[RD] Individualism of Responsibility: shifting the burden to consumers

[Traitorfish]

Consumer spending is about 75% of GDP in the US and China (likely elsewhere too). It creates most of the jobs and income for most of the world. Within the context of our current world, ending consumerism would be economically disastrous for many millions of people. But change is coming and most of you will see it: AI; workforce requirements change, 3d printing capability expansion; more tech; better tech; aging populations; all coupled with climate change, migrations, less privacy; expansion of income disparity, extremism everywhere; and resistance to change. You will live in exciting times. Embrace it.

Surely you do not think that "consumerism" and "consumption" are synonyms.

 

[Lexicus]

Consumer spending is about 75% of GDP in the US and China (likely elsewhere too). It creates most of the jobs and income for most of the world. Within the context of our current world, ending consumerism would be economically disastrous for many millions of people.

You don't actually think that the term "consumerism" means "consumer spending" tho do you

That still relates to what Amy was saying, though. People seeing themselves primarily as consumers prevents them from understanding themselves as either workers or citizens. (In a way which neither of those identities preclude each other.) The problem is ultimately that a lot of problems can only be addressed through large-scale collective action, whether this action is taken through government or through unions, and the consumerist model pushes people into avenues which presupposes that large scale-collective action is either impossible, or undesirable.

Heck, even the consumerism frame ultimately concedes that insofar as it treats consumption choice as a way of pressuring corporations, who will take large-scale collective action on the consumers behalf. It just denies the greater mass of the public any direct or even meaningfully indirect role in this action. As per yooze in capitalism, only the tiny minority of big brained genius boys running major corporate entities can be trusted to make important decisions; the most anyone outside of that elite should even consider is exerting gentle pressure on them in one or other direction.

So, is this an argument for shopping at Amazon?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Surely you do not think that "consumerism" and "consumption" are synonyms.

No, but consumerism is a big part of consumption. Usually driven by advertising. Take away advertising and what happens?

 

[Lexicus]

No, but consumerism is a big part of consumption. Usually driven by advertising. Take away advertising and what happens?

We are not talking about the same thing. But, I'll bite: take away advertising and my life would be vastly improved overnight.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, but consumerism is a big part of consumption. Usually driven by advertising. Take away advertising and what happens?

I don't know. I assume people will probably spend more or less what they do already. Most advertising attempts to push people towards a specific brand or product, not to generate new consumption.

So, is this an argument for shopping at Amazon?

It's an argument for not allowing whether or not you shop at Amazon to stand in for actual collective action. Unless Amazon employees have issued a call to boycott in support of some industrial action, choosing whether or not to shop there is mostly a question of what an individual is comfortable with.

 

[Lexicus]

Can you imagine a world without advertising?

 

[Farm Boy]

I own 1 flashlight and none of the others. I also own 0 CDs, DVDs, vinyl records, Gameboys, filing cabinets, stop watches, radios, newspapers, cameras, and almost no batteries.

The thing about a Swiss Army Knife is that it's awful at performing a wide variety of functions. My garbage multi-device will happily tell me how much it rained at my house, with a measurement taken 10 miles away. Which is useless. Like its gaming capacity. Or its word processing capacity. Or its keyboard capacity.

I guess it's good for needing to do something badly, erratically, and infrequently. Like people who multitask! Not nearly as environmentally friendly as people would claim though. The rain gauge is good on a scale of decades and made out of recyclable stuff. Lots of things are like that.

 

[Truthy]

The thing about a Swiss Army Knife is that it's awful at performing a wide variety of functions. My garbage multi-device will happily tell me how much it rained at my house, with a measurement taken 10 miles away. Which is useless. Like its gaming capacity. Or its word processing capacity. Or its keyboard capacity.

I guess it's a win for needing to do something badly, erratically, and infrequently. Like people who multitask!

Yeah right. Well then put a cup outside. Don’t buy a thermometer

Besides, I bet you can find very fine grained and accurate meteorological data easily on the internet from your phone.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't know. I assume people will probably spend more or less what they do already. Most advertising attempts to push people towards a specific brand or product, not to generate new consumption.


It's an argument for not allowing whether or not you shop at Amazon to stand in for actual collective action. Unless Amazon employees have issued a call to boycott in support of some industrial action, choosing whether or not to shop there is mostly a question of what an individual is comfortable with.

A significant portion of what people buy (in developed countries) is unnecessary and beyond what they need or will actually use. Much of that buying is driven by advertising which is the force behind consumerism. We buy stuff to buy stuff. If you take all those sales out of GDP, consumption would take a huge hit. Those losses would hit jobs hard. Advertising is all about two things: buy my brand and add to your order. Companies want you buy now, not later and add a bit to your order. Collectively, it is "keep buying whether you need it or not and if you buy one more item, then...."

I shop Amazon and am fine with it.

 

[Farm Boy]

I already own a thermometer. It was constructed sometime in the 1970s. Shows no signs of being a wear item.

The nearest weather station is 10 miles away. All reports claiming more localized data are an approximation, and useless compared to a cup. Well, it's plastic and has marks on the side. It's easy to use.

The part that's worst about the phone is that it actually manages to be poor at being a phone.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Can you imagine a world without advertising?

I think we would all be more ignorant.

 

[Lexicus]

It's an argument for not allowing whether or not you shop at Amazon to stand in for actual collective action. Unless Amazon employees have issued a call to boycott in support of some industrial action, choosing whether or not to shop there is mostly a question of what an individual is comfortable with.

I think I basically already said this:

In fact, I don't think of boycotts as a good means of effecting change, I think of them as a good way of being at peace with your own conscience.

I would actually amend that because as you allude here collective boycotts can actually be very effective under some circumstances.

 

[Truthy]

I already own a thermometer. It was constructed sometime in the 1970s. Shows no signs of being a wear item.

The nearest weather station is 10 miles away. All reports claiming more localized data are an approximation, and useless compared to a cup. Well, it's plastic and has marks on the side. It's easy to use.

The part that's worst about the phone is that it actually manages to be poor at being a phone.

Hmm. Ok. Perhaps you could open up a to-scale picture of a ruler on your phone, stick your phone in a cup, and use it to measure rainwater as the cup fills with water.

 

[Farm Boy]

don't tempt me!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think we would all be more ignorant.

I think the opposite, because advertising puts out far more disinformation than information.

I also think that maybe the old "markets create competition, leading to better products at lower prices" bit could perhaps work in the absence of advertising.

Illustrative case:

Back when I was a car salesman I calculated that Ford Motor Company and associated dealers, collectively, were paying about three thousand dollars per car sold in their never ending effort to convince car buyers that Fords had some discernible superiority over other cars, when in fact a car is pretty much a car and that's all there was to it. Now, that money could have been spent towards producing cars that actually were better, or it could have just been taken off the price to produce a car that actually was cheaper, but that's not the system.

@Truthy My problem with the "computer in my pocket" is that compared to my desktop, where I mostly hang out, it's a really crappy computer. There are very few times that I try to do something on my phone without thinking "If I don't do this now and I can get home thirty seconds sooner I'll be well ahead of the game just doing it then."

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think the opposite, because advertising puts out far more disinformation than information.

I also think that maybe the old "markets create competition, leading to better products at lower prices" bit could perhaps work in the absence of advertising.

Illustrative case:

Back when I was a car salesman I calculated that Ford Motor Company and associated dealers, collectively, were paying about three thousand dollars per car sold in their never ending effort to convince car buyers that Fords had some discernible superiority over other cars, when in fact a car is pretty much a car and that's all there was to it. Now, that money could have been spent towards producing cars that actually were better, or it could have just been taken off the price to produce a car that actually was cheaper, but that's not the system.

When markets were small and mostly local, you might be right, but today, the shear breadth of products and information produced as advertising (both good and bad) is at its core informative about opportunities and choices. Certainly decision making is more complicated with advertising. Even before there was advertising, there was advertising: Apple vendors in the market displayed their fruits for all to see so we could compare.

Advertising, especially when combined with branding, tries to outflank competition and the need for actual product improvement; and it can be very effective in doing that. I think that in today's market, product improvement has become part of the branding process rather than from competition.

Oh, BTW, Fords have always been superior to Chevys.

 

[Zardnaar]

Some baby boomers had access to free university education, most never went. It was only free if you got a place.
A house costing 2-3 years wages, never happened, don't have a property portfolio and paid taxes all my life.

Not that any of that has anything to do with this topic.

Here they did, my sister's house in 93 was 3 years wages.

My grandfather's house was 500 pounds, his weekly wage was 3 pounds something.

Tertiary education was free and you got paid an allowence.

 

[Hygro]

...

Vowels are hard!

Get it?

Hayo

 

[AmazonQueen]

Here they did, my sister's house in 93 was 3 years wages.

My grandfather's house was 500 pounds, his weekly wage was 3 pounds something.

Tertiary education was free and you got paid an allowence.

And what % of people actually got to go to university? In 1970 about 8% of people went on to tertiary education in the UK, now its about 50%.
Most Boomers don't have 2nd homes or great pensions (16% of pensioners live in poverty in the UK).

But none of this has anything to do with this thread.

 

[Zardnaar]

And what % of people actually got to go to university? In 1970 about 8% of people went on to tertiary education in the UK, now its about 50%.
Most Boomers don't have 2nd homes or great pensions (16% of pensioners live in poverty in the UK).

But none of this has anything to do with this thread.

The % was a lot lower, the loans system was brought in to put more people through uni.