I generally agree with the ideas, but these three excerpts really feel off to me. But in the very next paragraph: And toward the end: So to paraphrase: You should reduce your consumption, against...
I generally agree with the ideas, but these three excerpts really feel off to me.
We know where it’s going, and we know who’s buying it all up. They—and maybe you—could simply knock it off.
But in the very next paragraph:
I’m not proposing that you or anyone else boycott commerce on a conceptual level. That would be impossible, and it would ignore how human life in this country works. It would also be the sort of killjoy self-righteous proposal that doesn’t gain much traction. Shopping is fun—novelty and possibility are fun—and it’s often how people access the tools and materials to do things that bring them genuine comfort or joy, which everyone needs.
And toward the end:
As it stands, America’s central organizing principle is thoughtless consumption, acquiring things for yourself and letting everyone else pick over what you left behind on the shelves. You can decide you don’t like that. You can decide that people—your family, your friends, the people in your community, the port truckers and Amazon warehouse workers running themselves ragged—are more important to you than another box of miscellaneous stuff. You can take a bit of pressure, however tiny, off a system so overburdened that it threatens to grind everyone in it to dust.
So to paraphrase: You should reduce your consumption, against what you've been conditioned to do for decades. But only temporarily so the system can smooth out again. Then please resume consumption, because it is fun and essential to American life.
We've been conditioned via marketing for decades (my entire life certainly) that the path to happiness and health is through consumption.
So when people are feeling nervous about their health, or bored out of their minds, is it any wonder the consumption ramps up?
Especially since much of life that could get you out of your home to avoid consumption was closed off. I got a used outdoor playset because playgrounds were closed. We upgraded our computers and tvs because we knew we'd be spending a lot more time on them.
We stockpiled genuine neccessities in a way we hadn't before because we saw the supply chains diminishing. We expanded our gardening, which needed supplies for.
All of these things strained supply chains. Partially because there was an urgency to do so before supply chains collapsed.
My consumption has since reduced to below pre-COVID levels, simply due to more outdoor activities being an option again.
But I think this kind of plea isn't going to work. To lessen the consumption instinct you must remove the methods which fuels it.We could help by banning all public displays of advertising. Make it all 100% opt-in. Even then I think the only way that America is going to be able to cut off the consumption instinct is cold-turkey, courtesy of collapsed supply chains,
I would love to see what goods people are buying right now compared to two years ago. The place that I live feels like it’s adjacent to the materialism capitol of the world. If I go one direction...
I would love to see what goods people are buying right now compared to two years ago.
The place that I live feels like it’s adjacent to the materialism capitol of the world. If I go one direction i will be in a world of designer fashion and overpriced home decorations. If I go to another, I am surrounded by theme parks that make huge profits on merchandise - literally hundreds of thousands of baubles that serve no useful function. Some of them can be useful, but by virtue of their branding or low quality are temporary at best. And everywhere else is fast fashion, clothes that are literally meant to be disposable and an industry that famously destroys 3/4 of what it produces. These are the kinds of things that people were spending their money on before the pandemic.
In the meanwhile the things I have been hearing people spending money on are home improvement, gardening, baking, and other hobbies. These use durable goods that either last a long time or use very cheap inexpensive materials. And yet this is the kind of spending that is somehow wasteful?
It seems like the amount of thought you put into a purchase should depend on its price? The price is basically a summary of its effect on the supply chain in one number. If it’s in short supply or...
It seems like the amount of thought you put into a purchase should depend on its price? The price is basically a summary of its effect on the supply chain in one number. If it’s in short supply or particularly environmentally damaging, the price should be higher. That’s how the feedback works.
Thoughtful consumption basically means deciding if it’s worth it to you given its price, or if you should pick a substitute. Asking people to understand all the supply chain issues that go into making a product is unworkable.
The benefits of having a thing aren’t so easily boiled down to one number, but people will do more research for big-ticket purchases.
If we can price in the externalities, particularly carbon and general offshored pollution plus disposal costs and impact, this would work brilliantly. It's one of my biggest disappointments in...
If we can price in the externalities, particularly carbon and general offshored pollution plus disposal costs and impact, this would work brilliantly. It's one of my biggest disappointments in government that there are so few steps being made towards this.
It should be mandatory to factor in these societal externalities. Create an externality HAZMAT-like system. Logos for each major harm, to help publicize those costs. I'd also try to work in human...
It should be mandatory to factor in these societal externalities.
Create an externality HAZMAT-like system. Logos for each major harm, to help publicize those costs. I'd also try to work in human rights violations (sourcing from countries eith known slavery problems).
A less harmful product should never cost less than a less harmful equivalent. Because that reversal is how we got in this situation in the first place.
How much microplastic is in the world purely from disposable food packaging instead of using reusables like glass or metal?
Well, a problem is that externalities don't naturally have a price. People need to make rules about what those prices should be and they need to be enforced. (Such as deciding on a tax on...
Well, a problem is that externalities don't naturally have a price. People need to make rules about what those prices should be and they need to be enforced. (Such as deciding on a tax on plastic.)
This means detailed regulations. International trade makes it even more difficult.
I sometimes wonder if there could be a system of supply-chain transparency where everything going into a product is tracked and any component that comes in from outside that system gets charged more, in a way similar to VAT taxes. But this would require extremely complicated accounting.
Going to drop a link to a short sci-fi story that I read in my teenage years that has always come to mind when thinking about consumerism and how much stuff I buy. The Midas Plague
Exemplary
Going to drop a link to a short sci-fi story that I read in my teenage years that has always come to mind when thinking about consumerism and how much stuff I buy.
The summary reminds me of Brave New World. It's about a society that reshapes its people to match the production and consumption cycles dictated by its technology, and it's one of the classics of...
The summary reminds me of Brave New World. It's about a society that reshapes its people to match the production and consumption cycles dictated by its technology, and it's one of the classics of dystopian literature.
Amanda Mull takes us through the under-reported aspect of all the reporting on supply-chain constraints and shortages. Namely that we're past the point of this being a problem of not producing...
Amanda Mull takes us through the under-reported aspect of all the reporting on supply-chain constraints and shortages. Namely that we're past the point of this being a problem of not producing enough stuff (in most cases) and it's largely now a problem of overconsumption straining the supply chain. And that overconsumption mostly seems to be from bored upper-middle class people.
I generally agree with the ideas, but these three excerpts really feel off to me.
But in the very next paragraph:
And toward the end:
So to paraphrase: You should reduce your consumption, against what you've been conditioned to do for decades. But only temporarily so the system can smooth out again. Then please resume consumption, because it is fun and essential to American life.
We've been conditioned via marketing for decades (my entire life certainly) that the path to happiness and health is through consumption.
So when people are feeling nervous about their health, or bored out of their minds, is it any wonder the consumption ramps up?
Especially since much of life that could get you out of your home to avoid consumption was closed off. I got a used outdoor playset because playgrounds were closed. We upgraded our computers and tvs because we knew we'd be spending a lot more time on them.
We stockpiled genuine neccessities in a way we hadn't before because we saw the supply chains diminishing. We expanded our gardening, which needed supplies for.
All of these things strained supply chains. Partially because there was an urgency to do so before supply chains collapsed.
My consumption has since reduced to below pre-COVID levels, simply due to more outdoor activities being an option again.
But I think this kind of plea isn't going to work. To lessen the consumption instinct you must remove the methods which fuels it.We could help by banning all public displays of advertising. Make it all 100% opt-in. Even then I think the only way that America is going to be able to cut off the consumption instinct is cold-turkey, courtesy of collapsed supply chains,
I would love to see what goods people are buying right now compared to two years ago.
The place that I live feels like it’s adjacent to the materialism capitol of the world. If I go one direction i will be in a world of designer fashion and overpriced home decorations. If I go to another, I am surrounded by theme parks that make huge profits on merchandise - literally hundreds of thousands of baubles that serve no useful function. Some of them can be useful, but by virtue of their branding or low quality are temporary at best. And everywhere else is fast fashion, clothes that are literally meant to be disposable and an industry that famously destroys 3/4 of what it produces. These are the kinds of things that people were spending their money on before the pandemic.
In the meanwhile the things I have been hearing people spending money on are home improvement, gardening, baking, and other hobbies. These use durable goods that either last a long time or use very cheap inexpensive materials. And yet this is the kind of spending that is somehow wasteful?
It seems like the amount of thought you put into a purchase should depend on its price? The price is basically a summary of its effect on the supply chain in one number. If it’s in short supply or particularly environmentally damaging, the price should be higher. That’s how the feedback works.
Thoughtful consumption basically means deciding if it’s worth it to you given its price, or if you should pick a substitute. Asking people to understand all the supply chain issues that go into making a product is unworkable.
The benefits of having a thing aren’t so easily boiled down to one number, but people will do more research for big-ticket purchases.
If we can price in the externalities, particularly carbon and general offshored pollution plus disposal costs and impact, this would work brilliantly. It's one of my biggest disappointments in government that there are so few steps being made towards this.
It should be mandatory to factor in these societal externalities.
Create an externality HAZMAT-like system. Logos for each major harm, to help publicize those costs. I'd also try to work in human rights violations (sourcing from countries eith known slavery problems).
A less harmful product should never cost less than a less harmful equivalent. Because that reversal is how we got in this situation in the first place.
How much microplastic is in the world purely from disposable food packaging instead of using reusables like glass or metal?
Well, a problem is that externalities don't naturally have a price. People need to make rules about what those prices should be and they need to be enforced. (Such as deciding on a tax on plastic.)
This means detailed regulations. International trade makes it even more difficult.
I sometimes wonder if there could be a system of supply-chain transparency where everything going into a product is tracked and any component that comes in from outside that system gets charged more, in a way similar to VAT taxes. But this would require extremely complicated accounting.
Going to drop a link to a short sci-fi story that I read in my teenage years that has always come to mind when thinking about consumerism and how much stuff I buy.
The Midas Plague
The summary reminds me of Brave New World. It's about a society that reshapes its people to match the production and consumption cycles dictated by its technology, and it's one of the classics of dystopian literature.
The theme is definitely prevalent in a lot of dystopian fiction, that was just the first time I encountered it and it has definitely stuck with me.
Amanda Mull takes us through the under-reported aspect of all the reporting on supply-chain constraints and shortages. Namely that we're past the point of this being a problem of not producing enough stuff (in most cases) and it's largely now a problem of overconsumption straining the supply chain. And that overconsumption mostly seems to be from bored upper-middle class people.
Worth reading through for the full breakdown.