Ranthropologist

Tag: economics

  • Shifting Perspective: The Efficiency Trap

    Shifting Perspective: The Efficiency Trap

    A few months ago I wrote about the privilege of having the time and money to make homemade bread. I haven’t stopped thinking about the changes that have occurred in the world, and in modern capitalist culture in particular, that have made what used to be a basic daily task into something we no longer have the time and/or money to do. It’s been on my mind more heavily recently as I ventured into experiments with making my own soap. It’s not hard; on the contrary, the basic process involves simply combing sodium hydroxide (lye) and water with oil, stirring until it thickens (a process called saponification), then pouring it into a container of some sort to harden and eventually slice into bars. I mastered these basics on my first try and have now made four separate batches, all sliced and now spending a few weeks curing before they can be used. And how much money have I spent on the tools and ingredients to make this soap? At least a few hundred dollars for a digital scale (for precisely measuring proportions of lye and oil); a steel pot dedicated to soap making; a stick/immersion blender; a few thermometers (turns out the temperature of your lye water and oils is important); various oils (palm, coconut, and olive are the basics); various essential oils for scent; a container of lye; a steel soap slicer; and silicon molds so the soap has a nice uniform shape and releases easily when it’s ready for slicing (see the photo at the top of this post for some of my nice, round, molded soap). Of course, some of these are fixed costs that I won’t incur again; but the cost of the oil alone adds up fast.

    When I mentioned this new hobby/science project to my dad, he told me that Grandma G. (already chronicled for her bread making in the homemade bread post) used to make lye soap for laundry. Daddy and his siblings would take turns stirring the big pot full of cooking grease that Grandma had saved throughout the week and combined with lye. Since they weren’t lucky enough to have a stick blender to make the process quick, the kids would stir for hours until Grandma deemed the mixture thick enough to pour. This wasn’t a science experiment or a hobby; it was a household necessity if Grandma, Grandpa, and their six kids were going to have clean clothes.

    What happened to our culture that led us to eliminate homemade bread and soap from our list of things to do? It started with things like cheap bread and soap that you could buy pre-made at the store. Buying these staples instead of making them was more efficient. It made running a household easier. It freed up time. But where has that efficiency led us? Somewhere along the way, people bought into the idea, peddled by companies with something to sell, that we had better things to do than make our own bread, formulate our own soap, grow our own vegetables, make and mend our own clothes, cook nearly all of our own meals… I am tempted to go on and on with the list of things we used to do for ourselves.

    What has the efficiency of the capitalist marketplace done for us? Many good things; but when you shift your perspective back to a time when we were more self-sufficient, you might start to wonder why efficiency has ended up making us busier than ever before. We end up being grateful that we can buy soap and bread at the store now, because who has the time to make their own? (For that matter, except for people like me who are privileged to have the time and money to engage in these DIY projects, I doubt anybody is consciously grateful for the store-bought staples we now all take completely for granted.) We are happy for all the fast-food outlets and “quick casual” restaurants and the recent proliferation of online services that will deliver pre-chopped vegetables and other ingredients to your door so that if you want to make a home-cooked meal, you don’t have to waste time on prep. Cooking from scratch has become a high-status hobby – we litter our Pinterest boards with gourmet recipes and fancy tools because cooking this way is aspirational – if you can afford artisanal cheeses and locally-sourced charcuterie, and hand-craft little cards identifying them at your wine party, then you’ve made it, by God! And we forget that there was once a time when the Sunday chicken dinner was considered the luxury meal to reward a week of hard work.

    Of course, it can always be worse. Most of us are part of the significant proportion of the population that has nothing to sell but its labor. For a big majority, that means working for as low a price as your employer can squeeze out of you, which means that maybe you can’t afford to buy enough fresh groceries to cook for yourself every day or have the time for anything but a quick stop at the drive-through. If you have kids, maybe you and your spouse each work more than 40 hours a week trying to support your family, trying to achieve the American dream that is the hope of so many, the one that is built on our addiction to efficiency, the one that has led to lower wages and higher prices in the service of shareholder profit, the one that allows us to buy $20 jeans and $10 shirts and cheap jewelry that we stop wearing after a few months, the one that entices us to fill our houses and our lives with mounds of completely unnecessary things like battery-operated nose-hair trimmers and commemorative Princess Diana plates, the one that says BUY! BUY! BUY! at every turn, the one that won’t tell us that none of these things will ever truly satisfy us.

    Isn’t that really what efficiency is about? The capitalist system is based on the majority of the population selling their labor to a tiny minority that will pay them for it, and then trading that pay for the endless conveyor belt of things that we have been tricked into believing we need, as well as the things like bread and soap that we actually do need, but no longer have the time or the resources to make for ourselves. Don’t mistake me – I am not 100% anti-capitalism; in fact, I acknowledge many of the benefits of this mode of production. But the trap of efficiency is one of the drawbacks. When people controlled their own labor and were able to provide for themselves and their families without having to rely solely on wage labor, I believe society was better for it. But now it’s all about production and growing the economy, and there seem to be few, if any, alternatives. The marketplace proliferates with new products that, when you assess them objectively, are totally unnecessary – but hey, they might make our lives easier! What’s easier than having paper plates that you can throw away instead of wash? What’s easier than a pop-up paper towel dispenser in your bathroom or kitchen instead of cloth towels that you have to launder? What’s easier than having 50 pound bags of dog food delivered straight to your door so you don’t have to make a trip to the store? With all this efficiency, why does it seem that we are busier, and poorer, and more trapped, than at any other time in human history?

  • Shifting Perspective: House and Home

    Shifting Perspective: House and Home

    Several weeks ago I impulsively started looking online at local houses for sale and began fantasizing about owning property again. In 2011, I walked away from the condo I’d purchased in 2005 for $196,000 because it had dropped in value to somewhere around $40,000. So with a foreclosure on my record, and a deliberate one at that, my options are limited until the foreclosure drops off my credit report in 2018. Still, there are options for me, and that was enough to get me browsing websites and scrolling through pictures of remodeled kitchens and laminate floors.

    Looking at all those pictures and thinking about what I’d want in my ideal house made me start ruminating on what I want vs. what I need. Depending on how you define need, none of us needs very much in terms of housing. Four solid walls and a roof enclosing space for sleeping, cooking, eating, and bathing are all anyone really needs. Just look at the mini boom (pun intended!) in micro housing – a trend in which people are making themselves comfortable in tiny living spaces, often made out of unusual materials like old shipping containers. I am pleased with the micro house idea, but at the same time, I have a lot of stuff – enough that it fills my current 2-bedroom, 1200 square foot rental pretty snugly. This troubled me as I put in an offer to buy a smaller house – 3 bedrooms, but only 975 square feet. I wondered what I’d have to give up to fit my stuff into this smaller space. My offer was not accepted (which I decided was for the best), but I continued to be troubled as I thought about all the space I take up in my house. I have described living here alone with my two cats as being like the last cookie in the bag – I rattle around in all this space that is designed to hold more than one person – and yet my stuff fills in all the corners.

    My uneasiness with the house hunt crystallized recently while I was at the gym. I don’t have television at home, so when I go to the gym I enjoy watching mindless drivel. On this particular day it was a show with some silly name like “Love It or List It.” The show involved a couple who had to decide to either buy a new house or keep the one that the show’s designer had remodeled to fit their needs. The show seemed inoffensive until the couple started looking at possible houses to buy. Every house the realtor showed them was deemed too small. They had nothing but disparaging words for the bedrooms that their kids might occupy, calling them “half-bedrooms” or “closets.” These rooms were big enough for a bed and dresser – typically kid-room furniture – but apparently that wasn’t enough for this couple. They weren’t smug or arrogant about it; in fact, they seemed to genuinely want the best for their kids. Yet, I still found their attitude distressing, and began questioning my own desire for a big enough house just for me and all my stuff. This, of course, is where the shift in perspective comes in.

    Why do we want so much space? I could offer long and complicated explanations that dig into culture and capitalism and the structural nature of inequality, but at the most basic level I believe that human beings naturally want more. We have to keep this in perspective, though, by remembering how much more many of us already have compared to people in so much of the rest of the world – and also right here in the United States. Remember the micro houses? They are now being offered as a solution to homelessness in some cities. These homeless people are happy to get the tiny house. People in many parts of the world live in structures that most people in the US wouldn’t dream of calling home. From war-torn neighborhoods where people try to make do in the bombed-out shells of their apartments and houses to rural villagers in traditional huts to people building shacks in landfills, people all over the world struggle to keep the walls and roof they need to say they have a home.

    This does not mean I think everybody should have to live in a tiny house. It does not mean that because some people suffer, we all should suffer. But maybe we should redefine how much space we actually need to call our house a home. I think we should remind ourselves that what makes a house a home is not its size but its meaning. That’s why realtors say they’ll help you find your “dream home” – they’re selling the physical house as the embodiment of the idea of home. But while a house is tangible, a home is not. Any place can be made home, regardless of its size or how much stuff it can hold.

  • Daily Reads: Almond Joy

    Daily Reads: Almond Joy

    California is experiencing a severe drought, so severe that Governor Jerry Brown recently mandated 25% cuts in water use for individuals and businesses throughout the state. Those cuts did not include agricultural users. Many people are upset that farmers are escaping the restrictions, and they have turned their ire on a specific crop: almonds. It turns out that almonds are a very thirsty crop, with a single nut requiring a gallon of water to produce.Mother Jonesled the charge against almonds in July 2014 when they published an article snarkily titled “Lay Off the Almond Milk, You Ignorant Hipsters.” This article was my first introduction to the economics of almonds, and I immediately agreed that almonds are a wasteful crop to produce during times of such drastic drought – though I have to admit I didn’t stop eating them (I have never had almond milk and I’m not eager to try it regardless of the drought). Now, with the new water restrictions, almonds are the target of people who believe that a crop that uses up to 10% of California’s agricultural water should give way to more drought-tolerant, sustainable crops. Yet, it turns out that there is more nuance to the business of almonds than just their thirstiness and value to the state economy. Today’s two Daily Reads address both sides of the almond debate. One article, from CUESA (Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture), highlights the value of almonds and points out that they can be sustainably managed by small farmers. The second is an article from Mother Jones responding to several arguments that almonds really aren’t that bad. I invite you to read both, as well as the other articles I linked to, and draw your own conclusions; but as for me, I still think there are better ways to use our agricultural water than to grow a water-intensive crop that is mostly destined for overseas markets.

    Making Every Drop Count

    Here’s the Real Problem with Almonds

  • Daily Reads: Superbowl Economics

    Daily Reads: Superbowl Economics

    Now that the Superb Owl has passed for another year, I’d like to share this article about how investments in sporting arenas and teams and the big events they generate are not the economic boon to cities that sports boosters would like us to believe. Travis Waldron of Think Progress zeroes in on the economic woes of Glendale, Arizona, host city to the 2015 Super Bowl, and details how the city has gone desperately into hock financing major sporting facilities and events. I personally found it extremely refreshing that Glendale’s mayor spoke publicly about the fact that the Super Bowl, rather than making money for his beleaguered city (see what I did there?), actually put Glendale deeper in the hole (note that the Super Bowl was awarded to Glendale before he became mayor). The public is taken in by the idea that the Super Bowl and events like it generate millions of dollars in economic activity, so the cities who get to host them will make big bucks. While it is true that there is millions of dollars in economic activity, what is not discussed is what those numbers really mean. “Economic activity” is a nebulous term – it does not parse the data to see where that economic activity is actually taking place and who benefits – or not – from the money that is changing hands. This article and others like it are important for us to understand what our cities may be signing up for when they tout sports teams, facilities, and events as positive economic drivers.

    The Super Bowl Comes To Glendale, The City Ruined By Sports

  • Daily Reads: Statistical Inequality

    Daily Reads: Statistical Inequality

    Today’s read uses a specific example to highlight a broader problem that concerns me: the misleading use of statistics. Ezra Klein’s article from Vox discusses a recent statistic from Oxfam which states that the combined wealth of the richest 1% will be greater than the combined wealth of the remaining 99% within the next year. Taken by itself, this is indeed an alarming statistic, but as Klein illustrates, you have to drill down into Oxfam’s methodology to really see what this statistic is telling us. The article spells it out in detail, but the upshot is that the criteria used by Oxfam to calculate wealth takes into account debt as well as assets. What this means is that a poor rural resident of an underdeveloped part of the world who has no debt is considered “wealthier” than a resident of a developed nation whose debt exceeds her income. In other words, by Oxfam’s calculations, you could be making $150,000 a year – but if you owe $500,000 on a mortgage, you have a negative net wealth, which means you are “poor.”

    It’s well worth reading this article to see what calculations went into the statistic, and for Klein’s analysis of what we can learn from the overall Oxfam report. I have no doubt that inequality is an enormous global problem – but even when a statistic seems to support my position I want to make sure I am understanding that stat correctly. Sure, stats can make great soundbites, but I wish more people would make sure they knew what the stats they quote really mean.

    Be careful with that viral statistic about the top 1% owning half the world’s wealth

  • Technology and Its Discontents: Instant Gratification

    Technology and Its Discontents: Instant Gratification

    Over the past few years, I have been doing more and more shopping online. I have long patronized Amazon for books, especially in the used marketplace, and I have recently had occasion to order non-book items from Amazon as well. Many of the clothes and shoes in my closet have been ordered online, and the lion’s share of the supplies I need for the Rock and Shell Club have been shipped to me from all over the country (and in one memorable, not to be repeated order, China). I appreciate the convenience of finding what I need online and having it delivered directly to me, as many of the items I need are not necessarily available locally; however, I am becoming increasingly concerned about what the Amazon model is doing to us culturally, behaviorally, and economically.

    Around March 2012 I read an article in Mother Jones that pulled into focus something I had already started to hear a lot about: the backbreaking labor, low wages, and job insecurity that go into making our instant gratification economy possible. Reading about author Mac McClelland’s experience working in a warehouse subcontracted to Amazon made me seriously question the business model that allows consumers to get their goods within a few days of their order. More so, it made me scrutinize my own behavior, and I found myself asking why I expected to take delivery of my order in just a few days. The simple answer is that the Amazon model has created that expectation – order now, have it tomorrow if you’re willing to pay the price, and in just a few days or a week even if you’re not. Once you become accustomed to things arriving quickly, it creates the expectation that any delay in shipment is bad customer service – hence, Amazon becomes customer service king over your local bookstore or small online shop, which might take a few weeks to deliver the book you order.

    To do business this way, Amazon must cut corners wherever possible, which is what leads to the labor conditions in their distribution centers. But consumers, being human, are out-of-sight, out-of-mind creatures, so no thought is given to what is required to make their near-instant gratification possible. That is the nature of business competition – the nature of capitalism. But what I find dismaying about this is not the near-instant gratification for items you may have trouble getting anywhere except online; now consumers are ordering things they could just as easily buy at the local store. This article, in which a man explains that he orders his 40-pound bags of dog food from Amazon because he doesn’t want to be bothered with carrying them through a store, to his car, and into his house, is a case in point. The convenience of home delivery makes it worth it to him to pay for Amazon’s Prime service. For a flat annual fee, delivery is free – delivery of anything Amazon sells, no matter the size or the weight. When I read the article, I felt sadness, contempt, anger, disgust – all those knee-jerk, visceral reactions to what amounts to sheer laziness on the part of this consumer… but is it really laziness, or is it economic hegemony? After all, why not maximize your own time and convenience if it only takes a few dollars a year to have household items delivered straight to your door?

    And so we come to the crux of my rant. I think the Amazon model is bad for us. I think instant gratification is bad for us. I think Amazon, and the competition it has engendered, is destroying our ability to be patient, to be thoughtful, to be mindful of all the hidden economic exploitation that is required for us to get what we want NOW. I admit I’m not free of responsibility for my own part in this, but I am doing my part to react against it by finding any outlet other than online for getting the things I want and need. And, if I do make an online purchase, I try to buy directly from the source rather than from Amazon. When possible, I buy from small online businesses, and plan for the possibility that my order may take a week – or more! – to arrive. I re-read the Mother Jones article, and I hope for a time when the pendulum swings and the price of an item, including shipping, truly reflects the cost of doing business this way. And this is not just a monetary cost; it is a social and cultural cost, and it is helping to perpetuate the systematic inequality and labor exploitation that is inherent in the capitalist marketplace.