Standard of Living and Quality of Living

The other day I read some article about how Americans have to get used to a lower standard of living, because basically we're not as rich as we used to be (for many reasons, including having run up such a massive debt that paying interest on it is now a major portion of our income).

That's kind of a frightening idea, I guess. Until you think about the difference between quality of life and standard of living.

I don't think that the American standard of living, as high as it is, is anywhere close to maximizing the possibilities for quality of life. The wealth that we have is misused and abused. I'm not saying that wealth doesn't contribute to quality of life, but the two are definitely not locked hand in hand.

What would happen if Americans suddenly had much less money to spend? What would go first? Well, we know that people are going to eat, regardless, and they still need clothes and shelter and warmth. People will still need to be creative--so they will still need tools that they can use. What's left? Luxury toys and expenses. If there's less gas/electrical power available, what gets turned off first: the heat, the stove, the computer or the plasma TV? (Side note: the plasma TV is an energy-sucking beast: from http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/tv-energy-star-47020520: "The Wall Street Journal recently published this amazing fact: 'A 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator – even when that TV is used only a few hours a day.' For those keeping score at home, the refrigerator is (or was) the appliance that demands the most electricity.")

And, back to appliances to turn on or off: which of them would improve our quality of life by being turned off (or at least turned off more)? TV, surely.

A lower standard of living would mean that people would not look to answer all their problems by buying something new. I don't even know how many times I've heard someone say "my life would be complete if I could just buy X, or visit Y, but I don't have the money." When I hear that kind of logic, I think, first, of Social Distortion's line in "Ball and Chain:" "Wherever I have gone, I was sure to find myself there; You can run all your life and never go anywhere." And then I think that it's not about the life being "complete" anyway: it's about living well, about a process that engages one and helps one grow and be healthy and happy.

Anyway, it seems to me that there is an opportunity present to us, even in times of scarcity (or, really, scarcity relative to the incredible wealth to which we are accustomed): we have an opportunity to think about what is really important and focus on that.

For the most part, Americans are unfamiliar with living in real scarcity--where there is real difficulty feeding yourself or your children. And I pray that the reduction in the American standard of living will not be so severe that there is not enough food to feed the people. But as we know, there's plenty of food grown--and much of it gets thrown away in the name of profit.

Wouldn't it be great if Americans learned that there was something more important than our standard of living and how much money we have made? If you don't know how to appreciate what you have, then there is little value in wealth; it will just make you fat and unhappy instead of thin and unhappy.