The Gospel of Consumption
orionmagazine.org
orionmagazine.org
The author's flawed world-view can be summed up in the following quote:
>In other words, if as a society we made a collective decision to get by on the amount we produced and consumed seventeen years ago, we could cut back from the standard forty-hour week to 5.3 hours per day
The error is that we "as a society" don't make choices. Individuals do. If I thought a conspiracy of government officials and oligarchs were making work choices for "society" as a whole, then I might be as offended as the author.
Humans have consistently chosen to live better rather than work less. I live in much greater wealth than my father did at my age in the '60s and '70s and I am happy about that. You would have a hard time convincing me to give up dishwashers, central air, my own bathroom, wireless internet, and satellite TV in order to work less. The average person in the western world has the electronic equivalent of hundreds of human servants working for him. It's my choice to accept the luxuries available to me, and other people are free to make different choices.
what do you think all those government agencies do? FCC, FDA, FAA, IRS, the Fed, etc. (department of education has a huge influence on ideology). There are dozens of major ones that affect our decisions by deciding what A and B will be and excluding C.
The argument, that politicians have elitist views on the society, is also relevant. It doesn't mean that they conspire, it's just how they see the world.
But that's basically the official policy. When the federal reserve lowers interest rates, it creates a supply of cheap money which is then invested, driving up the demand for labor (and higher wages encouraging individuals to meet the demand). As the federal reserve adjusts interests rates with the goal of sustaining "full employment", a closed loop is created.
Humanity in the 21st century is a little like a startup. We have huge problems to solve and the outcome is tenuous at best. So we work our asses off. Some of it is on stupid stuff but some not. We're learning the difference. When we "get over the hump", get ourselves into space, get some of the big killers cured in medicine, and work out how lo live in peace with abundance for all of the people on earth, then maybe we'll have earned a break.
Maybe if we slowed down a bit, worked a bit less, bought less, and used less, we would enjoy more and not kill our planet as quickly. Its all a bit idealistic but i can see no reason why it would not work.
As for the consumer being dissatisfied, yes, as a consumer of health care, I am dissatisfied with still having to die from cancer, heart disease, etc.
Does humanity get distracted and work too hard on dumb stuff that we shouldn't. Yes. What person, startup, or species for that matter doesn't. "Lets just give up, accept what we have and work less" does not strike me as the most appropriate response to that observation.
The great part is that everyone is free to chose in this system. You can move to Alaska and be a hermit and choose not to work at all. You can choose a life of quite contemplation free from material goods. I think the line should be drawn when someone sets themselves up as an authority and tells someone else that its somehow "wrong" for them to want the Nike shoes he saw on TV. This is my problem with the article. In it is hidden the implicit suggestion that there should be a central authority that decides who should work on what and for how long.
Soviet-style communism fell with a dull thud. It seemed a bit idealistic but many saw no reason why it would not work. It just didn't.
I sincerely wonder why people don't strive to work less. When most people finally achieve a comfortable wage, the thought process is always "buy more" and never "work less." I wonder if we'll see that change in the near future. I hope so.
I often hear it said that the desire of any parent is to have their kids be better off than they were. We seem to think that means our kids should live in bigger houses and have more stuff, when in reality it might mean that our kids should be just as comfortable but spend less time getting there and end up happier. Most people get rich so they can have expensive-looking things around the house for when guests come over. That's a cold war-like zero sum game that will eventually leave us unsatisfied and on fistfuls of designer mood medicine with bizarre cumulative side-effects.
Remember what Tyler Durden said: "The things you own end up owning you."
This really is a terrible article, and it spends a good deal of it's time dealing in analogy, mixed up (and long disproved) ideas of economics and sociology.
It is so bad, that I cannot stomach to read all of it.