piekam-blog1

[piekam-blog1]

A Reflection: What I’ve Learned

When originally taking this class, I had the expectation that I would learn about different economic decisions made by consumers, and the psychology behind these choices. This class turned out to be less of a psychology lesson and more along the lines of “here’s what’s really happening, and here’s what we can do if we want to break the cycle”. I enjoyed The Overspent American (Schor) and Consumer Culture (Lury) the most.

So what are some key takeaways I had from this semester?

Diderot’s lesson was a big eye opener for me, and in general just the idea that we see all these ads that are targeted toward different audiences via sex appeal, sleekness, or generally just selling a lifestyle. The funny thing is, we know what they’re doing, and we buy right into it anyway because we think we’ve got it figured out. I find myself guilty of this whenever I reason that a company has earned my dollar (it’s usually through humor). One example of the prevalence of ads today is portrayed in one of my favorite shows, Futurama. In it, Fry unknowingly has ads subliminally inserted in his dreams, and he finds it crazy they can be so intrusive about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPGgTy5YJ-g

Next, we look at the post-social world and a shift toward individualization. I’ve talked about it in greater depth in a previous blog post but my takeaway from those conversations were to be more present, and to depend less on the welfare of material goods in order to dictate my own happiness.

Overall, the class has generally deepened my curiosity for anything related to consuming. All the practice we’ve done with semiotics makes me look closer at images in ads, to see what they’re really trying to sell. More than just ads though, through learning about some history of consumer culture I’ve started to question more often, why is it that way? The part about Consuming Brotherhood was a good thought exercise to open my mind to the bigger picture of how certain actions and trends fall into place to cause today’s status quo. I am certainly glad I took this course, and in today’s world of uncertainty I am now prepared to face the working world with the tools I need to navigate consumer society.

[piekam-blog1]

Work Ethic

In chapter 14 we are exposed to a variety of definitions of the term “work ethic” in the context of the 1950′s and 1960′s. Most explanations of work ethic seem to imply that work = job, but I don’t think that’s always the case, and Moorhouse also echoes that belief.

Moorhouse criticizes Rodgers because “Pride can be obtained from doing any job,” regardless of how menial it is. Reading the whole chapter, it is clear that work gave man meaning, or a purpose in society (to take from Kornhauser’s definition of work ethic). I’d say that mindset still hasn’t left us today. Not that you’re given a job and that becomes your identity, it’s more along the lines that you find something you really love and take pride in doing that job well. This chapter would tell us that those who act as cultural entrepreneurs work to make even unpaid labor more psychologically rewarding to those who take part. I’ve seen it firsthand at my co-op. The manufacturing floor was filled with unskilled union laborers that sat in one spot doing one job for hours, and they loved it. “Work made men useful in a world of economic scarcity. It staved off the doubts and temptations that preyed on idleness”. Rogers goes on to explain that work unlocks wealth and status, and also gives man a chance to impress his mind and skill upon the material world.

Although most of the descriptions of work ethic include pay, the section about the Hot Rod magazine was a good segue to how it didn’t have to stay that way, because you could always find a way to pursue your hobby as a career. In this case, it’s the Air Force and Army who needed mechanics.

My dad always told me, if you do what you love, you’ll never work a day in your life. I think the biggest takeaway from this chapter is the idea of adding value to society. When you are sitting idle, you are not earning money or status, and you are not earning anyone’s respect by showing what skills you have to offer. I believe that is a big part of what drives today’s productivity centric society.

[piekam-blog1]

Why Denim?

I decided to revisit Daniel Miller’s “Consumption and It’s Consequences” because in recent news, Nordstrom has begun selling pre-muddied jeans (designed by PRPS) for $425. The trend in clothing has been called “Rugged Americana” and has been thoroughly criticized by social media, as seen below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/26/nordstrom-is-selling-jeans-caked-in-fake-dirt-for-hundreds-of-dollars/?utm_term=.a93c9c9da343

Miller argues that jeans are the first ever post-semiotic garment of clothing, meaning that blue jeans say absolutely nothing about the person wearing them. The question must be asked then, where is PRPS going with this? What is their target market, and what are these buyers hoping to achieve through purchasing costly, (purposely) messy jeans? Blue jeans by themselves may be post-semiotic, but dirt on the jeans has always been a sign of outdoorsy, rugged, or hard-working behavior. The price tag is pretty economically divisive, and it is clear to see that the sort of people who go out and get their jeans muddy aren’t the same group who has the cash to throw for a pair of $425 jeans. Maybe it’s for those upper class people who want to be more ordinary? Or maybe it’s merely to set a trend. Nordstrom has been known to sell some experimental stuff in hopes of certain trends catching on (see the leather wrapped rock or jeans with windows in the knees).

I looked to the website of PRPS and I saw a very sleek, simplistic website with good looking models wearing expensive clothing. They had a few other “rugged�� looking products, but mostly trendy yet expensive jeans. The target audience is definitely the more affluent. Their website doesn’t give me much more in terms of semiotics but I found their logo to be interesting. It’s a two toned image that looks to be a cherub walking on a crutch with other ailments

I find that the purple could mean royalty or luxury, or even divineness (going in with the idea of the cherub). The smooth, streamlined lettering with serif indicates a sort of status, with the “Bruised Never Broken” highlighting the fact that the cherub, although injured, is still walking. This most likely symbolizes the lasting value of their jeans, as they boast on their About Us page that they are the first company to bring luxury Japanese denim jeans to America, and that each pair of jeans is handcrafted meticulously. That might be where the cherub comes in, as a representation of how this company works to deliver you its masterpiece. Cherubs also have been known to act as guards, meaning that as long as you’re wearing PRPS jeans you will be protected.

[piekam-blog1]

Payment Models in the Video Game Industry

***This is a makeup post for my 3rd absence***

Through taking this course, I have learned a lot about consumer culture, but for my makeup assignment I figured I’d look through the lens at consumer culture into something I consume almost daily: video games. I will go through the different ways people consume video games, making some allusions to the readings as well as some autoethnography.

First, a little background. I've found that there are 5 different pay models in today’s video games. The first is the single payment model. That means paying a flat price for a game, and receiving that game permanently. The next method is downloadable content, or DLC. In recent years it has become implied that DLC means paid DLC, which is additional content you can pay for after the game is released. Free-to-play is another popular model among certain genres, but informed gamers must be wary of the pay-to-win structure (or “Freemium”) where the game is free to play, but you have a far greater advantage by investing real cash into the game. There are also games such as the popular “World of Warcraft” which have a subscription model. Various services have taken this road as well, such as online multiplayer features on the Xbox One. Lastly, there is the category of crowdfunded or early access games.

In my experience, there are two types of gamers.

The first is the casual gamer. This person plays the sports games, the popular first person shooters, and whatever else others are playing at the time. I would consider these people similar to the “Industrial Consumer” in the sense that for the vast majority of them, they draw the line at consumption, or the exchange between two parties. They aren’t too concerned with what they as consumers could do to impact the way video games are being marketed, developed, or sold, because to them, it doesn’t really matter.

The other type of consumer is the one who reads reviews, watches new video games as they are announced and demo’d at conferences, and plays enough video games to consider themselves an informed consumer. This person has more than likely faced every type of pay model there is. This person (usually) knows if they’re being duped.

So what is the most concerning to consumers of video games in this day and age? As you could probably tell, most informed gamers would prefer the single payment model of buying a video game. Pay one price, keep it, play it all you want. There is a shift away from this model because of the current standard of internet connectivity. To earn the trust of consumers in the 80′s and 90′s, developers had to make sure that CD they shipped had everything on it, and worked flawlessly. There are many examples of publishing companies fragmenting the final game these days, because you can easily buy the rest and download it via paid DLC. One personal example I have of this is a game called Destiny. A huge concern of the community was that the story had no substance. One line from the script said “I don’t even have time to explain why I don’t have time to explain,” when the main character asks about a seemingly main antagonist of the game. Two or three expansion pack DLCs later (which total to about $60 on top of the original $60 price tag on the base game) and it finally gives a decent story. This is a big way the publishers take advantage of consumers. I found a pretty funny depiction of the general sentiment of informed consumers, seen below:

Gamers’ complaints aside, this is definitely not the case with every game. A lot of gamers will justify the price of games in number of hours played. For certain games, if they’ve sunk hundreds or thousands of hours into it, they will pay for some extra content (mostly in single player games, so extra stories or levels to play). In multiplayer games, it’s a little different. For example, I’ve sunk around 200 hours into a multiplayer game called Rocket League. It was $15 to buy, and it has a variety of cars available to purchase, along with paint jobs, hats, and antenna designs. There are also loot crates which drop more exotic looking items. I’ve probably spent around $30 or $40 on cars and loot crate keys to unlock the crates (crates are more of a random lottery than anything else). Because to me, they had earned my money in the sheer amount of entertainment they provided me with a good game. In order for a game to be well received by the community, paid DLC should be solely cosmetic, and should not affect performance in online play. Which is where another concerning pay model comes into play. Free-to-play can be a solid business model if the consumers are provided with the option to earn in-game the same rewards you can buy outright. But just a simple search on pcgamer.com for “pay to win” shows the major concern with any game that is made free to play.

If a game does free-to-play right, the purchasing of objects outright is actually, in a way, status spending. I remember a game I used to play where you could buy the “shortcut kit” that would immediately unlock all the weapons and accessories. This means that someone with the highest level weapons either a.) played a lot and is level 50, and is good because of their experience or b.) bought the shortcut kit and may be brand new to the game, but could be seen as good because they have the status of owning all the guns.

A final big no-no in today’s gaming community is the Early Access/Kickstarter/General hype train nonsense. I lump in hype with early access and Kickstarter because the general notion is that the consumer pays before receiving the game. For this we must visit Diderot’s lesson on stopping the upward creep of desire. Firstly, controlling desire is a key aspect to avoiding getting burned by a failed product. Many publishers up their graphics settings on pre-rendered trailers and teasers - making the game appear beautiful and polished. A well directed trailer for a new video game gets everyone excited about it, but we must always be skeptical about the final product, and put our expectations in check. Putting emphasis on durability is valid too, in order to not need another game maybe you buy the one that you will get the most playtime out of. For me that has been Rocket League, my buying habits have significantly slowed when I found a game I received lasting value from. The games that informed consumers know do not have lasting power are any Call of Duty’s, Battlefields, etc. that are released yearly. The available multiplayer base quickly dies out upon the release of another game, and in order to keep playing, you have to follow the spending habits of everyone else (buying the latest and greatest, kind of like keeping up with the Joneses). But the biggest factor in consumer pull on the game industry has to be Diderot’s 5th point, being an educated consumer. Don’t buy into the hype, even if you have trust or confidence in the people who are doing the Kickstarter, even if you see no possible way something could go wrong. Reviews come out days before a game is launched, and it is important to use resources readily available (YouTube, various review sites on the internet) to see if it is a game you really want to buy.

https://benwebber94.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/the-5-different-payment-models-for-video-games/

www.pcgamer.com

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/with-netflix-like-service-could-video-games-go-the-way-of-blu-rays/ar-BBAOBZU

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/02/should-videogames-let-you-pay-win

[piekam-blog1]

Who’s To Blame? What Can We Do?

In Chapter 27 of “A Consumer Society Reader”, we are faced with many hard facts of how consuming has an effect on the environment. Reading the doom and gloom chapter sort of brought me back to the less drastic piece by Lury talking about consumer ethics, where we read about plastic bags and the decision to get a smart electricity meter. In terms of a mass appeal, at least in my experience, an environmentally friendly alternative has to be at least one of three things. Either it makes financial sense (in terms of upfront costs, it shouldn’t cost more initially), it is the same price but equally convenient, or there is another benefit such as sign value for investing in such a technology.

I’d like to refer to my Dad, who has always been against getting solar panels because 1.) they don’t make sense when we don’t get a whole lot of sun in MA and 2.) because they are an eyesore on the roof. Sure they may save us money in the long run but to him it’s not worth the investment because the long run is probably going to be 10+ years. Moral of the story, unless they are the type of person to really go out of your way to be green (which is even harder once you start researching alternatives to see if they actually save), individuals will most likely not break the cycle of consumption to pursue a green alternative.

We now have people like Elon Musk making electric cars cool. Although the electricity is still made in coal-burning plants, it’s a step in the right direction. More recently, Musk has announced a solar tile roof that should come out to cost the same as a regular tile roof. It also looks real sleek, which is good for people like my dad who don’t like the look of solar panels standing out from the roof.

In conclusion, I think when it comes to a greener future for consumption, both the consumer and the producer can do better. However, it is a push-pull system, and we as consumers need to look deeper than just what decisions we make in what we do with goods after consuming.

I’ll leave it with this video, that gives a broader perspective on the issues behind going green

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L42ikyiXuEU

[piekam-blog1]

A Post-Social World

In the reading from Lury’s “Consumer Culture,” we see the concept of a post-social world. This is one where emphasis is removed from human-to-human interaction, because there are such close ties with material goods. Karin Knorr Cetina and Tim Dant both address points close to what we’ve seen before from Beaudrillard, that certain sign and symbolic values link us in relationships to the material goods we purchase, and we base our emotions, our decisions, etc. off of the welfare of these material entities. One very real example of this mentioned in the book is the stock market.

There is nothing new about trying to resist this urge to invest our time, money, and emotions in material entities, but how can we ensure this? It is a fine balance, I think. Firstly, I do not believe it is necessarily bad to have traces of this post-social world, but everything in moderation. I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who got upset when my parents turned off my video games when I was younger. I haven’t grown out of material dependencies- in fact, these days it’s probably even worse. Beaudrillard’s four values, functional, economic, sign and symbol, all apply to my smartphone, and if it runs out of battery I’m immediately less useful. It affords sociability, but it has become a crutch for many people, myself included.

Knorr Cetina argues that there is a decline in the belief that social-forward thinking and innovation can save society, because there is a massive push toward individualization. She says that this can be blamed on the shift toward non-human objects as more than just objects. It’s funny, actually, I remember a huge fuss in 5th grade, when Tamagotchi's were banned at school. These are little virtual pets on a handheld screen, and if you didn’t take care of them, they would die and leave the handheld electronic device useless. Students were protesting the ban, arguing like crazy saying they need to take care of the Tamagotchi. Karin Knorr Cetina wrote this post-social bit around the year 2000, but it was definitely an accurate prediction. I just wonder what part of society will remain once VR really takes off.

[piekam-blog1]

The Evolution of Sports as Class Divisive

This is one of my past thought pieces I have to make up, so I figured I’d look back into my notes at one of the discussions that I was more interested in.

This reading was first about immigrants as consumers, but then one of the following chapters moves into talking about the history of different sports and activities, and how sports like baseball and tennis divided society along class lines. I have a lot of internal biases for or against certain sports, and a lot of it is based on certain barriers to entry. The reading talks about field or court fees, but on top of that there exists the cost of equipment (e.g. in baseball, a bat, a batting helmet, a glove, baseball pants, cleats, etc.) It all adds up, and to play in any sort of league, one is required to have all that equipment. Hell, I spent about $250 on hockey gear, and that was at Play-it-Again Sports, the used equipment store. What sports are the most accessible? I’d argue Frisbee is one of the most, along with basketball and maybe soccer when not played in a serious league (then it is required for all players to have shinguards, cleats, etc.)

Let’s address the point I brought up in class, about Donald Trump saying that, “golf should be an aspirational game.” He argues that people who want to work hard and be financially successful should be the ones to enjoy the sport. He references all the sports stars who golf. It is clear he agrees more with Malthus’ line of thought, that “want has not infrequently given wings to the imagination of the poet, pointed the flowering periods of the historian, and added acuteness to the researches of the philosopher.” It seemed like a pretty divisive topic for the rest of the class, for me to bring up that quote from Trump, especially in a hostile environment like today. However, I think it’s important we view all perspectives of consumer society, whether we agree with them or not. Personally, I am split on the issue. In a capitalist society, I agree with Malthus’ ideas that want inspires accomplishment. Do I think no one but elites should be allowed to play golf? No way, I was given a set of clubs from my neighbor and there’s a free course in my town. But the underlying point Trump and Malthus share is that in a capitalist society, the pursuit of status or material wealth is not always a bad thing. It’s hard to imagine a world in which we could restart society - that is, remove any memories of capitalism and start over. Obviously in that case, I would heed against emphasizing material wealth, but I’ll have to think more about what exactly I would want to replace it with.

[piekam-blog1]

Status Spending

This week we read Schor’s “The Overspent American” and one part that really stuck out to me was when she talked of one woman, Doris, who was invested in brand name lipstick, makeup, etc. Schor mentions a bit about status spending, a way of buying what could be recognized as social capital. Basically, any money you spend that exceeds the price of a generic brand product is status spending. You already have the value of the basic product, but going one step further to buy a certain name brand, whether the performance is better or the same, achieves a level of status. I can buy these Nike shoes because I value the Nike brand and/or the lifestyle that goes alone with it.

It takes me back to when we talked about four different meanings or values of our favorite products. Why do I buy Under Armor when I could get more generic spandex for much cheaper? What functional, economic, symbolic, or sign value does it hold to me? There may be no clear performance difference, so is the functional value that it sets me above the generic brands and their users? Or is the symbolic value brand loyalty, that Under Armor always has good products, I would never choose to try something else. Ever since I started buying active wear, Under Armor has been THE name for thermal or base layers. So to go back to my last blog post, it’s an example of how that marketing “worked” on me.

Brand loyalty covers a wide range of topics, but it is very much connected to status spending. Anywhere from electronics or cars to even burrito restaurants (Chipotle IS better, period). From personal experience I’ve noticed a confirmation bias that is self-recursive. I buy android phones because they are more open to tinkering, similarly to a PC. I identify with the type of crowd that likes to be able to make any and all modifications, and to me an apple phone just feels dumbed down. But iPhones are designed to be the most intuitive phone on the market, and for others they maybe can’t see why someone would want such a complicated layout. Although this is comparing two brands, or subjective levels of status, both Apple and Android fans confirm their own beliefs and see themselves as the smarter consumer, for getting the “better” brand. Both groups of people also have their reason for justifying the status spending.

[piekam-blog1]

How to Resist Consumption

From what we’ve read so far, it seems like consumerism is this big black hole with no way to escape in capitalist America. Luckily, at the tail end of this book, Schor lists nine points (or principles) on how to escape the grips of desire.

There’s something to be said about the therapeutic nature of going into a shopping mall. I remember when my sister’s friend was torn up over a recent break up, I had to drive them to the mall so they could “shop it out”. And I’d be lying if I said I’ve never walked around a mall just to have some time to myself. Malls have become so ingrained in our culture as a convenient all-in-one place to go for consumption needs that many people would say they are hard to avoid. Schor would argue that in order to completely remove ourselves from consumer culture we need to avoid going to the mall altogether, even if we just planning on strolling around and not buying anything.

Another argument I found interesting is the principle about seeing a luxury car and thinking “that marketing worked”. I’m 21 years old and for the better part of my life I’ve been conditioned through advertisements to believe that one brand name is better than generic brands. Is under armor actually more comfortable to me? Or is it just in my head, since I’ve only gotten off brand once or twice and it hasn’t been noticeably better? I find myself questioning my decisions more and more every day since we’ve been reading these articles.

I must say though, I find that although I don’t spend as much money on consumer goods, I definitely make up for it with going out to eat. It’s somehow a way to justify it to myself to say that I’m going out to eat with friends, a fun experience, something like that.

I don’t think I’ll ever be able to completely remove myself from consumer culture, but keeping Schor’s suggestions in mind, I’ll be able to save some money and time at the very least.

[piekam-blog1]

Shopping Malls

Because one of the locations for my ethnography was the mall, I figured I’d focus this blog entry on John Fiske’s bit about malls, power, and resistance.

“Shopping malls are where the strategy of the powerful is most vulnerable to the tactical raids of the weak. And women are particularly adept guerillas.”

Fiske recognizes that Presdee has written about shopping malls as “cathedrals as capitalism”. And as statistics show, 80% of all young unemployed people go to the mall (with 100% of young women). Presdee, in his religious metaphor, condemns these people for showing up uninvited, saying that they are barred from consuming because they don’t produce. He goes on to explain “proletarian shopping,” which is simply walking around the mall without buying anything.

In this day and age we wouldn’t think twice about seeing people casually walking around the mall, so I think it’s an interesting response we’ve seen from marketers. Presdee wrote about this originally in 1986. In the past, malls may have been seen more as a social divide, off limits for those without the means to purchase goods. But eventually as “mall walkers” began showing up, Fiske says, businesses tried to make people spend money even if that wasn’t their original intent. I’ve seen various strategies to try and lure people in. The most common I’d say are big sales being advertised at the very front of stores, with big signs in the windows. So maybe I do need shorts? Spring is only a couple months away, and there’s a great sale right now. Free sampling is another effective strategy, at Teavana, but especially in the food court.

And onto the topic of women as consumers. I noticed that later on in his section, Fiske identified a “patriarchal capitalism” and illustrated the differences as men were labeled as the producers, and women the consumers. You see this market research still evident today. Just walk down the mall corridor and you’ll see tons of clothing stores, high end purse/luxury goods stores, lingerie stores. Some malls are more noticeable than others, but I’ll definitely try to bring this disparity up in class to get a discussion going. Honestly sometimes I’ve walked around the mall and just felt like there were no interesting stores to walk into, while my sisters or previous girlfriends could walk into any of the many clothing stores to look for deals (Express, H&M, Banana Republic, Forever 21, etc.)

[piekam-blog1]

The Italian Scooter Cycle & Consumerism Related to Gender

The first line that really stood out to me in part 3 of Schor & Holt was “The earliest scooters were designed to meet the imagined needs of the female motor cyclist. Dick Hebdige goes on to explain that the women were able to stand on scooters in order to keep their dresses and long skirts looking nice. It eventually became commonplace that motorcycles were for men and scooters were for women. Motorcycles had “an exaggerated look of fierce power” as Hebdige says. He references that male-gendered objects or products were thought of as hard, usually linked to science or practicality, while female-gendered products were marketed as soft, related to fashion or something of the like. Additionally, the rise of consumerism was linked to the perceived gullibility of females. By that, Hebdige means that marketers set out to try to make women unhappy with what they had, so they would want to buy more stuff.

This gendering of products reminds me of what we talked about in DCS (or possibly studio 2, or both). One example we discussed that really stands out to me is the Nerf dart shooters. We talk about “the imagined needs of the female...” While Nerf products marketed primarily toward boys are blue, yellow, red, and sometimes green, Nerf came out with a whole line called Nerf Rebelle that is pink and purple, marketed toward girls. My mom used to work in child care and I’ve known plenty of her clients’ kids who are just fine with using blue, green, yellow, and red colored toys. 

I remember watching a video that advertised a tool kit for girls, enabling young girls to learn how to woodwork and do other handiwork. However, when I looked for that video, a search for “girls tool kit” brought me to a collection of images of pink or purple tool kits. While a search for tool kit results in black, yellow, or red tools.

In class, I plan on starting a discussion on whether or not gender-assigned products are a good thing

[piekam-blog1]

Best Consumer Experience

Preface: this is going to be more of an attempt to answer the original prompt (write about your best consumer experience) and less connecting with the readings. In future posts I will discuss the reading in more depth, but I figured I could write more than 300 words on the most recent “best consumer experience” I had.

The brewery was called Dark Sky Brewing Company, and it was in Flagstaff, AZ. It was my friend and I and as we walked into the brewery I noticed the dim lights and the industrial style ceiling. There were a couple long high top tables, and also some low sitting Adirondack chairs. This kind of design indicates to me that this is a place they want people to spend a lot of time in. My assertion was reaffirmed by the projector screen showing a Red Bull sponsored double pipe snowboard tournament. As we approached the bar, I noticed that one patron had two dogs hanging out with him. There were more dogs in the back area. We ordered flights of beer because there were many different ones we wanted to try. The bartender gave us each a paddle with a chalkboard surface down the middle and 8 holes in it. There were numbers next to each beer and we were to chalk in the numbers corresponding to the beers we wanted. There was a beer called “member berry saison” which is a reference to a popular cartoon (South Park) and I found that pretty funny, so I figured I’d give that one a try.

Where we sat, we could see into the other room where they had a few board games on tables. We watched the snowboard event on TV and just hung out there for a while discussing the day, plans for the next day, I just remember repeating over and over again “MAN, I could stay here forever.” But when I’m living in ecstasy like that, I like to stop and try and pinpoint what exactly it is about a certain situation that makes it so great. Why was I so satisfied with hanging out at that place? This brings me back to the early days of PDI and DCS. The design of space. Part of it is personal preference- not everyone likes the industrial style ceilings with exposed metal framing, but I found it fit well in the rugged feel of the town (and the fact that it was a brewery.) The dim lights made it feel not exactly intimate, but more laid back at least. Part of it could have been the fact that I went there with a friend, while on vacation. It already had me open to enjoying the experience. Obviously the pop culture reference improved my impression of the brewery as well.

A good consumer experience is cumulative. I don’t remember how the beer tasted, in fact I think I ended up not liking half of the ones I tried. But much like that Guinness commercial where they play wheelchair basketball cause the one friend is actually wheelchair bound, the whole idea behind this consumerism is selling the consumer on an idea or setting, a lifestyle. I recall in Part two of the reading they say no object in consumer society is just an “object”. It didn’t matter how bad the beer tasted at Dark Sky Brewing Company, I was sold on the experience, the vibe of the place.

[piekam-blog1]

Waste not, want not

In this chapter, Edward Woodhouse points out a major flaw with today’s consumer culture: the overwhelming amount of waste. He blames various factors of the evolution of our society, but he thinks that education can be reformed to help reduce this waste.

Although Woodhouse’s ideas hold some water, I don’t think a revamp in education will completely fix the waste problem. He suggests that schools should have environmental awareness courses as required courses in engineering curricula. This would not solve the issue of corporate greed, and CEOs making decisions to maximize their own gain. Most engineers are hired into a company, have a boss, and work on whatever projects come up. If they are educated in environmental engineering, they may point out ways that the project can harm the environment, but they don’t have much leverage. Since the boss has the final say, things usually swing in the boss’s favor. Instead of focusing on education, I’d propose to instate a pollution tax.

I believe in negative reinforcement, especially concerning big business, and pollution taxes could help to make companies think twice about all the waste they’re creating. This tax could also help influence the removal of bad seeds from companies. If the CEO didn’t care about the environment and just wanted profits, he or she would end up hurting the company and some higher board in that company would see the loss in revenue and hire a new CEO.

Lastly, I’d like to answer the question proposed near the end of the chapter. Woodhouse writes: “products and other engineered phenomena henceforth should reflect not merely technical competence but “intelligent thought and action. Designers and consumers can no longer plead ignorance.” Do you agree, and what steps, if any, would you advocate for engineering education and/or for the practice of engineering?” I’d like to think that designers and consumers shouldn’t be able to plead ignorance, and that there’s a level of accountability to which they should be held, but they still play dumb when something goes wrong. In general, I’d say that the design process should be very thorough. Engineers should take the time and do the necessary tests in order to ensure safety. However, this does not mean I am abdicating consumers of their responsibility. The consumers also need to do their research and buy the things they need, instead of seeing something that’s “in fashion” and feeding the chain of consumerism.

[piekam-blog1]

Is there any positive side to the use of drones?

Kathy Kelly gave the STS class a very different perspective on the issue of unmanned drone attacks. However, this was a very biased perspective. I will concede that it is hard to be unbiased on this issue, seeing as Kathy Kelly works for an organization that promotes peace in Middle Eastern countries. Reading through the rest of the articles, I cannot find a solid piece of evidence that shows drones are helping. One could argue that this is due to the bias of news channels, but I think it’s because there aren’t very many positive results.

A quick google search provides me with no evidence of positive results, and instead many links lead to websites posting about drones striking innocent civilians, even some American citizens. Basically, the government has come to thinking “if it has the potential to hurt us, kill it.” But why are we in the Middle East anyway? The US government literally pays the enemy tolls to use roads. We are funding the war against us. And for what? Nobody can be certain, but Kathy Kelly suggests oil. That is very likely the reason the US government has spent $12,548,710.60 per drone in order to eliminate anyone who stands in the way of the military securing the oil.1 Why do we never hear about it on the news? Innocent civilians die every day due to drone strikes, and to many average citizens, oil is probably not worth all these lives. Kelly gave enough examples of innocent people, even mothers and children, dying due to a miscalculation on the other side of the computer screen. It’s scary to think that a select few have the power to wipe out entire villages with the press of a button. Imagine if that power got into the wrong hands.

Overall, we need to look at the root of the problem.  It is not terrorism, it is not war, the problem is America’s greed for oil. If the government spent nearly as much money investing in green energy as it spends on the war, America’s standard of life would be significantly better. In some parts of Europe, the average gas mileage is around 43mpg.2 In America, a 43mpg car would be considered fuel efficient (with the exception of hybrids and electric cars, a very narrow market.) If we can become oil independent as a country, we can stop fighting unnecessary wars. Drones could be used to deliver Amazon packages instead of being used to kill people.

References:

http://nation.time.com/2012/11/06/12548710-60/

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_average_gas_mileage_in_Europe?#slide=2

[piekam-blog1]

Let's discuss a classmate's blog post

Last week, Yuyang Dong wrote a blog post about Chapter 9, and he focused on the point Woodhouse made about incentivizing legislators through rewarding positive social changes. In my blog post for the same chapter, I agreed with this concept because the way Woodhouse presented it seemed logical. But Yuyang seems to have changed my mind on this issue. He goes into great detail explaining the loopholes and possibilities of corruption of this proposed system. I’d like to agree with him, but I also want to play devil’s advocate around some points.

After reading Yuyang’s post, it is clear there are huge holes in this plan, but since when has Woodhouse proposed complete ideas? To me, it seems as if he’s just spitballing most of the time, telling us to take each idea with a grain of salt. But if this is not the case, and Yuyang is critiquing Woodhouse, then I’d like to make some arguments as well. Yuyang says that most short-term solutions can be found “by throwing money at the problem.” I do not believe this to be true, and I would think that the organization regulating this system of incentives wouldn’t be so fast to hand out money. For example, he mentions student loans. Are legislators just going to one day decide to pay off our student loans? How would they get the money to do so? Taxes? If so, the money has no real displacement, it’s just going back and forth from consumer to government. Hopefully someone would catch that. When systems like these are suggested, the ideal scenario is that there is someone competent running the system.

Yuyang suggests that even if bonuses were not paid until after the consequences could be evaluated, the system still would not work because no one would want to participate. Woodhouse doesn’t propose the option of accepting this system, it would be mandated. In which case, people who just want money wouldn’t be as incentivized by the system (as Yuyang mentions) and they might leave, causing openings for people who actually care about the government

[piekam-blog1]

America's Democracy =/= True Democracy

In this chapter, Woodhouse introduces a new way to look at democracy and he offers up suggestions that he believes may improve the well-being of democracy in America’s political system.

Woodhouse states that most U.S. citizens don’t have a good idea of what democracy really is. He explains that the current system is wildly outdated. He gives examples such as Britain’s system of re-election at a stalemate, but quickly discredits the notion that such a system would be best for America. I agree with him in this regard, because I would rather have politicians arguing for what they believed to be right, rather than passively voting to keep their position. However, the biggest two problems Woodhouse seems to focus on are voter participation and the possibility of corruption by elected officials.

Of all the suggestions Woodhouse makes, the best idea in my opinion is the idea of giving bonuses to elected officials who make a positive difference in the community. This would encourage politicians to think in a more philanthropic, albeit amoral, way. The fines he suggests also curb the legislator’s attitude; if they have to make a tough call, the average person wouldn’t be the only one to incur a loss.

When Woodhouse talks about ways to get informed voter participation, I’m not sure how I feel about his suggestions. If giving voters $100 to vote made them want to take a short quiz that ensured knowledge of the election, then finally vote, that would be the most ideal situation. My suggestion would be to give significant-enough tax write offs to voters who pass the quiz. To be honest, the quiz seems like the biggest turn off, but it is also the most necessary. Ignorance seems to be the social norm these days, and any way to curb it is a step forward.

To answer the question phrased at the end of the chapter, I do not believe rapid technoscientific change can be governed adequately by the political systems now existing. I do not believe the slow process is completely bad, either. It’s good that politicians argue with each other over new bills and propositions. The only time we run into trouble is when ignorant politicians start shutting ideas down, and only looking at situations from their side. The “political systems now existing” aren’t the problem, the ignorance is.

[piekam-blog1]

Government Intervention in Techno-Economic Issues

In this chapter, Woodhouse talks about government-based systems by which science and technology policy can be controlled. He mentions that nobody knows how to solve the issue of techno-economic inequality in both the workplace and society, and that the only way to get close is experimentation. I agree with a lot of Woodhouse’s ideas in this chapter, because in general he suggests holding companies accountable for their actions.

The first idea Woodhouse suggests is some combination of taxes and subsidies. I don’t normally agree with government manipulation of the free market through the adjustment of taxes, but I agree with his idea of taking away some of the tax deductible goods and services from big companies. I believe doing so will level the playing field in a sense. When companies can hire clever attorneys and go to court at no cost, they can easily stomp on any smaller company. To make matters worse, the aforementioned power is being funded by the public through taxation. Although I wouldn’t go as far to suggest government funding Consumers Union, I think taking away some of the tax deductions would definitely make companies think twice before steam rolling other organizations in court. As far as subsidies go, I have had my doubts about the whole idea of the government paying for companies to do the right thing, especially given the current state of debt. My response to such a suggestion has been the same, “Where’s the money coming from?” Woodhouse uses the example of European governments to prove that subsidies can work in some scenarios. I really like the idea of subsidizing good behavior while simultaneously taxing to punish bad behavior. Ideally, the government either breaks even or earns some revenue to pay off other debts. All the while, companies need to adjust to the new policy, and that will help curb corporate inequality a bit.

Woodhouse hints at a few ways that equality can be reached in the workplace, and it is honestly baffling that the U.S. hasn’t caught on to some of the methods used in Europe. He mentions that there is a part of Spain where workers can vote to fire or hire bosses. The workplace hierarchy system doesn’t change because it currently benefits the ones who have the power to change it. The executive higher-ups like being in charge, and don’t want their job security jeopardized. Woodhouse never truly comes to a conclusion regarding this but he finds it odd that workers are complacent with this authoritarian mindset in the workplace. I guess it’s just an attitude of “that’s how it’s always been done.”

Lastly, Woodhouse brings up the idea of auctioning off the right to innovate. This is a very good idea because now large companies would be taking a bigger gamble on their innovation. If they truly believe their invention will be profitable, they can outbid anyone in their way, and start producing the new invention. It’s high risk, high reward, and the company can just as easily fail and incur major losses. Although this sounds like a barrier to entry, Woodhouse also suggests various procedures for appeals to a regulatory agency. That way, if an innovation is really a necessity (but the company gets outbidded,) they could still design and produce their innovation. I feel like overall, this system would cause product quality to go up significantly, because companies would have to be sure consumers wanted their product. Now instead of the usual shtick where I put down Woodhouse’s idea saying it’s prone to corruption, I actually commend this idea as incorruptible. How does anyone rig an auction? As far as I know, it’s very hard to do so. Overall, I believe this proposed system can do great things for today’s society.