|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2009 9:17:46 GMT
Do you consume too much? I’m not really talking about consuming food, although that is part of it. Do you buy a lot of stuff you don’t need – clothes, gadgets, appliances, decorative items? When the “new stuff” comes out, do you want it immediately (or at least as soon as you can afford it), even though you don’t really need it? New cars, new mobile phones, new computers?
Do you keep the old stuff, give it away, sell it, toss it?
Probably most of us are somewhat contradictory about what we do. I know that I am. I have too much stuff, such as a TV and sound system in every room, yet I have never owned a car because I think it is a waste in a city. However, once I have finally bought my other useless stuff, I keep it as long as possible until it finally breaks down rather than buying a new and flashy and “better” one. For example, I have just one very small flat screen in my apartment (replacement for an old TV that broke), in a room where I don’t spend much time, and I do not allow myself to go to the store to buy a gigantic one for the living room to replace my big old TV, which is (unfortunately?) still working fine.
At the market, I absolutely never buy the items that are overpriced according to my scale of values, even when the actual difference is insignificant. For example, if I know that a certain fruit should cost 2€/kg, I will not pay 4€/kg for it, even if it would just mean that my full grocery bill would change from 45€ to 47€.
The entire economy is based on consuming more, and if we stop consuming, people lose their jobs and homes. Is there any way out of this quandary?
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 10, 2009 12:15:56 GMT
I confess I'm very happy that my bulky old computer screen stopped working, as the flat screen that I bought (second-hand) to replace it takes up so much less room on my desk, freeing it up as a work space. I never watch TV (don't have cable, not much is watchable without) so I should just give it away, though I believe the definition has changed and older TVs need a converter now. In general I don't consume very much, though I'm sure others would find I spend far too much and have far too much of certain kinds of "stuff", especially books. For people on this forum, the most polluting and harmful thing we overconsume is air travel, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Sept 10, 2009 17:06:04 GMT
I feel that part of being a good consumer is employing people to do the things they make their living at, thereby spreading the wealth.
My husband, on the other hand, hates to pay anyone for something he could do - or learn to do - himself. We wash our own windows, paint the house when it needs it, do all our own yardwork, have never hired a housekeeper, eat almost all of our meals at home, split our own firewood, etc.
Some people/cultures feel that those with money have an obligation to employ people in their community. I could support that notion. Unfortunately, I end up being a reluctant assistant in too many of my do-it-yourselfer-husband's home and yard projects...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2009 17:22:41 GMT
I'm all in favor of using money for "services" even though I almost never do, and at the same time when I see the exploitation that some people make of it (particularly when voyaging in the developing world), it disturbs me.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Sept 10, 2009 17:30:13 GMT
A different point: a good consumer avails him/herself of reviews of products before buying them (Consumer Reports magazine, online customer reviews, etc.), enhancing the possibility that they will be satisfied with their purchase and that it will be durable and reliable enough to not need immediate replacement.
Those who make snap decisions and impulse purchases, often end up "needing" to buy a replacement too soon, resulting in more waste for the landfill, or more junk cluttering up their houses.
It may take us 3 years to decide which car we want to buy, but then we'll take really good care of it and keep it for 22 years, and sell it for $2200 when we're done with it.
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Sept 14, 2009 13:09:16 GMT
I am a very bad consumer. I try to consume only what I really really need. (although I just got myself an old hand-powered threadle machine that was made in the nineteeth century if I read correctly. it is a lovely little machine and I fully intend to use it. ) As for the waste, it is recycled as best as possible, sometimes into arts and crafts projects. Since we moved in this appartment, we have lived without TV as there is no aerial cable and we "can't be bothered" arranging for one to be placed. I have always received second hand clothes from family and close friends but it is only very recently that I have been made aware of the joy of clothes swapping and charity shops. I will use these again. Within the past few years, I have shifted from a mainly supermarket shopper for food to a almost solely independant shops customer. I am now more and more aware of issues with industrial well-traveled food and clothing and am working at using ethically produced as local as possible materials and food.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 15, 2009 0:20:36 GMT
auntieannie, I have a treadle Singer sewing machine. When I bought it Singer shops still sold the parts, so I was able to get a new leather belt for it, but it is hard to find the parts now, and some are missing. It would work fine if I could find them. Treadle machines are fine for the amount of sewing most people to at home - of course they aren't as fast as electrical machines, but that also makes them easier to control. What they can't do without special fittings it zigzag and other useful stiches - though I'm sure smiths in poor countries have managed to equip them with all manner of fittings.
Charity shops can be frustrating - the other day I came across one of the most beautiful coats I had ever seen, in a wonderful woollen fabric with a tiny bit of nylon for strength, at a charity shop that gets a lot of stuff from upscale donors. It was just a hair too small for me - it fit, but could have had that nasty skimpiness with a warm sweater underneath, and our winters are cruel (it wasn't warm enough for the worst of our winter, but we need something for weather like your winters too, and I often travel to Europe in wintertime for work/research). Of course it disappeared before I finished pondering whether I'd lose a couple more kg before winter set in... was no doubt a very expensive coat. Beautiful Parisian steel grey.
There is an awful lot of shoddy crap in charity shops now, because of all the low-wage garments from China, South Asia and other sources.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 15, 2009 1:14:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Sept 15, 2009 6:43:27 GMT
oooh! Bix, you are a mother to us all.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 15, 2009 14:07:14 GMT
Nowadays EVERYTHING is on the net!
bixi would have had to be one of those odd cases of early puberty to be my mum though...
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Sept 22, 2009 21:02:41 GMT
My husband is a great consumer if you mean easy on the earth by not consuming much. Not so good for the economy though. We are still using a 30-year old lawnmower that has been welded twice and currently could use a tune up, which he will do, rather than pay someone else to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2009 21:07:53 GMT
I don't know much about lawnmower technology, but a lot of newer motorized items are better and more fuel efficient than items from 30 years ago. Probably an electric lawnmower would be best, but everybody knows how quickly new users run over the cord in a nasty flash of sparks and major displeasure for the user.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Sept 22, 2009 22:18:15 GMT
Push mower here ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2009 6:34:34 GMT
You don't live in "big yard country" like Kimby!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2009 13:35:30 GMT
Same here. I reduced the size of my "lawn" over the years by planting herbaceous perennials,shrubs,and many edibles. By reducing the size of the lawn,I not only do not have to mow (and blow) but reward myself with the harvesting of food for myself and others (or barter as mentioned in another thread). Also,I am providing habitat for wildlife as their ever diminishing space to live in grows with suburbs,subdivisions and strip malls,not to mention the prevalence of harmful chemicals used to maintain these sterile zones. With regard to be a good consumer,I'm afraid that we are not. It is rare for us to buy new things,almost all our household possessions be it electronic,furniture,clothes and the like are second hand. Mr. C. is a far better consumer then I but not by much. We also try to by from independent merchants as much as we can within reason and try to avoid the big box stores.
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Sept 24, 2009 20:56:34 GMT
casi, you ARE a "good" consumer in the sense of the OP, but not the economy.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Sept 25, 2009 3:52:51 GMT
The two are more often than not contradictory. A modern consumerist culture is generally a wasteful and polluting one. Poor is actually generally very green.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2009 4:49:20 GMT
They were just mentioning on the morning news that "consumption" has tripled in France in the last 50 years. Food used to be a much larger part of the budget, but a lot of the extra money has shifted to what is called "communications equipment," something which didn't exist for ordinary people 50 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 25, 2009 10:32:30 GMT
Also, most "communications equipment" Frenchpeople consume is not produced in France.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2009 10:47:43 GMT
Like maybe 0%.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2009 11:00:45 GMT
The two are more often than not contradictory. A modern consumerist culture is generally a wasteful and polluting one. Poor is actually generally very green. I'd be interested in hearing more on this theory fumobici. I don't know that I can agree ,if I think you're saying ,that people of lesser economic means are more "green". I may have misunderstood what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Sept 25, 2009 15:57:52 GMT
The two are more often than not contradictory. A modern consumerist culture is generally a wasteful and polluting one. Poor is actually generally very green. I'd be interested in hearing more on this theory fumobici. I don't know that I can agree ,if I think you're saying ,that people of lesser economic means are more "green". I may have misunderstood what you're saying. Yes, quite. Here is an image from Wiki illustrating per capita greenhouse gas emissions: and another showing GDP per capita: Unsurprisingly the worst polluters tend to be the wealthiest and highest consuming, whereas the countries that pollute least unsurprisingly tend to be poorer and less developed. Poor people don't drive from their large electrically heated and air conditioned homes to similarly equipped offices in fuel hungry luxury cars and eat foods- particularly meat whose consumption has disproportionate environmental impacts- grown unsustainably using chemical fertilizers by agribusiness conglomerates, often to the point of being overweight. They don't take frequent showers or baths using electrically heated water, fly in airplanes belching greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere for pleasure etc. etc. Not because they likely wouldn't like to but because these things are all expensive.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2009 21:36:45 GMT
France is one of the palest of the developed countries due to its reliance on nuclear energy rather than fossil fuels. I'm not saying it necessarily made the right decision, but at least wind power is growing by about 30% a year at the moment. Of course, some people claim that it is defacing the traditional French countryside.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2009 22:01:44 GMT
I see what you're saying F. Somehow I was reading it as economically poorer people consciously going out of their way to be more environmentally responsible. Of course it makes sense that underdeveloped countries,cultures ,would have less impact on pollution etc.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 26, 2009 13:55:43 GMT
That is because fumobici is referring to the poorest people in the world, not poor people in developed countries. They still consume less than the wealthy, but there is a paradox, because modern industry produces a lot of cheap goods - including cheap foods - so most people can consume, but poor people can't afford to consume quality, lasting goods - or quality food. A lot of the people who are seriously overweight are poorer people in wealthier countries (not only the "global north", but increasingly, some of the population in countries like Mexico or Brazil) who can afford more than enough food quantity, but in the form of cheap starches, bad fats and sugars and chemical additives.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 26, 2009 15:26:34 GMT
I don't know about your conclusion there, LaGatta. We're entering the dangerous waters of less education = more tv watching = more consumption of advertised crap rather than unprocessed foods needing preparation.
I would say that thirty years ago in the US, the people more likely to be buying what I call "square food" (i.e., it all comes in boxes) were those with less income. In fact, that kind of food not only delivers less nutrition, it costs more per volume. It seemed that a version of square food shopping then permeated the country as a whole, with "healthful" options for the middle class -- juice boxes, pudding cups, frozen pita pockets, Lean Cuisine, etc. The result was an across the board fat population. This was not simply due to grocery store buying, but to increased reliance on fast food chains for meals and to endless snacking. When I lived in the yuppie ghetto in the early nineties, it seemed one never saw a middle-class mom who didn't have her wide butt planted in a van while she sucked on a 32-ounce Slurpee. By that time, it was common to see pudgy kids happily pushing crap food on tv, not only selling the product, but the message that this was how kids were supposed to look. Now there are cooking shows galore and magazines aimed at every angle of food preparation, but the snack habit is still firmly entrenched. Admittedly, some of this has helped to educate people into buying more fresh foods and preparing them in more healthful ways, which brings us full circle to the question of how education might affect food choices.
We've all heard the discussion of how fat Americans are and how the Mediterranean diet can save your life, etc. I would say that more emphasis should be placed on the diet of ones ancestors and the way we live today. I suspect that's why European countries tend to be slimmer overall than their former colonies. I think that whether ones ancestors arrived in their new countries 100 or 400 years ago, their glee at finally having an abundance of food has been passed down to their descendants. Of course the descendants don’t spend their days pulling stumps and the reality of the man of the house getting the biggest – or only – piece of meat because he did the hardest work as been forgotten.
When I lived on the Texas/Mexico border I was appalled at the number of grossly overweight Hispanics and the attendant diabetes and heart problems. Hispanic friends among people born @1960 said that was around the time that Hispanics began eating more “American” – hamburgers, macaroni & cheese, etc. Crossing the border revealed a great disparity in girth between two groups of people with identical national backgrounds. And I’ve seen the population down here steadily plump up since I moved to this part of Mexico. Not coincidentally, there are far more supermarkets and chubby kids shown on tv than when I arrived.
|
|
|
Post by lola on Sept 26, 2009 15:28:30 GMT
This weekend I'm installing a bathroom vanity cabinet and sink I spotted along the curb during a walk last week. It's brand new, and our old one has gotten water damaged. I'm New England thrifty and recycle-y, except for my urge to travel.
As a household our excess runs to consumer electronics. (read "my husband" for "our.")
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2009 16:05:11 GMT
Frankly, I would love to live in a place using only mismatched items found on the street. I love people who use mismatched dishes and have mismatched furniture, because it allows them to be totally creative.
I have not reached the proper stage of life yet, but I'm getting there.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Sept 26, 2009 16:33:11 GMT
My furniture is mismatched (but all wooden - I HATE melamine and pressboard) but most of my dishes match, as I bought a set of plain white dishes decades ago and have found a lot of replacements for breakage at charity shops and "garage" sales (usually there is no garage). Matched dishes do have an advantage - they take up less space as they stack better.
Lola, I'm sure you must spend a fair bit on art supplies; I know I do. I mostly do watercolours, and the tiny tubes are VERY pricy, if you want a good quality, even when they go on sale.
bixi, I do hope you didn't think I was poor-bashing (something I hate). I wasn't referring to education, just to the ability to afford quality, lasting goods (and decent foods). It is true that the fastfood, ready-made meal culture has really spread to the middle and even upper class. I'm shocked at the expensive crap I see on offer at supermarkets and all the people loaded up with it at the cash. Sad to see Mexicans "catching up" with their cousins north of the border.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Sept 26, 2009 17:11:21 GMT
Oh heavens, LaGatta ~~ I know that you were not poor-bashing! No, I was trying to pick my way through that same minefield. As far as a consumer being "educated", it's more a situation of being self-educated on intelligent buying, rather than formal education. That's why I suspect that naive or lazy consumers get far less bang for the buck. I have always felt that this site is unfortunately named. With a more marketable moniker, it could reach more people and perform a great service in showing people how to live decently on little money.
|
|