More troubling in the latest figures, consumer spending — the largest component of the economy — was especially slow. Stagnant wages and higher prices for gas and food are squeezing family budgets, while falling home equity hurts consumer confidence … When consumers are constrained, so is hiring, because without customers, employers are hard pressed to retain workers or make new hires.

In other words, our existing economy is dependent on people spending money, and not just on necessities. It’s also dependent on growth in that spending from year to year.

Does that seem reasonable? It seems to me that constant growth in spending would eventually result in severe resource depletion. And encouraging consumerism seems like an unhealthy basis for an economy.

I’ve written some ideas and suggestions before around designing a different way to live, and a different economy. But according to Gar Alperovitz in Yes! magazine, there are companies and organizations who are already moving in new directions. That’s good news indeed! And we’re seeing it on the local level where I live — churches, schools, and organizations are opening community gardens and community dinners. New food c0-0ps, food buying clubs and farmers markets have formed. People are working together for healthy local economies.

I hope more people will see that the solutions are there, even if they don’t come in the form of consumer spending.

It’s very interesting, and some of what they predicted (the movie came out in 2004) has already happened.

But here’s one takeaway for me. There’s another reason for buying local, besides just feeling good about supporting the local economy.

I addressed the ideal of buying local in my Sustainability and Socks post, in which I concluded that buying local was not worth it for me in that case. In other cases (like the farmers’ market) I’ve found it very worthwhile.

But the movie had one really good reason. When oil really becomes scarce, we simply won’t be shipping products across the country, let alone around the world. It just won’t be an option. And we will need local options.

So if we develop local economic networks now, they will already be in place when we need them. But if we let local businesses die out, we may be stuck when the time comes.

Food for thought.

The unchecked striving for more, for endless growth, is a dysfunction and a disease. It is the same dysfunction the cancerous cell manifests, whose only goal is to multiply itself, unaware that it is bringing about its own destruction by destroying the organism of which it is a part.

I say that’s not sustainable. How could it be? How can we possibly expect infinite growth?

But aside from growth being unsustainable in the long run, this mindset can have negative short-term effects.

For example, look at baby formula.  Formula is a good thing when it’s used as originally intended. Without modern baby formulas, babies who can’t breastfeed, for whatever reason, might die or grow up significantly less healthy.

However, baby formula companies haven’t been content to just provide the formula as a resource for those who need it.  From a business point of view, the companies think they need to get more and more people to buy formula, so that their businesses will grow.

As a result, formula is marketed to people who may not really need it.  In the U.S., we now have disclaimers on formula ads saying that “breastfeeding is best.” But in many less wealthy countries, women are still led to believe that formula will somehow be better for their babies, and so they don’t breastfeed, and the babies don’t get the benefits of breastfeeding. And sometimes they use contaminated water to mix formula, and babies die. Or they over-dilute the formula to save money, and babies end up malnourished.

Is there a better way? I wish corporations could be counted on to just do the right thing.  Perhaps shareholders could put some pressure on the formula companies and let them know that constant growth really isn’t necessary in those products.

But meanwhile, you can also donate to organizations that promote breastfeeding around the world:

MercyCorps originally drew my attention to this topic with an appearance on Live at 7, in which they talked about promoting breastfeeding in Indonesia. They’re not currently offering a breastfeeding Mercy Kit, but they’d be a great target for donations.

The International Baby Food Action Network “consists of public interest groups working around the world to reduce infant and young child morbidity and mortality,” and breastfeeding is a big part of that. IBFAN is one of the core partners in the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action.

UNICEF works through its Infant and Young Child Feeding programme area to promote breastfeeding at national, health system, and community levels.

That’s highly debatable. It could be that it’s really not working. It could be that the federal stimulus is keeping things from being much, much worse. I’m not sure how you’d measure that.

Regardless of this argument, what is clear to me is that we have to start looking beyond the paradigm of jobs and consumerism. Our current economic system is not sustainable. It’s based on people making more money and buying more stuff, and given our limited resources, that can’t go on forever.

It’s also obviously not working, when the top one percent of earners in the U.S. are receiving 20 percent of all income, controlling 33 percent of the country’s wealth, and paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than many in the middle class.

So what’s going to happen? Although I think taking care of people without jobs is the right idea, having the government pour more money into it may not be the right answer.

My husband likes to give a radical answer: Abolish money, and everyone will be forced to take care of each other. Simple and drastic, but I don’t see it happening.

I think that’s part of it, though. Here’s what I think we need:

1. Downshift. Realize that we don’t need so much stuff, and that we can’t base our economy on the stuff. We have to lower our expectations of how we should live and simplify.

2. Community. Yes, we do need to take care of each other, and it’s probably best done on the local level. We can share in making sure everyone has food, clothing, shelter and more — companionship, entertainment, education, etc.

3. Get off the fossil fuels. Not sustainable. Enough said.

This isn’t going to be easy. We will have to either deliberately make sacrifices and change the way we live, or be forced into it by our own actions. Either way will be difficult, and perhaps dangerous. The old ways and old jobs will continue to disappear, and this will hurt. But if we dedicate ourselves to taking care of each other, it will work out. Our lives just won’t be the same as they are today.

President George H.W. Bush once said “The American way of life is not negotiable.”  Well, Mr. Bush, it turns out that the American way of life is not sustainable. It’s time to negotiate for our lives.

RESOURCES

Co-op Villages: The Next Evolution (free PDF book download)

The Simple Living Network

Appropedia: The Sustainability Wiki

Xtracycle

Bicycle-related posts on TechnoEarthMama

Sustainability-related posts on TechnoEarthmama

I also know of several negative issues that lead me not to shop at Wal-Mart. Some of my reasons are personal, and some are more global.

Wal-Mart isn’t very close to where I live. The closest one is 5.3 miles away by car or bike. That’s further than I normally go to shop. I tend to stay within a mile or two of home.

Being inside a Wal-Mart store makes me crazy. They’re crowded, the shelves and excess merchandise tower over you, and the merchandise is often misplaced.  The noise level is high, and the lines are long — even in the express lanes.

Wal-Mart doesn’t pay employees enough. There’s some controversy about this. People in some positions say they are getting paid enough. Others think it’s OK, because these jobs are often filled by students, retirees, and other part-timers anyway.  I do think people deserve to be paid a living wage, but I’m not sure any more how to judge Wal-Mart in this area.  Wal-Mart’s average hourly wage for U.S. workers in 2008 was $10.86.

Wal-Mart sells things too cheaply. What? That’s a problem? But Wal-Mart is providing a service to the community by keeping their prices low.  NO. Sorry. There are several things wrong with this.  How do they get the prices so low? By underpaying employees, by squeezing their suppliers (who are then forced to cut their costs somehow), and by selling merchandise that’s made in other countries where manufacturing and labor are cheaper (even cheaper than Wal-Mart wages).

I’m not OK with getting lower prices on the backs of other people.  Also, people in the U.S. have now gotten the impression that we should always get the lowest possible prices on everything, and that we deserve to have things that are really luxury items at lower prices too.  Remember when some people couldn’t afford TV’s, VCR’s, and video game systems? These things are now almost considered a human right in the U.S.  Give us the lower prices, environment, salaries and human rights be damned! And meanwhile people wonder where all of the good manufacturing jobs have gone.

With all that said, I’m still shopping occasionally at Target (which is closer) for the things I need. Mostly little things, like contact lens solution and laundry detergent.  Because they’re cheaper at Target. I’m told that Target is possibly more unpleasant than Wal-Mart as an employer.  Hypocritical? Yeah. Alternative? I don’t know, is Fred Meyer any better?

SOURCES

Frugality should be a way of life, not something that we do only in case of emergency.  Oh, sure, there are times when we move to frugality extreme (dry beans and powdered milk all week because you had to pay the heating bill from the Snowpocalypse, anyone?  Or is that just me?).

But signs are pointing to this being more than just a recession.  Even if the economy does pick up a little due to governmental stimulus programs, the way we run the economy now just isn’t sustainable.  It’s all built on the ideas that growth is good, and that spending money on stuff is good.  It should be perfectly obvious to everyone that you can’t have infinite growth with a finite supply of resources, but we keep sticking our fingers in our ears and singing the consumerism song.

So I don’t want to hear about clipping coupons, making your own coffee, or keeping your tires inflated any more.  I want to hear about real change: about local economies that work, about communities where people are living, working and eating together, and about steady instead of growth.  I want to hear about people who are making lifestyle changes for good, not just until the economy picks up again.

The news yesterday and today says that Oregon has an $800 million shortfall in this year’s budget, which has to be balanced before the legislature can work on and approve the next budget.  Apparently the state says there will be cuts across the board, in every agency, but of course the cuts people are worried about come in education, law enforcement, and human services.

Some people are asking whether we can make cuts in other areas instead.  Maybe.  I have a hard time matching the budget information on the state’s website with what I’m hearing in the news, but it looks to me like 16-18 percent of the budget goes into administration.  Could that stand a few more cuts?  Maybe. What about natural resources and state parks, instead of schools?  Tough choice.

One result of these budget cuts could be a shorter school year in some districts.  Cutting the school year short by two weeks means that the district doesn’t have to pay employees for those two weeks, cutting a huge chunk of cash in one fell swoop.

This makes me think of Laura Ingalls Wilder.  If you’ve read her books, you’ll remember that she became a teacher at age 16.  Her first job lasted just two months, because a two months’ school was all the homeowners in that district could afford.

Is that where we find ourselves now?  We, the taxpayers, will just have to settle for what we can afford?  And remember, in Laura’s town they also didn’t have parks, or a rec center, and law enforcement was probably fairly minimal.  We’ve gotten used to having government provide many things that they didn’t have then.

It’s difficult to choose, but just like when we budget for our families, we have to budget for the essentials first.  The tricky part is figuring out what those essentials are.

DISCLOSURE: I work in a public school.  Our superintendent says our district should be OK for this year, but if the school year were cut, it would financially impact me and my family.

But gardening is part of our family’s food plan, and should be a big part of our society’s food plan.  Some people are calling for the return of the Victory Garden.  Whatever you call it, we need it.

One question often asked is “Is it worth it?”  After all, you can spend a lot of money gardening, not even taking your time into account.  Seeds, tools, raised beds, soil amendments, plant starts, and fertilizer can all cost money.  But really, many of these can be one time or once in a while expenses.  Once you get started, you can save your own seeds, make your own compost, and start your own seedlings in late winter.

And then you’ll spend time digging, planting, weeding, watering, and harvesting.  If you compare it all with grocery store prices, you may decide it’s not worth it.

But what if we value our home-grown and home-preserved food differently?  Here’s what Rick Saenz of Dry Creek Chronicles has to say:

If by that question I mean, “Was it cost effective?”, then the answer is No. Just no. I can buy one hundred eighty quarts of canned tomatoes at Sam’s for about one hundred and eighty dollars, and it would have been much easier and quicker to earn one hundred and eighty dollars than to can those tomatoes.

Oops.  That doesn’t sound very frugal in “time is money” terms.

Many people say that it’s worth it because the food is healthier.  You get better nutrition and fewer pesticides (assuming you garden organically).  You know what you’re feeding your household, because you grew it.  It’s also worth it as a personal achievement.  It feels good to produce something, and to be more self sufficient.

Saenz says it’s more than this.  He says that we need to move from a cash-based economy, where time is money, and we have to earn cash to pay for the things we need, to a subsistence-based economy, in which we can produce the things we need ourselves, either as a family or as a community.

That sounds like a viable future to me.

Even if we can’t grow everything we need at our own house, we can still find ways to be independent of cash.  Maybe I can’t have chickens, but I could grow some broccoli and trade for eggs.  Or maybe I could do some sewing in exchange.  I could even barter copy-writing for things that we need.

Some people don’t have land for growing food.  Community gardens and bartering can help with this, but apartment and condo-dwellers could also make arrangements to share someone else’s land — perhaps planting a garden in someone’s backyard, and in exchange, giving the homeowner a share of the produce (people in the UK are already doing this).

Once again, it’s all about getting local.  What can you do in your community to help these things happen?

No Impact Man wrote about “The Tom Sawyer Approach to Saving the World.”

To change people’s values, so the shrinks say, you change their behavior. You don’t barrage them with ideas and cause information overload. You don’t tell them their existing values are wrong and get their backs up.

What you do is you get them to change their behavior and, once you’ve done that, you let their ideas and values change all by themselves. “What a great idea we’ve come up with,” they’ll say.

Basically, you get them to join you in doing something, and then once they start doing it, they realize the value of it.  So, can you invite someone to join you on a food adventure?  Maybe you could invite just one person to share a meal with you, made from your own garden produce.  And maybe that would evolve into a weekly or monthly shared meal.  And maybe you could give them some of your started plants for their own garden.

And maybe later, you could each invite someone else to join you.  You might even end up with a co-op in your neighborhood!

What can you do?

My nine year old daughter enjoys basketball.  I’ve been thinking I ought to sign her up for something, too, but they don’t have a school team, and I haven’t found anything else that would work.

But for goodness’ sake, do I really need to sign them up for these things in order to be a good parent?

All too often, we think that’s the case.  Valerie Zercher-Weaver points out in Sojourners magazine that we think we have to spend money in order to be good parents (or at least that’s what advertisers want us to think).   It’s not just toys.  I don’t buy my kids a lot of toys (although somehow they still have plenty), but I do fall into the trap of thinking that if I don’t buy them classes and lessons and other experiences I’m not a good enough parent.

Maybe I should go about this differently.  Maybe I should spend time playing baseball and basketball with my kids, and make sure they have time and opportunity to play with friends.  Do they really need to be in structured programs, especially at a young age?

My nine year old says she doesn’t care about being on a team; she just likes playing basketball with her friends.  So that’s an easy decision.  I’m still not sure about the Little League.