Statisticians and economists may have some technical definition of the term 'standard of living' of which I am unaware.
But when most lay people use the term, they're considering three things: how much stuff they can buy, how big is the stuff they can buy and how many ways they can be entertained.
I know very few people who measure their standard of living in terms of stress level or time to spend with their families.
It's no surprise. Most of our definitions of success have been given to us by people who have a vested interest in keeping our noses to the grindstone for as long and as cheaply as possible, while also encouraging us to buy more and more consumer goods of dubious value.
But it's a racket. The more crap you buy, especially on credit, the more of your independence you surrender. And the harder you have to work to pay the bills. And that's your 'standard of living.'
1 comment:
Although you are rather well situated to do so, you didn't write about something I've noticed over the past few years that I'd like to have you consider.
Several years ago, I gave up television. I don't have cable and I don't watch broadcast with the rare exception of a sporting event (about twice a year) or some such.
Television is NOT an entertainment media. Television is an advertising media.
I find that once I was not subjecting myself to constant attempts to manipulate my materialism, my consumer urges dropped off considerably.
Moreover, once I quit filling my head with such trivial matters as who lost the most weight or got kicked off the island or purged from Idol, I had the time and the urge to think of weightier matters: is this all there is?; do I really need that?; isn't contentment more important than almost anything else?
Since you were once in the belly of that beast, I'd really like to hear some of your musings on the subject.
blogblah
Post a Comment