Is there really a cure for 'affluenza'?

[TragicMonkey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Perhaps you are the one whose value system is all FUBAred?

Certainly.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.