pffft the only reason Europeans shop less than Americans (if that's even true) is because of higher costs of living, higher prices on consumer goods, and higher taxes.
Asians are far more consumption obsessed (well countries like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore) and they have lower tax rates than the US (something like 20% for the average person)
and before you jump on me for saying Japan and low living costs in the same sentence, keep in mind that i you don't live in Tokyo, Japan can be a far less money hemorrhaging place to live than the U.S
Asians are far more consumption obsessed (well countries like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore)...
What do you base this on?
Reality.
I AM ENLIGHTENED!!!
actually i always thought asians saved more. when i was in japan, it was my understanding that they saved like 20 or 30% of their salaries.
They're also being taxed less.
And since adults live at home longer, they save on rent.
This plus the vastly cheaper food costs enable them to spend more on consumer goods.
Oh, and the goods themselves tend to be cheaper. I'm not sure about Japan but I know that in Hong Kong there's no sales tax.
Sam on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
Well, why dont we play a game. We'll start with you making ONE citation for (Japan, China, Singapore) having higher per capita consumption rates of ANYTHING, and I'll respond with two citations for the actual situation, until someone concedes their point.
Comparing GDP per capita by purchasing power parity would also imply that Americans have more money to spend on "useless" stuff, correct?
yes and no. Americans may be better off financially, but buying clothes and electronics is more expensive, and Americans tend to have higher living expenses- suburban houses have higher utility bills, the commuter lifestyle and the lack of public transport mean expenses for gas, car maintenance and insurance, the necessity for health insurance, and as I mentioned before, higher taxes than most of Asia.
So even if you're economically better off, you're not in as good a position to go shopping and eat out.
Sam on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
Tiger BurningDig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tuberegular
edited January 2010
To be meaningful, those numbers need to be normalized to per capita GDP. Otherwise you're just saying that people who have more spend more. Also, I'm not even sure that we have a good idea of what quality it is we're talking about here. Savings rate is probably the closest proxy for measuring 'consumerism', but even that doesn't capture the normative dimension that many of you seem to be attributing to the term.
Also, to the line you quoted; I don't think wanting is the human condition. People in Europe do not buy useless shit at nearly the rate that people in the USA do.
...You're all aware that the only way to end consumer culture is for everyone to be a self-sufficient producer, right? As long as there are things you legitimately need, there will always be an "in" for influencing you based on want.
It's the degree to which our culture is oriented around purchases, for the most part. All the "Keeping up with the Jonses" stuff. Also the focus on products and not services in a lot of cases.
It's the degree to which our culture is oriented around purchases, for the most part. All the "Keeping up with the Jonses" stuff. Also the focus on products and not services in a lot of cases.
Our desire for more has gotten us to move out into the sprawling suburbs where owning a car is nearly a necessity and our desire for cheap food has created an industry with little accountability that makes unhealthy food-like products out of soy and corn.
I remember someone mentioning on this forum that some European country, Finland maybe, actually has a commonly-used word in their culture that implies, "anything more than a handful is too much." As for the U.S. we're now at the point that marketing is exploiting the satisfaction people can get from criticizing greed, advertising or the system as a whole.
"There are some things money can't buy. For everything else; Mastercard."
I mean did they just call checkmate on the American public? I don't even know what to say about that. I believe the OP mentioned alternative comics. Well you really can't find any that are better than this guy.
Also, to the line you quoted; I don't think wanting is the human condition. People in Europe do not buy useless shit at nearly the rate that people in the USA do.
Yeah, well, Europe is kind of a shithole.
You, my friend, have never been to Europe.
I went to school over there for my undergrad. As well, all my inlaws live there.
Also, to the line you quoted; I don't think wanting is the human condition. People in Europe do not buy useless shit at nearly the rate that people in the USA do.
Yeah, well, Europe is kind of a shithole.
You, my friend, have never been to Europe.
I went to school over there for my undergrad. As well, all my inlaws live there.
I've been there.
Poor taste then. To describe it as a shit-hole in its entirety shows a lack of reason and pure emotional out lash.
SkyGheNe on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also, to the line you quoted; I don't think wanting is the human condition. People in Europe do not buy useless shit at nearly the rate that people in the USA do.
Yeah, well, Europe is kind of a shithole.
You, my friend, have never been to Europe.
I went to school over there for my undergrad. As well, all my inlaws live there.
I've been there.
Poor taste then. To describe it as a shit-hole in its entirety shows a lack of reason and pure emotional out lash.
Not really.
In an economic reality, my life in America has far greater purchasing power than anything I could hope for in Europe. I have a suitably large home near a major urban center, and my wife and I both have well-paying jobs that do not require too much time away from home and did not require copious amounts of money or time spent in gaining the requisite education. We both have new cars, we travel frequently (New Orleans in two weeks, Scotland later this fall), and we go to the cinema or theater sometimes weekly.
As my wife would say, it's not that people want for less in Europe. They're just used to having less.
Also, to the line you quoted; I don't think wanting is the human condition. People in Europe do not buy useless shit at nearly the rate that people in the USA do.
Yeah, well, Europe is kind of a shithole.
You, my friend, have never been to Europe.
I went to school over there for my undergrad. As well, all my inlaws live there.
I've been there.
Poor taste then. To describe it as a shit-hole in its entirety shows a lack of reason and pure emotional out lash.
Not really.
In an economic reality, my life in America has far greater purchasing power than anything I could hope for in Europe. I have a suitably large home near a major urban center, and my wife and I both have well-paying jobs that do not require too much time away from home and did not require copious amounts of money or time spent in gaining the requisite education. We both have new cars, we travel frequently (New Orleans in two weeks, Scotland later this fall), and we go to the cinema or theater sometimes weekly.
As my wife would say, it's not that people want for less in Europe. They're just used to having less.
I wouldn't say that's a bad thing but that's the opinion of a student who's used to living below the poverty line. But just so we aren't going solely off of people's limited experiences...
It's the degree to which our culture is oriented around purchases, for the most part. All the "Keeping up with the Jonses" stuff. Also the focus on products and not services in a lot of cases.
Also, to the line you quoted; I don't think wanting is the human condition. People in Europe do not buy useless shit at nearly the rate that people in the USA do.
Yeah, well, Europe is kind of a shithole.
So is America. I mean, have you been to Peru?
What I'm saying here is that Europe is far from homogenous, and saying "I've been there" is laughable at best.
In an economic reality, my life in America has far greater purchasing power than anything I could hope for in Europe. I have a suitably large home near a major urban center, and my wife and I both have well-paying jobs that do not require too much time away from home and did not require copious amounts of money or time spent in gaining the requisite education. We both have new cars, we travel frequently (New Orleans in two weeks, Scotland later this fall), and we go to the cinema or theater sometimes weekly.
As my wife would say, it's not that people want for less in Europe. They're just used to having less.
Yes, America is known for having significantly cheaper education than Europe. This is part of the reason everybody has access to all the best schools over there and no one ever decides against pursuing further education because of all the debt they would have to go into.
As for all of the rest of your post, my personal experiences tell me you have no idea what you are talking about.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I live in Europe, "over there" in my first sentence refers to the USA.
Ross is more correct then most give him credit for.
I have family in Amsterdam, London, Hungary, and several other countries. And while it's nice there, the quality of life I have an a major city while in America is a lot better.
Europe gets idolized because their more left leaning policies make many think it's some sort of progress haven, that's not the case, it has it's share of problems as well.
I don't think car ownership is a reasonable metric by which to define American buying power. Car ownership in America is predicated on ridiculously cheap petrol prices which occur nowhere else in the world with the exception of the countries with puppet governments to support them.
People in Europe avoid owning many cars because petrol in Europe costs a fortune. Also you know, trains that don't suck.
there's a reason a good portion of this country is deeply embarrassed of texas and why texas is used as the "stupid american" archetype
cuz it's full of silly gooses
You seem to have Texas confused with the South. Texas aint great, but it is solidly ahead of every other conservative bastion. And in fact, parts of it (San Antonio, Austin) are really pretty damn awesome, just like parts of, say, Rural New York and California are every bit as terrible as Alabama.
texas has the lowest graduation rate in the entire country, probably flat-out the worst record for education in general, and the highest rate of teen pregnancy, so no, it's really not solidly ahead of anyone!
it rolls many of the worst social-conservative policies and legislative effects into a puffed-up and deeply confusing sense of self-righteousness. there's a reason for all those "just let them secede already" jokes
i mean i come from new jersey, home of guidos and jewish organ thieves
at least i'm willing to admit that burning my state to the ground would count as gentrification
Texas high school students will have to learn about leading conservative groups from the 1980s and 1990s – but not about liberal or minority-rights groups – under U.S. history standards tentatively adopted by a politically divided State Board of Education on Friday.
The Republican majority on the board also gave a thumbs down to requiring history teachers and textbooks to provide coverage on the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as well as leading Hispanic civil-rights groups such as LULAC and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Led by the board's social-conservative bloc, Republicans left Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the nation's first black justice, on the list of important figures that will have to be covered in history classes.
But they also added, on a 7-6 vote, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, the National Rifle Association, Moral Majority and the Heritage Foundation to the list of persons and groups that students will learn about.
Board member Don McLeroy, R-College Station, offered the amendment requiring coverage of "key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s." McLeroy said he offered the proposal because the history standards were already "rife with leftist political periods and events – the populists, the progressives, the New Deal and the Great Society."
Those were among the long list of changes to proposed social studies standards for Texas schools that were considered over several hours Thursday and Friday.
Late Friday afternoon, after finding themselves unable to work through a long list of amendments, board members unanimously agreed to suspend debate on the standards until March, when they will take up other social studies subjects such as government and geography. In addition, several additional amendments to the U.S. history standards were left pending.
Curriculum standards adopted by the board will remain in place for the next decade, dictating what is taught in government, history and other social studies classes in all elementary and secondary schools. The standards also will be used to write textbooks and develop state tests for students.
Social conservatives lost some key battles Friday as other Republicans and Democrats joined to kill a few of their proposals. One of those turned back would have eliminated hip-hop music from history standards dealing with U.S. culture and replaced it with country music.
McLeroy and other social conservatives said hip-hop was inappropriate for history classes, and one member suggested it encourages anti-social behavior. Board member Mavis Knight, D-Dallas, however, retorted that hip-hop has "impacted our society whether we like it or not. So since it's there, we may as well talk about the positive aspects of it."
In the end, the proposal was killed on a 7-7 vote and hip-hop stayed in, along with rock 'n' roll, Tin Pan Alley, the Beat Generation and the Chicano Mural Movement as "significant examples" of cultural movements in the U.S.
McLeroy was successful with another of his noteworthy amendments: to include documents that supported Cold War-era Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his contention that the U.S. government was infiltrated with Communists in the 1950s.
CONTENTIOUS TOPICS
The outcome of some of the proposed social studies standards for Texas schools that generated debate:
Labor leader César Chávez and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall: Experts appointed by socially conservative board members recommended that both names be stricken from the standards, but the board opted to leave them in.
Christmas: A curriculum-writing team dropped Christmas from a list of important religious holidays in a world cultures course, but the board ordered Christmas put back in.
Conservative groups: The board voted to require that U.S. history students learn about leading conservative individuals and groups from the 1980s and '90s, but not about liberal groups.
Religion in U.S. history: Social conservatives sought to require that students learn about "religious revivals" as among the major events leading up to the American Revolution. That was narrowly rejected.
McCarthyism: Social conservatives pushed through an amendment that will require a more positive portrayal of Joseph McCarthy and his accusations that the U.S. government in the 1950s was infiltrated by Communists. McCarthy's tactics have been discredited by most historians.
Texas is the largest producer of schoolbooks in America, most schools throughout the United States use the books produced there. Whatever Texas decides to put in their schoolbooks gets permeated to the entire United States and curriculum everywhere.
This is, of course, on top of the constant back and forth debate between evolution and intelligent design in both schoolbooks and classes.
texas has the lowest graduation rate in the entire country, probably flat-out the worst record for education in general, and the highest rate of teen pregnancy, so no, it's really not solidly ahead of anyone!
it rolls many of the worst social-conservative policies and legislative effects into a puffed-up and deeply confusing sense of self-righteousness. there's a reason for all those "just let them secede already" jokes
texas has the lowest graduation rate in the entire country, probably flat-out the worst record for education in general, and the highest rate of teen pregnancy, so no, it's really not solidly ahead of anyone!
it rolls many of the worst social-conservative policies and legislative effects into a puffed-up and deeply confusing sense of self-righteousness. there's a reason for all those "just let them secede already" jokes
i mean i come from new jersey, home of guidos and jewish organ thieves
at least i'm willing to admit that burning my state to the ground would count as gentrification
Yeah and I'd still rather be here than anywhere East of here and South of the Mason Dixon Line. Though I'd rather be in parts of Europe, Canada, MA or WA than here for sure.
Posts
Asians are far more consumption obsessed (well countries like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore) and they have lower tax rates than the US (something like 20% for the average person)
What do you base this on?
Reality.
I AM ENLIGHTENED!!!
actually i always thought asians saved more. when i was in japan, it was my understanding that they saved like 20 or 30% of their salaries.
They're also being taxed less.
And since adults live at home longer, they save on rent.
This plus the vastly cheaper food costs enable them to spend more on consumer goods.
Oh, and the goods themselves tend to be cheaper. I'm not sure about Japan but I know that in Hong Kong there's no sales tax.
yes and no. Americans may be better off financially, but buying clothes and electronics is more expensive, and Americans tend to have higher living expenses- suburban houses have higher utility bills, the commuter lifestyle and the lack of public transport mean expenses for gas, car maintenance and insurance, the necessity for health insurance, and as I mentioned before, higher taxes than most of Asia.
So even if you're economically better off, you're not in as good a position to go shopping and eat out.
US at #3 Japan at #5. China and Singapore at #63 and #63.
Radios?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_rad_percap-media-radios-per-capita
US at #1. Japan at #18. Singapore at #60. China at #111
Per capita spending on fast food?
http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/article.cfm/top_fast_food_countries
US #1, Japan #6, China #9
Live theater tickets can be fucking expensive.
Yea, this was actually a bit of a problem in Japan for some period of time. People were saving too much money and not spending enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption
Our desire for more has gotten us to move out into the sprawling suburbs where owning a car is nearly a necessity and our desire for cheap food has created an industry with little accountability that makes unhealthy food-like products out of soy and corn.
I remember someone mentioning on this forum that some European country, Finland maybe, actually has a commonly-used word in their culture that implies, "anything more than a handful is too much." As for the U.S. we're now at the point that marketing is exploiting the satisfaction people can get from criticizing greed, advertising or the system as a whole.
"There are some things money can't buy. For everything else; Mastercard."
I mean did they just call checkmate on the American public? I don't even know what to say about that. I believe the OP mentioned alternative comics. Well you really can't find any that are better than this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVZo1Jjfshw
I've been seeing these ads around town.
I drink a LOT of soda, mind you (Coke zero, but still). I can clear a two liter in a day very easily. I've had up to 3 liters in a day before.
But advertising this as a norm for "meals" is absurd.
I went to school over there for my undergrad. As well, all my inlaws live there.
I've been there.
Poor taste then. To describe it as a shit-hole in its entirety shows a lack of reason and pure emotional out lash.
Not really.
In an economic reality, my life in America has far greater purchasing power than anything I could hope for in Europe. I have a suitably large home near a major urban center, and my wife and I both have well-paying jobs that do not require too much time away from home and did not require copious amounts of money or time spent in gaining the requisite education. We both have new cars, we travel frequently (New Orleans in two weeks, Scotland later this fall), and we go to the cinema or theater sometimes weekly.
As my wife would say, it's not that people want for less in Europe. They're just used to having less.
I wouldn't say that's a bad thing but that's the opinion of a student who's used to living below the poverty line. But just so we aren't going solely off of people's limited experiences...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_pov_lin-economy-population-below-poverty-line
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_dis_of_fam_inc_gin_ind-distribution-family-income-gini-index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
Where in Europe?
There's a bit of a difference between, say, Budapest and London.
And there's a bit of a problem if you think Texas can beat either place. Hell, I'd rather go to Turkmenistan.
You, my friend, have never been to Texas.
Jk, but really it's not that bad.
So is America. I mean, have you been to Peru?
Also that America is a continent, not a country.
Yes, America is known for having significantly cheaper education than Europe. This is part of the reason everybody has access to all the best schools over there and no one ever decides against pursuing further education because of all the debt they would have to go into.
As for all of the rest of your post, my personal experiences tell me you have no idea what you are talking about.
EDIT: Just to clarify, I live in Europe, "over there" in my first sentence refers to the USA.
cuz it's full of silly gooses
Details. Please.
I know there are some things wrong with it, just like the rest of the country, but nothing I know of to be deeply embarrassed about.
I have family in Amsterdam, London, Hungary, and several other countries. And while it's nice there, the quality of life I have an a major city while in America is a lot better.
Europe gets idolized because their more left leaning policies make many think it's some sort of progress haven, that's not the case, it has it's share of problems as well.
People in Europe avoid owning many cars because petrol in Europe costs a fortune. Also you know, trains that don't suck.
You seem to have Texas confused with the South. Texas aint great, but it is solidly ahead of every other conservative bastion. And in fact, parts of it (San Antonio, Austin) are really pretty damn awesome, just like parts of, say, Rural New York and California are every bit as terrible as Alabama.
LoL: failboattootoot
it rolls many of the worst social-conservative policies and legislative effects into a puffed-up and deeply confusing sense of self-righteousness. there's a reason for all those "just let them secede already" jokes
i mean i come from new jersey, home of guidos and jewish organ thieves
at least i'm willing to admit that burning my state to the ground would count as gentrification
Although a bit off topic
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/011610dntexsboe.42e6e16.html%22
Texas is the largest producer of schoolbooks in America, most schools throughout the United States use the books produced there. Whatever Texas decides to put in their schoolbooks gets permeated to the entire United States and curriculum everywhere.
This is, of course, on top of the constant back and forth debate between evolution and intelligent design in both schoolbooks and classes.
this too
Yeah and I'd still rather be here than anywhere East of here and South of the Mason Dixon Line. Though I'd rather be in parts of Europe, Canada, MA or WA than here for sure.
LoL: failboattootoot