Effects of Material Culture

[monstro]

DSeid, I was responding to what sleestak wrote here:

@sleestak

My wife and I have decided that we aren’t going down that whole path with our kids. No buying stuff to have it. No keeping things unless they are being used. No getting things for free, except B-Days and X-Mas type things. Even then, the presents will be reasonable.

We decided that we are going to focus on doing things, not having things. We are going to do our best to get our kids to think that way as well. It will probably be hard, peer pressure and all that, but certainly not impossible.

Note he doesn’t talk about “quality time”. No elaboration on what he means by “doing things, not having things”.

His post punched some buttons of mine. For one thing, resisting peer pressure is neither simple or easy, and it’s pretty smug to believe it is. You can teach and encourage your kids to do a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean they will adopt your values or your ability to not follow the crowd. A kid can grow up into a materalistic person regardless of what his parents try to instill. Sometimes parents can go overboard and push their kids into doing the one thing they didn’t want them to go. To make light of these realities by calling the solution a “simple” one is crazy to me.

I’m also curious how old sleestak’s kids are. It is very easy to keep a small kid entertained with simple family fun. It’s not so easy when they are older and are comparing the hands they’ve been dealt with that of their classmates and friends. Parents often get in their heads that if only their kids would ignore the crowd and be rugged little individualists, everything will be okay. But kids, just like adults, don’t want to be misfits. And I don’t think that’s a character flaw or a response that results from bad parenting.

And my question to you in regard to that was the same as to him: which possibly mythic past era are you thinking of when people did not demonstrate their affection for others by buying them stuff and experiences? When were stuff and experiences not used by some to try to impress others? The op might be thinking about HG times again. Are you?

I’ve shared my opinions about all of this already, DSeid, and I don’t feel like repeating myself. I’m not understanding why you are giving me such a hard time…as if I’m the only one who has not responded to the OP’s inquiry exactly how it is worded. Your fixation on me and my posts is getting to be a little too much for me.

Sure that’s alright with me. Maybe you should make a thread about it?

No. No one else seems to have a problem with how I’ve been participating in this thread. No one else seems to think I’ve been hijacking the discussion (or whatever bizarre thing you’re accusing me of). So I’m going to keep posting the way I want in this thread, thankyouevermuch.

But as you note you were not responding to the op and were instead reacting to what you misunderstood someone meant, continuing to do so after he made it explicitly clear that you had misread his meaning.

I only responded to him a couple of times, and then I responded to other people’s responses in the manner that usually happens in free-flowing internet discussions. Seriously, go spend some “quality time” with someone else besides me. I don’t have any more patience left.

I’m not going to bother with the rest of your long-winded post. You seem to enjoy hearing yourself speak, and I don’t want to indulge you in that.

[RickJay]

@monstro

I’m also curious how old sleestak’s kids are. It is very easy to keep a small kid entertained with simple family fun. It’s not so easy when they are older and are comparing the hands they’ve been dealt with that of their classmates and friends.

Speaking as he parent of children who have gotten to the teenaged years with terrifying speed, I can attest that this is true, but if we return to the thesis of the OP, obviously this doesn’t really support that. Children have always gotten older, and older kids have always been more conscious of such things, so this hasn’t anything to do with the claim that it is getting WORSE (much less that it’s the result of bad parenting, which is just nutso, as you point out.)

I would - with great care - like to postulate that to a limited extent, this is actually healthy behaviour. I do not want our children to be materialistic assholes or obsessed by peer pressure. However, I would point out that attention to one’s peers and emulating them and fitting is is one of the most important ways a child develops the life skills to deal with their peers throughout their lives. The ability to fit in and make friends at school is the kernel of the ability to adapt oneself as an adult to a variety of professional and social situations. Being an individual is great, but refusing to abide by - or being unable to abide by - social expectations makes you either an asshole or a clueless doofus. Clearly, and again I am being very careful here, a child should not be encouraged to follow the most popular kid around and follow their commands like a robot, but there is a healthy amount of peer emulation and fitting in a child should do. Like it or not, part of that is stuff like clothing and toys.

Our oldest child, 13, is VERY fashion conscious, and fair enough. It helps her fit in. She is taught that that is fine, but that if she wants new clothes she must buy them herself (except for necessities like underwear or winter boots) or wait for Christmas or birthdays. It’s a good balance and teaches her budgeting.

Our youngest, 12, is sensationally fashion-unconscious to the point that she’ll dress like a homeless 7-year-old if you let her. And you know what? It’s starting to affect her social life, and she’s aware of that, and is becoming more conscious of that.

And that’s fine. Someone might rip on kids being fashion conscious, but dressing correctly is an important skill, and doing so while being budget consciouos is an important skill. If you want to be a professional, or look nice on a date, or feel good about your appearance, or land that job at the interview, it is important to know how to dress. That is not a skill everyone seems to have picked up, from what I can tell, and that influences how people think about you.

[monstro]

@RickJay

Speaking as he parent of children who have gotten to the teenaged years with terrifying speed, I can attest that this is true, but if we return to the thesis of the OP, obviously this doesn’t really support that. Children have always gotten older, and older kids have always been more conscious of such things, so this hasn’t anything to do with the claim that it is getting WORSE (much less that it’s the result of bad parenting, which is just nutso, as you point out.)

I would love for the OP to come back and support his thesis. I’m not ready to cosign that things are WORSE, but like I said, I would not be shocked if there is concrete evidence that they are at least DIFFERENT. Like, I’m sure there were attention whores back before the age of reality TV. But it does not seem like such a crazy idea that reality TV (and its related crazes like youtube stars) bring out a certain kind of attention whore tendencies that would otherwise not be there. Surely being able to flash the highlight reels of one’s life 24/7 (rather than just in the annual Christmas card) brings a certain dynamic to the social equation that is worth discussing.

I would - with great care - like to postulate that to a limited extent, this is actually healthy behaviour. I do not want our children to be materialistic assholes or obsessed by peer pressure. However, I would point out that attention to one’s peers and emulating them and fitting is is one of the most important ways a child develops the life skills to deal with their peers throughout their lives. The ability to fit in and make friends at school is the kernel of the ability to adapt oneself as an adult to a variety of professional and social situations. Being an individual is great, but refusing to abide by - or being unable to abide by - social expectations makes you either an asshole or a clueless doofus. Clearly, and again I am being very careful here, a child should not be encouraged to follow the most popular kid around and follow their commands like a robot, but there is a healthy amount of peer emulation and fitting in a child should do. Like it or not, part of that is stuff like clothing and toys.

I agree with this so much. I think status symbols are often inextricably linked to the uniforms we wear. Not wearing the uniform can sometimes make you a target for discrimination and abuse. All the backyard mudpies in the world don’t make loneliness and social isolation go away. I think parents should resist relenting to every demand. But I don’t see the problem with a parent conceding that yes, sometimes a shiny new toy (or dress or free ticket to Six Flags) can lubricate social interactions and make people inclined to like you more. As you said, it can be easily taken to an extreme. But I think parents do their children a disservice by depriving them of this lesson.

[psikeyhackr]

Jeez! I have to wonder how old you are.

You didn’t read enough science fiction in grade school to develop a healthy coating of cynicism.

Try: The Space Merchants by Frederick Pohl

and notice the date: 1952

The Space Merchants

Plenty of people were afraid The Depression would return after World War II so consumerism was pushed really hard by the government and corporations. Television advertising fit right into that paradigm. How many people don’t even remember life without television? Most that do are in nursing homes.

But then we had the 60s with Vance Packard so you seem to have been kept in the dark. Most people are supposed to be mushrooms.

Now the everyone will learn the downside of consumerism, too late.

psik

[TriPolar]

@MandaJo

Well, if a hungry homeless person has a cell phone, I doubt it’s because they are trying to impress anyone. It may or may not be a good idea (how does one become not homeless if you don’t have a phone number?) but at that point it’s not about status

@monstro

I don’t think that’s a good example. Cell phones are no longer a luxury item. It’s pretty difficult to get a job or stable housing if people can’t reach you 24/7. If these homeless people are carrying around the latest iPhones with all the bells and whistles, that’s one thing. But you can buy a no-frills smartphone from the grocery store for dirt cheap now.

No, it’s not a good example. I meant it mostly to be about the lack of common sense priorities that could be resulting from excess materialism. This articletalks about Millenials being broke and how they are making choices out of order. I’m not standing behind the article because it’s brief and poorly sourced but I do think that material and/or experiential gain have taken too high a priority with people, leaving the people with the least means vulnerable. If you have more than enough money to live there’s nothing wrong with spending it, as a matter of fact it’s better for everyone else if you do, but people who haven’t established a solid economic foundation in life may never get to do so if they spend what they have for short term gratification. I’m not talking about minor amounts of money for a little entertainment, I’m talking about trips to Disney World or the newest iPhone when the bills aren’t getting paid. And even if the bills are paid is money being put away so the kids can go to college? Even with people doing well is it really worth thousands of dollars for a high school prom? Is it worth spending 10 grand for a wedding that may not last, especially when that couple needs a car or a house more than they need a big party? I know there’s a lot of generalization there but it is the effect of materialism on priorities that I think is a matter of concern.

[Procrustus]

@TriPolar

… Even with people doing well is it really worth thousands of dollars for a high school prom? Is it worth spending 10 grand for a wedding that may not last, especially when that couple needs a car or a house more than they need a big party? I know there’s a lot of generalization there but it is the effect of materialism on priorities that I think is a matter of concern.

No doubt, a lot of people make bad choices. Some will learn from their mistakes, some will not. What else can we do?

[TriPolar]

@Procrustus

No doubt, a lot of people make bad choices. Some will learn from their mistakes, some will not. What else can we do?

There has always been some people making bad choices. It seems to me that’s increasing in some way. I don’t know that I’m right about this either. I don’t want to sound like someone whining that poor people are poor because they buy lottery tickets. I do think some aspect of this is on the rise though. And I wonder if income inequality is part of this.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@TriPolar

There has always been some people making bad choices. It seems to me that’s increasing in some way. I don’t know that I’m right about this either. I don’t want to sound like someone whining that poor people are poor because they buy lottery tickets. I do think some aspect of this is on the rise though. And I wonder if income inequality is part of this.

People were complaining about materialism back in the 19th century. Thorstein Veblen coined the term “conspicuous consumption” in 1889.

Consumption and materialism has waxed and waned over the decades, normally in step with economic ups and downs. I’ve of the opinion that the only element that’s changed is that the amount of goods easily available for consumption has been steadily increasing and in ways that makes it more visible to more people outside one’s neighborhood. Is that merely a quantitative change rather than a qualitative one? I’d say yes, but there’s room for argument.

People have never saved for retirement. For most of history, the percentage who lived long enough to require funds to carry them through decades of retirement was tiny. For those few, families provided the means. When that became difficult to impossible in the Depression, Social Security was invented because the plight of the elderly was a national scandal. Only in very recent years have seniors been a class more or less assured of comfort. Throughout the 20th century, the generalization properly applied to the elderly were that they were vulnerable and neglected.

Are a sizable percentage of people not doing what they need to do for the long decades of retirement they’ll undoubtedly see? Sure. Too many. This isn’t new. It shouldn’t be news. There was one brief anomalous period where it may not have been true. Don’t make the mistake of using an anomaly as a baseline. People keep using the 50s that way and it screws up their thinking every time.

[DSeid]

@TriPolar

There has always been some people making bad choices. It seems to me that’s increasing in some way. I don’t know that I’m right about this either. I don’t want to sound like someone whining that poor people are poor because they buy lottery tickets. I do think some aspect of this is on the rise though. And I wonder if income inequality is part of this.

Well my first wonder, and really no snark intended, is why this seems to be true you (and some others)? Is it simply that social media allows it to be advertised more? Or is it really true?

I’m not sure about any hard data on “bad choices” but there is data that some have gleaned from government sources that might be pertinent to the question. The main point of interest of the study was however the correlation of conspicuous consumption (i.e. visible consumption and inequality) and violent crime. Finding

a strong association between the distribution of visible consumption and violent criminal offences, particularly for assaults.

Nevertheless buried in there is figure 3 showing no major consistent trend to more visible consumption inequality overall. Which is interesting given that income and wealth inequality have both increased. Think about what that implies.

Your wonder about conspicuous consumption and its relation to income seems to have some validity according to other analyses:

Perhaps America’s mix of wealth and diversity, the very staple of the American identity, is the culprit of its spending habits. In 2008, several researchers studied the stereotype that minorities spend more than whites on “visible goods”—like clothes, shoes, jewelry, watches, salons, health clubs, and car parts. They discovered that, even after controlling for income, minorities save less than whites and spend more on such conspicuous consumption goods. But the story wasn’t just about race. White people in poor U.S. states spent more of their income on visible goods than whites in higher income states.

One possible explanation is that people spend more to signal that they’re not poor, Megan McArdle suggested. “If you’re a member of an identifiable demographic with low average incomes (southern, racial minority, rural) you are likely to be treated as if you are poor,” which makes it harder to get both social respect and work, she wrote. In a perfectly homogenous country with all white people, there would be less reason for the poor to signal their wealth with expensive visual cues, since they already look just like the rich. But in a diverse country where some demographic groups are stereotyped as poor, lower-income people might be more likely to pay for clothes and cars that say “I’m not who you think I am.” …

… The average savings rate has been falling at the exact same time that income inequality has been rising. Marianne Bertrand, an economist from the Chicago Booth School of Business, and Adair Morse, from UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, found that the trends might be related. They called their theory “trickle-down consumption”: “Households exposed to more spending by the rich self-report more financial duress,” they concluded. … they found that conspicuous wealth was, well, contagious. When people see others living the high life, they try to buy it for themselves, even when they can’t afford it. Middle-class households in rich states shifted their spending from “non-rich goods”—gas, utilities, food at home—to “rich goods,” like clothing, jewelry, furniture, manicures, and exercise classes. If not for this shift, the non-rich would have saved an additional $800 a year in the late 2000s. …

Is it possible that the broadcasting of consumption with amplified range by way of social media is in the process of amplifying those effects and thus income and wealth inequality displayed with conspicuous consumption, advertised by way of various media and social media venues begets “trickle-down consumption” with consequent diminished savings which in turn begets more wealth inequality?

Sure.

In any case looking for data it does seem to be true (see the linked article) that many who were in the middle before are making less real income now, saving less, yet still spending more on conspicuous choices.

So looking at the actual data I need to withdraw my support for the contention that it has always been thus. Those who, because of increasing income and wealth inequality, can afford it the least, are spending a larger fraction of their incomes and residual wealth on status oriented consumption that attempts to signal that they (and their families) are not poor … and by so doing are becoming even poorer, lacking any savings (wealth), and more insecure economically.

It is still a big step to demonstrating that such is in an attempt to buy emotional attachment however.

[TriPolar]

@DSeid

It is still a big step to demonstrating that such is in an attempt to buy emotional attachment however.

I don’t think that has much to do with it. I am reminded of a study a few years back, very general description here, people would be more satisfied with making more money than their peers than they would making even more money but still less than their peers. I think that speaks to what you say here:

@DSeid

Those who, because of increasing income and wealth inequality, can afford it the least, are spending a larger fraction of their incomes and residual wealth on status oriented consumption that attempts to signal that they (and their families) are not poor … and by so doing are becoming even poorer, lacking any savings (wealth), and more insecure economically.

[monstro]

If people are feeling more pressure to signal their non-poverty, what is motivating them if not a fear of marginalization and discrimination?

To word it another way, aren’t people who react to status-anxiety by buying stuff trying to buy “likes” from people who might otherwise not like them? Isn’t this “buying emotional attachment”?

I mean, I guess some people might be into status symbols because the simple possession of them makes them feel better about themselves. But I think most people who flash status symbols do so to message to others “I’m successful, so you should like me!” They may not be consciously aware of these thought processes, though.

I recommend “The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger” by Wilkinson and Pickett for a good discussion on the psychological effects of income inequality.

[TriPolar]

@monstro

To word it another way, aren’t people who react to status-anxiety by buying stuff trying to buy “likes” from people who might otherwise not like them? Isn’t this “buying emotional attachment”?

That’s one way to consider it. I was thinking more of buying emotional attachment from your kids by taking them to Disney World. But it some ways it is all the same thing.

[monstro]

I think they are the same, or at least related to the same thing.

I didn’t get an allowance when I was a kid. It never dawned on me that this was unusual until a frenemy of mine started teasing me for it. I gotta admit. Ten-year-old me felt a twinge of butthurt to learn that I was being “deprived” for no good reason since to my child’s eye, there were no class differences between our families. I don’t know if the thought “She’s more loveable than me” crossed my mind. But I suspect “My parents don’t care about me as much as Jessica’s parents do” did.

If my fremeny hadn’t given me a hard time about it, I probably wouldn’t have noticed the disparity. She had in her mind the belief that material objects are indicative of one’s value and felt inclined to put that belief in my head, so that I could share her insecurity and anxiety. And my parents never even knew about any of this since I didn’t tell them about it. Perhaps that’s why I think parenting only goes so far. If everyone in your social circle thinks what you have (or the experiences you talk about having) reflect one’s inherent value and they all act in accordance with this belief, then it will be very hard for you to be any different.

[DSeid]

@TriPolar

… I was thinking more of buying emotional attachment from your kids by taking them to Disney World. But it some ways it is all the same thing.

Not too many ways I don’t think. I do not think that a desire for respect (or a desire for a lack of disrespect if you prefer, or a fear of disrespect) from strangers, neighbors, and potential coworkers, is even the same as asking to be “liked” by them and in turn asking to be “liked” in that sense is not at all the same thing as asking for “emotional attachment.”

To illustrate: I respect my company’s CEO tremendously, and he knows and respects me as a professional and for the job I do in my “leadership” roles within the organization. We even like each other personally for other reasons. But we do not look to each other for emotional attachment.

Signifying non-poverty in those contexts is a very different issue than say asking if when I pay for my daughter to have an indulgent experience or thing I am attempting to buy her emotional attachment to me.

[TriPolar]

@DSeid

Not too many ways I don’t think. I do not think that a desire for respect (or a desire for a lack of disrespect if you prefer, or a fear of disrespect) from strangers, neighbors, and potential coworkers, is even the same as asking to be “liked” by them and in turn asking to be “liked” in that sense is not at all the same thing as asking for “emotional attachment.”

I don’t consider ‘respect’ and ‘emotional attachment’ to be the same thing, but all I’m saying is they can both be rooted in emotions which can be manipulated through materialism. Children, and young adults as well, not too mention many older people as well, are not always aware of how they may be manipulated. We want to think that our respect for people has a rational basis, but it’s not always the case.

Anyway, I can’t carry this too far because I’m still not clear about what I’m sensing as a change. I don’t want to be some old grumpy guy considering how much better things were in the olden days when everything cost a nickel. I don’t have the same desire for material goods or expenses as would be seen in this subject. Now that is, as a young man I sought a lot of that.

Exapno pointed out that available consumer products have been increasing over time, I think also there is inflation in the cost of those products too. When I was a teenager about the only major material status symbol was a car, stereos were a thing but only the fanatics were interested in how much it cost. As for cars, having any car that ran was pretty close to driving a new Camaro. Now it’s everything from athletic shoes to computers, and the cost and label seem to count much more. But my point is that the sacrifice to obtain things seems greater, people believe, or act as if they believe that the material goods or expensive experiences are worth giving up long term goals. But I’m sure it’s more complicated, and very difficult to narrow down, the difference between material goods and experiences isn’t the only variation in the formula, so many people prefer the ‘social network’ to live personal connections that they will see the cost of that interaction differently, I never went to anything like Disney World growing up, I didn’t miss it much either, but I was thrilled with visiting museums like the Franklin Institute, if I was growing up now the internet may have satisfied that need for me and the actual physical experience of a theme park might seem much more desirable.

I’m just not sure what it is, and the changes in the world since the dark ages of the 60s and 70s are great, there is no doubt life and the way it is perceived is different, as it has always changed over time based on technology and progress, and there may be nothing more to it than that. Whatever is different now may be just an evolutionary process of people adapting to the world we live in.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@DSeid

In any case looking for data it does seem to be true (see the linked article) that many who were in the middle before are making less real income now, saving less, yet still spending more on conspicuous choices.

So looking at the actual data I need to withdraw my support for the contention that it has always been thus. Those who, because of increasing income and wealth inequality, can afford it the least, are spending a larger fraction of their incomes and residual wealth on status oriented consumption that attempts to signal that they (and their families) are not poor … and by so doing are becoming even poorer, lacking any savings (wealth), and more insecure economically.

This is wrong in a variety of ways. I think you’re falling back on the 50s as baseline fallacy. Yes, the savings rate was high in the 1950s and stayed high through the oil crisis in 1973. It then fell for 30 years before starting to rise again recently. The Great Recession may have shaken people. But what happens if you use a longer timeline? It then turns out that 50s savings were low compared to earlier decades, except for the 1930s when people had to deplete their savings to survive.

That might seem to strengthen your case. Not really. The important number is not the personal savings rate but the sum of the personal and public savings rates. Public savings includes social security and pensions. Of course people needed to save a higher percentage before they existed. It’s rational now for people to assume those contributions when planning their private savings.

This paper only goes from 1900-1990, but Table 2 shows that broadly-defined savings actually increased over that span despite significant drops in private savings.

I can’t find a similar paper for the time since. It’s possible that the rate has declined significantly. It’s hard to see why, though. Personal savings are again rising and public savings should be steady.

Public savings tend to be illiquid, of course. That contributes to all the scare headlines about families not being able to cope with an emergency. If the focus is on retirement, however, that no longer applies. The data I see tell me that no major change has yet hit.

And the increase in spending on goods is equally artificial when the whole spending basket is looked at. Over the century, family spending on food dropped from 43% to 13% of the total. Wow. Give people 30% of their total income to spend on non-necessities and they will spend it on non-necessities. Obviously, that will appear as a huge increase in objects. That increase is not at all the same as a frivolous decrease in necessities and retirement savings.

Nor is what I’m saying a complete denial that many households are not well-prepared for the future. Job loss truly affects those households who suffer it, and certain areas are in long-term decline. If decline is all you focus on, you’ll have confirmation of decline. Broaden your scope to the entirety of households and the entire of income and revenue and spending, you just might come to a different conclusion.

[DSeid]

Some interesting points you make there. I believe mistaken ones, but interesting nevertheless.
Let’s accept classifying social security insurance as “savings.” A major point of that paper has been that expected lifetime after retirement (and thus need for larger savings) has dramatically increased - by more than six-fold. Counting SSI and pension contributions saving for retirement has, they propose in reaction to that increased expected time living in retirement, increased significantly, but in contrast relatively modestly - by two to three-fold.

So to pause for second - yes when putting together SSI and other “public savings” along with private savings for retirement has significantly increased - but not by near enough to offset the actual expected increased future needs.

Given that mismatch, if the focus is on retirement, many families will not be able to cope, even without emergencies.

Quoting the article

*n sum, the household saving rate in the US stagnated or increased only modestly during the 20th century, depending on the definition of saving.

It has, thanks to forced public savings, been shifted more into the retirement bucket (but again not enough to cover the increased costs of so many more years in retirement), at the expense of other savings/wealth.

As to your point the second, that food now cost much less freeing up money to spend on non-necessities - the article explicitly points out the other necessity that has taken over from food as the big squeeze, besides massively increased transportation and housing expenditures: healthcare. And it explains why they did not fully include it in those pie charts.

@your link

… Health-care spending makes up more than 16% of the U.S. economy, but only 6% of family spending, according to the CES. One reason for the gap is that most medical spending isn’t out of our pockets. Employers pay workers’ premiums and government foots the bill for the elderly and the low-income. Government spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid has quadrupled since the 1950s in the most meaningful measurement, which is share of GDP.

In short, health care costs are squeezing Americans. But the details of this squeeze elude the color-wheel above. We are paying for health care with taxes, borrowing, and compensation that goes to health benefits, rather than wages. …

If contributions to SSI count as “savings” then these costs clearly count as spending. The necessity spending has been redistributed. Shifted. Possibly actually increased.

A century ago, we spent more than half our money on food and clothes. Today, we spend more than half of our money on housing and transportation

And then add in the healthcare chunk. Don’t even start on the expense of college education which is now also considered a necessity.

So putting it all together the mythic average families are now left with far less of their income available to spend on non-necessities. Yet they still spend the same on that slice, save insufficiently for retirement given post-retirement expected lifetimes (massively increased public saving included), and save less otherwise.

Note that that is for that mythic “average” family - which exists less and less as the middle is hollowed out and both income and wealth inequality increases. Those who have dropped from the solid middle to a lower bracket have much of the items as, if not fixed then as fairly inelastic expenses, which means they are a higher fraction of the total bucket.

Yet they spend as much as they ever did on visible/conspicuous consumption the main function of which is to signify how not poor they are.

[DSeid]

@TriPolar

… Exapno pointed out that available consumer products have been increasing over time, I think also there is inflation in the cost of those products too. When I was a teenager about the only major material status symbol was a car …

True for cars, and healthcare and housing, but not much else and even for cars the big issue is now that most have one, more than that one costs a larger share of the median income.

Median family income in 1960 was $5620 and the average new car cost $2600.

Median family income in 2015 was $56,516 and the average new car costs $25,449.

In real dollar inflation not too dramatic. As the last link put it

Though the absolute price of a car has steadily risen due to inflation, the inflation-adjusted price has remained relatively stable. This means car buying over time has likely had a similar impact on American budgets, regardless of the year of purchase. In other good news for the American car buyer, the cost of the average new car in 2016 is the lowest it has been since 1983

But more households own them than before and for many middle class households owning a car has become a necessity. Perhaps they upspend as status signaling though.

Of course the bigger point is more valid: many goods and services bought today were not previously available at any price, and their cost since first being created has dropped many-fold. Which has, to some degree paradoxically, provoked people to spend more on them. Especially relatively by the groups who perceive themselves as having been or becoming relatively marginalized and “see” (in real life or by the extended experience of life that is media social and otherwise) others with those things and experiences. So agree with you here -

@more from TriPolar

… But my point is that the sacrifice to obtain things seems greater, people believe, or act as if they believe that the material goods or expensive experiences are worth giving up long term goals. …

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Healthcare is a problem child, no doubt. By modern standards, healthcare didn’t even exist until after WWII. Doctors had no drugs to treat diseases with, except for sulfa, few ailments had any cures, diagnostics was stuck on 50-year-old technology. How to estimate how much better and huger health care is today? 10000% 100000%.

So of course that is going to be a bigger slice of the economy, mitigated by the fact that we get so much more per dollar today. Yet the share of personal expenditures rose from 5% to 6%. That is extraordinary. That additional spending is done by government and so from taxes does raise that, but so what? On average, factoring that in does not come close to reflecting the actual increase in benefits. And that extra percentage is a small fraction of both spending on healthcare - because again it is rational to let the government work its magic - and on the total spending we’re discussing, because that kind of spending is by definition post-tax discretionary spending.

I therefore flat out disagree with your statement “the mythic average families are now left with far less of their income available to spend on non-necessities.” [italics in original] The small increase in healthcare spending does not overcome the enormous decrease in food.

[TriPolar]

@DSeid

True for cars, and healthcare and housing, but not much else and even for cars the big issue is now that most have one, more than that one costs a larger share of the median income.

Median family income in 1960 was $5620 and the average new car cost $2600.

Median family income in 2015 was $56,516 and the average new car costs $25,449.

In real dollar inflation not too dramatic. As the last link put itBut more households own them than before and for many middle class households owning a car has become a necessity. Perhaps they upspend as status signaling though.

Not that I consider this important here, but a car in 1960 provided a lot less value than a modern one. A 1960 car might not make it to 100,000 miles, for an average car lacked amenities like AC, and numerous safety features. I’d say a modern car is not only around the same price relative to income but also a much better value for the money.