Monday, March 17, 2008

We Can't Even Shop Right

The Fall of the American Consumer
by Barbara Ehrenreich

How much lower can consumer spending go? The malls are like mausoleums, retail clerks are getting laid off and AOL recently featured on its welcome page the story of a man so cheap that he recycles his dental floss–hanging it from a nail in his garage until it dries out.

It could go a lot lower of course. This guy could start saving the little morsels he flosses out and boil them up to augment the children’s breakfast gruel. Already, as the recession or whatever it is closes in, people have stopped buying homes and cars and cut way back on restaurant meals. They don’t have the money; they don’t have the credit; and increasingly they’re finding that no one wants their money anyway. NPR reported on February 28 that more and more Manhattan stores are accepting Euros and at least one has gone Euros-only.

The Sharper Image has declared bankruptcy and is closing ninety-six US stores. (To think I missed my chance to buy those headphones that treat you to forest sounds while massaging your temples!) Victoria’s Secret is so desperate that it’s adding fabric to its undergarments. Starbucks had no sooner taken time off to teach its baristas how to make coffee than it started laying them off.

While Americans search for interview outfits in consignment stores and switch from Whole Foods to Wal-Mart for sustenance, the world watches tremulously. The Australian Courier-Mail, for example, warns of an economic “pandemic” if Americans cut back any further, since we are responsible for $9 trillion a year in spending, compared to a puny $1 trillion for the one billion-strong Chinese. Yes, we have been the world’s designated shoppers, and, if we fall down on the job, we take the global economy with us.

“Shop till you drop,” was our motto, by which we didn’t mean to say we were more compassion-worthy than a woman fainting at her work station in some Honduran sweatshop. It was just our proper role in the scheme of things. Some people make stuff; other people have to buy it. And when we gave up making stuff, starting in the 1980s, we were left with the unique role of buying. Remember Bush telling us, shortly after 9/11, to get out there and shop? It may have seemed ludicrous at the time, but what he meant was get back to work.

We took pride in our role in the global economy. No doubt it takes some skill to make things, but what about all the craft that goes into buying them–finding a convenient parking space at the mall, navigating our way through department stores laid out for maximum consumer confusion, determining which of our credit cards still has a smidgeon of credit in it? Not everyone could do this, especially not people whose only experience was stitching, assembling, wiring and packaging the stuff that we bought.

But if we thought we were special, they thought we were marks. They could make anything, and we would dutifully buy it. I once found, in a party store, a baseball cap with a plastic turd affixed to its top and the words “shit head” on the visor. The label said “made in the Philippines” and the makers must have been convulsed as they made it. If those dumb Yanks will buy this…

There’s talk already of emergency measures, like making Christmas a weekly holiday, although this would require a level of deforestation that could leave Cheney with no quail to hunt.

More likely, there’ll be a move to outsource shopping, just as we’ve already outsourced manufacturing, customer service, X-ray reading and R&D. But to whom? The Indians are clever enough, but right now they only account for $600 million in consumer spending a year. And could they really be trusted to put a flat screen TV in every child’s room, distinguish Guess jeans from a knock-off and replace their kitchen counters on an annual basis?

And what happens to us, the world’s erstwhile shoppers? The President recently observed, in one of his more sentient moments, that unemployment is “painful.” But if a pink slip hurts, what about a letter from Citicard announcing that you’ve been laid off as a shopper? Will we fill our vacant hours twisting recycled dental floss onto spools or will we decide that, if we can’t shop, we’re going to have to shoplift?

Because we’ve shopped till we dropped alright, face down on the floor.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. We don't make the best cars. All our favorite actors are foreign. And now ... we can't even shop right! lol.

Well, this a mantle that I'd be proud of us losing. It might actually indicate that we are finally figuring out that an economy is not ran on encouraging people to buy stuff they don't need. The businesses that will survive are the ones that make things well, make them affordable and that make things that people need regardless of the economy. It's all about sustainability. Just because you can fool some poor sap into buying that 70 inch plasma TV that he doesn't need and can't afford, doesn't mean that you should. You'll say that the market will sort it out. A perfect market may. But not one inhabited with a bunch of morons like ours. Our market has producers whose only criteria is how much they can make and consumers whose only criteria is how much debt they can get into to keep up with the Jones's. There has to be a concept of common good. But, WAIT!, you will say. You might even quote Ayn Rand to me:

"America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to "the common good", but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes." -- Ayn Rand


I'd probably agree with the free market types who say you can't legislate "common good". But at the same time, you can't have a government who actively encourages the exact opposite of common good. That's not a free market either. We're not living in some Ayn Rand fantasy world. How exactly is the market "correcting" anything when CEO's of companies that hemorrhage money are given $20 million golden parachutes? "Productive genius of free men", my ass.

"Win or lose, we go shopping after the election." -- Imelda Marcos

15 comments:

Scott said...

Consumerism is such an annoying word. Means nothing unless you have faith in some imaginary moral compass that defines which items are a "need" and which items are a "want". Of course when utopian dreamers like Barbara want to reference such imaginary ideologies they'll point out useless things like hats with crap on top of them, but what about less obvious items? Who is the grand wizard who gets to decide what is a necessity?

dbackdad said...

I don't want anyone to decide for me what I need. I just want everyone involved (pruducer and consumer) to take more responsibility and think about the concepts of want and need when entering the marketplace.

I don't think Ehrenreich was trying to dictate an idealogy. I think she was just trying to be humorous. If it's not clear, her article is the blockquote. My comments are everything else.

CyberKitten said...

We have the 'wrong kind of weather' over here... It looks like you have the 'wrong kind of consumer'.

I've always thought that any economy based on consumer spending is both crazy and inherently unstable (to say nothing of incredibly wasteful). There must be a better way of structuring an economy than that.

dbackdad said...

" ... any economy based on consumer spending is both crazy and inherently unstable" - exactly. Maybe it's just a change in attitude that we need. Our presidents used to be leaders in a positive sense. They used to encourage saving and conservation. With the advent of the Reagan era and the decade of "greed is good", that was lost. What kind of screwed up country do we have when people that encourage protecting our planet and not being wasteful are made fun of as being "left-wing freaks" and partisan? Good or bad, a lot of people still look towards our presidents for leadership. And there is not a single positive thing that this president has provided leadership in.

Laura said...

Scott: I don't see consumerism in quite the same way. You're right that "who gets to decide" is a tough question. I see it not as people who just can't stop buying crap, but rather as people who buy in (no pun intended) to an ideology where they value "things" more than other people and their community.

The best concrete example I can think of is Bush telling people to go shop after 9/11.

Problem is, as Cyberkitten pointed out, the issue gets blurred in a society where consumers must keep buying crap (value things) to prove their loyalty to their country and keep the economy going.

CyberKitten said...

laura said: The best concrete example I can think of is Bush telling people to go shop after 9/11.

I thought at the time that it was a truely bizarre thing to say. I also remember over here that some comentators thought that the attacks would harm 'consumer confidence'. I said at the time that I failed to connect the events in New York & elsewhere with my need (or otherwise) for household appliances.

Consumerism (and consumer confidence) is a very strange concept. Unfortunately when you build an entire economy on peoples *perceived* levels of confidence in intangable qualities that few people (if anyone) actually understands you're just asking for trouble. Any system based on the belief of the masses is going to be fragile because once that belief is gone (or merely challenged) its going to be very hard to get it back.

laura said: Problem is, as Cyberkitten pointed out, the issue gets blurred in a society where consumers must keep buying crap (value things) to prove their loyalty to their country and keep the economy going.

From time to time we have 'Buy British' campaigns here. Generally they don't really work because if its a choice between buying expensive local crap or foreign cheap crap (which is often better made crap) then people will vote with their wallets.

shrimplate said...

http://www.us.martinlogan.com/speaker_intro/source.html

http://www.collingsguitars.com/002H.htm#

http://www.addisoncollection.net/mfbag972-02.html

http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/08/cusa/model-8RCL3C.html

There are still people in the United States making really good stuff. Which is why I do not shop at Walmart.

dbackdad said...

Certainly there is good stuff being made in the U.S. and elsewhere. All other things being equal, though, I will always buy what had to travel less to get to me - for reasons of the environment. And even more extreme, I will shop locally and non-chain as much as possible - because more of those dollars stay in my community. And I am willing to pay a premium to do so now because of the benefits long-term.

I have not darkened Wal-Mart's doors in over 5 years. To do so would be signing off on union-busting here and civil rights abuses in China. No thank you.

Scott said...

I've always thought that any economy based on consumer spending is both crazy and inherently unstable (to say nothing of incredibly wasteful). There must be a better way of structuring an economy than that.

Name it.

Laura said...

I think we should have an economy based solely on hugs!

CyberKitten said...

scott said: Name it.

[laughs]

Do you think that if I had the answer to the restructuring of the planets ecomony I'd be spending my time *Blogging*? I'd be jetting all over the world doing the actual restructuring!

[laughs again].

Do you think that the economic system can't be improved in any way? Surely you can think of something?

laura said: I think we should have an economy based solely on hugs!

Jeez.. I'd *still* be poor! [grin]

Scott said...

Do you think that the economic system can't be improved in any way? Surely you can think of something?

Sure I can. I don't mean to make it sound as though I'm a big fan of the current US economic model. I would contest the notion that it is based entirely on consumer spending. In fact, I think it should be based MORE on consumer spending. Much rather that than the trillion dollars a year we waste on our Federal Government.

I think it should be based on a medium of exchange with actual value, rather than fiat paper money. That would eliminate inflation and get people better returns on their investments, which would actually encourage saving.

The president can say all he wants to encourage saving, but when the government takes about a third of your income (don't forget, we pay taxes in 3-4 levels in the US, Federal, State, County, Local) and the Federal Reserve inflates another 3-10% of it away per year theres not a lot left to save for those of us living paycheck to paycheck.

dbackdad said...

" ... name it" - There isn't ONE. We need to get away from this idea of a pure economic system. The correct one will be a combination. I'm so sick of idealogues. I'm sick of the Grover Norquists and Ralph Naders of the world. I want people that can govern. I want people that look at the real situation and find solutions. Does anyone honestly think that this country or any country will return to a system based on a gold-standard? Believe me, I wish we would. Bullshit like Bear Stearns where their assets only represented 2 percent of their debt? And these are the banks our economy is based one. Fabulous. Taxation isn't the problem. Our pretend economy that makes billionaires out of people who don't produce anything is.

Laura said...

I don't think taxation itself is the problem either. There are millions of Americans who don't make enough income to pay income or property taxes. If we abolish or severely cut taxes, that cuts the services those people depend on to live (and puts the burden onto them to provide those necessary services without greater income) AND they still can't save because they're still living paycheck to paycheck.

We need solutions that will improve everyone's lives.

I think taxes can and should be better spent, and spend more fairly. But the idea that abolishing or severely cutting taxes is the magic bullet is very short sighted.

CyberKitten said...

scott said: I would contest the notion that it is based entirely on consumer spending. In fact, I think it should be based MORE on consumer spending.

We need to ask ourselves why people buy stuff. Do we buy things that we need or even things that we independently want? Or is it that we are being manipulated into buying things we neither need nor want in order to keep our economies afloat and growing? Do we need to change our cars every year or even every five years? Do we need more TV's that people in a house? Do we need more shoes than a sane person can wear in a lifetime? Sure we can *want* all of these things but *why* do we want them? Indeed *should* we want them?

When many people are regularly living beyond their means there's something seriously wrong with things. If your lifestyle is ruining you then you need to ask why that is. We regularly hear of people who will take decades to pay off their accumulated debts - why is that? What is wrong with people who spend thousands of dollars/pounds each year more than they earn? It's just crazy.

There is something funadamentally wrong with a system that relies on people being in so much in debt.

dbackdad said: Bullshit like Bear Stearns where their assets only represented 2 percent of their debt?

The whole Bear Sterns thing was incredible - but also a well understood symptom of what is wrong with the system. It's because things are not actually worth what they appear to be worth. The figures giving for some companies are pure fantasy and only work as long as everyone *believes* in that fantasy. But as we have seen time and time again - the bloated emperor really doesn't have *any* clothes.