Is there really a cure for 'affluenza'?

[Ladyhawk]

Affluenza = a quaint little sniglet given to the condition suffered by trying to keep up with the Joneses. You know, the stress that accompanies the pursuit of the American Dream.

There's been a lot of lip service given lately, it seems, to downsizing our lifestyles a bit. Affluenza is the name of a PBS special that examines how materialism and over-consumption is taking over our lives, driving many of us into debt and/or impacting our family relationships. According to PBS:

* On average, Americans shop 6 hrs a week and spend only 40 minutes a week playing with their kids

* By the age of 20, an average American has seen a million commercials.

....et al....

I don't doubt that the above facts are accurate. But, I got to wondering. Is trimming down our lifestyles really a good thing? Over the last 5-6 years, I've been passing on some of the toys, even when I could afford them. I've gotten a lot more conscious about what I buy and if I need it.

So. What if everyone decided to make it with one car instead of 2 or more? What if one parent quit their job and stayed at home full time with the kid(s)? What if we all passed on the toys, even if only for a year? Would we, individually, be the better for it? And, if so, would the economy be worse for it? Doesn't refusing to buy goods and services ultimately serve to just put more people out of work? Can less ever be more? In theory, it sounds like a noble goal...

I'm chasing my proverbial tail feather on this one. Would love to know what you think....

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

* On average, Americans shop 6 hrs a week and spend only 40 minutes a week playing with their kids

...

I don't doubt that the above facts are accurate.

I doubt that they mean as much as they purport to. In the above statistic, for example, it sounds like they're including in the average all adults, pretty much all of whom shop, but not all of whom even have children (grown children not being relevant). Plus, what exactly qualifies as "playing" with your kids? Is it only "playtime" activities like boardgames? Because I know in my family a lot of the quality time we spent together was at meals. That was certainly several hours a week, and it was quite important in terms of forming family bonds, passing on values, etc. but it wasn't playtime. And by the time I was a teen, I liked doing certain things with my parents (going to a movie, vacation, etc.), but "playing" wasn't on the list. So while a statistic like that might be "accurate", it's still useless in terms of telling us how much time parents spend with their children, and how much benefit children get from that time.

[to.by]

Once upon a time... Well at least a good many years back, Isaac Asimov wrote that in order to maintain the standard of living for the average US citizen USA would have to consume more than 100% of the worlds natural resources by 2000. Happily he was wrong.

[Ladyhawk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
So while a statistic like that might be "accurate", it's still useless in terms of telling us how much time parents spend with their children, and how much benefit children get from that time.

Maybe so. I'm not arguing whether parents spend enough time with their kids and whether or not it's "playing" or some other form of quality time. What intrigues me more is the concept of getting along with less and I wonder if it's as practical as some might make it sound.

For instance, stats such as those above may convince many that they've become far too absorbed in the idea of having the biggest, the newest and the best of everything and that, as a result, things such as quality time with family suffers. I don't think anyone would care to argue that.

My question is whether it's a practical goal to be less influenced by advertising media and does it benefit individuals or society as a whole if we consume less. As individuals, I'm sure we can benefit but as a society, I'm not as certain...

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
My question is whether it's a practical goal to be less influenced by advertising media and does it benefit individuals or society as a whole if we consume less. As individuals, I'm sure we can benefit but as a society, I'm not as certain...

That's a more mixed bag. Consuming less is probably a net gain to society if you continue to produce as much as you did (ie, you keep working just as much). Not all forms of consumption are equivalent: if you build a road connecting two cities, the net gain is more than if you build a road to nowhere, even if both roads cost the same to build. If you cut down on your personal consumption, the reduced demand will lead to reduced prices, and will likely be compensated in part by increased consumption elsewhere. Since the kind of consumption you're likely to cut is probably of the less-productive sort, your cut in consumption may actually push society as a whole towards greater efficiency. But if you consume less AND work less, you're probably just reducing the overall size of the economy, which seems like it's probably going to be close to a zero-sum move for society as a whole.

But of course, things tend to get quite complicated in any given person's situation. If you work twice as much, and make twice as much money, the way our tax system works you probably won't be consuming twice as much, so that could be a net gain for society. Then again, working twice as much may not get you twice as much money either. There's all sorts of nonlinear responses in a real situation that make general statements pretty hard to make.

[glsunder]

Doesn't refusing to buy goods and services ultimately serve to just put more people out of work?

Are the goods imported?

[CBL4]

Quote:

My question is whether it's a practical goal to be less influenced by advertising media and does it benefit individuals or society as a whole if we consume less. As individuals, I'm sure we can benefit but as a society, I'm not as certain...

I think as individuals we should look at our priorities and see if they are correct. As a society, we should allow individuals to look at their priorities and see if they are correct.

I wish people would make different decisions but it is their lives. I would like to improve our school systems to allow better, more rational thought. Unfortunately, the biggest factor in education is the parents.

I think almost any attempted cure to the problem would cause more problems than they solve.

Quote:

Well at least a good many years back, Isaac Asimov wrote that in order to maintain the standard of living for the average US citizen USA would have to consume more than 100% of the worlds natural resources by 2000.

Do you have a source and a context? I gave up on Asimov except his SF and even that went downhill as he aged.

CBL

[Meadmaker]

I do a lot of work with Germans. They are a modern, affluent, society. Compared to us, they pay higher taxes, get more government services, and they work fewer hours. Prices in Germany for most goods are comparable to prices here, as are salaries.

I was curious how this could be. They make the same money, and pay the same prices, but they pay higher taxes and work fewer hours. How could this be? While discussing this situation with my German colleagues, I asked how it was possible to do all that and I got a very straight answer. "Easy. We have fewer consumer goods."

And it's true. The type of consumer goods available in Germany seems identical to the US, and at nearly identical prices, but they don't have as many of them in any given home. And they seem, to me, better off for it, because they have more leisure time, and they spend less of that leisure time looking after their stuff.

[CBL4]

Quote:

And they seem, to me, better off for it, because they have more leisure time, and they spend less of that leisure time looking after their stuff.

Well part of the reason they don't spend time looking for stuff is because the stores are closed.

Quote:

Ever since the 1950's, shop opening hours in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have been among the most restricted in Europe. Germany's draconian law on opening hours (das Ladenschlussgesetz) ensured that stores remained closed after 1800 on weekdays and 1400 on Saturdays. Shops were allowed to remain open two longer on one Saturday every month, on a day called "the long Saturday" (der lange Samstag).

In June 1996, the German Parliament finally gave in to pressure from both business and consumers and relaxed (das Ladenschlussgesetz). Starting from November 1 that year, shops were allowed to remain open until eight o'clock in the evening on weekdays and until four o'clock on Saturdays. They are only allowed to open later than that on Thursdays when some city centre shops choose to remain open until 20.30. In the weeks leading up to Christmas however, shops can open until 18:00 on Saturdays.

CBL

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/german/abinitio/chap9-16.html

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
[...] over-consumption is taking over our lives, driving many of us into debt and/or impacting our family relationships.

Doesn't refusing to buy goods and services ultimately serve to just put more people out of work?

[...] does it benefit individuals or society as a whole if we consume less[?] As individuals, I'm sure we can benefit but as a society, I'm not as certain...

Let's suppose it becomes popular for people to accumulate a percentage of their savings in the form of growing stockpiles of durable goods that they maintain unconsumed. Would that create jobs?

[IllegalArgument]

Positive psychology, the study of what makes people happy, is my hobbie, yes I'm a bit strange. Affluenza makes perfect sense to me, the studies I have read indicate that money or stuff doesn't increase happiness. Poverty, of course, reduces happiness, but once you reach a certain level of income, they are a bit fuzzy of the exact number for plenty of reasons, addition income has little effect on your happiness.

In my opinion, the cure is to have a engaging job, hobbie, or do charity work. There's a whole interesting field of psychology on this subject.

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea
Let's suppose it becomes popular for people to accumulate a percentage of their savings in the form of growing stockpiles of durable goods that they maintain unconsumed. Would that create jobs?

That isn't supposed to be a rhetorical question. I'm actually wondering about it. Of course one could consume one's personal stockpile at various times provided that the stockpiles throughout society are not simultaneously emptied.

[Cain]

I'm in the car listening to a commercial. A young man is working out in the gym, and the announcer/narrator asks him "What are you doing?"
"I'm gettin' in shape for the ladies."
"That seems like hard work. Why don't you come down to [some dumb car dealership] and buy [some dumb car]. Girls love [the dumb car]."
"Don't you think it's kind of shallow to buy a car in order to attract girls?"
"And how is attracting them with abs not shallow?"
"Good point."
*man dashes off to look at new cars*

I couldn't stop from laughing. "Such foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

I used to encounter these types of people all the time. They're business majors, and their goal in life is "gettin' paid and gettin' laid."

It's incredible how conservatives decry certain government policies (other than highway building) as nefarious forms of "social engineering" when, at the same time, commercial advertisements are constantly inuring people -- especially children -- to a false set of (corporate) values.

I've been watching a lot of television late at night recently, and almost all of it seems to play on our anxieties. Lots of weird fitness contraptions promising the "abs you deserve." I still can't for the life of me figure out how having strong looking abs will help me. My posture might improve, but it's like people can see through my shirt. Then there are these creams that will wipe away wrinkles and acne; the latest whitening strips that will blind your friends. I can't watch a sporting event without hearing about some sort of boner pill, or the warnings of hair loss. Then there are "X-treme" chips and brands of beer that will fill the void in your worthless life. The goddamn truck commercials to compensate for your limp dick and bald head.

MTV is probably the most nihilistic channel of them all. Everythings about "pimping a ride" or visiting some celebrity's fantastic (read: obnoxious) "crib". These lifestyles of excess, which I find dizzying and revolting, are constantly glorified.

What should I expect given our celebrity news (Entertainment Tonight, The Insider, Extra, Access Hollywood, E! Channel, VH1, MTV etc). Do people really give a **** about the top five best and worst dressed celebrities at the Golden Globes? The local news is in some ways worse. Top story: white kid kills black kid (or black kid kills white kid). Next, an update of last week's police chase. Sports: Kobe is out for a few games. Weather: the same today as yesterday. Look a box full of kittens was discovered at a warehouse. How on earth did they get there, and how on earth can they look so damn cute! Oh yeah, and hundreds of thousands of people have and will die because of that tsunami in Southeast Asia.

Quote:

And it's true. The type of consumer goods available in Germany seems identical to the US, and at nearly identical prices, but they don't have as many of them in any given home. And they seem, to me, better off for it, because they have more leisure time, and they spend less of that leisure time looking after their stuff.

Some would attribute their wealth to social capital as well. The big time theorist on this, which goes hand in hand with "affluenza" is Robert Putnam (see _Bowling Alone_).

[Meadmaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
Well part of the reason they don't spend time looking for stuff is because the stores are closed.

It's true, although in 2003 it seemed like the stores started staying open later. I think there might have been a change in the laws. I haven't been back there since.

And don't even think about shopping on Sundays. It's closed.

And it doesn't seem to do them any harm.

[Daylight]

When I was in Europe many many years ago on a business trip at dinner I asked a person there what they did for a living. The answer I got was “I’m a poet�. Then they smiled at me and said “You’re an American, I bet you meant what do I do to make money, I work in a bakery�. This has always stuck with me. It seems we Americans have forgotten what we do for a living.

[Flo]

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
And don't even think about shopping on Sundays. It's closed.

And it doesn't seem to do them any harm.

Amazing, isn't it ? We can actually survive one day per week without shopping

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Flo
Amazing, isn't it ? We can actually survive one day per week without shopping

Doesn't that make all the shops that much more crowded on Saturdays?

I don't know about other people, but I have to run all my errands on weekends because I'm at work all day M-F. If everything was closed on Sunday, I'd have even less flexibility.

I don't see closing on Sunday as being some sort of moral superiority thing--it could be argued that it's actually bad, since it deprives some people of a chance at a second job. Not everyone can work M-F...what about students? It would have cut my income in half had I not been able to work Sundays in college.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cain
MTV is probably the most nihilistic channel of them all. Everythings about "pimping a ride" or visiting some celebrity's fantastic (read: obnoxious) "crib". These lifestyles of excess, which I find dizzying and revolting, are constantly glorified.

What should I expect given our celebrity news (Entertainment Tonight, The Insider, Extra, Access Hollywood, E! Channel, VH1, MTV etc). Do people really give a **** about the top five best and worst dressed celebrities at the Golden Globes?

People watch these things because they are not like their own lives; it's escapism, and the chance to see things they'll never experience themselves. The more stupid of the viewers might then try to live that kind of lifestyle, but that will provide important employment to bankruptcy lawyers.

Realistic life isn't very interesting to watch--most people are living it.

[Flo]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Doesn't that make all the shops that much more crowded on Saturdays?
I don't know about other people, but I have to run all my errands on weekends because I'm at work all day M-F. If everything was closed on Sunday, I'd have even less flexibility.

Yes and no. We have much more choice in the kind of shops (less malls and huge supermarkets, more proximity shops, produce markets - often on Sunday morning -, etc.) and distances from work and shops is usually negligible compared to what many Americans have to deal with. That means that the majority of Europeans don't have to do all their shopping on the same day.

Quote:

I don't see closing on Sunday as being some sort of moral superiority thing--it could be argued that it's actually bad, since it deprives some people of a chance at a second job.

In continental Europe, second job is still mostly unnecessary so this is no argument. Closing one day per week is a good thing, IMO, since it guarantees that most workers are not overworked, but it shouldn't automatically be on Sunday, which is a concession to the churches, mostly. In Japan, for example, businesses can decide on any day of the week as long as they do close at least one day a week, or offer one day off to their employees.

Quote:

Not everyone can work M-F...what about students? It would have cut my income in half had I not been able to work Sundays in college.

Different structure here. Given the compactness of Europe, you can go to uni close to home, or find work close to uni, you don't need a car, etc. Remember also we are "socialist" countries and used to be pampered by the nanny-state , universities are mostly state-funded therefore fees are relatively inexpensive, etc.

[Meadmaker]

[quote]Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Doesn't that make all the shops that much more crowded on Saturdays?

Their taxes are much higher, and they work fewer hours, so they don't have as much disposable income to spend on consumer goods. They don't need to do as much shopping.

The pedestrian area of town (German cities almost always have a central pedestrian-only area) was always bustling on Saturdays, but it never seemed overly crowded.

I wouldn't say their system is "morally superior", and my libertarian streak bristles at the various laws that force them to behave that way, but if you just look at the results, it's not bad. They have fewer consumer goods, but they don't complain about the harried nature of modern life the way we Americans do.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
They have fewer consumer goods, but they don't complain about the harried nature of modern life the way we Americans do.

I don't complain about the harried nature of modern life. I complain that there's always some jackass in an SUV who doesn't know what those "Yield" signs are supposed to be telling him when I'm trying to fight my way into the parking lot at the grocery store, and I complain that so many idiots are walking around unkilled, despite all the dangers inherent in life without brains.

But given a choice, I'd rather have the wider range of options in consumer goods. Just because they make something, doesn't mean you have to buy it. You can pick what you need.

[CBL4]

Quote:

And don't even think about shopping on Sundays. It's closed. ...And it doesn't seem to do them any harm

I like to hike on Saturday and shop on Sunday. (Switching days would not work because after some hikes I need a day to recover.) I like to play racquetball after work, have dinner and then go shopping around 9.

When my local library cut back their evening hours and eliminated Sunday hours, the only time I could possibly make it to the library was between 6 and 8 on Tuesday. It was a real pain and my reading was greatly reduced.

In other words, I like to be able to do what I want, when I want instead of having to work around the stores' schedules.

And think of all the extra jobs created by having stores open 7/24 instead of about 40 hours a week.

Hurray for affluenza!

CBL

[Ladyhawk]

To put it another way.....

Let's use a theoretical and say that, for one year, Americans decide NOT to buy a new vehicle, even though they can afford it. Further, they decide not to purchase any expensive vacations or luxury items. (i.e. jewelry, electronics, etc)

My question is this: while each individual has now, ideally, saved the money they would have spent, aren't we spurring a possible layoff in the automobile industry or other industries since consumer spending isn't what those industries originally predicted?

In other words, if everyone decided to get along with less, we wouldn't need to produce as much, right? And if we don't need to produce as much doesn't that eventually translate to the unemployment rate going up?

(I know it's a pretty simple example I'm using here but I'm not an economist so (as Denzel Washington said in
Philadelphia , "Talk to me like I'm a 5 year old")

Thanks!

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
To put it another way.....

Let's use a theoretical and say that, for one year, Americans decide NOT to buy a new vehicle, even though they can afford it. Further, they decide not to purchase any expensive vacations or luxury items. (i.e. jewelry, electronics, etc)

My question is this: while each individual has now, ideally, saved the money they would have spent, aren't we spurring a possible layoff in the automobile industry or other industries since consumer spending isn't what those industries originally predicted?

In other words, if everyone decided to get along with less, we wouldn't need to produce as much, right? And if we don't need to produce as much doesn't that eventually translate to the unemployment rate going up?

(I know it's a pretty simple example I'm using here but I'm not an economist so (as Denzel Washington said in
Philadelphia , "Talk to me like I'm a 5 year old")

Thanks!

If could afford it and I mean really afford it not having enough credit to purchase it, why would you not? However, if something silly like that were to happen but just for one year it could be a bump in the market that would be corrected by the fact all those people will buy stuff next year.

Perhaps an important question is why are people working so hard? And is having more material goods such a horrible thing?

And as a side note to Cain, exactly what is wrong with "gettin' paid and gettin' laid"; if we only have one chance at life, shouldn't we enjoy it to its fullest?

[Ladyhawk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
If could afford it and I mean really afford it not having enough credit to purchase it, why would you not? However, if something silly like that were to happen but just for one year it could be a bump in the market that would be corrected by the fact all those people will buy stuff next year.

Perhaps an important question is why are people working so hard? And is having more material goods such a horrible thing?

And as a side note to Cain, exactly what is wrong with "gettin' paid and gettin' laid"; if we only have one chance at life, shouldn't we enjoy it to its fullest?

For the record, I have no problem with the "gettin' paid and gettin' laid" thing. Just thought I'd put that out there.....

Is having more material goods such a horrible thing? Hmmmm...sometimes I think it is. I know of a lot of folks who are just 2-3 paychecks away from losing their homes if they lose their job. I'm talkin' folks who make pretty good money, too! But, for them, the $200,000 home wasn't enough; they went for the $350,000 home. The $1000 engagement ring wasn't good enough. They had to have the $5000-$10,000 bridal set.

I know, I know....someone is going to say "Well, those folks aren't living within their means" to which I would reply, "Who does, anymore?" I read somewhere that the average American has $7000 of credit card debt (outside of mortgages/car loans, etc). $7000!

There's nothing wrong with having nice stuff. I just think we tend to have too much of it.

I remain solidly undecided...

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

I know, I know....someone is going to say "Well, those folks aren't living within their means" to which I would reply, "Who does, anymore?" I read somewhere that the average American has $7000 of credit card debt (outside of mortgages/car loans, etc). $7000!

I do, I would like to have all the stuff I can't afford but then I think about how nice it is not to worry about the future since I actually have savings.

Perhaps that is the problem, that people don't know when they should spend and when they should save and they end up having to work for the credit company and not for themselves.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
I do, I would like to have all the stuff I can't afford but then I think about how nice it is not to worry about the future since I actually have savings.

Perhaps that is the problem, that people don't know when they should spend and when they should save and they end up having to work for the credit company and not for themselves.

I have an appetite for glorious consumer goods....but I'm also very, very thrifty. Your avatar depicts one of the wisest men on finances, who was once offered eternal happiness for a dollar. "I think I'd be happier with the dollar."

I love my savings because of their potential to be all sorts of wonderful things. If I actually bought anything, it would undoubtedly disappoint me, since it couldn't live up to the sheer joy of seeing those figures on my bank statement.

Both digits. Sigh.

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I have an appetite for glorious consumer goods....but I'm also very, very thrifty. Your avatar depicts one of the wisest men on finances, who was once offered eternal happiness for a dollar. "I think I'd be happier with the dollar."

I love my savings because of their potential to be all sorts of wonderful things. If I actually bought anything, it would undoubtedly disappoint me, since it couldn't live up to the sheer joy of seeing those figures on my bank statement.

Both digits. Sigh.

Yes, Mr. Burns, that reminds me of another quote.

Homer: "Ya know Mr. Burns, you're the richest guy I know - way richer than Lenny.
Mr. Burns: Yes, but I'd trade it all for a little more."

[Cain]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkeyPeople watch these things because they are not like their own lives; it's escapism, and the chance to see things they'll never experience themselves. The more stupid of the viewers might then try to live that kind of lifestyle, but that will provide important employment to bankruptcy lawyers.

Realistic life isn't very interesting to watch--most people are living it.

First of all, most people, especially in the United States, are rather optimistic about their financial situation down the road. Consider for instance the much-talked about Time poll which found 20 percent of people think they're already in the top 1% of income earners. A further 20% believe they will be in the top 1% one day.

Also, it doesn't matter if people understand they will never live in a house similar to Shaq's. I bet nobody believes they will own a garage filled with Italian sports cars. I bet almost nobody would pay 30-40 grand to "pimp" their sh!tty '81 Trans-Am. You're missing the point, which is that these television programs celebrate wasteful lifestyles, which individuals internalize and attempt to emulate (although to a limited degree, constrained by their credit). It's possible for young kids to save up to buy 24 inch chrome wheels, and so on.

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
And as a side note to Cain, exactly what is wrong with "gettin' paid and gettin' laid"; if we only have one chance at life, shouldn't we enjoy it to its fullest?

Precisely my point. This is just evidence of a fcuked up value scheme if you associate "gettin' paid and gettin' laid" mentality with "enjoying life to its fullest."

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cain

Precisely my point. This is just evidence of a fcuked up value scheme if you associate "gettin' paid and gettin' laid" mentality with "enjoying life to its fullest."

Perhaps you are the one whose value system is all FUBAred? As there is no "right way" to live a life, I'm sticking to thinking of me first and everyone else a distant second.

[Cain]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grammatron
Perhaps you are the one whose value system is all FUBAred?

Certainly.

Quote:

As there is no "right way" to live a life, I'm sticking to thinking of me first and everyone else a distant second.

How... enlightened of you. Then allow me to subject this rather crude form of egoism to a first level argument. Suppose someone shares a similar philosophy (based just on your above sentence), is it OK for him to steal (under normal circumstances)? Gotta get paid, right? Is it OK for the same man to get sex by violent means? Gotta get laid, right? Hey, his interests come first and those of others are a distant second: getting paid and getting laid are far more important considerations than another person's money, or her physical security.

Of course most people -- as far as I know -- espousing the "get paid, get laid" philosophy are coldly indifferent rather than openly hostile to the interests of others. Unfortunately, given the above sentiment -- and yes, I'm extrapolating -- there's no moral principle such individuals can appeal to in arguing for indifference against hostility. All they have is prudence -- that is, calculated self-interest.

[PixyMisa]

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
And it's true. The type of consumer goods available in Germany seems identical to the US, and at nearly identical prices, but they don't have as many of them in any given home. And they seem, to me, better off for it, because they have more leisure time, and they spend less of that leisure time looking after their stuff.

Pfleah.

That's just sour grapes.

Given the choice, they'd take more stuff, every time. Ask the East Germans if you're in any doubt.

[Meadmaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk

In other words, if everyone decided to get along with less, we wouldn't need to produce as much, right? And if we don't need to produce as much doesn't that eventually translate to the unemployment rate going up?

Not necessarily. If the transition is gradual, then they would be reemployed in other fields. People spend less on consumer goods, which leaves them money that they can spend on going out to restaurants, and that results in more jobs for chefs and waiters.

When the Atkins diet got big, there were layoffs at bread making plants. (Really. It was that big last year.) But there was increased production at cheese making plants, which meant more jobs in dairy states.

Most people want to work. There are always some people with business ideas that will put people to work. As a result, most people have jobs most of the time. The only exception is when a sudden shock occurs and lots of people are thrown out of work suddenly. It took a while for the laid off bread makers to be reemployed as the cheese makers ramped up production.

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cain
How... enlightened of you. Then allow me to subject this rather crude form of egoism to a first level argument. Suppose someone shares a similar philosophy (based just on your above sentence), is it OK for him to steal (under normal circumstances)? Gotta get paid, right? Is it OK for the same man to get sex by violent means? Gotta get laid, right? Hey, his interests come first and those of others are a distant second: getting paid and getting laid are far more important considerations than another person's money, or her physical security.

Of course most people -- as far as I know -- espousing the "get paid, get laid" philosophy are coldly indifferent rather than openly hostile to the interests of others. Unfortunately, given the above sentiment -- and yes, I'm extrapolating -- there's no moral principle such individuals can appeal to in arguing for indifference against hostility. All they have is prudence -- that is, calculated self-interest.

If we were to take it to the extreme and lived in some sort of anarchist society, yes, however that is not the case. Thus I do what I can and want, however with in certain limits usually very well defined by the laws of the country, state, city, etc.

Also, I don't want to give of an impression that I am hedonist because I do care about consequences of my actions. And while the needs of others take a back sit to mine, I do care about the people I know (friends, family) and thus I'm not a complete selfish prick.

[PixyMisa]

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
It took a while for the laid off bread makers to be reemployed as the cheese makers ramped up production.

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

[SlippyToad]

Quote:

Originally posted by to.by
Once upon a time... Well at least a good many years back, Isaac Asimov wrote that in order to maintain the standard of living for the average US citizen USA would have to consume more than 100% of the worlds natural resources by 2000. Happily he was wrong.

Source?

I have a good number of Dr. A's printed works. And I've never seen that.

[The idea]

Quote:

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Not necessarily. If the transition is gradual, then they would be reemployed in other fields. People spend less on consumer goods, which leaves them money that they can spend on going out to restaurants, and that results in more jobs for chefs and waiters.

In other words, if people spend less money on goods, then they might spend more money on services. Did you notice the question quoted below?

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Doesn't refusing to buy goods and services ultimately serve to just put more people out of work?

It's hard to see any possible answer other than "yes." However, keep in mind the context:

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladyhawk
Affluenza is the name of a PBS special that examines how materialism and over-consumption is taking over our lives [...]

Is money spent on foreign language lessons or singing lessons an example of "materialism" or "over-consumption"? If not, then one way to approach this topic is to examine what kinds of spending are frowned upon and why.

[Capitalist]

Quote:

Originally posted by to.by
Once upon a time... Well at least a good many years back, Isaac Asimov wrote that in order to maintain the standard of living for the average US citizen USA would have to consume more than 100% of the worlds natural resources by 2000. Happily he was wrong.

Well, not only was he wrong, he was astonishgly, spectacularly so.

[Capitalist]

Quote:

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Source?

I have a good number of Dr. A's printed works. And I've never seen that.

O.K. I don't have the source with me, (perhaps the original poster does) but I read the essay in which he made the claim along with similar ecologist nuttery. He argued, for example, that in order to provide a "decent" standard of living to every human the overall population would have to be reduced to about a billion.

[Meadmaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by The idea

Is money spent on foreign language lessons or singing lessons an example of "materialism" or "over-consumption"? If not, then one way to approach this topic is to examine what kinds of spending are frowned upon and why.

That's a good question. (Perhaps my example wasn't great, because going to a restaurant as a substitute for buying Legos could still be seen as "materialism".)

There was a fairly narrow question related to whether we should be concerned that changing our behavior will throw people out of work. I say no it will not, because all the people who do the things that they do now, will find something else to do. And all the people who are spending money now, will keep spending money on different things.

If we suddenly all decided to take singing lessons, either because of some fad or because the government offered singing lesson subsidies from tax money, there would be less money to pay dockworkers, truck drivers, and retailers who currently stock Legos at Wal-Mart. But there would be more jobs for singing instructors.