My last effort was to say they could read the book on the clock every day for a bit to see if it would change their minds. The idea is to use artificial scarcity to prop up the price of everything in order to guarantee that capital can find a profitable outlet, then prop up demand with planned obsolescence so labor can be fully employed. They transitioned from an average 60-hour work week, down to a 40-hour work week. That means it's possible to buy gently used, even high-end apparel for less than rice, beans, or other basic foodstuffs. Or are there other quantifiable changes that need to be made? At a moment of ecological decline and continuing financial uncertainty, best-selling author and economist Juliet Schor offers a revolutionary strategy for changing how we think about consumer goods, intrinsic value, and ways to live. For instance, the author suggests one option is nationalizing patents deemed by the government as important in I can summarize as 1.
As the economist Tibor Scitovsky argued, we need to cultivate the skills to spend time in ways that yield high well-being. And the state brings about this state of affairs by shifting the costs of an action onto unwilling third parties like taxpayers or the victims of tortious behavior. Schor's research has focused on the economics of work, spending, environment, and the consumer culture. You want to know a really inefficient, resource wasting method to move oil around? There are several areas where localized production has become more efficient than mass-production. The downturn has actually opened up space for people to think about different trajectories for their consumption expectations over their lifetimes.
Looking forward to reading it! For example, should we reform the monetary and banking system which many people argue is promoting economic growth? They are immutable and we flout them at our peril. Okay, maybe not 20 tons of carbon — at least not yet. On the other hand, it could deplete some political capital from the Dems right before mid-term elections and make subsequent climate legislation more difficult. I have been doing this a lot in recent years, just because it is fun. My problem with aquaponics is the energy consumption as well as the fish food.
Will renewable energy leave us with a lower material standard of living? In encouraging us to value our gifts- nature, community, intelligence, and time-Schor offers the opportunity to participate in creating a world of wealth and well-being. I hope she writes a 2nd book detailing how these shifts are being made in practice, by actual individuals, organizations, and cities. And if so, do you ever notice a culture clash when visiting high-income friends and colleagues with more typical lifestyles? School puts a great deal of emphasis on the benefits of I really enjoyed this book. But in general, moderately higher oil prices do amazing things towards making great new energy technologies pop out of the woodwork. What about policies such as cap and trade to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to limit resource depletion? However, I'm not quite sold on the Plenitude model, as the author refers to it. I believe existing trends toward decreased employment, and the exhaustion of both state- and employer-based welfare states, will have precisely this effect: of shifting social safety net functions to primary social units like neighborhood cohousing projects, urban communes, extended family compounds, lodges, friendly societies, professional guilds, and the like. Even Exxon has given up on climate change denial lobbying.
Place it on hundreds or thousands of tanker ships and move it half way across the world on ships. The combination The first third of this book seemed a little silly. We spoke with Schor about her new book published as True Wealth in paperback , in which she questions the conventional wisdom that maximizing income and growth is the path to well-being. If every unemployed or underemployed person with a sewing machine and good skills put them to full use producing clothing for barter, and if every unemployed or underemployed person turned to such a producer as their first resort in obtaining clothing and ditto for all other forms of common home production, like baking, daycare services, hairstyling, rides and running errands, etc. She is also a cofounder of the Center for a New American Dream, an organization devoted to ecologically and socially sustainable lifestyles. I reserved both books at my local library with a few clicks of the mouse. In this paper, we analyze conditions for platform providers on six platforms Airbnb, TaskRabbit, Uber, Lyft, Postmates and Favor.
This might also be a good book to give to your friend or relative who thinks recycling is enough, buys tons of crap, or thinks you are lazy for wanting to work less than full time. She advocates open source information -- I agree it is great, but somehow the people doing research and coming up with ideas have to get paid. The argument is conventionally structured. . So now we use our good land for animal fodder and tract housing, and our bad land for raccoons. A sudden cutback in consumer demand will lead to panic and recession.
Or at least it gets the stakeholders to start thinking about this matter. He is an anarchist without adjectives whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, and The Desktop Regulatory State, all of which are freely available online. Schor About True Wealth A groundbreaking statement about ecological decline, suggesting a radical change in how we think about consumer goods, value, and ways to live. After the rail accident in Lac Megantic Quebec I would rather see oil go by pipeline wherever possible. As has been mentioned, if the U. That means that our ecological impact is expanding and we are putting more pressure on the environment than it can handle. And, just to call bullshit on myself, it strikes me that there are other human foods that could be grown on a lot of marginal land — things like amaranth that remain closer to their weedy ancestors.
Under a Plenitude model, if we tended to work a bit less on average, would you expect to see our productivity increase due to reducing stress and harvesting only the best hours from the minds of workers or decrease perhaps due to losing some economy of scale from such massive production? The book addressed not only the work and spend cycle, but the role of time use in reducing ecological impacts and improving quality of life. I agree with many of her basic ideas, but a number of details left me uncomfortable. Hard economic take on the unsustainable Business As Usual model of wealth and growth. Juliet Schor: There are many ways to realize shorter work hours. Reducing incomes and increasing government spending doesn't sound like it would work. I struggle with it too, working for a company that just wants to pay the least they can. Living more fundamental values of increasing self-sufficiency, however, is.
Before the current downturn many people were reporting that they were working more hours than they wanted to and would prefer to trade some income for more time. There are ways of trying to get around this paradox, say by calculating the worth of oil in other terms: natural gas or the number of horses that could provide an equivalent amount of power, for example. However, I'm not quite sold on the Plenitude model, as the author refers to it. While the book lays out a general approach to an appealing way forward for particularly well-to-do Americans, I found the writing uneven and hard to get into. It reminded me of financial bloggers who suggest saving money by reducing your Starbucks runs to just three times a week.
Schor offers a groundbreaking intellectual statement about the economics and sociology of ecological decline, suggesting a radical change in how we think about consumer goods, value, and ways to live. I really liked what she had to say about the current movement to slow and intentional living. Sorry, girl, you have to go get a degree. In her previous work she has looked at the moral pressure to work increasingly long hours, the dangers of and pressures leading to excessive consumption and the marketization and commercialisation of childhood. Does it make more sense to use tankers coming from Human Rights abusing middle eastern countries to obtain oil instead of Canada? That being said, I am not the best at leading by example because I think the solution, or damage control at this point, to climate change is going to have to be policy-based.