Af-flu-en-za n. 1. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from efforts to keep up with the Joneses. 2. An epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused by dogged pursuit of the American Dream. 3. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth…(http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza).

Picture from BK Currents

One of the committees I am on is to select the common reads book that all incoming freshmen at a university will need to read in the fall of 2010.  On Monday night, I picked up my assigned book with a mixture of curiosity and disappointment, “Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic” by De Graff, Wann and Naylor.  Not the typical choice for someone who loves reading memoirs and adult, ya and children’s lit. In fact, holding this book in my hand, I felt transported into the days of an undergrad with my assigned nonfiction readings such as “The New Media Monopoly” by Ben Bagdikian and “Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil Postman that would put me to sleep.

However, while the text is dry, I couldn’t help but get interested in the subject of the book–the sweeping epidemic of affluenza and the need for more. However, the message isn’t to stop buying, but it is “to buy carefully and consciously with full attention to the real benefits and costs of your purchases, remembering always that the best things in life aren’t things” (p. 8). Got to admit, it’s pretty deep for an informational text!

Here are some facts that blew my mind from just the first chapter, “Shopping Fever” (and also makes me totally not want to go Christmas shopping):

–On average, Americans spend six hours a week shopping, and only forty minutes playing with their kids (p. 14).

Shopping mall in Texas from www.sheknows.com/articles/809752.htm

–In 1999, according to the National Retail Foundation, Americans spent nearly $200 billion on holiday gifts, more than $850 per consumer. The month between Thanksgiving and Christmas, generated 25 percent of ALL retail profits ( p.13).

–We spend more on shoes, jewelry, and watches ($100 billion) than on higher education ($99 billion) (p. 13).

–Ninety-three percent of American girls rated shopping as their favorite activity (p. 15).

–Children as well as adults see a shopping center as just the natural destination to fill a bored life (p. 14).

–A CEO earns 475 times as much as the average worker, a tenfold increase since 1980 (p. 4).

–Eighteen billion mail-order catalogs flooded our homes last year, about seventy for every one of us (p. 16).

–Since 1950, we Americans have used up more resources than everyone who ever lived on the earth before then (p. 4).

–Scientists said we’d need several more planets if everyone on earth were to adapt the American standard of living (p. 3).

–Americans now spend an average of eleven hours a week online, and much of that time is spent shopping–nearly half of Internet sites are now selling something (p. 16).

–Every second, $729 worth of goods is sold on eBay (p. 17).

Still thinking of hitting up the mall? Then read these quick tips on beating affluenza from PBS.org.

so i have been discussing Christmas practices and traditions with other young parents and families, esp. regarding whether or not we include a certain fat man in a red suit in our celebrations, which we do not. many questions and generative conversations ensue so i thought i would share some of my observations on this particular topic with you.

this should come to no one’s surprise, but for me it all comes back to story.

to clarify, we do acknowledge the story of Santa Claus with our son. we acknowledge that the story of Santa Claus develops historically, finding its roots in Saint Nicholas. we acknowledge that the story of Santa Claus reveals the central idea of sharing all that we have with others. we acknowledge that, for some reason, some of our friends and family feel more comfortable calling themselves “Santa Claus” so that they can have some fun when they give us presents. but we also acknowledge that Santa Claus as a person does not exist. we do not celebrate Santa Claus nor do we display images of or countdown the days to Santa Claus’ arrival. instead, we focus upon the arrival of the Christ child. the central story of Christmas for our little family is that we share ourselves, we give gifts to others, and we celebrate Christmas in remembrance of the gift given to the world in Jesus Christ. as the years go by and our son gets older, we are working on helping him understand that Christmas is not some historical once-in-a-lifetime event that happens over 2000 years ago. God breaks into our world in new ways every year and that the celebration is not limited to one day but our entire lives. we are also still working on helping him connect the baby Jesus and the bearded man Jesus as one in the same person.

when we do this not be giant party poopers but b/c we believe that when we include alongside or allow the story of Santa Claus to overtake our celebration, i believe that we tell our children, others, and the world that the story of Christmas, the story of the birth of the Christ child, of God breaking into the world and “moving into the neighborhood” (thanks Eugene Peterson) is not magical, mysterious, majestic, or mystical enough; that we must include some mythical figure with a mysterious backstory and magical abilities to freshen it up. this is simply not true. check it out: angels delivering messages, virgin birth in a stable, stars in the sky, shepherds, angel choirs, wise men, epic journeys, a paranoid king, mass genocide, epic escapes, and on and on. the story of the birth of Christ, of God breaking into the world and sharing human form, is magical, mysterious, majestic, and mystical enough without flying reindeer.

or massive amounts of consumerism for that matter…
i haven’t even touched on the fact that the current image of Santa Claus we have is the creation of the Coca Cola company as a part of a marketing campaign to sell more products and is currently used to advertise black Friday sales and perpetuate massive consumerism (and subsequent debt).

what has been so surprising to my wife and i is the resistance we have received from others, from people who believe the story of Christ to be central to their own stories and the stories of the communities they associate with. we are not attempting to ruin Christmas or, more importantly, YOUR Christmas. or maybe we are. maybe we are trying to ruin the idea that Christmas is all about individualized consumerism, where we all get, materially speaking of course, what our little hearts desire so that our Christmas will be “good” and we get through one day to move on back to our regular everyday, individual lives. we are trying to ruin THAT Christmas story. we are attempting to discover a Christmas story about how we help others, how we share what we have with those around us because we are passionate about focusing our entire lives holistically on the love of God and neighbor. we are passionate about informing and focusing our family and community on, what we understand, is the true meaning and story of Christmas. we are passionate about proclaiming the story of Christ as big and beautiful enough without a pudgy, gift-giving mythical figure sneaking into our lives and stealing cookies.

thoughts?

You have probably heard of ‘influenza’. But have you heard of
‘Affluenza’? It is a social disease becoming very common these days.

Affluenza is a combination of the words affluence and
influenza. It is a state of isolation, anxiety and dissatisfaction caused
by the infection of thoughts we receive from the society to become
more and more affluent. We start collecting materialistic wealth
and goods which are otherwise unnecessary for a normal life.

Unfortunately all of us are suffering from this infection to a
higher or lower extent. We are living in a world of capitalism and
consumerism. We are engulfed with advertisements and
commercialism. To add to this, there are increasing incidents of
jealousy, unhealthy competition and lack of values in the society. All
of these factors contribute to the spread of Affluenza.

Like our common flu, this too is an infectious disease. We get it
from others and then we pass it on to others as well. The first victim
of this transfer of infection is our home and our children. We wish to
bring happiness in our homes and try to do so by becoming affluent or
wealthy overnight. The result? A lot of stress, discontentment and
anxiety due to problems like debts, envy and insensitivity.

We are living in vulnerable circumstances where everything
is stimulating us to jump into the trap of Affluenza. Movies, TV
shows and our general environment are all making it hard for us to
even think clearly.

We have forgotten the difference between a ‘want’ and a
‘need’ and have succumbed to this dreadful disease.

The only antidote to Affluenza is a belief in simple living. The
ultimate happiness lies in the simplest things. To quote the eternal
words of the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius (famous for his ‘Meditations on Stoic Philosophy’),
“Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking.”

— Prashant Shori

done

Il referendum sulla riforma elettorale celebrato il 21 e 22 giugno 2009 non ha raggiunto il quorum. La affluenza è stata rispettivamente di:

• per il quesito 1 il 23,45% degli elettori
• per il quesito 2 il 23,45% degli elettori
• per il quesito 3 il 24,05% degli elettori

(fonte ministero degli interni)

Le analisi fatte fino ad oggi sono senz’altro valide ed interessanti, personalmente ho preferito aspettare che il dibattito si fermasse per poterne parlare a mente fredda e lucida avendo già metabolizzato un dato non entusiastico di un’esperienza importante, nella quale ho svolto un ruolo di responsabilità.

Ogni analisi politica dovrebbe riuscire ad essere solida, stabile anche nell’incertezza e quindi dovrebbe avere una forma di prudenza nel disegnare ipotesi, specie lì dove i dati a disposizione sono inferiori e meno coerenti. Mi accingo a questa breve riflessione con gli strumenti dell’appassionato e non del tecnico.

Il primo fatto è che il referendum è all’interno di un ciclo progressivo di abbandono della partecipazione:

Ed è questa normalità che assume nei miei ragionamenti un ruolo principale perchè apparentemente nega che la spiegazione del mancato raggiungimento sia da attribuire alle pur molte stranezza ed unicità avvenute nella campagna elettorale, le stesse nelle quali faccio riferimento nella difficile diretta delle 17:00 del 22 giugno.

Questa difficoltà di cui parlo sono identificabili negli argomenti dei difensori dell’esperienza del referendum come unicum e non come parte di una tendenza.

1. La campagna referendaria non aveva mezzi economici sufficienti
2. La copertura mediatica è stata minima, sia sulla carta stampata che in televisione
3. Gli argomenti del referendum erano troppo specifici o tecnici
4. Il disinteresse dei partiti
5. La data del voto sfavorevole per la vicinanza con le elezioni europee

Sulla quantità dei mezzi economici non ci sono molte argomentazioni che si possono usare tranne osservare che la quantità di denaro impiegata, una volta superata la quota che rende praticabile l’elezione, non è in grado di influenzare così drasticamente un risultato. Sempre osservando la tendenza e partendo dal fatto che le precedenti tornate referendarie hanno avuto una disponibilità economica drammaticamente superiore (fino a 10 volte il budget questo) ulteriori investimenti economici avrebbero avuto, a mio giudizio, un impatto meno che proporzionale. Dato il doppio della propaganda si ottiene meno del doppio dei voti.

Appare evidente, proprio osservando le affluenze che chi sostiene la non partecipazione come scelta attiva e che, di conseguenza, vorrebbe intestarsi questo 85 per cento come suo elettorato fa un operazione furbesca e (nemmeno troppo proprio) per la tendenza regolare all’abbandono delle consultazioni.

L’osservazione dello svolgimento del campagna referendaria e la piena consapevolezza della tendenza alla non partecipazione al referendum mi fa credere che in questo paese ci sia un 23 o un 24 per cento di elettori fisiologici che si informano e decidono, che per loro natura tendono ad assumere comportamenti elettorali progressisti. Il non voto si appoggia e si confonde ma non puo’ sollevarsi come un opinione politica articolata.

Il mancato raggiungimento del quorum è proprio da attribuirsi al mancato coinvolgimento sociale dei partiti che, nella loro veste iper moderna non sono più strumento di trasmissione e di stimolo dell’elaborazione politica nelle strutture di base ma piuttosto un numero ridotto di luoghi di racconto politico dove narrazioni complete vengono diffuse capillarmente dai nuovi media di massa. La popolazione democratica è costretta quindi non solo ad assistere ma nel manifestarsi di una necessità sociale è privata di quei referenti che in primo luogo sono in grado di recepire il disagio esistente ma soprattutto di trasformare il disagio in proposta politica.

Oggi ci troviamo ancora con quella legge, che continua ad essere una legge sbagliata. Siamo più deboli, perchè un corpo vivo come la società perde sempre di più la propria resilenza adattandosi ai vizi strutturali che sono intercorsi. Siamo, come attori politici, socialmente più stupidi di ieri perchè parliamo tra cittadini sempre meno e riceviamo stimoli sociali sempre minori.

Concludo con una nota di amarezza questo ragionamento che ho iniziato qualche mese fa con una battuta: “il futuro è alle nostre spalle”.

By Stephen Linaweaver
Published November 02, 2009

http://greenbiz.com/blog/2009/11/02/go-slow-stay-low-mantra-greener-economy

In another life, I was an educator for Save the Bay in Oakland, Calif.

With the humdrum of finance, technology, and transportation whirring around and above us, we spent our days with scores of middle schoolers, teaching them to paddle canoes and absorb the natural world around them for the first time. The most difficult part was to teach them to get into, and out of, the canoes without tipping them.

“Go slow, stay low” was the mantra. It worked for most, but not for all. Inevitably there would be a few life vest-wearing, mud-covered students waist high in the waters of the bay before class was over.

Canoes, like economies, are more stable moving steadily forward than still. As firms look ahead to 2010 and finalize their strategic planning and budgeting processes, they are asking themselves. “Will the economy return to its ‘normal’ growth patterns? What share of the market will we retain if it does?”

This past Thursday’s GDP data sent the Dow soaring. Twelve hours later it plunged on weak consumerspending figures.

Where is the economy going?

This “post-recession,” still-life economy is very similar to that tippy, stationary canoe, and most companies would do well to pay heed to the advice given to 8th graders on Save the Bay trips. There are three reasons the economy will not return to its former state, especially in the U.S. The first is practical, the second behavioral, and the third theoretical. They are all sustainability related.

Practical

Firstly, there are practical reasons for a slow in growth that will have an impact on companies. It does not have to do with the crash in the housing market, although that rationale has been much discussed, and over-hyped. Taking GDP as the measure of economic growth in the United States, residential investment only accounts for 4 percent of GDP.

Even at the height of pre-crash euphoria it was just 6 percent. By comparison, personal consumption, that holy grail of “consumer spending” makes up 70 percent of the U.S. GDP. That is astounding: Consumption of stuff — goods and services — makes up 70 percent of the U.S. economy.

That figure was previously lower — 60 percent at the start of the 1950s. It is also lower in other countries: U.K.: 64 percent, Japan: 58 percent, Canada: 55 percent (2003 figures). In China, that figure is 36 percent (Note to reader: if your company is not looking for retail space in China, it will be). What does this mean? It means that the U.S. GDP is overly reliant on consumer spending. And now the money that was once being spent is being saved.

According to The Economist Special Report on the Economy, the household saving rate went from just 2.7 percent between 2002 and 2007 (remember the post 9-11 advice from your then-president, “Go out shopping”?) to 5 percent in the second quarter of this year.

Not a big deal you say? Each increase in savings by one percentage point reduces annual spending by $109 billion. A savings rate of 8 percent would pull $545 billion out of the economy.

Not possible you say? The U.S. savings rate was 8 percent in much of the 1960s and 1970s. Those are dollars pulled directly from Main Street, like a bad Laurel and Hardy joke where a dollar bill on a string is yanked unexpectedly before it can be picked up. This is good for the long-term sustainability of the country and future generations, but it can be a short-term challenge for thousands of companies that make superfluous stuff under a model of planned, or even unplanned, obsolescence.

A savings rate of 13 percent would leave the U.S. economy with a $1.1 trillion gap to fill. The total U.S. GDP in 2008, it should be noted, was “just” $14 trillion (World Bank, October 2009). And 13 percent is in no way outside the realm of the possible. Germany had a 10 percent savings rate in 2006, France 12 percent (OECD). China? An extraordinary 50 percent.

Scarred by the recent recession and jittery about a jobless recovery, the question is not will Americans save more, but how much more will Americans save, and how high will that savings rate reach. So for practical reasons, the economy will not return to its former state, and companies need to recognize this.

Behavioral

Secondly, “he who dies with the most toys wins” is soooooo 1990s.

Americans are beginning to come to terms with a culture of overconsumption. The prospect of more stuff is not seen as attractive as it once was, and U.S. citizens are rethinking the informal contract they have with companies. They expect more from them in terms of quality and durability and environmental safety.

“More is better” has been replaced by quality of life. It is not by accident that even Walmart’s slogan has changed from “Everyday Low Prices” to “Save Money. Live Better.”

The concept of America as a wasteful, over-consumptive society is not new.This was well chronicled in the documentary “Affluenza” in 1997, which described excessive consumption and its effects as almost a disease. Other magazine articles and books have also covered this ground. But the topic is now making stronger inroads into popular culture: “The Story of Stuff,” “Wall-E,” the shrinking size of homes, decrease in the number of cars per family, and the fact that you could fit three Priuses into one Hummer. The next generation in the bull’s eye of Madison Avenue’s scope — millennials — sees value not in what they have, but in the connections they make, in their degree of helpfulness, in the richness of their experiences.

Values are shifting — a long time in the making, but they are shifting:

“All the legislation in the world can’t fix what is wrong with America. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.”

That phrase was not uttered at a San Francisco book reading or on “This American Life.” It was spoken, extraordinarily, and publicly, in the Oval Office. Not by Obama or by Bush the Second. Jimmy Carter made that statement in a 30-minute televised address he gave to the nation in July 1979, 30 years ago this past summer.

Astute readers will note that nothing much changed after Carter gave that speech 30 years ago. So if nothing changed then, why should we expect anything to change now?

Because when Jimmy Carter made that speech it was the end of an era, the sunset of his presidency, which was followed by Reaganomics and Thatcherism, mass de-regulation, a decrease in the marginal tax rate of the highest incomes in the U.S. from 50 percent to 28 percent, the heyday of Gordon Gecko and “Greed is Good” on Wall Street, and an attempt to use high-octane capitalism as way to vanquish our monolithic enemy: the Soviet bloc countries.

In 2009, we are under very different circumstances.

We are at the beginning of a political era, facing a long-lasting recession, a backlash against greed and supply-side economics, the potential for an increase in the marginal tax rate, a diffuse enemy not responsive to capitalism’s successes or excesses, and an environmental challenge that cannot be swept away like Carter’s energy policy was after gas prices dropped in the late ’70s.

Americans will still consume, but in different ways.

Look to Europe for cues. Enter more leisure time, healthfulness, quality and valued family time. Exit the Escalade,
Evian and anything that smacks of materialism without meaning. Companies that think, “We have heard this story before,” need to take a harder look at the unique confluence of trends we currently face. There will be ample opportunities, but not in the places you last looked.

Theoretical

GDP is a very poor measure of overall well-being and quality of life. We know this. Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, Nicholas Stern, and a Who’s Who of economists commissioned by the French Government are currently trying to figure out a better measure of economic performance and social progress. In the meantime, GDP is the de-facto measurement of economic growth and one where we have sufficient data. Companies have enjoyed consistent GDP growth over the past century and that has generated ample wealth generation for individuals and consistent success for corporations.

One of the problems with GDP, however, is that the economy churns within the confines of a closed-loop system, otherwise known as the planet. This is not news to environmentalists or social scientists, but it always seems to surprise economists. Kenneth Boulding, with “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth” in 1966, and Stuart Brand, with the photo of Earth from space on the first Whole Earth Catalog in 1968, did a brilliant job of trying to wake us up to this reality. That was over 40 years ago, and we are only now beginning to recognize the limits of this closed-loop system, in terms of resource supply and pollution sink capacity.

Any entity within a closed loop system cannot grow infinitely. By comparison, let’s look at the growth patterns of a young male and the U.S. GDP. Both grow within a bounded system.

Average male height, age 2 (36 inches) to 20 (70 inches), 50th percentile, Center for Disease Control (pdf).

U.S. GDP, 1940-2005, $ Billions, swivel.com.

Even to the untrained eye, there appears to be a difference. The concept of limited resources has been debunked time and time again — human ingenuity, technology, and price signals all step in to keep us plowing forward. But it appears that the Earth’s ability as a sink, and the prospect of climate changing as the sink reaches its limit, may be the first indicator that growth cannot go on forever.

Any entity within a closed-loop system that grows without bounds would be the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Herman Daly’s “Steady-State Economics” taught us this in 1977, two years before Carter made his speech.

Theoretically, the economy cannot maintain its former growth rates permanently. Placing GDP within the context of the CDC growth chart, it is hard to know if we are a 4 year-old, or a teenager nearing our adult height. My money is on the latter.

Due to the practical, behavioral, and theoretical rationales laid out above, the growth economy as we knew it may be a relic of history. Our current jobless recovery could become a growthless “recovery.” Companies with executives holed up in board rooms, contemplating 2010 forecasts and strategies, need to consider what their businesses will look like in an era of moderate to no growth.

This is not an altogether bad thing.

Companies will continue to add value through goods and services, and citizens will benefit. Some companies who think ahead, who thoughtfully evaluate the scenarios they face and their current capabilities, or lack thereof, and who rethink their business models and their contracts with their consumers — they will benefit substantially. Others
will slip off the S&P 500 without a sound. Sustainability, at a macro level, will be strengthened.

Economies, like sitting canoes, are tippy. Stay low and go slow.

Stephen Linaweaver is associate principal at GreenOrder, an LRN Company. GreenOrder is a strategy and management consulting firm that, since 2000, has helped leading companies turn environmental innovation into business value.

Images CC licensed by Flickr users jonrawlinson, Robert S. Donovan and anoldent.

Stefano Cappellini su Il Riformista aveva pronosticato la scomparsa del popolo delle primarie. 3 milioni di persone lo hanno smentito.

Affluenza alle ore 11.30, 876.000. Se continua così alla fine saranno 2 milioni e mezzo i votanti. Risultati ufficiosi già in serata. Anche su Yes, political!

Dato della affluenza delle ore 17:

Alle 17 e 30 hanno votato circa 2 milioni di persone.
Due anni fa alla stessa ora i votanti erano stati 1,5 milioni, ora per l’esattezza sono 1.962.397.
Le regioni con più votanti: 300mila in Emilia Romagna, 250mila in Lombardia e 200mila nel Lazio.

Aggiornamento ore 18.00, le dichiarazioni di Marino:

• AGI News On – PD: MARINO, +20% VOTANTI RISPETTO AL 2007, DATO STRAORDINARIOtags: no_tag
  • Oltre 876mila persone hanno gia’ votato alle primarie del Pd alle 11.30: “Nel 2007 erano solo 600.000, un 20% di votanti in piu’ quest’anno che rappresenta un dato straordinario”. E’ il commento di Ignazio Marino, uno dei tre candidati leader del Partito Democratico, che intervistato da Sky Tg24 aggiunge: “Un segno che gli italiani chiedono e si aspettano un cambiamento, che deve passare attraverso un rinnovamento radicale del Pd”.

Aggiornamento ore 14.20: code ai seggi!

(fonte Corsera)

• Primarie, il PD sceglie il segretario

Nei 9.800 seggi aperti in tutta Italia gli elettori dovranno portare un documento di identità e la tessera elettorale. Potranno votare anche i sedicenni, a cui basterà la carta di identità, e gli stranieri: per loro è necessario anche il permesso di soggiorno in regola. Sono circa 70mila i volontari al lavoro.

Per chi non sa dove sia il suo seggio, basterà collegarsi con il sito internet del partito o telefonare al numero verde (848.88.88.00).

Il Pd annuncerà l’afflusso ai gazebo delle 11 e delle 17, nonchè quello finale delle 20. Un sofisticato sistema tecnologico di trasmissione dei dati consentirà di avere già nella tarda serata i risultati ufficiosi, mentre per quelli ufficiali si dovrà attendere domani pomeriggio.

Alle 11.30 nei 10mila seggi in cui si vota per le primarie del Pd avevano già votato 876.570 persone. Lo ha reso noto, a nome della commissione congresso del Pd, Maurizio Migliavacca.

“More Stuff.  More Space.  Less Life.” How true is this quote?  As we move into the holiday season, I am once again contemplating the meaning of all the stuff around our lives.

I met a lady yesterday, who was inquiring about a membership to the YMCA.  Her kids had asked her to come up with some “clutter free” gift ideas.  As a family, they had decided that more stuff was utterly unnecessary.

After our conversation, I was left pondering the values in our consumptive culture.  How do our things serve us?  How do they detract or add to our livelihood?  What do they do to our relationships?  How does stuff find its way into our precious homes?

When people visit, I often hear comments such as “Your place is so neat.  How do you do it?”  I often equate it to my hyper-perfectionist personality and the fact that we don’t have little people running around yet.  However, I also now see a deeper root cause.  Jeremy and I don’t live with a lot of stuff.  Consciously or unconsciously, we have been very intentional about what we bring into our home.  Throughout our marriage, we have continued to purge and let go of the things that no longer add value to our lives.  Through this process, we’ve found both healing and freedom.  The things in our home mean something and often shine on special memories.  They reflect who we are and what we believe in.  They support and nourish our souls, as we retreat from a harried, hectic day.  The stuff in our lives is separate from us.  At any time, moths or thieves, floods or fires, could take it all away.  Upon this reflection, we are centered in knowing that our eyes need to be fixed on something greater.  Something more real.  Something more lasting.

“Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful”

~William Morris

So, when we go to the stores today, we walk around, immersed in the glamour and sparkling of advertisements.  Our eyes grow wide and our mouths well with thirst over all the yummy, delicious stuff within reach of our fingertips.  We dream about bigger, better, and more.  For a tiny moment, we get lost in the world of illusion; thinking all our problems will be solved if we stuffed our home with all that neat, shiny stuff.

Sale items are my poisonous apple.  While I often don’t need it, I can find every reason and excuse to bring it home.  I mean, it’s a great deal!  It was meant for me to find it!  Shoes and purses are definitely my weakness.  But, bygone, I’ll make room in my closet because it’s worth it!

New Table. Old, Spooky Decoration.

During a recent trip to Target, I came across an aisle full of clearance furniture.  Modern, sleek, new; just calling my name.  I quickly snatched up one of the tables, feeling a tiny twisting in my stomach.  Did I need it?  Heck no, but I proceeded to walk around with it in the cart.  Tiny voices, from both shoulders began speaking.  After bouncing between need and want, I headed toward the checkout line…..with the table.  I had talked myself into deciding it was worth it.  Plus, it really was something I had my eye on for a while, but knew it would only find its way into our home if it drastically came down in price.

When I got home and put the tiny table in the place my mind had picked out, I began to contemplate the price of many things filling the average home today.  This little table cost me two hours of work.  Yet, I began to think beyond that.  Time cleaning, moving (near and far), and decorating also needed consideration.  Over the course of a lifetime, this tiny table may end up taking more of my life than I originally understood.  Not to mention the real estate (space) it now required in our overall square footage.

While this illustration may seem small and worthless, I do have to wonder how this illuminates a greater story.  If our eye is fixed on this stuff, if it only adds to our meaning of success, then what have we lost?  How have we volunteered our time to this stuff, while replacing our capacity for authentic love and real relationship?  In what ways might our stuff neglect or cover feelings/situations that need to be indebted to time?

“We don’t need to increase our goods nearly as much as we need to scale down our wants.  Not wanting something is as good as possessing it.”

~Donald Horban

How will you keep space to love those around you?  What will your buying criteria, in response to more life, be this holiday season?

What’s your definition of the word “luxury”? Dictionary.com says:

Luxury: n. a material object, service, etc., conducive to sumptuous living, usually a delicacy, elegance, or refinement of living rather than a necessity.

That’s probably some variation of what you said isn’t it? Well according to my research on travel in the future, you and Webster would be wrong.

Many of my sources say that in the future luxury is less about materialism, but more about self-enrichment and time. In a future where we’ll be working non-stop and barely have time for personal lives, time with friends and families will be a luxury. Relaxation even in a tent in the woods will be a luxury. Photographing birds on pier will be a luxury if photography is your passion.

In the future, the concern when it comes to vacations isn’t so much about what you are getting as what you are doing. We’re moving towards an “experience economy” where people want to be differentiated not by what they have but what they are doing. For example, hiking in the Galapagos with your significant other would be considered more luxurious than owning a Lamborghini in this experience economy.

The new definition of luxury and the experience economy are results of what author Oliver James has coined “affluenza.”

Affluenza is “a contagious middle class virus causing depression, anxiety, addiction and ennui, a global tour of infected minds by a renowned psychologist in search of being successful and staying sane.”

My idea of luxury? I would love to go glamping! The outdoors has never been my thing, but if I had all the comforts of home and then some, you best believe I’d brave it out there in the woods! I think it would be so neat to stay in one of these exotic locales in one of these amazing abodes. What do you think of glamping? What’s your idea of luxury at the moment?

Frugality is everywhere. It’s on TV, in the papers and certainly on the internet.

It’s inescapable.

But that doesn’t mean that frugal folk stand out any more than your average American. Often, frugality is completely behind closed doors.

I come across a wide cross section of society in the course of my job as a hospital nurse. I was caring for an East Africa woman a few weeks back and sure enough, the subject of frugality came up. I explained the measures my family takes to live inexpensively, and her response was, “Oh, but there are no other Americans that live that way.”

This got me thinking about how I might appear to someone who would simply be taking me at face value.

Because I live in a large house in a desirable neighborhood, to a stranger it would be a safe assumption that we are the Joneses. The outward appearance of our lives would appear as anything other than your typical mall shopping, credit card swiping average American.

Of course, you know better. You know that we cook inexpensive meals from scratch, shop thrift stores for almost all our needs, shy away from pricey gift giving and do almost all of our home improvement projects ourselves.

Of course, there is the opposite situation where people appear to live in luxury yet are actually swimming in debt. This, we expect. This, is covered quite nicely in the media. This, people expect from Americans.

But the secretly frugal are not on people’s radars as much. We exhibit no stereotypical signs of poverty such as run down cars and grubby clothing. We appear to be living the American dream.

No wonder my patient thought there were no frugal Americans.

Do you feel like your frugality is behind closed doors? Are you private about the financial choices that allow you to appear to be living beyond your means? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Katy Wolk-Stanley

“Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.”

Last night, we held my 14-year-old son’s birthday party at a Portland Parks and Recreation roller rink. And yes, we booked the whole rink, which set us back a cool $115.

Although the initial outlay of cash put a bit of a tight feeling in my chest, (it is very against type) I do feel like providing an occasional blow-out party is something that I’m happy to do. I don’t want to get through the last few years of this son’s childhood and feel like I was too tight fisted to splurge here and there.

However, having spent the big bucks did not mean I was going to keep up a spendthrifting pace. I made 75 cupcakes from scratch, filled a big insulated container with watery lemonade from concentrate, (I rightly figured the kids would be thirsty from all the skating) brought my own ceramic mugs from home, invested in a few bags of chips and called that good. I didn’t buy party favors or feel the need to put up decorations.

My son put together a play-list on his iPod which we were able to hook into their sound system. The combination of Led Zeppelin, Jimmy Hendrix and Michael Jackson was a big hit and helped set a party mood from the get-go.

The man who worked the rink was fabulous. He kept a tight eye on safety issues, (even providing a fan and a popsicle for the one kid who got overheated) kept the action fresh by providing balls and hockey equipment, and even got a game of dodgeball going at the end.

Alas, I didn’t find any coins on the ground, but I did pull a glass leftovers container, (complete with plastic snap-on lid) from the garbage.

Not bad, not bad at all.

Katy Wolk-Stanley

“Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.”

I often find that the overall culture of our corporate consumerist dystopia is mired in contradictions that are likely to be making a lot of people dazed, lost, confused and afraid of opening their mind lest it be utterly blown away by the sheer lack of sense in the overall state of society.

I mean, we’re told we need tighter buns, flatter abs, softer skin, and yet we have Big Macs, soft drinks and a wide assortment of chocolates, candies and other nasty junk launching their colourful assault on our eyes and minds from their places on store shelves and TV commercials.

We’re told we need to go to school and get an education to make it anywhere in life, yet we’re expected to be docile and stupid… all the better for the elites when they want to sell us crap, send us to war or sign away our rights with yet another law that is intrusive of our liberties. And of course, the corporate oligarchs running the industries necessary for such things are laughing all the way to the bank as they count their hundreds of millions of dollars they’re not likely to be spending while people who work harder, more labour intensive jobs, breaking their backs and filling their lungs with coal dust earn only a fraction of that.

But those hard-working middle-class shouldn’t have to worry if they get injured or sick doing their back-breaking jobs… because the health insurance companies are there to pick up the bill when it happens. Oh wait… you had a yeast infection ten years ago? That’s a pre-existing condition? The procedure and medication are ‘experimental’? Oh well… sucks to be you… just do us a favour and die quickly OK?

We go to the bank… see about opening an account so we can ‘make our money grow’ like their ads say… maybe get a debit card to use to pay the bills… oh don’t do that… we want you to get a credit card. Its so much easier to get stuff on a credit card right? Yeah… your money grew all right… it grew when it started to belong to the banks who are charging interest on that new big screen plasma TV you couldn’t afford but bought anyway.

By the way… on the subject of television… lets say you’re watching all the free-to-air networks… and rightly conclude that the content on there is rubbish. Then you see an ad on those channels for pay TV and you get a set top box and a Foxtel subscription… and guess what… you’re still getting the same rubbish… only a lot of it is imported from the UK rather than the US. And the ad breaks aren’t any shorter either… hmmm….

Libraries… reading classes? Oh hell yeah lets get all of our children to read everything they can get their hands on. Oh wait… Harry Potter… evil manual for witchcraft… can’t have that. Teenagers and adults… you’d better be reading too. Oh… you want to read The God Delusion? Heathen swine! You’d better be reading the Bible. Nineteen Eighty Four? What have you got to go questioning the government for? Don’t you know they are here to help? How about Twilight then? Oh you like the emo Mormon vampires? That’s OK. Don’t forget to go watch the movie and buy all the merchandise as well… that’s a good little consumer slave.

Is it any wonder the search for consistency in society, and even the striving for consistency in your own life and mind is so difficult? We’re treated to this massive clusterfuck of contradictory messages and we’re expected to take all of them in.

I like to bring a book or magazine into bed, where I can actually read without worrying that, “I should be doing this” or “I should be doing that.” Sometimes I read way into the night, other times just a page or two’ll do me.

Last night I grabbed my well worn copy of Amy Dacyczyn’s The Complete Tightwad Gazette for a little night time inspiration. Although I’ve owned this books for years and feel like I have it memorized, it had been awhile since I’d delved in.

In the introduction, Dacyczyn responds those who criticize her frugal methods as too extreme:

“This seems as good a place as any to respond to the common criticism that my ideas are too extreme. The very purpose of a newsletter is to meet a need that is not met by the mainstream media. Traditional financial advice and consumer writers offer safe, halfway advice: They’ll tell you how to feed a family of four for $84 per week (when it can be done for half that amount). The same writers will tell you it’s becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for families to make ends meet. In fact by adhering to the ’safe’ advice, many families would not make ends meet. The Tightwad Gazette came about as a reaction to this traditional viewpoint, because I knew that people could achieve the ‘impossible’ with a little discipline, a little creativity, and a willingness to to do things that mainstream thinkers deem extreme.”

Too extreme? Isn’t that like ice cream being too smooth and creamy?

My frugality has been mostly well received, but there are those who complain that I’ve gone over the edge. This bothers me not one whit, as I am quite comfortable and confident with my methods of madness. And I completely agree with her assessment of mainstream media. If I read the tired advice of skip that morning latte one more time, I just might have to drown myself in a double shot soy venti hazelnut vanilla cinnamon white mocha!

An example of the degree to which I’m willing to go in the name of frugality happened just today. I was helping my mother clean out two of her rental cottages between tenants and was able to fill a grocery bag with the stuff that people had left behind.

I brought home:

• Half a bottle of corn oil
• A mostly full carton of milk
• A small bag of almonds
• A stick-and-a-half of butter
• A half-dozen eggs
• A never opened bag of tortilla chips
• A never opened jar of salsa
• A half empty bottle of barbeque sauce
• An almost full bottle of shampoo
• A box of tooth whitening strips
• A bag of parmesan cheese
• An onion
• Half a box of linguine
• Half a bulb of garlic
• A wide mouth canning jar with lid

There are some who would say that scrounging for food is way too extreme for them. But I feel totally comfortable and completely non-paranoid about this activity.

Frugality is about saving money on the things that don’t matter so the money is available for the things that do.

I have a goal to get all my money-pit-of-a-house debt paid off as soon as possible. And this means both making extra money, as well as looking for every opportunity where I can shave a little bit from my spending.

Extreme? Maybe so, but without extremity I would be working full time and probably living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Are you willing to make some extreme decisions to support the life you want to live? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Katy Wolk-Stanley

“Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.”

In high school I became a collector of stuff, mostly decorative objects found at garage sales or hauled out of trash heaps. This practice was in line with my architectural (slash interior design) aspirations, but after a year in college I realized the vanity of so many objects.

So early in my college career I began to cultivate a minimalist aesthetic that has largely stuck with me since graduation. It’s difficult to pull off, though, in a materialistic culture supersaturated with advertisements and run by Washington bureaucrats whose idea of good times seems to revolve solely around the health of a consumerist economy.

Materialism, stuff, a minimalist aesthetic remains on my mind after our move of three months ago. We went from 1,500 square feet of living space to around 500, not including a shared kitchen, bathroom and office. Every so often I find myself looking around again, wondering what we might be able to do without. A multitude of dishes and decorative items remain in boxes. How much of this stuff is worth schlepping around? How much of the unpacked stuff is worth keeping around?

It seems to me this is a more difficult question to answer for craftsmen and women. We are wired to create objects, thus objects potentially have more meaning for us than, say, accountants or fishermen. Furthermore, we often own a slew of tools related to our craft. In some ways these objects are in a different class than what we put in our house, except for the fact that many of us don’t have spaces outside of our home for a shop or studio.

This morning I read a good article on a blog called The Art of Manliness titled Go Small or Go Home: In praise of minimalism. The author quotes Leo Babauta’s answer to the question “What is the minimalist lifestyle?”

It’s one that is stripped of the unnecessary, to
make room for that which gives you joy.

It’s a removal of clutter in all its forms,
leaving you with peace and freedom and
lightness.

A minimalist eschews the mindset of more, of
acquiring and consuming and shopping, of
bigger is better, of the burden of stuff.

A minimalist instead embraces the beauty of
less, the aesthetic of spareness, a life of
contentedness in what we need and what
makes us truly happy.

A minimalist realizes that acquiring stuff
doesn’t make us happy. That earning more
and having more are meaningless. That
filling your life with busy-ness and
freneticism isn’t desirable, but something to
be avoided.

A minimalist values quality, not quantity, in
all forms.

The first and last points in Babauta’s list resonate with me. These are things I’ve realized, that overkill kills the potential for joy and quality is more important than quantity. Overkill I’ve yet to get control of in life, but the value of quality is already present.

So what is unnecessary in my life right now that needs to be done away with? What is truly important? I’ve already culled a number of blogs from my feed reader in an attempt to refine my daily news and reading time. In place of that I’ve been trying to go through part of the Daily Office every morning.

Before doing away with too many things, however, I probably need to focus on setting some attainable short and long-term goals. I’ve never been good at this. I’m much more a live in the moment type of guy. I have come to realize the value of setting a certain direction for your life though. Our culture presents us with never-ending distractions that must be tamed. It also steers us into a certain kind of workaholism; productivity becomes a cult we’re expected to aspire to.

Setting [realistic] goals will help me determine what is unnecessary.

The author of the Art of Manliness post concludes by giving us

Leo Babauta’s Principles of Living the Minimalist Life

1. Omit needless things. Notice this doesn’t say to omit everything. Just needless things.

2. Identify the essential. What’s most important to you? What makes you happy? What will have the highest impact on your life, your career?

3. Make everything count. Whatever you do or keep in your life, make it worthy of keeping. Make it really count.

4. Fill your life with joy. Don’t just empty your life. Put something wonderful in it.

5. Edit, edit. Minimalism isn’t an end point. It’s a constant process of editing, revisiting, editing some more.

I would add the following:

6. Hold on loosely. Even to your prized possessions. At the end of the day its relationships, not possessions, that make life worth living.