
A New Kind of Conspicuous Consumption - Red_
http://www.wired.com/2015/03/stuffocation-the-weird-way-facebook-and-instagram-make-us-happier/
======
kelukelugames
A few years ago when being a foodie was all the rage, my friends would upload
tons of pictures of exquisite meals from expensive restaurants.

It inspired me to create a food blog on facebook. Every week I would upload
something tacky and anti-yuppy. My posts included Choco Tacos, Wendy's
hamburgers, and cups of ramen.

Now I'm thinking of posting my experiences at the grocery story, Home Depot,
etc.

~~~
pbiggar
You may think you're doing the opposite of what they're doing, but actually
you're doing the same thing.

Conspicuous nonconsumption [0], as I call it, is all the rage in SF and among
engineers. That's why everyone wears hoodies and tshirts: to show that they're
different from MBAs and the suits and the bankers. But that's just another way
to show your status: you are the member of an exclusive club that doesn't need
suits to have high status.

And so with your blog. You're identifying as part of a group that's too good
for status symbols. You're explicitly saying "I'm not like you" and implicitly
saying "I'm better than you because I don't need whatever things you find
valuable".

You're showing off your non-consumption for high status, in exactly the same
way that they're showing off their consumption for high status. At the end of
the day, you're both just showing off for high status! [1]

[0] See also "stealth wealth"

[1] No judgement here, btw: in tech, I think we all do this, me included.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
Hoodies and t-shirts?! That's so 2012. What part of San Francisco are you in?
All the cool startups in SoMa are enforcing a strict lumbersexual dress code
these days.

~~~
andyidsinga
somebody sent me a post about the lumbersexual thing ( I think it was this one
: [http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/6235-the-
lumbersexual-...](http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/6235-the-lumbersexual-
is-here-to-chop-down-metrosexuals) ). Sort of bugs me that some basic clothing
that's good for outdoors and daily life in the northwest gets co-opted into a
fashion thing

~~~
pndmnm
Sigh. I grew up on the Olympic Peninsula (far western Washington) and this is
basically my whole wardrobe. Moved to the bay area over the summer and now I
feel gross wearing it. Hopefully fashion moves on soon and I can wear the
clothes I have and like in peace.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
Don't worry. In another year or so, everybody will shave their beards and
trade in their plaid shirts and blue Wrangers so that they can revolutionize
fashion by disrupting some other group's wardrobe.

In the meantime, you should consider setting up shop as a recruiter. You could
probably place your Washington friends in jobs at startups here fairly easily.
If they can memorize a few words/acronyms (Angular, MVVM, etc.) and are
willing to show up to the interview with an axe for good measure, you'll be
cashing checks in no time.

------
tambourine_man
I feel like an alien reading an article like this.

The idea of "showing off" with vacations, weekend events or even professional
accomplishments seems preposterous to me. How is this socially acceptable is
beyond my comprehension.

Likewise, I'm probably only interested in knowing where 10 or so people spent
their vacation, and even then, only when the narrative is directed at me or a
small number of friends. I can't understand how a public parade of general
info and photos can be anything other than utterly shallow and boring.

Needless to say, I don't get Facebook.

~~~
joe_the_user
I feel alien reading this too and I have ~500 friends on Facebook.

I don't see people doing anything like this. Maybe I'm selective but really
next-to no friends share their consumption. I think the share-your-sunsets-
and-dives-into-waterfalls is the movie version of Facebook. We wind up sharing
cats, snark and sad moments.

~~~
dilap
curious: how old are you? location? friend's locations?

i'm 33, sf now oregon raised, and i'd say in general i see less fb usage by my
friends, but those that still do use it, it's almost all positive, brag-ish
sharing.

people i know with kids, especially, it seems almost impossible to imagine
sharing 'cats, snark, and sad moments'.

~~~
eddy_chan
I feel this, 32M with kids. FB usage by actual friends that I cared about fell
to zero and my feed was full of shallow experiential grandstanding.

Deleted my FB account but copped a hiding from the silent majority for being
'hard to get in touch with' and feel a bit guilty about this but overall life
is better without FB or any other form of social media.

True experientialism is being there in the moment, not standing outside
carefully curating the moment for others to gawk at.

Edit: *experientialism not experimentalism

------
djrobstep
This article is consistent with my anecdotal experience, where I've noticed
high importance placed on travel as a class credential. I grew up in a
household that was low income enough that we never vacationed far from home.
Now that I'm a white collar software developer on a solid middle class income
mixing with middle class folks, mentioning that I've hardly traveled out of
the country generates reactions of surprise, to the extent that I often feel I
have to explain myself and my lack of overseas travel.

~~~
O____________O
_Now that I 'm a white collar software developer on a solid middle class
income mixing with middle class folks_

Are you in the Bay Area? The Bay Area is obsessed with travel. Not that
there's anything wrong with that, since I do feel that travel is great, but
many in the Bay Area have no idea what it's like to come from a background
where it's not even considered a possibility.

When I lived and worked in Arizona, the only "travel" anyone was interested in
were weekend trips to Mexico, or maybe visiting an iconic American city (e.g.
SF). If I'd brought up Thailand, they wouldn't even have known enough to make
ladyboy jokes.

------
metaphorical
"There be three degrees of this hiding and veiling of a man’s self. The first,
closeness, reservation, and secrecy; when a man leaveth himself without
observation, or without hold to be taken, what he is. The second,
dissimulation, in the negative; when a man lets fall signs and arguments, that
he is not, that he is. And the third, simulation, in the affirmative; when a
man industriously and expressly feigns and pretends to be, that he is not."

\-- Francis Bacon

------
mc32
This is one thing I don't get. Why do some people like to pretend to be anti-
consumption while engaged in an economy based on consumption?

Let's put it this way, if all the people, no matter what their income, just
took their income, spent it on the basics and then saved or invested the
remainder, we'd all pretty much end up poorer. No titans of industry (who
would buy consumer goods in a if consumption was avoided), few service
workers, few skilled jobs, fewer blue collar jobs. Mostly we'd have government
employees and people in essential services (farmers, physicians, educators,
etc).

No work at Starbucks, or Amazon, or Google or Tesla. I mean, who would need to
buy anything beside the basics from Amazon, and since commerce would be de-
emphasized, no need for advertising (adwords) on google.

I guess we could live pretty retro lives, living like we were all Amish or
similar, but is that what would be best?

Certainly disposable consumerism is arguably bad, but what if we all decided
quality was paramount and instead of buying ten cheap things, we bought one
expensive but durable thing costing the same as the ten cheap things?

Anyway, our economic system, neo-liberal capitalism, (and others as well)
depend on consumption, frugal wealthy people would impact the economy
negatively.

Look, I dislike Hollywood (it's cheap, base, and unimaginative, rarely is
there "Art") for various reasons, but, at the same time, I understand that
overpaid actors mean that lots of ancillary jobs in Hollywood exist due to
their opulent, unfrugal, spednthrift lifestyles.

~~~
sukilot
The difference is whether consumption is relative equal across society, or is
the masses serving elites, and if we are paying for each others good graces,
or to burn polluting energy sources. A dollar spent paying someone to burn the
plastic remains of your frappucino and then treat your diabetes, or a dollar
spent on a blood diamond or chocolate farmed by a slave child, could be spent
paying someone to pick up litter, or cure genetic disease, or teach you how to
play music. Not all consumption is equally valuable.

~~~
mc32
Yes, of course things could be improved upon. What happens is people say
"overconsumption" as if not consuming would somehow solve things. It would
not. All things being equal, it would make things worse (except perhaps
improve ecology, but it's debatable, since we might miss develping some
superior technologies).

Just one example. Everyone cooked at home. No restaurants. No cooks, chefs,
sole proprietors, severs, etc. in the restaurant industry. There would be no
restaurant industry. We could go on. Extending this, "getting rid of
conspicuous consumption" might hide things, which, I understand, it makes us
feel better, but solves nothing by itself.

~~~
chipsy
One of the things I think that tends to underpin "overconsumption" arguments
is the idea of consumerism as a cultural force: The idea that if you're
leaving your home and going to public space, your business will involve, at
some point, making a purchase, and this purchase is intended to reflect on
your identity.

Now, of course that isn't what people actually do, but that's how we've
aligned everything: If you "go out" but you don't do work or buy something
while you're out, you're transgressing the cultural rules. But if we design
spaces and situations that are only for buying, we cut off other avenues of
experience.

An idea I recall from a well-known chef, which I'm probably butchering a bit,
is that a high-end restaurant experience isn't there just to be everyday
consumption, but to inspire one's own cooking as well. That's very different
from the purpose of going to a McDonald's, and the simplistic branding wars of
"McDonald's vs. Burger King" or "Coke vs. Pepsi." It's the latter type of
thing that anticonsumerism really seeks to stamp out.

~~~
mc32
While you're right. People don't get uncomfortable with 'regular people' going
to MacD's, or drinking coke. They may express horror with MacD the corp or
Coke the corp, but not the consumer.

They have an issue with people who show off their wealth --like buying apple
products in the face of cheaper (better?) alternatives. Here the opposite
happens, they at times praise the companies but bash the consumers for showing
off.

------
mistermann
Am I the only one that _likes_ when people post their travel pictures on
Facebook? I find it interesting and like to see all the beautiful places that
I can't go to now that I'm married.

------
Animats
Remember that on Facebook, "sharing" is spamming. If you're getting unwanted
"sharing" from "close friends", demote them to "friends" to stop that.

