|
Ed,
I must say that I have always been a "status good"
buyer. Back in England, around 1950 when others were satisfied with a
small 9" television screen, I had a 12"! Wow and double Wow! (Now you know why I
have a 60" screen.)
I would always have the latest hi-fidelity equipment.
One mistake I made was to buy a top of the line Fisher in Canada for somewhere
near $1,000. When I got to California a year later I found I could get it
for $500.
It's called Canadian tariff
protection.
In Canada, I had a 27" Conrac television. They are the
people who make most of the television monitors you see in the
studios.
Can't remember how I got it, but later I brought it to
San Diego with me. By then it was a Rube Ginsberg, or Heath
Robinson machine. I had "repaired" it so often, whole sections
had been shorted out and replaced with other bits. Yet, it still gave a
first-class sharp 27" picture. (Remember this was over 40 years
ago.)
Was this a status buy? Or, a fun pursuit? How about my
12" television in England. Well, the 9" was far too small to watch
comfortably. The 12" was a little better. Was it a status good? Few others had
television back in the early 50's. Those that did looked at their 9" screen.Did
I go around boasting I had a 12? Of course not.
However, people like me are useful to the economy. We
buy early at higher prices, making it possible for others later to buy cheaper.
When I arrived in Southern California to do good, my income dropped severely.
Did I bemoan the fact that I could no longer be in front of others in the
pursuit of the latest toy? Again, of course not. We may be the only family in
Southern California without a cell 'phone.
One point I noticed in my Canadian subdivision. If one
family got a new car, other new cars would pop up around the neighborhood.
Status chasing? - Or simply copycatting?
Actually, when one woman had a baby there seemed to be
babies erupting around the subdivision. Maybe, that was copycatting. Or, perhaps
it just became fashionable to have a car, or a baby.
As for what we "need" - would friendship be a
need? Is peace a need?
Gets complicated.
Harry
******************************************** Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga
CA 91042 Tel: 818
352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
Keith, I just want to make a brief comment on one of
your points because it's always bother me a little. The point
it:
new consumer goods throughout the whole course of our economic history
have been bought mainly for reasons of status, not need. However, as the
repertoire of bought goods rises, we become entrapped in the way of life that
they have moulded;
I'm never quite sure of how to make the
distinction between status and need. IMHO they overlap enormously. A
decade ago, I had a job that took me across Canada and into the Yukon every
couple of weeks or so. Across Canada, a four or five hour flight depending
on direction, I travelled business class. I enjoyed the status, but, also,
travelling that often and needing to feel rested, I felt there was a genuine
need. There is also the case of my house. I need the house. I
and my small family fill every part of it to excess. However, the house is
on a hill and I can look down on my neighbours. Status or need? Cell
phones came into our family recently. My daughter and I both have one; my
wife doesn't feel she needs one. I guess I don't really need one either
even if it feels good to have one. It also comes in handy at times because
daughter, a first year student at a local university, has late evening classes
and it's nice to know she can get in touch with me wherever I am and let me know
when to pick her up at a dark and lonely transit stop on her way
home. Status or need?
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 3:32
PM
Subject: [Futurework] Downshifting to a
better work-life balance
May I very briefly recap (three paragraphs) on
what I think evolutionary economics is saying to us today?
-----
1.
It says that new consumer goods throughout the whole course of our economic
history have been bought mainly for reasons of status, not need. However, as
the repertoire of bought goods rises, we become entrapped in the way of life
that they have moulded;
2. The present sort of industrial economy which
necessitates successive chain-reactions of consumer spending and investment
will be brought to an end when those who initiate the consumption process (the
trend-setting middle-class with sufficient disposable income) have no more
time left in which to use new goods. The only goods they will buy in the
coming years are those which are fashionable replacements/embellishments of
existing goods, goods or services which cannibalise on the sales of other
existing goods, and goods and services which do not require any additional and
regular use of time;
3. The existing industrial economy, being totally
dependent on very cheap fossil fuels, will gradually be brought to an end
unless some miraculous new energy technology is invented (none of the present
proposals being adequate either in volume or delivery
characteristics).
-----
Which of the two constraints, 2. or 3. will
cut in first I cannot say, though I would put my money on 2. The constraints
of energy supply is likely to become serious only very gradually -- over
perhaps a century -- while 2. could have sudden effects at some critical point
as sufficient numbers of intelligent people start withdrawing their inputs
from the present system -- inputs on which the rest are increasingly
dependant.
Another way of expressing the last sentence is to say that
many people will start to search for a better work-life balance or, using the
present fashionable term, they will downshift.
I downshifted about 25
years ago after my children had become independent, though for different
reasons than most of those described in the article below. Also -- quite
differently -- I moved from a gentle pace of working to a very hectic, though
very interesting, one. Although I was earning a very good salary before
downshifting I was, quite simply, bored with my working life as a manager in a
multinational corporation (Massey-Ferguson) because it had no challenges.
Instead, I turned to setting up an organisation (Jobs for Coventry Foundation)
to train young unemployed people in my home town. Like most of those people
below who downshifted, I took a large drop in earnings and it took a long time
-- maybe a couple of years -- to finally make the adjustment.
If I were
a right-wing think-tank, or a politician of senior rank (left-wing or
right-wing) in a developed country I would be exceedingly worried by the
following article and I would want to commission some deeper investigation of
what seems to be some serious alienation going on here.
Keith
Hudson
<<<<
DESIRE TO TRADE PRESSURE FOR PEACE GROWS
Anna Fifield
The quest for a better work-life balance might
be more successful than estimated. A study published yesterday found a quarter
of people had "downshifted" their jobs over the past
decade.
Exemplified by the high-profile resignations of Martha Lane
Fox, chief executive of lastminute.com until last week, and Alan Milburn, the
former health secretary, a "downshifter" is someone who has changed to a
lower-paying job, reduced their work hours or quit work to study or stay at
home. Clive Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute, a
Canberra-based think-tank and a visiting scholar at Cambridge University,
found 25 per cent of those surveyed had downshifted in the past decade, and a
quarter of those had done so in the past year.
Even more remarkably,
they had taken an average pay cut of 40 per cent. "I think it reflects the
intensification of work and life pressures, and greater pressures to earn more
and consume more and get into debt," Mr Hamilton said. "This is a reaction to
the over-consumption that has become so dominant in British life. More and
more people are saying they want to buy back more time."
In a survey of
1,071 people aged 30-59 selected at random, carried out by the British Market
Research Bureau, 270 said they had made a long-term decision to change their
life in a way that involved earning less. To provide a more representative
picture the study excluded people who had also started their own business,
refused a promotion or taken time off after having a baby. The proportion
would rise to 30 per cent if they were included.
Women were slightly
more likely to downshift than men -- 27 per cent compared with 23 per cent. A
third said a desire to spend more time with their families was their
motivation, while nearly a fifth were searching for more control and personal
fulfilment.
Mr Hamilton said "The survey results immediately dispel the
widespread myth that downshifting means selling up in the city and shifting to
the countryside to live a life closer to nature. "While the rural idyll is the
route chosen by a few downshifters, the phenomenon is predominantly a suburban
one with the downshifter more likely to be found next door rather than in
Cornwall."
It also apparently dispelled the myth that downshifting is
the prerogative of middle-aged, wealthier people who can afford to take the
risk. "It is apparent that downshifters are spread fairly evenly across the
social grades," Mr Hamilton said, although there was a slightly higher
proportion among top earners.
While the survey's findings seem
extraordinary, Mr Hamilton said they were in line with the 23 per cent found
to have downshifted in a similar study he carried out in Australia last year.
However, it is much higher than a similar survey published by Datamonitor, the
market analyst, last month, which found that the number of downshifters had
risen from 1.7m in 1997 to 2.6m last year.
Financial Times -- 25
November 2003
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath,
England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
|
