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 (I’m guilty of having upgraded my iPod because my old one seemed out-of-date, so don’t think I’m condemning anyone.)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.)
GRS is committed to helping our readers save and achieve your financial goals.Savings interest rates may be low, but that’s all the more reason to shop for the best rate.Find the highest savings interest rate from Ally Bank, Capital One 360, Everbank, and more.
This article is about Economics, Marketing, Shopping
Disclaimer: This content is not provided or commissioned by American Express. Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of American Express, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by American Express. This site may be compensated through American Express Affiliate Program.
Discover is a paid advertiser of this site. Reasonable efforts are made to maintain accurate information. See the Discover online credit card application for full terms and conditions on offers and rewards.
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES
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!)
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
Great video, thanks. I needed that. I feel both enlightened and depressed.
loading....
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)
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
@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).
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
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).
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
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
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
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).
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
Because I’m enjoying the discussion on this post, I’m going to let it ride. I’m holding back the post I had scheduled to go live this morning. It’ll go up later in the day.
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!
loading....
“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.
loading....
…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.
loading....
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)
loading....
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!
loading....
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.
loading....
“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.
loading....
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.
loading....
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!
loading....
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.
loading....
I love the stars example. It reminds me of my introduction to anti-consumerism from Dr. Seuss.
“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
loading....
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!
loading....
@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
loading....
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?
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....
Same message, but a deeper dive with some more historical context…….
http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=458&MId=20
loading....
“(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.
loading....
[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.
loading....
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.
loading....
Mary – embrace the paragraph.
loading....
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
loading....
lol@ Richie
loading....
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.
loading....
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?
loading....
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.
loading....
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.
loading....