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]

* 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]

Re: Re: Is there really a cure for 'affluenza'?

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]

Re: Re: Re: Is there really a cure for 'affluenza'?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

[...] 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.