Everyone likes cheap consumer goods. What if they're right?

Sign up | Read more Future Perfect stories | What is Future Perfect? | Submit a question to Your Mileage May Vary

 

Hey readers,

 

Happy Friday! It’s deputy editor Izzie Ramirez here, with a quick update before Kelsey builds the case for why cheap things are good. Here’s what’s going on in the world of Future Perfect:

 

🤖 Be honest. How many of you are using AI to do your taxes? Do you think it’s a good use case for the technology? 

 

🥩 Eating more meat won’t make America healthy again.

 

😳 The bizarre link between your anxiety medications and…Atlantic salmon?

 

👀 Our senior reporter Sigal Samuel wants to know if you have a question you want her to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column? She recently answered a reader’s question on whether combining finances with her boyfriend makes her a bad feminist. If you do, just hit reply to this email! 


Well, we’ll see you Wednesday!

 

Kelsey Piper is a senior writer for Future Perfect. She writes about science, technology, and progress. You can read more of her work here and follow her on X.

Kelsey Piper is a senior writer for Future Perfect. She writes about science, technology, and progress. You can read more of her work here and follow her on X.

 

We live in a consumerist society. But at least speaking for my own social circles, we also live in an anti-consumerist society: We purchase lots of things, and we also feel vaguely guilty about it and brag about all of the ways we do without. (Buy secondhand! Get things off a Buy Nothing group! Reuse! Recycle!)

 

Some of this anti-consumerism is driven by concerns about work conditions in the developing countries we trade with, and I certainly think improving work conditions in those countries should be a high global priority. Some of it is driven by environmental concerns, and I would similarly rejoice at a carbon tax that tried to capture the externalities of our consumption.

But I think some of the anti-consumerism is driven by less noble motives. The wealthier you are, the more accessible the alternatives are to buying things off Amazon. You can afford to get products custom-made for you, or make them yourself; you have more leisure time to go pick things up off Facebook Marketplace or drive up and down half the coast thrift shopping.

Most people can’t. For them, the ability to purchase cheap consumer products at affordable prices is life-changing. And I think that, as the Trump administration tries to rationalize its tariffs by assuring us that we don’t need affordable goods, it’s high time to acknowledge that, in fact, it is a good thing when goods are affordable.

Amazon boxes all wrapped up.

Bloomberg via Getty Images

Cheap things are good

 

It seems odd to write a defense of cheap things at all. Americans do, overwhelmingly, buy things on Amazon and on its even cheaper Chinese competitors. Keeping prices low is one of the most important issues to voters. 

In practice, everyone wants cheap consumer goods, everyone votes for cheap consumer goods, and everyone chooses cheap consumer goods. But, generally, they do it with a lot of hand-wringing. 

 

I wrote earlier this week on X about some of the things that cheap consumer goods have made possible in my life and for my family. I run a civics class at my kids’ school; there are 10 kids, and purchasing 10 of anything adds up quickly. But because consumer goods are cheap, I was able to buy equipment for papermaking when we wanted to learn about papermaking, model trees and people for our talk about urban design, dress-up costumes for the occasional special lesson, and much more. 

 

I can try a hobby I’d otherwise never try if it were a $1,000 outlay to get the equipment my (large) family needed. I bought plastic dice when I wanted to get into Dungeons & Dragons. I don’t have to jump down my oldest daughter’s throat when she inexplicably manages to rip the hem off every single dress she owns because we can afford to replace it. 

 

My family is wealthy; we could make do with higher consumer prices. But a lot of families cannot. And even for the well-off, lower consumer prices mean I can donate 30 percent of our income to charity and give my kids good lives and save for retirement. 

 

People on X were quick to assure me that all this is overconsumption. I could sew my kids’ Halloween costumes from scratch, someone told me. Why buy dice to play D&D? Don’t you know you can use a dice-roller app on your phone? (Another commentator objected in my defense to that response that “just own a phone” is perhaps not the most anti-consumerist of sentiments; the first commentator said anyone can get a phone because you can finance it.) Have I borrowed from my neighbors? Am I in my local Buy Nothing group?

 

I am in my local Buy Nothing group; I do borrow from my neighbors, and lend to them. 

 

Nonetheless, access to cheap consumer goods makes my life wildly better, and it makes things accessible that otherwise wouldn’t be possible at all for me. I think some of the responses I received were less about how to live in harmony with the planet (for which living in a walkable neighborhood and not owning a car matters far more than buying things off Amazon) or how to improve economic conditions in poor countries (for which free trade is actually one of the best tools we know of) and more about if they represented a reflexive disgust of each other’s consumption habits. 

 

And so I’m anti-anti-consumerism, at least in its current form. It’s full of harsh judgment of other people for not sewing their children’s outfits by hand, which is willfully ignorant of all the ways that — even if you personally rely on thrifting and Buy Nothing groups — your lifestyle is made possible by the fact that consumer goods are affordable. 

 

I think it’s good when consumer goods are affordable; I think it’s good when people on a very limited income can still buy a pile of Christmas presents for their kids; I think it’s good that people can be financially responsible and also have lots of hobbies and fund lots of activities for their kids and their kids’ friends.

 

The tariffs will make our lives worse

 

All of this is a major reason why I think the tariffs are extraordinarily bad. (One estimate on the tariffs as of Thursday — which, of course, may change any moment — is that they amount to a $4,400 tax hike per household.)

 

I don’t think that hiking up the price of consumer goods will make our trading partners overseas better off, and I think it’ll make our lives worse and more difficult, impacting the people who are struggling to get by most profoundly. I think our society is so wealthy that in some ways we’ve lost sight of why, yes, material things do matter, and their inexpensive availability is something to celebrate. 

 

That celebration need not be unnuanced or clueless. Each week on Shabbat, my family says the traditional blessings and sings a song that’s not at all part of the traditional Shabbat liturgy, Vienna Teng’s “Landsailor” — a love song to trucks and trains and cargo ships and the global supply chain, a hymn of celebration for deep winter strawberries and the abundance that has made every person in America richer than a medieval king. 

 

It is also about the price in human suffering, animal suffering, environmental damage, and danger we’re inviting as we build a world increasingly powered by people and sacrifices we don’t see. But the spirit in the song is one of joy and celebration, tempered by awareness of the bigger picture — not one of condemnation, contempt, or disgust. 

 

Right now, it’s a MAGA talking point that affordable goods have somehow corroded our society and we have a patriotic duty to accept high price increases in the service of Trump’s vision. But their argument has a lot in common with the loathing of the American consumer on the left.

 

I am generally in favor of a world where we tax externalities and ban forced labor, but I want a world where more people can consume like Americans, not a world where no one is.  The good is something to celebrate, and abundance is a form the good takes. It’s also something that frees us up to tackle the world’s ills in both their ancient and modern forms.

 

—Kelsey Piper, senior writer

 

📲 Questions? Comments? Tell us what you think! If there is a topic you want us to explain or a story you’re curious to learn more about, fill out this form or email us at futureperfect@vox.com.  

 

These fluffy white wolves explain everything wrong with bringing back extinct animals

two white wolf puppies

Colossal Biosciences

Let’s start with what should be obvious: The wolf pups are not dire wolves, and they haven’t been “de-extincted.” While many people might imagine that de-extincting animals risks a Jurassic Park-style meltdown that puts humans in danger, the real threat is the other way around: It’s the harm that we do to the animals, explains deputy editor Marina Bolotnikova.

 

More on this topic from Vox:

    • Bringing back woolly mammoths and dodos is a bad idea
    • Should we put pig organs in humans? We asked an ethicist.
    • 43 lab monkeys escaped in South Carolina. They have a legal claim to freedom.
 

The world's biggest animal cruelty problem, explained in one chart

Close-up of an animal's eye

Watcha/Getty Images

Among the most severe welfare problems on factory farms, one isn’t obvious to the naked eye, like tight spaces — it’s baked into the animals’ genes. The most stark example is chicken, which accounts for over 90 percent of animals raised for food. These birds are getting bigger faster, to the point where it's physically painful for them, senior reporter Kenny Torrella explains.

 

More on this topic from Vox:

    • Meet the new neighbors: 7.5 million chickens and their mountains of manure
    • They spoke up about factory farming. Now, they’re being threatened by their neighbors.
    • 4 reasons why factory farming still exists

 

 

📢 What ethical questions do you have? Talk to us!

 

Your Mileage May Vary is senior reporter Sigal Samuel’s advice column offering you a framework for thinking through your philosophical questions every other Sunday right here in your inbox.

To submit a question anonymously, click here.
 
WHAT WE’RE THINKING ABOUT
A photo of an old mosaic of an angel

Roslan Rahman/AFP via Getty Images

This week’s blurb is going to be a little different. Rather than recommending an article or book or movie, I’m going to recommend an airport. Singapore’s Changi Airport was just named the world’s best for the 13th time, more than any other aerial hub. I used to fly in and out of it pretty often when I was based in Asia, and yes, it really is spectacular: the movie theater, the indoor gardens, the Jewel Rain Vortex — the world’s largest indoor waterfall. More than that, though, Changi is a symbol of a kind of early 21st-century globalism that we’re going to miss now that it’s gone. An openness to international trade and talent is what enabled Singapore to rise “from third world to first,” as its founder Lee Kuan Yew’s memoir is titled, and Changi is its gateway. —Bryan Walsh, editorial director

 

The nonprofit Greener by Default is doing some of the most important yet least flashy work to help animals by using “nudge theory” to subtly redesign cafeterias and dining menus so as to encourage people to eat more plant-based meals. And they just announced possibly their biggest program yet: a partnership with Sodexo, the major food services company, that will work with the group in 400 hospitals by 2026. (Their executive director, Katie Cantrell, was a 2024 Future Perfect honoree — read more about her work here.) —Kenny Torrella, senior reporter

 

Americans are, as my colleague Kenny Torrella has written, weirdly obsessed with protein. The New York Times this week has a deeply researched, hype-free story on what nutrition research really says about protein — some of the answers may surprise you. —Marina Bolotnikova, deputy editor

 

I've always been fascinated by Kerala, a state in India known for unusually high literacy levels, health conditions, and life expectancy. What explains Kerala’s development path? Is it strong welfare policies from a legacy of leftist government, as is often claimed, or a more complicated mix of factors? This Aeon piece by an economic history professor explains. —Sigal Samuel, senior reporter 

 

 

Become a Vox Member

 

Support our journalism — become a Vox Member and you’ll get exclusive access to the newsroom with members-only perks including newsletters, bonus podcasts and videos, and more.

Join our community
 

Are you enjoying the Future Perfect newsletter? Forward it to a friend; they can sign up for it right here.

Want more Future Perfect in your inbox? We also have four other free newsletters you can subscribe to:

  • Good News: a weekly newsletter from Bryan Walsh curating the everyday acts of progress that can help us feel better about the world around us.

  • Processing Meat: a biweekly newsletter from Kenny Torrella and Marina Bolotnikova analyzing how the meat and dairy industries shape health politics, culture, and the environment.

  • Meat/Less: a five-week course on how to eat less meat.

  • More to Meditation: a five-day meditation course providing helpful frameworks to dive deeper into meditation.

Today’s edition was produced by Izzie Ramirez and edited by Bryan Walsh. We'll see you on Wednesday. 

 
FacebookTwitterYouTube

Access the web version of this newsletter here.

 

This email was sent to aymentanaze.news@blogger.com. Manage your email preferences or unsubscribe.

 

View our Privacy Notice and our Terms of Service.

 

Vox Media, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 12, Washington, DC 20036.
Copyright © 2025. All rights reserved.