About high-end eco-products — sometimes in this economy an improvement starts at the high end, and gradually works its way down, by a combination of factors, including providers having saturated the early-adopter market. But as the Desmond article you so usefully refer us to says, providers of basic services to poor people, services like housing or banking, may be doing fine with their exploitative mode, and may have no desire at all to broaden or revise what they offer. And their poor customers having nothing left over for changing their consumption patterns, so the downward spread of the originally high end stuff won’t feel any call. Desmond is devastating on this point.
Thanks Rob. While I agree the high-end products can have a trickle down effect (maybe one of the good things Tesla did give us for instance is leading more car manufactures to produce EVs) but my point in this piece is that for many, the price point makes it feel out of reach. The same might be said for those living in food deserts, the idea of organic food can feel as if it is only for those who have access.
Yes, yes — and Desmond shows us that there are systems at work in housing, banking, etc (food deserts are the same) which keep these alternatives out of reach for the poor, by soaking up all their money on over-priced basics.
Interesting points here, particularly drawn to this comment on cheap goods perpetuating poverty.
"While it may seem as though these cheap goods are helping those in lesser income brackets, the continual production and consumption of cheap goods just perpetuate the problem. The recent feature in the New York Times by Matthew Desmond, Why poverty persists in America, outlines the role of cheap goods as part of the larger systemic issues keeping the poor, poor."
Absolutely. This is exactly what I teach in my course on systems thinking for sustainable design. It goes against the notion of a "design star" which is often what is taught, even if indirectly through the idea that individuals create pretty solutions. If you look at what actually makes a difference in the climate crisis it's not these individual products. I often point designers to Project Drawdown to see how impact can be measured. The real differences are in things like cement, refrigeration, energy. But no one is really going into the design field to make cement sexy to rebrand refrigeration - but they should!
About high-end eco-products — sometimes in this economy an improvement starts at the high end, and gradually works its way down, by a combination of factors, including providers having saturated the early-adopter market. But as the Desmond article you so usefully refer us to says, providers of basic services to poor people, services like housing or banking, may be doing fine with their exploitative mode, and may have no desire at all to broaden or revise what they offer. And their poor customers having nothing left over for changing their consumption patterns, so the downward spread of the originally high end stuff won’t feel any call. Desmond is devastating on this point.
Thanks Rob. While I agree the high-end products can have a trickle down effect (maybe one of the good things Tesla did give us for instance is leading more car manufactures to produce EVs) but my point in this piece is that for many, the price point makes it feel out of reach. The same might be said for those living in food deserts, the idea of organic food can feel as if it is only for those who have access.
Yes, yes — and Desmond shows us that there are systems at work in housing, banking, etc (food deserts are the same) which keep these alternatives out of reach for the poor, by soaking up all their money on over-priced basics.
Interesting points here, particularly drawn to this comment on cheap goods perpetuating poverty.
"While it may seem as though these cheap goods are helping those in lesser income brackets, the continual production and consumption of cheap goods just perpetuate the problem. The recent feature in the New York Times by Matthew Desmond, Why poverty persists in America, outlines the role of cheap goods as part of the larger systemic issues keeping the poor, poor."
Design schools need to equip future designers to ask them address those systemic questions
Absolutely. This is exactly what I teach in my course on systems thinking for sustainable design. It goes against the notion of a "design star" which is often what is taught, even if indirectly through the idea that individuals create pretty solutions. If you look at what actually makes a difference in the climate crisis it's not these individual products. I often point designers to Project Drawdown to see how impact can be measured. The real differences are in things like cement, refrigeration, energy. But no one is really going into the design field to make cement sexy to rebrand refrigeration - but they should!