Showing posts with label luxury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label luxury. Show all posts
07 March 2014
Quote on Consumerism from the founder of Early Retirement Extreme
"The problem is that most of us have become utterly dependent on this
industrial-technological system for all of our needs and wants.
Shopping is as important as oxygen to us. Close down the malls for a
few days and people go crazy. We no longer think of ourselves as
citizens but as ”consumers”, a descriptive term that I've always found
kind of derogatory. This dependence is so fundamental that it goes
unseen, much like fish don't see the water they swim in.
Consequentially, the only solution we can think of whenever we struggle
with unfulfilled needs or wants is to ”earn more” and start a
side-business, negotiate a raise, and gamble on some more education –
it's an investment in your future (ha!). The only perceived way to a
better so-called standard-of-living is to work harder and smarter and
earn more. However, what this often results in is more environmental
damage or at best reshufling money from suckers to scammers." - Jacob
Lund Fisker
26 September 2009
Spoiled: The Economic Downturn, Luxury as Necessity, and "Struggling" in the Modern Economy
- Sep 26, 2009
Spoiled: The Economic Downturn, Luxury as Necessity, and "Struggling" in the Modern Economy
My original comment was not meant to imply I don't believe that there are tangible effects on people (most notably unemployment, which is certainly up compared to a few years ago).
All I said was that media and politicians largely made it up. I think it is a self-fulfilling prophesy to an extent, where in people hear constant messages that times are tight, therefore they cut back on consumption, therefore retail markets fall, therefore manufacturers cut back, and employers start laying people off. Which fuels the beginning of the cycle even more. This is why business analysts track "consumer confidence". In fact, to a large extent it is what the stock market is all about. Its less a question of how well a company is doing and more one of how popular are they. If people think its doing well, they buy, which itself drives the stock price up. It works both ways, so if everyone is convinced the market is doing bad, they sell so they don't lose too much by waiting, and then companies don't have the capital to invest.
-
All I said was that media and politicians largely made it up. I think it is a self-fulfilling prophesy to an extent, where in people hear constant messages that times are tight, therefore they cut back on consumption, therefore retail markets fall, therefore manufacturers cut back, and employers start laying people off. Which fuels the beginning of the cycle even more. This is why business analysts track "consumer confidence". In fact, to a large extent it is what the stock market is all about. Its less a question of how well a company is doing and more one of how popular are they. If people think its doing well, they buy, which itself drives the stock price up. It works both ways, so if everyone is convinced the market is doing bad, they sell so they don't lose too much by waiting, and then companies don't have the capital to invest.
-
13 August 2008
Summary of not-very-thought-out rant on pending video
- Aug 13, 2008
Summary of not-very-thought-out rant on pending video
A few weeks ago the creators of faircompanies.com came to my home with
cameras, and I gave a tour of my home, and spoke of some of my political and
philosophical ideas while I worked.
I didn't prepare what I was going to say, and in retrospect, perhaps I should have.
After, I tried to figure what exactly my overall point has been.
Some things in personal life have been getting in the way of writing for a while, but I think I can summarize it all now.
The overall point is this: Do the big stuff. Having done that, don't sweat the small stuff.
Americans have grown accustomed to a excessively high level of luxury and convenience, to the point where some of what we take for granted doesn't even improve quality of life.
And among the people who are aware of the implications of our impact, it has become all too easy to rationalize doing the exact opposite.
Today a great many people do all the little things, and this makes it easier to rationalize not doing what will make the biggest difference.
I didn't prepare what I was going to say, and in retrospect, perhaps I should have.
After, I tried to figure what exactly my overall point has been.
Some things in personal life have been getting in the way of writing for a while, but I think I can summarize it all now.
The overall point is this: Do the big stuff. Having done that, don't sweat the small stuff.
Americans have grown accustomed to a excessively high level of luxury and convenience, to the point where some of what we take for granted doesn't even improve quality of life.
And among the people who are aware of the implications of our impact, it has become all too easy to rationalize doing the exact opposite.
Today a great many people do all the little things, and this makes it easier to rationalize not doing what will make the biggest difference.
17 December 2007
Just in time for Christmas
- Dec 17, 2007
Just in time for Christmas
The history and impact of American over-consumption, in easy to digest cartoon formThe Story of Stuff
A much more detailed and in depth documentary (these ideas were actually much more deliberate than most would assume)
The Century of The Self"
20 June 2007
Prius v. my own Hypocrisy
- Jun 20, 2007
Prius v. my own Hypocrisy
Auto ads today would have you believe that 30-35 mpg is
amazingly good.
35 is awful!
We have the technology to have affordable passenger vehicles that get 100mpg.
I'll avoid the technical details, but the potential is absolutely there. Without being a hybrid. Seriously. Trust me.
A small part of it is the industry's refusal to do it.
But the primary reason they don't exist is us.
You and I, my friend.
I just read an article in Mother Jones about this guy who volunteered with Habitat for Humanity - that is, until they wanted to put a couple of affordable homes in HIS neighborhood! Then he began to protest and look for legal recourse against his former organization's work.
We look down on him, but we are all him. We are happy to help, as long as the cost to ourselves is negligible.
We are unhappy with a car that takes 20 seconds to go 0-60, maxes out at 85, has room for only 1 passenger, a small trunk, seats with minimal padding, no A/C or heat, manual transmission, manual steering, no power brakes, no power anything.
And so I look at how popular the Prius is; even though the Insight was available years earlier, and gets nearly twice the average mileage (35-40 vs 70); even though 90% of or trips have one or no passengers, even though the speed limit is 65 and we rarely exceed it by more than 15mph or so - we want to know that we could carry 4 passengers at 95mph, and so the Insight doesn't sell, and is discontinued, while the Prius, with its pathetic 35-40 has a waiting list.
And what I realized is:
I drive. My (motor)bike gets 55-60mpg; good, about as good as available for a freeway speed capable machine sold today. That's still a lot of gas getting burned, a lot of pollutants in the air. Just to save me an hour of travel time here and there. Yes, my truck runs on 100% vegetable oil - but it has its own form of pollution, and it still has to come from somewhere, it has to get transported. I ride my bike to work...most days. Which means sometimes I don't. Yes, I have an ultra-efficient home - but it saves me money, plus I enjoy it.
So what, really, am I sacrificing?
And so, in my self-righteousness, I am exactly like the Prius owner.
I work for a non-profit and split my tips with the Coalition; but I don't volunteer (and I have no intention of starting to).
I am vegetarian, but mainly because the thought of eating flesh is sickening.
I guess it is a part of the human mind to despise most those people whose faults match our own most closely.
The people who abhor welfare usually inherited wealth or at least education and connections.
The anti-sex are secretly perverted, and the strongest homophobes are often as not gay. Narcs steal from the evidence room, and the woman who sent hate mail to the guy from the example above who stopped volunteering for Habitat, her home is just as expensive as his.
The deeply religious feel guilt for all their own sins (Christianity's appeal is that all sins are forgiven, as long as you have faith).
I always found the religious to be the most hypocritical and disturbing of all.
To apply the trend I have found, that must mean I am secretly religious myself...
... ... ...
Nnnoope!
Not even a little.
So, I guess that destroys my whole theory about indignant hypocrisy. Sometimes we just dislike something because its stupid; it doesn't have to be projection. That's good. I feel better now. Damn Priuses.
35 is awful!
We have the technology to have affordable passenger vehicles that get 100mpg.
I'll avoid the technical details, but the potential is absolutely there. Without being a hybrid. Seriously. Trust me.
A small part of it is the industry's refusal to do it.
But the primary reason they don't exist is us.
You and I, my friend.
I just read an article in Mother Jones about this guy who volunteered with Habitat for Humanity - that is, until they wanted to put a couple of affordable homes in HIS neighborhood! Then he began to protest and look for legal recourse against his former organization's work.
We look down on him, but we are all him. We are happy to help, as long as the cost to ourselves is negligible.
We are unhappy with a car that takes 20 seconds to go 0-60, maxes out at 85, has room for only 1 passenger, a small trunk, seats with minimal padding, no A/C or heat, manual transmission, manual steering, no power brakes, no power anything.
And so I look at how popular the Prius is; even though the Insight was available years earlier, and gets nearly twice the average mileage (35-40 vs 70); even though 90% of or trips have one or no passengers, even though the speed limit is 65 and we rarely exceed it by more than 15mph or so - we want to know that we could carry 4 passengers at 95mph, and so the Insight doesn't sell, and is discontinued, while the Prius, with its pathetic 35-40 has a waiting list.
And what I realized is:
I drive. My (motor)bike gets 55-60mpg; good, about as good as available for a freeway speed capable machine sold today. That's still a lot of gas getting burned, a lot of pollutants in the air. Just to save me an hour of travel time here and there. Yes, my truck runs on 100% vegetable oil - but it has its own form of pollution, and it still has to come from somewhere, it has to get transported. I ride my bike to work...most days. Which means sometimes I don't. Yes, I have an ultra-efficient home - but it saves me money, plus I enjoy it.
So what, really, am I sacrificing?
And so, in my self-righteousness, I am exactly like the Prius owner.
I work for a non-profit and split my tips with the Coalition; but I don't volunteer (and I have no intention of starting to).
I am vegetarian, but mainly because the thought of eating flesh is sickening.
I guess it is a part of the human mind to despise most those people whose faults match our own most closely.
The people who abhor welfare usually inherited wealth or at least education and connections.
The anti-sex are secretly perverted, and the strongest homophobes are often as not gay. Narcs steal from the evidence room, and the woman who sent hate mail to the guy from the example above who stopped volunteering for Habitat, her home is just as expensive as his.
The deeply religious feel guilt for all their own sins (Christianity's appeal is that all sins are forgiven, as long as you have faith).
I always found the religious to be the most hypocritical and disturbing of all.
To apply the trend I have found, that must mean I am secretly religious myself...
... ... ...
Nnnoope!
Not even a little.
So, I guess that destroys my whole theory about indignant hypocrisy. Sometimes we just dislike something because its stupid; it doesn't have to be projection. That's good. I feel better now. Damn Priuses.
07 December 2006
In response to my last entry
·
Dec 7,
2006
In response to my last entry
Thearticle in my last entry was written in 1932
74 years ago, and as accurate a portrayal of modern life today as it was then.
Only the USSR he speaks of has fallen, adopting our system of "free market"
In the US production increases every year - an increase in per capita GDP of over 7 times, or almost 10% per year; yet work hours have been constant ever since - slightly increasing for most, decreasing for some, balancing out to an average of... exactly the same: slightly more than the 40 hour week which was made standard not long before the essay was written.
Since productivity has increased 7 fold, while hours have remained constant, presumably median real income (after accounting for inflation) would presumably have also increased 7 fold.
In actuality, median pay has increased around 2.1 times from 1948 to 2004 (earliest data I can find).
The one thing this otherwise excellent essay misses is that, while the land holding privileged class of royalty has been eliminated, they have been replaced indirectly by the societal acceptance of virtually unrestricted investment returns and inheritance.
Through them the primary owners and controllers of major corporations have taken the place of a class which does not have to do any real work but can instead charge ordinary people for the privilege of living and working on their land or in their companies.
It is much more their choice than the workers themselves that, for example, when the pin making machine is invented and production per person doubles, the work force is halved instead of individual hours.
It is to the advantage of the company - or, more specifically the owners and investors - who do no actual work but keep a percentage of the earnings - to have fewer people with more hours, as there is always a per person cost in taxes and benefits above the cost of wages.
With the introduction of the labor saving device, the employing company could choose to have all employees work half as often with the same total pay. The employees are only given the choice of cut hours at reduced pay or 50% lay offs. Given that, they prefer to retain the 8 hour day. Were the company to continue to pay the same weekly rate for less hours (or double the hourly rate and halve the hours) it would not lose any money. It would be exactly where it had been all along. If it had been sustainably profitable before, it would continue to be.
However, the assumption in our society is that the company gets to reap the full benefit of the new invention.
Thus the increase in GDP over the years is primarily concentrated in the hands of those who need it least.
It is not actually true in most years that "the poor get poorer while the rich get richer"
A more accurate statement would be "the poor get slightly richer while the rich get much much richer", which is really just as bad.
74 years ago, and as accurate a portrayal of modern life today as it was then.
Only the USSR he speaks of has fallen, adopting our system of "free market"
In the US production increases every year - an increase in per capita GDP of over 7 times, or almost 10% per year; yet work hours have been constant ever since - slightly increasing for most, decreasing for some, balancing out to an average of... exactly the same: slightly more than the 40 hour week which was made standard not long before the essay was written.
Since productivity has increased 7 fold, while hours have remained constant, presumably median real income (after accounting for inflation) would presumably have also increased 7 fold.
In actuality, median pay has increased around 2.1 times from 1948 to 2004 (earliest data I can find).
The one thing this otherwise excellent essay misses is that, while the land holding privileged class of royalty has been eliminated, they have been replaced indirectly by the societal acceptance of virtually unrestricted investment returns and inheritance.
Through them the primary owners and controllers of major corporations have taken the place of a class which does not have to do any real work but can instead charge ordinary people for the privilege of living and working on their land or in their companies.
It is much more their choice than the workers themselves that, for example, when the pin making machine is invented and production per person doubles, the work force is halved instead of individual hours.
It is to the advantage of the company - or, more specifically the owners and investors - who do no actual work but keep a percentage of the earnings - to have fewer people with more hours, as there is always a per person cost in taxes and benefits above the cost of wages.
With the introduction of the labor saving device, the employing company could choose to have all employees work half as often with the same total pay. The employees are only given the choice of cut hours at reduced pay or 50% lay offs. Given that, they prefer to retain the 8 hour day. Were the company to continue to pay the same weekly rate for less hours (or double the hourly rate and halve the hours) it would not lose any money. It would be exactly where it had been all along. If it had been sustainably profitable before, it would continue to be.
However, the assumption in our society is that the company gets to reap the full benefit of the new invention.
Thus the increase in GDP over the years is primarily concentrated in the hands of those who need it least.
It is not actually true in most years that "the poor get poorer while the rich get richer"
A more accurate statement would be "the poor get slightly richer while the rich get much much richer", which is really just as bad.
29 July 2006
Episode 2; in which I respond about fuel-efficient cars
[Another letter to the editor, responding to an article about supposedly fuel efficient cars, claiming that having much higher mileage than the current generation of cars would take significant technological breakthroughs and cost a lot of money]
- Jul 29, 2006
Episode 2; in which I respond about fuel-efficient cars
General Motors makes a small VAN which gets
40+MPG (better than the average small car or hybrid in the US) which costs under $5,000.
Of course, it is only sold in China...
Kawasaki makes a motorcycle which gets between 60 and 70 MPG (The EX250R) - which also can go 0-60 in under 6 seconds and tops out at 100MPH - which costs $3,000.
These vehicles are substantially SIMPLER than most cars, with no hybrid systems, no turbochargers, not even fuel injection. What the two have in common is light weight, and low power.
The average US family is 3-4 people, so there is no reason a three or four person "clown car" would not fit the needs of most Americans. Besides for that most US households have 2 vehicles, and the average trip is less than two people (driver and passenger) so a motorcycle, scooter, or ultra small car could be a families' commute vehicle, with a secondary car for weekend trips.
 |
| The GM Sunshine |
Kawasaki makes a motorcycle which gets between 60 and 70 MPG (The EX250R) - which also can go 0-60 in under 6 seconds and tops out at 100MPH - which costs $3,000.
These vehicles are substantially SIMPLER than most cars, with no hybrid systems, no turbochargers, not even fuel injection. What the two have in common is light weight, and low power.
The average US family is 3-4 people, so there is no reason a three or four person "clown car" would not fit the needs of most Americans. Besides for that most US households have 2 vehicles, and the average trip is less than two people (driver and passenger) so a motorcycle, scooter, or ultra small car could be a families' commute vehicle, with a secondary car for weekend trips.
The only way for America to break its
dependence on foreign oil will be for us to realize the difference between
luxury and necessity. We may need to pick the kids up after school, but
we don't need to do it in a 6000lb 200hp car that gets 25mpg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)