Ostentatious or your God-given right?
I was splayed out on my back, watching "60 Minutes" with my family when I heard a report that intrigued me. They were talking about the fact that the average house size has increased astronomically in the past 20 years. Case in point, one of the Houston contractors said that 20 years ago a large house would have been 5000 square feet, while now an 8000 square foot house is considered on the larger side. For a family with an average of 3.6 people, mind you. Part of me thinks that no matter how vulgar a house that size is, people should be able to do whatever they want. However, a larger, nagging part of me thinks that, given problems with poverty and hunger, it's a little dirty that people are spending that much money on a HOUSE. This house spending is even funnier, since I wager that the people who were on "60 Minutes" showing off their homes are probably in debt and will get divorced soon. Cynicism aside, does this conspicuous consumption bother anyone besides me?
posted by Rachel at 18:44
7 Comments:
I have ten toes! WEEEEEEEEEE!!!
I wish I had something more deep to say this morning. Let's continue this conversation about conspicuous consumption in more posts. Yes, I think the lifestyle of the rich American is extravagant. That said, my family lives in a really nice house. And yes, I think it poisons us.
Questions:
(1) What does the fact that we spend that much money on houses so we can have so much space to ourselves say about us in terms of family life? Do most of us spend time in our own rooms or in common areas?
(2) What about the right to property? Is it morally objectionable to say that if you earn money, you can spend it on whatever the hell you want? Is there another way to conceive of the right to property that is less horrible in terms of social relations, but that is still "fair"?
(3) Okay, so once we've decided that conspicuous consumption is right, wrong, or in between, what then? What do we do? Should we strip off all our clothes in the middle of Times Square and wander off to upstate New York to wash lepers?
I'm conflicted since my family lives in a big house as well. At the risk of sounding noncommital, I think the solution lies somewhere in the middle. However, I am not really cognizant enough right now to say more than that.
Why don't we simply let people do what they want to do, but simply remind them of the state of those less fortunate than them? We can encourage them to do what they think is right. Nothing says I can't own a large home and also help others. There is definitely a lot of excess in the way some people live their lives, but a balance can be achieved through generous charity.
well said
I've started thinking that the American experiment has turned out to be failure. After a couple hundred years, people do not in general have more of their basic needs (food, housing, etc.) met, and there's no real sign of a trend in that direction.
1) I don't think you can apply trends in house size to relationships within a family so generally.
2) I think this is the heart of the matter. Let me know if you come up with a system. I think a guiding principle would be something along the lines of "self-restraint leads to increased freedom."
3) Yes.
Big houses are gross. Incidentally, this is pretty much not an issue at all in Honolulu. Almost no one has ridiculously large houses like you might find elsewhere (there's not space), but people do still own ridiculously expensive property.
I understand if some of you feel self-conscious about your parents' homes (my Dad just moved into a bigass house too), but I don't find them disgusting or horrible. They're just one kind of all the stuff rich people have more of than poor people. I see them as effects, more than causes, of our character and our social relationships. If people spend less time with their families, aren't big houses and an abundance of stuff pretty weak excuses?
Also, I think calling American capitalism a failure is a little extreme. If we use an 18th century definition of "basic needs", we would probably find it a fantastic success.
In short:
1) We're spoiled and a little individualistic.
2) No. Some obligations cannot be justly enforced (or I don't know how). I'm okay with the idea of progressive taxes funding social programs, even though it limits my right to property. All our general rights (property, speech, life, liberty, etc.) are limited, anyway.
3) No, but moderation is good for anybody. We should volunteer our time and our money and look for ways to help those who need it. But we don't need to feel guilty for not living like ascetic monks.
Post a Comment
<< Home