My post last week delved into the dichotomous world of "paying money for things that should last" vs. "buying lots of things so it doesn't really matter when things break- there's always a backup". A good friend of mine called me out on this concept by saying, "well, what about poor people? Don't they need pants too?"
And we launched into what I afterwards considered to a be a relatively decent debate revolving around the facts, errors, and misconceptions of poverty, consumption, and personal choice. It was the first time in a long while that I had such a spirited conversation. And the concepts espoused within that conversation have been haunting me for the past few days.
What ABOUT the poor? Few people in the world can have the luxury of being able to afford $100 for a pair of pants. What guarantees do we as wealthy consumers have that the pants will last? what really makes them worth $100? Did the people who manufactured them ACTUALLY get paid a fair wage for their labors? Am I just another asshole with too much disposable income?
And then I started thinking...I have purchased multiple pairs of jeans in the past year. It's not out of compulsion, but rather out of necessity - after leaving my last job (working with a general contractor), every pair of jeans I owned was completely thrashed from work - stains, tears, frayed edges, inexplicable patches of "goo" stuck in various places...not exactly my Sunday best. So I bought several new pairs. And those pairs, after washing for 6 months, began to fray and rip and tear and break down. So I bought replacements for THEM. All in all, I have probably spent $150 on pairs of jeans in the past year and a half. All so that I can have a rotating stock of 2-3 pairs at my fingertips. Now why do we do such ridiculous things as buy new pants when the old ones start to go bad? Simple - because it's cheaper, easier, and less time-consuming to do so.
A pair of $25 jeans at Target is very easily replaceable. Once they get frayed or torn or stained, just go buy a new pair. What's the alternative? Mend a pair of jeans? Yeah, maybe. At what cost? Pay a tailor to do it, and you're looking at a minimum of $20. and then you've got mended pants. not new ones. and you've only saved $5. The opportunity cost is negligible. You could mend the pants yourself...but that requires a skill set that has long-since fallen by the wayside of American know-how...all in the name of modernity and progress.
We buy new stuff when the old stuff wears out because we can. Because the cost to replace is cheaper than or equal to the cost to fix. That's an economic system built to collapse. Maybe not today or tomorrow...but it certainly is unsustainable.
Clearly we're not breaking new ground on the front of economic analysis here. This situation has been well-known by economists and Marketing firms for decades. but, strangely, though the consumer knows that it is an economic wash to replace, not repair, we blindly accept the fact that this is the way it should be. We buy cheap consumable goods because we know we can also replace them cheaply when they (inevitably) break or fall apart. Few companies exist these days that make equipment or goods built to be repaired, mended, or altered. The companies that do this have been hedged into the "luxury brand" tier, a misnomer that companies willingly perpetuate just to survive.
Think about all of the different things you have in your house - kitchen appliances, knives, blankets, clothing, towels, rugs, etc. Think about how many of those things you'd be willing to pay money to repair if they were to break, tear, or otherwise malfunction. It would be far too easy to simply buy a new one, throw the old one away (or foist it upon the good folks at the Salvation Army or Goodwill store and let them take their chances on fixing it) and be done with the situation.
A solution seems to be to care for your items as if they were priceless heirlooms. But a $40 steam iron does not an heirloom make. Neither does a Pier 1 braided 3'x5' rug. Few of the things we own today have any significance (sentimental, financial, or erstwhile) attached to them. And yet we continue to be consumed by our neverending, ravenous consumption habits.
We don't give a damn about a single thing we own, and yet we can't seem to live without any of it.
I don't know how we've managed to wedge ourselves into this paradox, but I'm all for suggestions on how the hell we get ourselves out of this mess.
9.07.2008
The fine line between hippiedom and standing up for what you believe in
I work in an office. there is a dress code that is, for the most part, implied. everyone seems to follow it, with a few exceptions on the also-unspoken "semi-business casual fridays". From Monday through Thursday, it's pretty much all business. not business-casual. business-business. As in shirt with collar, tie, and (should be wearing it ) suit coat. I very rarely wear a suit coat, so in that respect, I feel like somewhat of a rebel. But most days, I'm definitely a shirt and tie guy. Enter my most recent purchase. But first some background...
I am "big" into the concept of living simply, knowing where one's goods and services are REALLY coming from, and trying to fight the current Amerocentric trend of "death by consumption" through the selective purchasing of only the goods that I need, and only the goods that support economies that I believe in...or have financial interest in seeing survive. I am anti-sweatshop (though who would ever stand up and declare that they are "Pro-sweatshop?") and try to mirror my purchases based on the concept that all humans deserve a fair wage for an honest day's work. In the Target and WalMart and TJ Maxx worlds we live in, this is a difficult ideal to live out. I can't tell you how many times I've walked out of these stores empty handed because I just got sick and tired of seeing the "Made in China" labels on everything. I mean, seriously. Are we as Americans REALLY so blind to be able to ignore the hard fact that, in a fair economy, there's no way a set of 4 glass glasses should EVER be the equivalent of $2 in today's economy. I'll pay more! Please, let me pay more! I just want those workers to get out of their legal indentured servitude that is being foisted on them in the name of economic progress. But lest I diverge into a diatribe that is filled with more emotion than hard fact, let me return to my clothing situation.
I deal with issues of green building, sustainable development, and renewable energy in my job. As my boss says, I'm the company's "Jiminy Cricket," the annoying little voice that says "should we be doing this?" It's easier for the company if I just keep my fat mouth shut and remain complicit in all the decisions of the design and construction group...but that's NOT my job. I was hired to be the noodge, the voice of conservation, the guy who is always thinking of some way to make things better for the planet. So I pipe up. I say things. Sometimes they're good ideas, sometimes not so much. So it is. Back to the clothing...
I feel that in my position, I have a unique ability to be the guy who is just a little bit "out there". Lord knows I do a fantastic job at that. In this respect, I feel on par (stylistically speaking) with the ubiquitous stereotype of a company IT guy (or girl). As the Dilbert comic spoke the prophetic words so many years ago [paraphrased] (under a picture of a guy with an untucked shirt and necklaces, wearing sandals) "I am the only one who understands your company's software systems. worship me."
I am the environmental guy in my company. Is it really so bad for me to be just a little "crunchy"? Case in point- I recently bought some organic cotton duck trousers. they have clean lines, are very simple khaki-colored pants, and are, as I see them, completely awesome. But there is something unmistakably "sail cloth-y" about them. I wore them with a shirt and tie into work for three days last week and felt unmistakably rebellious. No one said anything, but I couldn't help but feel guilty about my clothing choice. is it really fair for me to be wearing these pants when others must suffer in their double-breasted suits of armor? My current line of reasoning is "no", but I think I'm going to rock the duck pants regardless.
My current line of thinking has me slowly replacing my wardrobe (as things break down or become irrevocably stained from buffalo chicken wraps at lunchtime- more on that one later) with more "responsible" clothing options. While some may scoff at the idea of organic cotton being a responsible choice (the pants, after all, WERE made in SE Asia...but the ignorant hippie in me has to believe that the good folks at Patagonia are serious enough about their environmental commitments to also investigate the working conditions of their overseas manufacturing facilities...but this blind assumption may indeed end up causing me, and my Thai brethren and sistren, more harm than good), I feel like I have to start SOMEWHERE. I would totally buy a pair of rockin' SIMPLE shoes with the hemp uppers and recycled rubber soles...but they are made in China. and I have a problem with that.
Oh, the myriad choices we are faced with as consumers everyday. Is there not a way for us to know that we are supporting international workers who have merely to deal with their God-ordained plight to toil over the land and suffer through childbirth? I mean, if we're all on the same footing and are suffering (and being redeemed) equally through the fall of Adam and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it feels all too ridiculous that certain walks of mankind should have such a death-grip over those less economically advantaged than the uber-consumers in the "developed world". But it is precisely BECAUSE of that uber-consumer mentality that we have allowed this propagation of subjugation to continue. God forbid if I have to pay $20 for a set of 4 glasses or $100 for a pair of pants.
Here I stand - a guy in organic cotton chinos and a 5-year-old white collared shirt, dreaming of a day when material goods are actually priced at their fair market value. Families of 5 all across this nation are surely in disagreement with me...but there HAS to be a better way than our current paradigm of consume, consume, consume...
I am "big" into the concept of living simply, knowing where one's goods and services are REALLY coming from, and trying to fight the current Amerocentric trend of "death by consumption" through the selective purchasing of only the goods that I need, and only the goods that support economies that I believe in...or have financial interest in seeing survive. I am anti-sweatshop (though who would ever stand up and declare that they are "Pro-sweatshop?") and try to mirror my purchases based on the concept that all humans deserve a fair wage for an honest day's work. In the Target and WalMart and TJ Maxx worlds we live in, this is a difficult ideal to live out. I can't tell you how many times I've walked out of these stores empty handed because I just got sick and tired of seeing the "Made in China" labels on everything. I mean, seriously. Are we as Americans REALLY so blind to be able to ignore the hard fact that, in a fair economy, there's no way a set of 4 glass glasses should EVER be the equivalent of $2 in today's economy. I'll pay more! Please, let me pay more! I just want those workers to get out of their legal indentured servitude that is being foisted on them in the name of economic progress. But lest I diverge into a diatribe that is filled with more emotion than hard fact, let me return to my clothing situation.
I deal with issues of green building, sustainable development, and renewable energy in my job. As my boss says, I'm the company's "Jiminy Cricket," the annoying little voice that says "should we be doing this?" It's easier for the company if I just keep my fat mouth shut and remain complicit in all the decisions of the design and construction group...but that's NOT my job. I was hired to be the noodge, the voice of conservation, the guy who is always thinking of some way to make things better for the planet. So I pipe up. I say things. Sometimes they're good ideas, sometimes not so much. So it is. Back to the clothing...
I feel that in my position, I have a unique ability to be the guy who is just a little bit "out there". Lord knows I do a fantastic job at that. In this respect, I feel on par (stylistically speaking) with the ubiquitous stereotype of a company IT guy (or girl). As the Dilbert comic spoke the prophetic words so many years ago [paraphrased] (under a picture of a guy with an untucked shirt and necklaces, wearing sandals) "I am the only one who understands your company's software systems. worship me."
I am the environmental guy in my company. Is it really so bad for me to be just a little "crunchy"? Case in point- I recently bought some organic cotton duck trousers. they have clean lines, are very simple khaki-colored pants, and are, as I see them, completely awesome. But there is something unmistakably "sail cloth-y" about them. I wore them with a shirt and tie into work for three days last week and felt unmistakably rebellious. No one said anything, but I couldn't help but feel guilty about my clothing choice. is it really fair for me to be wearing these pants when others must suffer in their double-breasted suits of armor? My current line of reasoning is "no", but I think I'm going to rock the duck pants regardless.
My current line of thinking has me slowly replacing my wardrobe (as things break down or become irrevocably stained from buffalo chicken wraps at lunchtime- more on that one later) with more "responsible" clothing options. While some may scoff at the idea of organic cotton being a responsible choice (the pants, after all, WERE made in SE Asia...but the ignorant hippie in me has to believe that the good folks at Patagonia are serious enough about their environmental commitments to also investigate the working conditions of their overseas manufacturing facilities...but this blind assumption may indeed end up causing me, and my Thai brethren and sistren, more harm than good), I feel like I have to start SOMEWHERE. I would totally buy a pair of rockin' SIMPLE shoes with the hemp uppers and recycled rubber soles...but they are made in China. and I have a problem with that.
Oh, the myriad choices we are faced with as consumers everyday. Is there not a way for us to know that we are supporting international workers who have merely to deal with their God-ordained plight to toil over the land and suffer through childbirth? I mean, if we're all on the same footing and are suffering (and being redeemed) equally through the fall of Adam and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it feels all too ridiculous that certain walks of mankind should have such a death-grip over those less economically advantaged than the uber-consumers in the "developed world". But it is precisely BECAUSE of that uber-consumer mentality that we have allowed this propagation of subjugation to continue. God forbid if I have to pay $20 for a set of 4 glasses or $100 for a pair of pants.
Here I stand - a guy in organic cotton chinos and a 5-year-old white collared shirt, dreaming of a day when material goods are actually priced at their fair market value. Families of 5 all across this nation are surely in disagreement with me...but there HAS to be a better way than our current paradigm of consume, consume, consume...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)