-When Schor mentions we spend our income in 4 basic ways, I wonder where charity efforts might fall into these categories? I think perhaps she leaves out the fact that not necessarily all our income spending efforts are necessarily self-involved.
-And, isn't all purchasing on credit cards technically considered borrowing? Whether or not you have the funds to pay it off, you are still borrowing something from somewhere at that time. I guess this would refute the idea that all consumers are rationally spending, if they knowingly use something they may not have complete access to.
-Also, I wonder why she would advocate for a consumer movement that would want to create more taxes and regulate policies on advertising...does she really think this would work and be beneficial to a society that is in an economical crisis?
On page 3, Schor says that the rejection of consumerism takes place at an individual level. What does he mean here? He goes on to say that living is much more difficult now a days than it was twenty five years ago. How are these two ideas related?
Schor goes on to say that he believes that justice requires a vastly more equal society, in terms of income and wealth. Could this really ever happen though? I find it almost impossible for everyone to fit into one category of wealth. Also looking at just the term wealth, there could be many representations of this word. People may categorize themselves differently when thinking of the term "wealth."
On page 191, Schor says that "What is more generally true, I believe, is that many consumers do not understand why they prefer one brand to another." In other words, people who choose Coke over Pepsi don't know why they are choosing Coke over Pepsi. I wonder if this is the same for political parties, as many people have their parent's ideologies ingrained in them from a young age.
On page 193, Schor states that "The accumulating evidence on well-being, at least it's subjective measures, suggests that above the poverty line, income is relatively unimportant in affecting well-being." I find this terribly interesting, because there seems to be an idea perpetuated by the media that having more money will make people happier. Does this well being differ between adults or children? Or for instance, if someone is retiring and is financially not doing so well compared to someone retiring with a bunch of money, would these two people be more likely to have a difference in well being based on the stage of their life?
On page 187 and 188 Schor states, "The current consumer boom rests on growth in incomes, wealth and credit. But it also rests on something more intangible: social attitudes toward consumer decision making and choices." I agree with the idea that we consume based upon our social attitudes. We as individuals are able to decide and to make choices on what we can and cannot consume. Some people clearly spend more money consuming than they can but this is a personal choice. It seems though that people base a lot of their consumption on what others think and do. Schor discusses on page 188 dealing with the fact that we should be able to buy what we want when in reality it doesn't always work like that. Do you think that social attitudes affect consumer decision making? Does our societies views lead us to consume things we cannot afford? Is consumption based purely on a personal decision or do social attitudes and society help influence the decision to consume?
On page 185, Schor says "Luxury, rather than mere comfort, is a widespread aspiration." I wonder if this is because of the way Americans are taught to appreciate and strive for luxury or just an innate want to be better and have more? In countries where capitalism is not king, don't people still want the best for themselves? Where is the line drawn between human nature and the type of competitive consumerism that Schor talks about?
I am confused by the juxtoposition of "a right to a decent standard of living" and "quality of life rather than quantity of stuff." Schor mentions several times in the article the need for more even distribution of income, but also says that people need to focus less on materials goods. At what point does he draw the line in terms of "adequacy?" Is a person who makes $10,000 a year but can afford a small home and food/clothing adequate? Is a person who makes $100,000 but can barely afford their expensive mortgage adequate? I find Schor's own opinions on what is "enough" for each person problematic. He seems to be saying that some predetermined, adequate income mixed with less emphasis on consumption would be beneficial for all people. Would people be any happier? What about people who just like more and are willing to work harder to achieve it? I think he would argue that they don't *really* want more, they are just taught to think they do. Once again, where is the emphasis on people's personal decisions/opinions/accountability?
Throughout the article, Schor states that consumption has lead to the problem that many americans face-insufficient incomes in comparison to their desired wants. My question to Schor is if he believes that part of the problem with consuming products is that there are too many options made available to us? Most of the time, as consumers we are drawn to the newer versions of what we have, while what we have is still functioning and good...so while its not probable, would having limited options of the same product, help curb our problem of overspending on wants rather than on needs?
Schor's politics of consumption section on pages 193-5, i agreed with many of his points, but have to wonder, what is his plan to change people's minds regarding consumption? It is easy to say that people need to focus more on quality life vs quantity of stuff or that we should be more aware of how our consumption affects the environment, or even just knowing what a decent standard of living is, but how does Schor propose to make this change if, as he states on p184 that "rejection of consumerism...has taken place principally at an individual level?" If we individually reject, then is he hoping that everyone will just start to reject on their own, or is he calling for a revolution?
To play the Devil's advocate, I suppose an argument could be made that the 'overconsumption' that Schor talks about in the article could be seen as a good thing for society. I say this because, while yes maybe Americans tend to buy more than what they need, other people's lives and incomes depend on Americans' over-buying. Is this a fair assessment to make when compared to Schorr's points in the article?
Schorr also talks about people's never ending quest for a life that is filled with luxury. Schorr details that as decades have passed more and more people are aspiring to have more money and be more successful in the professional world. As Schorr states on on page 186, "...with desires persistently outrunning incomes, many consumers find themselves frustrated. One survey of U.S. households found that the level of income needed to fulfill one's dreams doubled between 1986 and 1994 and is currently more than twice the median household income." I ask the following question in that is this neccessarily a bad thing? While Yes, possibly some of the people surveyed could be greedy in their dreams. But overall, I believe that a good functioning captialist society must have people that are always willingly raising the bar and never being totally satisified in their professional life.
1. This was a refrshing article because you don't see critiques of consumer culture that often in the mainstream press. You never hear major politicians calling for a moratorium on consumer culture either. It seems relatively ingrained in society, which is unfortunate. I wish I could remember the source material, but somewhere Noam Chomsky says that the facade of democracy that we have in the US is upheld by us being able to choose from ten different laundry detergents. There doesn't seem to be a reversal in this trend anytime soon since people love their brands. On pages 193-195, we're introduced to a few things that could be done to move away from the system. My question would be: what is the likelihood that people would willingly concede to these goals? The America I know seems like they would have none of it.
2. The conventional view of the consumer on 188 and 189 seems so flawed. The fact that this is embraced by economists is beyond me. Schor obviously critiques these anyway, but did it strike anyone else that these assumptions don't make sense as soon as you read them? One of the claims is that (on page 189), "firms will provide what consumers want, and those that don't will not survive a competitive marketplace." Well, it seems to me that even if you DON'T provide what consumers want, like gas guzzling behemoth trucks, you can still remain in business thanks to government bailouts and federal subsidies. This was the case with the domestic automakers, historically and today, as they needed help from the government while foreign manufacturers posed too big a threat. Can you think of any other examples that debunk the traditional view that Schor doesn't articulate?
@Sarah: part of Schor's argument is urging us to think about these matters not so much on an individual level but on a societal one. What would it mean for us as a society and a culture to shift our thinking about what is "enough" away from the differences between people and their standards of living and toward some kind of more objective or neutral and collective conception of what any human being needs for healthy survival?
@Jillian: See my comments to Sarah above on this, but Schor is saying that these things happening on an individual level is not enough and will not really change anything, so she is looking for a wider-spread, more societal shift.
-When Schor mentions we spend our income in 4 basic ways, I wonder where charity efforts might fall into these categories? I think perhaps she leaves out the fact that not necessarily all our income spending efforts are necessarily self-involved.
ReplyDelete-And, isn't all purchasing on credit cards technically considered borrowing? Whether or not you have the funds to pay it off, you are still borrowing something from somewhere at that time. I guess this would refute the idea that all consumers are rationally spending, if they knowingly use something they may not have complete access to.
-Also, I wonder why she would advocate for a consumer movement that would want to create more taxes and regulate policies on advertising...does she really think this would work and be beneficial to a society that is in an economical crisis?
On page 3, Schor says that the rejection of consumerism takes place at an individual level. What does he mean here? He goes on to say that living is much more difficult now a days than it was twenty five years ago. How are these two ideas related?
ReplyDeleteSchor goes on to say that he believes that justice requires a vastly more equal society, in terms of income and wealth. Could this really ever happen though? I find it almost impossible for everyone to fit into one category of wealth. Also looking at just the term wealth, there could be many representations of this word. People may categorize themselves differently when thinking of the term "wealth."
On page 191, Schor says that "What is more generally true, I believe, is that many consumers do not understand why they prefer one brand to another." In other words, people who choose Coke over Pepsi don't know why they are choosing Coke over Pepsi. I wonder if this is the same for political parties, as many people have their parent's ideologies ingrained in them from a young age.
ReplyDeleteOn page 193, Schor states that "The accumulating evidence on well-being, at least it's subjective measures, suggests that above the poverty line, income is relatively unimportant in affecting well-being." I find this terribly interesting, because there seems to be an idea perpetuated by the media that having more money will make people happier. Does this well being differ between adults or children? Or for instance, if someone is retiring and is financially not doing so well compared to someone retiring with a bunch of money, would these two people be more likely to have a difference in well being based on the stage of their life?
On page 187 and 188 Schor states, "The current consumer boom rests on growth in incomes, wealth and credit. But it also rests on something more intangible: social attitudes toward consumer decision making and choices." I agree with the idea that we consume based upon our social attitudes. We as individuals are able to decide and to make choices on what we can and cannot consume. Some people clearly spend more money consuming than they can but this is a personal choice. It seems though that people base a lot of their consumption on what others think and do. Schor discusses on page 188 dealing with the fact that we should be able to buy what we want when in reality it doesn't always work like that. Do you think that social attitudes affect consumer decision making? Does our societies views lead us to consume things we cannot afford? Is consumption based purely on a personal decision or do social attitudes and society help influence the decision to consume?
ReplyDeleteOn page 185, Schor says "Luxury, rather than mere comfort, is a widespread aspiration." I wonder if this is because of the way Americans are taught to appreciate and strive for luxury or just an innate want to be better and have more? In countries where capitalism is not king, don't people still want the best for themselves? Where is the line drawn between human nature and the type of competitive consumerism that Schor talks about?
ReplyDeleteI am confused by the juxtoposition of "a right to a decent standard of living" and "quality of life rather than quantity of stuff." Schor mentions several times in the article the need for more even distribution of income, but also says that people need to focus less on materials goods. At what point does he draw the line in terms of "adequacy?" Is a person who makes $10,000 a year but can afford a small home and food/clothing adequate? Is a person who makes $100,000 but can barely afford their expensive mortgage adequate? I find Schor's own opinions on what is "enough" for each person problematic. He seems to be saying that some predetermined, adequate income mixed with less emphasis on consumption would be beneficial for all people. Would people be any happier? What about people who just like more and are willing to work harder to achieve it? I think he would argue that they don't *really* want more, they are just taught to think they do. Once again, where is the emphasis on people's personal decisions/opinions/accountability?
Throughout the article, Schor states that consumption has lead to the problem that many americans face-insufficient incomes in comparison to their desired wants. My question to Schor is if he believes that part of the problem with consuming products is that there are too many options made available to us? Most of the time, as consumers we are drawn to the newer versions of what we have, while what we have is still functioning and good...so while its not probable, would having limited options of the same product, help curb our problem of overspending on wants rather than on needs?
ReplyDeleteSchor's politics of consumption section on pages 193-5, i agreed with many of his points, but have to wonder, what is his plan to change people's minds regarding consumption? It is easy to say that people need to focus more on quality life vs quantity of stuff or that we should be more aware of how our consumption affects the environment, or even just knowing what a decent standard of living is, but how does Schor propose to make this change if, as he states on p184 that "rejection of consumerism...has taken place principally at an individual level?" If we individually reject, then is he hoping that everyone will just start to reject on their own, or is he calling for a revolution?
To play the Devil's advocate, I suppose an argument could be made that the 'overconsumption' that Schor talks about in the article could be seen as a good thing for society. I say this because, while yes maybe Americans tend to buy more than what they need, other people's lives and incomes depend on Americans' over-buying. Is this a fair assessment to make when compared to Schorr's points in the article?
ReplyDeleteSchorr also talks about people's never ending quest for a life that is filled with luxury. Schorr details that as decades have passed more and more people are aspiring to have more money and be more successful in the professional world. As Schorr states on on page 186, "...with desires persistently outrunning incomes, many consumers find themselves frustrated. One survey of U.S. households found that the level of income needed to fulfill one's dreams doubled between 1986 and 1994 and is currently more than twice the median household income." I ask the following question in that is this neccessarily a bad thing? While Yes, possibly some of the people surveyed could be greedy in their dreams. But overall, I believe that a good functioning captialist society must have people that are always willingly raising the bar and never being totally satisified in their professional life.
1. This was a refrshing article because you don't see critiques of consumer culture that often in the mainstream press. You never hear major politicians calling for a moratorium on consumer culture either. It seems relatively ingrained in society, which is unfortunate. I wish I could remember the source material, but somewhere Noam Chomsky says that the facade of democracy that we have in the US is upheld by us being able to choose from ten different laundry detergents. There doesn't seem to be a reversal in this trend anytime soon since people love their brands. On pages 193-195, we're introduced to a few things that could be done to move away from the system. My question would be: what is the likelihood that people would willingly concede to these goals? The America I know seems like they would have none of it.
ReplyDelete2. The conventional view of the consumer on 188 and 189 seems so flawed. The fact that this is embraced by economists is beyond me. Schor obviously critiques these anyway, but did it strike anyone else that these assumptions don't make sense as soon as you read them? One of the claims is that (on page 189), "firms will provide what consumers want, and those that don't will not survive a competitive marketplace." Well, it seems to me that even if you DON'T provide what consumers want, like gas guzzling behemoth trucks, you can still remain in business thanks to government bailouts and federal subsidies. This was the case with the domestic automakers, historically and today, as they needed help from the government while foreign manufacturers posed too big a threat. Can you think of any other examples that debunk the traditional view that Schor doesn't articulate?
@Sarah: part of Schor's argument is urging us to think about these matters not so much on an individual level but on a societal one. What would it mean for us as a society and a culture to shift our thinking about what is "enough" away from the differences between people and their standards of living and toward some kind of more objective or neutral and collective conception of what any human being needs for healthy survival?
ReplyDelete@Jillian: See my comments to Sarah above on this, but Schor is saying that these things happening on an individual level is not enough and will not really change anything, so she is looking for a wider-spread, more societal shift.