3 ms·

What is 'post-materialism'? Any relationship to post-scarcity economics?

by iwwr 15y ago

_delirium 15y ago
He appears to be using it in the sense of people whose aspirations involve things other than material prosperity, at least past a threshhold of "comfortable, Western middle class". If you achieve comfortable Western middle-class, what do you aspire to past that? A traditional and quite common aspiration is to move more into the upper class: to make enough money to regularly travel the world, buy a large house, buy a sports car, or perhaps even move into the higher tier of owning a beach home in Hawaii, yacht, private jet, etc. "Post-materialists", on the other hand, tend to be satisfied with the Western-middle-class level of prosperity, and once they reach it start aspiring to things like greater autonomy, fewer working hours, greater proportion of time spent on creative endeavors, etc. I don't really like the phrase "post-materialist" (feels judgmental), and sort of prefer Tyler Cowen's phrase "threshold earners" (which this article also cites), as a more neutral description of people whose monetary aspirations are to reach a comfortable threshhold and stop there. The article is a bit rambling, but what I take as the takeaway is that accounting for those kinds of aspirations requires something more than just "economic grwoth", since it's not really a linear scale of move up in the economy --> move up further in the economy. Instead it has more to do with flexibility of work arrangements, barriers to self-employment, etc.
- motters 15y ago
  I am a post-materialist in that sense, in that so long as I have enough money to fulfill basic needs (food, fuel, rent, etc), plus a little extra for hobbies which are not highly expensive, I have no interest in seeking any more monetary income than that. What I am interested in primarily is maximizing the amount of time which I can spend on projects or collaborative efforts of my own choosing (the author references the importance of autonomy).
- ddw 15y ago
  If there's any positive from our current economic situation, I think it's that some people are realizing that money doesn't bring you happiness. It can bring you comfort, as you mention, but buying things beyond the basics isn't going to make you happy. The problem is that the wealthy don't accumulated funds just to buy things. They use it for power. And increasingly in this country, money equals political power that affects all of us. In a weird way the "good guys" should become money hungry, but use that money in positive ways that benefit society.
  - klbarry 15y ago
    This is absolutely true. There is an article in my head about this subject that I have been putting off writing...
    - dwiel 15y ago
      I would be very interested to see some thoughts on this subject. I go back and forth agreeing and disagreeing with the grandparent's last paragraph. Its easy to make yourself feel moral and just this way (and elitist and morally superior), but I think it can also be the beginning to an easy loophole around "money doesn't buy happiness." Once you've decided that more money will allow you to do others good, you're in the same structural problem that materialists are, which is that once you meet goal X, there goal Y will be, just out of reach, and with it, your happiness.
- nasmorn 15y ago
  Small caveat. I am a threshold earner to be able to travel the world regularly. The monetary cost of traveling is highly variable but the time cost is huge. For me it seems easier to attain by thresholding my yearly income.
- billybob 15y ago
  I don't like the phrase "post-materialist" either, because it implies this is something new. "People used to want more stuff, but now we're moving beyond that." There have always been people who want more stuff and people who don't, and there always will be. I agree that "threshold earners" is better. Another way of putting it is that some people place a higher dollar value on free time, autonomy, etc, so they aren't willing to trade as many hours for money as others are.
  - minikomi 15y ago
    Chronoconomists?
cturner 15y ago
This section of wp article is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-materialism#Measuring_post-materialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-materialism#Measuring_post... "If you had to choose among the following things, which are the two that seem the most desirable to you? Maintaining order in the nation. Giving people more say in important political decisions. Fighting rising prices. Protecting freedom of speech. ... On the basis of the choices made among these four items, it is possible to classify our respondents into value priority groups, ranging from a 'pure' acquisitive type to a 'pure' post-bourgeois type, with several intermediate categories." There was a longer test with more items in, I remember one was looking after the environment. Inglehart claimed that a certain type of generous life could incubate people into his "post-materialist" mindset, and then they wouldn't change to "materialist" even if they were subsequently exposed to hardship. Long time since I read any of it. This being one of those topics where I got to write an essay and then reuse it for another subject the next year. For shame! :) It stuck with me partly because I found "Giving people more say in important political decisions." to be a very uncomfortable idea. I've changed position somewhat since I last thought about this.
- klbarry 15y ago
  "Maintaining..." I rate this highly "Giving people..." I do not think this is that important. The constitution, after all, was written behind closed doors because the writers feared what their constituencies might think. "Fighting rising prices" - Good economics is vitally important, rising prices is a part of that. "Protecting freedom of speech" - Important, not as important as economy.

What is 'post-materialism'? Any relationship to post-scarcity economics?

by iwwr 15y ago

What is 'post-materialism'? Any relationship to post-scarcity economics?

He appears to be using it in the sense of people whose aspirations involve things other than material prosperity, at least past a threshhold of "comfortable, Western middle class". If you achieve comfortable Western middle-class, what do you aspire to past that? A traditional and quite common aspiration is to move more into the upper class: to make enough money to regularly travel the world, buy a large house, buy a sports car, or perhaps even move into the higher tier of owning a beach home in Hawaii, yacht, private jet, etc. "Post-materialists", on the other hand, tend to be satisfied with the Western-middle-class level of prosperity, and once they reach it start aspiring to things like greater autonomy, fewer working hours, greater proportion of time spent on creative endeavors, etc. I don't really like the phrase "post-materialist" (feels judgmental), and sort of prefer Tyler Cowen's phrase "threshold earners" (which this article also cites), as a more neutral description of people whose monetary aspirations are to reach a comfortable threshhold and stop there. The article is a bit rambling, but what I take as the takeaway is that accounting for those kinds of aspirations requires something more than just "economic grwoth", since it's not really a linear scale of move up in the economy --> move up further in the economy. Instead it has more to do with flexibility of work arrangements, barriers to self-employment, etc.

motters 15y ago
I am a post-materialist in that sense, in that so long as I have enough money to fulfill basic needs (food, fuel, rent, etc), plus a little extra for hobbies which are not highly expensive, I have no interest in seeking any more monetary income than that. What I am interested in primarily is maximizing the amount of time which I can spend on projects or collaborative efforts of my own choosing (the author references the importance of autonomy).
ddw 15y ago
If there's any positive from our current economic situation, I think it's that some people are realizing that money doesn't bring you happiness. It can bring you comfort, as you mention, but buying things beyond the basics isn't going to make you happy. The problem is that the wealthy don't accumulated funds just to buy things. They use it for power. And increasingly in this country, money equals political power that affects all of us. In a weird way the "good guys" should become money hungry, but use that money in positive ways that benefit society.
- klbarry 15y ago
  This is absolutely true. There is an article in my head about this subject that I have been putting off writing...
  - dwiel 15y ago
    I would be very interested to see some thoughts on this subject. I go back and forth agreeing and disagreeing with the grandparent's last paragraph. Its easy to make yourself feel moral and just this way (and elitist and morally superior), but I think it can also be the beginning to an easy loophole around "money doesn't buy happiness." Once you've decided that more money will allow you to do others good, you're in the same structural problem that materialists are, which is that once you meet goal X, there goal Y will be, just out of reach, and with it, your happiness.
nasmorn 15y ago
Small caveat. I am a threshold earner to be able to travel the world regularly. The monetary cost of traveling is highly variable but the time cost is huge. For me it seems easier to attain by thresholding my yearly income.
billybob 15y ago
I don't like the phrase "post-materialist" either, because it implies this is something new. "People used to want more stuff, but now we're moving beyond that." There have always been people who want more stuff and people who don't, and there always will be. I agree that "threshold earners" is better. Another way of putting it is that some people place a higher dollar value on free time, autonomy, etc, so they aren't willing to trade as many hours for money as others are.
- minikomi 15y ago
  Chronoconomists?

cturner 15y ago

This section of wp article is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-materialism#Measuring_post-materialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-materialism#Measuring_post... "If you had to choose among the following things, which are the two that seem the most desirable to you? Maintaining order in the nation. Giving people more say in important political decisions. Fighting rising prices. Protecting freedom of speech. ... On the basis of the choices made among these four items, it is possible to classify our respondents into value priority groups, ranging from a 'pure' acquisitive type to a 'pure' post-bourgeois type, with several intermediate categories." There was a longer test with more items in, I remember one was looking after the environment. Inglehart claimed that a certain type of generous life could incubate people into his "post-materialist" mindset, and then they wouldn't change to "materialist" even if they were subsequently exposed to hardship. Long time since I read any of it. This being one of those topics where I got to write an essay and then reuse it for another subject the next year. For shame! :) It stuck with me partly because I found "Giving people more say in important political decisions." to be a very uncomfortable idea. I've changed position somewhat since I last thought about this.

klbarry 15y ago
"Maintaining..." I rate this highly "Giving people..." I do not think this is that important. The constitution, after all, was written behind closed doors because the writers feared what their constituencies might think. "Fighting rising prices" - Good economics is vitally important, rising prices is a part of that. "Protecting freedom of speech" - Important, not as important as economy.