Goodbye Bland Affluence?

[methodwriter85]

Here's this article that looks at what the broader implications of this recession/depression that we're in.

 

Goodbye, Bland Affluence by Peggy Noonan

 

I'm not really thinking we're going to go back to the old days, but I do think the McManion and McHouse World of the 1990's and 2000's are pretty much over for good.

 

What do you guys think?

[David McLeod]

What do I think? Thanks for asking. I think the article was yet another example of anecdote, apocrypha, and aphorism being touted as legitimate data for decisionmaking, and yet another bit of fluff that (intentionally or not) takes people's minds off real, important, and real important issues. For more examples, log onto Yahoo.com a few times and note what "news" is featured: mindless stories about mindless entertainment figures seem to predominate. Watch television for a few hours and *don't* skip the commercials: how many large companies are advertising not their products but are running "feel-good-about-me" ads? We complain that the people of Cuba and China are being propagandized by their governments; yet, we are subject to (and seem to be swallowing) more propaganda than either of those countries produce. What company or organization hasn't declared itself to be "green" with no concept of what that means, while we continue to consume ourselves into oblivion? Khrushchev was wrong: the capitalists didn't sell the communists the shovels with which the communists would bury the capitalists; we're too busy burying ourselves in our own garbage.

 

Please think about what captures the attention and imagination of people today. Yesterday morning while on the treadmill for physio, I could not find a news channel that wasn't devoting more than 20% of its time to a British talent show contestant. Bravo Zulu (navy talk for "well done") to the SEALs who effected the rescue, but absolute disgust for our having allowed the piracy to progress as far as it has. ("Our" includes everyone who is or has been sentient in the past 20 years or so.) I think civilization will outlast me, but not by long. I have no offspring, yet I weep for today's teens and young adults. It is sad that although the odds of live evolving elsewhere in the universe are high, the odds of other intelligent life ever having evolved, or ever evolving again, are extremely low. It is sad that when we destroy ourselves there will be a vast silence for the rest of the life of the universe.

 

Is this bound to happen? Perhaps not; however, we do need to off our dead donkeys and do something! All of us.

[Drewbie]

I think most cases yes not going to be big houses, but depends on what you think is a big house. Some areas, though I notice hasn't been affected or as much by this economic climate. Places people are still going out to restaurants and buying really expensive items.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Drewbie

[Daisy]

What do I think? Thanks for asking. I think the article was yet another example of anecdote, apocrypha, and aphorism being touted as legitimate data for decisionmaking, and yet another bit of fluff that (intentionally or not) takes people's minds off real, important, and real important issues. For more examples, log onto Yahoo.com a few times and note what "news" is featured: mindless stories about mindless entertainment figures seem to predominate. Watch television for a few hours and *don't* skip the commercials: how many large companies are advertising not their products but are running "feel-good-about-me" ads? We complain that the people of Cuba and China are being propagandized by their governments; yet, we are subject to (and seem to be swallowing) more propaganda than either of those countries produce. What company or organization hasn't declared itself to be "green" with no concept of what that means, while we continue to consume ourselves into oblivion? Khrushchev was wrong: the capitalists didn't sell the communists the shovels with which the communists would bury the capitalists; we're too busy burying ourselves in our own garbage.

 

Please think about what captures the attention and imagination of people today. Yesterday morning while on the treadmill for physio, I could not find a news channel that wasn't devoting more than 20% of its time to a British talent show contestant. Bravo Zulu (navy talk for "well done") to the SEALs who effected the rescue, but absolute disgust for our having allowed the piracy to progress as far as it has. ("Our" includes everyone who is or has been sentient in the past 20 years or so.) I think civilization will outlast me, but not by long. I have no offspring, yet I weep for today's teens and young adults. It is sad that although the odds of live evolving elsewhere in the universe are high, the odds of other intelligent life ever having evolved, or ever evolving again, are extremely low. It is sad that when we destroy ourselves there will be a vast silence for the rest of the life of the universe.

 

Is this bound to happen? Perhaps not; however, we do need to off our dead donkeys and do something! All of us.

 

I like what you say. Sometimes it is nice just to know that other people do think similarly and are critical of what they live in and are surrounded by. The whole, we are the freest people alive business without considering what we are actually slaves to but without the visible chains.

 

 

--edit:, however at the same time, although I do think the article goes over the top in how it see's the world or america changing for the good, in all sphere's including hollywood, I do think that some of what it says is true and parts of society are changing like that. I don't know how deeply though or how widespread, there are a few trends like that developing in the UK too. And some of the characteristics are lined up with the idea of what you are talking about, getting away from the latent selling machine and numbness that tv commercials and light-news are all about. but I think those selling machines are too big and have too much of a stranglehold to be shaken as easily as by this recession, they will hold on and bend the climate to their advantage, get people sucked in another way.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Smarties

[AFriendlyFace]

I read the article, frankly it sounds horrible to me!

 

I very much hope that does not happen. Call me a materialist if you will, but that seems like a big, unattractive step backward and personally I don't intend to live like that if I can help it.

 

If it makes other people happier then that's great, but I'm pretty sure that isn't the life for me!

 

 

Another thing I find of interest is the family featured in the article, the mom, dad, and daughter who decided to pull a "Green Acres." Well good for mom and dad if that's what they wanted and if they're happy about it. I did note however, that no one mentioned how their 15-year old daughter felt about this. Maybe I'm being cynical and maybe she's completely thrilled at her new life, but I think there's every chance she's miserable. As I said, if she's not then this is a good fit for the family and I'm glad for them, but in general this brings up a very relevant topic if you ask me.

 

It's my opinion that it's completely unacceptable for a husband and/or father to just decide he's unhappy with his life and just up and move into some drastically different version (and that goes for whether he's living in the city and moves to the country OR the other way around). He's not a lone individual in this case. He has a wife and children and they didn't sign up for this. I don't mean to pick on straight men the same is most definitely just as true of a straight married woman, a gay couple, or a lesbian couple. Regardless there's a family 'unit' and if they formed in the setting of NYC, or the pastoral pleasures of the Midwest, it isn't fair to expect the rest of the individuals in that unit to give up their lives because one of them has suddenly had an 'awakening.'

 

This whole oft repeated tale of 'the little woman and the kids' following daddy as he hops around the country (or the world in some cases, most notably the military) is frankly nauseating to me. They're individuals in their own right too and they damn well should have some input.

 

I agree that it's a bit different in the case of kids. Yes, for the most part they don't ultimately have a final say in these matters; however, I don't think they have no say in it either. I also think that there's a hell of a lot of difference between making your 5 year old uproot and making your 15 year old uproot. In some cases it might be necessary, but IMO the instance profiled above was not one of them. As I said, if the girl actually wanted to do this then great, but if not the only decent thing to do as parents (in my opinion at least) is wait another three or four years until she is old enough to legally and realistically decide for herself whether or not she wants to move with her family or remain on her own.

 

I believe that as parents and as 'one half of a couple' people have certain responsibilities that they've taken on. As a single person I am perfectly free to make major lifestyle changes or travel about like a gypsy. However, once I enter into a serious, long-term relationship that has the expectation of permanence I'd better be damn sure that my partner and I want the same things when it comes to the major issues or else I'm (rightfully) screwed when he expects that we'll just maintain the status quo. By the same token once I become a parent I've got to accept that at this point I'm raising a child and I'm going to have to make sacrifices and delay my own gratification for the sake of allowing that child a stable life.

 

This article doesn't win any points with me either on a personal preference level (I like urban living) or on a moral, philosophical level (uprooting your family needlessly like that is irresponsible in my opinion).

 

Just my thoughts. Take care all and have a great day

 

-Kevin

[Daisy]

I

 

This article doesn't win any points with me either on a personal preference level (I like urban living) or on a moral, philosophical level (uprooting your family needlessly like that is irresponsible in my opinion).

 

Just my thoughts. Take care all and have a great day

 

-Kevin

 

I think that you can get what the article is sort of pointing towards and live in an urban area too. If you strip the article of certain things, what it is talking about is happiness and perhaps letting go of some of the things that we argue about in these threads around how lives should be lived and expectations.

you can certainly have gardens in the city if that is what you want, even community gardens. but I know that is not what you want I think Kevin. I think it is more along the lines of appreciating what you have and the simple things in life, whether they your relationships, hanging out with friends, fashion, whatever it is. just don't let others, and consumerism dictate what you should want and how you go about doing what it is you want (aka the price I suppose) and what your daily life should be made up of doing - don't waste it basically.

 

I agree about your talk of uprooting the family, all should be considered and consulted with before big or even little decisions. However, you do not know whether it is needless. and you do not know whether the girl does enjoy it or whether she will come to enjoy it. you could be denying her some greater enjoyment she doesn't even know she would have had if not exposed to it as a younger person. My family moved to the deep countryside when I was 10. and I grew up there and had a fantastic time in the country. my parents didn't really discuss this with us, maybe I was too young, but they both wanted it, they both wanted to escape (even if they did commute really long distances to work). Now when I was 15 we moved back to the suburbs and I am glad we did (or the children and my mum did) because I was exposed back to another set of life experiences I couldn't have gotten in the same way in the countryside. My sister ended up going back to live with my dad and had another different bringing up to me - but equally valid and full of experiences. Now she and I both live in cities while we study/work. and we appreciate all the more the experience of country living when we get a chance to go back (however I won't be living so rurally ever again I don't think).

 

I suppose I am saying, I think you are judging too harshly the rural lifestyle and making a moral judgement yourself in the possibility that if you did have a family in the future they may benefit from living there but you could be denying them the experience .

 

celia

[Daisy]

I recommend this book just for another way of looking at things. it might appeal to you Kevin. Or maybe it won't. But what it is trying to say is create your own way of living based on what makes you happy right where you are.

 

http://www.nowtopians.com/

[AFriendlyFace]

Hey Celia

 

I think that you can get what the article is sort of pointing towards and live in an urban area too. If you strip the article of certain things, what it is talking about is happiness and perhaps letting go of some of the things that we argue about in these threads around how lives should be lived and expectations.

you can certainly have gardens in the city if that is what you want, even community gardens. but I know that is not what you want I think Kevin. I think it is more along the lines of appreciating what you have and the simple things in life, whether they your relationships, hanging out with friends, fashion, whatever it is. just don't let others, and consumerism dictate what you should want and how you go about doing what it is you want (aka the price I suppose) and what your daily life should be made up of doing - don't waste it basically.

 

I most definitely do not let others dictate what I should want or what I should be doing. LOL, in fact avoiding that state of being has been one of my main priorities in life. I have no trouble picking and choosing where to indulge consumerism and it is completely related to my personal taste and preference. For example I'm not at all interested in nice electronics or cars. Also, while I certainly like fashion, my choices are based in my opinion of what looks nice and not necessarily what is the latest 'must have.' Also I have no interest at all in expensive jewelry or watches. I like wearing things around my neck or wrist, but I tend to prefer "bohemian" sort of things that tend to be of little actual monetary value.

 

I wouldn't buy a big screen, flat TV, a fancy sports car, or a Cartier watch regardless of how much money I had simply because I don't personally like them or have any interest in them.

 

Also, I disagree with you about the spirit of the article. I think you're right that people can live this spiritual style life in any setting; however, it seems that the people profiled could not do so in the city.

 

As for nature, I like interacting with nature...as long as I can do it from the luxury and comfort of modern conveniences.

 

 

I agree about your talk of uprooting the family, all should be considered and consulted with before big or even little decisions. However, you do not know whether it is needless. and you do not know whether the girl does enjoy it or whether she will come to enjoy it. you could be denying her some greater enjoyment she doesn't even know she would have had if not exposed to it as a younger person. My family moved to the deep countryside when I was 10. and I grew up there and had a fantastic time in the country. my parents didn't really discuss this with us, maybe I was too young, but they both wanted it, they both wanted to escape (even if they did commute really long distances to work). Now when I was 15 we moved back to the suburbs and I am glad we did (or the children and my mum did) because I was exposed back to another set of life experiences I couldn't have gotten in the same way in the countryside. My sister ended up going back to live with my dad and had another different bringing up to me - but equally valid and full of experiences. Now she and I both live in cities while we study/work. and we appreciate all the more the experience of country living when we get a chance to go back (however I won't be living so rurally ever again I don't think).

I'm glad you had such a wealth of different experiences that you found satisfying

 

 

I suppose I am saying, I think you are judging too harshly the rural lifestyle

That was not my intention at all and please let me correct that impression. I meant to express that my personal preference, having directly experienced everything from rural, small town, and metropolitan city life, is for the metropolis. That's just my personal preference and that's why I chose urban living for myself.

 

However, I meant to be equally as harsh in the evaluation of someone who uproots his rural family to plant them in the middle of a big city. The problem isn't people leaving the city for the country; the problem is one person making a decision which forces his or her family to leave one environment where they are happy and comfortable (whatever that environment may be) for any other environment which they may not particularly want to go.

 

I would be just as remiss if I somehow ended up in a small farming community, met a nice guy who liked rural living, and raised a couple of kids who were happy and content with their lives and then suddenly decide, "okay gang, time to move to the city." That isn't what they signed up for and it would be unfair of me to foist it on them.

 

and making a moral judgement yourself in the possibility that if you did have a family in the future they may benefit from living there but you could be denying them the experience .

Of course they could benefit. So too could my hypothetical family above if they followed me into the city. Regardless I don't feel that it's my decision to make with their lives. As I said, it is a bit different with younger children, and it's fine if for whatever reason the spouse doesn't have a preference or also wants to make this move, but with reluctant teens and spouses who are happy with their life as is, this is simply unfair in my opinion.

 

 

Also regarding two other points you'd made about whether or not the move was 'needless' and the happiness of the girl. You're right I don't absolutely know that the move wasn't needless, but the way the article read it certainly sounded like it was. It sounded like the family was getting by fine, but felt moderately unhappy and dissatisfied and wanted to do something about it. Sorry, but that situation is not justification for forcing their 15 year old daughter to move with them if she was like most teens and didn't want to leave her friends and face a complete culture shock (this wasn't simply moving to a new school distract after all). It sounds like the parents were able to continue coping as is for another three years, whereas that sudden move would almost certainly cause major stress and dissatisfaction to their maturing child. I think younger kids are more easy going and adaptive when it comes to this sort of thing, and certainly less resentful. I also think that it's one thing to have to wait 8 or 9 years, when your child could easily adapt, versus only waiting 3 or 4 when the child probably wouldn't easily adapt.

 

Finally, you're right, I'm only speculating that the daughter was unhappy. She certainly may not have been, and if she did indeed like the move and her new life then yes, in this case it's a moot point. However, I'm not talking specifically about this situation, but only carrying it over to situations in general. In general I think it's a bad idea to uproot a content family and take them into a new environment simply because you are unhappy but can cope with the situation. That's selfish IMO.

 

This family seemed like they could have continued coping (as I said whether they could or not is irrelevant because I'm not only talking about this family) so unless the daughter was very excited and happy about the move I think they acted in a selfish way (and as I said maybe she was, again that's irrelevant because I'm not only talking about this family).

 

 

Eh, I hope that makes more sense,

 

Kevin

Edited April 18, 2009 by AFriendlyFace

[AFriendlyFace]

I recommend this book just for another way of looking at things. it might appeal to you Kevin. Or maybe it won't. But what it is trying to say is create your own way of living based on what makes you happy right where you are.

 

http://www.nowtopians.com/

Sorry I missed this post before. That does sound good and the spirit of living happily and according to your own values right where you are is most definitely something I'm completely in favour of will vocally support!

 

Thanks Celia

[Daisy]

Hey Celia

 

 

 

I most definitely do not let others dictate what I should want or what I should be doing. LOL, in fact avoiding that state of being has been one of my main priorities in life. I have no trouble picking and choosing where to indulge consumerism and it is completely related to my personal taste and preference. For example I'm not at all interested in nice electronics or cars. Also, while I certainly like fashion, my choices are based in my opinion of what looks nice and not necessarily what is the latest 'must have.' Also I have no interest at all in expensive jewelry or watches. I like wearing things around my neck or wrist, but I tend to prefer "bohemian" sort of things that tend to be of little actual monetary value.

 

I wouldn't buy a big screen, flat inch TV, a fancy sports car, or a Cartier watch regardless of how much money I had simply because I don't personally like them or have any interest in them.

 

Also, I disagree with you about the spirit of the article. I think you're right that people can live this spiritual style life in any setting; however, it seems that the people profiled could not do so in the city.

 

As for nature, I like interacting with nature...as long as I can do it from the luxury and comfort of modern conveniences.

 

 

------

Also regarding two other points you'd made about whether or not the move was 'needless' and the happiness of the girl. You're right I don't absolutely know that the move wasn't needless, but the way the article read it certainly sounded like it was. It sounded like the family was getting by fine, but felt moderately unhappy and dissatisfied and wanted to do something about it. Sorry, but that situation is not justification for forcing their 15 year old daughter to move with them if she was like most teens and didn't want to leave her friends and face a complete culture shock (this wasn't simply moving to a new school distract after all). It sounds like the parents were able to continue coping as is for another three years, whereas that sudden move would almost certainly cause major stress and dissatisfaction to their maturing child. I think younger kids are more easy going and adaptive when it comes to this sort of thing, and certainly less resentful. I also think that it's one thing to have to wait 8 or 9 years, when your child could easily adapt, versus only waiting 3 or 4 when the child probably wouldn't easily adapt.

 

Finally, you're right, I'm only speculating that the daughter was unhappy. She certainly may not have been, and if she did indeed like the move and her new life then yes, in this case it's a moot point. However, I'm not talking specifically about this situation, but only carrying it over to situations in general. In general I think it's a bad idea to uproot a content family and take them into a new environment simply because you are unhappy but can cope with the situation. That's selfish IMO.

 

This family seemed like the could have continued coping (as I said whether they could or not is irrelevant because I'm not only talking about this family) so unless the daughter was very excited and happy about the move I think they acted in a selfish way (and as I said maybe she was, again that's irrelevant because I'm not only talking about this family).

 

 

Eh, I hope that makes more sense,

 

Kevin

 

yeah it does make sense . And I didn't really expect your answer to the first to be any different to what you said from all that you have said about yourself before .

 

And I do agree about teenagers and uprooting them. My sister and I have experienced that side of things in a negative sense as well, my sister more so than I. Moving schools can be horrible. And I can sympathise with what you are saying about staying somewhere for 3 or 4 years just so the kids can keep what they have - that is certainly what my mum is doing for my brother right now. But it gets more complicated if it is the older child you are waiting for and you have more children below that - you could be waiting for a very long time. but if you know that the kid would have a horrendous transition then more consideration for that is needed. It depends on the personalities and abilities of the children.

 

But I also think that kids can be more resilient than I think some parents give them credit. Maybe the communication is the key bit as you said, if all the parties are informed of what the others think and feel. - the irony for my family a little being my brother would have happily moved for my mum - in fact he sort of wanted to - what he didn't like was all the hanging around - he wanted a decision to be made. but my mum who wanted to protect him hadn't realised he felt this way at all, or that he felt up to being uprooted - she just assumed it would be a bad thing for him. my mum's unhappiness being where she was, was affecting him but she hadn't realised and thought she could just keep coping. regardless of all that we changed things a little, but didn't move .

so overall, I do see what you are saying. but I don't think it is as black and white as that and each situation is different. or maybe it is the family dynamics that is the important thing and which will affect the tone of all the things we are discussing.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Smarties

[AFriendlyFace]

I would certainly completely agree with all of that!

 

It definitely is a case by case thing and no, certainly not black and white.

 

 

I hope everything works out for your family. It definitely sounds like they have each other's best interests in mind.

[methodwriter85]

In my case, I plan on leading an studio-apartment in the city kind of existence- relying on public transportation and such. The McHOuse, overly consumptive lifestyle isn't for me.

[W_L]

It is finals time and I usually drift into something in between studying to peak my mind in order to propel my brain into constructive thought.

 

So I read, Death of Salesman by Arthur Miller, I have his play in book format. After reading it, I remembered this discussion a while ago between you guys and I think I have a new thought.

 

We are asking a question what is a good life and what is going to change after the economy recovers. Then, I realize, Why were we compelled in the first place to seek such things as decadence and grandeur?

 

The American Dream is not dead; it's mutated and deformed in recent decades. The old ideal of honesty, honor, and workmanship have been tossed out for bottom line, lies, and results. The essence of success is the true challenge of our time and the wrongful pursuit for success creates the greatest injuries on our economic well-being.

 

Success is necessary in life, but it is not the absolute reason why you should pursue it. Success is not a goal; it is a benchmark for another set of goals. Where Americans and others have failed to see through affluence as success, we must come to understand that affluence is only one measure of success not the reality of success.

 

In order to pursue money and power, mankind has gone to great depths of corruption and destruction. If we truly respect the ideal of success, then we should walk a few steps back and look at where our lives are and ask:

 

what do I want to do to be fully successful?

 

Not, What must I do to be successful?

 

We have taken desire of success beyond just the objective measure and pushed it to such extremes that everyone must reach for certain things to show off success, instead of enjoying success.