U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-07-2013, 09:18 AM
 
Location: New York City
4,036 posts, read 8,935,865 times
Reputation: 3703

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by muer22 View Post
I like the equation, but the it's hard to grasp because money spent on necessities because spending money is not always arbitrary. Money spent on a horse saddle, a yoga mat, dog training, hair relaxer, etc. can't be exercised by any member of the public. That brings me back to how do you increase the economic vitality without consumerism which is the arbitrary spending of money.
Who is to say what is arbitrary and what in necessary? Fashion, trend, desire, luxury always come into it, even for the poor. A tiny general store on the prairie circa 1870 had some items that were "arbitrary."

The economy is increased through trade, and often trade in small goods and local services. If you want in improve the economy, you increase trade. However, if the government or some outside entity starts micro-managing that trade, it generally creates problems.

Your real issue seems to be the fads and fetishes of the rich, but they are not the only ones guilty of consumerism. At least it's sustainable and better for the local economy because they are services performed by members of the community. The real problem with consumerism is the mountains of cheap junk from China sold at Walmart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2013, 10:14 AM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,890,268 times
Reputation: 18049
I think if you look at the growth of a and all eatig places since the 50's;especailly in urban areas. I se no lack of growth of eatig out or eve less fast food eating but a growth continusing these areas.Even the recession has chnaged it much which one would think as its just part of modern life since the 60's;easpecailly in urban aareas more than others. having grown up in the 50's as a child when resturarant numbers and when you went out to eat its only grown and continues to grow:IMO. I can remmeber traveling when one had very limited choice of where to eat across country and no fast food restaurants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2013, 04:38 PM
 
105 posts, read 129,158 times
Reputation: 124
Default Non-consumerism based economy

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc View Post
A tiny general store on the prairie circa 1870 had some items that were "arbitrary."
As I stated before consumerism has nothing to do with the person selling the items, WalMart or hobo derived, it can still be consumerism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc View Post
However, if the government or some outside entity starts micro-managing that trade, it generally creates problems.
Specifically? The government funded almost all the public universities in the US through the Morrill Act. This was very controversial when it passed in 1862. The government built large public works (canal access to Chicago, ports along the west coast, power to the Appalachias, the Bonneville Power project in Oregon, roads), subsidised elementary schools, subsidised food, the tax code's bias against entertainment(royalty taxes) and automation of jobs (software company taxes) etc. Every aspect of the economy is hand picked by the government, so how is government support creating problems? You can select preferred businesses without micromanaging (controlling the internal affairs of a company).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc View Post
Your real issue seems to be the fads and fetishes of the rich, but they are not the only ones guilty of consumerism.
No, I am not an idealogue angry because other people don't act as I do. I am asking how do you match the tax base or income of a segment of society who spends heavily on non-necessities; consumerism?

I am not talking about whether something comes from China, marketing, DIY, or other loosely related topics. I am merely talking about generating wealth by not simply slashing and burning through consumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Therefore there will be some trade for goods that are available elsewhere or not convenient to produce in a city (how many cows live in town??)
Beef is not a necessity. Most of the world doesn't eat beef. So mentioning cows is far fetched. In New Orleans, there are chickens roaming the streets within the city limits. But once again I am not seeking a way to avoid spending money.

The statement that somehow growing your own food is not possible therefore you must follow consumerism is a bit more theoretical than what I was aiming at. That statement is leaning on the notion that buying = consumerism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2013, 10:36 AM
 
6,056 posts, read 10,839,435 times
Reputation: 3063
Neighborhood areas can also thrive and be successful just for having high quality residential development and visually pleasant scenery, so consumer based development is not always necessary for some areas of neighborhoods.

When the OP says consumer based development I assume that refers to commercial activity where people spend money on a large variety of stores and certain businesses.

A lot of stores/businesses are necessary at a frequent enough presentation and activity in plenty of neighborhood areas.

However, if there was too much of that such as stores being on all streets, almost every building etc, that would cause a conflicting amount of competition between those commercial establishments, a larger amount of stores being less successful, and higher risk of closing down.

That is especially true in places with a lower population size and lower density. There is a correlation to supply+demand for stores/businesses/local economy being successful.

How large and expansive could those successful neighborhood areas be with a lack of consumer based development? That seems to usually include only relatively small parts of neighborhoods that can function like that, since most entire neighborhoods and all cities/towns need at least some of that activity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2013, 12:21 PM
 
105 posts, read 129,158 times
Reputation: 124
Default Closed topic

I think this topic should close, because I mislabeled the title and everyone is responding to the headline and not the content of the post. I usually like examples in responses because theoretical reasoning has no teeth.

I also erred when I said neighborhoods, I should have said sections of the city, because most neighborhoods have no consumerism based development, much less consumer based development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepastpresentandfuture View Post
Neighborhood areas can also thrive and be successful just for having high quality residential development and visually pleasant scenery, so consumer based development is not always necessary for some areas of neighborhoods.
Yes in the American West, affluent neighborhoods are in the hills with winding street and often lack consumer development, but I am asking about consumerism not consumers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepastpresentandfuture View Post
When the OP says consumer based development I assume that refers to commercial activity where people spend money on a large variety of stores and certain businesses.
No, I am referring to sections of the city with yoga, bicycle shops selling froo froo compared to a neighborhood with basic necessities.

I have come to realize that providing basic necessities will not be economically beneficial unless someone is able to exploit a opportune situation (being located in a high traffic area like a university, being the only supplier when demand suddenly spikes...e.g. Topeka Kansas light aircraft industry), or providing premium products wholesale.

It's much easier to tap into people's desires...i.e. consumerism, buying stuff with no specific function, therefore there is no natural limit to the price of the consumerism product nor to the quantity one consumes (e.g. collect all 4!, buy the special edition..none of which will will allow you to become more productive)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2013, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,059 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by muer22 View Post
No, I am not an idealogue angry because other people don't act as I do. I am asking how do you match the tax base or income of a segment of society who spends heavily on non-necessities; consumerism?
First off, that isn't consumerism. Consumerism is buying stuff. Period.
In answer to you second and unrelated question, you just tax necessities, income, and investments.

If Society A and B both have a per capita income of $50,000 but Society B spends $10,000 less on consumption of taxable goods, you just make it up with other taxes. High real estate taxes, higher income taxes, higher capital gains taxes, higher corporate income taxes.

If you're talking about a non-consumer based society, well, you basically don't and can't. Society C has a per capita income of maybe $4000 a year since they don't buy much of anything. They don't have much they can't produce themselves (no electronics) and have very little to trade/sell for specialized services (medical care, professional/commercial entertainment, complex machinery such as cars or washing machines). You can exist for awhile with your government buying up the trade surplus in the form of foreign debt ala China, but even then that can't go on for long. With China's per capita GDP now around $8000 they're transitioning to a consumer-based economy to continue their growth.

Topeka's aerospace industry is the definition of consumer-based development. Those airplanes are totally useless in a non-consumer society. Without someone to buy totally unnecessary frilly seats on the aircraft, it's useless. It's a completely frilly, no-use product in a non-consumer society. But we're not that, so Topeka had Boeing for awhile. And then it left to produce its consumer widgets elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top