
Modern American elites have come to favour inconspicuous consumption - SQL2219
https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21725751-new-book-looks-how-expenditure-has-changed-among-americas-affluent-modern-american
======
kristopolous
Maybe I'm not the mainstream, but the more money I have, the less obligated I
feel to use any of it.

Every car I've owned has been cheaper than the previous and honestly these
days I'm mostly public transit. But at the same time, I've become many times
richer between each car purchase.

I love the non connection and unpreciousness of my possessions - how
profoundly and easily replaceable they are and how detached I am from them.

At the end what is wealth other than excess of liberty and freedom. An ability
to purchase luxury without much concern for the cost is at its highest form
when someone can also dismiss most of the luxury as frivolous and not purchase
it at all.

~~~
gaius
_how profoundly and easily replaceable_

It is no great virtue to think that when you have wealth, but try living like
that when you are poor and all of your meagre possessions were hard-earned.

Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> It is no great virtue to think that when you have wealth, but try living
like that when you are poor and all of your meagre possessions were hard-
earned.

>> Minimalism is an ostentatious luxury.

Those are separate things. Minimalism would be the opposite of buying things
that are easily replaceable. Surely you would buy things that don't need
replaced often/can be repaired and are higher quality/more expensive.

Using plastic dishes, throwing them out after every meal, and buying new ones
isn't minimalism. Spending money on 4 good quality ceramic plates which will
last the next 10 years is.

~~~
taway_1212
> Spending money on 4 good quality ceramic plates which will last the next 10
> years is.

Are there bad quality ceramic plates? Mine costed $1-$3 each and they're
great.

~~~
kaybe
I think it's just a bad example. Unless you mishandle them these things never
break and are basically free at the next good-will or fleamarket.

Maybe shoes are a better example? Though identifying good quality is a lot of
work in itself and may signal status I guess.

~~~
pm90
Shoes: definitely. But it applies to other, seemingly mundane things. e.g.
Cookware, Vacuum Cleaner, Furniture etc. The quality differential b/w a dyson
and the cheap $20 vaccuuum is staggering; using a dyson is a pleasant
experience while the $20 cheapo? Not so much.

Don't get me wrong. When I was a grad student, I bought the cheapest vacuum,
cheapest shoes and clothes. But I did know that better quality things did
exist, and didn't hesitate to purchase them when I could finally afford to.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
Dyson vacuums have interesting industrial design, but in terms of function
they don't even make the CR top ten[1], so yes, I expect they are better than
some, but they are also more expensive than most.

1: [https://www.consumerreports.org/products/upright-
vacuum/rati...](https://www.consumerreports.org/products/upright-
vacuum/ratings-overview/)

~~~
pm90
Those reviews are paywalled, so I can't really see what criterion they are
using to rate a product high/low. I agree though that Dyson's are pricey, but
they last long and are a joy to use. Not saying there aren't other models that
do the same.

------
headmelted
I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and I've come to the
conclusion that I'm something of an odd duck.

I don't really understand the desire that people have for status symbols and
"keeping up with the Joneses" \- but what really confounds me is the decisions
virtually everyone else in my life makes when it comes to money.

It's like this is the conversation happening in my head: "Look, we're friends.
I know what you do for a living, so I can guesstimate within a not-orders-of-
magnitude margin of error what kind of money you make. You clearly can't
afford this car/house/gadget without going into debt, and this is a luxury
purchase. What the f __* are you doing dude? ", but I obviously don't say this
because it's none of my business.

Some of my friends (and even extended family) seem to have some very naive
views about the nature of money and wealth, and this is the part that really
makes me uneasy.

It seems that going into high levels of debt and living month-to-month is, at
least where I am in the world, the universally and culturally accepted
lifestyle strategy. I genuinely can't understand it at all. Is there something
everyone else knows that I don't?

I'm fortunate I guess in that I have a STRONG preference that my
friends/family don't know my personal finances or think I earn less than I do
(I don't need our income differential making good friendships weird), so it
suits me not to have showy toys and trinkets. I also get a lot more
satisfaction knowing I'm making progress each month on a small but growing
safety net for my kids rather than a shiny SUV in the driveway.

~~~
dougmwne
I've been thinking about this a lot recently too. So much of what we do in
life is driven by its social signaling value. Our lists of likes, dislikes,
purchases, hobbies, decisions, and more are all heavily influenced by the
perceptions and judgements of the people around us.

Take the decision to buy that shiny SUV. People know that the age and quality
of the car you drive is linked to your personality and financial success. If
you buy yourself a Model X, 95% of people around you will perceive you
differently: environmentally concerned, passionate early adopter, bad at ROI
calculations. Driving a beater even though you could obviously afford more is
another way of signaling your prudence and risk tolerance.

And why not? We are first and foremost social, tribal creatures. So I would
say you're not an odd duck, there's just a different set of values you're
trying to signal.

~~~
graedus
> So I would say you're not an odd duck, there's just a different set of
> values you're trying to signal.

I agreed with most of your comment, but this sentence seems to imply that
_all_ decisions are purely or at least primarily for the purpose of signaling
values to others. I don't think this is true. Humans may be very social and
tribal creatures, but I don't think that means it's impossible to make
decisions without caring what other people think, like who reads the "signals"
generated from e.g. the prudent purchase of a used Honda or whatever.

~~~
dougmwne
>like who reads the "signals" generated from e.g. the prudent purchase of a
used Honda or whatever

These social signals form an entire nonverbal language and we are always
speaking. Your used Honda is saying more than you realize. Making decisions
without caring what other people think speaks volumes as well.

~~~
fanzhang
Just because everything you do generates a social signal, doesn't mean
everything you do is strongly influenced by the desire to generate that social
signal.

As a analogy, everything I do might generate some amount of sound. When I'm
singing karaoke, the primary goal is to generate that sound. When I move my
bookshelf by dragging it across the floor, the sound is incidental.

Likewise, I think it's perfectly possible for someone to actually to want to
buy the Model X outside of signals it generates for the world, even though it
generates a signal.

------
PeanutCurry
I'm not rich but I make enough on a yearly basis that I can pay my rent, have
a few hundred dollars worth of fun per month, and still tuck away enough money
for the future that as long as things continue or don't become/stay terrible
for longer than a year I should be able to maintain the lifestyle that I like.
Of the disposable/fun things that my budget goes towards, none of the things
in this article are things I find appealing.

Don't get me wrong, nice things are nice. Go figure. But I work in a mixed
city with people from much higher and much lower than me on the economic
latter. In my experience, owning a lot of nice things means that you're going
to have a harder time befriending people who are significantly lower on the
income latter. I don't expect this to be a problem for everyone, but for me
and I suspect people like me, it's difficult because I just like going out and
being social in meatspace. There's plenty I could do to overcome that when I
meet new people, but I don't want to have to overcome walking in and looking
like the rich guy. And I don't want to have to think about going to a concert
at a bar in a poor neighborhood because I drove a nice car.

Things like saving for my children, as the article discusses, make sense
because they tie in with long term happiness imo. If I ever do have children
it's not hard for me to imagine wanting to give them as much support as I can
to ensure they succeed. I wouldn't want to see them struggle because of
resources. But luxury goods don't affect me longterm happiness in the same way
and often they feel to me as having a social opportunity cost. The difference
in price between what I drive and a nice car could fund a lot of bar nights,
concerts, parties at people's houses, etc. And that's just not a cost that's
worth it from my perspective.

~~~
justboxing
> and much lower than me on the economic latter.

I found this group of people after I joined my local boxing gym. It totally
grounded me. It takes an extraordinary amount of discipline and hard work to
be a professional boxer. And yet most professional boxers I know are at the
very low end of the income ladder.

Their friendship is real and genuine and I really love that and try to support
them in every which way I can...

~~~
cableshaft
Yep, have a hobby, especially an inexpensive one, and you can bond with people
of all economic strata based on that.

Mine is board games. I already have a ton, so I don't need people to have
their own. We can meet at a public space, like a food court, not spend a dime,
and all have a great time. We don't really care what everyone's economic
status is, just how we interact with each other while playing the games.

------
michaelt

      Rather than frittering away that precious leisure time
      on frivolities, [today’s rich] devote it to enriching
      experiences, like attending the opera, [...] The modern
      equivalent of Victorian worsted-stocking wearers are
      hipsters
    

Maybe it's different where I live to where the author does, but most operas
I've seen have had a predominantly grey-haired audience, and management
obviously worried about the future of their ageing audience.

Plaid shirts, bushy beards, tattoos, piercings, single-speed bicycles and
people in their 20s have not been in evidence.

~~~
Spearchucker
Royal Opera House always seems to have a good range of ages. Maybe it depends
on the opera.

~~~
ue_
Interesting, I'm rather young and I can't imagine any of my friends wanting to
see a play (unless it's provided free by the university's drama society or
they have to attend), much less an orchestra performance, and much less an
opera. I doubt they'd be able to decide to see one opera over another too :)

~~~
azernik
The specific cultural experiences have changed with a younger generation -
hot-off-Broadway musicals, live concerts, music festivals, etc.

------
hkmurakami
>Chief among them is education for their children: the top 10% now allocate
almost four times as much of their spending to school and university as they
did in 1996, whereas for other groups the figure has hardly budged.

How much of this is driven by the heavy increase in postsecondary education
costs, as well as a Masters degree being the new Bachelors degree for setting
your child apart from the pack? (I know many parents who press their child to
go for a Masters with this rather superficial reasoning)

~~~
ubernostrum
It's more that, for people who have the money, the process of throwing serious
money at education starts much earlier, and the amount of money is higher than
ever. Go read about extremely-competitive pre-kindergarten programs with
gigantic waiting lists for parents desperate to start their child on an Ivy
League track as soon as possible. Follow up with top private schools, intense
private tutoring, and parents who literally do things like buy a clinic or an
orphanage somewhere in a developing country so their child can "work" there
for a couple summers and write about the experience in their admissions
application:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/to-get-
to-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/to-get-to-harvard-
go-to-haiti.html)

 _Richard Weissbourd, a child psychologist and Harvard lecturer who has
studied the admissions process in the interest of reforming it, recalled
speaking with wealthy parents who had bought an orphanage in Botswana so their
children could have a project to write and talk about. He later became aware
of other parents who had bought an AIDS clinic in a similarly poor country for
the same reason._

~~~
madengr
Funny, everyone I know who is doing well never went to an Ivy League school.
The most wealthy (net worth probably $100M) never went to college. I'd say
wealth is built from grit, education, and frugality, not pedigree.

If anything, all the online, open courseware has shown me that the Ivy Leauge
coursework is no different than that of most state universities. My kids will
have a choice of two in-state schools. If they can get into an Ivy League,
that's fine, but they must fund the difference.

~~~
bsenftner
It has very little to do with the coursework, and everything to do with the
social bonds formed in Ivy League. However,

I will point out, being a person that did my undergrad at Boston University
but took my preferred computer science classes at Harvard, the Ivy League
actually teaches! Their professors take a personal interest in their students
success. I originally took a Harvard assembly language class because it was
not offered at B.U., and that one class opened my eyes to their vast
difference between Ivy League and non. I went on to take the majority of my
core classes at Harvard night and summer schools, as the same classes at B.U.
were foreign grad students with bad accents lecturing to the board. The
Harvard classes were exhilarating and exciting, with my head filled with
possibilities after every class. And that was practically every class I took
there. At ivy League, the professors are self actualizing on their students,
and that is HUGE.

~~~
madengr
Maybe I'm jaded then. My professors were American and also cared about student
learning. No grad students teaching courses, other than myself (just the lab
section). I also have no social bonds to class mates; most were foreign and
were only there to study.

------
humanrebar
> Between 1996 and 2014 the richest 1% fell further behind the national
> average in the percentage of their spending dedicated to bling.

Do you count their home(s)? Conspicuous consumption also looks like:

\- having homes in particular neighborhoods

\- certain kinds of upgrades to the homes (elaborate pools, media rooms)

\- extra homes (Paris, Manhattan, in the mountains, on the beach)

~~~
vanderZwan
Real estate is usually considered an investment, is it not?

~~~
dx034
Only if you buy it for value appreciation and/or income. If you buy a second
home in an area that you like instead of one with high potential upside it's
not an investment.

I would guess that few vacation homes are bought for the return they generate.
If you want to invest in real estate, you'd rather buy homes in large cities.

------
rumcajz
That makes me think about "luddite fallacy". The common understanding is that
we can survive increasing productivity because people will always want more
stuff.

However, the implicit assumption there is that once we get beyond satisfying
basic needs the demand will be driven up by conspicuous consumption.

Yet, the logic of conspicuous consumption may as well work the other way
round: Where being fat was seen as a sign on high social status once today
it's a sign of low social status. One can signal status be consuming less
rather than more.

~~~
icebraining
_One can signal status be consuming less rather than more._

Being thin doesn't mean necessarily consuming less; see the millions spent on
diet books, courses, coaches, etc.

~~~
Grustaf
Yes, it's not about eating less, and definitely not about spending less on
food. It's about showing that you have the leisure to worry about such things.

------
Grustaf
>The modern equivalent of Victorian worsted-stocking wearers are hipsters, who
imitate the wealthy’s penchant for farmers’ markets and fair-trade lattes,
even if they cannot afford a cruise to Antarctica.

As a life-long hipster I must object to this. Hipsterdom has nothing to do
with wanting to appear well off financially. It is a combination of a longing
for authenticity and wishing to separate oneself from the hoi polloi, but
through sophistication and coolness. The proportions may vary from hipster to
hipster but in no case is it an attempt to imitate the wealthy.

~~~
smallnamespace
> Hipsterdom has nothing to do with wanting to appear well off financially

> through sophistication and coolness

In order for cool to exist, there must be un-cool, which is _everyone else_.

So you're completely right in that hipsters aren't trying to show that they're
_richer_ than others. Just that they're _better_. In that sense, hipsters and
the conspicuously wealthy are united.

~~~
Grustaf
>So you're completely right in that hipsters aren't trying to show that
they're richer than others. Just that they're better. In that sense, hipsters
and the conspicuously wealthy are united.

The author claimed that hipsters do what they do to mimic the wealthy, which
is not true. The fact that they, as any human being, strive for some kind of
status and exclusivity, is a different question altogether.

~~~
smallnamespace
You're right that every person and every community values status to some
extent or another. But in most communities, there is a core (often economic)
activity or set of values that confers status that is not directly related to
the status itself.

Being a good maintainer or creating useful projects gives you status in the
open source community. Rendering or arguing sound, legally difficult decisions
confers status if you're a judge. These communities are fundamentally _open_ :
anyone who can do those things can join and raise their status in those
communities.

On other hand, the conspicuously wealthy and hipsters tend towards the extreme
end of the status-seeking, with a lot of emphasis on _exclusivity_. The source
of the status is very closely aligned with the status itself.

The conspicuously rich country-club set make a little community for themselves
just based on the fact that they can prove to each other how rich they are.
And the defining trait of a hipster is being able to show how cool they are,
which means that status itself is the key to entry in the community.

Please note that I'm not trying to beat up on you -- we need status-driven
people in the world, else few would ever want to become a politician or a
leader. But I do think that hipsters _as a community_ take status drive much
further than most other groups, sometimes to comical effect.

------
Shivetya
I find it a bit odd, I think a better version is the elites have returned to
how the elites used to always be, not how the celebrity elites are.

Explained, the tech industry created a lot of wealth that was had by people
not used to having large amounts of money and they did what people usually do
in that case; see lottery winners. Celebrity wealth is like the Hollywood
stars type, flashy cars, clothes, and gadgets, that are all appearance
oriented.

The long term wealthy or those having grown up in it always favored enriching
activities, from sports to trips to the arts. You can see it in the
philanthropic actions which are of completely different sort than those who
demonstrate their wealth celebrity styles whose philanthropic tend to be
similar; demonstrative and self congratulatory.

------
Sukotto
Interesting, but just a review of the book so not so actionable.

I liked this guide by the Financial Samurai [1] who advocates his readers
avoid living a conspicuously rich lifestyle. It's been a few years since I
read it, but a quick skim makes me think it's held up pretty well despite its
paranoid tone.

[1] [http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-rise-of-stealth-
wealth-g...](http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-rise-of-stealth-wealth-guide-
to-staying-invisible-from-society-rage/)

~~~
madengr
Sounds similar to Dave Ramsey.

------
jimmywanger
I read this book the other day, and for the life of me I can't remember the
name, and I wish I could. It's a fairly nasty but accurate book.

It's the difference between how the nouveaux rich and the bluebloods signal
wealth.

For instance, if you're newly lower upper class, you like splurging on nice
kitchens and laundry facilities - stainless steel/granite countertops and new
appliances with all the bells and whistles. If you are truly wealthy and have
been for generations, you tend to not give a shit about your kitchen or your
laundry facilities - that sort of thing is just for menials, as you're not
spending any time in the kitchen, and you wouldn't be entertaining your guests
there - that's what the dining room and parlour are for.

One consequence of the Cultural Revolution in China is that none of the newly
minted rich are truly bluebloods - wealth is only a few generations old. Hence
the splurging on nice purses and nice cars. A truly wealthy person wouldn't be
caught dead in the front seat of a Lamborghini - he owns the Bentley and pays
for a driver to live with him so he doesn't have to bother with driving.

Like I said, it's a truly insightful and as a consequence a nasty book. If I
can find the title I'll update this post.

------
scottLobster
I don't know if I qualify as an "elite", given that I'm "merely" in the 86th
percentile of American households by income, but I take issue that the article
equates things like fair-trade food, going on a nice vacation, seeing a show
and going to a nice gym as status symbols.

I buy free-range/organic whatever because in some cases it's genuinely
healthier/tastier (ex: grass-fed beef, uncured bacon, hormone-free chicken,
legit Extra Virgin Olive Oil, etc), and the benefit to the animals/farmers is
a bonus. I see shows because I enjoy them, I take nice vacations every once in
a while because I enjoy them. I buy nice coffee because I use a french press
and can taste the difference over Folgers. I go to a nice gym because I enjoy
the jacob's ladder machine, the general cleanliness and high availability of
equipment.

None of that is to show off to anyone. Sure I might bring it up in
conversation if I think it's interesting and relevant, but it's hardly the
"look at me and how awesome I think I am!" vibe that driving a Hummer, living
in a Mansion or wearing $50 designer T-shirts is.

------
_Codemonkeyism
Also: Everything from Last Psychiatrist on aspirationals e.g.
[http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_f...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_future_lea.html)

(TLP, you're dearly dearly missed)

------
fundabulousrIII
The only real privilege is to live away from those you don't want to deal with
and have the ability to do and think what you want within reasonable limits
(which may not apply to popular conception but law).

Aside from that the things that are good: fast cars (and place to drive them),
private library, private environment that incorporates gym, pool and a
computing infrastructure that allows latency-less research and investment +
computing.

You can get that for about 400K a year household.

