Why is that everytime I tune in to MTV or VH1, there's nothing but gold chains and flashy rides to be seen?
Here's a quote from the latest fergie song, appropriately name "Glamorous":
"Wear them gold and diamond rings, all them things don't mean a thing, chaperones and limousines, shopping for expensive things, I be on the movie screens, magazines and bougie scenes,"
I've read Tuesdays with Morrie, and this notion that materialistic objects are the path to happiness has me up a wall. I try and live my life as material free as possible, and I'm doing a fair job from becoming caught up in this greedy plague.
Am I just crazy, or do other people notice this as well?
[ February 21, 2007, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: JumboWumbo ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Most young people are just a brand, now.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
The key in my mind is to remind yourself and your kids that 99% of the junk you see on MTV and VH1 (and the like) is just trash... if you want to watch it purely for entertainment value it might be sorta allright, but don't allow it to have any effect on you.
If anything I've found these attempts at pushing materialism to actually have the opposite effect. The more I see snotty 15 year olds throwing temper tantrums over $90,000 cars and the like the less I'm even remotely tempted to follow in their footsteps.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I wouldn't go as far as to live life "as material free as possible," if I'm interpreting that correctly. That's going too far in the other direction; there is nothing morally reprehensible about desiring and attaining worldly pleasures.
To me it's more a matter of priority. Just don't lose sight of what's more important (i.e. don't spend your salary on expensive cars when you could send your kid to a better school or go on a trip overseas with your friends, etc.), and don't buy this product over the other because so-and-so has one; just buy the one that works better.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What Euripedes said. Balance is, to me, the important part.
-pH
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
People have always been horrified at the crazy things their children do. Even 2,000 years ago, people said things like "Our children show no respect to elders and lack morals." It's a pity I don't have the exact quote on hand.
But those selfsame children grow up to be rather boring, homogeneous healthy members of society. Boring is good, in the fabric of society.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
That's why I only listen to underground stuff now.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: I wouldn't go as far as to live life "as material free as possible," if I'm interpreting that correctly. That's going too far in the other direction; there is nothing morally reprehensible about desiring and attaining worldly pleasures.
To me it's more a matter of priority. Just don't lose sight of what's more important (i.e. don't spend your salary on expensive cars when you could send your kid to a better school or go on a trip overseas with your friends, etc.), and don't buy this product over the other because so-and-so has one; just buy the one that works better.
Amen. I basically live by this philosophy: I have several nice possessions, but I doubt anyone would accuse me of excess, since nothing is needlessly duplicated and I use everything I own with regularity.
A man who spends $1,000 a month on new CDs because it will make him look cultured isn't the same as a man who spends $1,000 a month on new CDs because he's constantly listening to music and exploring new artists. The guy who buys a 50" plasma TV as an incredibly expensive living room decoration isn't the same as the guy who buys a 50" plasma TV because he likes to see his weekly sports games in HD.
The key is enjoying your possessions for their utility, rather than buying things in an attempt to define yourself.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
quote: The key is enjoying your possessions for their utility, rather than buying things in an attempt to define yourself.
Well said.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
What bothers me about MTV is that stupid sweet 16 show where those brats get those huge parties for turning 16. The amount of $$ those people spend on those kids is ridiculous. $300,000 + for a party for the kid? Get out of here.
My 14 year old step daughter thought she was going to get such a party on her 16th birthday. I told her even if I had that kind of $$ I wouldn't throw that kind of party. She'll be lucky to get a cake and candles. She threw a fit about that, as if it would change anything.
Where did this idea of having a 16 party come from anyway?
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I, personally, fail to see how a person who owns a 50 inch plasma screen TV isn't materialistic.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I, personally, fail to see how a person who owns a 50 inch plasma screen TV isn't materialistic.
Frankly, I look at that as your failing, not theirs.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I, personally, fail to see how a person who owns a 50 inch plasma screen TV isn't materialistic.
TV is a necessity. The bigger the better you can see the educational programming.
Posted by Perplexity'sDaughter (Member # 9668) on :
The kids on Sweet 16 are so vain and self-serving I can hardly believe that they actually exist. I mean, not every child of a wealthy family is really like that, right? Either they (MTV execs) are telling the kids what to do and say, or they are only looking for those particular type of people, because I've never seen one episode where they aren't rediculous.
It's sad, really. You have to notice that none of these kids have real friends because of how they act.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Erosomniac and Euripides own this thread.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm more in the JumboWumbo camp, though that is consistent with my Buddhist leanings. But I have definitely appreciated erosomniac's and Euripides' posts. Posted by JumboWumbo (Member # 10047) on :
Has anyone else Read Tusdays With Morrie?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Materialism is good! Embrace your inner materialism, it shows you've won!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I, personally, fail to see how a person who owns a 50 inch plasma screen TV isn't materialistic.
Frankly, I look at that as your failing, not theirs.
Personally, I see that as a reflection of your moral flaws.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I, personally, fail to see how a person who owns a 50 inch plasma screen TV isn't materialistic.
Frankly, I look at that as your failing, not theirs.
Enlighten me.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
If you enjoy watching a 50 inch plasma screen TV and you can afford it, who's to tell you that you shouldn't buy one?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't see anyone doing that.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I think I'm a materialist. *ponders*
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Well, I assumed Soap was using "materialistic" in a pejorative manner, and he said that anyone buying a 50 inch plasma tv is materialistic. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So? That doesn't mean he(?) is telling anyone what to do.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I love the irony of people posting on the Internet talking about the evils of being materialistic.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I, personally, fail to see how a person who owns a 50 inch plasma screen TV isn't materialistic.
Frankly, I look at that as your failing, not theirs.
Personally, I see that as a reflection of your moral flaws.
Owning plasma tvs is now a moral flaw? LOL.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
Pants!
I win... at life.
Isn't it amazing how that always ends arguments?
Anyway, personally, I think JumboWumbo is a... well how do i put this nicely... hypocrite. Buddy, did you miss the second line of that fergie song: "it don't mean a thing"?
Oooh, what about "Gone" by BEP [ya, know the band Fergie is in?] and jack johnson?
"I try and live my life as material free as possible" lol that's laughable when you're spending your time on the internet posting on hattrack instead of doing community service or whatever.
if you walked the talk, i'd be full of respect for you. I wish i could get myself to give up my "materialistic" side and devote myself to teh community, but who are we kidding? I like my laptop, my computer, my video games, my sliding phone, and yes, my ipod nano. Just as I'm sure you do too. So let's not be pretentious here. You do not NEED the internet / computer to be on hattrack. You could easily cut down on that still :)
Posted by JumboWumbo (Member # 10047) on :
I think this discrepancy, including yours mighty cow, can be resolved if we just look at erosomniac's quote: "The key is enjoying your possessions for their utility, rather than buying things in an attempt to define yourself."
Buying an internet connection, simply because you have money to spend something on would be, IMO materialistic. But if you use the items you buy daily, and extract as much use out of them as you can; that constitues a worthy purchase.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
All I know is I utilize the hell out of my plasma tv.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Owning plasma tvs is now a moral flaw? LOL.
That's not what I said.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote: I think this discrepancy, including yours mighty cow, can be resolved if we just look at erosomniac's quote: "The key is enjoying your possessions for their utility, rather than buying things in an attempt to define yourself."
Yup, I agree with erosomniac. Not with you however, because that is not what you said. You can't be an extremist and then claim the centrist represents your point of view.
quote: Buying an internet connection, simply because you have money to spend something on would be, IMO materialistic. But if you use the items you buy daily, and extract as much use out of them as you can; that constitues a worthy purchase.
So what you're saying is that your original quote,
quote:live my life as material free as possible
is really not a criticism of materialism, but of wastefulness.
Because by your newly defined "materialism", buying a stretch-hummer-limo is not "materialistic" as long as you ride it as much as you possibly can.
Maybe it's just me on my high horse, but that seems like a problematic [or "crazy" as you put it] definition.
Posted by JumboWumbo (Member # 10047) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi:
"I try and live my life as material free as possible" lol that's laughable when you're spending your time on the internet posting on hattrack instead of doing community service or whatever.
if you walked the talk, i'd be full of respect for you. I wish i could get myself to give up my "materialistic" side and devote myself to teh community, but who are we kidding? I like my laptop, my computer, my video games, my sliding phone, and yes, my ipod nano. Just as I'm sure you do too. So let's not be pretentious here. You do not NEED the internet / computer to be on hattrack. You could easily cut down on that still
So are you saying that, because I spend time on my computer, there is no possible way for me to excercise my beliefs?
I try, when I can, to volunteer down in Mexico as frequently as possible. Sure, that might only amount to twice or three times a month, but I'm trying.
I have a cell phone, but I don't go buy a new blackberry or razor every time a phone's resolution is upped by half a percent. I've had the same phone for four years, and I likely wouldn't carry one if the pressures of the modern world didn't demand one.
I haven't gone clothes shopping in two or so years. Why would I if my current wardrobe fits fine and looks just as good as they did before?
I also got an iPod for christmas, 4 years ago. But I haven't bought a new video iPod just to fit in. I could live just as well without any of these things too.
I don't think it's fair to judge me, simply because I use a computer. I do "try" to live a non-materialistic life as best as I can, and strive to not enduldge myself with electronics and what not.
I'd also consider myself an active artist. It helps relivie alot of the stress I feel, and I wouldn't consider that to be a materialistic characteristic.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The irony I intended to point out is the fact that most of the world's population will never own a personal computer, and would find any home electronics to be materialistic.
It seems rather arbitrary for any of us to say that x amount of non-essential, high priced, mass produced luxury goods are OK, but y amount are too materialistic.
We're all the pot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Agree with eros, Eurip and Jumbo.
For me, materialism is buying something you don't need, and won't use, just for the sake of having it. If I buy a 50 inch plasma HDTV to watch the Red Wings play, and I watch a lot of Red Wings games, I don't view that as being materialistic.
When someone cares more about their possessions than the people around them, I think they've gone too far, like those bratty spoiled kids on MTV. Maybe it's better summed up in: When your possessions start owning you, then you're materialistic.
Most everything I buy is either because I can use it, or because of some intrinsic value, like my reproduction LOTR swords, which will become functional should my house ever be broken into while I'm home, which gives it dual purposes.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Sure, but some of us are trying to scrub the pot, even if we're not doing the greatest job; and others of us are trying to stop them and are angrily declaring that the pot is great the way it is.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Sure, but some of us are trying to scrub the pot, even if we're not doing the greatest job; and others of us are trying to stop them and are angrily declaring that the pot is great the way it is.
could ya clarify how that metaphor worked? what pot are you talking about? does scrubing the pot damage the pot?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most everything I buy is either because I can use it, or because of some intrinsic value, like my reproduction LOTR swords, which will become functional should my house ever be broken into while I'm home, which gives it dual purposes.
My gold and diamond front teeth are for the same reason.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
We're all the pot.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
We're all the pot.
so some of us are trying scrub all of us, others are saying we're just fine?
uhuh.... that makes perfect sense.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most everything I buy is either because I can use it, or because of some intrinsic value, like my reproduction LOTR swords, which will become functional should my house ever be broken into while I'm home, which gives it dual purposes.
My gold and diamond front teeth are for the same reason.
Gold is too malleable, and unless you had your whole tooth replaced with a giant sharpened tooth, I don't see that working.
Besides, swords give me reach, and thus a tactical advantage. Once you're close enough to bite, you're too close.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: "I try and live my life as material free as possible" lol that's laughable when you're spending your time on the internet posting on hattrack instead of doing community service or whatever.
Hmmm. I took JumboWumbo to mean what he said: that he was trying to "live my life as material free as possible." So, even if it was not possible for him to live more material-free at this time (for whatever reason), at least he was working towards that as an ideal. It's an ideal I agree with, although I freely admit I have many ongoing attachments that keep me from living up to the ideal. Yet. Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by JumboWumbo: So are you saying that, because I spend time on my computer, there is no possible way for me to excercise my beliefs?
No, but what I AM saying is that you could easily cut down on your time spent on Hattrack and do more community service. That would be the "maximum" utilization.
quote: I try, when I can, to volunteer down in Mexico as frequently as possible. Sure, that might only amount to twice or three times a month, but I'm trying.
You can volunteer in your neighborhood every weekend. No need to go down to mexico. Actually, mexican underprivilaged children would be better served if you didnt take those days off, actually worked at your job, and then sent your earnings to them. Let me know if you dont understand the math of this.
quote:I've had the same phone for four years
Really? What phone is this? Normal cell phone batteries are only rated to last two years.
quote: I haven't gone clothes shopping in two or so years. Why would I if my current wardrobe fits fine and looks just as good as they did before?
kudos to you.
quote: I also got an iPod for christmas, 4 years ago. But I haven't bought a new video iPod just to fit in.
Yea... 4 year old ipod... that would be a 1st gen ipod... when they still had buttons around the wheel. The life of the battery is rated 18 months for that under "normal usage" [there was even a successful class-action suit against Apple]. So either you have [a] under-utilized your ipod [b] have amazing luck with the longevity of electronics [c] well, not telling the truth. Let's hope it's the second.
quote: I don't think it's fair to judge me, simply because I use a computer. I do "try" to live a non-materialistic life as best as I can, and strive to not enduldge myself with electronics and what not.
I can't speak for others, but I am not judging you simply for using a computer. I use two, I would have to "judge" myself worse. I AM, however, judging you for the holier than thou subtext of your posts.
quote: I'd also consider myself an active artist. It helps relivie alot of the stress I feel, and I wouldn't consider that to be a materialistic characteristic.
Yeah... you know all those people you see on VH1 and MTV with the massive "cribs" and "bling"? They are all active artists too. That's how they make their money to be able to afford all that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Abhi, I like you, and I don't understand why you seem to be taking a really aggressive and condescending tone with JW. Am I misreading you? I can't tell for sure if I am being defensive in my reading, or if you are trying to be condescending and dismissive, or something else.
--
I also was able to use my first cellphone for years longer than would be expected, specifically because I had bought extra batteries. They seemed to work just fine, but I left the country, and I couldn't find service for that phone in my new home.
--
Edited to add: I had assumed that JW lives just across the border from Mexico and/or visits there routinely for other reasons. I wonder if we'll find that to be the case.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Besides, swords give me reach, and thus a tactical advantage. Once you're close enough to bite, you're too close.
They're not so much for biting, as blinding intruders with their shininess, and punishing them if they punch me in the face.
I'm not a total pacifist, but I'm working towards it Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm with you on the shiny.
However, what if they punch you, knock the bling out of you, then run with it?
And Abhi, seriously, why so friggin hostile?
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Abhi, I like you, and I don't understand why you seem to be taking a really aggressive and condescending tone with JW. Am I misreading you? I can't tell for sure if I am being defensive in my reading, or if you are trying to be condescending and dismissive, or something else.
My tone isn't intended to be aggressive, but some JW's statements can't IMO be taken seriously, and that makes me sound cynical...
quote: I try and live my life as material free as possible, and I'm doing a fair job from becoming caught up in this greedy plague.
As I read it, JW seems to think that his life is superior to ours' because he has overcome the "greed" that plagues the rest of us.
It's one thing to say that our society has moved towards wastefulness and excesses, and quite another to say [as I think jw is politely saying] look at me, i'm too cool for the greed that plagues you all.
It just seems like a very very pretentious and hypocritical thing to say, when jw's just as caught up in the rat race as the rest of us.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: As I read it, JW seems to think that his life is superior to ours' because he has overcome the "greed" that plagues the rest of us.
He made that statement in direct juxtaposition to "there's nothing but gold chains and flashy rides to be seen" and "chaperones and limousines." I don't think that picks any of us out. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised.
If he said instead "nothing but mortgages and working cars to be seen" and "babysitters and Honda Civics," I would get your point. But he didn't. Someone else did start a thread like that recently, though, and as I recall, it was responded to in a generally negative way. I got that, but I don't get where you are coming from.
quote:It just seems like a very very pretentious and hypocritical thing to say, when jw's just as caught up in the rat race as the rest of us.
But, well, he might not be. Not being perfect != being just like everyone else. He still could be significantly different -- many people are, despite not being perfect. Regardless, the reaction seemed over the top, unless this is a particularly sensitive topic for you lately. (Has this come up elsewhere? Or, heavens!, are you a limosine owner? *smile)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I, personally, fail to see how a person who owns a 50 inch plasma screen TV isn't materialistic.
TV is a necessity. The bigger the better you can see the educational programming.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I, personally, fail to see how a person who owns a 50 inch plasma screen TV isn't materialistic.
Frankly, I look at that as your failing, not theirs.
Personally, I see that as a reflection of your moral flaws.
Whose moral flaws? SoaP's? Or Eros'?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Those of the person to whom I was replying.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think materialism is quite natural. In fact, I might even argue that it's somewhat instinctive. Nature is filled with examples of different types of characteristics that signify success or superiority, especially when it comes to attracting a mate. The accumulation of material things is just another example of this.
Personally, I don't find a materialistic attitude to be very appealing, and I don't find it to be a factor in terms of happiness. But I see no reason to needlessly restrict my spending. I indulge in many things knowing full well that the majority of people on the earth have to live without, and I do not regret it nor do I feel that I am any bit unhappier or live a less satisfying life.
However, I do feel that the portrayal of certain lifestyles is, at the very least, a bit disingenuous, and perhaps damaging to the minds of impressionable youths. But that's why children have good, responsible parents to tell them what is important in life.
Abhi,
quote:Really? What phone is this? Normal cell phone batteries are only rated to last two years.
My previous phone was the Sanyo SCP-6200 that I purchased back in 2002. I used it until I bought a new phone in October, so that's about four years of usage. The original battery isn't the best, but it still works even now.
quote:Yea... 4 year old ipod... that would be a 1st gen ipod... when they still had buttons around the wheel. The life of the battery is rated 18 months for that under "normal usage" [there was even a successful class-action suit against Apple]. So either you have [a] under-utilized your ipod [b] have amazing luck with the longevity of electronics [c] well, not telling the truth. Let's hope it's the second.
I have a 1st gen iPod...when they still had buttons around the wheel. I use it at least several hours a day, and I frequently use it as an external harddrive as well. For the first couple years that I had it, I probably used it for 4 to 5 hours a day. It wasn't under-utilized. I wouldn't say that I'm extremely lucky when it comes to the longevity of electronics either. So, according to you, I must be lying.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong.
Yeah, that's right, deal with it!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Those of the person to whom I was replying.
Insofar as that clears things up, the moral flaws in question would be... Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Another datapoint, fwiw: I've had my phone nearly four years and the original battery is still chugging along. Not quite as well as when it was new, but I have no complaints. On the other hand, I've had to replace my powerbook battery twice in 3 years.
-----
So, is it more materialistic to spend lots of money on bling and toys (ipods, tvs, phones, etc) or to hoard all your money in a savings account (or mattress)? We'll leave the option of giving to charity aside for now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How could it possibly be materialistic to save money? Considering life expectancies, it is horrendously irresponsible NOT to save.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm not really sure why some people seem to be treating the ownership of material goods to be a negative. Certainly we all want to have a good life, which could easily include shelter, transportation, food, entertainment, and various comforts. I can understand why greed can be seen as a negative, but why does the ownership of goods have to be seen as a failing?
We are living in a material world, and I am a material boy.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think just about everybody in the US in materialistic. There's exceptions but I think they are few and far between.
I currently live off of my part time job and I'm still shocked at how many unnecessary things I buy. I get books when I could just use my library card. I eat out. I have a car and pay car insurance when I could give up some of my freedom and use the Dallas area's subpar public transporation. There's so very little that we really need and so very much that we want.
I'm not saying that us living in luxury is horrible or anything. I just think it's silly to deny that it's what we do.
Posted by JumboWumbo (Member # 10047) on :
Abhi, I never meant to act high and mighty. I never intended to impose any sort of superiority, though looking back at my comments it does seem that I may have come off that way. I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you out, but I would never turn my nose to someone who doesn't agree with me on the subject.
I'm not perfect, and Theresa seems to have hit this on the head, but I feel like I'm trying. I don't want to hold a grudge with you because we can't come to an agreement.
On the other-hand, I think that a few of the comments you made were derogatory, as opposed to contributing to and for the sake of the argument. You've accused me of lying, and I am offended.
I believe my origianl question was, though not stated explicitly; Why do you think MTV pushes materalism as opposed to advertising charitable causes?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Um, I wouldn't own a 50-inch plasma screen even if I had the cash to casually fling around for such a thing, simply because that's a lot of house space to devote to the absorption of passive entertainment.
I do own a 26-inch LCD television (reconditioned- got it from Newegg on the cheap) because I hope to give friends incentive to come over and watch movies.
I don't know that either says much about my morality, as such.
I can't help but think, however, that the frequent purchase of things one doesn't really need is often a sign of something else that's lacking in one's life. Not a lack of moral fiber, per se, but a lack of releases for particular stresses. A lack of spare time, or people to talk to, or work that feels fulfilling and useful, say. When one's life is manifestly lacking something intangible, having something tangible to point to as a symbol of happiness can be oddly reassuring.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by JumboWumbo: I believe my origianl question was, though not stated explicitly; Why do you think MTV pushes materalism as opposed to advertising charitable causes?
(I've had this reply window open for hours, who knows if it'll be pertinent!)
People respond more readily to immediate incentives than to nebulous ones. Material possessions have immediate, tangible benefits; acts of charity have nonmaterial rewards. The only rewards you're guaranteed for charity are self-satisfaction, which seems like nothing compared to something you can see and touch.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by JumboWumbo: Abhi, I never meant to act high and mighty. I never intended to impose any sort of superiority, though looking back at my comments it does seem that I may have come off that way. I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you out, but I would never turn my nose to someone who doesn't agree with me on the subject.
On the other-hand, I think that a few of the comments you made were derogatory, as opposed to contributing to and for the sake of the argument. You've accused me of lying, and I am offended.
I believe my origianl question was, though not stated explicitly; Why do you think MTV pushes materalism as opposed to advertising charitable causes?
I'm sorry I misunderstood your intent.
I don't think I accused you of lying, I only pointed to the three different explanations of the longevity of your electronics. One of them was lying, but the other two were good fortune and underutilization... either of which adequately explain your statements.
Also, I don't think MTV "pushes" materialism. It pushes entertainment. It's more entertaining to see a billion dollar home than a shack for the homeless.
MTV also does a lot of positive work. During the G8 summit, students from around the world could ask questions or voice their concerns to the G8 leaders, which I thought was pretty cool.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Most young people are just a brand, now.
What brand am I?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I don't know what brand you are, but I'm either ユニクロ or MUJI.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Most young people are just a brand, now.
What brand am I?
You're part of the Pepsi generation. You forge your own path. You're a maverick, a trend setter. You know what you want, and go for it with a style and grace that is all your own!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
First of all, I think that owning expensive or larger-than-life things, such as items of expensive clothing or an expensive tv, expensive computer parts, an expensive house or expensive jewellery, is perfectly fine as long as it's not a norm. Since the dawn of time, people have had objects that exist solely for their value (whatever that may be- size, beauty, speed, or simply showoff value).
I think the problem comes when you focus solely on the expense of your items or you attempt to fill the world with expensive items for the sake of it or you sacrifice yourself or other people to the expense of your items.
We cannot really draw a line when money is well spent. Yes, we can live frugally, donate money and give away all our world possessions, but I don't think there's anything wrong with turning money you've earned into something you purely want.
Obviously, the more money you earn, the more you can buy. Some people buy a fast car and live in a small house, some buy a nice house or a second house, some buy clothes, some buy chocolate, some have expensive shoes, some buy stuff for their children or their parents. Focussing on MTV is really only a small fraction of where money goes when it doesn't need to.
The point is to not make buying and owning the only things in your life. The best things in life are free is a cliche but it's a true one.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:When one's life is manifestly lacking something intangible, having something tangible to point to as a symbol of happiness can be oddly reassuring.
While this may be true, I think it's also important to make sure that we're not reversing the order of this and assuming that those that do have a lot of unnecessary, expensive items must be lacking in other, more intangible areas.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
I think a much more shocking display of excessive materialism is the Rolex [i think] commercial who's tag line is: "It's your watch that defines who you are"
I don't wear a watch... that must make me a nobody :)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
"The best things in life are free" is misleading, and I've always despised the cliche for that reason. "The best things in life have no monetary cost" might be less poetic sounding, but much more accurate.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Most young people are just a brand, now.
What brand am I?
You're part of the Pepsi generation. You forge your own path. You're a maverick, a trend setter. You know what you want, and go for it with a style and grace that is all your own!
This needs to be a "What Brand Are You?" quiz. That would be hilarious.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
Apparently, it's your entertainment that defines you... hilarious
And while we're at it, underachievers are like the poor, the sick, the prostitutes... but Jesus loves them anyway: jesus loves underachievers
Lol this has to be amongst the awesomest sites I've come across in recent times
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: Apparently, it's your entertainment that defines you... hilarious
And while we're at it, underachievers are like the poor, the sick, the prostitutes... but Jesus loves them anyway: jesus loves underachievers
Lol this has to be amongst the awesomest sites I've come across in recent times
It's a bad sign when I can't tell if a website is tongue-in-cheek or not.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think it's a sign that you aren't looking very carefully. Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
"Most young people are just a brand, now."
I like that. That's a line worth quoting, Stormy.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I've heard materialistic defined in this thread as buying expensive things that you don't need and don't use regularly. Does this apply to consumables as well?
I don't buy material things. I can't recall the last time I went to a record shop, bought clothes for myself, bought appliances, anything. But that's not to say I don't spend money on expensive things that are almost completely useless.
I love expensive beers, bourbons, foods, tobacco products and other consumables. Tonight I'm going to an incredibly expensive all-you-can-eat Japanese seafood resaurant, then to a movie, then to a Jillians (an grown-up game room type of place). I am going to spend bukus of money; enought to buy many a CD, fancy mp3 players, jewelry, or any number of material things. But I'm not going to buy any material things (though I may win a small stuffed bear and Jillians).
So, am I materialistic? I'm buying things that I don't really need and won't use regularly, but nothing material.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: So, am I materialistic? I'm buying things that I don't really need and won't use regularly, but nothing material.
I don't think the same term applies (you'd be, uh, an expensive hedonist rather than a materialist), but the attitudes against materialism would likely transfer to you as well.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Ah, 'expensive hedonist.' Ok! Really I'm just trying to figure out which box to check on my loan application.
---
In that case, I guess I don't see what the problem with being either is, as long as no one is being hurt in the process.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:When one's life is manifestly lacking something intangible, having something tangible to point to as a symbol of happiness can be oddly reassuring.
While this may be true, I think it's also important to make sure that we're not reversing the order of this and assuming that those that do have a lot of unnecessary, expensive items must be lacking in other, more intangible areas.
I wouldn't take it as sole proof, certainly. I'd even go so far as to say there are degrees of such things; the occasional "shopping to feel better" is not the same as someone who spends all their spare time in acquiring new things which they then never use.
For the purchaser (and not the person observing the purchaser) I imagine a lot of it comes down to regularly asking, cost aside, "Now, why did I buy that?..."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Ah, 'expensive hedonist.' Ok! Really I'm just trying to figure out which box to check on my loan application.
---
In that case, I guess I don't see what the problem with being either is, as long as no one is being hurt in the process.
The argument is that in spending to excess on yourself, you are hurting those who could benefit from your charity.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, I would say one argument against materialism doesn't focus on the other, but your self.
The best way that I can think of it is the great scene in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age where Nell is offered a cup of hot chocolate. To paraphrase her refusal, she says,"Do I really need it?"
Another book that may underline the point is Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Even though Keating does what he does because of his mother, he is doing it without asking himself what he really wants, what is truly best for him, what he needs.
What is wrong with a type of Materialism, to me, isn't the fact that stuff is acquired, but that stuff is acquired thoughtlessly, without thought to whether that stuff is really needed, and the consequences of getting that stuff, for yourself and, too, those around you.
Edited for clarity
[ February 23, 2007, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
So, is it morally/ethically questionable to spend any amount of money above and beyond what is required to survive rather than use it to help others reach that same level of survival, in your opinion? Where would the line be drawn? You get to spend $1k dollars a month on yourself, but after that you're hurting the less fortunate? $100? $5k? Or would it be a percent?
I'm not trying to be an arse, but it seems to me that you're ('you' in the general sense) villanizing people that spend their hard earned money on themselves, or at least mostly on themselves.
[ February 23, 2007, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Storm Saxon - how are you using "need?" As in 'need to survive', 'need to be happy', 'need to not feel any unpleasantness'?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*shrug* All this is flexible for the individual. I believe the important point is to ask the question.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
Another book that may underline the point is Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Even though Keating does what he does because of his mother, he is doing it without asking himself what he really wants, what is truly best for him, what he needs.
A better one would be Atlas Shrugged .
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
So, is it morally/ethically questionable to spend any amount of money above and beyond what is required to survive rather than use it to help others reach that same level of survival, in your opinion?
No!
In AS for example, there's a manufacturing company that is reorganised according to the principle 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need' (i.e. a simplification of socialism or communism). Slackers are rewarded, the workers begin to deliberately slow their pace, lest they show too much talent and are asked to do overtime. When before the birth of a worker's baby was a cause for celebration (and his colleagues would loan him some money to help him out), when the company is run under the above mantra, a new baby draws resentment from colleagues who have to feed another mouth. One man, who loved to listen to records and used most of his salary to maintain a collection, never gets an extra penny beyond what he needs to eat and cloth himself; after all, his co-worker's son needs to go to college, and he doesn't have a son of his own. In that company and in this world generally, need is infinite.
No one can argue against the virtue of benevolence or generosity, but the factor that defines how much is appropriate for you to spend is; how much do you earn through honest work?
In other words, are you pulling your own weight?
Edit: Fixed quote
[ February 23, 2007, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: "Most young people are just a brand, now."
I like that. That's a line worth quoting, Stormy.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
derail
vonk,
quote:I love expensive beers...
Cool, me too. What are your favs?
/derail
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
(ever tried skull crusher, mike?)
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
(Nope, what is it?)
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
(it's a pretty good scottish ale, if you're into that...)
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
(Ales > lagers, for sure. Haven't tried any scottish ales, but I'll look out for that one. I tend to go for the belgian styles myself. Am just finishing up a bottle of Ommegang right now.)
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Stop hugging your own sentences you two. It's narcissistic .
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:"The best things in life are free" is misleading, and I've always despised the cliche for that reason. "The best things in life have no monetary cost" might be less poetic sounding, but much more accurate.
...
The meaning of the phrase clearly intends the word "free" to mean "have no monetary cost", which is perfectly acceptable.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: No one can argue against the virtue of benevolence or generosity, but the factor that defines how much is appropriate for you to spend is; how much do you earn through honest work?
The problem that I have with this sentiment is it implies that the amount of money people have is proportional to the amount of honest work they produce. This is not true. In some places, it takes 12 hours a day of honest work to merely be able to eat. Different education levels substantially affect income and the quality/ amount of education a person receives is rarely solely up to that person's discretion. In other words, life is not fair.
I'm not saying I think its sinful to spend money on yourself, but to some extent I do think its ethically wrong to never spend money/ time on those less fortunte. I think that world poverty is a moral issue and that it is the responsibility of all to try and fight it. What an individual contributes to that fight is a matter for their personal conscience.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: The meaning of the phrase clearly intends the word "free" to mean "have no monetary cost", which is perfectly acceptable.
Untrue.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
(Current favorite is St. Arnold's Divine Reserve #3. However I just tried Tilburg's Dutch Brown Ale and that might be a contender. In general, I'm a big fan of anything brewed mircro in America. C'mon, lets change the world's perception of American beer! Americans can make good beer too! Also, there's quite a good thread with many good brews here)
(((my sentences)))
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think that world poverty is a moral issue and that it is the responsibility of all to try and fight it. What an individual contributes to that fight is a matter for their personal conscience.
How can poverty be a moral issue? Are you saying the being poor is immoral??
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe he meant a moral issue for those who can help the poor, not for the poor themselves.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Yes, that is how I also interpreted what she had said.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: How can poverty be a moral issue? Are you saying the being poor is immoral??
Rivka and Camus are interpreting correctly. And Camus is correct in using "she". Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oops.
I think I need a scorecard.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
If I feel powerless or frustrated, I tend to buy things that I do not need.
Why? Because spending money has become a viable show of power in our society.
I like to buy people nice gifts and I tend to give away things when I don't need them anymore or I am bored with them. I also tend to pay more on bills than my roommates because I can afford to. I think that buying people nice gifts they don't need is a materialistic thing to do, and I love doing it.
I think I am very materialistic. I base much of my relationships around material things and they probably play too important of a role in my decisions.
But I don't think people would call me greedy. I do not horde possessions. I tend to make a show of how much my money/possessions do not mean to me.
I am materialistic, but that doesn't mean I am evil or greedy. It just means that I base much of my concept of self on material things.
I guess I don't see why it's bad. What else am I supposed to base my concept of self on?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I also think that materialism is a natural result of humans adopting a sedentary lifestyle.
quote:Because spending money has become a viable show of power in our society. ... It just means that I base much of my concept of self on material things.
I guess I don't see why it's bad. What else am I supposed to base my concept of self on?
Well, there are many inner qualities that one can base his self concept on. Of course, these may not always be as readily apparent to observers as material things are, but I think they serve as a healthier foundation to one's self concept, with concern over how others perceive you serving as a layer upon that foundation.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I buy things because I want them.
Period.
I don't see how it should be any more complicated than that.
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I believe the complication comes when deciding when, if ever, the needs of the many outweight the wants of the individual.
Where that line is is an individual, personal decision, and to ascribe moral judgement to a person for making that decision differently than you is unfair, in the least. Not to accuse anyone in particular, but the use of the word 'materialistic' to me implies that moral judment.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I just don't understand why people feel the need to try to justify what they buy beyond "I wanted it." Does it matter if you buy for utility? In that case, how do you define utility? The brand name of something might have a utility to one person that it might not have to another. It's your money. Spend it how you want. If you want to give it to charity, fine. If you want to build a giant cell phone statue of a panda in your back yard, fine.
So again I say: I buy things because I want them.
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Should you buy, say, diamonds that were mined by slaves?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I just don't understand why people feel the need to try to justify what they buy beyond "I wanted it." Does it matter if you buy for utility? In that case, how do you define utility? The brand name of something might have a utility to one person that it might not have to another. It's your money. Spend it how you want. If you want to give it to charity, fine. If you want to build a giant cell phone statue of a panda in your back yard, fine.
So again I say: I buy things because I want them.
-pH
I often feel that this is one of the great traps of adulthood: the realization that if one wants something and has the means to acquire it, little else stands in the way of its acquisition.
Including alcohol, tobacco, fattening and nutrition-free food, pornography...
(And I'll say from the forefront that it's perfectly valid to suggest that any or all of these things may be possible to consume in moderation without harm. But it's also true that a lot of supposedly rational adults screw up their lives by their consumptions of same.)
There are a couple of computer games sitting on my shelf right now that I truly wonder if I will ever actually have the opportunity to install and play. I just don't have that much time to devote to such things, and when I make time, it often comes at the expense of sleep. Yet I enjoyed buying them, and I felt good about the potential to enjoy myself in playing them, and in a weird way, I'm still glad to have bought them. It's a little reserve of potential fun up on my shelf.
But I pass a store that's selling computer games, I still get drawn in, even as I'm going, "No, idiot, you don't have time for the games you have now."
"I wanted it" can be wonderfully liberating. And perhaps one shouldn't have to keep justifying that sentiment to every idle passer-by. But I suspect at least a casual "Why do I want it?" and even "Is it good for me to have it?" to oneself is probably a good idea.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:It's your money. Spend it how you want.
I think this attitude ignores the infrastructure that allows for you to have money to spend on luxuries. Your success depends on the success of your society, and as we saw yesterday the success of the world. I think it's foolish, as well as narcissistic, to absolve yourself of responsibility for the things that led to your success. There’s nothing wrong with buying things you want. In my opinion, there is something wrong with not giving back to the world.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Should you buy, say, diamonds that were mined by slaves?
Short of flying to Africa to check the working conditions for yourself, how would you know?
Americans buy a six pack of tube socks for $2.99, which is the result of sweatshop like conditions for workers in China making 50 cents an hour. Without your purchase, they'd likely have no job at all, but at the same time you're contributing to a system only a couple steps up from illegal diamond mines. Yet it's this same contribution that technically "gives back" to the world at large, by participating in a world economy.
I buy some of what I want, and all of what I need. More often than not I try to keep most of my money in the bank whenever I can. I'm not a miser, by and large I'm just a lot more frugal than most people my age. It's not out of a sense of charity, but rather financial responsibility. Far too many people my age spend and spent, living way beyond their means, racking up debt. I'm not frugal because I'm not materialistic, though I don't really think I am, I just prefer to be responsible.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Should you buy, say, diamonds that were mined by slaves?
Short of flying to Africa to check the working conditions for yourself, how would you know?
Americans buy a six pack of tube socks for $2.99, which is the result of sweatshop like conditions for workers in China making 50 cents an hour. Without your purchase, they'd likely have no job at all, but at the same time you're contributing to a system only a couple steps up from illegal diamond mines. Yet it's this same contribution that technically "gives back" to the world at large, by participating in a world economy.
Maybe. I'm nothing like an economist, but I'm pretty sure that your second example doesn't have much bearing on the first. That is, slaves see no profit from anything they produce. The idea that slave labour is somehow beneficial to the economy is really frightening to me just in principle, whether or not it is, actually, true. Though, I guess, as you know, the same tired arguments that get tossed around about cheap labour were used in the 19th century to justify slave labour.
Anyways, as to your first question, there are any number of organizations that keep track of such things. And, yes, I understand that at least one, that I know of, says that boycotting stuff produced by slave labour is not the answer for the exact reasons you give.
In any case, I'm not sure that the above isn't somewhat tangential to the point that I was obliquely raising, which is that buying stuff has consequences. To go back to the slavery example, how can one company compete against another company that uses slave labour? To support the company that uses slavery, to me, is incredibly problematic, and it should cause all thinking people to at least consider whether they want to support such a company.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, after the diamond comment I wasn't referring to you, it was really geared more towards Amancer.
What I meant was, conflict diamonds have in the past, and still are, routinely smuggled into the legal diamond supply. It's a much, MUCH less serious problem than it was befor the Kimberly Accord (or whatever it's called).
Most of what is left is smuggled and sold as a legal diamond, by the time they make it to diamond processing centers around the world, they've already been cleaned, much like money laundering. You'll never be able to know for sure which ones are legal and which ones are conflict unles you literally buy them from the source. What I mean to say is, there's no way you can really boycott Jared's or Zales or Tiffany's, because likely, they don't even know for sure what they are getting. They do the best they can, and the best they can keeps all by 4% or so of the world's diamond supply free of conflict diamonds, but you can never be sure.
Slave labor is IMMENSELY beneficial to an economy. I was actually kicked out of a model UN conference for a day whilst bringing up this point in a global warming debate (my point then was that slavery was economically beneficial, but morally bankrupt, and that a carbon based polluting economy is much the same way). Slave labor wasn't gotten rid of in American because it wasn't profitable, it was gotten rid of because it was immoral (at least, that's why it's detractors wanted it gone). Slave labor in America made us one of the richest countries in the world, and it took us from relatively minor colonial breakaway to that position in less than 100 years. I honestly don't think there's much to the argument that it isn't profitable if money is all you care about, but it's not moral, and that's a price we estimate in a totally different manner.
The ideal of a middle class, of saving workers from oppression from rich tycoons, those were moral imparatives. But really there's an economic advantage to it too, probably as best presented by Henry Ford. The model of his $5 day, which was a VERY high wage at the time, ushered in a new working class. They had money to spend, having money to spend means more people can create and sell products, which means more jobs, more workers, more money, and the whole thing snowballs. Of course if a small portion of that population works for nothing, people can get rich a whole lot faster. But there's the moral imparative for you.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Americans buy a six pack of tube socks for $2.99, which is the result of sweatshop like conditions for workers in China making 50 cents an hour. Without your purchase, they'd likely have no job at all, but at the same time you're contributing to a system only a couple steps up from illegal diamond mines. Yet it's this same contribution that technically "gives back" to the world at large, by participating in a world economy.
I'm not certain which part is geared towards me. By giving back I did not mean participating in a world economy, although I have no problem paying $2.99 for socks. I meant charity- contibuting to the improvement of the lives and opportunities of others.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wasn't totally sure what you meant by "giving back to the world," but in hindsight I think I really overthought it.
Usually I donate items to charity rather than write a check, which I think for people with less money than others, is just as good. But when I'm older and have more money, I'll likely set aside a fund every year for charity, as I think those who are able, should.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Short of flying to Africa to check the working conditions for yourself, how would you know?
You can buy certified diamonds that are laser-etched with their (usually North American, IIRC) origin. You can buy synthetic diamonds.
Not impervious to fraud, I know, but better than nothing.
Also, there's a big difference between the evils perpetuated by textile sweatshops and the evils perpetuated by conflict diamonds. I've never heard of tube socks playing a factor in wars where children as young as eight years old are recruited into armies and forced to perpetuate war crimes (such as, in one instance I recall, forcing an 8-year-old boy to amputate his sister's hand with a machete) on their homes, eliminating from them the chance of ever quitting the army and going back home.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Slave labor is IMMENSELY beneficial to an economy. I was actually kicked out of a model UN conference for a day whilst bringing up this point in a global warming debate (my point then was that slavery was economically beneficial, but morally bankrupt, and that a carbon based polluting economy is much the same way). Slave labor wasn't gotten rid of in American because it wasn't profitable, it was gotten rid of because it was immoral (at least, that's why it's detractors wanted it gone). Slave labor in America made us one of the richest countries in the world, and it took us from relatively minor colonial breakaway to that position in less than 100 years. I honestly don't think there's much to the argument that it isn't profitable if money is all you care about, but it's not moral, and that's a price we estimate in a totally different manner.
The ideal of a middle class, of saving workers from oppression from rich tycoons, those were moral imparatives. But really there's an economic advantage to it too, probably as best presented by Henry Ford. The model of his $5 day, which was a VERY high wage at the time, ushered in a new working class. They had money to spend, having money to spend means more people can create and sell products, which means more jobs, more workers, more money, and the whole thing snowballs. Of course if a small portion of that population works for nothing, people can get rich a whole lot faster. But there's the moral imparative for you.
Your second paragraph seems to contradict your first to some degree?
I can think of at least a few other countries which had something like slaves besides us. I believe some Eastern European countries, notably Russia, had slaves in everything but name. I believe Britain had slaves in the form of prisoners at various points. Yet, did all these countries profit from their slavery?
I agree that slavery can, to some degree, be seen as beneficial to slaves in the U.S. because it forced their owners to take care of them out of a sense of noblesse oblige.
That said, I think that when you look at the overall picture, the lost productivity, the cost in physical and mental health for, if not slavery, then underpaying people, I think it calls into question whether or not slavery, or underpaying people, is really profitable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
MPH -
Oh I know you can try your hardest, and trying your hardest is 96% or so likely to get you a legal diamond for your efforts.
Storm -
Britain had what I'd call a relatively tiny slave prison population, for the most part black slaves never really made it to Europe in great numbers. They were taken by and large to the Caribbean, and to the US south. Europe's part in the Triangle Trade was just to collect money, and like the US north, be a facilitator of the business.
In my studies, I've seen noblesse oblige applied far, far more often to poor whites than to slaves. The thought that the noble obligation of the rich to take care of the poor didn't always extend to the south and their slaves because they weren't always or even often viewed as poor, because they weren't people, they were slaves, and slaves can't be poor.
But you're also right in a sense. What many people don't know is that the major slaveholders, the farms that had 200+ slaves working them, were in the EXTREME minority of estates, probably less than 5% (I can't remember the exact number). The overwhelming majority of slaveholding southerners had less than five slaves, and were smaller farms. Many of the people on these smaller farms viewed slaves as part of the family, and they were very well treated by their owners in the sense that they might be taught to read, were well fed, they might not sell their children off to far away farms, but instead to a neighbor's farm so they can still visit, or they might even allow them to stay.
Are you talking just in terms of money?
The second paragraph only contradicts the first when you add the moral imperative to do what is right.
You don't have to install expensive safety measures, you don't have to limit them to an eight hour day, you don't have to waste money on healthcare. Why? Because they are to a degree disposable. I don't mean their lives would be just thrown away, a slave back in the 1860's cost something equivilant to what a midpriced car costs today, so they won't just throw that away, but at the same time, cars can't reproduce with each other to give you more cars.
Owners only had to take care of their slaves so far as their moral and economics demanded. If they were injured and couldn't work the fields, fix them up so they can, if it's too expensive sell them to someone else, maybe either as breeding stock or to do household chores, something they can do sitting down. There's no mental health costs, if there's no moral problem with slavery, they're just property. And who cares about the mental health of property? Whip them until they get back in the fields, and if they still don't respond, sell them.
Look at it from the point of view of the owner. If he has employees, and follows modern restrictions, his workers can only work so many hours a day, children can't work, they must be paid a certain wage, etc. Now remove all that, and all you have to pay for is their food and a minimum of care. That's a lot of money you don't have to pay, and that kind of free labor made the US perhaps the richest country in the world in the middle of the 19th century.
What I don't know is how slavery would work in TODAY'S world. In the 1860's, the US was largely still an agrarian nation, a gleam in Thomas Jefferson's eye. After we fed ourselves, and clothed ourselves, we shipped massive quantities of food and other farm products overseas. We could charge less than most, because production costs were nil, and we could produce them in massive quantities. But even though we retain an agrarian base, today farms make up less than 3% of our workforce, from probably something like 70% back then, and 90% probably in the 1770's. Slavery would be nearly impossible to profit off I think now, because our economy is consumer driven, and without cash flush consumers, nothing moves.
Hoarding wealth today, like it was done back then, would hurt the economy. A restaurant with 12 unpaid servers and 5 unpaid cooks will reap HUGE benefits for the owners, but that's 17 people who aren't out there buying products made by other companies. If you assume those companies are also using slave labor, it's entirely possible it could be a wash, but for it to really work, our entire work force would have to be made up of slaves, and the slaves would have to be owned by people who used them to work by proxy so they could rent them out and still earn an income. But even then, so many jobs these days require a lot of skills slaves never had to know before, making teaching them very expensive. I don't doubt there could be a place for a slave in every home, like in the docudrama CSA, but I think it would be more trouble than it's worth, ignoring the moral problems inherent with it. The US and world economy has changed too much. For farms I think they'd still be very, very profitable, to the US especially, but the moral cost would be too high.
Of course the flipside of that, would be that even though we'd be selling much, much less domestically, slavery would allow us to outsell China, India and other low cost labor countries, which would cause a massive upswing in exports, and would dramatically lower costs in the US for products. If there were no moral problem with it, we could flourish. But Europe would be hard pressed to trade with a slave holding US. Hell, even in the 1860's Europe didn't want to support the political independence of the US South publicly, even though France and Britain both supported the south during the war under the table.
[ March 01, 2007, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
50 cents an hour, even at only 40 hour weeks (which is unrealistic; 50 to 60 would be more likely), would be a perfectly respectable income in China. That's over $1000 a year, and the average urban salary was about $1500 in 2005 ( http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-10/30/content_3702898.htm ).
To compare, two thirds of the average income in the US (for the entire US, not just urban areas like the China figure) is about $24k.
At 50 cents an hour for 60 hours a week (which is a number of hours many people in the US and around the world work), a person would be making the average urban salary in China.
Furthermore, many Chinese factory workers enjoy non-salary benefits. Large factories typically construct campuses, including dorms, food courts, and other amenities. Its hardly paradise, but it greatly helps worker retention and contentment, as well as increasing their effective compensation.
I see no problem with someone in China being paid a good wage in China and living in decent accomodations with decent food, who is free to quit and do something else, making my socks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They'll probably die by the age of 40 or 50 from all the pollution in the air, but other than problems such as that, it's better than barely getting by on one of China's ever diminishing inland farms. So I would have to agree.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That page isn't working for me, but if it purports to say that the average age at death for Chinese people is 80, no offence, but I am going to have to take that with a huge grain of salt.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hm.
A report made by China, for China, about a single Chinese city. Clearly that speaks for all 1.3 billion people.
With every passing month, more chemicals are dumped into their rivers, dozens of coal fired power plants with no safety measures at all come online and belch noxious fumes into the air. Especially where all these things come together, like factory cities, the haze is so thick that visibility is cut down to less than half a mile, and people wear those surgical masks in the hopes that it will offset the thick air.
And every day they are breathing it in, coating their lungs with it.
If China finally gets serious about environmental reform I'll believe a report like that, even if it is internally produced and limited to a single city, which really almost has to be the cleanest, else they wouldn't have used it as their Olympic bid, and even THAT city is coming under fire by IOC officials as being too dirty and too polluted.
Text of the article in case it isn't working for you:
quote:China's first urban life quality report recently released by Beijing International Institute for Urban Development (IUD) shows that average life expectancy in urban Beijing tops China at 79.6 years, growing by 26.8 years from 52.8 years at the founding of the People's Republic of China.
One may ask why Beijing citizens' life expectancy is leading China. Professor Lian Yuming, president of the IUD, said during interview that the prolonged average life expectance of Beijing citizens is mainly the result of two factors. First, the health care facilities in Beijing have approached international advanced level. Second, the comprehensive advance of social security such as those of basic pension, health care and industrial injuries provides vital guarantee for the health of Beijing citizens.
I'd like to see something a lot more comprehensive than that.
edit to add: CIA World fact book lists the life expectancy at 70.8 or so years. I'll admit to being sarcastic when I said "40 or 50," but the problems created by China's industry is only getting worse with no real end in sight. China keeps talking tough then never doing a thing to make it better, and it's going to have real, lasting effects on the health of their citizens. I'd love to see a breakdown on life expectancy done by an independent agency that compares urban to rural life expectancy, and details the manufacturing in urban areas.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, that is really, really fishy to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As we're talking about a factory worker, we're speaking specifically of urban Chinese, who enjoy longer life expectancies than non-urban chinese. You can see this effect dramatically on a provincial level: http://www.china-profile.com/data/fig_lx_1a.htm (and that data's seven years old; expect several years extra on every figure, life expectancies have been rising dramatically).
Also, note that the life expectancy given is a figure for at birth. Infant mortality, while declining, is still depressingly common in China. Anyone who has survived to become a factory worker already has a higher life expectancy than the average.
It is entirely believable that the average life expectancy of workers in China's most important city is 80.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm very materialistic and spoiled. I have a bed that I sleep on, and almost never sleep on the hard ground. I have blankets to cover me while I sleep. I have clothes to cover me while I'm awake and walking around. I never spend a cold night out in the weather with nowhere else to go.
But this is just the start of the luxuries I indulge in. The biggest luxury of all, as I see it, is the fact that I'm literate and educated. I have had books to read from earliest childhood. I know enormous amounts of things about the world that I would never have known were it not for that. This makes me someone more than I would have been without it. It gives me abilities and insight into life that I could not have gained otherwise. I almost can't comprehend what a difference that has made.
Second biggest luxury I have is indoor plumbing. I lived for a week without it, once, and it's far and away the jewel in the crown of western technological civilization. Plumbing, waste water treatment, and the other side of that coin, clean running water and water treatment, are the most massively important and useful things I have.
Next comes medicine. If I get an infection, I can take antibiotics and cure it. I don't have to choose to cut off the pestilent limb or die. I have access to gatorade if I ever have bad vomiting, so that I don't have to die of dehydration and lack of electrolytes.
Next comes indoor heat. Then clean dishes to eat off of. Then the fact that I have soap to wash my body and my surroundings.
The list of luxuries in which I indulge is quite long. I'm very materialistic, and very very lucky.
[ March 01, 2007, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've grown up in China, and been to many localities within the country. It does not surprise me AT ALL that their life expectdancy is higher then ours. I can accept even up to 20 years higher.
I personally believe that trend will change to some degree as China becomes more westernized.
1: The food they eat is overwhelmingly more healthy then most of the food Americans elect to eat. That, I think is the largest factor. I was probably at my MOST healthy when I was eating purely Chinese food and riding a bicycle everywhere. From my own observations they elect to eat little to moderate amounts of meat, and favor large numbers of vegetables especially green ones.
2: I would also argue that on the average Chinese people become more and more healthy conscious as they age. This is purely anecdotal evidence but my entire life, no matter how early I got up to go hike up a mountain or hike through China's beautiful locations, there have ALWAYS been lots of elderly people up at the same time hiking and exercising on those trails. I am never surprised to speak to one of those hikers and find out they are 80 years old and they hike several miles everyday. If you visit just about any park in Hong Kong, Mainland China, Taiwan, you will find groups of people who are organized and meet regularly (as in daily, or at least 3-4 times a week). You might see a group of women doing Tai Qi. A troop of old people playing a game of croquet. Some men in a line stretching and alternately clapping their hands in front of them and then behind them. It looks silly at first glance, but it certainly improves flexibility and IMO being unable to move oneself is one of the WORST states a person can get themselves into.
While it is true our health care is better, I think Chinese people need less health care on the average because of these other factors. In the US we can take a 65 year old man with a heart that just won't function and keep him alive somehow until he is 70. Can health care take care of the personal habits that may have lead the man into that state?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Interesting perspective. Thanks, Blackblade.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Here's my theory on how to live long.
1. Eat well. (Japanese cuisine is often even lighter ) 2. Exercise daily. (no worries here if you're a farmer or a labourer of some kind) 3. Stay actively interested in the world around you. (read books, the newspaper, talk to people, talk to young people, learn what the new technology does, learn new cooking recipes...)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd wager all that I have, that as China's ever growing middle class gets bigger, you'll see their daily habits become less and less healthy. More fast food places open in urban China every day. Their air is toxic.
How long can their healthcare system soak up increasing negligence?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A long time; their healthcare system is far below western society's, but a lot of that is in infrastructure -- my girlfriend's grandfather recently died of cancer. He had been treated by very competent doctors, but even in a very good hospital in China he was constantly exposed to cigarrette smoke, and was freqently left out in the hallway on a cot with lots of people with contagious sicknesses despite having a weak immune system (there wasn't space in the rooms). The hospital also lacked adequate air conditioning.
Infrastructure improvements will happen with increased capital, particularly with increased access to capital by the middle class. Middle class demand for improved healthcare will drive investment and infrastructure improvements.
There are also indications that the air situation may improve somewhat in the future; they're already having to let their economy restructure as low value-added manufacturing moves out, and both England and the US serve as object examples that air pollution can be greatly reduced.
Euripedes: oddly, there's a minor Japanese health crisis right now due to the consumption of too much instant ramen and similar. The high sodium content is causing serious deleterious effects as some people consume it daily for many years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:There are also indications that the air situation may improve somewhat in the future
Sadly I've seen no sign of this. It's a country where the government can mandate that factories have equipment that cleans up waste products before they are dumped in rivers, but makes no law that says the equipment has to actually be turned on. So long as they buy it, they're in the clear, but running it is too expensive so they dump in the rivers. Even the US seems to be trying to take backwards steps, with moves like Bush's Clear Skies Initiative, which is actually worse for our air than the Clean Air Act, which had a dramatic improvement on the air. For some things, companies only do what you MAKE them do, they aren't altruistic for the sake of it.
More and more fast food and other Western food is finding its way into China. The younger generation is far more likely to eat western food and exercise less than their grandparents did. And while I've seen some talk about buying airscrubbers from western companies to modify the smokestacks on their factories and power plants, two things get in the way. 1. Like always, China wants technology transfer, they don't want to buy anything from us, they just want us to tell them how to make it so they can do it without us, and without the work that goes into discovering how something is made. GE, one of the top producers of said equipment, isn't happy about it, and are refusing to do so, as they rightly should. 2. The Chinese government. They aren't big fans of regulation.
It should also be noted that I've read recent health studies suggesting that this is the first US generation, ours currently, that will LOSE years off their life expectancy rather than gain, due almost entirely to lifestyle choices. One wonders how that and Westernization will jive with Chinese longevity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
China's already used government mandates in attempts to curb air pollution, and for whatever reason per capita energy consumption and carbon admission have both declined: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html
If you've seen no sign, its because you haven't been paying attention.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
Euripedes: oddly, there's a minor Japanese health crisis right now due to the consumption of too much instant ramen and similar. The high sodium content is causing serious deleterious effects as some people consume it daily for many years.
Traditional Japanese cuisine*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: China's already used government mandates in attempts to curb air pollution, and for whatever reason per capita energy consumption and carbon admission have both declined: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html
If you've seen no sign, its because you haven't been paying attention.
That article proves my point as much as yours.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Then you've misinterpreted my point. I said "There are also indications that the air situation may improve somewhat in the future". The article provides numerous indications of the possibility.
You said "Sadly I've seen no sign of this", and that there has been no sign is seriously undermined by the article. Just the presence of a reduction in per capita emissions is huge. I believe you haven't seen them, but it means you haven't been paying attention to the things in China that do affect the environmental situation for the better, and sometimes dramatically (in comparison to if they weren't in place, not the previous status quo).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you say so.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I guess I see irony in any of us arguing that we aren't materialistic. We have luxuries and enjoy privileges that even the Pharoahs of ancient Egypt didn't have. Books and learning, clean water to drink, plumbing and waste water treatment, medicine, grocery stores, modern materials like metals, plastics, fibers, modern clothing, dishes to eat off of, soaps to wash everything, beds to sleep in, gatorade to drink so we don't die of dehydration from diseases. We have forgotten these things are luxuries, and that they aren't givens. Most of the people alive today don't have access to them.
In Guatemala, for instance, (a place I know a little about), most villages in the countryside have no running water, only a well in the center of town, no plumbing whatsoever. People live in mud houses, and die of cholera and many other waterbourne diseases from lack of good separation between sewage and drinking water. They work long hours for very little pay. They have no medical care, inadequate nutrition, kids grow up with nutritional deficiencies which seriously affect brain development, and so on.
If you notice, I don't think materialism is necessarily a bad thing. I think some clean water supplies, books, and grocery stores would be great for these people. I am willing to give up some of the stuff I have to help them out. Should I do a lot more? Probably. The problem I see is not with materialism, but with the drastic inequalities that we have come to accept as inevitable. I don't think we should wash our hands of that and enjoy our luxuries without remembering that they aren't givens, that we're extremely lucky, and that most of the people in the world aren't so lucky as us.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You think not being hungry, having clean water, sanitation and access to medicines, etc makes us materialistic?
I view that as a fairly extreme point of view.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:The problem I see is not with materialism, but with the drastic inequalities that we have come to accept as inevitable. I don't think we should wash our hands of that and enjoy our luxuries without remembering that they aren't givens, that we're extremely lucky, and that most of the people in the world aren't so lucky as us.
I agree completely.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think you're right, ak, and we should all remember how lucky and privileged we are to live in a first-world country.
But I also understand the sentiments of the original poster, and I think his is a discussion worth having, even if the least materialistic person in the US would be considered pampered in an underdeveloped country.
The conception of "wealth" is relative, and I think it's more realistic to implore people in the US to avoid excess, rather than necessity, in an effort to help poorer nations.
People will be moved by those depressing Sally Struthers commercials, but people might be mobilized if we convinced them that, say, it was a moral gold star for them to save the money they'd normally spend on superfluous crap and instead spend it in poor countries as tourist dollars.
quote:I buy things because I want them.
Period.
I don't see how it should be any more complicated than that.
I don't think anyone's telling you that you can't buy anything that you can afford to throw money at. What I get out of the original post is that outside influences have convinced us that we want these things. That having things will make us better and happier. And you didn't use the word, but there are plenty of people out there who're convinced that they need things that couldn't possibly be considered needs.
I think I've brainwashed myself the opposite way. I'm convinced that the less stuff I have, the happier I am. It's much cheaper this way.
It was an easy decision, though. Having grown up without much excess (by American standards, of course), it was easy to remain relatively non-materialistic. Had I grown up with money, it would've taken much more effort to downgrade my lifestyle.
Really, though, it got to the point in my life where it felt more like the stuff I owned posessed me. And that's what made my decision.
I really enjoy the freeing feeling I get when I, every so often, go through my already scant posessions (everything I own could fit easily into a small bedroom) and give everything I'd lived without since my last purging to the Salvation Army.
I suppose I sound pretentious...but I also have an appreciation for people who have "stuff". It saves me from having to own things when I can just, for instance, go over to my brother-in-law's place and borrow a laser level for when I try and install shelves by myself and everything's sliding off one side.
You know, if I were to hypothetically do something like that.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)