Answea the question

Week 3 Transportation and Consumerism Read: p. 71-84 (Collective Action/Externalities), Chapters 6 & 7 Quick Note: I am going to open up a separate discussion board this week for an extra credit opportunity. There are 2 possible films this week. I really like the idea of you watching both, so I am going to offer 5 extra credit points if you watch both, write a normal film reaction bout one, and then post a reaction to the other on the discussion bord. I’ll write the parameters of the DB post there on the post itself.

I do not have a lot of notes this week. Mainly, I want you to read the sections and take time to think about the concepts in light of the examples of our country’s history and current status. So, let me just spend a moment pointing out some concepts and questions to think about as you read and watch this week. And also, I want to remind you that although you don’t have to restate or answer questions about these concepts right now (except briefly in the film reactions), you will be asked about this on the upcoming midterm exam. So, please don’t skip or scan the reading. There is a lot to learn and consider in the pages, and these issues may be some of the most important for our futures. Pages 71-84, and Chapter 6 (transportation) both talk in depth about collective action and collective action failures. Chapter 4 uses the example of recycling to introduce the concept, and chapter 6 goes in depth about public transportation. Please take the time to digest the concepts here, and feel free to email me if you don’t feel you understand. After discussing collective action, on p. 74, it discussed negative externalities. These are the (possible and real) negative outcomes of the consumer and production choices. But, I want to take a minute to think about positive externalities, which we can look at using the transportation issue. Those are the good things that could happen if we (individuals and organizations) make certain choices. In both the example of the environment and transportation, there are possible positive externalities if we change course. Most of these involve taking the time and effort to NOT do the “lazy” or simplest thing. If you look at the following list, these are pretty big positive changes overall. So, I want you to ponder, why aren’t we doing them? Some of the positive externalities of good public transportation:

1. Quicker commuting times, less congestion 2. Saving on private car infrastructure (parking ramps, street repairs, etc.), not to mention

individuals paying for parking and street repairs. 3. Less pollution: which leads to savings on things like less frequent house painting 4. Health benefits (asthma especially) 5. More efficient labor market, especially for poor (easier to get to jobs), therefore less need for

welfare 6. Less need for multiple cars in a family 7. Energy savings (money and environment)

So, given all of these, why aren’t we all riding the bus? Why aren’t we demanding (or demanding much faster development) of public transportation? This is a huge list of positives! Let’s talk a bit about the reasons folks don’t like public transportation. One big reason people say they won’t ride transit is the extra time. But, if many more of us rode the bus, it would actually be faster since there would be less traffic. Also, these days, if people used public transportation and demanded it more, we would make more lines, and that would motivate folks because they wouldn’t have to walk or bike as far to the bus/train station. We would also innovate and create faster modes of public transportation, like other countries have, super-fast trains, for instance. In reality, we are doing this to an

extent, but it’s been slow and not at all prioritized (look how long it has taken us to get light rail in Seattle, which is actually fast!) Side note, I found a few articles about the history of public transportation and roads in Seattle. It has taken so long for us to get the light rail functioning and out to areas that need it. Check out a bit of info on the history of Seattle’s public transportation if you are interested: Voting for Transit Funding https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/10/29/20938796/seattle-king-county-transit-funding A timeline of transportation in Seattle: https://www.historylink.org/File/4005 More depth timeline: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattles-long-history-with-streetcars-horse-drawn- cars-crushing-debt-and-competition-from-automobiles/ Quick Video of History: https://www.king5.com/article/entertainment/television/programs/new-day-northwest/puget-sound-public- transportation-history-jim-kershner/281-abb26114-fdd5-4f35-bc31-ce371bed92a8 Streetcar History: https://seattle.curbed.com/2017/9/18/16323252/streetcar-trolley-public-transportation-history Now, there are other reasons people don’t like public transportation too, like being in a crowd (and the perception and sometimes reality that the crowd on public transportation can be unpleasant and unsafe) and loving our cars and driving. But, let’s be real here on a couple of points. -How much fun really is it to drive in traffic? I mean, I love a road trip, I love driving with my music on, but driving at 10 mph on a freeway for an hour, that’s not really the same. Some want alone time on the way home, but I say throw some headphones on and you’ve got that on the bus as well. -Safety and who is on the bus: If more people rode the bus, then “who” is on the bus would change in composition. There is safety and compliance in numbers. In other words, folks who might act out or make us feel unsafe on the bus would not have the power to do so as much in a crowd. Socially, we demand compliance when there is a majority, bad behavior would be less tolerated and there would be less times of the day when the bus was empty enough to be risky for crime and whatnot. But, sociologically, a big consideration here is overall social interaction. Most Americans agree that we have become more isolated. We tend to blame this on the screens, which is related, but consider the effect of spending all of our commute time in cars. Look at figures 6.1 through 6.5, this wasn’t always our way of life. And look at the comparison to other countries, this has been found to be part of their overall happiness and health- connection to others and exercise are found via taking public transit to some extent. Also, and I’m going to get very broad in my analysis here, social life could be re-invigorated and safety enhanced by the use of public transportation. We would meet our neighbors walking to the bus/train stop, know who lives where, know when something or someone is out of place in our neighborhood. We have become really quite fearful of one another in the modern day (especially in the cities) and therefore have sought to distance from one another, but in reality that is making us less safe. We are safer in numbers, and safer when we know what’s going on around us. If we stay in our homes, that’s not the case. Before moving on to connect our next chapter about consumerism to the issue of transportation, I’d like to just mention one of the film choices this week, Taken for a Ride. This is a really interesting history of how

General Motors basically dismantled the public transportation system that has been operating quite well in LA. This story is indeed true and shows the power of an industry/corporation to change our reality and our culture. So, back for a minute to the discussion of transportation. Another possible positive externality pf public transportation is that it would certainly cost most folks less to pay the extra taxes and bus/train fares than to have and operate their own vehicle, so again, why do we not? Culture and the Consumption Bias: Think about all of the aspects of American culture that discourage the support of public transportation (and many other public goods). I am not saying that these are true or not, I am just pointing out common modes of thinking. -We don’t want to and shouldn’t have to pay for anything that isn’t just for us. -Public goods are exploited by others, whether or not they are… that they aren’t taken care of. This is tied into just not wanting to share. -We shouldn’t have to help clean up or maintain things that are for more than just ourselves. -People should have to earn everything they have individually. No free handouts. -Everything we pay for in any way should be tailored for us. We shouldn’t have to pay for anything that isn’t completely convenient. Where do you think these ideas came from? Ask yourself…. But, one of the biggest reason we don’t want to fund or support public transportation is because we love our cars! CARS and CULTURE -Cars are not just a way from here to there. They are a statement to us, a necessity that comes with an image and a lifestyle, etc. I don’t have to explain this to you, you know it. To not have a car is to be seen by many people as poor, tethered to a bus and not free (can’t get where you need when you need), not “set up”, the list goes on. And additionally, cars are not just a statement of wealth or status, but of taste and lifestyle. Cars “make” the person, right? Think about the impressions you get of people by the cars they drive… In the beginning of chapter 7, it talks about consumerism and the consumption bias. In this section the concept of reference groups comes up, and I want to expand upon that a bit to emphasize.

Reference Groups In Sociology, reference groups are defined as people/groups who play important roles in who we are and what we think of ourselves. Reference groups affect what we do and how we define ourselves. For example, what if you wanted to get a tattoo, a strange haircut or piercing, anything that may be out of the norm, who would you consider in terms of their reaction? These are your reference groups. They are the people you want to have approval/acceptance from.

It is also the case that reference groups that aren't so personal can also affect you- if you plan on being a professional, you may think and act that way beforehand, if you want to be a rock star, you might change your hair and clothes to a more fitting style.

Reference Groups serve two basic functions:

1. They provide a model of how or how not to behave. This explains why people begin to change their attitudes and behavior in anticipation of joining a group -called anticipatory socialization. At its basic level, this is like a kid trying to act grown up-such as a ten year old smarting off to his/her parents thinking he/she can act like a teenager.

2. Reference Groups are a standard by which we judge ourselves. This is true on both the negative and positive side.

Examples: You get a C+ on a test. If your friends all got A's, you'll feel stupid or bad, if your friends got D's you might feel good about your performance.

You get a new job making $4000 a month. This is initially really exciting because you had been making less. But, really whether or not you think this is a good amount of pay depends on your point of comparison. If your friends make $6000 a month generally, you might experience relative deprivation-the feeling that you should have more as compared to your reference group. If most of your friends make 1/2 of that, you might feel relative gratification.

Within consumerism, particularly in a capitalist economy that depends on spending and increasing consumption to survive, making you feel as if you need every more and better things is actually essential to the system. Capitalist economies cannot survive without growth. Part of the strategy to keep growing is to keep us all thinking that it is essential to our lives, in fact our happiness, to buy more and more expensive things.

The consumption bias and our perceptions and awareness of what we “should” have is most often carried by the media via advertising, which is the subject of your other film this week, “Advertising at the Edge of the Apocalypse”.

It is important to realize that the media, which I might add our consumption of grows by the year (we will discuss that further in week 5), has a lot of power to influence our ideas about not just ourselves, but also others. I think is very important to our country and us as individuals is that advertising is TRYING to change us. Whether we like it or not, no matter how “tough” we think we are to resist its messages, we are all influenced by what is put out there in our media. It is pretty much unavoidable, and many studies confirm this. The whole point for them is to increase sales, of course, so the best way to do this is to change how people feel in order to influence them to buy more items. This isn’t just some random externality or unanticipated effect of social change. It is a purposeful move to change us so that companies and the economy can continue to grow. Again, growth is a necessity for our capitalist economy, at least the way we’ve got it all set up currently. Without growth we fall into recession. In the following section I have restated sections from chapter 7 about the consumption bias and added a few other examples to aid in comprehension… Overall this chapter asks: What is wrong with consumerism? 1. There are big negative externalities from consumerism. 2. Consumerism, in fact, does not make most people happy There are systematic biases (refer to p. 124 Consumption Bias) in the system, which generate consumerism. If these system-biases were eliminated, many – maybe most – people would adopt a less consumerist life style. To clarify, the systemic bias in consumption is that we are ever encouraged and manipulated to spend every dime we earn (above what we need for necessities) upon more products and services. Instead of there being a point at which you can be happy with the money you earn and the “stuff” you have and take some time for yourself or your family, we are encouraged to want more and more stuff. This is not to say that we can’t all voluntarily decide to be happy with our stuff and take vacation with our spare time, but the system discourages it in many ways. System bias #1: Profit maximizing strategies

In general, this is the idea that we are often encouraged to spend partially by fear of economic breakdown. The text points out that when the economy is down, the government tries to find ways to increase spending. This is interesting if you think in the long term. If I keep spending, then I have to keep working to pay for what I already spent, not saving for what I want in the future or to retire. Think about this scenario: Bill loses his job. He can’t pay his bills. But, a check from the government comes one day (a tax rebate) for $400. So, Bill can pay his bills and therefore continue to have electricity and all of that for another month. This doesn’t help the economy much, as utility bills don’t result in much profit. But, if he goes and buys a new TV it’s good for the overall economy, but bad for Bill. (This actually was the situation when George Bush gave a tax rebate-he told folks to spend it in the market.) System bias #2: Market-failures in leisure This refers to the fact that in the US, we have the least amount of employer paid vacation time of all of the wealthy nations, and the highest number of hours worked. This is a systemic issue. We as workers don’t control the amount paid vacation time we are offered. As well, the US has the highest number of jobs that do not have paid time off at all. One issue I would have to bring up about this is health. We now know that it is good for our health to reduce stress and take some time off. As well, we know that we need our sleep. The amount of hours Americans are spending on work makes it very hard for us to take care of ourselves. Working too much can lead to too little sleep, bad eating habits (like fast food and eating at bad hours), and too much stress overall. This is literally killing us and that is evidenced by our measures of health compared to other nations. Another issue is taking time off of work when you are sick, both to heal and to avoid spreading illness. Most food service workers, that comprise a huge amount of our work force, do not have paid time off and represent some of the lowest paying jobs. Therefore, many workers do not call in sick, but rather go to work when they are ill. This both hurts them personally, and also helps spread sickness and disease in our society. (I wrote this some time ago, and it has never been more blatant as an example as now during COVID. A specific example is how COVID has been spreading like crazy in agricultural areas, as they were not given any ability to take time off or even given safety equipment in many cases. At least in food service/retail, employees were required and given masks and such, but that is because people would not come to the stores otherwise. Agricultural workers didn’t have that to incentivize their bosses to provide this.) System bias #3: Changing reference groups for consumption norms Essentially, the media, in its depictions of “everyday life,” show us a much more wealthy world than we really live in. TV shows and movies generally give us the impression that people have a lot more than they do and live in much fancier surroundings than they do. Therefore, we are encouraged mentally to see these people as our reference groups. They are whom we compare ourselves to in terms of how we look to others. This encourages us to try to “keep up with the Joneses,” only the Joneses are not really the average family. I can find no explanation for spending $500 on a designer bag other than this. There isn’t anything prettier or more functional about a $500 bag vs. one that’s $50. Now, I do agree that spending more than minimum on an item does result in a better and more lasting product oftentimes, but there is a point at which you are only paying for a name or design. There isn’t any practical way to justify that, it is purely for show, and that is consumerism at its highest degree. System bias #4: Credit cards and Debt

As the text states, the credit card industry has influenced us to spend more. This makes sense, that’s what they are profiting on. But, some of their practices are pretty shady, in terms of making budgeting more complicated and hiding fees, etc… Example: The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 was passed with a number of new provisions for the credit card industry designed to increase transparency and make a fairer credit system. Here’s the wiki summary, it points out some of the ways in which credit cards have been shady. Wiki Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_CARD_Act_of_2009 Did it work? Assessment after the Act: Elizabeth Warren: The CARD Act 1 year later: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1074.aspx System bias #5: Rising inequality increases consumerism There are a couple of important notions here. One is that as we have farther distance between the rich and others, the others are more likely to want what the rich have. It’s a psychological process by which we won’t be satisfied until we have what we see others have. So, the more the rich have things most others don’t, the more we want those things as a point of satisfaction. We are very much taught that we will be satisfied one day when we can buy a Lexus, or whatever very pricey item you want to insert there. “The one who dies with the most toys wins,” comes to my mind. This is related to the idea of relative deprivation. Relative deprivation is the idea that we feel deprived not based on some objective reality, like not having enough food to be full, but based on our perception of what other have. For instance, if I get a B on a paper, I am likely to feel bad if most of my classmates got As. But, if most of my classmates got Cs, I know I’m doing better than average and I feel ok or good about my grade. Following this logic, if we think that most people drive new cars, then we are likely to feel lesser than if we cannot afford a new car. System bias #6: Abandonment of public consumption by affluent This doesn’t need much comment. The fact is, the very rich do the majority of spending in our society. So, when they pull their money out of any place, industry, etc, it hurts that economy. I think the best illustration is the one from the book on p. 139 about the effect of private schools. In the end, I encourage you to think about these things in our lives, and especially now when so much has changed with COVID. Honestly, COVID has, I think, loosened the consumption boas a bit, as we have less reasons to spend. One good example is beauty products. Why spend money on that if you are not going out

(and wearing a mask )? We might consider a new norm on some of these things, norms that ask us to

spend less and be ok with ourselves more…