The Future of Consumption

Should you try and take a step back from consumer society? Or would that just put your favorite shop owner out of a job? A special MoJo Wire forum.

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


Consumption and commercialism are the foundations of the U.S. economy and, some would say, U.S. society. Advertising has a fueled a cycle of desire, to buy the things we don’t have and to be the things we aren’t. The results of this kind of economy, to be overly simplistic, have been good and bad. On one hand, we have a far higher standard of living than ever before in history; we’re living longer and healthier lives. On the other hand, our demands for ever more stuff have rough consequences on the land, the atmosphere, the living systems around us. Has our advertiser-charged desire to consume more — and to be commodities ourselves — spun out of control? How much is enough? If we’re on a path of hyper-consumption, what are the potential consequences, environmental and otherwise? And is any of this making us happier?

Over the past several decades, critics have begun to ask these questions, and some have concluded that we need to consume less; one example is Bill McKibben’s article in the December issue of Mother Jones,The $100 Christmas.”

But what are the real effects of buying less? It may indeed make you happier, but what about the worker over at the mall who might lose her job because you decided to scrimp? What about the argument that you’d be helping to “save the world?”

We invited a small panel to mull these and other questions; their responses follow. We’d also like to hear your thoughts on the subject, so we’ve created a topic in Live Wire for you to discuss the issues; when we post Part 2 of this forum next month, we will also highlight selected posts from Live Wire.

The Players:

Bill McKibben is the author of numerous books and articles including The End of Nature and “The $100 Christmas” (December 1997, Mother Jones). His next book, Maybe One: An Environmental and Personal Argument for Single-Child Families, will be published by Random House in the spring.

Max B. Sawicky is an economist for the Economic Policy Institute. He has worked in the Office of State and Local Finance of the U.S. Treasury Department, and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. He has been a contributor to Newsday, the Houston Chronicle, and In These Times. He is on the board of Americans for Democratic Action and is a member of Labor Party and the New Party.

Tom Vanderbilt is a contributing editor to The Baffler and has also written for, among others, The Nation and the Los Angeles Times.

The forum will be hosted by Eric Umansky, editor of the MoJo Wire.


First question: Bill, you say in your article that “consumer addiction represents our deepest problem.” You urge us to take a small step away from our habit by trying to spend only $100 on presents for Christmas. I’m curious, Tom and Max, what are your reactions to the idea of spending less? Max, as an economist, what would be the effect on a U.S. economy so dependent on (driven by?) retail sales? And, Max, as a consumer yourself, would you rather be spending less? Tom, what do you think is an effective response, if any, to the rising spiral of consumerism and commodification?

Responses: 1 2 3

The Forum Part II: Searching for Solutions

HERE ARE THE FACTS:

Our fall fundraising drive is off to a rough start, and we very much need to raise $250,000 in the next couple of weeks. If you value the journalism you get from Mother Jones, please help us do it with a donation today.

As we wrote over the summer, traffic has been down at Mother Jones and a lot of sites with many people thinking news is less important now that Donald Trump is no longer president. But if you're reading this, you're not one of those people, and we're hoping we can rally support from folks like you who really get why our reporting matters right now. And that's how it's always worked: For 45 years now, a relatively small group of readers (compared to everyone we reach) who pitch in from time to time has allowed Mother Jones to do the type of journalism the moment demands and keep it free for everyone else.

Please pitch in with a donation during our fall fundraising drive if you can. We can't afford to come up short, and there's still a long way to go by November 5.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Our fall fundraising drive is off to a rough start, and we very much need to raise $250,000 in the next couple of weeks. If you value the journalism you get from Mother Jones, please help us do it with a donation today.

As we wrote over the summer, traffic has been down at Mother Jones and a lot of sites with many people thinking news is less important now that Donald Trump is no longer president. But if you're reading this, you're not one of those people, and we're hoping we can rally support from folks like you who really get why our reporting matters right now. And that's how it's always worked: For 45 years now, a relatively small group of readers (compared to everyone we reach) who pitch in from time to time has allowed Mother Jones to do the type of journalism the moment demands and keep it free for everyone else.

Please pitch in with a donation during our fall fundraising drive if you can. We can't afford to come up short, and there's still a long way to go by November 5.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate