How so? There’s a difference between constant mindless consumption and buying tools that save you time and effort. If you wanna talk TVs and jet skis and designer bags, yes obviously you have a point. But that’s not the same as labor saving appliances.
Convinces aren’t made to save us time and effort. Back to the example of the household all the modern conveniences did was decrease the about of labor needed to maintain a home.
Did that surplus of labor help us? No now conveniences became necessary because households required a dual income.
If all the modern conveniences saved a home maker 30 hours per week those did not become free. That labor went to making quarterly profits. Now you need 2 adults working so you have to buy these things to have any time to do other things
I don’t see the connection here. I think you’re drawing a cause-effect relationship here that doesn’t exist. Dual incomes aren’t necessary because we have appliances, it’s because wages haven’t kept up with productivity or inflation. I don’t see how you’re coming to the conclusion that it’s somehow a direct consequence of labor saving appliances.
But you’re conflating different aspects of the system. Modern conveniences aren’t the product of capitalism, they’re the product of human invention. Yes they were produced under capitalism, but they would’ve been developed under any economic system that supports human invention.
The consumption trap you’re talking about, the whole “Working jobs we hate, to buy things we don’t need, to impress people we don’t like” thing, is a separate thing. Dishwashers and refrigerators aren’t the same as jetskis and handbags.
You took that too literally. It’s not about the dishwasher per se it’s about the whole lifestyle.
How so? There’s a difference between constant mindless consumption and buying tools that save you time and effort. If you wanna talk TVs and jet skis and designer bags, yes obviously you have a point. But that’s not the same as labor saving appliances.
Convinces aren’t made to save us time and effort. Back to the example of the household all the modern conveniences did was decrease the about of labor needed to maintain a home.
Did that surplus of labor help us? No now conveniences became necessary because households required a dual income.
If all the modern conveniences saved a home maker 30 hours per week those did not become free. That labor went to making quarterly profits. Now you need 2 adults working so you have to buy these things to have any time to do other things
And the assumption becomes that everyone has those things and can therefore work even more. For pay that hasn’t kept pace with inflation for decades.
I don’t see the connection here. I think you’re drawing a cause-effect relationship here that doesn’t exist. Dual incomes aren’t necessary because we have appliances, it’s because wages haven’t kept up with productivity or inflation. I don’t see how you’re coming to the conclusion that it’s somehow a direct consequence of labor saving appliances.
Once again being too literal it’s the whole system conveniences are just a part of that
But you’re conflating different aspects of the system. Modern conveniences aren’t the product of capitalism, they’re the product of human invention. Yes they were produced under capitalism, but they would’ve been developed under any economic system that supports human invention.
The consumption trap you’re talking about, the whole “Working jobs we hate, to buy things we don’t need, to impress people we don’t like” thing, is a separate thing. Dishwashers and refrigerators aren’t the same as jetskis and handbags.