever more stuff.The more rational the participants, the more bound a consumerist economy is to fail.Jon

I'm not sure where you get that feeling from. Most of those things you mentioned sound great.But none of them really have anything to do with consumerism. They would all be excellent additions to today's society, consumerist though it be.So they don't seem like replacements for consumerism. Sure. It's someone's income. But whose? Who is actually raking in the cash from all that consumption?Another thing to think about:

quote:

---

Eric Olin Wright in "Consumerism" (PDF):

​

We have already identified one problem: environmental sustainability. The planet is
simply incapable in the long-term of supporting ever-increasing material consumption on
a mass scale. (p. 2)

---

Even if you can properly distribute the income, continued mass consumption is an unsupportable affair.

quote:

---

AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment:

​

For many resources, the United States of America is the world's largest consumer in absolute terms. For a list of 20 major traded commodities, it takes the greatest share of 11 of them: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, tin, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil and natural gas. For many more it is the largest per-capita consumer.

---

And, of course, resource drain isn't the only environmental consequence of mass consumption. This table for municipal waste generation per capita places the U.S. far ahead of our European counterparts, a ranking made even worse by the fact that the U.S. also falls behind many European countries when it comes to recycling. All of the developed nations in general, of course, are much more wasteful than the less developed ones. Purchased stuff isn't all that's over-consumed in consumerist societies; environmental quality gets eaten up as well. And continued reductions in environmental quality eventually catch up to you and contribute to a lower standard of living; so much for avoiding austerity.Jon

Such a lifestyle is unworkable for most people. Very few working class people can choose how many hours they work.

quote:

---

Eric Olin Wright in "Consumerism" (PDF):

​

Research on happiness indicates that once a person has a comfortable standard of living,
increased income and consumption does not lead to increased life satisfaction and
happiness. People find meaning and happiness through their connections with other
people, through their engagement in interesting work and activities and their participation
in communities much more than through lavish consumption.

​

If people would really be better off with a less hyper-consumerist lifestyle, why then
do they embrace consumerism? The basic idea here is that through various mechanisms
there is a systematic consumption-bias in the decisions people make. If this bias were
eliminated, people would in fact make different choices, consume less and in the end be
happier. The issue, then, is not really that there is anything intrinsically wrong with
shopping and consuming as such, but rather that the nature of the market system in which
we live shapes peoples preferences and choices excessively in favor of consumption over
other values.
...
When productivity increases, therefore, there are two sorts of things that in principle can
happen: we could produce the same amount of things with less total labor input, resulting
in more free time, or we could produce more things with the same amount of labor
input. The consumption bias of capitalism means that there is a strong tendency for
increases in productivity to lead to increased production of goods and services rather [than]
increased free time. (p. 2)

---

quote:

---

Eric Olin Wright in "Consumerism" (PDF):

​

Consumerism is also generated by what can be called a failure in the market for leisure.
If we had a perfect market for leisure, then people would be able to easily choose the
amount of work and leisure they preferred. This is not the case. Labor markets and
employment relations in the United States are organized in such a way as to make it difficult
for individuals to choose a less consumerist life style in favor of more free time. (p. 7)

---

The system is biased in favor of consumerism. For everyone to live at the 'medium chill' requires an extensive overhaul of the current system. Moving away from consumerism is not a choice that each individual can make.This is why I have been using the term 'consumerism' in connection with words like 'society', 'economy', and the like: It is not an individual problem but a group problem and so must be addressed at the group, or societal, level. So it is not enough for each individual to simply choose a life outside of consumerism because not every individual can choose a life outside of consumerism. A fix requires system-wide changes that I can, quite honestly, only imagine a government body being capable of bringing about.I'm just not sure what all those changes might be, and that's where the question in the OP comes in.And the article you linked to brings up another very important point that I have not yet mentioned:

quote:

---

"The Medium Chill" on grist:

​

That's what consumer culture forever tells us: more money/stuff/status means fewer constraints, more freedom, more choices, thus more happiness. The entire economy runs on spending and debt, and for that to work everyone needs to think they're not happy but could be happy if they just had more sh*t or a better job or a better house. Every "consumer" needs to be running on the treadmill, working toward the next thing.

​

But social psychologists tell a different story. They point out that there's very little evidence that, once a certain base level of material security is achieved, more money and stuff make us happier. Gilbert offers one explanation: having fewer choices is often more conducive to synthetic happiness. (Watch the video -- he's got some fascinating experiments to back this up.) Piling up choices can make contentment impossible.

---

Every time a company successfully advertises a product to someonesuccessfully convinces that person that their product will make them happier, that company ensures that person's continued misery until they can consume that product. Consumerism is fueled by misery, and those who benefit most from consumerism are ever so pleased to give it to you.I'm not sure how any rational and informed individual could not possibly acknowledge that this is a real problem that needs attention.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

I'd like to know what gives you the impression that I am at all conservative on any of the matters being discussed in this thread. Well, some are easy. For stuff that is just pure waste to begin with (a lot of packaging, grocery bags, 'disposable' Xs, etc.) an extremely high (triple digit) sales tax on these items would likely rid them from the world in no time. Of course, if people are extremely bent on consuming these items, they might just drive themselves further into debt to do so. So perhaps they need to be banned altogether.For other things, I'm not as sure. Which is why I started this thread. I'd really like to hear folks' thoughts on this. These are some things discussed in that PDF I've been quoting from. According to a poll cited by the author, almost 50% of folks polled said they would give up 100% of future raises in exchange for more time off work (p. 8). So people really value their free time. And what's more, the results indicate that these people are overall rather happy with the money they are already making and are less interested in making (and spending) more money than they are in having more free time.But when the only choice they have is to work more and make more money, or lose their job, their hands become tied.But I think we also need to fix marketing and advertising as well. I have to agree with Buzsaw that people are, by and large, sheepleeasily manipulated, swindled, coerced, etc. Most marketing preys on this weakness and is just down-right filthy. We already, for example, have strict limits on advertisements for tobacco and alcohol because of the products' perceived ill effects on human welfare. It wouldn't be too difficult to set limits on a company's advertising in different media; for example, Coca-Cola can only have so many ads per X number of pages of news print or X number of minutes of television. I certainly think this crap has ill effects on society's welfare too... just 'cause it don't 'cause lung cancer is little reason to let it go unchecked.Oh, and speaking of television, who in the fuck needs 500 channels?Jon

Not that I mean to overdo a topic that seems to have already fizzled, but Phat linked me this video this morning and it is exactly on target for what has been discussed in this topic.Internet Archive: ErrorInterestingly, this video brings up a point that I believe was addressed in the PDF I quoted extensively in this thread but cannot remember for sure: Increased consumption by the first world requires increased pilfering of the resources of the third world. In other words, like the video says, we really don't have the resources here (or we consider it too expensive to extract them) to continue production of all the stuff we consume. To make up for this, we take resources from other countries that cannot afford to keep those resources for themselves.Even if we chose to extract the resources at any cost, our own country's resources (talking about the U.S.) cannot sustain the level of consumption that we are already at. Thus, we are dependent on foreign resources to meet that excess demand. This, of course, puts a hole in our country's national defense that no amount of bombing can fill; being dependent on foreign resources is not a wise defense policy. It would be one thing if we were simply looting other nations to preserve our own, being capable of meeting the demand for resources on our own were we required to do so. But this is not the case, even if we tried, there are not enough domestic resources to sustain our current level of consumption. We couldn't become self-sufficient even if we wanted to in our consumerist society.And the solution offered by many politicians and so called 'economists'? Consume more.There are certainly some stretched asses and squished heads somewhere.Once again: Consumerism fails to be a rational plan, this time in terms of national defense.Jon