sick and tired of new scrap appliances.

[Undertow]

Lizzie and Tony: I'm sure you know that the current progression of society means that our kind are dying out. As the knowledge is passed down, it will be increasingly diluted to a point of non-existence, until "the golden era" and the sensibilities of that time are not but shadows playing over the screen of a Kindle 4.0. And really, at this rate, much of history is being forgotten, regardless of era.

We still have parents and grandparents that grew up in the era, and thus we have some reference from which to pull. But as these generations die out, there will be fewer triggers to start new folks down the "vintage" path, meaning fewer lightbearers until the candle is snuffed. Unfortunately, there will always be a cynical salesman sitting in some boardroom developing the next greatest "vintage" thing, but it will never be like it was.

"Progress" has sped up at break-neck speeds and a simpler way of living has been left behind. In fact, as you've already mentioned, Lizzie, young people - myself included - have never known a life without the noxious consumer culture invading every level of life. This transition isn't a shame - it's an extinction.

 

[Undertow]

...Humanity just moves along as it will. There's no right or wrong about it, it just is.

I believe this is really your main point, Noir, and you are quite correct. It is human nature to progress and create.

However, the issue we're discussing isn't so much that humans are driven to destroy/erase/improve so much as people in Western society have seemingly lost the ability to differentiate between "value" and "cost"; or maybe "durability" and "features". As a society, we're more impressed by the word "updated" versus "stable". Think on that for a moment, if you will. It's pervasive in many other aspects of this society.

I think another point in your argument is that companies will eventually become unprofitable if they don't offer newer, differing products. In today's model of business, you are correct. However, that is an apples to oranges argument. That is consumerism vs capitalism (and yes, there is a difference, and yes, it's difficult for our modern society to divorce those two concepts).

We buy things because they do stuff. If I buy an egg beater, I want it to beat my eggs. Now here's the difference between consumerism and capitalism:

A. Consumerism - ACME builds a newer, better, faster egg beater every 2 years. Each progressing model has new features, but the inherent ability of the item has not changed - it still beats eggs. Regardless, consumers line up for a new egg beater every 2 years. Then ACME gets wise and decides to make their egg beaters out of plastic, with paper cogs. And so on, and so forth, until people are lining up for newer, better egg beaters every other week. No one questions the status quo without risking being deemed a criminal sociopath.
B. Capitalism - ACME builds an egg beater that beats eggs better than any other egg beater. ACME's beater may have different features than ZENITH's, but it's quality and craftsmanship are the driving forces keeping ACME afloat. If fewer egg beaters are needed, they build fewer beaters and develop other facets of production to catch the slack in production. If some new technology comes around that makes beating eggs easier (say, a new alloy or better use of gravity), there's nothing wrong with creating a product which exploits this innovation. Yet, the minute a feature or technology is inherently useless to the core function of the product, then the "innovation" is nothing more than a new bell and whistle.

Capitalism would dictate that such expensive bells and whistles would be rendered obsolete in short order because they offered little value to the customer. Consumerism would dictate that the customer is sub-human if they don't own six egg beaters with different features.

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Progress" has sped up at break-neck speeds and a simpler way of living has been left behind. In fact, as you've already mentioned, Lizzie, young people - myself included - have never known a life without the noxious consumer culture invading every level of life. This transition isn't a shame - it's an extinction.

I had an evangelist come to my door this morning and ask me if I wanted to learn about how to live forever. I told the poor fellow that no thought would horrify me more. And I meant it. I just don't see this society proceeding toward any kind of a future that isn't a horrendous dystopia for someone who grew up with the kind of values and sensibility that I did. A society that willingly shells out hundreds of dollars for trinkets it *knows* it will throw away in a year or two? A society that just shrugs its shoulders and says "huh, them's the breaks" when some expensive gizmo craps out before they've even had a chance to fill in the warranty card? A society that thinks it's progress when a new car key costs $250? Incomprehensible to me, utterly incomprehensible, decadent, and depraved. If ever there was a society in desperate need of a *real* Depression to snap it out of its trance, this is the one.

I don't expect anyone who grew up in a world like we have now to understand why I feel this way, anymore than I can comprehend their worldview -- but I'm just very glad that I won't be around to see how it all comes out.

 

[tonyb]

Me, I had lousy parentage in many ways. Wouldn't wish my childhood upon anyone. (Well, to be honest about it, I can think of some people who richly deserve such torture, but that's just my spiteful side talking.) I don't know that I came out so well, and I don't know how a person might make such an assessment anyway, but I believe an equally strong case can be made that I came out okay.

Perhaps it's just my good fortune to know quite a few people who are raising (or already have raised) kids with what most reasonable people would consider good values. No candidates for sainthood, but people I trust to do the right thing as much as I ever trusted the run of people from prior generations.

But I still wish they wouldn't rush out and buy all that landfill fodder.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Me, I had lousy parentage in many ways. Wouldn't wish my childhood upon anyone.

Then I take it that you aren't really living in your mother's basement.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When I talk about values I'm not talking about what Modern People usually think when someone says "values." I couldn't care less about that kind of cheap, cynical polarization that tries to divide people over idiotic questions about what you do in your bedroom so as to make it that much easier to rob them blind while they're arguing. By values I mean a sense of being satisified with what you have, of not building your whole life chasing after something you don't even need just because somebody tells you that you need it, a sense of being responsible to your community rather than just to your own unsatisfiable appetites. Those are what I consider *values,* and I fear they're diametrically opposed to the way modern society tends to think.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

When I talk about values I'm not talking about what Modern People usually think when someone says "values." I couldn't care less about that kind of cheap, cynical polarization that tries to divide people over idiotic questions about what you do in your bedroom so as to make it that much easier to rob them blind while they're arguing. By values I mean a sense of being satisified with what you have, of not building your whole life chasing after something you don't even need just because somebody tells you that you need it, a sense of being responsible to your community rather than just to your own unsatisfiable appetites. Those are what I consider *values,* and I fear they're diametrically opposed to the way modern society tends to think.

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!

 

[tonyb]

Sounds like you've met someone I know.

The poor insecure fellow was always looking to be a bigshot, always looking to acquire the trappings of success and "respectability" (I said he was insecure, didn't I?), even though he couldn't really afford them. And when he did get the things -- the cars, the boats, he even had an airplane once -- the new wore off quickly and he was left even more empty than he was before, because now he had to figure out a way to pay for it all, which he didn't always do. Bankruptcies. Shattered relationships. Et cetera

I'm right there with you on that "being satisfied with what you have." I've seen too many times what happens with all that lusting after shiny new baubles, not that I don't like shiny new baubles myself. I just like being able to afford 'em.

 

[tonyb]

As long as we're on this "throwaway society" jag ... What's the deal with remodeling perfectly good home kitchens? I understand that some newer appliances and fixtures and such are more convenient, and there's a value in that (I suppose), but why all this ripping out of cabinets and reconfiguring the whole works every few years?

I respect the right of people to do what they wish with their own money (within legal and/or moral limits), and I know people who are employed in the kitchen remodeling trades, but man oh man, the money people spend on this stuff staggers me.

 

[Noirblack]

I think another point in your argument is that companies will eventually become unprofitable if they don't offer newer, differing products. In today's model of business, you are correct. However, that is an apples to oranges argument. That is consumerism vs capitalism (and yes, there is a difference, and yes, it's difficult for our modern society to divorce those two concepts).

We buy things because they do stuff. If I buy an egg beater, I want it to beat my eggs. Now here's the difference between consumerism and capitalism:

A. Consumerism - ACME builds a newer, better, faster egg beater every 2 years. Each progressing model has new features, but the inherent ability of the item has not changed - it still beats eggs. Regardless, consumers line up for a new egg beater every 2 years. Then ACME gets wise and decides to make their egg beaters out of plastic, with paper cogs. And so on, and so forth, until people are lining up for newer, better egg beaters every other week. No one questions the status quo without risking being deemed a criminal sociopath.
B. Capitalism - ACME builds an egg beater that beats eggs better than any other egg beater. ACME's beater may have different features than ZENITH's, but it's quality and craftsmanship are the driving forces keeping ACME afloat. If fewer egg beaters are needed, they build fewer beaters and develop other facets of production to catch the slack in production. If some new technology comes around that makes beating eggs easier (say, a new alloy or better use of gravity), there's nothing wrong with creating a product which exploits this innovation. Yet, the minute a feature or technology is inherently useless to the core function of the product, then the "innovation" is nothing more than a new bell and whistle.

Capitalism would dictate that such expensive bells and whistles would be rendered obsolete in short order because they offered little value to the customer. Consumerism would dictate that the customer is sub-human if they don't own six egg beaters with different features.

Consumerism won't lead to people people being called criminal sociopaths for products that they deem are not worth buying. Let's use an iPad as an example of an item that is produced by our consumerist society. Someone who does not run our and buy an iPad is not a sociopath or a criminal. Rather, that person has just determined that the features of an iPad are not necessary for them. Even in a consumerist society, the consumer makes decisions about what they do or don't want. After all, we observe that not everyone goes out and buys every consumer good or service. In fact, if consumerism is as you describe it, then no business would fail, no product would fail, and it would be nothing but a smooth road to profits as people just buy more and more lest they risk being called a criminal or a sociopath. Products that nobody wants (either because there are better competing products or because the quality is deemed too low by the consumer, or the price is too high) will fail, whether that is part of consumerism or capitalism. I think I understand the difference between consumerism and capitalism that you are trying to make, but as best I can tell, consumerism as you describe it does just not exist.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I think there has always been some element of consumerism in our society going back almost a hundred years but at nowhere near the level of today's hyperconsumerism. I believe much of it has also been driven by technology. Because at one time it took between 20-50 years for something to become completely obsolete which is in stark comparison to the present where obsolescence often kicks in in as little as eighteen months. It should be noted that from the time of Edison's development of the first practical incandescent light in 1879 it still took some forty years for it to come into completely widespread usage.

Back in the day there was a a little bit greater gap between each major "new and improved" which again was influenced by the limitations of and the pace of technology at the time. As a result there were, relatively speaking, fewer "wants" vying for limited consumer dollars giving the consumer more breathing space to acquire the means to afford it. Compare that to today when, even in this economy, people line up for blocks to spend $500-600 (on credit) for the latest version of the iPhone.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As long as we're on this "throwaway society" jag ... What's the deal with remodeling perfectly good home kitchens? I understand that some newer appliances and fixtures and such are more convenient, and there's a value in that (I suppose), but why all this ripping out of cabinets and reconfiguring the whole works every few years?

I respect the right of people to do what they wish with their own money (within legal and/or moral limits), and I know people who are employed in the kitchen remodeling trades, but man oh man, the money people spend on this stuff staggers me.

There's a certain class of people who consider kitchens a fashion statement, and another class of people actively involved in marketing this idea as relentlessly as possible. It's the same ethos that makes some people feel it's somehow important to have some Frenchman's name stitched in the waistband of their underpants, and makes other people devote their lives to convincing people that the presence of that name is somehow a signifier of good taste.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

It's the same ethos that makes some people feel it's somehow important to have some Frenchman's name stitched in the waistband of their underpants, and makes other people devote their lives to convincing people that the presence of that name is somehow a signifier of good taste.

Soutien-Gorge
Paris​

Perhaps this could be a new line of "designer" women's underwear from Paris (Maine or Texas that is) lol

*French for bra

 

[tonyb]

Some of my favorite people have remodeled kitchens. I try not to notice. Drives 'em nuts.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I don't get constant remodeling. What ever happened to a fresh coat of paint every few years? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

As long as we're on this "throwaway society" jag ... What's the deal with remodeling perfectly good home kitchens? I understand that some newer appliances and fixtures and such are more convenient, and there's a value in that (I suppose), but why all this ripping out of cabinets and reconfiguring the whole works every few years?

I respect the right of people to do what they wish with their own money (within legal and/or moral limits), and I know people who are employed in the kitchen remodeling trades, but man oh man, the money people spend on this stuff staggers me.

Agreed 100%. I love my kitchen. Most of it hasn't changed since the original owners decorated it in the 1960s.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Some of my favorite people have remodeled kitchens. I try not to notice. Drives 'em nuts.

ha.

 

[tonyb]

Agreed 100%. I love my kitchen. Most of it hasn't changed since the original owners decorated it in the 1960s.

Yup, it can be distressing to see so much of a house's stylistic character destroyed by home "improvers." Not all houses are such architectural gems, so the loss in such cases isn't so lamentable, but most were designed by people with at least a moderately elevated level of talent and experience, and they went about their work with a vision of the whole. Some remodels leave me thinking that one too many cooks got into this kitchen.

Still, some remodels work well. And some existing kitchens (and bathrooms) are just too far gone not to rework extensively. Rotten floors and framing just won't do. Thing is, though, had the places been better maintained, they wouldn't have gotten into such a sad state.

 

[Undertow]

Consumerism won't lead to people people being called criminal sociopaths for products that they deem are not worth buying...in fact, if consumerism is as you describe it, then no business would fail, no product would fail, and it would be nothing but a smooth road to profits as people just buy more and more lest they risk being called a criminal or a sociopath. Products that nobody wants (either because there are better competing products or because the quality is deemed too low by the consumer, or the price is too high) will fail, whether that is part of consumerism or capitalism. I think I understand the difference between consumerism and capitalism that you are trying to make, but as best I can tell, consumerism as you describe it does just not exist.

I guess I should have left out the morbid comic relief from my rant. Naturally, no one will deem you a sociopath for not buying an iPad. On the other hand, there was a time when someone would ask me what my cell number was and I would say, "I don't own a cell phone." I wouldn't just receive dirty looks, I was honestly heckled. Same goes for Facebook - or my lack thereof. No one has deemed me a sociopath, but I'm certainly abnormal, an outsider, an "other" because I don't purchase cellular technology or partake in popular social networking.

Switching gears, if a product is useless, few rational people will buy it. The problem isn't the product however, or its price; the problem is the psychology used behind marketing useless products to mindless consumers. Hey - I'm guilty too! I've found myself purchasing a "Natural Bamboo Cutting Board" because it was a "renewable resource" and because its "aesthetics" were pleasing in my kitchen. Why didn't I just buy the cheaper plastic cutting board? Or better yet, why didn't I just make one myself? As I've said, the difference we're discussing is Value vs. Features.

Cars are built with DVD players and LCD monitors - useless to the purpose of a car. Telephones are built with touchscreens and games - useless to the purpose of a phone. Knife sets are built with fancy handles and color schemes - useless to the purpose of a knife.

Yet, these things are sought after - people trample one another at Wal-Mart on Black Friday to get their hands on them. Why would consumers spend money on an XBOX instead of durable clothing? Or a more dependable car? Or repairable shoes? Or solid kitchenware they can pass down to the next generation?

No, they'd rather have their super clear HD monitors in each room of the house, all purchased on credit, while they wallow in a malnourished state of sorry affairs. Someone sold them on that idea. If you're telling me that's not rampant, sickening Consumerism, than I think we're having a different discussion altogether.

 

[LizzieMaine]

No, they'd rather have their super clear HD monitors in each room of the house, all purchased on credit, while they wallow in a malnourished state of sorry affairs. Someone sold them on that idea. If you're telling me that's not rampant, sickening Consumerism, than I think we're having a different discussion altogether.

Exactly -- people behave as they do because they were *taught to behave that way.*

*Individuals* aren't the problem here. Nobody's criticizing any individual for the choices they make -- because those individuals are simply doing what they've been raised and conditioned to do by the society they're immersed in. You're considered "normal" for wanting wanting wanting and never being satisfied. You're considered a malcontent, a misfit, a rabble-rouser, or a Red if you don't accept this culture, so of course most people do. They want to fit in. You really can't blame them for it. All any of us can do is point out where the real responsibilities lie and hope at least a few individuals will think about their alternatives.