Deciding between a need and a want is to me a matter of functionality.
i.e.
Although I can afford a new car my 15 year old Subaru is comfortable, economic, reliable does what I need it to do. I have a 'gold' mechanic, who specializes in Subarus, he's cheaper, efficient and great at fixing it when it needs it. I don't see real advantage in buying a Bma or Benz.
My self image doesn't need the additional expenses.
There are much more *worthy* uses for my discretionary money.
I use an old mobile on an old pricing structure. I have no need for a camera, internet browsing or nifty colours all consumerist hot buttons.

In short most marketeers focus on the the features not the functionality.

I.e. The effort is in high tech nick knacks rather than developing a a truly functional product H's electric razor. Why it's easier to sell emotions that function, also our system rewards quantity over quality. we love the idea of new.

My son bought a Wii fit to get fit...4 months later it sits in the corner unused. He was looking for a free lunch (magic bullet)i.e. loosing weight need constant effort.
Me I walk the mini hound of the Basketvilles (my wife's shihtzu) for a couple of miles nightly and watch what I eat.
Now if I could do the same with my home brew.

Speaking of which I have run a blind taste test with my son and he can't tell the difference. Yet Mine cost me $26 for 50 X 500mil bottles. the difference a couple of hours less spine bashing per batch.
Convenience isn't worth the cost.

I think pynchme's example of how she chooses to live has terminally weakened the case for the raving commies.

Notice in this fearsome capitalist system, one 'brave' woman has chosen to buy only what she needs and live her life how she chooses. That she cant control the rest of the populace to follow her example says wonderful things about the freedoms of capitalism. (Not that she's trying, but you get my point.)

When people talk about this supposed 'trap' of capitalism, it can only be by either a self analysis of personal weakness in vanity and greed, or a paternalistic patronising transference to others who don't share your values. 'They just cant see!'

ie: 'My self image doesn't need the additional expenses.'

I happen to drive a 96 Corolla, which I excitedly wait to appear on Top Gear every week. But I don't see this as a means to highlight my anti-materialist street-cred, and I feel no need to excuse myself for the car I drive, or judge others for enjoying a nicer car. I have no lordly proclamations about saving the environment, and I don't proclaim others who choose a different car are any more image conscious than myself.

Where there is a left wing tree hugging hippie, there is a world of self delusion.

A car isn't a car. It's just a 'status' symbol of an alternative kind to that of the supposed materialist. To look down ones nose at the supposed BMW driving 'I'm defined by my car' , while simultaneously deriving an anti materialist, environment saving, non-shallow image by bragging about your own car is one of the funniest things about you lot.

pynchme,

Not sure I wanted so much detail, but thanks anyway.

'If men would like workplace flexibility, why haven't they tried for it ? '
Because men are shackled by the 'societal expectations' of being the bread-winner;-) Any chick who meets a guy whose main aim in life is to work a 3 day week sees a 'loser' who's not gonna be able to afford to keep her when she has the babies. It narrows her life choices, and it narrows the flexibility of the employer, who sees a man without 'ambition'. A layabout. Looking at myself..., pretty accurate!

I have tried for 4 day weeks, but the look on my employers face said it all, and my need for a stable income with young children in a recession with the wife at home outweighs my need for career suicide. Employers are just much more 'understanding' if it's the chick who 'comes back part time' after maternity leave. If guys had Paternity leave, they might get a similar breaking down of expectations, but the feminists scream blue murder about keeping it 'maternity' leave rather than 'parental' leave.
Might be something to do with keeping it a 'womens' issue and the breast feeding nazis, or men 'riding off the back' of womens lobbing efforts, or being seen as gender envy me too whinging.

Anyway, I recognise my desire is a luxuary I can afford due to my salary. Many men have to work 60 hour weeks just to attain what would be my 3 day salary. Maybe that's why many men aren't so keen as me.

'Clearly it isn't working'.

I think it is working in absolute terms, just not in relative terms. But it's been shown people would rather be relatively richer and absolutely poorer.

'the biggest tax burden'
In percentages, not in dollars!

BTW: Romany is in China!

Houellebecq: You asked for information didn't you.
You make a lot of judgments about other people - and no need to entertain the word 'brave'; I would say 'indifferent' is more accurate.

The workplace flexibility proposals I put forward didn't include working less than a 40 hour week. Maybe you could reread that bit and ponder it a bit more. Your 3 days thing is fine - just being a part-timer or casual isn't it? Unless you mean you want to work about 13 hours a day.

My vision isn't that individuals bargain and scrape and bow to their Lords, but that for some industries it be an option made available to workers. No overtime rates, but more choice in when and where we work.
The Unions and bosses would have to work out what was possible for lots of different industry settings. Like what if all production could be done in 3 days? What if any employer could have halve the staff at work the first half of the week and then bring in the rest later in that week? What opportunities might that provide ?

Besides I want my paperless office!

I didn't know that any feminists were opposed to paternity or parental leave and can't imagine why they would be. I'm not; nor is anyone I know. Besides, do you or your boss always wait for feminists to tell you what hoop to jump through?

Blokes working 60 hours per week. Gee. Yet here you were saying that feminists work hard not smart. What a bunch of suckers to not only not even question a system that demands that of people; but to go to any length to defend it.

Examinator - hiya Zam - what you describe re: your son's Wii is exactly what I mean. Crazy stuff isn't it? Apparently some of us are working 60 hours a week, at detriment to family life, to buy junk we don't get around to using

Here's a report put together by St. Vinnie's on taxation and poverty and the like:

http://vinnies.org.au/files/pdfs/National/other/20030417-other_SubmissiontoSenateInquiryintoStructureofAustTaxationSystem.pdf

This link to a Word doc is from p. 3. Not sure if copy/pasting it will work here but it might:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/poverty/submissions/sub44.doc

The report also talks about the ways in which corporations and high income earners avoid taxation - such as through using tax havens outside Australia and through use of family trusts. For example, there are about 300,000 Australians living in extreme poverty. This report is a few years old - family trusts had grown to about 200,000. That is - represented at least 200,000 individuals at the other end of the social wealth scale. An example - and this person was claiming family benefits as well:

THE TAX TREATMENT OF FAMILY TRUSTS:
A CASE STUDY
An ACT café proprietor had a taxable income of:
$6,150 (later declared at almost $24,000 due to changes in tax treatment)
􀁸 entitling her to family benefits
The Trust owned/provided:
􀁸 the café 􀁸 a BMW
􀁸 an executive retreat 􀁸 a Jaguar
􀁸 rented accommodation, 􀁸 their son’s “exclusive” private school fees
􀁸 various credit card accounts
Source: ACT Supreme Court

(Adel Horin (2001)
reported on a case in the
ACT Supreme Court in
which, through the use of
Trust legislation.

It's just not socially or morally just. It's not even basically honest.

Anyway, just FYI

Houellebecq,<If guys had Paternity leave, they might get a similar breaking down of expectations, but the feminists scream blue murder about keeping it 'maternity' leave rather than 'parental' leave."

Where on earth did you get that idea from? I am with Pynchme on this one. Most new mothers would give their eyeteeth to have the baby's father home to help care for the newborn. It is so much easier with the two parents there to support each other, even if just for a short while.

Many employers now have paid paternity or parental leave Houellebecq, and if we can thank the feminists or the anti-female brigade for this, it doesn't matter which!