Reverse economic growth

[Deleted]

All of us have been raised, I think, in the concept that economies should constantly expand. An economy in decline is never a good thing, because it means fewer jobs, more unemployment and a general downward spiral to hell.

However, a very vocal minority of economists has appeared calling for reverse economic growth (décroissance in French). They say that the developed economies are pretty much fully developed and that to continue to consume for the sake of consuming is madness. It increases pollution and depletes the resources of the planet. We should just “take a break” while the rest of the planet catches up and offer our assistance to help them develop in a more responsible way.

People do not need to constantly change cars, computers, televisions, mobile phones, houses and many other things if they are correctly built and maintained in the first place. The whole economy could adjust little by little to this new situation. Fewer sales of equipment would mean fewer jobs – or fewer hours of work. Fewer hours of work would mean lower salaries, but people would not have the same expenses, because they wouldn’t be buying so much crap.

It’s really hard to imagine “less” being better than” more”, but maybe we have all been indoctrinated to pollute and waste to fill the pockets of the captains of industry.

Would things really decline, though? With people consuming less and having reliable products, and working fewer hours, they would have more leisure time. While the 35-hour work week in France has not been considered an unqualified success even by its supporters, there have been some undeniable benefits for the economy. The leisure industries have developed more, from cinemas and handicraft classes to fitness clubs. The travel industry has created countless 3 and 4-day products, whereas before, they had to work with the concept of either just weekends or full weeks. And France has the highest birthrate in Europe now – it even passed Ireland last year.

This new leisure time created quite a few jobs for the unemployed, so there was a certain economic development where it was needed, while pressure was taken off other sectors.

Naturally there is no way for reverse economic growth to work in the world as it currently is. There is too much competition among the countries, too many needs elsewhere around the globe, too much industrial and technical interconnection of the world economy. Any country that would try to unhook from the system as it is would be swept away.

Personally, I think that there are some aspects of the idea that could be used here and there. Lots of tiny changes in the way we live would build up to a more visible effect little by little, the way bicycles are slowly but surely gaining ground on motor vehicles, or organic agriculture is beginning to offset the frenzy of industrial overproduction of crops.

Does anybody have any thoughts on the subject?

[Deleted]

Nothing better to do than listening to the radio at work ?
It was the topic of the day in "Service public" on France Inter this morning.

[Deleted]

What is really strange is that the radio was on while I was writing my message and I did not hear a word they said because I was completely concentrated on my text. It was only when I was finished that I kept hearing the word décroissance and realized what the subject of the day was. My idea for what I wrote today came from an article that I read a couple of weeks ago, because it is indeed a subject that interests me very much.

However, I fully intend to go back and try to listen to the podcast this weekend.

[bixaorellana]

This is interesting. Of course people have been talking about getting back to "a simpler way of life" ever since the Industrial Revolution, and possibly since Og first carved out the first set of spoons to sell to his cave neighbors.

Mar 5, 2010 9:29:54 GMT kerouac2 said:

People do not need to constantly change cars, computers, televisions, mobile phones, houses and many other things if they are correctly built and maintained in the first place. The whole economy could adjust little by little to this new situation. Fewer sales of equipment would mean fewer jobs – or fewer hours of work. Fewer hours of work would mean lower salaries, but people would not have the same expenses, because they wouldn’t be buying so much crap.

This needs to be taken further back -- what happens to all the workers in all the places that produce this stuff, the sales staff who promote it, the drivers who deliver it, etc. before it gets to the store where the clerk was being let go for lack of sales, etc.?

I totally agree that people have too much stuff, but the desire for that stuff creates the jobs that generate taxes and workers with the wherewithal to buy what they desire.

So, it's not that the idea is bad or unworkable, but how would it begin and how be carried out to avoid economic depression as it was implemented?

[bjd]

All those people who are not working producing, selling, delivering all this needless stuff are not going to be afford to afford any leisure. They have have time to go on vacation, helping the tourism industry, but how will they pay for it if they don't earn a living?

[Deleted]

From one service industry to another -- they can move to the leisure industry. Problem solved.

[gertie]

I do think the amount of waste in our current economy is quite shocking. By comparison, my grandmother washed tin foil for reuse, saved rubber bands and string, when she was finally done with aluminum foil it was added to the bin with the beer cans (we never drank much soda and when we did get it, was usually in the form of quart bottles back then) so that the aluminum could go to the recovery agent. For smashing up the beer cans as required by the recovery agent, I was allowed to have the money received for the return.

Recycling has failed to catch on where I am for several reasons, although you can still sell cans for cash. Among the reasons, pickup or even the operation of a facility for drop off would require salaries, and no one wants plastics unless certain separations are performed and the items crush packed, which would require the purchase of an expensive crusher. Paper would also involve some separations by type, so again more man hours most probably, and in the end finding purchasers locally willing to come pick up the stuff would be difficult. It is a great shame.

I think if we just all learned to make better use of things, we'd come out ahead, but it can be hard as we don't have the benefit of the 35 hour week here. In fact, since the crash of the economy, it has become extremely common for employers to place every employee they can get away with it on salary and then demand a great deal of overtime, citing the economy and your great good luck in actually having a job as reason enough for you to give them 50 - 60 hours per week for the same pay which used to give them 40. There are still a good many people out of work, and it doesn't seem like the current unemployment figures are reporting it adequately to me as I know a good few people who gave up trying to find jobs and instead are trying to develop cottage industries or working when they can under the table. Most of them have given up going through county unemployment as they have exhausted any hope of benefits from that source, so probably double the unemployment figures you hear for the US or at the least, for Texas. Please don't misunderstand, most of my friends doing these things are hard workers who lost their jobs due to no fault of their own, simply the economy made them expendable or even in a number of cases forced the closing of the business for which they worked. I myself was laid off when the economy first nosedived and now run a business from my home.