I don't think avoiding the word "poor" is a good thing to do.
The "voluntary simplicity" movement does the movement a disservice. Henry David Thoreau spoke of "voluntary poverty", not simplicity.
This has multiple benefits.
First off, "poverty" implies a certain ethic. Call it "frugality" or "thriftiness" or what have you, but "simplicity" sounds like having less sugar in your fancy espresso drink, rather than going home and making your own coffee.
Second, by adopting this lifestyle by this term, you create solidarity with those who have no choice. Suddenly, when politicians do things that screw the poor, you say, "Hey, that's ME!" and you call or write your elected representative, or perhaps even attend (or organize!) protests.
Third, degrowth is not an option. It is a mandate that will be enforced by nature if we don't voluntarily take it up. Accepting that our gross numbers impoverishes nature, and taking up solidarity with nature creates a path toward a different sort of abundance, whereby we learn the meaning of "enough".
Fourth, by living below the "poverty level", you don't pay taxes that go toward things like fossil fuel subsidies and arms manufacturing. (But you don't want to withhold your taxes from schools and hospitals? Cut out the middleman and simply GIVE THEM MONEY!)
I've lived below the poverty level for nearly three decades. It hasn't been uncomfortable.
If “you” are a securities trading markets professional expert in the financial mathematics of ownership for profit extraction from volatility and Growth as gain on sale of securities at market clearing prices in the markets for maintaining volatility and growth in market clearing prices for securities, the opportunities for you to extract fees and profits for yourself by extracting profits from prices in the securities trading markets for others will definitely be less in a degrowth economy.
This truth shows us that we need to be clear about where the wrong thinking that Growth is both necessary and sufficient to the longevity of our human wellbeing comes from.
We need to teach ourselves to see that it is actually the special pleading for the self-interests of Asset Managers, Consultants, Corporate Executives, Corporate Management Gurus, Corporate Finance Economists and other securities trading markets professionals in perpetuating the hegemony of securitization for profit extraction in financing enterprise to shape our economy, so that securities trading markets professionals can personally profit from their expertise at trading securities and exercise power in society that they derive from the personal wealth they extract from the economy through the exercise of their expertise at extracting fees and profits from the securities trading markets.
The lynchpin that holds this hegemony in place is the monopolization of fiduciary money aggregated into social trusts for provisioning Workforce Pensions and Civil Society Endowments through the hollowing out of our common sense of the capacity that stewards of this fiduciary money derive from the character of these large, purposeful and self-perpetuating social trusts, under the circumstances now prevailing, and their legally constituted aims, to invest the money entrusted to their discretionary control, for income as well as safety, to assure income security in a dignified future to so many, directly, as a private benefit, that it is also, of necessity, for us all, consequently, as a public good, and its in-filling with the expertise of securities trading markets professionals at extracting profits for volatility and growth in market clearing prices for securities in the markets for maintaining volatility and growth in market clearing prices for such securities.
We need to push out their expertise, and reassert our common sense of what makes sense.
Because it makes sense to our common sense that sometimes Growth is good.
Quality of life is certainly different from and more important than financial and material wealth. But for a genuinely steady state society (the only genuinely sustainable kind), it is not just the global top 10% that have to change. Humanity is currently consuming natural sources and sinks at least double the rate they can regenerate, and if we are to leave 30 to 50% of those regenerative resources for other species, then we have to cut our consumption even more - likely up to 70 to 80 %. This means that the global "middle class" will also have to reduce energy and material throughput, not just the wealthiest. Of course, population size matters. If there is a finite amount of nature we can sustainably consume, then the fewer consumers there are, the higher the average sustainable level of throughput - very simple concept. If we are going to take degrowth to a steady state seriously, let's have a clear understanding of the magnitude of change required. Emphasizing the improved quality of life is relevant and important and is more likely to be achieved if we plan for a genuinely sustainable target (SSE), rather than simply collapsing - our current trajectory.
I don't believe its a matter of working or not. It's a matter of what choices we make individually and collectively as a society. It can and will work if we choose so.
I don't think avoiding the word "poor" is a good thing to do.
The "voluntary simplicity" movement does the movement a disservice. Henry David Thoreau spoke of "voluntary poverty", not simplicity.
This has multiple benefits.
First off, "poverty" implies a certain ethic. Call it "frugality" or "thriftiness" or what have you, but "simplicity" sounds like having less sugar in your fancy espresso drink, rather than going home and making your own coffee.
Second, by adopting this lifestyle by this term, you create solidarity with those who have no choice. Suddenly, when politicians do things that screw the poor, you say, "Hey, that's ME!" and you call or write your elected representative, or perhaps even attend (or organize!) protests.
Third, degrowth is not an option. It is a mandate that will be enforced by nature if we don't voluntarily take it up. Accepting that our gross numbers impoverishes nature, and taking up solidarity with nature creates a path toward a different sort of abundance, whereby we learn the meaning of "enough".
Fourth, by living below the "poverty level", you don't pay taxes that go toward things like fossil fuel subsidies and arms manufacturing. (But you don't want to withhold your taxes from schools and hospitals? Cut out the middleman and simply GIVE THEM MONEY!)
I've lived below the poverty level for nearly three decades. It hasn't been uncomfortable.
No. …But the FACT that we've reached peak everything will kill us. Destroying the only planet we have was kinda daft.
I've been living that way too, Jan. I'll take time over money every time.
It matters who we mean by “you”.
If “you” are a securities trading markets professional expert in the financial mathematics of ownership for profit extraction from volatility and Growth as gain on sale of securities at market clearing prices in the markets for maintaining volatility and growth in market clearing prices for securities, the opportunities for you to extract fees and profits for yourself by extracting profits from prices in the securities trading markets for others will definitely be less in a degrowth economy.
This truth shows us that we need to be clear about where the wrong thinking that Growth is both necessary and sufficient to the longevity of our human wellbeing comes from.
We need to teach ourselves to see that it is actually the special pleading for the self-interests of Asset Managers, Consultants, Corporate Executives, Corporate Management Gurus, Corporate Finance Economists and other securities trading markets professionals in perpetuating the hegemony of securitization for profit extraction in financing enterprise to shape our economy, so that securities trading markets professionals can personally profit from their expertise at trading securities and exercise power in society that they derive from the personal wealth they extract from the economy through the exercise of their expertise at extracting fees and profits from the securities trading markets.
The lynchpin that holds this hegemony in place is the monopolization of fiduciary money aggregated into social trusts for provisioning Workforce Pensions and Civil Society Endowments through the hollowing out of our common sense of the capacity that stewards of this fiduciary money derive from the character of these large, purposeful and self-perpetuating social trusts, under the circumstances now prevailing, and their legally constituted aims, to invest the money entrusted to their discretionary control, for income as well as safety, to assure income security in a dignified future to so many, directly, as a private benefit, that it is also, of necessity, for us all, consequently, as a public good, and its in-filling with the expertise of securities trading markets professionals at extracting profits for volatility and growth in market clearing prices for securities in the markets for maintaining volatility and growth in market clearing prices for such securities.
We need to push out their expertise, and reassert our common sense of what makes sense.
Because it makes sense to our common sense that sometimes Growth is good.
And sometimes it is a cancer.
Quality of life is certainly different from and more important than financial and material wealth. But for a genuinely steady state society (the only genuinely sustainable kind), it is not just the global top 10% that have to change. Humanity is currently consuming natural sources and sinks at least double the rate they can regenerate, and if we are to leave 30 to 50% of those regenerative resources for other species, then we have to cut our consumption even more - likely up to 70 to 80 %. This means that the global "middle class" will also have to reduce energy and material throughput, not just the wealthiest. Of course, population size matters. If there is a finite amount of nature we can sustainably consume, then the fewer consumers there are, the higher the average sustainable level of throughput - very simple concept. If we are going to take degrowth to a steady state seriously, let's have a clear understanding of the magnitude of change required. Emphasizing the improved quality of life is relevant and important and is more likely to be achieved if we plan for a genuinely sustainable target (SSE), rather than simply collapsing - our current trajectory.
I dont see this working.
I don't believe its a matter of working or not. It's a matter of what choices we make individually and collectively as a society. It can and will work if we choose so.
Dont hold your breath :-)
This is a really important way to frame degrowth and should help doubters to see the benefits.