If you're new here, you may want to learn what this site is about. I encourage you to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Every time I write about Stuff, readers point me to The Story of Stuff, a 20-minute video about where Stuff comes from and where it goes. Until today, however, I’d never taken time to watch it. According to the web site:
From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns.
The Story of Stuff is an interesting short film, particularly in its last half. Writer and narrator Annie Leonard explains that the “golden arrow of consumption” is the heart of the modern economic system, a system that’s really only existed since the 1950s.
After World War II, planned obsolescence was incorporated into the production of consumer goods. Whereas quality and long life had once been a selling point, now things were intentionally designed with shorter lifespans. Obviously, this increased the rate of consumption.
Even more powerful, however, is the notion of perceived obsolescence. Perceived obsolescence is most obvious with regards to fashion. I suspect most Get Rich Slowly readers try to divorce their purchase decisions from the clutch of fashion because they understand just how insidious it can be. Who wants to be seen wearing clothing from 1993?
But perceived obsolescence goes beyond just fashion. How many of you geeks still have your first iPod? Why did you move to a new one? Was anything wrong with the old one? Or were you, on some unconscious level, unwilling to be seen carrying around that brick anymore? (I’m guilty of having upgraded my iPod because my old one seemed out-of-date, so don’t think I’m condemning anyone.)
What is the cost of all this? Leonard says that 99% of the stuff we harvest, mine, process, transport, and consume is trash within six months. Only 1% of the materials used to produce consumer goods (including the goods themselves) are still used six months after the date of sale.
Here’s the best part of The Story of Stuff chapter five, “Consumption”:
This excerpt is brilliant. I’ve watched it four or five times this afternoon, and could watch it again right now. Thanks to the dozens of Get Rich Slowly readers who have been recommending this video for the past year. I should have watched it sooner.
Addendum #1: Jessica noted that the film’s web site includes an annotated script to back up Leonard’s arguments.
Addendum #2: Every once in a while you folks really disagree with me. This is one of those times. Lots of negative responses in the comments. (Which I don’t consider a bad thing, by the way, as long as discourse remains civil and on topic.)
June 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I’m sorry, but I coudn’t get through even the first part given the tone she chose.
I got the distinct feeling she wants us to don hairshirts and live off locusts and honey in the wilderness.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
@Bill: She also wants us to not feel the need to work our entire lives.
Hairshirts might come into fashion, never know.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I’m not convinced she wants us to primitive. I think she wants us to be conscious of the implications of our consumer society.
It’s funny. Writing this blog and interacting with the readers gives me a skewed view of what the world is like. Sometimes I actually believe consumerism has been licked. Then I’ll have to spend ten minutes sitting on a bench outside a mall or listening to teenagers talk on a bus and then it becomes clear that consumerism is alive and well…
June 9th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
@JD — are those same teenagers wearing Che Guevara T-shirts as they listen to their iPods and drink Starbucks coffee? I think teens and 20-somethings love their stuff and their freedom, but don’t have enough gratitude for an economic system that ALLOWS them all this stuff….
June 9th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
The only scary part for me is that this may be taken seriously as an educational piece for children. I almost lost it when she pulled out her “declining happiness vs. consumerism” graph. The happiness of a country is not tied to any one factor as she so patronizingly puts it…watch, it’s easy.
Since the 1950’s, government intrusion into our lives (social welfare & nanny state laws) have increased exponentially, leading Americans with a feeling of hopelessness that only government can solve their problems instead of themselves, which leads to an increase in lawmaking, which leads to more unhappiness, which leads to electing more officials who plan to “fix” the problem, and so on.
Who is to say her theory is more valid than mine? Saving money is great, and overspending has certainly led to some of the recent economic downfall, but let’s not perpetuate the fallacy that businesses are leading us on. Yes, they all compete for our dollars, but in the end we are the ones opening our wallets. Businesses make money by doing what their customers (you and I) want, not the other way around. If a company wasn’t making its customers happy it wouldn’t exist for very long.
It’s often hard to filter out the bad when dealing with frugality, but keep this anti-capitalist stuff to a minimum.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
“Leonard says that 99% of the stuff we harvest, mine, process, transport, and consume is trash within six months. Only 1% of the materials used to produce consumer goods (including the goods themselves) are still used six months after the date of sale.”
I’m gonna need a reference on that statistic before I believe it.
Until then, I’m calling bullshit.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Yes, we have become a nation of consumers. The video pointed out our flaws, but really didn’t give any solutions. If you don’t have a solution, don’t bother to show me the problem.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Funny, I have been thinking all day about putting my 1993 t-shirt into the trash. It’s got holes upon holes, but I love the shirt. It’s from No Fear, but my mom just bought it because of the “Fear: The Thief of Dreams” slogan.
Apparently, I don’t mind being seen in fashion from 1993. However, the holes are what’s doing me in.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Good grief … her explanation of why computers become “obsolete” is ridiculous.
This video is impetuous, condescending garbage.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I think you bring up some valid points, but I still believe that the Big Picture presented here is correct. I have no doubt that we are a nation of consumers. I have no doubt that this is a product of advertising and planned obsolescence. I have no doubt that this is not a good thing.
I agree that it’s important to be grateful for an economic system that grants us the freedom to buy what we want, but I think things have gone too far. I think balance is required. I think that Leonard’s video does a good job of making viewers think about the implications of their actions.
@J I don’t think the video is condescending necessarily, though I do agree that her simplification of why computers become obsolete is a little silly.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I love the Story of Stuff! It may be over-simplified at times, but her message is very powerful and I think it needs to be heard and talked about more.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I have my first ipod and it’s still the only one I have. It was a bday gift and engraved on the back is the year…2003. =)
June 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I liked her voice. Sort of like a nice mom or elementary school teacher. (I know that might sound sarcastic, but I mean it.)
The message is simple, but when all the big books are out there and the public is not getting the message, this is exactly the type of simplified medium we need to combat the far more overly simplified messages pushed on all of us from TV commercials, billboards, radio commercials about how much the insurance companies, oil companies, automobile companies, banking institutions, and other giant corporations really care about us and the environment.
Steve, I don’t think we really have a choice of what to buy when entire teams of psychologists and other experts are being paid to find out how to brainwash us and our kids from a very early age into buying things we otherwise wouldn’t buy. When this is done by the police to tempt would-be criminals into actually committing crimes, it’s considered too unfair to stand up in a court of law. However, when corporations bait us into buying things, we get stuck with the punishment of going into debt and spending years, sometimes decades, climbing out of that hole — if we ever do at all.
If you need more hard proof and less cartoons, see any of these documentaries: The Corporation; Wal-Mart — The High Cost of Low Price; Who Killed the Electric Car. Or read Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping. Those should be enough to convince you that we are being intentionally manipulated, not only to part with our hard-earned dollars (hence, freedom), but to love those who are taking it from us. Sort of like Big Brother. Then again, there might never be enough facts to sway you since you seem to feel very strongly about your views on this subject.
I admire your courage to speak out in defense of big corporations on this website. (Again, that might sound sarcastic, but I really do mean it. It’s so hard to convey true sentiments with mere written words!)
J.D., thanks a bunch for sharing the video!
June 9th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
The intention of this series may be noble, but to manipulate the truth to such a degree is uncalled for.
I’m all for less stuff, less clutter, and conservation, but this 20 minute video is brutal. Every thirty seconds or so a “fact” is presented that is a narrow perspective, a slick definition or an outright untruth.
“Linear system” and “finite resources”? - wtf? - the sun will rise tomorrow and bask the earth with enough energy to run everything, if only we were better at capturing it. 99% is tossed after 6 months? Bullsh*t. Last time I looked we’re spending between 35% and 45% on housing - hardly something we dispose of in 6 months. And why on earth do we need books like “It’s all too much” if we are disposing of 99% of our goods within 6 months.
I can’t believe this was shown in my daughter’s social studies class. I will have an appointment with him tomorrow.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Hey folks, if you’re doubting the authenticity of Annie’s research, the website provides an annotated script with references! Instead of just crying “bullshit!” you can go to her sources and make your own judgments.
For example “one percent of the total North American materials flow ends up in, and is still being used within, products six months after their sale” is a quote from Paul Hawken, Natural Capitalism, (1999) p. 81.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Hooray! I knew you’d dig it once you got past the first couple minutes!
June 9th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I tried to watch it as I’m sure she has some interesting things to say but I got about 2 minutes in before I couldn’t take it any longer.
I feel like I stumbled across a Sesame St episode. I have to agree with J it’s incredibly condescending.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
J.D. - I don’t know how you could watch this so many times. I find it depressing. Maybe I should spend the same amount of time I just spent watching the whole show to working on a garden so that I start a small cycle that doesn’t go much further than my property line. Too bad it’s midnight!
Tomorrow, perhaps.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
The message of less Stuff is fantabulous!!
But I think this video goes at it the entirely wrong way. There is an undercurrent of “them” and “they” and “the man” that I find rather ridiculous.
We all have choices. We can choose not to be bombarded and brainwashed. Turn the TV off, cancel your dish subscription. It’s our choice to live the way we do.
Instead of blaming it on some corporate conspiracy, let’s instead demand a different product. Companies only give us what we choose. Make it profitable for companies to make things LAST.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Nice illustration of what often makes me really sad in the rare occasion that I find myself in a large shopping center/mall.
However, I have to take issue with the specific example of planned obsolescence with regard to PC hardware. Anybody with a moderate amount of knowledge about PC hardware would find it laughable to think that the only thing different about various CPU architecture is the *shape*. Sure, the external case appearance might change to make a product more enticing but the innards will remain the same as long as is technically possible. It’s called standards, and if anything it allows for increased turn-over in the form of incremental upgrades without re-tooling the fabrication process.
It irks me when blatantly incorrect examples are citied for content like this video. As a tech guy I know the computer part is BS so then I have to wonder what else in there is BS regarding topics of which I know little?
June 9th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Paul Hawken is an anti-capitalist environmental extremist. I’ve been green since before it was trendy (I used to teach Wilderness Survival as a boy scout camp counselor almost two decades ago) and I can tell you that there is junk science environmentalism and real science environmentalism, and Hawken’s politics are from among the former group. Anything sourced on his published works is of suspect validity.
99% of everything? Fifty families would have to be incinerating their every worldly possession annually just to balance out the average from one pack-rat like me who never throws anything away because I had “Waste not, want not” drilled into my skull as a child. My problem isn’t that I buy useless stuff, it’s just that I buy more stuff than I need. Nothing more sinister than that. As my stuff-buying has decreased, my financial standing has improved accordingly, and my free time hasn’t done too badly either. I didn’t need the distortions of a dirt-first ideologue to prompt me to make that change.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Wow this clip was terrible. The part about why computers become obsolete is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that J.D. thinks this is brilliant makes me feel that his opinion isn’t worth as much as I had thought.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
It was a very interesting video and I really enjoyed watching it. I also agree with other readers that the comment about “computer” was so silly. Whether we agree with her view point or not, it was without any question a very interesting presentation.
I enjoyed it.
JD, Thanks for sharing it with us.
Ramesh.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Reading the critical comments, especially those of people who didn’t even bother to watch the whole thing before claiming it is BS, makes me despair. Are you really so incapable of accepting facts? If you think the facts she quotes are wrong, prove it. If you can’t disprove her facts, acknowledge the reality and think about what you can do to deal with the serious environmental and economic problems we all face.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Interesting here….
“Where I live, in the United States, we have less than 4% of our original forests left.11 Forty percent of
waterways have become undrinkable.12 And our problem is not just that we’re using too much stuff,
but we’re using more than our share.”
Where I live is such a twist on this statistic. She states that in the US we are down to 4% of our original forests! Who know where she is from and under what circumstances the forests were destroyed. And what does “original” mean anyway! Sure in 1800 there might have been an original forest, but now there could be a city like Atlanta there. You can’t possibly expect me to go along with these statements.
In my opinion this video is NO WORSE than what the “evil(sic) corporations” are doing. She’s given up deceptive stats, appealing to senses, using cute cartoon drawings…
Hm….
Its also interesting to look at the happiness chart… talking about how since 1950, consumerism has lead to a downfall in happiness.
BULLSHIT.
Americans were more happy in the 50’s than possibly any other time in American history. The end of WWII resulted in a subsequent rise in the production. Its MUCH more likely that this lead to a rapid rise in happiness!
Happiness began to fall in the 60’s and 70’s because of inflation which lead to the decreased ability to purchase things.
I’m all for saving the environment, but the time will come when consumers demand that. Luckily that time is now. This result will be cleaner production and new energy sources.
I don’t believe any of this garbage for a second. Humankind is a genius, adaptable species and the combined knowledge of us will lead to unimaginable advances in technology that will easily overcome these problems.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
There are many things I disagree with in this video, but it took me at least a dozen tries to get myself past the first 2 minutes. I kept finding myself turning it off when she so emphatically says
“It’s the goverment’s job to watch out for us, to take care of us. That’s their JOB!”
So much for personal responsibility, I guess I’ll just quit my job tomorrow and let the goverment take care of me, after all, that’s their JOB!
June 9th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Thanks JD, this is a great little video. Simple, but insightful.
It wasn’t that mind blowing to me, but it was interesting
June 9th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Obviously, many of you disagree!
I still think that clip I posted is great stuff — politicizing and computer goofiness aside. Again, I’m looking at the Big Picture, and I think this video does a good job of explaining our consumerist culture.
Here’s a question for those of you who don’t like the video: Are there better books, movies, or articles that explore American consumer culture? I would love to find other material on this subject. I’ve read Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping, and I know about Affluenza.What else am I missing? What would you recommend as a counterpoint to The Story of Stuff?
June 9th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
<quote>Anybody with a moderate amount of knowledge about PC hardware would find it laughable to think that the only thing different about various CPU architecture is the *shape*.</quote>
Yeah, I got up to about that point too then she lost whatever credibility she may have still had.
The chip pinouts are different because the chips are different. Different cache sizes, different power requirements, more cores, different pipelines, additional optimizations, multimedia streamlining etc. These aren’t tortilla chips that can be plugged into whatever dip you want. You have to give the right voltages and speak the right hardware language to the chip.
Besides, no one says you have to replace your computer. You can either keep using what you’ve got, upgrade different components (even the CPU, within the same CPU class), or upgrade the software.
And because no computer post would be good without a car analogy…This is like Indy 500 car maintainers complaining that they can’t still race the cars they were using in 1952. There are real differences!
June 9th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
The Paradox of Choice is a fantastic, well-researched book combining psychological, sociological, and consumer research. It notes the depression caused by excessive consumer choice in late capitalism. Rated a top business book.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
J.D — Though I think you’ve mentioned it before, the movie “Fight Club” is a real eye-opener. A recurring theme (at times explicitly set forth) in the story is that people don’t need their consumer goods to “survive” in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word, yet people slave away at jobs they hate to buy things they don’t need. As the narrator notes after cutting himself free of all those tethers, “That stuff WAS my LIFE.” A remarkable amount of the dialogue in Fight Club would seem perfectly at home here on GRS. Not all, but quite a bit of it.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
JD- Check out Ivan Illich “Towards a History of Needs”. It’s a book…which means reading, not watching. But it’s great stuff.
Also, google “The Social Ideology of the Motorcar”. More good reading.
And I’ll recommend again “Manufactured Landscapes”.
Hell, even parts of “I HEART Huckabees” would be good for most of Amerika to watch.
“Why would God give us oil if he didn’t want us to use it?” LOL.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Mike :: “Fight Club” the book is much better at getting that message across…it’s a little hard to take Tyler seriously when he’s Brad Pitt talking about Calvin Klein ads not being a realistic portrayl of man… Pot meet kettle.
I tend to laugh at a lot of this happiness talk though. Happiness does not come from the presence or the absence of “stuff”. It comes from letting go of the idea that one or the other is “right”. It could be argued though that as we move to a more leisure and consumption oriented society, we have more time to make ourselves unhappy thru introspection…idle hands doing the devils work. That old ethic of “do what you do and don’t worry about the rest” is the hard-working American version of a Zen koan.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Excellent video. It’s hard to explain the big picture in 20 minutes, so I forgive her the occasional oversimplification. I mean, who cares if a figure is 5 or 10% off. Deep down, we all know that this is the truth, that this is how it works.
My life revolves around computers, so I’ve been frustrated half a dozen times when I had to build a new computer because another new socket design came out. I understand that it’s because of architecture improvements, but couldn’t there be a better way? Like Pentax cameras, you can put the same old lenses from the 70s on today’s models.
The negative comments are very telling, I think this video really hits a nerve, it questions the basis of the elusive American Dream. And more and more people realize that it’s an illusion, but still, what does the government do when it looks like the US economy needs a boost? It issues a tax rebate to fuel consumption. And nobody really seems to question it? It’s like, shut up, take the money and go shopping. Sad.
One guy in 1949 had an epiphany. In Arthur Millers “Death of a Salesman”, the protagonist realizes after his fridge stops working: “They time these things. They time them so when you finally paid for them, they’re used up.”
The solution is simple. You don’t have to become a tree hugging socialist. Just stop buying stuff you don’t really need. Buy local. Buy quality. Buy things worth repairing when they’re broken. The sad thing is, things like these are increasingly harder to find…
June 9th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Even though there may be flaws in the movie, the point of where the resources come from is very real. It would be much better if stuff (such as food) would be grown more locally.
Or the Cradle to cradle approach, which says you can consume as much as you like, as long as you build stuff the right way: http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm
(another interesting book JD).
June 10th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Someone may have already said this but it sounds like she’s talking about 1% in terms of raw materials.
My guess is that in terms of value, it’s over half. I mean your car will still be in use after 6 months, how big a chunk of your purchasing is that one item alone?
June 10th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Buy quality stuff… less and better stuff. And make it last with good maintenance if you can.
Hey, I still had my 2003 iPod mini till I accidentally dropped it in the toilet on Christmas day… true.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:42 am
A real eye opener for me was the documentary Century of the Self. It does not look at the production side but the role the media and psychology has in the progress of the American economy since the end of WWII, as a tool to ‘tame’ the American public. Specifically the marked change from quality to quantity based production that drives the modern consumerist economy.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:47 am
You Americans!
In marketing we are taught to get the message over at fifth grade level so everyone understands. Clearly this presenter has been a bit too literal but she is bang on message. As individuals we all USE too much “stuff”.
As individuals we replace perfectly good usable “stuff” simply because the new one is faster, better, cooler, uber!
The key thing she misses is we all have a choice in this. Yes big business tries to brainwash YOU into their way of thinking using every trick in the book but YOU have a choice whether to subscribe to the BIG business way or not.
Here in the UK we have a much less controlled media environment although our government is trying to micro manage our lives, just like the US government tries to do with you Americans, so switching the TV off and not reading newspapers is dead easy and amazingly life does in fact go on without them.
Try living without both for thirty days and I will all but guarantee you will never go back to your old ways!
June 10th, 2008 at 2:13 am
The defensiveness in the comments is pretty interesting. It’s one thing to objectively disagree, it’s another to post in a clearly condescending and abusive fashion.
It seems people often just want to feel their way is the right way and not consider other perspectives or possibilities. Any information that does not conform to their mindset of an ideal life is vigorously (and often rudely) rejected. There’s too much of an emotional investment in maintaining your lifestyle if you get worked up about things like this video.
I’ve watched it once and I think it’s intentionally over-simplified to get people to a point where they can start digesting information about the “cost” of goods in terms of ecology and lifestyle. Many of the things she says are undeniably true like the fact that our cheap goods come at the expense of people who labor in undeveloped and developing countries and the environment they live in.
The point of the video is to make you think before you blithely consume plastic junk for a dollar which amuses you briefly then is tossed or before you buy a cute, cheap headset on a whim because it’s just $2. I think it makes that point pretty well. You can nitpick the rest all you want.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:10 am
I always thought going to the mall has already successfully replaced catholic religion in Spain, but now I’m told in the youtube video except that in the US you’re spending even 3 times as much as here buying stuff… Really impressive!
June 10th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Good post JD. One person said they thought less of your opinion because you liked a part of the movie so much. However you grew in my eyes as you posted something that was controversial and relished the debate that ensured.
With the limitations of oil and our current reliance on it, I think movies of this intent (if not execution) and the movement behind it will become more prevalent.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:18 am
Damn. I hope people don’t actually watch this; my investments will tank. Far from getting rich slowly, I won’t get rich at all!
June 10th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Now, as an economist and a frugalist, I can sympathize with both sides of the consumption line, but, where she loses credibility with me is that she states that MORE choice = LESS happiness.
That is absurd.
First, just how does one quantify happiness? Does a 1-10 rating really capture anything? Further, I could rattle off about 10 hypotheses with more validity as to the “hypothetical” decline in real happiness.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:45 am
When I first saw this video last year, I felt judged and defensive, like “Who is she and why is she so perfect?” That is about me and my own choices. I got over it and got to thinking about why it bothered me so much, and that’s how change happens: on the scale you can handle at the time. You may not agree with everything, but conceptually, some things do stand out.
There actually are studies out there that show that more choice = less happiness. Penelope Trunk has discussed them in the last month or two at least on her blog, with regard to career choice, etc., I believe. I find that in our household, the more stuff we have, the more we get locked in to our career choices/earning level, etc. We don’t even carry debt, but there are still cases where I see we could cut back a lot.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Great post and I have really enjoyed the dicussion.
It seems to me the subject of consumption gets the same treatment as any subject worth debating in our society…which is a shame.
The extremists put forth their views. In this case, the companies (advertising) being the extreme consumption side and whoever is behind this video being on the extreme non-consumption side. Both sides are very liberal with “facts” and try to paint the other side as “evil.” (This is blatantly obvious in our political system.)
In turn, this creates two issues:
1) What information is good information? 1% is used after 6 months? This creates doubt in other stats that maybe useful. This happens on both sides, just look at “whole grain” cereal…most of it isn’t.
2) Where is the large group of people in the middle? Rarely is a thoughtful well researched piece with a non-extremist view produced. When it is produced, it’s hard to find amongst all the clutter.
Why do we let extremists stear the conversations?
Overall, this video brings up something that needs talked about/addressed, but then colors the message with bad facts.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:57 am
I think the overall points that buying more and more stuff isn’t making us happy and we go through stuff really fast is important.
I wasn’t a big fan for the presentation style either. But at least the creators tried. I’m not sure what style would appeal though. Will be interesting to see who can do better for a wide audience.
The solutions for individuals are pretty obvious: THINK and evaluate what you really need and how long it will last or be useful before you buy. Buying stuff doesn’t = happiness.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:33 am
I would like to see the comments if this video wasn’t about the US, but rather europe or china or whatever other country… I think a lot of people are resistant to being shown their own faults here (and in no way am I saying that europe or china or whoever is better in any way!)
June 10th, 2008 at 6:44 am
I think Helen makes a great point and I would go even further to say that there almost appears to be, in some posts vehemently opposing the movie, a defensive tactic. Almost as though the video is “attacking” them.
This may actually be the case if a person worships the arrow. *shrugs*
I didn’t find her condescending at all and I took the time to watch the whole movie. I knew a lot of what she was talking about but learned a few things too. I found it to be a validating experience because I am trying to destroy the arrow in my household and my life.
On a slightly related topic. I always question the intelligence and validity of someone’s argument / post when they use vulgarities.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Robert, you said “Are you really so incapable of accepting facts? If you think the facts she quotes are wrong, prove it.”
That’s not how science works. The onus is on the person who presents the hypothesis to prove it correct.
Think how this would apply to hard research. Logically, how would one prove a lack of existence of something? The examination would, by definition, encompass infinity.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Great video, thanks. I needed that. I feel both enlightened and depressed.
June 10th, 2008 at 6:58 am
A few ways to get rid of your stuff, and get new stuff with out making new stuff…
http://www.freecycle.org/ (reuse the stuff)
http://craigslist.com (get money for the stuff)
http://urbanminers.com/zencart/ (stuff from deconstructions of houses)
June 10th, 2008 at 7:03 am
J.D., it’s obvious that you have a well-educated and informed readership here. And to that readership, I’d say that it’s unfair to judge the entirety of the message based on one or two things.
This comment is telling: “Anybody with a moderate amount of knowledge about PC hardware would find it laughable to think that the only thing different about various CPU architecture is the *shape*.”
The words you’re using there, Ben, demonstrate that you obviously have a HUGE amount of computer knowledge, so perhaps your idea of what a “moderate amount” of computer knowledge is would be unfairly high compared against the other 350 Million people in the US.
I don’t mean to pick on you specifically, Ben, but rather to illustrate that we’ve got to look at it from the perspective of someone who’s not an expert. Having sold cars and computers, I know from experience that the “average” computer user (or car consumer) doesn’t know or care about things like processor architectures or anything like that. The questions were: “is it faster?” “Does it look better/different?”
I agree with all of the people that have made comments about personal choice and that it’s not government’s job to “take care of us.” (Although I could argue that her meaning was valid despite the poor choice of words.) However, you’re completely dismissing the influence and impact of culture and peer pressure in our society. It’s not JUST the corporations “brainwashing” us, it’s also the CONSTANT pressure from our peers and family members to have it “as good as” so-and-so person. (For the record, I don’t think corporations are brainwashing us, nor do I think that marketing is irresistible, but it does take a pretty strong-willed person to resist both marketing and societal pressure to the degree that it’s applied in the US.)
Regardless of whether you “believe” the facts she’s presenting (I still don’t get how it’s become acceptable in our society to “not believe” facts), the reality is that she’s EXACTLY right. Our consumer society is destroying the planet. We don’t see it so much here in the US because all most of us see is the finished consumer goods. We don’t have to deal with the harvesting and converting of resources into that good OR the disposal of said good when it becomes obsolete, out of style, broken, or just “boring.”
Overlook the oversimplification and try to see the big picture. Oversimplification is a powerful tool for getting a point across. Jesus did it with his parables, our government does it all the time to push policy initiatives, and as parents and teachers we do it for our kids to make a point. Instead of looking for ways to have your intelligence insulted, try opening your mind to the whole message, which isn’t one of “the government should save us” or “you’re all idiots,” but rather “Think about what you are doing.”
Lastly, one commenter said that they didn’t like that she seemed to be only complaining and not proposing solutions. Not every presentation has to propose solutions. Sometimes they’re done just to raise awareness. I think her solution is clear and obvious: consume less, buy better quality products and reuse or repair them, then recycle what you can of the rest.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:05 am
I find it interesting the reactions people have to this video. I lump it into three categories: 1. People who say “wow, I had no idea, this is interesting stuff”. 2. People who say, “hmm, interesting, need more facts, will look them up”. 3. People who say, “bullshit, I’m going to go back to sticking my fingers in my ears again”.
#2 seems to be the smallest group, which is really too bad, because they would probably be the ones with the best solutions.
By the way, she does present solutions in the piece - she suggests consuming less, and reusing more. But no one ever wants to hear that…
Annie Leonard spent 10 years researching this, including actually tracing the pathways back to their sources. It is a bit simplistic, but what do you expect? Half this country can’t even find the US on the map.
PS - Anyone who’s seen Edward Burtynsky’s photography will understand where she is coming from.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:13 am
@JerichoHill - As an economist, you must be aware of all the happiness research out there. The methodology might raise questions, but when we’re working with the best we’ve got, and the answers are all still going in the same direction, then one has to wonder if there isn’t some truth in it after all.
I’ll point you towards Barry Schwartz’ book “The Paradox of Choice”. Also, Daniel Gilbert talks about it in his book “Stumbling Towards Happiness”. Both have also given TED talks on the topic (for that matter, I think even Ed Burtynsky mentioned it).
June 10th, 2008 at 7:15 am
She makes some good points, but I could do without her political crap. President Bush asked us to do many things after 9/11 — not just shop.
Also, I get the feeling that she thinks the answer is more government intervention, regulation (i.e. a “Nanny” state). That’s just what we don’t need.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Wow! I just watched this and thought it made some simple and good points worth pondering. I’m wondering why it seemed to hit some hot buttons with so many people.
Seems the main points are hard to argue:
Companies are in the business of selling their products by creating a “need” or a desire for them through advertising.
Companies change product design frequently so you feel you need to buy a new product even when the old model is still functional. Or they actually build the product so that its functional life is less than it could be.
We buy items–sometimes based on the “need” created by advertising–then we use them for only a very short time. This wastes resources…yours and the planets.
Stuff doesn’t make you happy.
IMHO In the last analysis, we are not what we own.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:20 am
I watched your clip, and then I watched the entire video on the website. I have to say… I think she brought up a few really good points. For example, it’s true that the government is looking out for corporations instead of us. I wish she’d explored that point more, because (aside from corporate welfare and the other obvious stuff) there are a lot of government regulations that APPEAR to be for the consumer’s benefit but ACTUALLY benefit the big corporations.
I also think she made a good point about us buying into some of these obsolecence tactics, and how buying more STUFF obviously isn’t what makes us happy.
Unfortunately, it seems as though she’s coming from a biased point of view to begin with: that the government’s purpose is to protect us from the big bad corporations. All of her statistics are statistics that I’ve heard before, and that I’ve heard DEBUNKED before, or that are taken out of context for the sake of (sorry to throw out a loaded word, but it IS accurate here) socialist propaganda.
The truth that many people don’t quite understand is that when we send factories overseas, we are improving their economies, not destroying them. The place to outsource used to be India, but we outsourced there SO MUCH that their wages are going UP, so now the companies move on to China! The capitalist economy isn’t some evil thing someone invented that robs people of their money, it’s a naturally occuring system that slowly but surely improves everyone’s standard of living (not just the rich, but the poor too).
And if we don’t like what a consumer market does to us personally, it’s our own CHOICE to change our own behaviors.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I’d like to point out that you can simultaneously think that there is a problem with consumerism in our society and also that this video is manipulating facts to serve its purposes, and not even manipulating them particularly well. In classroom speak, the thesis is good, but the evidence is very poor. The worst thing is, it’s not like there isn’t plenty of good, solid evidence she could have used.
Let me second two suggestions already made — The Paradox of Choice (great book) and The Century of the Self (great documentary).
June 10th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Okay, the movie was a little simplistic and probably inaccurate on some of the actual facts. But I liked the overall message—think closely about your consumer habits and how and why you consume.
Capitalism is based on supply and demand. How do you have a true supply and demand system when you introduce advertising? Because the premise of advertising is to create a need and fulfill that need. If the demand is being artificially created, where’s the balance? I think the incredible depths of consumerism and global waste we see today are a direct result of that lack of checks and balances in our current version of capitalism.
A movie suggestion: The Corporation is a great documentary about the rise of the corporation and how businesses today have the rights of individuals but very few of the legal liabilities.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Wow, I’m torn on this. I agree with some of her assertions, but find she often only shows one side. This skewed view drives me nuts. Usually the person has a personal agenda and doesn’t have my best interests in mind.
In some cases she is dead wrong. A specific example with with computers. It is easy to change out components. I know many people who continuously upgrade their computers and have been using the same case and power supply for years. It is more the advancement of computing power and features that drive obsolescences than an evil plan hatched by Bill Gates.
In other cases she shows partial truths. Yes, it is perceived obsolescence that drives much of consumerism. To me that is one symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. The issue is our obsession with keeping up with the Joneses and impressing our neighbors. Never mind that it is making us miserable and driving us into bankruptcy. Solve that problem and become confident in yourself not the car you drive and the symptoms disappear.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:30 am
The 1% has the footnote 44. She didn’t reference it properly as there are multiple authors.
44 Paul Hawken, Natural Capitalism, (1999) p. 81.
Interestingly, the book is available online.
http://www.natcap.org/images/other/NCchapter4.pdf
However, the book uses the one percent figure and does NOT quote a source.
The piece certainly has some element of truthiness to it but doesn’t make a well grounded argument.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Wow, great discussion. I am also shocked by the amount of defensive comments.
I just wanted to chime in and recommend a book that expands on the idea of a linear production system versus one that is cyclical. Check out “Cradle to Cradle” by William McDonough and Michael Braungart.
http://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Remaking-Way-Make-Things/dp/0865475873/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213108695&sr=8-1
June 10th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Why are so many people labeling dismissive comments as “defensive”? It’s one thing if people were saying “I like my consumerism! There’s no such thing as advertisements! La la la!” What people are really saying is that the bias in her arguments is incredibly overwhelming and it makes the video difficult to take seriously.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Thank you JD for putting The Story of Stuff on your website for others to view. I must say after reading the comments, which I normally don’t bother to do, I am quite disappointed in some of the perspectives. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it saddens me that most seem not to get the point. This was an attempt to address some real issues in a simple format, regardless of statistics, cartoons, tone of voice and all of the other things readers complained about, get the point of the skit. The message is that we, as a society, are damaging our earth and thereby ourselves, with our choices. Because we choose to do what we want regardless of what is best. Because we bicker about drawings rather than see the whole picture. Because we refuse to get the message. Why don’t we take a moment to see the truth in what is being said rather than pick it apart with our “disbeliefs” and arrogant dispositions? What will it take for us to see as an individual, a society, a world, that we cannot continue as we have in the past. That our choices will always have consequences whether good or bad and that the Earth, (the only one we have by the way) is actually worth taking care of.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:03 am
The chip pinouts are different because the chips are different. Different cache sizes, different power requirements, more cores, different pipelines, additional optimizations, multimedia streamlining etc. These aren’t tortilla chips that can be plugged into whatever dip you want. You have to give the right voltages and speak the right hardware language to the chip.
Besides, no one says you have to replace your computer. You can either keep using what you’ve got, upgrade different components (even the CPU, within the same CPU class), or upgrade the software.
Her claim is a simple way of expressing the same thing. Yes, chip form factors and pinouts change and surrounding BIOS and other components have to change with them. However the driving force behind that change in consumer computing is more about keeping the train moving for Intel & AMD than it is serving the needs of the average consumer.
A far bigger flaw in her presentation is talking about keeping her old CRT while her co-worker gets the snazzy flatscreen. While the messages of fashion have indeed wormed their way into computing, the reality is that the CRT to LCD change is a good one, planet-wise. Power consumption on a CRT is 2 to 4 times as high as an LCD. Replacing that CRT might be consumerism, but at least it’s one that does the world a favor on energy consumption.
That aside, as well as the question of how practical or easy we make component upgrading for the average Joe, most people have little need to upgrade anything ever. Most people are doing computing tasks that could easily be accomplished on hardware I was using 10 years ago, if not for the press of additional resource needs because of…. constant upgrade pressure on operating systems and applications.
I’m reminded of the definition of a myth - in the religious sense, not the ‘fill your car after dark’ sense - that my comparative mythology professor once offered up. A myth is something that may not be true on the ‘outside,’ but is true on the inside, with its message. Leonard’s distillation of the computer upgrade pressure qualifies - there’s a perceived obsolescence hard at work in the computer industry marketing machine, and it’s aided by a planned obsolescence when improvements are architected.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Lots of people missing the point entirely. The hedonistic treadmill is the central point: the vicious circle of “buy unneeded stuff” -> “work ever-harder so you can buy more stuff”, with ubiquitous advertising serving as a catalyst. We don’t have to live like that, and it doesn’t make us happy; but most of us live on the treadmill anyway, not by conscious choice, but by default.
Quibble with the delivery or the examples, but the fundamental message needs to be heard.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:11 am
A far bigger flaw in her presentation is talking about keeping her old CRT while her co-worker gets the snazzy flatscreen. While the messages of fashion have indeed wormed their way into computing, the reality is that the CRT to LCD change is a good one, planet-wise. Power consumption on a CRT is 2 to 4 times as high as an LCD. Replacing that CRT might be consumerism, but at least it’s one that does the world a favor on energy consumption. - Don
I think you missed the point of that altogether, Don. Replacing a perfectly good and functional CRT with an LCD, despite the fact that the LCD uses less energy, is not good for the planet. If it WORKS, don’t replace it. In terms of total impact on the planet, continuing to use the CRT (despite the fact that it uses more electricity) is way LESS impactful than throwing it out and buying a new LCD (which has to be produced and shipped to you).
June 10th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I agree with Amy I don’t think there are too many defensive comments, I can agree that as a society there is too much consumerism without having to want to watch to this video.
JD- you asked for recommendations- if you have read the DeGraaf Affluenza, my recommendation is for another Affluenza by Oliver James- I don’t necessarily agree with everything he has written but it is an quick and interesting read.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I’m also surprised by people’s inability to deal with statistics. To decide the validity of any statistic, you have to understand what’s being said.
She’s not saying that 99% of the stuff we buy ends up as trash within six months, or that 99% of our money goes towards stuff that’s trash in 6 months. She’s saying that 99% of our basic input materials (the things we harvest, mine, process etc.) end up as waste within six months. Which, though startling isn’t so out of line as to be prima facie untrue. We cut down a lot of trees to turn into paper; we develop an awful lot of disposable packaging; there’s a lot of waste in our manufacturing processes; and, at the end of the day, a huge portion (though not, I’m sure, 99%) of our finished goods do end up getting trashed pretty quickly. So the point is that a huge quantity of our inputs end up as waste, not that we all throw out our cars once a month.
So we now have an idea of what’s being said, but let’s identify what we don’t know. We don’t know what is included in the “inputs” category. For instance, we don’t know whether the food we grow to eat is part of the things we harvest. How about oil? Other consumables? We also don’t know what units we’re using for our 99% - is it volume of stuff? Weight? Individual units? The latter, at least, seems unlikely, but could be relevant.
Last, we have to decide whether the statistic is relevant to the argument at hand, and whether the gaps in our knowledge about the statistic are enough to undermine that relevance. We have to gauge the amount of support the statistic gives to the argument. It’s important to note here that a statistic need not be 100% accurate or relevant to support an argument, but that significant credibility problems or irrelevancies detract from its value as a support, and may even undermine the argument as a whole.
So the argument is that we should buy less stuff. This portion of the argument is about one reason we should buy less stuff - it is wasteful, and waste is bad. The video gives other reasons, like it makes us unhappy. But this statistic is designed to support the idea that our society, which is based on consumption of stuff, is wasteful. Is the 99% statistic relevant to that argument? Certainly.
Is it enough, on its own, to prove that society is, in fact, wasteful? Not without more information. We would need to define wasteful (something on which intelligent people can disagree) and then fill in the gaps in our knowledge about the statistic (what goes into the input calculation, etc.) and decide whether it was an adequate measure of waste, or the best available measure.
Is it enough to prove that waste is bad? No. Is it enough to prove that we should buy less stuff? No. But does it support the premise that we are wasteful, even if it doesn’t prove it? Unless you are abnormally skeptical, yes, though the amount of support it adds might be small. And if you don’t think it supports the argument, I hope you bring the same level of skepticism to opposing statistics.
Supposing we do discard this statistic as invalid - does it cripple her argument? Let’s see, her argument is that we should buy less stuff. Just in this segment posted here, she argues that (a) it’s wasteful to buy a lot of stuff, and (b) it’s tiring to buy a lot of stuff, which makes you unhappy.
The argument is that these factors (among others) make buying a lot of stuff a bad idea.
Even if reason (a) rested on the 99% statistic, you would still have to address (b), as well as other reasons which I assume are given in other segments of the video. But (a) doesn’t rest on the statistic. In fact, the statistic is very much incidental to the basic argument.
She gives a lot of evidence for (a) that isn’t statistical - that the process itself is wasteful. She cites the widespread theory of planned obsolescence, and industrial design magazines that emphasize same. She explains the mechanics of perceived obsolescence, which are confirmed by gut-check personal experience with envy and advertising. These are valid forms of evidence as well, though they may not be convincing, and they certainly don’t compel you to accept her conclusion.
So, in conclusion, dear blogosphere, please learn how to evaluate an argument kthxbye.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:30 am
The irony is that I had meant for this to be just a quick throwaway post yesterday evening — something interesting, but not meant for a big discussion. Haha.
Actually, I’ve been meaning to test a new posting schedule based less on a clock and more on reader response. This is a good way to do it, I think.
I’m loving this debate, both pro and con. Keep it up!
June 10th, 2008 at 8:38 am
“By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger.” - C.S. Lewis
I think this sums up the movie. Not that there were not some truths said in the movie, but they were mixed with some untruths to push a political agenda. Not to mentioned being packaged together as a glossed over & simplified cartoon.
There was a brief section of the movie which focused on ourselves, and our obsession with stuff that I could see applies to the focus of this website. In fact I love this blog as it focuses on individual empowerment to make your life better. I would say the focus of the movie was almost the opposite.
I agree with the argument that we have too much stuff. Several years ago my wife and I went on a mission to reduce our stuff, and lower our expenses. Amazingly the two go hand in hand. We even convinced our families (grudgingly) to quit giving us stuff (stuff requires storage/maintenance that costs money/time).
On the other hand the rest of the video was an underhanded political statement. I checked out her sources, and background. The sources (as a previous poster showed) were as unreliable as was this video! Plus her background with several extreme activist groups makes me question most of the rest of it (especially her view of the “role of government”).
I would challenge you, JD, to search for some alternate economic models than were explained in this movie (and there are many), but I fear that it may be too hot a political topic for this blog.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:48 am
…per the footnoted script:
“This statement is not saying that 99 percent of the stuff we buy is trashed.”
Really? Because the cute little cartoon shows just that. It’s important not to let the facts get in the way of making an emotional impact, no?
The script goes on to explain how mine waste from gold mining is but one example of how that 99% figure is generated.
There’s a difference between people throwing away 99% of everything they buy and finished products representing only a portion of the original raw material. This is important because later on the illustrated cycle of consumption strongly implies that the consumer is simply throwing everything away.
Funny how some people harken back to the factory jobs of the 50s as a golden era of American industry. The explanation here is that the ‘golden arrow of consumption’ is responsible. I always thought it was because every other industrialized nation was left a smoking crater after WW2.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:31 am
J.D:
The “big picture” perspective is that our society has dramatically “advanced” in terms of productivity, primarily as a result of technology (think microwave ovens, cell phones, personal computers, the Internet).
Most here would not argue that we are NOT “happier” now than we were 50 years ago.
My broader, big picture, point is to say that our productivity and technology “advances” over the past five decades has taken us farther away from self-awareness when, if leveraged properly, those advances could actually make us happier (as a few in the minority can attest).
In general, we are more distracted and more stressed than ever before. We have been given the capacity for more happiness but we have also been given the capicity for greater stress. The space between is determined by our level of self-awareness.
If we “awaken” to our physical world distractions and turn inward to the real source of happiness (our own sense of meaning and purpose) then we have the potential to be happier than any previous generation in the history of mankind…
If we allow ourselves to be distracted, then we have the potential for the opposite — more stressed and unhappy than ever before…
“… in an information-rich world, the wealth of information means a dearth of something else: a scarcity of whatever it is that information consumes. What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.” ~ Herbert Simon
Thanks for the post. I think you’ve just inspired a post theme for my blog in the future…
Kent (The Financial Philosopher)
June 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
The folks here to disagree with the tone or some elements of the content seem to agree that consumption is a cultural value in America and that, for too many people, the drive to consume (and identify by what we consume) is too strong, and getting stronger.
I read the associated transcript and found very little to disagree with.
Thanks for suggesting this piece!
June 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
What exactly is her political agenda? More than anything else she focuses on the individual and our everyday choices.
She states the role of the government is to take care of us. I think some people take that too literally, equating this with welfare and invading our personal lives. But, in my opinion, the government’s job is the creation and enforcement of a legal system that protects the freedom and well-being of all citizens in a balanced way. I would say that this qualifies as “taking care” and can be done without too much intrusion.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“However the driving force behind that change in consumer computing is more about keeping the train moving for Intel & AMD than it is serving the needs of the average consumer.”
They make money there as well and making a profit may be AMD and Intel’s main motive, but if it were just about the needs of the average consumer, the train would be slowing down.
I’ve been to computing conferences with large government organizations, universities and research companies, and they have a genuine need for more processing power. The data set for understanding the weather, chemical structures, etc. is so massive that they can’t process it all.
If they could process it more quickly, we could more quickly cure cancer, predict the weather and natural disasters more easily, etc.
I agree that there is a huge amount of waste and excessive consumerism in the world today, but we are making real gains in some areas. Computing is one of those areas and I still don’t think her complaint is a good one.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Back on the happiness-choice-thing. The Long Tail has a chapter devoted to this (part of the research coming from Paradox of Choice which I haven’t read). Chris Anderson basically hypothesizes because we have an overwhelming amount of choice, those aggregators that help us find our ideal choice will be some of the most successful businesses of the future. He then pulls apart online business models to show, among other things, how they facilitate a better choice on the consumer’s part. I recommend The Long Tail to anyone interested in e-business.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I agree with Joel, I thought I would loose it when she said:
“It’s the government’s job to watch out for us, to take care of us. That’s their JOB!”
WHY it is that seemingly intelligent people think it is the Governments “JOB” to watch out for us???
If everyone were to listen to this nut bag we should just quit our jobs and go on welfare so the government can take care of us since it is the Governments “JOB”!!!!
Please, give me a break!
June 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I watched it with my kids because I have been working on a paradigm shift with them. (More toys won’t make you happier…loving what you have will.) While I didn’t focus on actual figures because, frankly, I didn’t care, I focused on the overall message and it was terrific. The kids are still chanting “stars are in, stars are out, stars are in again, what a loser, are you wearing stars on your shirt?”. It definitely got them to think. P.S. The vast majority of people I know who buy new PCs don’t take advantage of the amazing advances in technology. They still surf, email, and type…that’s it.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am
“Now the star-bellied Sneetches had bellies with stars, but the plain-bellied Sneetches had none upon thars…”
The Sneetches, part one
The Sneetches, part two
June 10th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Two thoughts:
1. Doesn’t everybody know that overconsumption is bad already? I’ve had that drilled into my head for years and years. That someone needs to come out with a 20 minute video on it strikes me as odd as someone finding it necessary to make a 20 minute video about smoking being bad for your health. No kidding.
2. If everyone lived in Manhattan apartments, overconsumption would be dead in the water - you can’t fit much in them!
June 10th, 2008 at 10:12 am
@Deepali
I’ll try to answer your question as best I can.
My first criticism is that “choice” is an inappropriate variable. Sometimes variables are correlated with each other, but don’t relate to each other. There is another variable driving the relationship. I think that’s the case here. That’s the first part of the methodology that’s wrong (misclassification of dependent variable)
The second criticism is the aggregation of happiness or well being into a survey question that can be appropriately categorized. Myself, and many other economists, would consider this not to be the case.
Because happiness is subjective, not objective, it is (most likely) beyond the realm of economics, or any mathematical science, to quantify appropriate at this time. We haven’t cracked the nut of ecological inference down to the individual level yet (if we ever do, it may be practically impossible yet theoretically possible).
I finish by citing to this critcism of Schwarz and Easterbrook
http://www.ccoyne.com/Happiness_and_Economics.PDF
June 10th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I am surprised at all the comments about how this must have “touched a nerve” in people just because those people disagreed with it. I too found the tone condescending and the presented facts dubious. I am not part of the anti-consumer culture but I’m not on the hedonistic treadmill either. I don’t even own an iPod.
The CPU analogy was so obviously wrong that it calls the rest of the facts into question. If she spent 10 years researching this, why didn’t she spend 15 minutes talking to someone who understood computers?
June 10th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Lars, why is the American Dream an illusion? It may be elusive for many people, but I don’t think it’s an illusion. I’m sure there are plenty of immigrants who truly believe they are better off here than Sierra Leone or Hungary or Kazakhstan.
I also think there are plenty of people who were able to take advantage of the American system and work hard, do the things they want to do and retire and have a good life. Although, I am still struggling towards that, I think my parents achieved it.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:29 am
But if you use junk science to make a point, you run the risk of alienating people who realize it’s junk science.
Also, if you need to use junk science to make a point, then maybe the point isn’t actually worthwhile.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Same message, but a deeper dive with some more historical context…….
http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=458&MId=20
June 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
“(I still don’t get how it’s become acceptable in our society to “not believe” facts), the reality is that she’s EXACTLY right”
It has always been acceptable in this society to dispute ‘facts’. You don’t automatically get to decide what the facts are and say they’re indisputable.
What’s really scary about this piece is that some will accept this stuff without any questions. And the reality is that she’s not right, she’s taken a couple common sense issues, and twisted them with bad science, statist policy, and a childlike finger pointing tone.
What a pile.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
[Edited by J.D. to add paragraph breaks.]
I have been ‘guarding against the invasion of stuff’ for years.
Our family unplugged from TV about 5 years ago - we had been down to only a few PBS shows for several years before that. This one thing helped us short circuit the constant barage of advertising from washing over us on a regular basis. When we shop - we do the research and make our own choices rather than being swayed by the influence of an advertisement campaign.
I think that the author of this video has a point with her happiness scale - but it is underdevelped in the peice. I would probably substitute the word contentment for happiness. I am basing this comment solely on my own experience: Over the past 28 months my family has been in a concerted focus to pay off our credit card debt. For many years we had built a HUGE source of discontent by ‘living beyond our means’ [a topic the video does not factor into the mix on the individual level]. So for two plus years all our spending was allocated for just the basics - food,shelter,transportation,debt [and the occasional purchase of underwear and shoes for the growing kids]. We also began selling items that we knew would bring a good price and could generate cashflow to help pay down the debt.
Our contentment factor was very high all through this time of changing our consumer habits. We had already turned off the TV, we stopped taking the paper as a cost saving measure - but it also reduced the number of ads we saw, we only shopped at the grocery and sometimes the Target sale rack or yard sales [I have not been to the mall in over 5 years]. But we were not discontent.
Our lives are larger and more complex than merely our connection to stuff. I think this video tries to show this - but the author’s focus is more on corporations, government, and the environment - and not enough on each individual making choices that affect their own life. I would like her to go into more detail on her ‘happiness measure’ - and perhaps she does elswhere on her website. So I am one who will continue to research further and not just take this film at face value.
To continue my thread on contentment. As we paid off the debt we also began to save for a much needed bathroon renovation. The renovation pushed us out of our extreme non-shopping season in order to plan and purchase supplies for the project. Just going into the big-box-discount-hardware stores left me overwhelmed by the array of items I did not even know existed. I was in a kind of culture shock as I shopped for towel rods and light fixtures! All the choices left me dizzy…and sadly, discontent. But, this is an internal issue - not the problem of the store.
My attitude toward stuff [among other things] determines my contentment. I could have nothing and be discontent, and I could have ‘everything’ and be discontent. It is a heart issue - not an issue directly linked to consumer goods. The happiness scale stat was a shortsighted snippet in the film. I think it can and should be explored further.
At this time I am grateful to report that my family did pay off the $30K credit card debt that had been strangling us for nearly 20 years. We have nearly completed the bathroom renovation that had been waiting for eleven years. And we are most content to be promoting the concepts of stewardship, resourcefulness and thrift to the next generation…our four children.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I thought of scenarios of how this video is related to me. I can think of two examples bordering around laziness:
1. My friend upgraded from his perfectly working CRT to an LCD due to space and energy reasons. Some would argue that this is a fine purchase (I think those are good reasons), however, what happened to the old CRT was unforgivable. It went directly to the trash can, a perfectly working piece of hardware. “Why don’t you donate it to a nearby school, or CraigsList, or SOMETHING?” “Oh, but that means I have to put in effort to look for someone to give it to.”
2. I had a roommate that always bought paper plates and disposable utensils, he figured it was a cheap deal. Also, since he’s saving water from not having to wash the dishes, he thinks he’s also doing the environment a big favor. No thought was given into how much water went into creating said disposable items as well as the space in landfills they take up…
So I walk away with two things 1. don’t be lazy with recycling 2. think about what went into the creation of said object as well as what happens when disposed of.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Mary - embrace the paragraph.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I enjoyed the video. I imagine the style of presentation was used to fascilitate the retention of the message and not necessarily to patronise the audience. I admit that this woman has gone to great lengths to find out in detail what most of us only muse about - so we shouldn’t attack the message, or the sincerity of the presentation, which is obvious. It does annoy me when I watch a documentary when the ‘facts’ that are presented are not explained or cited on the spot. This gives the impression that she is making sweeping statements based on events that are loosely connected, or that better suit her purpose. I say this only because as an English student, if you ever produce material that is unsupported, uncited or over generalised you get penalised and rightly so. I feel that the documentary lacked in balance. I don’t necessarily agree that people’s ‘happiness’ is completely tied down to consumerism - what is the measurement of happiness? What about other factors in a person’s life?
Still, an interesting and thought-provoking video
June 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
lol@ Richie
June 10th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
lol@ipods.
i have an ipod shuffle, that i ‘bought’ with airmiles. i use a cassette adaptor in my car to play the music there… i’ve been absolutely resistant to paying $300 for a frickin walkman, when I can buy a CD discman for $40. i don’t care if i look like a luddite, at least my discman won’t die in three days with no warranty from apple!
********************
@@JD — are those same teenagers wearing Che Guevara T-shirts as they listen to their iPods and drink Starbucks coffee? I think teens and 20-somethings love their stuff and their freedom, but don’t have enough gratitude for an economic system that ALLOWS them all this stuff….
I think that’s a pretty broad statement; I think the same could have been said for the boomers in the 60’s, and the unappreciative reaganites in the 80’s. I don’t think that’s a function of being a kid in this age, i think it is a function of being a teenager in the past 100 years or so.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I’m with you J.D., I liked the video! Sure the statistics may have been a little biased (or a little wrong), but the general idea is correct. Why nitpick over a few silly details?
June 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Speaking of computers epcifically, look at this article from the National Geographic about where our computers go after we toss them….
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/carroll-text
Makes you think twice about buying more crap.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I think it’s funny that you mentioned updating your iPod just because it’s old. I’ve had my iPod for 4 years, which means that it’s a relic. In fact, it’s so old that it still has the buttons across the top above the wheel and it’s HUGE. My friends actually make fun of me on occasion because it’s so old and the battery is starting to lose its charge faster as of late. I laugh back at them and just say that I was cooler before they were.
On the same note, I’ve had my laptop for 5 almost 6 years and to date have had to replace the hard drive once. I would love to get a new one but when I sit down and think about it, I don’t need one. Sure, it’s slow and a POS but all I use it for is blogging, checking my bank stuff and other stupid little trips onto the internet.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Richie - I was focused on content over form.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I’m reading some of the negative comments and I think many of those folks doth protest too much…
Whether or not the presentation is annoying is irrelevant. One need only to take a trip to a big box store and open their eyes. One need only to go to a landfill and open their eyes.
Not to be preachy, but c’mon, we live in a country and culture of hyper-consumerism and to think that doesn’t have a physical effect on the planet is not only naive but destructive.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I just think that a lot of people have this happy vision of the “good ole days” when people lived on farms, never left their home towns, and didn’t own a lot of stuff. What we are forgetting is that this was back-breaking labor, and to be honest, pretty boring. “Stuff” has helped millions to enjoy enough of their time to actually travel the globe and focus on more fulfilling work than producing food to survive.
Just because some individuals are in a cycle of debt doesn’t mean consumerism is automatically a curse on society. I think we need to look at the lifestyle of those who are unhappy and inundated with “stuff” to find out where they went wrong. I am pretty happy that I can work 8 hours a day and come home and enjoy a concert, baseball game, skydiving, etc.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
@ Kevin and Joel “It’s the government’s job to watch out for us, to take care of us. That’s their JOB!”
“WHY it is that seemingly intelligent people think it is the Governments “JOB” to watch out for us???
If everyone were to listen to this nut bag we should just quit our jobs and go on welfare so the government can take care of us since it is the Governments “JOB”!!!!
Please, give me a break!”
Um, Kevin and Joel, what exactly do you think IS the governments’ job if not to take care of their countries people?
To look after the people is exactly why, and the only reason why governments exist. To protect the people from other countries via the military. To protect people from criminals via laws and the justice system.
The Government takes taxes us. We the people pay them, they are employed by US to help us.
Somehow you equate looking after to going on welfare. While this is one way the Government looks after the people it is just one small (as regards overall spending) way it does.
The point of the video was that the government should be doing what’s best for us, it’s employers. Not treating us like a baby but looking after us and doing what’s best for the country, that’s what we employ it for.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
No harm in making sure your presentation is not visually off-putting mary. I know I didn’t have the patience to read it all!
June 11th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I might add: I don’t believe the government’s job is to take care of us.
The government’s job is to protect the freedom and God given rights of each person.
The Individual’s job is to take care of himself and those around him!
If we could learn from history, we’d all realize the government will not take care of us. They will use us for their own purposes!
But time will get that message across eventually.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Looking at all the comments back an forth I’m stunned. Wow, JD you picked a good topic to get our conversations going!
If she meant to get the excessive consumption point across she made a couple mistakes. First, she let her political leanings get in the way. Second, she was far too loose with improper facts and half truths. It got in the way of the message which is a shame.
I’m a die hard capitalist. I believe in the free market and free choice. I also believe that gives me the right to be frugal!
Too many people don’t understand the strength and security that comes from financial responsibility. Blogs like GRS do a great job educating, and help raise people to a new level. JD does a great job presenting great ideas that are backed up by facts. This allows his message to be well received and trusted.
The Story of Stuff could take a few lessons from GRS…
June 11th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I might believe that 99% of production is gone in 6 months - if you include food, gas, and other consumables. Ironically, for me personally it’s due to not buying a bunch of “stuff.” 95% or so of the money I’ve spent so far this calendar year has been on food, gas, rent, taxes, travel, etc - things that don’t exist any more except maybe as memories in my head and atoms in my body.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Josiah said: “I might add: I don’t believe the government’s job is to take care of us.
The government’s job is to protect the freedom and God given rights of each person.”
Aren’t those two statements synonymous? The latter is a bit more qualified, but still…
June 11th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I live in a South American country, in a poor town. People here move to the city not because they cannot exist as they have for generations, but because they don’t want to exist as they have for generations. They want stuff too. Survival farming is no fun. so they move to the city and work in the factories because they want to. They are as greedy as any American. We cannot blame the US for everything.
I did enjoy the show, and I heartily agree about the stuff issue.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Maybe I missed the part where the movie says that we should go back to “backbreaking labor” (#104) and “survival farming” (#111). It’s funny how much people add to the message of that short film.
It doesn’t condemn buying things you need and that make your life easier. It doesn’t condemn taking vacations and going to concerts. It’s about the cheap IKEA furniture you buy and throw away after a year because you move. It’s about the cheap clothes you buy and only wear once. The gadget you throw away just because the battery won’t hold its charge any longer and its design doesn’t allow replacing the battery.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
In the second part of the movie, which I saw on Youtube, she talked about poor third world country folks having to move to cities because all their land had been destroyed by US mining and exploitation of natural resources. I am not saying that it does not exists, but I am saying that the third world, where I live is changing, and largely due to the same reasons that the US changed.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
yp Says:
June 10th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
@ Kevin and Joel “It’s the government’s job to watch out for us, to take care of us. That’s their JOB!”
“WHY it is that seemingly intelligent people think it is the Governments “JOB” to watch out for us???
If everyone were to listen to this nut bag we should just quit our jobs and go on welfare so the government can take care of us since it is the Governments “JOB”!!!!
Please, give me a break!”
Um, Kevin and Joel, what exactly do you think IS the governments’ job if not to take care of their countries people?
To look after the people is exactly why, and the only reason why governments exist. To protect the people from other countries via the military. To protect people from criminals via laws and the justice system.
The Government takes taxes us. We the people pay them, they are employed by US to help us.
Somehow you equate looking after to going on welfare. While this is one way the Government looks after the people it is just one small (as regards overall spending) way it does.
The point of the video was that the government should be doing what’s best for us, it’s employers. Not treating us like a baby but looking after us and doing what’s best for the country, that’s what we employ it for.
********************************************
Apparently you and I saw a different point to the video. She sure seemed bothered by the fact that the free market (corporations) have become bigger than the goverment. I consider that a good thing, I think the goverment should be smaller. In fact if I’m their employer, I’d like to fire most of them for being incompetent and inefficient.
Let me get past the intro and get to extraction. It appears we have slashed and burned the entire planet in the cute little cartoon. “Extraction is a fancy word for exploitation of the enviornment, which is a fancy word for trashing the planet” I guess in the world according to Annie we can’t use anything without “trashing the planet”
I get the point, I just can’t stand the delivery.
As for the goverment I will refer to the preamble to the constitution. “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”
It says “promote” the general Welfare, not provide the Welfare checks. I also don’t see where it says to make sure nobody utilizes any of the earth’s resources.
June 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I agree with Ms. Leonard 100%. That’s why I want to ban solar power immediately.
Every single second the sun consumes 600 million tons of fuel. Only a tiny portion of the power produced by that fuel reaches the earth. Only a tiny portion of THAT is converted into electricity. But we must count all matter that went into the production of that electricity! So for 1 amp-hour of electricity we get 2.24694351 × 10^22 electrons, which have a mass of 20.4682665 micrograms. If we generously allow 0% electron loss over a 6 month period, our yield is 3.76040028 × 10^-18 percent. Truly, truly a shocking travesty that must be stopped at once.
I’m only disappointed that Ms. Leonard uses the disgustingly optimistic figure of 1%.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Jon, your argument is completely silly.
1. The “fuel” the sun consumes is not extracted from the earth
2. We can’t do anything about it
Sure, we should keep researching a clean and efficient energy source. But at the same time it makes sense to reduce our energy consumption, because chances are we’re never going to have safe cold fusion or whatever.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
First,who can argue with the primary message that we are a fat, over-consuming society that needs to wake up to our excesses? For instance, today, yes today, I spent 45 minutes researching all the ways I NEED a new cell phone. Does mine still work and do all that it promised when I bought it two years ago? Of course…but oh… have you seen the Blackberry Pearl in red?