Thursday, December 20, 2012

Consumer Christmas

[This post was meant to be written on December 9. Instead, I waited 'till the eve of the apocalypse for additional emphasis.]

After weeks of academic writing, it's time to let my hair down a bit and share some opinions! I just finished my Christmas shopping. All in all I think I spent $160 dollars, mostly on useful new things, some made-in-Seattle candle holders, and a few vintage records.

However, by tradition, my maternal extended family insists on a yearly $50 gift - we draw names from a hat and give that person something they probably don't want or need, since it would be rude or shameful to ask for something specifically. And besides, Christmas is about extravagance, not usefulness. It's the most shoppingest time of the year!

This gets me thinking about consumerism in our culture. Last week (let's call it that) I wrote a bit about gross national happiness as an alternative measure to GDP. Consumption is a major driver of GDP in America, and the holiday shopping season is often touted as vital for the American economy. Christmas has the power to create jobs, defeat the terrorists, and save America from certain doom!

According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans on average plan on spending $770 on Christmas gifts this year. 30% plan on spending more than $1,000. While this is off from the 2007 peak of $866, this is still a lot of money and will certainly put a dent in the finances of many Americans. So why do we spend so much on Christmas?

Are we Brainwashed?

Think about it.

Ho-Ho-Hos

Garland

Giant Red Bows

Twinkly Lights

Candy Canes

Jingle Bells

The Smell of Freshly Cut Fir Trees

It's like one giant Pavlovian orgy intended to get us to spend all our money in one month. At the first three notes of "Deck the Halls" we're bending over and asking how much it'll cost us. Then we wake up the day after Christmas and ask ourselves why Christmas just didn't feel like Christmas this year. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

From our first winter as a child, we are brought up to expect magic every year on December 25. We're told tales about a big fat man with a beard whose sole purpose in life is to stealthily give us useless toys in exchange for some cookies and milk, so long as we're good for the two weeks leading up to Christmas. It's all an elaborate bribe as far as I can tell, perpetuated by the companies who profit from our out of control spending: advertising agencies, toy manufacturers, Macy's, Walmart and Target.

Is Christmas really that great for the economy?

A CNN Money article (from Canada where they're experts on Santa) discusses this question and finds that, with so much of our money going to Asian manufacturers, the economic impact of Christmas may not be as significant as we've been told. Add in the argument that our money is being spent inefficiently on things with little use while building up debt that will hamper future spending, and the case for the Christmas boom sounds a little bit shaky.

And of course this is ignoring the immense environmental impacts of an elaborate Christmas. For instance, how much of our wrapping paper and ribbon is simply thrown away after one day of use? How many gifts are manufactured using coal, shipped to America using bunker fuel, and trucked to warehouse, store, and home before sitting idle and useless in a closet until they are rediscovered and thrown in a landfill? Could this energy and money not have been used for something worthwhile? Paying off household debt, for instance, or donated to a charity? And of course all of this is mere distraction from the things that make the holidays meaningful: goodwill, family, charity, and staying sane during the dark of winter.

An alternative Christmas

I fully intend to institute a gift-free Christmas next year, in order to focus on those closest to me. Eggnog, twinkly lights, candles and a wreath should be enough to have a cozy Christmas with loved ones. I'll just have to see what my family thinks about breaking with tradition.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Toward a new meaning of success

 Something I've been thinking about lately - and which we've discussed in class - is the idea that our measure of economic success is off. For decades our government and economists have focused so much on growth in Gross Domestic Product without thinking about whether GDP is a worthy measure, or what our true goals are. GDP basically measures how much money changes hands in the economy but doesn't measure all of the other transactions and activities that help to provide quality of life. When someone does a home repair or babysits their grandchildren, GDP measures these as less valuable than, say hiring a repairman or sending kids to daycare, because no money was changed hands. However, I would argue that these activities performed by self or a loved one are more valuable in improving one's happiness.

Even more, is a family dinner, a hike, a bonfire at the beach, or a hug represented in the GDP? Only marginally. GDP seems to only measure one element of the life of a country, and yet it is often held up as THE main indicator of the progress of a country.

So what should we be measuring?

Let's start by examining a few elements that make a good place to live.
  • Personal freedom. 
  • Social mobility. 
  • Support of family and friends. 
  • A healthy environment. 
  • Useful infrastructure. 
  • Access to work and knowledge. 
  • Access to healthy food and quality shelter. 
  • Freedom from crime, fear, and government corruption.
Few of these are measured by traditional economic metrics. What do they all have in common? I would say they are all means to one common end: human happiness.

Toward a measure of gross national happiness

Bhutan has begun to use  "gross national happiness" as its main measure of national success. That is, if the economy is growing by western standards but its people are unhappy, the government must act to improve the quality of life of its citizens. I believe we should consider following this model.

The GNH index used by Bhutan measures the four following pillars:
  • good governance
  • sustainable socio-economic development
  • cultural preservation
  • environmental conservation
Those have been further divided into nine "domains:"
  • psychological wellbeing
  • health
  • education
  • time use
  • cultural diversity and resilience
  • good governance
  • community vitality
  • ecological diversity and resilience
  • and living standards.
I believe that if the United States were to begin incorporating such a measure into our national goals, we would all be better off, and we would do things quite differently. Rather than simply focusing on the bottom line, we would begin to make strides toward the well-being of the economically disadvantaged. Indeed, some of the harmful economic activities so prominent today might begin to lose their luster as we begin to focus more on what truly makes human beings happy.