The "Story of Stuff" Discussion: Part 4

March 17, 2008 - 5:19pm

Part 4 of our "Story of Stuff" Discussion is upon us! In the previous three episodes we followed Annie Leonard as she sketched out some of the missing parts of the picture in the normal story of how our everyday products are created. Today we look at the next step, distribution.

This is where things start to get more relevant to the average person in the United States, and in this chapter Annie says a few things that are worth paying very close attention to.

For example, Annie talks about how products often have "externalized costs," which just means that the true cost of the object isn't included in the price.

So my question is very simple: is it right for one person (or company, or country) to profit at the expense of another person (or company, or country)? Always, sometimes, never? What's the difference?

Watch the episode below, then share your thoughts:


Julie w
says...

"So my question is very

"So my question is very simple: is it right for one person (or company, or country) to profit at the expense of another person (or company, or country)? Always, sometimes, never? What's the difference?"

We profit at the expense of others everyday. Most of the time we don't even realize it nor think about it. From the little things like buying everyday materials for living to the big things like businesses and country leaders going abroad somewhere and staking some "investment". And I'm not just talking about "we" as in just here in America. I'm refering to human beings world wide.

Is it right? No, not when it's done intentionally and we can stop it. But as we know....very FEW things and circumstances are "cut and dry". There are countless of times when I realize I'm most likely recieving a profit at someone's expense but most of the time, there's really nothing (or at least not much) you can do about it.

For example, I go out and buy new shoes (and NO, I'm NOT a typical woman with 20 pairs of shoes - I only have three. IF you count my house shoes), I find a descent, fairly priced pair made in Mexico. Now, I know nothing about the person(s) behind the manufacturing of these shoes. For all *I* know, they were made by some kid who dropped out of school getting paid a nickle a day. What I *do* know is that I need the shoes and they fit my own budget - so I buy them.

It doesn't make me bad for "profiting" (I don't believe that's a word - but we'll go with it) from that person but unfortunately they get the short end of the stick. However, since I'm far from naive, I don't take it for granted that I have it better than millions of people around the world and I know that one day all the injustice around the world will come to an end and some will be delivered from it (believers).

Julie

Brian.Stevenson
says...

High Cost of Low Price

"Is it right for one person (or company, or country) to profit at the expense of another person (or company, or country)? Always, sometimes, never? What's the difference?"

First, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with profit. Profit is a business owner's reward for doing business at the lowest possible cost with the highest amount of productivity. However, business owners have a responsibility to be good stewards of their resources, whether they are material resources or human resources.

Allowing unsafe working environments, violating environment laws, exploiting foreign workers, making people work unreasonable unpaid overtime, and neglecting basic health needs are examples of lines that should NEVER be crossed in order to make a profit.

Did you know that "Big Box Mart" purposefully hires as few full-time people as possible so they’re not obligated to pay them health insurance? Considering how little a part-time job earns, one would think that a part-time worker is without health insurance and the basic necessity of life... but that's not the case. We, the taxpayers, indirectly pay for the savings we get at "Big Box Mart". We pay for Medicaid, Section 8 housing, Federal Tax Credits, and free and reduced lunches (just to name a few). "Big Box Mart" alone costs taxpayers an estimated 1.5 billion dollars a year! Ouch, that's a big price tag just to save a few bucks on my groceries.

If you want to learn more about the "High Cost of Low Price", check out this web site:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/

Tom A
says...

$4.99

But she did pick out the $4.99 radio. She could have felt better about herself and bought the $39.99 model. We want the benefits of competition (low prices) but also higher wages, better insurance, ect. In general, as long as a company plays by rules they should be free to operate there business as they want. A lot of people refuse to shop at "Big Box Mart" but we still benefit from the competition by paying lower prices at "Not Quite As Big Box Mart". Again, I am trying to figure out the alternative system, maybe we should try communism. That way no one profits at the expense of another.

Jason Coker
says...

Great comments people

I'm really loving everyone's comments here! One of the things you're already demonstrating is that the problems associated with out of control consumerism are complex. There are no easy black and white boundaries between what is right and wrong, and once you think you've found something wrong, there are usually no easy solutions.

Still, I think it's worth trying. More on that later...

Regards,
Jason Coker
Twoshirts.org Team

Julie w
says...

"But she did pick out the

"But she did pick out the $4.99 radio. She could have felt better about herself and bought the $39.99 model."

:-)

I was actually going to point that out but decided not to at the last min.:-)

"Again, I am trying to figure out the alternative system, maybe we should try communism."

Uh....no.

Personally, I would LOVE to shop regularly somewhere else other than that "big box mart" myself. However, they sell a lot of products that I use on a daily basis and it is convienent that I don't have to run all over town to buy all of my needs. Of course, you know that was part of their big plan as well....

I also agree with what Brian said. I worked - a life time ago - for Big Lots when it was still mostly call "Odd Lots". I told the manager up front what pay I expected to start out with and that I needed benefits. He agreed to the pay (and even wanted to give me much more as I continued working for them but it wasn't in their payroll to do so), but he couldn't give me the insurance. I informed him that I needed full time work and that I was under the impression that full time status intitled me to benefits. All three of my managers were very good men. They treated us all as fair as they could. However, because the COMPANY didn't want to spend the money on benefits for most of their employees, he told me the only way he could give me at least *half* of what I wanted would be to put me on part time status with full time hours. Well, I needed the job (and unfortunatly I was NOT in a position at the time to pick and choose) so I agreed.

Julie

Jason Coker
says...

We need to pay attention to the costs of our desires

I just have a few remarks, make of them what you will:

1. It really wouldn't have mattered if Annie bought a more expensive radio. The principle applies to all types of products. The point is that there are other costs inherent in most consumer products that we aren't normally aware of and that aren't reflected in the price .

2. Once we're aware of the fact that every time we gain something, someone else loses something (that's the nature of capitalism), I think we have a moral responsibility to at least attempt to draw the line between what is appropriate competition, and what is exploitative destruction. Most of us don't (including me). We just work as hard as we can to get whatever we want and then go on our merry way.

3. I think an important question is, did Annie really need the radio? I think we have to admit that much of the problem (perhaps most of the problem) is that our insatiable appetite for more stuff is unsustainable. Continuing to feed the bottomless pit of our desires will only contribute to the problems outlined in this video.

4. Here's a fundamental question: should we forbid ourselves some things, even if they're accessible? Our culture tends to believe that whatever we can reach, we should grasp - be it knowledge, goods, services, pleasures, whatever. But history and culture are full of cautionary tales which essentially teach that there are some things we should refuse to know, grasp, obtain (or buy?): the forbidden apple in the garden of Eden and the tower of Babel in the Bible, Prometheus and Pandora in Greek mythology, the story of Urashimo Taro in Japanese folklore, etc. Every culture contains these tales. The moral is always the same: the endless human desire for more of (fill in the blank) always leads to destruction of ourselves.

Usually the essence of our desires is the pursuit of godhood, or its secular equivalents (wealth, fame, power, comfort). Yes, I think this applies to our consumption. Should we forbid ourselves certain freedoms, comforts, products, services? Not just for the sake of our own pocketbooks, or even just for the sake of our own virtue, but for the sake of humanity?

5. I don't think our only choices are a) exploitative consumerism run amok, or b) Communism. Certainly there is some intelligent, moral, self-disciplined, holistic, and finely nuanced position in between that seeks to forge a good and sustainable way of life for all people.

But hey, just my opinion...

Regards,
Jason Coker
Twoshirts.org Team

Julie w
says...

"should we forbid ourselves

"should we forbid ourselves some things, even if they're accessible?"

As individuals? Absolutly. There are all kinds of reasons people invest in the materials that they buy. Anywhere from the innocent reasons to the competive. I do think every individual should seriously ask themselves "why am I buying this", "why do I want and/or need it so badly" and so on. Not to mention that some "needs" aren't really "needs" at all. Some are just things we believe we need in order to fool us into thinking that we're getting ahead of the "competition" (whatever the "competition" may be or whatever we *think* it is).

I think Annie touches on this a little later (I saw the whole thing a few weeks ago but can't remember where it is) about how we buy things to "prove" that we have "value" in society. There's so much to say about that (most of which I'll save until the actual segment it posted) but the ONE point I want to make is - what does "value" MEAN to each individual person? Because it's based on that definition that we will *buy* based on what we believe will prove that definition of "value".

"5. I don't think our only choices are a) exploitative consumerism run amok, or b) Communism. Certainly there is some intelligent, moral, self-disciplined, holistic, and finely nuanced position in between that seeks to forge a good and sustainable way of life for all people."

There are some more intelligent, moral....ways. Good luck in finding them.:-) HAHA! Seriously though, just like with everything else, everyone has a different belief and view of what that "better way" is obviously (just look at all the political parties:-/ ). The thing that *I've* noticed is that everyone says they *want* change but when it comes down to achieving an actual change, I find that most are more talk than they are action because so many are afraid of a real change. They're comfortable with the way things are because that's all they've ever known. Few people actually put their money where their mouth is and go after that (what seems to be) radical change (which really isn't all that "radical" after all). It'll be interresting to see where it all leads - if not a bit scary as well.

Julie