The New York Times loves to tell stories of people who got off the “work-spend treadmill” by selling off all but about 100 personal items and moving into a 400-square-foot studio apartment in Portland. Even the Wall Street Journal has jumped on board by telling the heartwarming story of someone who bought and remodeled a small bungalow in Portland.
Actually, they didn’t exactly remodel it. Instead, they tore it down and built this 7,600-square-foot house complete with a wine cellar, sauna, and lap pool. But the good news is that the owners feel the home is too ostentatious, so they are selling it and plan to buy a smaller house in Portland. And a house in Hawaii. They are also keeping their condo in San Francisco.
It is good to know that the Antiplanner is not the only one who is skeptical of conspicuous minimalist consumption.
This minimalist fetish is sickening as are the condescending attitudes so pervasive among its zealous practitioners.
I, too, once lived in a 400-square-foot studio apartment in Portland. I did it because I had to and couldn’t afford a bigger place or furnishings. I had one knife, one fork, and one spoon, a mattress on the floor, and almost no furniture. Again, this was because of poverty. It wasn’t fun. Not at all.
My minimalism arose in part due to my transient lifestyle as a seasonal worker; I had to pack all my belongings in my Honda every six months.
Never did I feel my lifestyle was comfortable or superior.
I will agree, though, that, as Chuck Palahniuk wrote for the Tyler Durden character: “The things you own end up owning you.” Of course, there is a happy medium between living in a tiny studio and tearing down a craftsman to build a monument to excess. I am glad I have climbed out of the hole of poverty and have dishes and silverware and a couch and a bookcase and books (finally!) and a dining room table and a bed and a dresser. These are the materials that make life more comfortable.
Am I headed to Crate and Barrel or Costco or Walmart or Target every week to find more stuff to cram into my place? No. The NYT article mentions that psychologists have shown that people who spend money on experiences rather than stuff are generally happier. Up to a point, I agree. When I was finally able to buy furniture, I was extremely happy to be off the floor.
As usual, there is something missing in The Antiplanner’s logic here.
The person profiled in the NYT piece appears hardly to be in the same category as those who built that 7,600 sq. ft. house The Antiplanner also cites.
Most “downsizing” now is due to economic conditions, but there definitely an improvement in quality of life when one can worry less about money, by either cutting down what you think your “real” (sic) needs are, or of course, having more money coming in.
If someone cuts down their material consumption and that makes them happier, I have no problem with that. And I respect the fact that many people have done so, and not to impress the neighbors, either, unlike the impression The Antiplanner apparently is trying to generate in this post.
“If someone cuts down their material consumption and that makes them happier, I have no problem with that.”
Exactly. I don’t think the NYT article or the WSJ article claimed that there was some minimalist wave sweeping the nation. They were profiles of people that were “happy” with their choice.
I downsized considerably the last move I made, and ridding myself of loads of stuff was cathartic. Now I’ve started to accumulate lots of crap again and don’t have any space. Maybe next move, I’ll upsize.
Bennett said:
Exactly. I don’t think the NYT article or the WSJ article claimed that there was some minimalist wave sweeping the nation. They were profiles of people that were “happy†with their choice.
Someone parachuting in and reading The Antiplanner’s comments wouldn’t get this right away. As usual with this blog, you have to read the whole thing referenced to fully understand what an article may actually say and whatever “spin” it may have, if any.
Yes, the standard M.O. is conflation and/or hasty generalization to make it seem as if there is something to fear.
The gullible or ignorant of facts on the ground seem to lap it up, but capitalists fearing the population will cease their mindless spending have a long time to wait until mindless consumerism stops driving our economy.
No need to demonize a handful out of fear capitalism will fall.
DS
“…but capitalists fearing the population will cease their mindless spending…”
…are not true capitalists.
Most free-market capitalists call for fiscal restraint both on a macro and micro level. Austrian economists urge saving over spending, especially for those laden with crushing debt. Austrian economists have criticized policy that has shunned production for consumption. True capitalists advocate deferred consumption for future prosperity.
“…have a long time to wait until mindless consumerism stops driving our economy.”
I don’t think we have to wait too long before before consumption crashes. Of course, the Federal Reserve and the federal government have done everything in their power to stimulate mindless consumption, including destroying drivable automobiles and encouraging (debt) consumption over savings through monetary policy. But their combined efforts are like giving heroin to an addict, and the results in both cases will prove devastating.
I don’t really care is someone wants to buy lots of things that are unneeded or not, that is their business not mine.
In a free country we should be free to choose and the Gladys Kravitz of the world need to mine there own business.
Guff! Gibberish!
I sit here chortling at the heavy-handed ideology articulated in this den of iniquity!
Randal would have us believe that the so-called “free market” emancipates our souls from the bureaucratic abyss of the governed, and the time is nigh for me to say I’ve had enough of this KERFUFFLE!
Regulation and Smart Growth are ennobling forces that tame your wicked garden, O’Toole. Sure, you cloak your petroleum-based flim-flam in the deceptive shroud of libertarianism, but this tack is attractive to fools only, and mouth-breathing sack ticklers. GUFF! GUFF!
The more sagacious among us know that your furtiveness is intended to lure centrist lefties toward your perverse GOP candyland. RACIST!
Ignoble, base libertarian creatures! Ideologues! GUFF! GUFF! I spray my rectitude upon you!
Randal, you have looked into the beautiful, verdant maw of Portland with blind eyes. You have stuck your hand into the business end of Big Oil’s diddle-stick and come out materially richer, but philosophically, spiritually and MORALLY bankrupt! Yearraghhh!!!
Have you no soul, you contemptible, ghoulish man! As if your “markets” will put bike paths in Rwanda. Or bring 100% recycled polyester cycling shorts to those lacking pants in impoverished nations. Lands raped by the petroleum thugs you lobby so appreciatively on behalf of! Lands with no farm-to-table cuisine ANYWHERE!!!!!
GUFF I say! GUFF!
Libertarian ideologues, you serve nothing but transparent lies at this buffet table! I spit upon you gurgitators of capitalism, which surely needs to be called CRAP-ITALISM!
GUFF! Ignobility! I leave you, slathered in your own snake oil.
Regards,
Planner Dan
iced dan
Why so much hate?
I can understand why you fear, free people having the freedom to choose. They may not pick your view of the world.
Gee whiz, some people decide to spend less and prioritize their lives to what they really want — all the while tied together by random side story links of going “minimalist” — get admonished for living their lives as they choose. Sorry, they don’t get admonished, just ROT is skeptical. Whatever that means, but msetty hit the nail on the head that there is always something subversive in these posts.
Frank: You might be surprised by how much our economy is propped up by rampant consumption. That doesn’t mean capitalism is a failure by any means, because it’s not. It does mean that a lot of our supposed wealth is generated by debt and plain old spending.
I simply wonder sometimes if we can have an economy that provides everyone with the opportunity for a job and upward mobility while at the same time cutting down on debt spending, hyper-consumptive habits, and fiscal restraint.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of money being made in our country from not being fiscally restrained.
“I simply wonder sometimes if we can have an economy that provides everyone with the opportunity for a job and upward mobility while at the same time cutting down on debt spending, hyper-consumptive habits, and fiscal restraint.”
Me too. But this is a tall order to say the least. But the root of what your talking about here is a paradigm shift. Change in behavior. Many of our opponents here are admittedly opposed, to even choosing, to change their behavior. Can we “have an economy that provides everyone with the opportunity for a job and upward mobility while at the same time cutting down on debt spending, hyper-consumptive habits, and fiscal restraint,” when individualism is they only way to arrive at decisions? The “what’s good for me is good for me, fuck the rest of you,” mentality is very strong in America, and particularly on this blog.
Many blame the economic problems we face on the nanny state and those who take advantage of it, without examining the Randian greed that plagues our society.
I doubt such fundamental paradigm shifts will come from ratiocination. Rather, they will come as reactions to the ability to survive arising from a threat or disaster(s).
The minimalists, fortunately, are a test bed for a future of less, as a finite sphere cannot continue to provide infinite bounties from the cornucopia. Demonizing and mischaracterizing minimalists is a predictable reaction from the fringe set who think the bounty will continue forev-ah. As their fringe self-identities are created from such premises, we must expect such reactions to continue and intensify as reality clashes with their worldview(s).
DS
A short book explained this all decades ago without all the mixed metaphors used above.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/1389/saturday-night-live-dont-buy-stuff
“I simply wonder sometimes if we can have an economy that provides everyone with the opportunity for a job and upward mobility while at the same time cutting down on debt spending, hyper-consumptive habits, and fiscal restraint.â€
Not as long as Keynes is king and fiat is fiduciary.
I’m not surprised. Not at all. This is what corporatism and central banking has wrought.
Most economists know about the law of scarcity. Unfortunately, Keynesians are unable to apply scarcity to monetary policy. Keynesians promised full employment and inflationary controls. Instead, they have delivered near record unemployment and astronomical deficits while encouraging spending over saving and simultaneously eroding the dollar and rewarding oligarchs and faux capitalists (corporatists) with the first use (before subsequent devaluation resulting from inflating the monetary supply) of newly printed monopoly money.
Frank, my post is not an advocacy for spending or of hindrance to free-market economies. I just think you underestimate the amount of money and wealth generated by people haphazardly consuming vs. saving. It also goes well with the debate about a manufacturing/production economy vs. a predominant service sector economy. Ultimately it takes a spender to buy the manufactured goods via production. Production of goods and services is only as good as the consumers of said goods and services.
I do agree, an economy that saves versus spends is much more stable, but probably not as wealthy on average. Our economy is heavily based on it consumption, no doubt.
**note, I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know jack about economics, but neither does Greenspan.
“…manufacturing/production economy vs. a predominant service sector economy…” -ws
Keep in mind these are labels that are used in reference to the number of jobs, not output. The US manufacturing economy is still insanely huge. We are producing more than we ever had before. The value of goods produced by the US manufactures last year is equal to all of the GDP’s of the world’s next 4 big economies, China, Japan, Germany and France. Manufacturing output per manufacturing worker has tripled over the last 35 years. The “problem” is that the number of jobs has dropped by a 3rd. So in the media in general we talk about the “decline” of US manufacturing when in fact it’s quite strong. It’s just that it’s doing a lot, lot, lot more with a lot, lot, lot workers.
“The value of goods produced by the US manufactures last year is equal to all of the GDP’s of the world’s next 4 big economies…”
Huh? Value of US manufactured goods compared to GDP? That’s a blatant attempt to mislead, especially when “China’s manufacturing sector is on the brink of passing that of the United States….The value of goods produced by China’s factories reached about $1.6 trillion last year, compared to $1.7 trillion by U.S. manufacturers.”
Yes, productivity per worker is higher in the US. How long will that last?
And mindless consumption does not create wealth for Americans, especially when the consumption involves people spending money they don’t have (debt) buying things they can’t afford (income to debt ratio) or that they didn’t make. An economy structured around massive consumer debt is phony and not wealth generating. True wealth is created through deferred consumption.
Peter Schiff elaborates on consumption versus production in a post today titled Carts and Horses.