Irresponsible People

[Beekissed]

Oh, we understand what you are trying to convey....we just don't buy into it!

 

[me&thegals]

I think it's kind of funny to say that people should spend more money so that we can keep our jobs and to say that it's a good thing more people aren't living off grid or our economy would be failing......

It might be ironic, but as long as most of our economy is based on consumer spending, it makes perfect sense. Besides, nobody has said people "should" be spending money they don't have.

If more people were frugal and off-grid, they wouldn't need higher paying jobs to pay for the stuff they actually DO buy. Face it folks, the typical person spends more money on non-essentials than they do on essential items for living.

I would be shocked if people *in general* spent more on nonessentials than they did on food, health insurance, basic clothing and housing combined.

We would still be spending money, just not on this grand scale for items we don't need to keep people in jobs they wouldn't need if they were not making payments on things that THEY don't need.

So, how many people in America would be employed if we scaled back to seed catalogues, basic garden and homestead equipment, home preserving products, salt and canning jars?

Just because someone has a no-frills life doesn't mean they don't contribute to the good of the economy.

I don't really get this one. I have a fairly no-frills life. The less I spend, the less I help the economy. It's good for me and my family, and I love my life, but I obviously am not helping businesses when I don't buy their products. Rather than switching cars every couple years, I've had one for 14 years. Stinks for the car manufacturers. Rather than buying new clothing I buy used. Stinks for the clothing manufacturers. Rather than buying all my food and eating out, I grow a lot of it, barter a lot, DH hunts for some. Stinks for meat markets, grocery stores, restaurants. Rather than buying most of my books and other entertainment, most of our entertainment is free. Stinks for Barnes and Noble, cinemas, home entertainment system companies, etc. I think you can see my point. It makes MY life awesome and more financially secure, but it does NOT help America's economy.


Again, in my view, the problem is that we are based on consumerism of unnecessary products. It would be wonderful to shift towards other types of industry in America that are more sustainable, necessary and "21st century."

 

[Up-the-Creek]

Can we not agree to just disagree??? Honestly people,.....point taken!

 

[Beekissed]

I would be shocked if people *in general* spent more on nonessentials than they did on food, health insurance, basic clothing and housing combined.

Your kidding, right? Do you really think that people aren't spending more on food that is nonessential than basic staples, clothing they don't really need and a luxury/big/ house/electric/phone, etc. that they don't need? Everyone around here does. And I live in the poverty zone, so I know these folks are more scaled down than most. Every kid but mine has a cell phone. Everyone where I work drives a newer model car. Everyone, no exceptions but one...me. I see no lessening of buying luxury items around here...and I do mean luxury~things that are not needed to get the job done. Houses that are too big, too fancy, too much money to build when there are cheaper, basic models that are functional.

So, how many people in America would be employed if we scaled back to seed catalogues, basic garden and homestead equipment, home preserving products, salt and canning jars?

I think we spend a little more than that, don't you? I still buy some foods at the store, as does everyone else. I buy gas, I drive a car-no, it's not new, but it once was and I do buy parts for it and also pay insurance. All these things provide jobs for other people, I'm sure...unless there are little elves working for no wages in the middle of the night to manufacture these items. Like the toilet paper elves...these guys are darn near union, I'm sure!

I pay for electric that is largely coal-fueled around these parts....jobs. If I get my movies and books for free, it's because I get them from a library...that gets them from the usual channels....jobs. My kids attend school that is taught by teachers...jobs, who use paper and books...more jobs. I still use medicines provided by someone who stands by a machine and produces pills...jobs. I buy animal feeds manufactured somewhere off my place...jobs.

I just don't buy into the fact that we have to buy a new car to help the economy. Or new clothes or new anything on a regular basis to make this country thrive. To make it SEEM to thrive, maybe. We are spending more now than we've ever spent...people have more things they don't need than they ever have...and still all I hear is how bad the economy is. How can that be, based on your theory that to spend more equals a better economy?

 

[FarmerChick]

I don't think a sell phone or some new clothes could ever account for most of anyone's income eating up the money.

Most people are putting their money to insurance, essentials to get to work, mortgages and paying off credit etc.

You better be happy someone is buying new cars etc. Cause if all these industries fail on a bigger level, life will change dramatically. Too fast and too dramatic. It can't happen that way. Slow changes is one thing but a huge economic failure of one or 2 big industries would be devastating. The effects of what already happened has been terrible loss of jobs and income survival for families and look where we are right now. Heading toward the deep dark hole. If everyone stops buying non-essentials or cut back on essentials then collapse will happen. I don't want collapse of this country.

I want this country to recover in a safe manner. Slow recovery and change is best.

Wishing that people stop spending money is a disaster that would crack the core...it can't happen that way.

Everyone needs to live their own way. Our own personal view on living life will not and cannot and should not effect the way others want to live their lives in general.

 

[FarmerChick]

I give up. Is there anyone on this forum that understands basic economics that can communicate better than I can? My forehead is bloody.

I hear you!

 

[hikerchick]

If people don't spend, the economy will collapse.

The economy does not differentiate between "essential" and "non-essential" spending. It's all relative. One person's essential is another's luxury.

If people do not spend, the industries that rely on consumer spending will collapse. Jobs will be lost. No one will have money to spend. More jobs will be lost. It is a vicious cycle.

I don't think there is anything morally wrong with wanting to have things, wanting to buy things, wanting to live above a subsistence level. It is natural to want better for yourself, however you define it. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a high paying job. It doesn't make you an evil person. Being self-sufficient is great but there are many degrees and definitions of self-sufficiency. It does not mean we have to dig caves and cook over a fire. We can contribute to our local and national economy while still being self sufficient in many ways.

 

[Farmfresh]

I would be shocked if people *in general* spent more on nonessentials than they did on food, health insurance, basic clothing and housing combined.

Your kidding, right? Do you really think that people aren't spending more on food that is nonessential than basic staples, clothing they don't really need and a luxury/big/ house/electric/phone, etc. that they don't need? Everyone around here does. And I live in the poverty zone, so I know these folks are more scaled down than most. Every kid but mine has a cell phone. Everyone where I work drives a newer model car. Everyone, no exceptions but one...me. I see no lessening of buying luxury items around here...and I do mean luxury~things that are not needed to get the job done. Houses that are too big, too fancy, too much money to build when there are cheaper, basic models that are functional.

Almost all Americans live in total luxury ... even the poorest. All you have to do is look at a country like Haiti or Somalia or Mongolia. Even out poorest are not starving to death literally in the streets. Very few live in cardboard boxes and even those "homeless" people have places they "could" go to live - often times they are too mentally ill or stubborn and "choose" to live independently. (I realize there are a few out there who will think contrary to this opinion, but I have see lots of statistics and even known a few personally, who choose to live on the street and be "FREE" rather than have people controlling their lives.)

If a chicken REQUIRES 67 to 86 square inches per bird (according to United Egg Producers Certified Program - Egg Industry Establishes Welfare Guidelines), how much actual living space does a person need? Ask someone from India, or China, or even Japan.

I live in a modest home, but I own 2 sofas, 2 comfy chairs, 2 rocking chairs, a nice bed and drawers for my clothes (of which I own MANY MANY pairs of pants, shirts, shoes and underthings, which may not be fancy or new but I have them to wear). My friends from Somalia used to sleep on a mat on the dirt floor and have only 2 complete outfits of clothes.

I also have a 2 dining tables and plenty of dishes to set on it and lots of silverware. Again my Somalian friends had a cooking pot (1) and a bowl and spoon each. You can drink out of your bowl too.

As long as we Americans live the luxury lifestyle we have (and are so used to we seldom notice it) we will consume goods. Some of us will be a primary consumer and some of us will be a secondary consumer (buying used like me), but we will continue to consume and therefore provide jobs for workers.

It is a FAR greater problem for this economy that large companies are sending all of our jobs and manufacturing to other countries. We Americans will continue to spend whether wisely or un-wisely as long as we can spend. However no American jobs means no money. Sooner or later that will be the wrench in the system.

Also no manufacturing means no factories. No factories ready to supply this country in times of true need. During the Civil War the north won, because of it's factories. During WW1 and WW2 we won - in large part due to our factories and natural resources. We simply out produce the enemy. How can we do that with our ready to work factories in China and else where? Talk about being irresponsible!

 

[Big Daddy]

Since Reagan and the presidents after him , we have gone from the worlds largest exporter to the worlds largest importer. We have gone from the worlds largest creditor to the world largest debtor nation. I don't see anyone making an effort to reform NAFTA or to put large tariffs on the importing of goods to lower corporate profit margins and force them back here. It's hard to do because if we do those nations we are importing from or at least using their child labor, will stop lending to us. Then we won't be able to fight our wars. I also don't see anyone raising taxes to start reducing the national debt. Like Bruce said. "Them jobs are gone boys and they ain't never coming back". Someone needs to do something. I was hoping Obama would but I'm beginning to doubt his party affiliation.

 

[me&thegals]

I would be shocked if people *in general* spent more on nonessentials than they did on food, health insurance, basic clothing and housing combined.

Your kidding, right? Do you really think that people aren't spending more on food that is nonessential than basic staples, clothing they don't really need and a luxury/big/ house/electric/phone, etc. that they don't need? Everyone around here does. And I live in the poverty zone, so I know these folks are more scaled down than most. Every kid but mine has a cell phone. Everyone where I work drives a newer model car. Everyone, no exceptions but one...me. I see no lessening of buying luxury items around here...and I do mean luxury~things that are not needed to get the job done. Houses that are too big, too fancy, too much money to build when there are cheaper, basic models that are functional.

No, I'm not kidding. Take your food bill, mortgage/rent, health insurance, any car costs, clothing allowance, electric, and anything else you consider essential. Add it up. Do you really believe people are spending more than that sum on luxuries? That would be incredible. I believe ALL of us spend more than we absolutely need to, but I think it is inaccurate to claim that most people spend MORE on luxuries than they do on essentials. A person would have to actually TRY to be irresponsible to do that. Mostly semantics, but I was trying to make a point.

We are spending more now than we've ever spent...people have more things they don't need than they ever have...and still all I hear is how bad the economy is. How can that be, based on your theory that to spend more equals a better economy?

I do NOT have a theory that current spending equals a better economy. I DO believe that spending is what drives our current economy, which is disturbing to me. Please note my repeated theory on what would actually make a better economy. However, whether we like it or not, our current economy IS driven by spending. What economy isn't? Just happens that most of our spending is of a personal nature and largely unnecessary.