9 ms·
It’s time for Americans to buy less stuff
- phdelightful 5y agoHow about we set up some rules and regulations so that the price of goods more accurately reflects their total cost (environmental, moral, material) and then we can all just sort of automatically buy the right amount of stuff.
- RhysU 5y agoAt what point in time should we price-in the externality that our future selves might price-in more externalities?
- paulintrognon 5y agoThat would hurt the poors while the wealthy would still be able to buy loads of stuff. Maybe a tax that would become bigger the more you buy? Like, the more gas or electricity you consume, the more expensive it gets per unit? But it would be very hard to implement I guess..
- lcam84 5y agoAlso we could redistribute the tax as a sort of UBI. This way not only product that pollute would be more expensive, people would have the ability to say no to crappy jobs.
- edflsafoiewq 5y ago>That would hurt the poors while the wealthy would still be able to buy loads of stuff. Yes, that is how wealth works.
- netrus 5y agoI think some European countries are on the right path: the tax money is not gone, just distribute it equally (as the externalities of emissions hurt everyone in the same way), and the poor will be fine. If only we could roll out such a scheme globally, it would be the just and definite solution for climate change. Your individual emissions are above the global average? Tough luck. Are they below the global average? Congratulations, your higher purchase price for iphones is more than compensated by the payout everyone worldwide gets every month.
- jandrewrogers 5y agoIt isn't that simple. Some geographies have intrinsically higher carbon footprints than others, all other things being equal and with similar levels of effort and investment. The cost of reducing carbon footprint is not remotely uniform, through no fault of the people that live there. Differentially taxing people by virtue of where they live for no local purpose is reliably unpopular in similar contexts, and that would easily be the case here.
- Jensson 5y agoJust put all the taxes collected from it into a "emission pool", then distribute it evenly among the people. That way the rich buying a lot of stuff effectively is them paying for the poor's emission quota. Or any of the many other ways to handle this, there are so many solutions to the problem that it is not an issue unless you want it to be.
- caeril 5y agoBrilliant. Yes, we're facing a consumption catastrophe, so let's distribute more funding toward more people so they can consume more. This is almost as fantastic as the HN zeitgeist of: 1. OMG there's a climate apocalypse coming due to the carbon emissions of about a billion people! 2. There's another 6 billion people we need to either import into, or bring up to the living standards (e.g. carbon footprint) of, those first 1 billion. 3. What? Oh lol you heartless rationalist, #2 doesn't conflict with #1 because uhhhh.... Elon Musk exists? (no analysis of the actual energy requirements and fossil fuel mix over time is provided or considered, just an assumption of cornucopian miracles) No, TFA is correct. We need to consume less, end our obsession with "growth", and most importantly, divest ourselves of the bleeding-heart suicidal idea of quadrupling our energy requirements with immigration and/or foreign aid. There will be a time to do that, when our energy mix is largely renewables, but not yet, and not within at least half a century.
- wittycardio 5y agoWealthy people will always be better off by definition, it shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing
- what_is_orcas 5y agoBut I think it's a good argument for reconsidering how we do wealth-distribution in America.
- gamegoblin 5y agoI think this kind of progressive consumption tax would be amazing for society. In a capitalist society, the theory goes that the individuals who are better at allocating capital will accumulate more capital, allocate it better, thus accumulating more, etc. in a loop. I could be convinced that some people are much, much better at allocating capital than most. It makes sense to let them be our societal capital allocators. Obviously, we want limits so that if 1 person makes a serious misjudgment, it doesn’t completely tank society. But I could see it being the case where, if we were purely optimizing for sum-total societal capital accumulation, it would be optimal 1% of the population to be in charge of 90% of the capital. There are a few obvious problems with this scheme where it meets reality, though. The most over-arching is that our current system allows the controllers of capital to more or less arbitrarily convert between capital and consumption. That is, some billionaire can burn some of their capital and buy a $500MM mega-yacht. At the end of the day, this is essentially wasting the labor of 10,000 people for a year (at 50k average salary). Even if we accept the premise that Jeff Bezos is a better capital allocator than 99.99% of people, I think we could argue that his having a $500MM mega yacht is not going to increase his capital allocation ability. This is where the progressive consumption tax comes in. Imagine a tax that was quadratic with consumption. For example, you’d pay $1K in tax on $10K of consumption, $100K of tax on $100K of consumption, and $10MM in tax on $1MM in consumption (obviously these are example numbers, any upwardly curved function will do, though). It very quickly becomes prohibitively expensive to consume much more than some societal average. This would significantly decrease consumption inequality. There are a lot of second-order things affected by this tax: - becomes much harder for 1 billionaire to burn capital in order to consume marketing and influence elections - one could use some proceeds of this tax as simple transfer payments, so not only is it quadratically more expensive to consume more, but the revenue from doing so gets send to people lower on the consumption distribution. This enhances the consumption flattening effect. - reduces conspicuous consumption which is good for climate change - improves labor productivity by increasing the societal savings rate (driving investment and increasing capital allocation per unit of labor), which further enhances this whole flywheel - more things that are too long for this comment There are obvious implementation problems though. On the face of it, it seems more difficult for me to hide consumption than it is to hide wealth, but I’m sure there are schemes to do so. The basic form of this tax would be to demonstrate to the tax agency some accounting of your wealth (savings, investments, etc) at two points in time, and then your consumption is computed based on the net inflows and outflows.
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y agoYou'll be hitting the poorer folk very hard. I said that a few times already, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the cheapest iPhone in my country costs around 3 median monthly salaries. (I am not arguing that everybody should be using iPhones, I don't use and don't want them, it's only to give you an estimate.) If prices get even higher, we won't be able to buy anything at all. And if you raise the prices only in the US, then Americans will be buying all their stuff from other countries over mail, like we do now.
- b0rsuk 5y agoIf you're not arguing everyone should use IPhones, why bring up poorer folk? Or why bring up a luxury brand?
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoThis regularly comes up on any kind of tax proposal. You just reimburse some fraction of it to the poor. One super easy way to do that is to replace an existing regressive tax, but there's a thousand different ways. If any kind of market efficiency pricing change actually hurts the poor, it's because the people passing the law wanted it to, but many wouldn't even if done super simply, because rich people buy more stuff, use more carbon etc.
- Ekaros 5y agoI thought customs are already solved problem? EU even managed to force sellers in other countries to automate the whole thing... So I see no reason why individuals wouldn't be charged tariffs when importing things.
- hellisothers 5y agoThat would unfortunately be a “regressive” pricing, it would disproportionately impact the poor. Just cars and energy I would expect to become unattainable unless alternative sources of sustainable transportation and energy are embraced by society in never before seen levels.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoBeing poor is a separate problem that is solved by giving someone money to not be poor. Assuming one wants to solve the problem of poorer people. It has nothing to do with accurately pricing externalities. Of course, wealth transfers are extremely politically unpopular. In the ideal world there would be marginal sales taxes, but that seems infeasible in the near future. Although, not inconceivable if everyone’s purchases were being tracked.
- mantas 5y agoAny taxation aside from super progressive tax schemes that top out at 90% and more would disproportionally impact the poor. But is our goal to destroy the rich (so poor can consume more) or is it to lower overall consumption? That'd push to fix suburbanisation and make mass transit cool again. Or enforce remote work.
- what_is_orcas 5y ago> But is our goal to destroy the rich (so poor can consume more) or is it to lower overall consumption? Both?
- mantas 5y agoNo.
- throwaway894345 5y agoWho do you think is going to be hardest hit when the climate crisis hits in force? Anyway, there are a variety of wealth redistribution schemes that can target the problem of poverty, including giving the proceeds from a carbon/whatever tax to lower income Americans.
- ren_engineer 5y agoI'd be fine with this if it was actually an organic movement where Americans realized consumerism didn't bring happiness My problem is the last few weeks have been an outright propaganda campaign against Americans to accept lower living standards which are a direct result of inflation caused by government policies and allowing companies to outsource everything. These types of headlines are almost a parody, Soviet Union tier stuff trying to normalize what is happening.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoHow long would the world let Americans get paid more while other people around the world are willing to sell at lower prices? We expect market participants to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities in every other circumstance and buy low and sell high, why would it be different for the billions of people coming online around the world?
- testposttttt 5y agoThe problem with this viewpoint is it is based on being a zero-sum game. A rising tide will raise all ships, crabs in a bucket hurts all involved. Also pharmaceutical prices directly contradict this. Americans are essentially subsidizing worldwide pharmaceutical costs.
- taylodl 5y agoThere's a bit to unpack here. > "inflation caused by government policies" Inflation at present is primarily the result of the global pandemic and government's failure to coordinate their response with regards to shipping, hence the crises in global shipping at the moment. Governments spent the better part of 2020 and the first half of 2021 trying to keep their population safe. They took their eye off the eight ball in understanding how these events would impact global shipping. You could argue the policies affecting inflation were therefore the Covid-19 policies, but that really isn't constructive in resolving the situation we now find ourselves in. We can use it to model a better response the next time. Global pandemics have negative impacts to global supply chains. > "allowing companies to outsource everything" You mean allowing companies freedom? Funny how "free societies" do that! Meanwhile, economists of all political persuasions have been arguing for decades that this has been the key factor to America's success and her high standard of living. It has also encouraged investment in America's financial markets from all over the world. We're currently experiencing constrained supply due to the global shipping crises and constant demand. Econ 101 informs us this will result in price increases. I think the central banks have been pretty transparent about it. They still see inflation as a non-issue because they believe once the supply constraints are resolved prices will go back to normal. Meanwhile...what do you propose we do? With a constrained supply we're going to have to make do with less. This isn't propaganda, it's simple, basic economics.
- Railsify 5y agoLike have the government tell people the maximum they can charge for a good?
- cryptoquick 5y agoIf the unit cost is higher than the maximum a manufacturer or retailer can charge, it won't be produced at all. This results in a market failure, similar to the one China's experiencing with their energy market, where the price of coal is 4x what it was earlier this year.
- what_is_orcas 5y agoI'm not an economist, but I'm curious about this topic. If, say, an iPhone cost $20k (because of emissions and slave/inhumane labor), obviously us normal folks (or poor folks) wouldn't own one, but would they still be produced for the grotesquely wealthy among us or would they just be scrapped or would the supply chain optimize for the new cost-structure and stop using slave labor to bring it down to a more reasonable price?
- tthun 5y agoA rather simplistic implementation of this could be to create regulations to require trash/refuse processing centers and incinerators in every zip code. Consumerism generates so much trash that well off folks are able to ship to poor areas - out of sight/out of mind. Making the effects from waste processing more “equitable” should change behaviors.
- kreid1 5y agoI doubt that’s going to happen.
- throwawaymanbot 5y agoI dunno.. with rising prices etc.. how many of them will have money to buy stuff anymore?
- arnmac 5y agoOur economy was roaring not to long ago because everyone had more money and there was stuff to buy. Now I have less money and less stuff to buy. Good bye economy.
- JohnWhigham 5y agoI wonder if there's any studies out there that calculate if Americans (or the worldwide middle class in general) reduce their overall consumption of...anything by X%, what is the likelihood of it sending a particular industry into chaos from the reduced demand.
- bryanlarsen 5y agoAmericans should be encouraged to spend more money on experiences rather than stuff. It's better for them and it's better for the local economy, especially after the COVID devastation. "Go to the theatre / concert / game / etc more often" is a similar statement to "buy less stuff" but it has much different connotations.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago>Americans should be encouraged to spend more money on experiences lots of experiences in America are illegal, and many experiences require a larger amount of free time than is readily available to many Americans.
- criddell 5y agoThose experiences are often absurdly expensive because the demand for them is already high.
- bryanlarsen 5y agoThey're expensive because they are provided by humans. Almost all "stuff" is built by machines and robots with very minimal human involvement. That's what makes them cheap in comparison.
- criddell 5y agoIt has more to do with supply and demand than cost of production (except for commodities). It's especially true for luxury goods (even robot made luxury goods) and experiences.
- sushsjsuauahab 5y agoThe day that you try to sell me a restaurant experience and forbid me from buying groceries for my own fridge is the day that I finally rise up.
- refurb 5y agoThis has to be the most white, upper class, liberal, urban comment on HN I've ever seen. You’re telling some dude or gal that just pulled a 12 hr shift at 17.25/hr (fuck yeah that $100 pre-tax in overtime is meaningful - best job they’ve ever had) that they shouldn’t buy that 70” TV so they can fuckin’ enjoy the 3 hr of free time they have while sucking back $0.75 cans of Budweiser before getting up in 6hr to do it all over again? What’s next? They should look at exploring sous vide for their next home cooked meal and maybe some “real” wasabi for their sushi and no green dyed horseradish? Holy Christ this comment is out of touch with the average American life.
- AlgorithmicTime 5y agoFor Americans to buy less stuff, they would need to be poorer. What they're saying is, Americans should be poorer.
- Zigurd 5y agoI'm sure some people find it easier to consume more in the privacy of ordering things at home, from potentially anyplace on the planet. But, for me, making a list and sticking to it has resulted in much less food waste, dropping a few pounds because fewer sweets end up in my fridge, and more carefully considered purchases of clothes.
- recursivedoubts 5y agoIt's time for Americans to buy better, less disposable and more repairable stuff, that they can hand on to their kids. And it's time for them to own it outright, rather than getting put on a debt-slavery, monthly-payment treadmill.
- hellisothers 5y agoWhat, that is useful in todays society today, would you hand down to somebody 10-20 years later though?
- frockington1 5y agoI just bought a '98 M Roadster, beautiful vehicle, happy to have it despite it being 23 years old
- hellisothers 5y agoHah, sure (some) cars and homes) but that’s cheating, some assets will of course be timeless. Sure also (some) watches and cameras are too but they’re disproportionately expensive :D
- throwaway946513 5y agoI actually have a rather nice but 'cheap' used Canon DSLR, and my watches were all gifts - not expensive for me, and still cheaper than my phone, but can easily see how expensive it could be for those who aren't anywhere near my financial position. Aside from home furniture and some home electronics, much of the discarded once-use garbage seems to be plastic packaging of items.
- jerf 5y agoMost assets are timeless. The ephemera leaping to your mind so easily are leaping there because they are the exception and you don't notice all the stuff that isn't. Why am I looking at a broken laundry basket? Why are all my laundry baskets broken, just from hauling clothes around? Why is the shelf that I'm looking at now broken on top? I have a chest of drawers that is now ~45 years old and was for the time a cheap piece of junk, that is, particle board and wood, but it's still in great condition, basically like new. It would only take a bit more plastic on my laundry baskets to last indefinitely, just like my cheap chest of drawers has lasted decades because it only has a bit more thickness on the drawer bottoms than anything does nowadays. You shouldn't have to step up a factor of magnitude in cost to get something that will last, and to be honest I've been bitten a few times even then and merely gotten a higher grade of trash.
- frockington1 5y agoAnyone else notice these articles accelerating along with inflation. Any day we'll see the media narrative "High inflation is actually a good thing: here's why"
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoHigh inflation can be a good thing, if you're working and in debt. The key worries are that the people with large assets overreact and you end in Nazi Germany (which was directly correlated with the austerity brought in by the rich to 'fix' inflation)
- frockington1 5y agoAlso working well with people who own assets. I refinance all my properties in the last year, at 2.3% interest despite inflation at 5%. Rents one of the biggest drivers so I'll likely be able to increase rent 10% when my tenants move out (generally wont raise if its the same tenant)
- WillPostForFood 5y agoif you're working and in debt And your wages are rising at least as fast as inflation.
- sushsjsuauahab 5y agoIt's time for clandestine manufacturing at home since the entire international trade system originated in the late 70s is failing.
- ryandrake 5y agoThis could work if people knew how to build things. We're all Brand Evangelists, Social Media Marketers, Loan Orignators, Project Coordinators, and Financial Planners now--nobody has the skills to make or repair physical things anymore.
- sushsjsuauahab 5y agoMostly this is correct, but now is the only time to try and turn that around, even if it is small scale and in peoples garages
- acheron 5y agoIf there's anything you enjoy, there's a journalist out there ready to lecture you about it.
- sushsjsuauahab 5y agoLuckily their title was written in such a way that I don't even need to click it
- gumby 5y agoWhile I personally find shopping draining and possessions overwhelming, I don’t really understand the moral conviction that some people have that possessions are evil. I don’t like those marvel films either but if other people do I’m happy they are being made.
- throwaway946513 5y agoI feel like some of the historical reasoning for 'evil possessions' stems from the Protestant Christian 'ethic' behind early America.
- gumby 5y agoIt’s common elsewhere, e.g. George Monbiot.
- thecleaner 5y agoAmericans can still spend a shitload of money if they have to, just do it on services - that way economy keeps going, there's still jobs going around plus we stop buying and hence making shit we don't really need.
- RegBarclay 5y agoCould we start with better quality stuff to buy? I own 2 washing machines. The nice one I paid more for is so unreliable, I bought a cheap one to use while I wait for the nice one to get repaired.
- qwertyuiop_ 5y agoThat’s what government says in Cuba