We Need To Stop Wanting So Much
Recently I stopped by my local barber for my regular haircut and as often happens I got into discussions with the others in the shop. I have to admit that this is one thing i really like about going to a regular old barber (in my case the same guy since I was a little kid) because it allows you to have these conversations. It’s not something that you get to do in some of the more modern places.
As you might imagine the conversation eventually turned to the problems facing our society today and the way we are dealing with it. One of the men in the shop is of Danish ancestry and he mentioned a 2007 study which showed that the people of Denmark are the happiest in the world.
He mentioned seeing a TV show where they interviewed some ‘young people’ from Denmark to ask them why they were so happy and also what they thought the United States needed to do to be as happy. The comment that stuck with him was from a woman who said simply: “Stop Wanting So Much”.
Now to be clear from the start I am not sure I want us to have a exact copy of Danish society. While there are many benefits to a completely egalitarian society there are also benefits to a society where innovation and success are also valued. Part of the reason that places like Denmark can exist are because of places like the United States.
Nor do I dispute that many people today are in a bad way. Those who have lost jobs, who are deep in debt, who are facing the loss of all their savings and their home are indeed suffering. But at the same time I do think the definition of what is ‘basic necessity living’ has changed and in that vein we could use a bit more of Danish attitudes in how we live our day to day lives.
I’ve discussed this before but it is worth mentioning again. When I was a child my Mom, Dad and sister lived in a house of about 1200 square feet. It had 3 bedrooms (once you converted my dad’s office to a bedroom) and modest yard. If you wanted to go swimming it was at the community pool. Vacations were usually camping trips or a visit to relatives.
I mention this not to portray myself as having a bad childhood, indeed it was a good childhood and quite similar to those of all my friends. People did not live in 2,500 square foot McMansions, we did not take fancy vacations, you did not have computers, tv’s, etc in every bedroom. We lived a very comfortable lifestyle but by the standards today it would be seen as living a rough life.
Obviously to a degree things are just a matter of improving technology and living standards. 100 years ago it would have been common for people to share a single room while we had a house of our own. The fact that today people have things like computers, cell phones, etc are not unreasonable. But at the same time the idea that every child needs to have every single electronic gadget, that every family needs to take nice vacations every year, etc is a bit much.
So what do you think dear readers ?
33 Responses to “We Need To Stop Wanting So Much”
And what happens when everyone (or enough people) decide that it's time to start saving & paying off some debt? OH yea, we get a recession…
I completely agree, Patrick (though Don is right also to point out that it's not easy to reverse years of excessive consumerism.)
There are really two threads to this whole thing- the materialism and the expectations in general. At some point we have to come to terms with the fact that material things don't make us happy anyway, beyond having basic needs taken care of. The second part is the idea of happiness itself being related to our general expectations- a novel I read recently by Jodi Picoult highlighted the mathematical formula “Happiness = Reality / Expectations.” If we set our expectations to a reasonable level, we feel more satisfied with the reality and thus are happier than if we feel we deserve more and more. That sense of entitlement leads to disillusionment when the reality never measures up to the expectation.
You do realize that we have entire industries(Advertising, Television, Movies, etc) whose sole purpose is to raise expectations. When is the last time you saw a TV show in which meeting next month's mortgage/rent was an issue?
I'm happy to see this is an area where CStanley and I can agree on something. As someone who grew up in the 50s and 60s I've watched society become more and more about me, me, me and wanting more stuff, stuff, stuff. Forget about the wealth that comes from within, and all those old-fashioned ideas about improving ones self as opposed to catering to ones-self. And forget about how the philosophy of more, more, more has resulted in so much damage to world ecosystems. People just don't want to think about these things until their forced to. We'd rather have an endless supply of new toys and distractions than to actually think about the consequences of all this wanting. It's as though entire generations have chosen to stay in an adolescent holding pattern and pretend it's sane and sustainable.
You do realize that we have entire industries(Advertising, Television, Movies, etc) whose sole purpose is to raise expectations. When is the last time you saw a TV show in which meeting next month's mortgage/rent was an issue?
Sure, but somewhere along the way we began subjugating other values and common sense decisions to the power of that advertising. When I was a kid we wanted every cereal and toy that was advertised during the Sat morning cartoons too, but my Mom ignored our pleas.
No she didn't. She went out and bought the cereals, and your mother was not exceptional, they all went out and bought the cereals. If they hadn't General Mills, Post & company would have been out of business a long time ago.
If we lived in a rational universe in which advertizing did not work, most of us would be driving Honda Civics, and wearing $20 Timex watches.
As a side note, breakfast cereals are one of the worst financial decisions people make, they are bad for you and extremely expensive.
LOL, OK, sure, Don, somehow you know more about my childhood than I do.
I suppose what you actually mean is that my mother was exceptional, and that the shift toward consumerism as a response to advertising began then. I can agree with that- but there were exceptions like my parents who held the line at sensible purchases whereas now that common sense seems to have completely gone out the window. There are fewer people who are resisting the consumerist urges, and they're giving in for more and more frivolous and expensive items.
Actually my wife and I were talking about this last night. My father was an Air Force officer and my wife's father was a stonemason, and it was always taken for granted that we kids got what we needed but not everything we wanted. Now as grownups we paid off our house early, pay off our credit cards every month, avoid debt as much as possible and always live below our means in case of a rainy day. Our children are growing up with the same attitudes.
What made us different than other people? We love our parents but can't really call them exceptional teachers of economics. We watched the same Saturday AM cartoons as everybody else did. Where did the immediate gratification society come from?
“We Need to Stop Wanting So Much”
No. Not only no, but hell no.
Sorry to always be the contrarian, but that 1,200 sq. ft. house was likely an upgrade from what their parents/grandparents lived (and 2,500 sq. ft. as a McMansion??).
The history of not only our country but the entire human race is to constantly strive for more, for better, for faster. It is called, in a nutshell, progress. To give up on wanting more and better is to give up on improving everyone's lot in life.
This is not a 'greed is good' argument, but it is a 'desire for more' drives innovation and increased quality of life in ALL areas (housing, food, medicine, and yes, relaxation and leisure options) for ALL people, eventually.
CS
“We can, in fact, decide to behave rationally- we're not robotically connected to the advertisers.”
I don't disagree with you, but it may be helpful for us to understand how we got here. Growing up prior to 1975 differs greatly from today in that the earlier culture was still centered around one's local community. TV reflected this community in its sitcoms like the Brady Bunch, Leave It to Beaver, and Father Knows Best. The values in these programs reinforced the values that you spoke of when talking about childhood.
I believe the change took place about the time of Viet Nam's news cycle. I'm not saying it caused it, but I believe it may have been where community values clashed with live TV. The Cleavers had no frame of reference for Buddhist monks immolating themselves.
I mention this as one possible starting place for tracing the change, but others may well draw different points for divergence. If we are to bring back the best of those times, we need to identify how kids today have come to identify more their generation than they do their community.
AR, actually I meant to comment on the 2500 sq ft thing too- obviously we all define 'excess' differently, as I certainly wouldn't call that a McMansion either.
And your comment leads me to add more nuance to mine; when it comes to excessive consumption and materialism, to me the defining point is whether or not one is living within one's means (even that's too simplistic, because I do think some people's 'means' are excessive and though I would never want to legally compel them to share their wealth I do see a moral imperative to do so.)
But in the sense of where we've gone off the rails, the real aberration of our values comes when we believe there's such a thing as a free lunch. I think what has made things unsustainable is the irrationality of financing consumables on credit cards and then refinancing the house every year to pay off the credit card debt.
I do agree, too, AR, that striving for a better life for our kids is a main driving force for our society, and we shouldn't overlook that. It's about balance though, and striving to build real wealth and security, not paper gains which can disappear in a moment.
Growing up prior to 1975 differs greatly from today in that the earlier culture was still centered around one's local community. TV reflected this community in its sitcoms like the Brady Bunch, Leave It to Beaver, and Father Knows Best. The values in these programs reinforced the values that you spoke of when talking about childhood.
Actually it's funny that you mention that, Hemm, and even funnier the examples you give. Those sitcoms are all examples of the 'community' of the nuclear family, not the community as a whole (which is less inclined to support a good moral foundation and more inclined to exploit.)
I was thinking of mentioning this after JSpencer's comment about our commonality, but was afraid I'd spoil the Kumbaya moment because I was doubting that the more liberal minded here would agree with me that the advertising culture became more pervasive and irresistable when it began filling the void that had been filled by strong family ties.
I also agree with JSpencer's view of a lack of grownups in our current culture though. In that sense, even the families which are still intact are often dysfunctional- how often are Mom and Dad buying Jr a new IPhone every year because they feel guilty replacing their own gadgets and not the kids'?
My main point: where is the pushback against the consumerist messaging of advertisers, if not from parents? Who else is going to show you where that road leads?
Striving for more isn't just a 8000 square foot house, Lexus and all the Wii games for the kids. Striving for a better education, university community college or trade school, is good. Wanting a bigger Lincoln or house is just greed, and were dying from it.
CS
That nuclear family was indeed the subject matter stressed in those sitcoms, but the communities also reflected many such families. The Eddie Haskels of that world may well have exemplified the “less inclined to support a good moral foundation and more inclined to exploit,” but their failings were minor social indiscretions. These shows codified the world of the local, but they ignored the real world issues that existed in those communities.
The news coverage of the 1970s demonstrated the limitation of the nuclear family. Some problems were larger than the family perspective. Segregation is one example. No, I'm not saying that nuclear families were racist. I'm saying that blacks moving into previously all-white schools and communities scared families that drew their strength from an unchanging community. Things were the way they were because they always had been that way. The certainty of the nuclear family was challenged by the new uncertainty of societal changes.
Some problems were larger than the family perspective.
Of course. The nuclear family pre-1970 was far from perfect, and couldn't address all social ills. The problem as I see it though is that we threw out the baby with the bathwater. We lost what was good about the predominant nuclear family model (that it served as an incubator and reinforcer of positive values.)
The big change for U.S. society came around 1980. Our current deep recession is the final chapter in that liberation of greed period from 81-07. We are still in denial of the major changes that have taken place in just 1 year and that will take place in the next 10. Anyone who thinks that more than 500 sq/ft per person is not enough, needs a complete head exam. That's a room 23×22. A family of 4 needing more than 2,000 sq/ft is simply wasteful and greedy – regardless of the meritless arguments in support of such excess. A greed and excess tax should be imposed on them. However, most Americans simply do not want to pay for the goods and services we need or want or for the environmental degradation we cause. We just created phantom wealth over the past few decades from a massive borrowing binge. Now we have to pay for it in every aspect of our lives – including higher taxes. Those who deny it are again in massive denial of reality. The U.S. is quickly moving towards a failed state – sort of an end of empire moment. How we transition to a second-rate power is the biggest challenge. We love to be endlessly complimented but when someone comes close to telling the truth, they are banished. Our governing and business elite are simply intellectually and ethically bankrupt – the most important first step in the end of all prior world empires. The next is an arrogantly ignorant population – that we already have. I do not see another world power running things for some time – but the U.S. will be one of many countries fighting for influence. Don't worry, the End of the American empire won't entail massive political or geographic changes as did the fall of the Roman and British empires. Instead, North America sill simply recede as the focal point of world thought, activity, finance, culture and power. We should embrace this tendency since it is inevitable. We created the stage for this huge fall – now we must follow through on this comedy/tragedy. Best wishes to all the bloggers and readers on TMV. – Marc Pascal in Phoenix, AZ
CS
I agree. The loss of the nuclear family perspective left many without any form of moral imperative, and a vacuous TV culture has slipped in to replace it.
By reading much of what you post, you seem to have maintained a strong family-centric perspective. For my small part, I believe we have done the same with our family. The weakness with the family perspective, however, is that it only need fail in a single generation for it to be lost. If my kids fail to incorporate those principals by which they were brought up, their children have little chance of rediscovering them thereafter.
So, if this is true, can that stalwart former basis for living be rediscovered?
Are they saying we're a soulless country that relies on physical stimulation, drugs, food, alcohol, caffeine, blood-lust and endless media images to fill the empty gaping holes in our spiritual makeup? That lacking a true cohesive culture we grasp at any fleeting trend to latch on to in order to temporarily stave off the grinding waves of emptiness? That our whole country is slowly adopting the grifting narcissism that Hollywood, CA has made the aspiration of every citizen?
*Thinks for a minute*…
Hmmm… I'm trying to think of a rebuttal. I'll get back to you when I've got one that has teeth..
pach – excuse me if I don't let you define how I should live my life.
There are those in emerging countries that would ask you why you need more than 300 sq. ft. total for a family of 6. I won't follow that recommendation either, and I bet you won't, too.
I am old enough to have heard the 'End of the American Dream/the world is running out of food/we are running out energy/global cooling/global warming/overpopulation/global endemics are coming/our childre with have to accept a lower standard of living/etc.' cries WAY to much.
I remain an optimist in the long run, even if in the short run (5 – 10 years) I see some real difficulties to overcome.
A family of 4 needing more than 2,000 sq/ft is simply wasteful and greedy – regardless of the meritless arguments in support of such excess. A greed and excess tax should be imposed on them.
Most owners of larger homes are already paying higher taxes in the form of property taxes, which are the main support for schools.
And in terms of what people 'need', I'm really flabbergasted that anyone feels qualified to dictate that for anyone else. Why shouldn't people have the freedom to choose more space than you choose for yourself? Do you similarly want to dictate other lifestyle choices that you feel are 'greedy'? Where do you draw the line? How much clothing should one be permitted to own? How many electronic gadgets? How many calories per day can we eat?
Again, I think there is some morality to those choices- I do believe we as a society are greedy and that's not a good thing. But taxing anything you think is excessive? Surely you see how you're arguments feed into the criticism of nanny statism, Marc?
It's ironic, Marc, but are you trying to be the 21st century's Father Knows Best.
Wow. Thanks for all the very good debate so far. I would have responded earlier but work has been very busy today.
As to the McMansion comment, probably I was a bit much in calling 2,500 sq ft a McMansion but I do think that we are getting to where we expect our houses to be bigger and bigger. This is not to say that people don't have the right to a larger house and I would never advocate any sort of penalty for it, but they should recognize that over a certain size that they move from basic house needs to luxury house need.
Perhaps there is also where some of my comment was directed, the idea that people who are giving up very large houses (2,500 or 3,000 square feet or more) and moving into what are perfectly adequate homes (1,500 or so square feet) and act like they are moving into poverty because (gasp) a couple kids have to share a room or they can't have the pool in the yard.
I wonder if you watched the CNBC special “House of Cards” which seems to relate closely to a lot of this. In it a guy who made $900/week bought a 570K home (the loan agent falsified his app), 2 people refinanced their homes with sub-prime loans to make improvements including swimming pools, and so on. The special did not neglect the lenders, rating services, banks, brokers or government as they all were criticized.
Back to the point – many of these folks had beautiful homes that clearly were above their means. While the loan agents were duplicitous, what possesses people to think they “deserve” these kinds of homes? One owner summed it up when she said “I was stupid, and they were crooks”.
I did not see the show but as you may know I am a bankruptcy attorney so I see that a lot.
I'd like to go back to the egalitarian comments in Patrick's original post, as I think this is fundamentally important to happiness. The vast majority of human beings are social animals. We differ in how we express that. For instance, I'm basically introverted and like to have a drink with three friends in a place I can hear their jokes. Others are extroverted and love 80 people they know all having a blasting time. But in the end, we participate in a society. (Sometimes this is expressed religiously in the notion that “heaven” is being in the presence of God, while “hell” is being away from God.)
We measure our success and our worth by how we fit in with our society. If everyone that you consider your community lives in a 5 x 5 straw hut, you often think that's a fine way to live. However, if everyone you know lives in a “McMansion” and you live in a straw hut, it's no longer a fine way to live.
Many people criticize such attitudes, thinking that we should not measure ourselves against others, but I disagree. Humans really are social animals. It's how we survive. By banding together and doing stuff and finding our place. Just think of a single situation. If I were to walk up and give you a bowl of oatmeal, it would be odd, but generally a nice thing to do. But what if I walk up to you when you are with 9 other friends. I give every single one of them a filet mignon with butter dripping, and then I give you a bowl of oatmeal. In the second case, I've given you the same thing but been extremely unfair to you unless I can give you a reason you accept.
I had a conversation once with someone who had visited much poorer places in the world than the U.S., such as West Africa, and their position was that therefore there was no true poverty in the U.S, since the U.S. poor are vastly richer than the poor of Sierra Leone. But I think this misses some of the point. In Sierra Leone, those people are participating in their society as full members with a respected place in it. But many Americans do not see a justifiable reason that they are “lesser” members of their own society.
Finally, and this gets back to many of the comments, I agree that the expectation for more and more Americans has changed to want more than they previously did. This might be tied in part to the decline of the local community that others have discussed. We often don't measure ourselves anymore against our neighbors, but against all the Americans that we see on TV every single day (often presented unrealistically). And so while everyone around you might be in a similar 1500 sq. ft. 2 bedroom home, you don't judge yourself against them, but against the people on TV or in the suburbs or elsewhere. You know that other Americans, who work no harder than you, have a lot more, and you want to have those things, too.
I don't think these things break down neatly along conservative and liberal lines. For instance, many social conservatives see themselves as defenders of the nuclear family and small towns. And yet, I have defended the mega churches to liberal friends quite often, because it is the decline of those exact things which has propelled the growth of the mega churches. People today move around from state to state and find themselves in new towns with no family members and no friends from childhood. There is a huge social vacuum. And so they go to mega churches which provide much of the support that neighbors and grandparents use to provide.
In defense of my prior comments, many states (i.e. CA & AZ) do not tax real estate to any extent that it covers the excessive waste and environmental degradation that the millions of useless McMansions create. My father was an architect and I learned how wasteful some construction methods and preferences are. We do try to tax excess – that's the rationale behind a progressive income tax system. Some commentators are always upset and outraged that some sort of limits have to be placed by a society – that's what laws and regulations are all about. It's not all about you and your wants and preferences – even though most businesses try to convince us thru advertising that is the case. I am not out to create a Nanny state but if any tax proposal is met by such cries or claims of “socialism” I simply view the accusers as arrogant imbeciles. You can be as optimistic as you want and you can still believe in Santa Claus – however, our nation's foolish optimism brought us to this mess and it's not the way out. Frankly most people's excessive eating habits have made healthcare costs go thru the roof and any meaningful controls on expenses will mean controls on people's choices – that's reality and not “father knows best.” What is missing from our society is a sense of civic and community empathy and cooperation, plus sense of ethics and moderation. If you make $250K a year your housing and other expense choices are greater. However, most people borrowed to simulate a lifestyle they could not afford. Our country goes from one excess to the opposite extreme. The most difficult choice – as it was first proposed by the ancient greeks – was moderation in everything. – Marc Pascal
Marc -
“If you make $250K a year your housing and other expense choices are greater.”
Sorry, but no shit Sherlock.
A) life is neither fair nor equal; B) quit being jealous of those who through some combination of luck, planning, hard work, connections, family, intelligence, education, lack or abundance of ethics, business acumen, etc., have more than you have.
In other words, practice what you preach. Oh, and stop preaching, too. In this case it is hypocritical.
p.s. – I am going to guess you don't respond to my demand to stop preaching on this. Why? Because you don't like to be told what and how to do things in your life anyone than the next guy does.
OK, Marc, so do you also agree with social conservatives who point out that sexual promiscuity is harmful to our culture, leads to direct and indirect costs to taxpayers, and thus the government should have some responsibility to encourage morality in sexual behavior?
Why or why not?
IOW, if you believe government can effectively curtail poor moral decisions and that it has the right to do so because of the deleterious effects on society of those immoral choices, then is it wrong when people say that the govt should stay out of our bedrooms?
I agree with the comments by CStanley and hinted at by others about consumerism. We have a multibillion-dollar advertising industry that uses every psychological trick in the book to make us want more stuff; to want the fictitious lifestyles of our sitcom heroes. The problem is that our lifestyle is not sustainable, and the comments of AR notwithstanding, we must achieve a sustainable lifestyle, not just here but globally. As Thomas Friedman points out, everyone in the world wants the basics: a house, a car, a refrigerator, a microwave (or stove), a TV and a phone. It has been estimated, with pretty solid numbers, that if the population of China achieved a lifestyle similar to ours, it would require the resources of four planet Earths for China alone. A similar situation exists in India.
Obviously, that is not going to work. A sustainable lifestyle need not equal austerity, but political partisans on both sides make it difficult to achieve. For example, think about all the criticism of Al Gore and his home, which is considerably larger than many McMansions, yet is sustainable to the extent that its wastefulness is being offset by financing conservation elsewhere (Gore offsets energy carbon usage by funding pollution reducing projects). I'm not convinced that offsets are the answer, but they're part of the answer. If we're going to allow (and I'm not arguing otherwise) 12,000 sq ft homes, we need to reduce their impact on resources, including energy.
At the heart of our financial problems today is the concept of debt-driven hyper-consumerism. This is fueled by social factors, government policy and massive marketing. We can certainly debate the contributions of all factors endlessly, but what we need are solutions. These solutions will be painful and difficult, because they strike at the heart of our concept of capitalism. We need to dismantle any marketing efforts that encourage us to overconsume; to replace things that are not worn out, to buy the latest style, to pursue resource hogging recreation, to have a bigger faster car, a monster truck, a private airplane and so on. Every residential and commercial building from now on should be as energy efficient as possible (net zero ideally), and those that are not need to be retrofitted. We need to build things to last, and make them last for their entire useful life.
CS, sexual promiscuity without condoms has costs, but they are due to preventable outcomes–STD and pregnancy. A better example is diet, and a deeper dilemma. I don't favor a calorie or fat tax, but obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer are huge problems. Attacking the sexual morals of others is appealing to conservatives, but the health and cost impacts are far greater elsewhere, and the potential solutions more vexing. If you want to reduce STDs and unwanted pregnancies, that's way easier than reducing our major diet and lifestyle related health problems. And the most effective and cost effective way is with condoms, not with ineffective abstinence programs or “moral instruction” of children.
GD – the irony of your post is truly amazing. You show your own culture and consumerism unintentionally.
“everyone in the world wants the basics: a house, a car, a refrigerator, a microwave (or stove), a TV and a phone.”
TV and phones as 'basics'?
As to 'hyper-consumerism', I made no comment supporting that, or people living beyond their means for that matter. That indeed is a problem, a huge component in fact of the current economic mess.
But that is different than rejecting calls to not desire such things, or to work to position oneself to be able to afford said finer things.
GD: studies show that education doesn't provide all the answers, neither in dietary nor in sexual choices. That's the issue- how do you bridge the gap between educating people of the right choices and actually getting them to change their decisions? When it doesn't happen, do we give up our freedoms in order to make sure that it does?
The two situations are more alike than you'd like to believe. Yes, I know that some religious conservatives object to education about condoms at all, but really that's a canard- most schools now teach about contraception and 'safe sex' but there's little to no evidence that that is 'working'.
And don't get me wrong- I'm not arguing that the govt should be involved in issues of sexual morality- I'm only pointing out the parallels and the irony that some people on the right are less concerned about govt intrusion on those kinds of moral issues, which the left ridicules, but then there are many on the left who would advocate far more intrusion into our personal freedoms on these other issues.
AR, I'm not saying that what *Americans* consider basics is what everyone in the world *should* have. I'm saying that everyone wants those things *at least*. I've seen it all over the world, and so have you. When one person in a town has a TV everyone wants one. Everyone who watches a TV wants a hot car, a nice apartment or house and hell yes, a hot babe or guy too <g>. These things were once considered luxuries here too. If we're going to continue to push that as the aspiration of normal working folk like those warming the barstools on Cheers, we need to get better at making those things sustainable.