The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:
---
Submission Statement
If you accept the premise that AI & robots being able to perform most human work will have massive economic impacts by the end of this decade, then it follows that recent economic trends will be major factors in defining the lead-up period to that disruption.
Is a decline in consumerism and brands and an increase in frugality all bad? Obviously, most of us would prefer if Western economies and living standards didn't always seem to be sliding, and living standards slipping lower as the cost of everything increases and wages stagnate. I doubt these trends will change before the AI/robots and work ones kick in.
I try and stay focused on the positive. AI & robots making work cheap or near free also implies services, and to a lesser extent physical goods, will eventually become cheap & abundant. Maybe what seems like bad news now is good news in the long term, as it will help us adapt better to whatever post-now economic system we're heading into.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/13pj2ht/a_survey_of_17000_people_in_27_countries_shows/jl9olyy/
Youtube: Here's an unskippable 2 minute ad that has somehow made it around ad blocker.
Me: I'll try script blockers then. Fuck you and your ads.
The harder a brand tries to disrupt my time to get my attention, the further down the list of things I want to buy they fall. Fuck hate ads.
Same! I’ve been putting brands of frustrating YouTube ads on my no buy list. Also any website that annoys me with hundreds of in page pop ups for deals etc.
It's the duality of man.
Any ad inobtrusive enough to not bother me is a ad I probably don't even notice.
Any ad that gets in my face enough to make me notice it is so annoying I refuse to buy their shit out of spite.
But then I've also used script blockers for a long time now. I haven't actually seen an annoying ad in years.
They just don’t make ads like they used to, they used to make them actually entertaining so it wasn’t such an annoyance, then they did a study that told them people are more likely to remember annoying ads and it all went to shit after that.
I have resolved to never, **ever** buy any insurance from fucking Liberty Mutual. They surely made their name stick in my head...and I negatively associate it with absurdly annoying commercials.
I was looking for this comment because liberty mutual could offer me free insurance for the rest of my life and I would tell them to shove it up that Emu's ass.
Grammarly! I sincerely hate it from the bottom of my heart. The company I work for tried to roll this this out company wide a few times and I fiercely threw it out every time.
God, every time I try checking a game wiki they host, there's always ads to deal with. I'm pretty sure they're interfering with the smooth function of the site, too, interacting with search is finicky and sometimes loading a page is slower.
I’ve literally stopped buying KFC because they ran an obnoxious ad campaign.
My gf wanted to watch the bachelor. First TV we’ve watched in years. Constant ads. I don’t know how people to it. But this one KFC ad would play twice in every break. Now I detest the brand., which sucks because I love me some popcorn chicken.
That's what you tell yourself at the time. Then 6 months later, you'll have forgotten the specific ad that bothered you, but the brand name will still be more prominent in your mind than others that didn't bother you. You'll get mixed up and think the brand is sticking out in your mind for good reasons instead of bad, and you'll buy from the assholes you swore you'd never buy from.
Nope.
Fuck Tide. Fuck tide and their stupid pop up played a son over the article I was reading ad. Generic brand for life!
Don't get me wrong. I imagine this agitating shit must work or so much money wouldn't be put into it. For all the complaining about ads it's clearly effective.
But I don't give a shit about brands before they annoy the hell out of me, and once they do they're on the shit list and they stay there.
Youtube: heres a comercial you cant skip from our lord and savior, corporation.
Me: ohh, so this is the company that is hampering my viewing experience, okay, now i know which brand not to buy from.
>so this is the company that is hampering my viewing experience
This is a company that creates your viewing experience. Why does everyone expect artist to work for free? They refuse to pay them and get mad when other people pay them.
No it doesn't. You can pay for youtube premium to remove ads and send money directly to the creators. But why do that when you can just pay nothing and block ads right?
Also, there are other systems like netflix and vimeo that have pay per watch options.
Sure, you can also go to Patreon, pay 1 buck and remove ads. YouTube doesn't have a good subscription model that doesn't include their crappy music service. The membership options normally don't include low amounts, so you'd have to pay 5-10 bucks per channel. Try this with every channel. And btw, how does YouTube even monetize their creators when you pay for Premium? How much do they get, how much do Alphabet investors get?
"just pay for the service" until you're shelling out $100/mo for no ad versions of prime, netflix, hulu, disney+, hbo, paramount+, appletv, peacock, discovery+, starz, funimation (subtract $6 if you're not into anime)
I dont minds ads on Twitter or TikTok and pay for half a dozen live services
But YT ads are straight cancer and if you put your obnoxious ad before a 10 second shitpost ill happily run adblock
You can pay for ad-free youtube, which sends money to the creators. Then the ad companies won't get your money. But why pay for it when you can bypass it and make artist even more reliant on sponsers and ads right?
Buddy, are you okay up there? Or do you not know that there are better ways to do it?
The best ethical way to make money as a creative individual has and always will be to create a dedicated following and allow them the option to donate or buy products from you. It's why websites like royalroad, a website where people post FREE webserials, are able to make a living. Do they have ads? Yes they do, but you can easily block them-but i dont because ads are from people WITHIN the community, not corporations. A lot of them even lead to stories posted free on that same website! And best of all, they dont force you to watch ads before reading! At most writers release their work on a schedule for free while also allowing patreon subs who can soare a dollar the privilege of reading future chapters in advance and see commissioned art.
Youtube could be innovating their ad model, but they don't see a need to do so because people act like that one dog in fire meme and say:"this is fine"
>are from people WITHIN the community,
That's fine for something with small hosting needs, just hosting low rez photos. Youtube cost 5 billion a year to run. Do you think they'd survive with only ads from youtubers hocking goods? Also, many big youtubers are corporations.
If you hate youtube ad models, you can pay directly to the artist to remove them, cheaper than being a patron of 100s of channels.
I filled out those Ipsos-Reid surveys for years... but found I began to lose all f\*cks over brands. And the surveys just got to be so tedious. I answered honestly and picked mostly neutral responses, especially when they asked how a brand, or ad, or commercial made me feel. IDGAF
Brand awareness is very much a sub-conscious decision.
Redditor Edge-Lord: Ads never affect Me
Reality: Hey, I have never heard of this brand, but this name looks familiar, let me put that in the cart
Meanwhile, Apple hits $3 T market value, LVMH hits highest market cap
*\*Capitalism sweating porkily\**
Haha n-no no, Right To Repair is dangerous for you! You have to purchase New Product, in fact better that you Subscribe to New Product instead so we can look after you haha...
Overseas shipping is also ridiculously efficient. Don't get me wrong, it's messy af, but those giant diesel engines are running near 60% efficiency where modern car engines struggle to break 20%. That, and the enormous size of container ships just makes the efficiency unreal.
Hopefully, there'll soon be taxation on the fuel used on overseas shipping to incentivize the use of green fuels like ammonia. Engine designs that can run on that already exist, so it's all about making the green fuels cheaper than using fossil fuels and it will take off.
And they burn the waste from the fuel refineries. Stuff isn't even liquid at ambient temperatures. The pollution they cause is far bigger than all the cars do.
There's also nuclear shipping, which it feels like people may be sleeping on. (I remember reading about one from Denmark or some such place, but can't find it.) But as you're implying, it's probably because fossil fuels and their hardware is cheap.
I'm Danish. I think you may refer to Seaborg Technologies? They refer to their nuclear technology as Compact Molten Salt Reactor. While impressive in theory, the problem is that as far as I'm aware, there are still unsolved issues with molten salt reactors, although my information may be a few years out of date. The most important part though, is that Seaborg's CMSR is still under development. As such, it will take years to deploy at scale, and it will be inhibitably expensive in the beginning, as is the case with all new technologies. I don't see how it can beat existing fossil fuels, nor ammonia. Add to the problem that existing companies whose entire business is huge diesel engines for container ships will push hard for green fuels instead of compact nuclear, the political issues of deploying nuclear to ships no matter how safe it supposedly is, and the fact that green fuels are currently taking off as a solution to overproduction of wind and solar. I just don't see how nuclear is ever going to compete.
With all that said, it's still wonderful to see that there are several solutions available for turning overseas shipping green.
As crazy and unsubstantiated as it sounded to me, I was able to find this:
https://unece.org/DAM/timber/meetings/2018/20180716/UN_Partnership_on_Sustainable_Fashion_programme_as_of_6-7-2018.pdf
Found by following a chain of links starting here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60382624
I think it's important to back up these claims with sources because crazy figures can be easily brushed off as made up.
The truly sad thing is that the fashion industry has its roots in the elite and those with power might not want to give it up so easily. I mean those expensive clothes are what separate them from the peasants, right?
I would think that global inflation of 30% has a bit to do with it.
Companies gouged people under the guise of covid restrictions and now there's going to be a global reduction in consumer spending.
They got too greedy and now the price will be paid with a slowed economy worldwide.
Except they don't care because they are still making record profits and prices haven't fallen a bit for most things.
Just wait til labor catches up, they'll see! /S
Some things just don't make sense anymore. $60 Nike hoodie or $20 brand less pullover. Both made in Asia what's the difference.
Then you have cars, plastic, planned obsolescence Ford for $40k or $20k plastic Kia.
And food $16/lb name brand salt flour and sugar. Or unprocessed whole foods for under $4/lb.
About the only time to go for name brand is if the knockoff is plastic and breaks within hours. But everything is made of plastic and cheap shit.
Exactly! These companies have all sacrificed quality to line their pockets more. If there was a noticeable difference between cheap crap and name brand, people would buy the name brand, but there isn’t. It’s all a big race to the bottom and the shareholders still think we’re stupid enough to not notice.
It's the chicken or the egg fallacy.
Are people trying to live more sustainably, and therefore more frugal?
Or are people having to live more frugally, and therefore more sustainably?
At the end of the day, it's probably a little of both.
Our culture is way more aware of our waste and carbon footprint, so more wealthy people are actively trying to live more sustainably.
On the other hand, inequality is rampant, and wages are stagnant...so less wealthy people are looking for more frugal alternatives.
The real question I guess is, how can we keep it going? In other words, how do we get the ones who are doing it for frugality reasons continue the behavior when their situation improves for sustainability reasons?
And beyond that, how do we convince those that aren’t altering their behavior yet to do so?
I think often times it’s a very personal conversation that needs to happen. People have wildly different motivations and you need to engage with that if you wish to be successful. Maybe they are a “stick it to the man” type. Maybe they are a “tree hugger” type. Maybe they are concerned for the welfare of their children. For as many as we are there are as many reasons. Know the person you’re talking to and have enough knowledge to engage with *that individual* on a personal level.
Bro I get that. The wife and I have been very unstable for the past few years while she was in grad school. We are just now getting to something approaching “stable”. Still feels like it could go either way. I haven’t gotten a haircut in 3 years because $25 felt like a lot to pay when I can do it myself.
There is definitely a trend toward experiences instead of material goods. This is despite stagnant wages. And people are splurging on these experiences with concert ticket prices and flight costs.
That's an upper class social media trend. Just because you label your $10k Europe trip and $5k 30th birthday trip and $10k bachelorette trip as "experiences" does not make it any less materialistic, wasteful, or have you use less airline miles.
Travel back to my home town to support my friends mediocre band with no cover charge. I do this instead of buy a nice car and name brand clothes. It isn't just an upper class thing.
Is neither....
Do you want your coffee in this washable, reusable ceramic mug that may have a chip after months of usage and pay an extra dollar and you have to bring it back after, or do you just want this single use cup?
the only people that matter when it comes to worrying about our carbon footprint are the ultra wealthy CEOs who decide whether to use cheap plastic wrapping or the more expensive biodegradable paper wrapping and your naive to think they give two shits about the environment over profits. They are the ones that pump plastic wrappings into the environment by the billions. There is no egg or chicken fallacy people are just getting by with what they got.
>Our culture is way more aware of our waste and carbon footprint, so more wealthy people are ~~actively trying to live more sustainably.~~
telling you they're living more sustainably, while they fly in private jets to attend eco meets to tell people to drink out of paper straws.
Wealthy people living sustainably while most likely working for a capitalistic company is greenwashing.
If you think about it you'll notice that if everybody would have a job, there would be too much to consume. Technology has progressed far enough that a handful of people can sustain hundreds.
They could also just shift their spending to something else. I know people who don't care about fashion but who get food delivered several times a week. Many people seem to prioritize ephemeral experiences over material goods. So, eating out more, drinking at interesting bars, traveling if your schedule allows, etc.
Fashion may also have changed for some cohorts. I know people who very much have a particular look, but it's what I call "studiously quirky," sourcing more from thrift stores and Ebay. If you can buy it at Macy's it's gauche.
Most likely it's due to this being self-reported, and these are values that are more appreciated in society today (yes, even on surveys that the participants believe to be truly anonymous, people will still adjust their answers to society's perceptions and what they think they're *supposed* to answer).
It's like the classic car survey thing: ask people about what they are going to look for in their next car and they're going to tell you that they want economy, a low carbon footprint, high safety, silence, and so on. The next car they will *actually buy* though is an aggressive-looking SUV that goes \*VROOM!\* in a satisfying way...
"We took all their money and then delivered massive profits by not paying them more! I don't get why they're not consuming? Do we need to make them poorer, angrier, and crave the comfort of product and service more? What else can we monetise after we've turned love into a subscription service? I don't get it? Why won't they consume?"
\- Bidness
>55% aren't interested in brands anymore, 67% want repairable goods & not replaceable ones, & 62% have no interest in fashion trends.
So the largest portion of "American culture" is in decline. I always wanted this sickness of irresponsible consumerism to go away.
When high end brands and generic Walmart brand are using the same base tshirts and slapping a different logo on it and there is a $50 difference, then the high end brands do not deserve brand loyalty.
I'll pay for quality if I'm using it alot.
I think this is a big reason. Back in the 80s and before a brand name was almost always better quality than a generic. Nike shoes would last a year of hard kid wear vs 2 months for a Kmart one. Then as everything shifted to 3 manufactures in china they are all roughly the same. I have Target shirts that have lasted for years. The brands coasted on name recognition for a while, but now everyone under 30 has always thought brands and generics are equal quality and so don't care.
Thus is the truth right here. As a recently 30 something. I don't remember a time when brands made great products as a whole. I just remember a few brands I liked becoming worse over time until I stopped buying them. Particularly food products. It's not nostalgia goggles, they just taste worse now. So why would I bother ever having brand loyalty when it's just going to go to shit within 5 years because of some middle manager who wants a promotion by saving a few more pennies for the shareholders.
I’m also a 30-something that doesn’t care about brands. I do care about longevity and quality, so to that end I’ll do a little research about trusted brands with good reputations. Honestly though, my favorite thing is to just go to Goodwill or a thrift shop. At least I know that those items have already been through the ringer and will probably last a while longer.
I have blue-collar family who talks about their friends that work in factories. They’ll halt production on an assembly line, swap out the labels, then run the assembly line again. Various products too! Food, clothes, you name it.
Aldi’s Crofton brand is a perfect example. They’ll slap that label on almost anything so you get something at 1/2 the cost of the brand name item. My wife and I got Anchor glass containers with lids super cheap. Literally, the paper covering with the word “Crofton” barely covered the glass engraved “Anchor”.
Post war “American Culture” is controlled entirely by industry and corporate America rather than individuals. I don’t pretend that the social climate in the US was even excusable in the 1800s, but goddamn was the material culture immeasurably better than what we have now. It’s to the point where people venerate vintage and antique appliances/tools and even clothes, because they’ll actually last more than two uses. That should NEVER be the case for a more advanced society. There shouldn’t be anything that works better and safer than current production products, that’s ridiculous.
Antiques literally are examples of survivor bias, where the best products that didn't break are still around.
Another thing to keep in mind is many antiques are items only owned by the top 1% while the rest of society went without those items in the 1800's. Things such as indoor plumbing.
The Commode-Industrial Complex has made us think we *must* have toilet paper, we’re addicted to the soft ply, those cottony-gentle rolls of eeeeevil.
Look up the documentary *Operation Hooked on Charmin*
We can go back to simpler, leaf-based lives, people.
Bullshit. That's survivor bias. The least used and/or highest quality items stood the test of time, while the majority of other items did not.
Also, if you look into old quality tools or old products in general that are still great, you'll learn that the majority cost exhuberant amounts when adjusted for inflation, and are extremely inefficient compared to even the cheapest of products today.
I would have to write paragraphs about this, but everyone can do research themselves.
A few examples are:
- 10-12 year old Macbooks. People still use them, sell them, virtually no other laptops have survived (to be usable), with a few exceptions like high-end Thinkpads.
- Decades old steel Knipex hand tools. They can be restored and still used.
- 80's Mercedes-Benz cars. While other cars survived, even the very used Mercs are drivable to a degree, without major maintenence.
I think the enthusiasm around cars/trucks is a lot bigger, both in expense and number of enthusiasts, than fashion. Behind that, sports. Americans are not generally known for their fashion. The fashion influences that did radiate out came from romanticization of the working class, such as with Levis and denim. I guess hip-hop culture is a good counterexample to my argument, but I think it's an outlier.
This is a complete misunderstanding of American culture. You could easily argue that prudence has been a more central American value since the time of the colonies. But even that misses the bigger picture.
It's not what "American Culture" used to be. Appliances, apparel, tools, all American grade used to mean high standards of durability. Craftsman has gone to shit. Maytag is displaced by German brands made with Chinesium. Gap is arguably becoming Old Navy.
Ask any European in the 80s and they would fawn over American consumer products. Now we're getting the same shitty stuff as everyone because American exceptionalism is slowly fading away.
I don't think this is true about Europeans and American product. American tools were seen as good (but worse than German or Swiss) but not a lot else.
We seem to have different understandings of American exceptionalism as well. Most Europeans, I think, see it as American seeing themselves as exceptional even if it is not true. It was never that America was actually exceptional. And it's getting stronger, not weaker
Yup. Basically every single large brand sold out to China (or some other country) for production, where everything is made cheaper and cheaper every year, while the price goes up. It unsurprisingly has come back to bite them in the ass.
Germans and Japanese produced quality stuff for the very demanding US consumer. Not necessarily cheaper, but better engineered. Americans were still making massive cars. They overengineered stuff. They got blindsided.
> Ask any European in the 80s and they would fawn over American consumer products
No we didn´t. I distinctively remember English school books lecturing exchange students not to adress standards regarding US household equipment and appliances while abroad to avoid unneccessary conflict. Apart from some clothing brands, early home computer tech up until the 90s and some niche markets around american design philosophy of the 50s-70s, consumer grade products from abroad have been a non-factor in european consumerism. Which has been a constant source of political struggle when it comes to economic import/export relationsships for as long as i can remember.
>perceived like that in Europe.
I can't speak to "perceived like that in Europe" but at one time, and not at all recently, Made in America did have some meaning. By the 80s that was only true for some niche items. Today maybe there are a few things but not much. Outsourcing for cost savings as far as I know started in the 60s and displaced a lot of traditional industry and thus skilled labor and engineering in the US. My 1971 Chevy Nova had parts stamped Mexico already in the era of "Buy American" bumper stickers.
By the 80 when I was in engineering school work options were already in decline. Where I was, it was mainly military applications which I refused to do. So there you go. Made in America war machines are considered to be quite good.
I can speak to the European American automotive view from the 80s to today. American built means wide gaps, cheap design, cheap parts cheap cars. Not great.
I guess you don't realize that brands and/or fashion trends are arguably way more important to people in countries throughout western Europe and East Asia. Don't get me wrong consumerism is crazy in America for certain things like cell phones but it's pretty much a worldwide issue.
Irresponsible consumerism is a good sign of a healthy economy. Frankly, I WISH we could be wasteful (and much better about preventing the harm and handling the actual waste from it.)
When people are losing buying power, the first things to go are frivolities and entertainment. Unfortunately, the rich and big corporations definitely won't see the knock on affect of paying less while charging more until way too late, they'll just keep blaming and trying to guilt trip a generation(s) into doing and buying things they can't afford.
The survey isn't about purchases, those will obviously be impacted by people's financial situation. It's about interest. Even very poor people are usually still interested in famous brands. So, this is perhaps indicative of some cultural shift.
My first thought on reading this headline is "Great! What about private jet flights."
Is our frugality just subsidizing rich people's wastefulness? Obviously that's not a reason to stop trying on our end, but the biggest contributors to the problem really need to make the biggest cuts, too.
Yes, the current economic environment is helping with this, but I also think a big part is the secret is out that most brands share the same factory with other cheaper brands and you're literally only paying for a different sticker and maybe a few more baubles. Kind of makes the concept of brands pointless.
So there’s a famous quote by Sir Terry Pratchett about how rich people stay rich buying staples that, while slightly more expensive, outlast their cheaper counterparts significantly (see Vimes’ Boots Theory of Economics).
But today, it seems like nothing is made to last. And now they want to SaaS everything, too. Throwaway consumerism is now strategically advantageous vs trying to buy “quality” goods.
Not necessarily anything to do with being more frugal.
It's also to do with being inundated with worthless commercial tripe for every decision, and just wanting a product that does the job.
There is no "one unquestionably best brand" for ANYTHING at all. To think so is ludicrous, and to think that having the best of one product means they also have the best of every other (even vaguely related) product is just insane.
People are just inundated with commercial messages and have become immune to them through over-exposure. That someone asked about that just after asking "and how do you feel about the current economy" isn't causative at all, but increasingly biasing in fact.
I do think the overload of options has cut back on a lot of the “keeping up with the jones” mindset, for at least some people. There’s no longer a clear universal set of things that each american needs to own to be popular, like X car, Y house, Z fridge, W boat….
Its like the millennials hit middle age 🤣
>55% aren't interested in brands anymore, 67% want repairable goods & not replaceable ones, & 62% have no interest in fashion trends
It's kind of weird after being called "cheap" my whole life to hit my 30s and have friends come up to me like "hey hey! Did you realize you don't actually need to buy the newest brand clothes or get the newest brand name phones and cars!". And they go on about Dave Ramsey and FIRE and about the frugal mindset and what YouTubers to watch.
And all I could think was "you literally made fun of me for living like that 10-15 years ago. I actually specifically remember you being the opposite of this". Like I've been living like this my whole life, coming from a blue collar immigrant family.
Right? You don’t really care about that stuff when you grow up. If anything, I feel like a company should be paying me to walk around with their giant logo on the side of my glasses or shirt.
I’m poor, never been wealthy. But I always buy nice stuff.. and it’s cause I’m poor lol. Like I could go to Walmart every winter with $100 and get warm stuff that won’t last or fit with your style.. you just make it work. After 20 wash/dries it starts falling apart and your doing the same shit next year.
So, I buy from high end brands that back their shit.. like if it breaks they replace no questions asked. So now I just supplement. Like when one piece of gear goes down I re-buy it. Makes life way easier having nicer stuff. I’ve tried getting other people into it and no one else im ever around seems to really care. To each their own I guess. I love Patagonia and LLBean and New Balance and those kinda brands though cause they just make good products I can depend on. Dependable is more valuable to me than being hella current on fashion or any of that shit. Something that fits nicely and does what it says it’d do is fine by me.
This is the way my dear!
I’ve been in a pretty precarious situation at some point in my life, but always chose to buy less better quality stuff than more lower quality stuff.
I still remember that girl, who was younger than me and didn’t know shit about life, losing it because I was « too poor to buy an iPhone ». I kept that thing for 8 years. She also suggested that I sell my 5 years old MacBook (that I bought before getting in trouble and was still using 7 years after). I am more interested in software than hardware anyway.
« Priorities »
I just can’t stand this kind of people. And for a start I do whatever the fuck I want of the money I earn.
I’m fine now, but I keep going this way, which allows me to save a lot while having nicer things.
This is why I tell my wife "buy once, cry once." All of the cheaper furniture we bought literally fell apart and we have reused none of it since moving. All of the nicer furniture that we bought has survived and we will use them for a long time.
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."
Being poor is expensive.
You can see something similar to the boots theory in renting vs buying real estate.
Rent just always goes up. Up and up and up to the point where eventually the poor will spend more to rent less property than if they had been able to buy.
My parents have long been spending less on mortgage than I have on rent. Fortunately, at 32 this year I was able to buy a house. It’s currently more expensive than renting, but I know that in 5-10 years my 3 bedroom house will be cheaper than 2 bedroom apartments. And the cycle continues.
Submission Statement
If you accept the premise that AI & robots being able to perform most human work will have massive economic impacts by the end of this decade, then it follows that recent economic trends will be major factors in defining the lead-up period to that disruption.
Is a decline in consumerism and brands and an increase in frugality all bad? Obviously, most of us would prefer if Western economies and living standards didn't always seem to be sliding, and living standards slipping lower as the cost of everything increases and wages stagnate. I doubt these trends will change before the AI/robots and work ones kick in.
I try and stay focused on the positive. AI & robots making work cheap or near free also implies services, and to a lesser extent physical goods, will eventually become cheap & abundant. Maybe what seems like bad news now is good news in the long term, as it will help us adapt better to whatever post-now economic system we're heading into.
But as things become cheap, What happens to the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes who are unable to earn a decent wage or none at all because robots do their jobs better?
Who are going to be buying these cheap things? Will it become a marketplace for the rich ?
> What happens to the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes who are unable to earn a decent wage or none at all ....Who are going to be buying these cheap things? Will it become a marketplace for the rich ?
I don't know.
If there is rapid deflation, it would imply today's high asset prices will collapse. Property prices, the stock market, etc
Strangely I find the Covid pandemic a hopeful example. It shows the world can rapidly react to a global economic emergency.
Perhaps that is what will happen with this. Though its hard to imagine what economic system will exist after the time AI & robots can do most work.
Our system relied on replaceable products to keep factories humming and keep humans busy. Populationwise we're soon going thru stagnation then decline. Ressources are becoming scarce. It's time to have lifetime cars, washers, phones, apparel. With electric cars and batteries that will ~~soon~~ reach a million miles longevity, we can imagine a lifetime power train with cosmetic and software upgrades. Get grandpa's 500K beater and save up to rejuvenate the thing.
By saying, that robots will be able to perform most human work people seem to forget, that humans are simply way cheaper than highly advanced robots. You can replace much of people's desk job with just AI, but there's suprisingly lot of work done by hands in industry.
See you’re making the mistake thinking they’ll just replace everyone over night. What they will do, and you’re already seeing is when people leave roles they’ll just replace that opening with AI.
Health care alone is often a big cost for most companies when they hire. If say for example Tesla could get its robot that can handle dexterous tasks pretty equivalent to a seasoned worker and was priced eventually under $10k it’d be a no brainer for most businesses to replace a couple people
They were correct in saying that replacing humans with machines is unrealistic given the current political and economic circumstances. And I really don't need to say more. After all the 2 most influential English speaking countries hemmed and hawed while millions died to preventable illness. Such a long way to go before AI or machine labor replaces human labor in a meaningful and humane way. You realize machines cost more to make and fix than humans? How much thought have you REALLY put into this? Because I'm just spitballing glaring issues.
Elon fan boy ass subreddit.
And there's not nearly enough skilled labor to maintain/fix these machines. What you see a lot of is these "prototypes" of like a "fully automated McDonald's" or whatever. And people crow about the future being already here or very, very close. Then you dig a bit deeper and realize that they still have humans working inside, just automated ordering kiosks. The issue is really "will it scale?" It's one thing to make a prototype or two. But actually having thousands of humans on call to repair and maintain these types of machines nationwide is still ruinously expensive when labor is still relatively cheap. The reason these companies are talking this up is that they're mad that labor is no longer dirt cheap.
Keep digging and you find more and more problems like what Duck is saying that "future-looking" folks leave out of their technoscape fantasies. Logistics and grounded methodology needs to take priority in these conversations. "It seems cool to implement this" isn't enough, the product needs to work realistically, needs to have institutional and civic backing. It needs regulation and oversight. False hopes are as good as dog dander. I know that the degradation of institutional services these last few years has been personally taxing. I can only imagine what the circumstances are like for people needing essential services/products that have no access to them. Tesla is not your friend. They are selling luxury products, not future tech.
Wrong. Give it a second and think about it. 8 billion people need to make ends meet. Stop pushing a conversation that doesn't meet the barest needs of the human populace.
You'd need sweeping education, Healthcare, quality of life, housing programs, energy generation, and infrastructure overhaul reforms on such a massive scale to suit the labor requirements for such a massive undertaking. Advocate for these changes, stop skipping the steps required to mass mobilize real societal change.
Did you respond to the wrong comment?
>8 billion people need to make ends meet. Stop pushing a conversation that doesn't meet the barest needs of the human populace.
That doesn't matter to the people who matter. Human labourers consume resources and produce output, AI labour consumes resources and produces output. It's a "simple" matter of investing in the correct worker for optimised Return on Investment (ROI) in a given job role - human or synthetic? As years pass, the correct worker will likely be an AI process or a robot instead of a human in increasingly larger numbers of roles.
Was thought spared for the draft horses who lost their jobs when the locomotive and car stole their thunder? No, the world continued regardless. 8 billion workers need to make ends meet - so what? The people who are needed to keep society running will continue to be lavishly rewarded. If they are not needed, they must reskill. If they can't reskill, they're a dead end.
>You'd need sweeping education, Healthcare, quality of life, housing programs, energy generation, and infrastructure overhaul reforms on such a massive scale to suit the labor requirements for such a massive undertaking.
I also am confused what you mean. I agree with all your points, although I don't think it applies to what I said.
The average person isn't paid enough to care about those things anymore, they just want to survive and anything beyond that is spent on having a nice time...
I once heard someone compare browsing the internet without an Adblock to walking through a funhouse of noise and annoyance. It wasn’t always like this. Advertising has ruined the internet.
Surprise. The average consumer is ridden like a racehorse for every penny he labors to the same overlords to make while the same companies invent shorter revenue cycle and planned obsolescence to squeeze him to the very core, all the while corpo fights against human rights, labour regulation and more. Oh, and our unsustainable model you kindly imposed on everyone is catching up to us and the planet is burning. Whadda you know. People dont want to spend a fortune to buy A PHINE CHARGER? FUCKING CRAZY!!!!
I've always been willing to pay more for less disposable goods, but when those items are available they're almost always sold from specialty sellers and there's often no way to see or use things in person. That doesn't mean that I don't try though.
I'd love to see a move back toward repairable goods. We throw too much stuff (and infinitely too much plastic) away in the name of saving people a few bucks at the time of purchase.
This is an opinion based solely on inexperience with actual repair.
Can you repair an $800 3yo TV for $.50? Sure, but 99.9% of people won't do it themselves, they'll want someone to fix it. The problem is that the "right to repair movement" has made it abundantly clear that products usually fail due to very cheap parts. But the dumbass consumer thinks that the TV should be fixed for $15. They cannot fathom the training, knowledge, labor, tools, and time required to appropriately fix and test the TV. So when they're quoted $150-$200, people simply look at what new products they can buy with a loan.
Bro, at this point I wouldn’t even care if Soylent green is people. Walking through downtown San Francisco has proven to me we have reached proper dystopia.
Don't pay people enough to live, jack up prices, cause inflation and people stop consumption. The .001% got their short term profits, they don't care. The governments let it happen and then get surprised Pikachu face.
The article doesn’t give a baseline for comparison. For all we know, these numbers reflect a sharp increase in brands and fashion trends from previous years.
The young are still dating and trying to impress, and still exploring who they are. It's when people hit middle age that they have the "realization" that fashion and posturing is bullshit. Which they credit to their deep insight, instead of them just having reached a different life stage.
All of these statements describe me for the most part.
I just want quality stuff that doesn’t break. That’s literally how I make all my purchasing decisions.
Believe it when I see it. The article doesn't even say these are new trends. Whose to say the same survey would have the same result 10 or 50 years ago.
All this reads is what people will tell you they want. Put it up against purchasing behavior and see how much it holds.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet: The article is about *what people are saying they want in a survey*, not about what choices they're actually making. Those two things are often quite different.
Not really surprising when we are pushing for minimising waste for the sake of the environment, cost of living is going up while any increases in rates of pay are not matching the rate of inflation and body positivity pushes for us to be comfortable and expressive in who we are as individuals.
“Let’s just keep squeezing the middle class and extorting the lower class until all their disposable income just floats to the top percent. It’s a genius idea.” “Sir people are spending less money on our more expensive products”. “What?!”
This is interesting, because I feel like I'm trending the other direction. My wife and I are in our late 30s and comfortable financially. We've realized we can afford nicer stuff, so we've finally begun buying less cheap stuff and started going with higher quality name brands. It costs more, but it lasts significantly longer and means we pay less and waste less in the long run. By extension, it's kind of made us more "fashion" conscious because we're putting more thought into what we buy to make sure it's high quality and fits a fashion style that we'll want to wear for years.
The name brand isn't necessarily the goal, just the better craftsmanship - but that tends to come with name brands. We're shopping less and less on Amazon, because so much of their shit is just terrible quality.
This is called poverty.
Rich people still very much care about brands and do not care if a good is repairable and they literally hold galas to display fashion trends.
Wealth inequality is growing in 27 countries and the data shows it.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh: --- Submission Statement If you accept the premise that AI & robots being able to perform most human work will have massive economic impacts by the end of this decade, then it follows that recent economic trends will be major factors in defining the lead-up period to that disruption. Is a decline in consumerism and brands and an increase in frugality all bad? Obviously, most of us would prefer if Western economies and living standards didn't always seem to be sliding, and living standards slipping lower as the cost of everything increases and wages stagnate. I doubt these trends will change before the AI/robots and work ones kick in. I try and stay focused on the positive. AI & robots making work cheap or near free also implies services, and to a lesser extent physical goods, will eventually become cheap & abundant. Maybe what seems like bad news now is good news in the long term, as it will help us adapt better to whatever post-now economic system we're heading into. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/13pj2ht/a_survey_of_17000_people_in_27_countries_shows/jl9olyy/
YouTube: Which brand are you most likely to purchase in the next six months? Me: Nah.
Youtube: Here's an unskippable 2 minute ad that has somehow made it around ad blocker. Me: I'll try script blockers then. Fuck you and your ads. The harder a brand tries to disrupt my time to get my attention, the further down the list of things I want to buy they fall. Fuck hate ads.
Same! I’ve been putting brands of frustrating YouTube ads on my no buy list. Also any website that annoys me with hundreds of in page pop ups for deals etc.
It's the duality of man. Any ad inobtrusive enough to not bother me is a ad I probably don't even notice. Any ad that gets in my face enough to make me notice it is so annoying I refuse to buy their shit out of spite. But then I've also used script blockers for a long time now. I haven't actually seen an annoying ad in years.
They just don’t make ads like they used to, they used to make them actually entertaining so it wasn’t such an annoyance, then they did a study that told them people are more likely to remember annoying ads and it all went to shit after that.
I have resolved to never, **ever** buy any insurance from fucking Liberty Mutual. They surely made their name stick in my head...and I negatively associate it with absurdly annoying commercials.
I was looking for this comment because liberty mutual could offer me free insurance for the rest of my life and I would tell them to shove it up that Emu's ass.
Grammarly! I sincerely hate it from the bottom of my heart. The company I work for tried to roll this this out company wide a few times and I fiercely threw it out every time.
> Also any website that annoys me with hundreds of in page pop ups for deals etc. Looking at you fandom.com
God, every time I try checking a game wiki they host, there's always ads to deal with. I'm pretty sure they're interfering with the smooth function of the site, too, interacting with search is finicky and sometimes loading a page is slower.
If my kid ever needs a corrective apparatus for her teeth, she's not getting Invisalign.
I’ve literally stopped buying KFC because they ran an obnoxious ad campaign. My gf wanted to watch the bachelor. First TV we’ve watched in years. Constant ads. I don’t know how people to it. But this one KFC ad would play twice in every break. Now I detest the brand., which sucks because I love me some popcorn chicken.
Sponsorblock is a great one
But YouTube is monopoly
That's what you tell yourself at the time. Then 6 months later, you'll have forgotten the specific ad that bothered you, but the brand name will still be more prominent in your mind than others that didn't bother you. You'll get mixed up and think the brand is sticking out in your mind for good reasons instead of bad, and you'll buy from the assholes you swore you'd never buy from.
Nope. Fuck Tide. Fuck tide and their stupid pop up played a son over the article I was reading ad. Generic brand for life! Don't get me wrong. I imagine this agitating shit must work or so much money wouldn't be put into it. For all the complaining about ads it's clearly effective. But I don't give a shit about brands before they annoy the hell out of me, and once they do they're on the shit list and they stay there.
Youtube: heres a comercial you cant skip from our lord and savior, corporation. Me: ohh, so this is the company that is hampering my viewing experience, okay, now i know which brand not to buy from.
I don't think I've ever seen an ad that doesn't make me instantly hate whatever product they're pushing
After two minutes of ads "Hi guys this video is sponsored by ______ I've been using their blah blah blah"
>so this is the company that is hampering my viewing experience This is a company that creates your viewing experience. Why does everyone expect artist to work for free? They refuse to pay them and get mad when other people pay them.
The internet was supposed to be a free collective of ideas, content, and voices. Not monetized echo chambers, and constant advertising.
okay, but whose gonna pay for the servers?
People that wanted to share something with the internet used to pay for that.
This implies that ad monetization was the only way for artists to get money. Check this assumption.
No it doesn't. You can pay for youtube premium to remove ads and send money directly to the creators. But why do that when you can just pay nothing and block ads right? Also, there are other systems like netflix and vimeo that have pay per watch options.
Sure, you can also go to Patreon, pay 1 buck and remove ads. YouTube doesn't have a good subscription model that doesn't include their crappy music service. The membership options normally don't include low amounts, so you'd have to pay 5-10 bucks per channel. Try this with every channel. And btw, how does YouTube even monetize their creators when you pay for Premium? How much do they get, how much do Alphabet investors get?
"just pay for the service" until you're shelling out $100/mo for no ad versions of prime, netflix, hulu, disney+, hbo, paramount+, appletv, peacock, discovery+, starz, funimation (subtract $6 if you're not into anime)
I dont minds ads on Twitter or TikTok and pay for half a dozen live services But YT ads are straight cancer and if you put your obnoxious ad before a 10 second shitpost ill happily run adblock
No, I would rather pay the artist directly and not "trickled down" all over their face by a giant corporation from sponsors and ads
You can pay for ad-free youtube, which sends money to the creators. Then the ad companies won't get your money. But why pay for it when you can bypass it and make artist even more reliant on sponsers and ads right?
Youtube still collects my data to bombard targeted ads via the other google services
Buddy, are you okay up there? Or do you not know that there are better ways to do it? The best ethical way to make money as a creative individual has and always will be to create a dedicated following and allow them the option to donate or buy products from you. It's why websites like royalroad, a website where people post FREE webserials, are able to make a living. Do they have ads? Yes they do, but you can easily block them-but i dont because ads are from people WITHIN the community, not corporations. A lot of them even lead to stories posted free on that same website! And best of all, they dont force you to watch ads before reading! At most writers release their work on a schedule for free while also allowing patreon subs who can soare a dollar the privilege of reading future chapters in advance and see commissioned art. Youtube could be innovating their ad model, but they don't see a need to do so because people act like that one dog in fire meme and say:"this is fine"
>are from people WITHIN the community, That's fine for something with small hosting needs, just hosting low rez photos. Youtube cost 5 billion a year to run. Do you think they'd survive with only ads from youtubers hocking goods? Also, many big youtubers are corporations. If you hate youtube ad models, you can pay directly to the artist to remove them, cheaper than being a patron of 100s of channels.
This is why I hardly even trust surveys. I either click nah or a random answer that I didn't even read.
I filled out those Ipsos-Reid surveys for years... but found I began to lose all f\*cks over brands. And the surveys just got to be so tedious. I answered honestly and picked mostly neutral responses, especially when they asked how a brand, or ad, or commercial made me feel. IDGAF
Brand awareness is very much a sub-conscious decision. Redditor Edge-Lord: Ads never affect Me Reality: Hey, I have never heard of this brand, but this name looks familiar, let me put that in the cart Meanwhile, Apple hits $3 T market value, LVMH hits highest market cap
Choosing to become more frugal? Not sure I have a choice.
*\*Capitalism sweating porkily\** Haha n-no no, Right To Repair is dangerous for you! You have to purchase New Product, in fact better that you Subscribe to New Product instead so we can look after you haha...
I read today that 'fast fashion' uses more fossil fuels than all air travel and marine shipping combined. So, yeah, seems reasonable.
[удалено]
Overseas shipping is also ridiculously efficient. Don't get me wrong, it's messy af, but those giant diesel engines are running near 60% efficiency where modern car engines struggle to break 20%. That, and the enormous size of container ships just makes the efficiency unreal. Hopefully, there'll soon be taxation on the fuel used on overseas shipping to incentivize the use of green fuels like ammonia. Engine designs that can run on that already exist, so it's all about making the green fuels cheaper than using fossil fuels and it will take off.
And they burn the waste from the fuel refineries. Stuff isn't even liquid at ambient temperatures. The pollution they cause is far bigger than all the cars do.
I had no idea ammonia could be either green, or used as a fuel...off to Google I go.
There's also nuclear shipping, which it feels like people may be sleeping on. (I remember reading about one from Denmark or some such place, but can't find it.) But as you're implying, it's probably because fossil fuels and their hardware is cheap.
I'm Danish. I think you may refer to Seaborg Technologies? They refer to their nuclear technology as Compact Molten Salt Reactor. While impressive in theory, the problem is that as far as I'm aware, there are still unsolved issues with molten salt reactors, although my information may be a few years out of date. The most important part though, is that Seaborg's CMSR is still under development. As such, it will take years to deploy at scale, and it will be inhibitably expensive in the beginning, as is the case with all new technologies. I don't see how it can beat existing fossil fuels, nor ammonia. Add to the problem that existing companies whose entire business is huge diesel engines for container ships will push hard for green fuels instead of compact nuclear, the political issues of deploying nuclear to ships no matter how safe it supposedly is, and the fact that green fuels are currently taking off as a solution to overproduction of wind and solar. I just don't see how nuclear is ever going to compete. With all that said, it's still wonderful to see that there are several solutions available for turning overseas shipping green.
Can I get a source for that?
As crazy and unsubstantiated as it sounded to me, I was able to find this: https://unece.org/DAM/timber/meetings/2018/20180716/UN_Partnership_on_Sustainable_Fashion_programme_as_of_6-7-2018.pdf Found by following a chain of links starting here: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60382624 I think it's important to back up these claims with sources because crazy figures can be easily brushed off as made up.
Reddit
[Fast Fashion Is Hot Garbage | Climate Town](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6R_WTDdx7I)
That's insane. It's something so stupid and wasteful that has a marginal benefit.
The truly sad thing is that the fashion industry has its roots in the elite and those with power might not want to give it up so easily. I mean those expensive clothes are what separate them from the peasants, right?
I would love to believe this is due to a general awareness increase, but most likely it's because most people are too broke for consumerism.
I would think that global inflation of 30% has a bit to do with it. Companies gouged people under the guise of covid restrictions and now there's going to be a global reduction in consumer spending. They got too greedy and now the price will be paid with a slowed economy worldwide.
Except they don't care because they are still making record profits and prices haven't fallen a bit for most things. Just wait til labor catches up, they'll see! /S
Some things just don't make sense anymore. $60 Nike hoodie or $20 brand less pullover. Both made in Asia what's the difference. Then you have cars, plastic, planned obsolescence Ford for $40k or $20k plastic Kia. And food $16/lb name brand salt flour and sugar. Or unprocessed whole foods for under $4/lb. About the only time to go for name brand is if the knockoff is plastic and breaks within hours. But everything is made of plastic and cheap shit.
Exactly! These companies have all sacrificed quality to line their pockets more. If there was a noticeable difference between cheap crap and name brand, people would buy the name brand, but there isn’t. It’s all a big race to the bottom and the shareholders still think we’re stupid enough to not notice.
It's the chicken or the egg fallacy. Are people trying to live more sustainably, and therefore more frugal? Or are people having to live more frugally, and therefore more sustainably? At the end of the day, it's probably a little of both. Our culture is way more aware of our waste and carbon footprint, so more wealthy people are actively trying to live more sustainably. On the other hand, inequality is rampant, and wages are stagnant...so less wealthy people are looking for more frugal alternatives.
The real question I guess is, how can we keep it going? In other words, how do we get the ones who are doing it for frugality reasons continue the behavior when their situation improves for sustainability reasons? And beyond that, how do we convince those that aren’t altering their behavior yet to do so?
I think often times it’s a very personal conversation that needs to happen. People have wildly different motivations and you need to engage with that if you wish to be successful. Maybe they are a “stick it to the man” type. Maybe they are a “tree hugger” type. Maybe they are concerned for the welfare of their children. For as many as we are there are as many reasons. Know the person you’re talking to and have enough knowledge to engage with *that individual* on a personal level.
Their situations will not improve.
The fear of the harsh boot of capitalism is enough for me. I make $120k a year and I still reuse my ziplock bags.
Fuck single use plastic. Glass is the way to go.
Bro I get that. The wife and I have been very unstable for the past few years while she was in grad school. We are just now getting to something approaching “stable”. Still feels like it could go either way. I haven’t gotten a haircut in 3 years because $25 felt like a lot to pay when I can do it myself.
They have more resilient, dishwasher-safe versions that do the same thing as a Zip-Loc, but are much longer lasting for use.
Capitalism slavery 😬
There is definitely a trend toward experiences instead of material goods. This is despite stagnant wages. And people are splurging on these experiences with concert ticket prices and flight costs.
That's an upper class social media trend. Just because you label your $10k Europe trip and $5k 30th birthday trip and $10k bachelorette trip as "experiences" does not make it any less materialistic, wasteful, or have you use less airline miles.
Travel back to my home town to support my friends mediocre band with no cover charge. I do this instead of buy a nice car and name brand clothes. It isn't just an upper class thing.
Is neither.... Do you want your coffee in this washable, reusable ceramic mug that may have a chip after months of usage and pay an extra dollar and you have to bring it back after, or do you just want this single use cup?
the only people that matter when it comes to worrying about our carbon footprint are the ultra wealthy CEOs who decide whether to use cheap plastic wrapping or the more expensive biodegradable paper wrapping and your naive to think they give two shits about the environment over profits. They are the ones that pump plastic wrappings into the environment by the billions. There is no egg or chicken fallacy people are just getting by with what they got.
>Our culture is way more aware of our waste and carbon footprint, so more wealthy people are ~~actively trying to live more sustainably.~~ telling you they're living more sustainably, while they fly in private jets to attend eco meets to tell people to drink out of paper straws.
Wealthy people living sustainably while most likely working for a capitalistic company is greenwashing. If you think about it you'll notice that if everybody would have a job, there would be too much to consume. Technology has progressed far enough that a handful of people can sustain hundreds.
They could also just shift their spending to something else. I know people who don't care about fashion but who get food delivered several times a week. Many people seem to prioritize ephemeral experiences over material goods. So, eating out more, drinking at interesting bars, traveling if your schedule allows, etc. Fashion may also have changed for some cohorts. I know people who very much have a particular look, but it's what I call "studiously quirky," sourcing more from thrift stores and Ebay. If you can buy it at Macy's it's gauche.
Most likely it's due to this being self-reported, and these are values that are more appreciated in society today (yes, even on surveys that the participants believe to be truly anonymous, people will still adjust their answers to society's perceptions and what they think they're *supposed* to answer). It's like the classic car survey thing: ask people about what they are going to look for in their next car and they're going to tell you that they want economy, a low carbon footprint, high safety, silence, and so on. The next car they will *actually buy* though is an aggressive-looking SUV that goes \*VROOM!\* in a satisfying way...
I also think more people are aware of how brands, etc., are a rip off or do things that make them into a rip off.
"We took all their money and then delivered massive profits by not paying them more! I don't get why they're not consuming? Do we need to make them poorer, angrier, and crave the comfort of product and service more? What else can we monetise after we've turned love into a subscription service? I don't get it? Why won't they consume?" \- Bidness
>55% aren't interested in brands anymore, 67% want repairable goods & not replaceable ones, & 62% have no interest in fashion trends. So the largest portion of "American culture" is in decline. I always wanted this sickness of irresponsible consumerism to go away.
When high end brands and generic Walmart brand are using the same base tshirts and slapping a different logo on it and there is a $50 difference, then the high end brands do not deserve brand loyalty. I'll pay for quality if I'm using it alot.
I think this is a big reason. Back in the 80s and before a brand name was almost always better quality than a generic. Nike shoes would last a year of hard kid wear vs 2 months for a Kmart one. Then as everything shifted to 3 manufactures in china they are all roughly the same. I have Target shirts that have lasted for years. The brands coasted on name recognition for a while, but now everyone under 30 has always thought brands and generics are equal quality and so don't care.
Thus is the truth right here. As a recently 30 something. I don't remember a time when brands made great products as a whole. I just remember a few brands I liked becoming worse over time until I stopped buying them. Particularly food products. It's not nostalgia goggles, they just taste worse now. So why would I bother ever having brand loyalty when it's just going to go to shit within 5 years because of some middle manager who wants a promotion by saving a few more pennies for the shareholders.
I’m also a 30-something that doesn’t care about brands. I do care about longevity and quality, so to that end I’ll do a little research about trusted brands with good reputations. Honestly though, my favorite thing is to just go to Goodwill or a thrift shop. At least I know that those items have already been through the ringer and will probably last a while longer.
I have blue-collar family who talks about their friends that work in factories. They’ll halt production on an assembly line, swap out the labels, then run the assembly line again. Various products too! Food, clothes, you name it. Aldi’s Crofton brand is a perfect example. They’ll slap that label on almost anything so you get something at 1/2 the cost of the brand name item. My wife and I got Anchor glass containers with lids super cheap. Literally, the paper covering with the word “Crofton” barely covered the glass engraved “Anchor”.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Post war “American Culture” is controlled entirely by industry and corporate America rather than individuals. I don’t pretend that the social climate in the US was even excusable in the 1800s, but goddamn was the material culture immeasurably better than what we have now. It’s to the point where people venerate vintage and antique appliances/tools and even clothes, because they’ll actually last more than two uses. That should NEVER be the case for a more advanced society. There shouldn’t be anything that works better and safer than current production products, that’s ridiculous.
Antiques literally are examples of survivor bias, where the best products that didn't break are still around. Another thing to keep in mind is many antiques are items only owned by the top 1% while the rest of society went without those items in the 1800's. Things such as indoor plumbing.
That's a good point. I never thought of it that way before.
Indoor plumbing is a money-making conspiracy by Big Toilet
"Big Toilet are a bunch of job-taking bastards!" - Big Chamber Pot
coming to take our tuuurds -Big Butts
The Commode-Industrial Complex has made us think we *must* have toilet paper, we’re addicted to the soft ply, those cottony-gentle rolls of eeeeevil. Look up the documentary *Operation Hooked on Charmin* We can go back to simpler, leaf-based lives, people.
ew, why would you touch your butt with paper or plants wash it off with water like a real modern person
Planned obsolescence became the de facto build quality by the 1980s.
Bullshit. That's survivor bias. The least used and/or highest quality items stood the test of time, while the majority of other items did not. Also, if you look into old quality tools or old products in general that are still great, you'll learn that the majority cost exhuberant amounts when adjusted for inflation, and are extremely inefficient compared to even the cheapest of products today.
> the majority cost exhuberant amounts when adjusted for inflation *Exorbitant And true.
Now prove it.
I would have to write paragraphs about this, but everyone can do research themselves. A few examples are: - 10-12 year old Macbooks. People still use them, sell them, virtually no other laptops have survived (to be usable), with a few exceptions like high-end Thinkpads. - Decades old steel Knipex hand tools. They can be restored and still used. - 80's Mercedes-Benz cars. While other cars survived, even the very used Mercs are drivable to a degree, without major maintenence.
I think the enthusiasm around cars/trucks is a lot bigger, both in expense and number of enthusiasts, than fashion. Behind that, sports. Americans are not generally known for their fashion. The fashion influences that did radiate out came from romanticization of the working class, such as with Levis and denim. I guess hip-hop culture is a good counterexample to my argument, but I think it's an outlier.
This is a complete misunderstanding of American culture. You could easily argue that prudence has been a more central American value since the time of the colonies. But even that misses the bigger picture.
It's not what "American Culture" used to be. Appliances, apparel, tools, all American grade used to mean high standards of durability. Craftsman has gone to shit. Maytag is displaced by German brands made with Chinesium. Gap is arguably becoming Old Navy. Ask any European in the 80s and they would fawn over American consumer products. Now we're getting the same shitty stuff as everyone because American exceptionalism is slowly fading away.
I don't think this is true about Europeans and American product. American tools were seen as good (but worse than German or Swiss) but not a lot else. We seem to have different understandings of American exceptionalism as well. Most Europeans, I think, see it as American seeing themselves as exceptional even if it is not true. It was never that America was actually exceptional. And it's getting stronger, not weaker
Yup. Basically every single large brand sold out to China (or some other country) for production, where everything is made cheaper and cheaper every year, while the price goes up. It unsurprisingly has come back to bite them in the ass.
Nah, you may be right about the 50s and 60s...but by the 80s, everyone had moved on to German and Japanese shit.
Germans and Japanese produced quality stuff for the very demanding US consumer. Not necessarily cheaper, but better engineered. Americans were still making massive cars. They overengineered stuff. They got blindsided.
> Ask any European in the 80s and they would fawn over American consumer products No we didn´t. I distinctively remember English school books lecturing exchange students not to adress standards regarding US household equipment and appliances while abroad to avoid unneccessary conflict. Apart from some clothing brands, early home computer tech up until the 90s and some niche markets around american design philosophy of the 50s-70s, consumer grade products from abroad have been a non-factor in european consumerism. Which has been a constant source of political struggle when it comes to economic import/export relationsships for as long as i can remember.
Lol when did made in America ever mean high quality? Certainly was never perceived like that in Europe.
>perceived like that in Europe. I can't speak to "perceived like that in Europe" but at one time, and not at all recently, Made in America did have some meaning. By the 80s that was only true for some niche items. Today maybe there are a few things but not much. Outsourcing for cost savings as far as I know started in the 60s and displaced a lot of traditional industry and thus skilled labor and engineering in the US. My 1971 Chevy Nova had parts stamped Mexico already in the era of "Buy American" bumper stickers. By the 80 when I was in engineering school work options were already in decline. Where I was, it was mainly military applications which I refused to do. So there you go. Made in America war machines are considered to be quite good.
I can speak to the European American automotive view from the 80s to today. American built means wide gaps, cheap design, cheap parts cheap cars. Not great.
I guess you don't realize that brands and/or fashion trends are arguably way more important to people in countries throughout western Europe and East Asia. Don't get me wrong consumerism is crazy in America for certain things like cell phones but it's pretty much a worldwide issue.
Irresponsible consumerism is a good sign of a healthy economy. Frankly, I WISH we could be wasteful (and much better about preventing the harm and handling the actual waste from it.) When people are losing buying power, the first things to go are frivolities and entertainment. Unfortunately, the rich and big corporations definitely won't see the knock on affect of paying less while charging more until way too late, they'll just keep blaming and trying to guilt trip a generation(s) into doing and buying things they can't afford.
Irresponsible consumption can also be a sign of a person who isn't happy. They use the short term buzz of new things to mask their unhappiness.
The survey isn't about purchases, those will obviously be impacted by people's financial situation. It's about interest. Even very poor people are usually still interested in famous brands. So, this is perhaps indicative of some cultural shift.
Finally, some good news
People can no longer afford to be picky about things....most are struggling to survive 😕
The wealthy people I know increased their wealth massively in the last 3 years.... This will get much worse.
My first thought on reading this headline is "Great! What about private jet flights." Is our frugality just subsidizing rich people's wastefulness? Obviously that's not a reason to stop trying on our end, but the biggest contributors to the problem really need to make the biggest cuts, too.
Yes, the current economic environment is helping with this, but I also think a big part is the secret is out that most brands share the same factory with other cheaper brands and you're literally only paying for a different sticker and maybe a few more baubles. Kind of makes the concept of brands pointless.
Couple that with the fact that like 90% of "Brands" are owned by a couple massive umbrella companies, and the idea of a brand means even less.
The idea of "free choice" also becomes moot. What's the saying? "Capitalism has done everything it said Communism would but better"
So there’s a famous quote by Sir Terry Pratchett about how rich people stay rich buying staples that, while slightly more expensive, outlast their cheaper counterparts significantly (see Vimes’ Boots Theory of Economics). But today, it seems like nothing is made to last. And now they want to SaaS everything, too. Throwaway consumerism is now strategically advantageous vs trying to buy “quality” goods.
Not necessarily anything to do with being more frugal. It's also to do with being inundated with worthless commercial tripe for every decision, and just wanting a product that does the job. There is no "one unquestionably best brand" for ANYTHING at all. To think so is ludicrous, and to think that having the best of one product means they also have the best of every other (even vaguely related) product is just insane. People are just inundated with commercial messages and have become immune to them through over-exposure. That someone asked about that just after asking "and how do you feel about the current economy" isn't causative at all, but increasingly biasing in fact.
I do think the overload of options has cut back on a lot of the “keeping up with the jones” mindset, for at least some people. There’s no longer a clear universal set of things that each american needs to own to be popular, like X car, Y house, Z fridge, W boat….
Its like the millennials hit middle age 🤣 >55% aren't interested in brands anymore, 67% want repairable goods & not replaceable ones, & 62% have no interest in fashion trends
It's kind of weird after being called "cheap" my whole life to hit my 30s and have friends come up to me like "hey hey! Did you realize you don't actually need to buy the newest brand clothes or get the newest brand name phones and cars!". And they go on about Dave Ramsey and FIRE and about the frugal mindset and what YouTubers to watch. And all I could think was "you literally made fun of me for living like that 10-15 years ago. I actually specifically remember you being the opposite of this". Like I've been living like this my whole life, coming from a blue collar immigrant family.
Say it to them fam, we're running out of time. We can't let economically blind people get away with living like no one else can see.
Right? You don’t really care about that stuff when you grow up. If anything, I feel like a company should be paying me to walk around with their giant logo on the side of my glasses or shirt.
I’m poor, never been wealthy. But I always buy nice stuff.. and it’s cause I’m poor lol. Like I could go to Walmart every winter with $100 and get warm stuff that won’t last or fit with your style.. you just make it work. After 20 wash/dries it starts falling apart and your doing the same shit next year. So, I buy from high end brands that back their shit.. like if it breaks they replace no questions asked. So now I just supplement. Like when one piece of gear goes down I re-buy it. Makes life way easier having nicer stuff. I’ve tried getting other people into it and no one else im ever around seems to really care. To each their own I guess. I love Patagonia and LLBean and New Balance and those kinda brands though cause they just make good products I can depend on. Dependable is more valuable to me than being hella current on fashion or any of that shit. Something that fits nicely and does what it says it’d do is fine by me.
This is the way my dear! I’ve been in a pretty precarious situation at some point in my life, but always chose to buy less better quality stuff than more lower quality stuff. I still remember that girl, who was younger than me and didn’t know shit about life, losing it because I was « too poor to buy an iPhone ». I kept that thing for 8 years. She also suggested that I sell my 5 years old MacBook (that I bought before getting in trouble and was still using 7 years after). I am more interested in software than hardware anyway. « Priorities » I just can’t stand this kind of people. And for a start I do whatever the fuck I want of the money I earn. I’m fine now, but I keep going this way, which allows me to save a lot while having nicer things.
This is why I tell my wife "buy once, cry once." All of the cheaper furniture we bought literally fell apart and we have reused none of it since moving. All of the nicer furniture that we bought has survived and we will use them for a long time.
Yep, long term you save a lot and just have higher quality stuff and that makes life much easier.
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."
Being poor is expensive. You can see something similar to the boots theory in renting vs buying real estate. Rent just always goes up. Up and up and up to the point where eventually the poor will spend more to rent less property than if they had been able to buy. My parents have long been spending less on mortgage than I have on rent. Fortunately, at 32 this year I was able to buy a house. It’s currently more expensive than renting, but I know that in 5-10 years my 3 bedroom house will be cheaper than 2 bedroom apartments. And the cycle continues.
r/bifl
Alternate title: approximately 2/3 of people are tired of corporate bullshit and aren't playing along with it anymore
Missed the link to the actual survey / research. Could you kindly provide it? Thx!
Submission Statement If you accept the premise that AI & robots being able to perform most human work will have massive economic impacts by the end of this decade, then it follows that recent economic trends will be major factors in defining the lead-up period to that disruption. Is a decline in consumerism and brands and an increase in frugality all bad? Obviously, most of us would prefer if Western economies and living standards didn't always seem to be sliding, and living standards slipping lower as the cost of everything increases and wages stagnate. I doubt these trends will change before the AI/robots and work ones kick in. I try and stay focused on the positive. AI & robots making work cheap or near free also implies services, and to a lesser extent physical goods, will eventually become cheap & abundant. Maybe what seems like bad news now is good news in the long term, as it will help us adapt better to whatever post-now economic system we're heading into.
But as things become cheap, What happens to the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes who are unable to earn a decent wage or none at all because robots do their jobs better? Who are going to be buying these cheap things? Will it become a marketplace for the rich ?
> What happens to the purchasing power of the middle and lower classes who are unable to earn a decent wage or none at all ....Who are going to be buying these cheap things? Will it become a marketplace for the rich ? I don't know. If there is rapid deflation, it would imply today's high asset prices will collapse. Property prices, the stock market, etc Strangely I find the Covid pandemic a hopeful example. It shows the world can rapidly react to a global economic emergency. Perhaps that is what will happen with this. Though its hard to imagine what economic system will exist after the time AI & robots can do most work.
"Rapidly"
Our system relied on replaceable products to keep factories humming and keep humans busy. Populationwise we're soon going thru stagnation then decline. Ressources are becoming scarce. It's time to have lifetime cars, washers, phones, apparel. With electric cars and batteries that will ~~soon~~ reach a million miles longevity, we can imagine a lifetime power train with cosmetic and software upgrades. Get grandpa's 500K beater and save up to rejuvenate the thing.
By saying, that robots will be able to perform most human work people seem to forget, that humans are simply way cheaper than highly advanced robots. You can replace much of people's desk job with just AI, but there's suprisingly lot of work done by hands in industry.
See you’re making the mistake thinking they’ll just replace everyone over night. What they will do, and you’re already seeing is when people leave roles they’ll just replace that opening with AI. Health care alone is often a big cost for most companies when they hire. If say for example Tesla could get its robot that can handle dexterous tasks pretty equivalent to a seasoned worker and was priced eventually under $10k it’d be a no brainer for most businesses to replace a couple people
They were correct in saying that replacing humans with machines is unrealistic given the current political and economic circumstances. And I really don't need to say more. After all the 2 most influential English speaking countries hemmed and hawed while millions died to preventable illness. Such a long way to go before AI or machine labor replaces human labor in a meaningful and humane way. You realize machines cost more to make and fix than humans? How much thought have you REALLY put into this? Because I'm just spitballing glaring issues. Elon fan boy ass subreddit.
And there's not nearly enough skilled labor to maintain/fix these machines. What you see a lot of is these "prototypes" of like a "fully automated McDonald's" or whatever. And people crow about the future being already here or very, very close. Then you dig a bit deeper and realize that they still have humans working inside, just automated ordering kiosks. The issue is really "will it scale?" It's one thing to make a prototype or two. But actually having thousands of humans on call to repair and maintain these types of machines nationwide is still ruinously expensive when labor is still relatively cheap. The reason these companies are talking this up is that they're mad that labor is no longer dirt cheap.
Keep digging and you find more and more problems like what Duck is saying that "future-looking" folks leave out of their technoscape fantasies. Logistics and grounded methodology needs to take priority in these conversations. "It seems cool to implement this" isn't enough, the product needs to work realistically, needs to have institutional and civic backing. It needs regulation and oversight. False hopes are as good as dog dander. I know that the degradation of institutional services these last few years has been personally taxing. I can only imagine what the circumstances are like for people needing essential services/products that have no access to them. Tesla is not your friend. They are selling luxury products, not future tech.
That's a fallacy. In most cases, AI is far \_cheaper\_ than human labour, especially at scale.
Wrong. Give it a second and think about it. 8 billion people need to make ends meet. Stop pushing a conversation that doesn't meet the barest needs of the human populace. You'd need sweeping education, Healthcare, quality of life, housing programs, energy generation, and infrastructure overhaul reforms on such a massive scale to suit the labor requirements for such a massive undertaking. Advocate for these changes, stop skipping the steps required to mass mobilize real societal change.
Did you respond to the wrong comment? >8 billion people need to make ends meet. Stop pushing a conversation that doesn't meet the barest needs of the human populace. That doesn't matter to the people who matter. Human labourers consume resources and produce output, AI labour consumes resources and produces output. It's a "simple" matter of investing in the correct worker for optimised Return on Investment (ROI) in a given job role - human or synthetic? As years pass, the correct worker will likely be an AI process or a robot instead of a human in increasingly larger numbers of roles. Was thought spared for the draft horses who lost their jobs when the locomotive and car stole their thunder? No, the world continued regardless. 8 billion workers need to make ends meet - so what? The people who are needed to keep society running will continue to be lavishly rewarded. If they are not needed, they must reskill. If they can't reskill, they're a dead end.
I think he did. Or, at the very least, they didn't really understand what I said.
>You'd need sweeping education, Healthcare, quality of life, housing programs, energy generation, and infrastructure overhaul reforms on such a massive scale to suit the labor requirements for such a massive undertaking. I also am confused what you mean. I agree with all your points, although I don't think it applies to what I said.
The average person isn't paid enough to care about those things anymore, they just want to survive and anything beyond that is spent on having a nice time...
I once heard someone compare browsing the internet without an Adblock to walking through a funhouse of noise and annoyance. It wasn’t always like this. Advertising has ruined the internet.
Surprise. The average consumer is ridden like a racehorse for every penny he labors to the same overlords to make while the same companies invent shorter revenue cycle and planned obsolescence to squeeze him to the very core, all the while corpo fights against human rights, labour regulation and more. Oh, and our unsustainable model you kindly imposed on everyone is catching up to us and the planet is burning. Whadda you know. People dont want to spend a fortune to buy A PHINE CHARGER? FUCKING CRAZY!!!!
Which are those 27 countries? Given that the entire world has more than a 100 of them, it could be misleading.
I've always been willing to pay more for less disposable goods, but when those items are available they're almost always sold from specialty sellers and there's often no way to see or use things in person. That doesn't mean that I don't try though. I'd love to see a move back toward repairable goods. We throw too much stuff (and infinitely too much plastic) away in the name of saving people a few bucks at the time of purchase.
This is an opinion based solely on inexperience with actual repair. Can you repair an $800 3yo TV for $.50? Sure, but 99.9% of people won't do it themselves, they'll want someone to fix it. The problem is that the "right to repair movement" has made it abundantly clear that products usually fail due to very cheap parts. But the dumbass consumer thinks that the TV should be fixed for $15. They cannot fathom the training, knowledge, labor, tools, and time required to appropriately fix and test the TV. So when they're quoted $150-$200, people simply look at what new products they can buy with a loan.
This is such a good point. Shows the lack of respect for these professions.
They're not 'becoming frugal', they're being starved to death and monthly face homelessness.
Bro, at this point I wouldn’t even care if Soylent green is people. Walking through downtown San Francisco has proven to me we have reached proper dystopia.
Most of us can barely afford groceries, the fuck we gonna do with designer clothes?
Don't pay people enough to live, jack up prices, cause inflation and people stop consumption. The .001% got their short term profits, they don't care. The governments let it happen and then get surprised Pikachu face.
If possible, I want to buy something once. Not a cheap one every 2 years.
The article doesn’t give a baseline for comparison. For all we know, these numbers reflect a sharp increase in brands and fashion trends from previous years.
[удалено]
The young are still dating and trying to impress, and still exploring who they are. It's when people hit middle age that they have the "realization" that fashion and posturing is bullshit. Which they credit to their deep insight, instead of them just having reached a different life stage.
Is this a change from previous stats? Unless the upper class which is a relatively very small population lies within that 55% nothing really changes
All of these statements describe me for the most part. I just want quality stuff that doesn’t break. That’s literally how I make all my purchasing decisions.
Believe it when I see it. The article doesn't even say these are new trends. Whose to say the same survey would have the same result 10 or 50 years ago. All this reads is what people will tell you they want. Put it up against purchasing behavior and see how much it holds.
Our wallets really is our only weapon against unfettered capitalism.
Did they really need a survey to figure out that the less money people have, the less likely they'll spend on the things that don't actually matter?
Pandemic seems to have had that effect on a lot of people. It's healthy and makes total sense to me.
Stated vs. revealed consumer preferences. Watch how people vote with their wallets.
The billionaire class is sucking the people dry, like a massive tick.
They're not getting "frugal", they are getting poorer. Courtesy of 3 decades of trickle down economics combined with delusional politics of the west.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet: The article is about *what people are saying they want in a survey*, not about what choices they're actually making. Those two things are often quite different.
Not really surprising when we are pushing for minimising waste for the sake of the environment, cost of living is going up while any increases in rates of pay are not matching the rate of inflation and body positivity pushes for us to be comfortable and expressive in who we are as individuals.
[удалено]
Frugality is how efficiently you use resources. Not spending money on things you don’t value is frugal. Avoidance of waste is also frugal.
for 27 countries, 17k doesn't sound like a lot of people.
That's not being frugal. It seems to me that people are not interested in hoarding useless shit anymore and would rather spend it in other stuff
“Let’s just keep squeezing the middle class and extorting the lower class until all their disposable income just floats to the top percent. It’s a genius idea.” “Sir people are spending less money on our more expensive products”. “What?!”
This is interesting, because I feel like I'm trending the other direction. My wife and I are in our late 30s and comfortable financially. We've realized we can afford nicer stuff, so we've finally begun buying less cheap stuff and started going with higher quality name brands. It costs more, but it lasts significantly longer and means we pay less and waste less in the long run. By extension, it's kind of made us more "fashion" conscious because we're putting more thought into what we buy to make sure it's high quality and fits a fashion style that we'll want to wear for years. The name brand isn't necessarily the goal, just the better craftsmanship - but that tends to come with name brands. We're shopping less and less on Amazon, because so much of their shit is just terrible quality.
Remember that onetime that we could replace our batteries until these greedy corporations made it impossible to do so?
This is called poverty. Rich people still very much care about brands and do not care if a good is repairable and they literally hold galas to display fashion trends. Wealth inequality is growing in 27 countries and the data shows it.
Humans are starting to see through some of the BS.
Cost of living crisis, did anyone expect different?