Do we really need all the 'stuff' we have in life?

[Staunton]

People want what people want. They don't need it but they want it. As long as they don't get into financial straits (although if they do, that's their fault) and companies pay their taxes (which not all do) there is no problem. The futuristic utopia of Star Trek is a long, long way off.

 

You are right - I don't think things are going to change any time soon, but I don't think people are ever going be satisfied with the kind of cravings that the branded world stimulates.

[carosio]

The OP was wondering if surrounding ourselves with expensive household items, cars, jewellery etc, is really necessary?

 

I am recommending that there is a more fulfilling way of living than craving for luxury items and expensive cars, I am suggesting that they will not ultimately satisfy.

 

There may be a more fulfilling way to live, but what is it and what should we do without? If we all had much less money (and couldn't borrow it) then your ideal way might be that much nearer. Also, what do you consider an expensive household item?

[tinfoilhat]

There may be a more fulfilling way to live, but what is it and what should we do without? If we all had much less money (and couldn't borrow it) then your ideal way might be that much nearer. Also, what do you consider an expensive household item?

 

Not a pc and broadband obviously

[carosio]

Not a pc and broadband obviously

 

Well I could make do with dial-up

 

But there you go, nobody will specify what he/she/we ought to do without.

[tinfoilhat]

Well I could make do with dial-up

 

But there you go, nobody will specify what he/she/we ought to do without.

 

That's exactly right. What a "need" is for one person is a pipedream that another person isn't bothered about.

[Anna B]

There may be a more fulfilling way to live, but what is it and what should we do without? If we all had much less money (and couldn't borrow it) then your ideal way might be that much nearer. Also, what do you consider an expensive household item?

 

Well, we could do without fashion for a start. Every woman I know, (me included) have wardrobes rammed with perfectly wearable stuff they are never going to put on again because it's 'out of date...'

 

What a waste.

 

And fashion has now crept into home decor, and many other areas, causing us to replace things that are perfectly usable because they are no longer in fashion. We don't make any of these things any more so they mostly have to be imported, adding to other economies, not ours.

 

As Staunton says, the sooner we get used to managing with less, the better, because whether we like it or not we are going to have to get used to it, and from a world point of view that's no bad thing. But he's quite right about globalisation. and when you can't afford medicine or health care (which is already happening,) it's going to be a whole different matter.

[Cyclone]

...advise, advocate, counsel, propose, recommend – all synonyms for urge.

 

Yes, but you still can't advise, advocate, council, etc.. to change what we need. Because need is not something that is subject to choice.

 

---------- Post added 18-07-2013 at 07:22 ----------

 

Ok, let's start on cars then. 737,000 jobs are connected to the automotive industry as of 2010. The loss of those jobs would be catastrophic, think what would happen if Nissan or land rover/jaguar shut down. 80% of cars built in the uk are exported, another money spinner. Lets look at fashion. A fair few fashion houses are in the uk, providing jobs.

 

Least of all, my job. I work in the events industry. I'm man enough to admit my job, and indeed business is the lovely bit of icing on top of the cake, and far from essential. Should I advise my clients to save and spend their money elsewhere - a community playground perhaps? Obviously me and my two amigos will be unemployed in short order, but that's the price of progress.

 

People want what people want. They don't need it but they want it. As long as they don't get into financial straits (although if they do, that's their fault) and companies pay their taxes (which not all do) there is no problem. The futuristic utopia of Star Trek is a long, long way off.

 

Why don't you start on 1 carat diamond rings instead. I'm pretty sure that nobody needs such a ring and that the economy would do just fine without them...

 

---------- Post added 18-07-2013 at 07:26 ----------

 

Well, we could do without fashion for a start. Every woman I know, (me included) have wardrobes rammed with perfectly wearable stuff they are never going to put on again because it's 'out of date...'

 

What a waste.

 

And fashion has now crept into home decor, and many other areas, causing us to replace things that are perfectly usable because they are no longer in fashion. We don't make any of these things any more so they mostly have to be imported, adding to other economies, not ours.

 

As Staunton says, the sooner we get used to managing with less, the better, because whether we like it or not we are going to have to get used to it, and from a world point of view that's no bad thing. But he's quite right about globalisation. and when you can't afford medicine or health care (which is already happening,) it's going to be a whole different matter.

 

Fashion isn't a class of items, the thread is about material stuff. Could you do without blouses, or skirts, or socks? Clothing in the UK is fairly essential. We'd have to be way more specific to define what someone could do without.

I could do without Diesel and Ted Baker jeans. But I do need jeans, so I may as well buy ones that fit me well and which I enjoy wearing.

 

There's a giant beanbag next to me, doesn't belong to me, but both I and the wife could live perfectly well without it.

There's a stereo on the side in front of me that I don't think has even been switched on in months... Could definitely manage life without that.

[carosio]

Well, we could do without fashion for a start. Every woman I know, (me included) have wardrobes rammed with perfectly wearable stuff they are never going to put on again because it's 'out of date...'

 

I wonder how many women would be seen getting married in a plain boiler suit, no make-up and wearing a scarf (no hair-do!).

[L00b]

Unkind words.

A case of hard love

I am afraid that I do not have a solution - as I have pointed out, the neoliberals have triumphed, at our expense, and without most people even noticing. Until ordinary people like you and me and most people here in Sheffield and across the UK understand what our politicians are up to, then there is no chance of a solution.

So, you're a virtual Occupy movement.

 

Denouncing immoral aspects of corporate practices (fair enough) but without offerring any alternative or solution (so what's the point?)

 

This discussion has been had 100-fold on here already. Until and unless you (and all others about the same issue) can come up with realistic alternatives to maintaining our society and at least a basic level of amenities (food, lodgings, health, transport, etc.) for same, with coherence and in a sustainable manner, ..."La critique est aisée, mais l'art est difficile" (Philippe Néricault, XVIII century)

 

(Trsl: criticising is easy, the art is difficult)

[Staunton]

There may be a more fulfilling way to live, but what is it and what should we do without? If we all had much less money (and couldn't borrow it) then your ideal way might be that much nearer. Also, what do you consider an expensive household item?

 

I am very struck by the high cost of media packages - particularly smart phone contracts, which seem to be as much as £50 per month. That is a lot of money for people to find. Similarly, I wonder if Sky or other broadcast packages are something that we could do without. Digital technology is a wonderful and a transformative innovation, but in the hands of the corporate sector it can be and is used very cynically to distract and to create wants via sophisticated celebrity and brand led marketing.

 

I am sure that as adults we can see through some of this but our children are particularly vulnerable.