[HN Gopher] The Gospel of Consumption
___________________________________________________________________
The Gospel of Consumption
Author : thunderbong
Score : 80 points
Date : 2021-07-03 05:58 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (orionmagazine.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (orionmagazine.org)
| howaboutnope wrote:
| Expanded version of the quote in one of the comments:
|
| > Our enormously productive economy demands that we make
| consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use
| of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfactions,
| our ego satisfactions, in consumption. The measure of social
| status, of social acceptance, of prestige, is now to be found in
| our consumptive patterns. The very meaning and significance of
| our lives today expressed in consumptive terms. The greater the
| pressures upon the individual to conform to safe and accepted
| social standards, the more does he tend to express his
| aspirations and his individuality in terms of what he wears,
| drives, eats- his home, his car, his pattern of food serving, his
| hobbies.
|
| > These commodities and services must be offered to the consumer
| with a special urgency. We require not only "forced draft"
| consumption, but "expensive" consumption as well. We need things
| consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever
| increasing pace. We need to have people eat, drink, dress, ride,
| live, with ever more complicated and, therefore, constantly more
| expensive consumption.
|
| -- Victor Lebow, "The Real Meaning of Consumer Demand", Journal
| of Retailing, 1955
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| This is the average household budget for an American.
| https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-household-budget#budget
|
| Most of the budget goes into things which are either mandatory
| (taxation, social security) or artificially constrained
| (housing). The total cost of discretionary spending is so
| proportionately low that it makes no difference if you buy a ps5,
| you're still spending most of your paycheck on rent, taxes, food,
| education/loan servicing and healthcare.
|
| This "blame consumption" thesis makes no sense in the context of
| reality: people work a lot because the essentials are
| _expensive_.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| Talk about aged like milk, $3k for healthcare has doubled since
| 2013.
|
| If not even higher..
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| Not to take away from your excellent point but is spending
| $9k/year on transportation really mandatory? $7k on utilities?
|
| I live in a country where gasoline and cars are 2x as expensive
| as the US. My fully-loaded transportation costs are around
| $2k/year . That's driving every day. My utilities cost around
| $1000/year. What lifestyle is this that people have been
| suckered into?
| [deleted]
| fearface wrote:
| And your 2k include the cost of the car, related insurance
| and services, road tax?
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| Not the cost of the car, I consider it well amortized (16
| year old car). I do include everything else.
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| Think of transportation as trading off against housing. If
| housing were cheaper and more abundant, transportation would
| be truly discretionary. As it is, cheaper house in the US
| usually means car+long commute, with associated depreciation
| and fuel costs.
| _delirium wrote:
| It doesn't even require a particularly long commute to get
| to that cost. Some back of the envelope calculations:
|
| The IRS has to conduct an annual study of the average cost
| of operating a vehicle, to set the mileage reimbursement
| rate for cars driven for business purposes. They currently
| estimate it at $0.56/mile (including depreciation,
| insurance, registration, gas, maintenance, etc.). So $9k/yr
| is 16,000 miles/year. The average U.S. household has 1.9
| cars, so that's 8500 miles per car. If you commute 250 days
| a year, that's only a 17-mile commute each way, which is
| not coincidentally just about the U.S. average.
| kiba wrote:
| Transportation and housing are ultimately a land use
| problem.
|
| We decided to build roads, and wide roads, as well tons of
| suburbia.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Which brings us back to the article's point of
| manufactured demand.
| imtringued wrote:
| I won't mince my words. I saw a forum post where people
| complained about overpriced homes in suburbia. Other
| people defended the prices because that is the price you
| have to pay to get away from black crime.
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| Still, $9K/year is clearly not being spent on gas driving
| two fully-paid 10 year old japaneses econo-boxes. We can't
| hide leasing new v8 BMWs every 3 years under "essential
| transportation costs".
| _delirium wrote:
| You can do a little better than $9k/yr, but not by that
| much.
|
| You can't totally ignore capital cost, since cars have a
| finite lifespan. Even if you buy cheap cars, the
| amortized cost is hard to get under maybe $500-750/yr. So
| that's $1-1.5k/yr in amortized capital costs for two. The
| average cost of car insurance for a household is around
| $2k/yr, though that varies significantly by location,
| age, and driving history. Probably another $500-1k/yr for
| regular maintenance for two cars, depending on how easy
| on the tires/etc. your location is. You can probably
| trade more maintenance costs for lower amortized capital
| costs if you buy cheaper used cars, but you'd have to DIY
| maintenance to come ahead significantly. Then let's
| assume these are 40 mpg, and there's a couple who each
| work 250 days a year and both have the average U.S.
| commute of 32 miles roundtrip. That's $1200 in gas at TX
| prices, or $1600 at CA prices. So the overall estimate is
| maybe $5-6k/yr, even being pretty frugal. And I'm also
| assuming you don't have to pay to park at home or work,
| or pay tolls on the commute.
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| Thank you for the excellent breakdown. Is insurance
| really that expensive in the US? Mine is something like
| $200/year.
| _delirium wrote:
| The numbers I can find are that the U.S. average is
| $125/mo for a single driver, and something like 1.5x that
| for a household. Varies hugely though based on age,
| driving record, vehicle value, and location.
| alostpuppy wrote:
| If that's health insurance it about 7x too low. Must be a
| cost sharing arrangement with the employer.
| kiba wrote:
| It is nonetheless a society wide problem, regardless of
| individual autonomy.
| slumdev wrote:
| To both of your questions, no.
|
| > Not to take away from your excellent point but is spending
| $9k/year on transportation really mandatory?
|
| Before "Cash for Clunkers", an Obama-era program that removed
| a lot of older vehicles from the road, it was normal to be
| able to purchase a functional and clean used vehicle for
| $2-3k. It is clear that the program was a great success at
| removing these vehicles. But with the average American car
| today being a mid-size SUV, it's not clear that it achieved
| its objective of reducing our CO2 emissions. Either way, the
| cost of a used vehicle today is much higher.
|
| > $7k on utilities?
|
| This is $700 per month. Someone in a medium-large house in a
| state with high electricity costs might spend this during the
| summer months. But the median American utility bill is
| probably in the $200-300 range, or $3600/year at the high
| end. The actual category on the linked web page includes "and
| other household operational costs". Figuring 1% of home value
| per year spent on maintenance, for a $300,000 home, that's
| another $3000. And that, combined with the utilities, gets us
| pretty close to the $7k number.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| I have a friend that spends 500$ / month on water alone. This
| person thinks they might have a pool leak, but hasn't looked
| into in the past 2 years.
|
| My parents use 900kwh of electricity / month and complain
| that PG&E are ripping them off when their bill is 400$ /
| month. Have they bothered to do anything to bring down their
| consumption? Nope.
|
| I have a T2 diabetic friend that complains about the cost of
| insulin, yet refuses to exercise and loose weight.
|
| People have not been suckered into anything. Most people lack
| the agency to change their circumstances.
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| I don't mean to put those people down - it is what it is.
| I'm privileged to be able to live frugally without
| sacrifice. I do object however at calling your parents'
| utility costs essential or mandatory. I hope some good
| counterexamples can help them/others see it's not
| impossible to spend less if they invest their energy in
| making changes.
| kiba wrote:
| It is a good idea to lower your utility cost, but the
| utility can still charge outrageous prices.
| watwut wrote:
| > I have a T2 diabetic friend that complains about the cost
| of insulin, yet refuses to exercise and loose weight
|
| Neither of those cures diabetes. It can help little but,
| but if he needs insulin he will continue to need insulin.
| There is no cure currently.
|
| Also, insulin has no reason to be expensive.
| kiba wrote:
| _I have a T2 diabetic friend that complains about the cost
| of insulin, yet refuses to exercise and loose weight._
|
| Losing weight and keeping the weight is hard. It isn't a
| coincidence that we have an obesity epidemic for a reason.
| Suppose your friend did try to lose weight? More likely
| than not your friend will gain weight back. Yes, there's no
| excuse to try. but there's no expectation of success.
|
| _People have not been suckered into anything. Most people
| lack the agency to change their circumstances._
|
| This is called learned helplessness and it is a big
| problem, but there are also contributing problems other
| than learned helplessness, such as structural problems
| surrounding housing options. In any case, blaming people
| for their lack of moral fortitude isn't really a solution
| at all. It means we stopped asking questions and looking
| for solutions.
| imtringued wrote:
| >It isn't a coincidence that we have an obesity epidemic
| for a reason.
|
| There are multiple factors but let me simplify
| everything.
|
| A lot of obese people are either hormonally or mentally
| ill. Their body or mind is no longer able to track food
| consumption and they overeat because of their hormonal
| state or because they are depressed and eating helps them
| overcome it.
|
| Obesity fuels hormonal and mental problems so it is a
| self reinforcing loop. If there are factors outside your
| control that make you obese then you will most likely
| stay obese because of the sheer amount of will power it
| takes to stop being obese. Obese parents make their
| children obese, transportation by car and easy desk jobs
| make obesity bearable, food quality is going downhill
| causing hormonal imbalances or lack of satiation.
|
| Bodies don't track calories for satiation, they track
| intake of nutrients. If you eat fatty foods your body
| will track how much fat you are eating and thus regulate
| how much fat to burn or store. Same with proteins. Carbs
| are different. They affect your insulin level but they
| don't affect satiation all that much. It's very easy to
| overeat carbs and run into hormonal imbalances where you
| feel hungry even through you already ate too much from a
| purely caloric perspective. The sheer density of calories
| in carbs is causing problems. If we wanted to stop the
| obesity epidemic we probably have to introduce
| carb/fat/protein ratios that must not be violated in
| processed food. Plus we need smaller packaging for food
| that cannot meet these ratios to prevent overconsumption.
| (no more 1.5 liter bottles for soda unless it is sugar
| free)
|
| Disclaimer: I don't know anything. I'm just a random
| person on the internet.
|
| Edit: The reason why intermittent fasting (and fasting in
| general) works is because it is the act of not letting
| your hormones or mental state decide your eating habits.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| In the case of weight loss, just knowing that regaining
| weight is likely is very atypical. Most dieters labor
| under the delusion they will be part of the 3% that can
| make a permanent change. I don't think that's de-
| motivating a considerable portion of people from making
| the change.
|
| I do not believe the status quo bias is learned
| helplessness. I believe it is the natural state of most
| people and that rational agency is an outlier. We are, as
| individuals, extremely predisposed to just doing what we
| do and discounting alternatives.
| beebeepka wrote:
| What is so hard about not consuming a lot more food than
| you need? It's an honest question
| bobthechef wrote:
| Frankly, I think consumerism is largely to blame.
|
| Consumerism is an _ethos_. Life is understood to be about
| consuming things, and in this case, literally consuming
| food. If you _want_ to eat it, then eat it. Watch how
| overweight people eat and live. Except for a small
| percentage of people with metabolic disorders, you 'll
| find your answer there. Consumerism turns traditional
| virtue on its head. Whereas once a man was a slave to his
| passions if he couldn't refuse himself their
| satisfaction, now satisfaction of them is the highest
| law. We even have the chutzpah to claim that this is the
| essence of freedom. Oh, how our ancestors weep! Yes, the
| man who can't control himself is now "free".
|
| Now, because we live in a consumerist society, the market
| is more than happy to indulge and enable what would have
| been previously considered a bad gluttonous habit. Junk
| food on every turn. Even foods that are supposedly
| healthy have less nutrition than they used to or contain
| various additives and sugar and all sorts of crap that I
| suppose people don't understand should be avoided. In
| turns, these additives can throw your metabolism out of
| whack. Libertarians will tell you that this is freedom
| and anything else is socialism, but that's bullshit. If
| industry is exploiting people's vices for profit, then
| this isn't freedom and it is the government's role to
| regulate and criminalize such things to protect people.
| That government can use protection as an excuse to push
| nefarious laws and regulation does not mean that it is
| always the case.
|
| (Mind you, the consumerist citizen is also easier to
| manipulate by the government, not just industry. If you
| are unable to refuse yourself things, then the government
| can better predict how to manipulate you. The same
| enslavement to one's passions also darkens the mind and
| makes you less capable of discerning the political
| control being used against you. It's the same with sexual
| liberation. Porn is a tool for social engineering and
| MeToo is the result of consumerism entering the sphere of
| sexual relations.)
| kiba wrote:
| This sounds like overmoralization, which doesn't promote
| effort to find solutions. Overweight people aren't lazy,
| they're sick.
|
| _Now, because we live in a consumerist society, the
| market is more than happy to indulge and enable what
| would have been previously considered a bad gluttonous
| habit._
|
| Food should be enjoyed. You shouldn't be shamed. Back in
| the country of my births, we have all sort of delicious
| food and enjoy feasts(sadly no delicious steaks or
| American BBQ).
|
| These are much healthier than the standard American diet,
| which are simply subpar and low quality.
|
| But I think diet not the only thing we should focus on.
| We should focus on cutting out unnecessary meals and
| snacks. You don't need to eat three square meals plus
| snacks, or breakfast, or be forced to eat if you're not
| hungry.
|
| That largely formed the basis of my weight loss strategy.
| Regimented intermittent fasting, sometime as long as two
| days, and eating clean. No sweetener of any kind(to avoid
| any kind of insulin response, known or unknown).
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| We do not currently know why it is so hard. Empirically
| it is know to be true.
|
| But it is clear that parts of the brain involved in
| feeding behavior can override the cortex.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It is hard because bad habits are hard to break. It
| starts in childhood for most people, and parents who
| foster an environment full of soda, junk food, and other
| sugar/carb/sat fat/salt/alcohol laden foods basically
| decide their kids' future for the most part.
|
| And, of course, people use food to deal with stress.
|
| You drink water almost all the time and eat mostly green
| stuff, you should be fine.
| balfirevic wrote:
| > It starts in childhood for most people, and parents who
| foster an environment full of soda, junk food, and other
| sugar/carb/sat fat/salt/alcohol laden foods basically
| decide their kids' future for the most part.
|
| Do you have a citation (preferably one that tries to
| control for genetics, but I'd appreciate any)?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It is a conjecture from my observations, and I guess I
| should note that I am not qualified in this field to make
| official statements.
|
| But I think the formula of "sleep right, eat right,
| excercise right, in that order" is pretty accurate.
|
| "Sleep right" contains the stress portion of being
| healthy.
|
| I do not even know if a proper controlled experiment
| could be conducted for such a complicated topic with our
| current technology. I just look at the habits of people I
| think are doing it right, and try to tease out the
| commonalities.
|
| Discipline is really the one trait that I guess leads to
| success in the above process, and probably everything
| else in life. Who knows how much of that is nature vs
| nurture.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| >Discipline is really the one trait that I guess leads to
| success in the above process, and probably everything
| else in life. Who knows how much of that is nature vs
| nurture.
|
| There was a recent EconTalk podcast about this. The
| author/guest is an expert in this type of behavioral
| change. Her opinion (which is the most informed I've
| read), is that discipline is not very important trait
| w.r.t. behavioral modification. Discipline is an active
| process and one must be constantly vigilant at a cortical
| level to execute it.
|
| Her view was situational control was the most important.
| With situational control, we learn to not put ourselves
| into situations beyond our control. For example, not
| buying a bag of Doritos is _MUCH_ easier than not eating
| a bag of Doritos sitting in front of you. Not going to a
| Casino is _MUCH_ easier than not gambling away all your
| cash for a gambling addict. Some thing for alcoholics
| etc.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Yes, that is what I meant by my initial post. "You are
| the company you keep" is one of the most true sayings, in
| my opinion. Unfortunately (and fortunately) that includes
| the parents and family one is born into.
|
| If you are lucky enough to have parents that sparingly
| eat Doritos or soda and do not keep it in the house, I
| assume that it will have a greater likelihood of rubbing
| off on the children.
| kiba wrote:
| Speaking as someone on a weight loss journey(Yes, I am
| losing weight), I would say it's not about calories, but
| hormones.
|
| If you eat more, you will simply burn more calories as a
| result. It's a mistake to think your calories out is a
| independent variable, rather than a dependent one.
|
| Also, your basal metabolism changes in response to
| exercises, especially long term. Metabolism calculators
| don't account for this.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| TDEE and calorie input explains weight changes within a
| 10% error margin.
|
| > If you eat more, you will simply burn more calories as
| a result.
|
| That statement is false. Calorie burn is a series of
| factors from activity, metabolism, size, etc. Caloric
| intake has little direct impact outside of how it affects
| your weight.
|
| > Also, your basal metabolism changes in response to
| exercises, especially long term. Metabolism calculators
| don't account for this.
|
| The effect is < 10% for base metabolism alone.
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16741271/
| kiba wrote:
| You cited the wrong link WRT basal metabolism and
| exercise.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803033/
|
| The point is that your basal metabolism changes in
| response to exercise over time, so it doesn't add as much
| weight loss as people think.
|
| Don't get me wrong, people should exercise for its health
| effect, but don't expect to lose weight.
|
| Dietary change is much easier.
| imtringued wrote:
| As I mentioned in another comment, the desire to consume
| calories depends on your current hormonal and mental
| state which are influenced by the food you eat. The
| centuries old diet for weight loss has always been
| cutting carbs and eating more fat and protein. How much
| you actually eat doesn't matter. Tracking calories isn't
| even necessary because your body will track fat and
| protein intake on its own.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| > the desire to consume calories depends on your current
| hormonal and mental state which are influenced by the
| food you eat
|
| There are many, many things that influence your mental
| state including whether you've been through a breakup,
| have depression, are in a stressful situation or have
| mild anxiety. Changing your diet may help some of those
| things but it will not remove them from the equation. If
| you're stressed, you might still eat all the time even
| when not hungry.
|
| > How much you actually eat doesn't matter.
|
| It is literally almost the only thing that matters.
|
| > Tracking calories isn't even necessary because your
| body will track fat and protein intake on its own.
|
| Controlling caloric intake, whether by counting or other
| restrictions, is literally the only way to lose weight.
| Plenty of people will continue to eat past the point of
| satiety for no shortage of reasons, or they may be eating
| food that doesn't make them feel satiated, or they may
| have medical or mental reasons for not registering the
| feeling of satiety.
| kiba wrote:
| _There are many, many things that influence your mental
| state including whether you 've been through a breakup,
| have depression, are in a stressful situation or have
| mild anxiety. Changing your diet may help some of those
| things but it will not remove them from the equation. If
| you're stressed, you might still eat all the time even
| when not hungry._
|
| Stress influence insulin and glucose level, which affects
| your fat store. So it's important to destress for
| hormonal reasons, not just to prevent overeating.
|
| _There are many, many things that influence your mental
| state including whether you 've been through a breakup,
| have depression, are in a stressful situation or have
| mild anxiety. Changing your diet may help some of those
| things but it will not remove them from the equation. If
| you're stressed, you might still eat all the time even
| when not hungry._
|
| Caloric restriction and exercising more is clearly not
| working, despite weight loss. Because what matters is if
| people can keep the weight off and maintain it.
| maxerickson wrote:
| So all you have to do is accurately calculate/estimate
| TDEE and calorie inputs?
|
| Sounds hard.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| It's about 10 mins and reading those large high contrast
| nutrition labels on your food.
|
| If you actually do find that too hard, pay someone for
| pre-portioned meals or go to a nutrionist.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Reading the boxes will establish my TDEE? How does that
| work?
|
| Also, just keeping track of calories is a lot of work.
| I've done it before, it isn't hard in a mechanical sense,
| it's hard in the sense that you have to do it all the
| time, for everything you eat, for quite a while, before
| you really have a reasonable picture.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| You can estimate your TDEE in a few minutes using a tool
| such as https://tdeecalculator.net/
|
| And it takes about five mins from your day to track
| calories. Get a piece of paper, write calorie counts of
| food you are consuming on it. Stop consuming food when
| the total exceeds your desired caloric goal ( TDEE -
| speed of weight loss ).
|
| If that is genuinely too hard for you, there are a number
| of pre-portioned food programs you can get.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _You can estimate your TDEE in a few minutes using a
| tool such ashttps://tdeecalculator.net/ _
|
| Or spend some money at a sports clinic to get hooked up
| to a machine:
|
| * https://korr.com/metabolic-test-equipment/
|
| * https://www.parvo.com/trueone-2400/
| bluescrn wrote:
| Exercise and weight loss won't fix the obscenity that is
| the US healthcare system
| cloudfifty wrote:
| > My parents use 900kwh of electricity / month and complain
| that PG&E are ripping them off when their bill is 400$ /
| month.
|
| Well, in Sweden the price for that would be $160. You seem
| to be kicking downwards by reflex.
| nine_k wrote:
| Losing weight while controlling one's blood sugar is not as
| easy (harhar) as losing weight while being otherwise
| healthy. Exercise and dieting still work but need a whole
| lot more of planning and monitoring. T2 diabetes has been
| successfully _cured_ by a special diet and exercise -- but
| inside a hospital due to these needs of constant
| micromanagement.
|
| If you have e.g. a day job, it becomes much less realistic.
| newsclues wrote:
| American cities (suburbs) are designed for cars, and for cars
| to be profitable for auto makers and oil companies.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| I don't think this article is saying those who can't limit
| consumption should limit consumption. It's saying those who can
| should do so. This certainly applies for a significant portion
| of the American population.
| imtringued wrote:
| The opposite position also exists. Essentials are expensive
| because people work a lot. By "a lot" I not only include the
| hours worked but also the productivity gained through external
| factors like agglomeration in large cities. You can earn more
| and spend more. The difference in spending power between jobs
| is driving gentrification.
| aliasEli wrote:
| It is an interesting article, but unfortunately its ideas do not
| appear to be very popular in the US.
|
| Also, it seems that the article is from 2008.
| cloudfifty wrote:
| This is the systematic problem causing our current ecological and
| climate crisis. That more or less the entire world economy is
| based on over-consumption encouraged by profit motives. Don't get
| stuck on diversions like using paper over plastic. The
| fundamental reason is the never ending search for profits.
| mastax wrote:
| I recently listened to an episode of the Ezra Klein podcast:
| "Michael Lewis is asking the right question."
|
| Milton Friedman predicted that in the future our productivity
| would be so high that we'd only work 15 hours a week. Well it's
| the future now, and he significantly underestimated the
| productivity we'd have. Yet, the average worker of today works
| longer hours than before, and higher status people work even more
| than that.
|
| They talk about consumption and desire, advertising and
| innovation, whether it's possible or desirable that we learn to
| be content with less. As an anthropologist Michael Lewis talks a
| lot about a society that lives very differently, and adds some
| nuance to the current meme that hunter gatherers had it better
| than the farmers that followed.
| adflux wrote:
| Plenty of productivity gained. Its just that its capital doing
| the work not humans
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _we 'd only work 15 hours a week. Well it's the future now,
| and he significantly underestimated the productivity we'd have_
|
| Most middle class Americans can _easily_ make this change. You
| just need to live by the lifestyle of the 1970s. No cable TV,
| internet or cell phones. No frequent air travel or goods
| shipped in weekly from overseas, certainly no grocery delivery
| or Uber or laptops or software.
|
| We don't because we don't want to. Not because we can't. (The
| picture for the lower classes is more constrained. That said,
| 15 hours a week at a hair above minimum wage is quite liveable
| in many parts of the country.)
| adflux wrote:
| Except for the fact that you wont be able to buy or rent a
| house
| [deleted]
| jbb_hn wrote:
| A few years ago, my city provided all residents with low flow
| showerheads - for "free". They were even delivered directly to
| homes.
|
| They included literature around reducing consumption and the
| importance of that for sustainability.
|
| Enough residents installed these that it led to a city budget
| deficit, since water consumption went way down, and they
| therefore generated less revenue.
|
| Their answer to this? Raise water prices.
| imtringued wrote:
| It really is weird. We work hard to produce a lot of water and
| then we expect there to be a buyer for the water, simply
| because we worked hard for it.
|
| I'd say reducing water usage was a good thing even if it lead
| to higher prices but unless the population of that city is
| growing it clearly is a waste of potential to have all that
| infrastructure sit partially idle.
| arbitrary_name wrote:
| Isn't that a good outcome? Water efficiency is a net good
| outcome for your city. Raising costs to recoup the deficit is
| ok with me, personally, if objectives like sustainability and
| efficiency were achieved.
| musingsole wrote:
| Reducing net water usage by a city == good thing
|
| Raising taxes on citizenry because they're using less
| resources == bad thing worthy of riots
| jbb_hn wrote:
| Saving water is a good outcome.
|
| It would have been nice if the reward for doing so was less
| cost, since that was one of the big marketing messages of the
| campaign.
|
| Instead they opted to give us less for more - perhaps that
| was the intention all along.
| smitty1e wrote:
| There is a difference between capitalism and materialism.
|
| The former is a Western cornerstone; the latter is the crass
| idolatry that renders contemporary culture a disaster.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-04 23:02 UTC)