A recent post on Reddit’s r/Anticonsumption community recently reignited a debate that many already quietly wonder about: Why does it feel like living simply and consuming less is somehow harmful to the economy?
A Simpler Life Sounds Ideal, But Our Economy Can’t Handle It
The original poster laid it out plainly. “Instead of people eating at restaurants and getting takeout, they cooked more home-made meals. Instead of buying new clothes, people made do with the ones they had,” they wrote. The idea of swapping clothes, watching movies from the library, and walking or biking instead of driving sounds not only reasonable, but good for the planet.
Don't Miss:
- Forget Flipping Houses — This $36 Trillion Asset Class Lets You Invest Without Owning Property
- Meet Flippy: The AI Robot Helping Fast Food Brands Cut Tens of Billions in Labor Costs — And You Can Invest Early
And yet, they noted, if everyone started living that way, “it would cripple our economy.”
Commenters quickly chimed in with explanations. One of the most-upvoted replies put it directly: “Capitalism is incompatible with environmentalism.”
Even though many agreed that scaling back is the moral or ecological choice, several people explained that our entire system is built on endless expansion. One wrote, “Capitalism requires infinite growth in order for it to operate. Individual greed is irrelevant.”
As another commenter pointed out, “we got tricked into believing that in a system with finite resources, there can be infinite growth. When this bubble pops, it’s going to take the whole world with it.”
Trending: This Jeff Bezos-backed startup will allow you to become a landlord in just 10 minutes, with minimum investments as low as $100.
Others pointed out the irony in how what's good for individuals—saving money, appreciating what we have, consuming less—is seen as bad for GDP. As one commenter described, “GDP is more or less a measurement of how quickly money circulates.” If it slows down, the economy suffers.
And yet, people living paycheck to paycheck often already adopt minimalist habits out of necessity, not ideology. One person shared, “If people work hard and no growth in pay comes about, then we buy less because we don’t have the money to do so.”
The discussion wasn’t all doom and gloom. Several comments emphasized that alternative economic models are possible. “Japan has been in population decline for decades,” one person noted. “Their GDP stopped growing, but people still enjoy a high standard of living.”
See Also: Have $100k+ to invest? Charlie Munger says that's the toughest milestone — don't stall now. Get matched with a fiduciary advisor and keep building
Some advocated for investing in quality over quantity. “I want to give my money to companies that manufacture sustainably and without slave labor,” one wrote. “Let the crap products and services fail. That is your power as a consumer.”
Others pushed for bigger changes, like taxing wealth instead of labor, transitioning to local economies, or redefining what economic success looks like. “[We need] to restructure our country's measure of success. GDP is all about consumption,” one person said. We should focus on quality of life measures instead.
Still, the tension remained: Can an economy based on constant buying ever support a culture that values enough?
As the original poster summed up, “The system is definitively incompatible with what is good for us and for the planet.”
Read Next: Backed by $300M+ in Assets and Microsoft's Climate Fund, Farmland LP Opens Vital Farmland III to Accredited Investors
Image: Shutterstock
