Tag Archives: consumption

Generation gap: younger Americans don’t want Baby Boomer’s heirlooms/stuff

Posted on by

The Chicago Tribune profiles an interesting generation gap: Baby Boomers are worried their children and young adults in general aren’t interested in their family heirlooms and acquired stuff:

Passing down heirlooms from one generation to the next has long been tradition. But Copeland and many other baby boomers fear that their children and grandchildren will end up tossing the family treasures like a worn-out pair of gym shoes.

“A lot of young people are so transient; they don’t stay anywhere very long. They rent apartments and don’t own anything,” said Copeland, whose sons live at home. “They don’t want to be tied down to family heirlooms that don’t mean anything to them.”

Julie Hall, a North Carolina liquidation appraiser known as The Estate Lady, said this has become a dilemma for a growing number of middle-age people who are trying to come to terms with a harsh reality: Often what they consider to be jewels, their children and grandchildren see as junk.

“Though they have the best intentions, boomers have a tendency to keep too much stuff for subsequent generations, though the kids have already told them they don’t want anything,” said Hall, author of the book “The Boomer Burden: Dealing With Your Parents’ Lifetime Accumulation of Stuff.”

There are several social factors at work here which are noted in the article:

1. There are generational shifts at work from those who were alive during the Great Depression to Baby Boomers to Millennials. This affects things like consumption patterns, family patterns, and where people live.

2. We now live in a more disposable, cheaper culture. For example, the story talks about Millennials preferring IKEA furniture. Such goods are relatively cheap, come in a limited set of colors that match a number of things, and can be traded, discarded, given away, or sold fairly easily.

3. It sounds like Millennials are looking to have less stuff in general. While Baby Boomers might consider these things heirlooms, Millennials see it as clutter that must be stored somewhere and moved again in the future. Certain items may have value to a family but what good is it if it just sits there without being used much? The article suggests this may be due to younger Americans living in smaller spaces (while Baby Boomers have plenty of room in their larger homes) but it could also be tied to Millennials placing a higher value on electronics like laptops and smartphones. It has been argued Millennials are more interested in these personal electronic devices than cars and houses, traditional American consumer goods. Also, Millennials would be more interested in debating how someone’s digital files get passed down.

4. The article doesn’t mention this at all but I wonder if this reflects changing family structures. Heirlooms matter not because they are objectively valuable but because they hold sentimental value. Perhaps Millennials have less sentimental interest in objects? A positive spin on this would be that Millennials value personal relationships more but a darker interpretation could be that they simply haven’t had the same kind of deep relationships that would give objectives meaning. Plus, more Americans are living alone and this could make it harder to endow certain objects with enough meaning for a family member to feel the same way.

5. Another thing the article doesn’t suggest: perhaps Baby Boomers had too much stuff to start with. Is this the sort of problem that only arises in a culture that revolves around consumption and materialism?

Shopping the real favorite sport of Americans?

Posted on by

At the bottom of yet another article about Black Friday, I found this interesting quote from a Sears executive about how Americans view shopping:

Sears, like many retailers, will make many Black Friday deals available online. At Sears, they’re available to the store’s Shop Your Way members (there’s no fee to join, and it can be done online).

“Shopping is a sport to many people, and this is the Super Bowl,” Hanover added.

Americans tend to like their sports so could shopping really supplant football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and other activities? Here are some reasons this could happen:

1. The average American probably gets a lot more opportunities to shop than to play sports. It is different to observe a sport versus participating in shopping.

2. Shopping can now take place in many different places. As brick and mortar retailers have noticed, online shopping makes it possible to look at, think through, and make purchases from virtually anywhere.

3. Shopping is a fairly frequent activity. Even if someone spends very little disposable income, that person still has to shop for groceries and essentials.

4. Shopping incorporates some of the same features as watching sports or cheering for sports teams. Shoppers are fans of particular brands. Shopping can be done with other people, building and cementing group bonds. Shopping can be ritualistic. In other words, the same sort of social benefits of group activity suggested by Durkheim that could apply to sports could also apply to shopping.

5. Shopping is a critical part of our economy. While people do need to purchase certain goods regularly, new products like the latest smartphones, cars, video games, and other things are important for corporations, the stock market, and thus, stockholders which includes a wide range of Americans.

6. Shopping in America is often tied to holidays like Christmas, Thankgiving, and Halloween. Spending can be easier to justify because it is for the holidays plus it is related to social interactions that take place those days.

7. Compared to most of human history, more people now have the time and income to devote to shopping beyond subsistence.

Shopping itself deserves more attention from sociologists. While plenty of sociologists in recent decades have looked at consumption patterns (often focused on the products or objects acquired through consumption), this isn’t quite the same as looking at the process of shopping. I have enjoyed reading Sharon Zukin’s work on shopping; for example, see Chapter 6 “While the City Shops” in The Cultures of Cities.

Was the US at a point where “every good American deserved a McMansion”?

Posted on by

I’ve seen claims like this before but here is a great example of a broad description of how McMansions contributed to the American economic crisis:

A worrying and much commented on aspect of America’s Great Recession was that very few people saw it coming.

The autopsy revealed many obvious causes — the artful bundling and trading of bad debt, the notion that every good American deserved a McMansion in the suburbs whether or not he could pay for it, instituting big tax cuts and massive spending increases, pervasive debt, everywhere.

These were mostly ignored until it was too late.

What intrigues me here is not the argument that the construction of and mortgages provided for McMansions and other large houses contributed to the economic crisis. They did. However, the argument here is that Americans thought they deserved McMansions and other goods. Is this true? It is one thing to have the credit available to make such big purchases but another thing to have a pervasive ideology that everyone deserves such an opportunity. The real problem then was not McMansions but materialism and excessive consumption. This is why McMansions are often mentioned in the same sentence with SUVs: both have become symbols of unnecessary but wanted consumer goods.

This is the reason I have wondered repeatedly on this blog whether American consumer patterns will change once (if?) the economy turns around. Because of the downturn, it is more difficult to purchase and build things like McMansions. But, if the economy turns around, will people again turn to unnecessary consumer goods? A number of commentators have suggested spending patterns will change, particularly for younger adults who will have or want to delay purchases like cars or houses. Yet, we will have to wait and see and see whether the economic status of today sticks around for a long time or not and then how people respond.

Don’t dress yourself in a McMansion wardrobe

Posted on by

I’ve seen the concept of a McMansion tied to several other consumer items like SUVs, fast food, and RVs (see my McMansion article for some other examples). But, I have never seen it applied to clothing:

Unlike most leading men who dress like they’re drawing up plans for a McMansion, starting with casual, often gaudy pieces and trying for respectability solely through the price tags and their all too transparent attempts at blustering nonchalance, Mr. Lewis always begins with the right foundation: tailored elements. Often the subsequent scarves upon scarves, organ grinder hats, and lurid color pairings can lead him into dangerous, Elton John lawn party, territory but when he keeps it simple and allows the vintage inspired DDL flair to remain in the details, great things happen. For example this sharp to lethal, flannel, pinstriped, DB, suit that he’s paired with a very subtle spotted tie and this optic herringbone top coat that gets turned out with woven fedora that looks like it’s gotten just the right amount of stomping.

Here is the argument: like the McMansion homeowner, the McMansion wardrobe owner emphasizes flash over substance, quick impressions over long-term gravity and style, big features and brands rather than quality and cohesion. In contrast, Daniel Day-Lewis knows how to dress in a way that matches his often lauded acting.

Things I want to know about this idea of McMansion wardrobes:

1. What clothing styles are more McMansion-like? It is about what is popular? Does it have to be tailored?

2. What brands are tied to these McMansion ideas? Are these upstart brands and designers?

3. Which leading men dress more like McMansions? I’ve heard about celebrity best/worst dressed lists but I’ve never seen a connection to McMansions. Are less “serious” actors more likely to be tied to McMansion wardrobes?

4. How does one best acquire non-McMansions tastes? Does this come with the proper training and childhood or is it a function of having enough money to spend?

A few graphs suggest people in wealthier countries spend more on housing, less on food

Posted on by

Look at some graphs of how families in different countries around the world spend their money and a few things stand out:

Two big ideas for the road: Houses and food. Everybody needs somewhere to live and something to eat. But you can learn a lot about a country by looking at housing and food spending. Here’s how the U.S., where middle-class families spend about a third of their income on housing, compare to the developing economies in this survey…
I don’t want to push this point too far, because these sort of surveys have obvious limitations. Tremendous income inequality in developing countries with hundreds of millions of people makes it impossible to tell the story of the frothy middle class *in one graph.* But the bigger picture is clear and uncontroversial. When families earn more income, they can afford to eat more and buy more clothes, but the real shift is from those essentials to bigger better houses, education, and health care.

Interesting. However, I wonder much of this differs by country based on political, economic, and cultural values. Clearly, items like food are necessary for survival. But once citizens reach a certain income threshold, I assume there are differences across countries in how they spend this more discretionary income. For example, in the United States, transportation is a relatively high cost because of a reliance on automobiles. Similarly, people in the US might spend relatively less on food but how much of this is due to policies that help keep food prices low? More broadly, don’t government policies affect whether people have to spend more in certain categories; for example, they might spend less out of their income for health care but if that is due to paying higher taxes which cover more health care costs, then such figures of discretionary spending might be misleading.

Perhaps this situation is ripe for a cross-cultural experiment. Go to different countries and give people a scenario: suppose you are given a decent sum of money (might differ by country) and then ask how people would spend that money. What emerges as a common need or want?

Evidence: TV shows can lower fertility rates

Posted on by

An article about the cultural power of television discusses several studies that show TV programs can lower fertility rates:

Several years ago, a trio of researchers working for the Inter-American Development Bank set out to help solve a sociological mystery. Brazil had, over the course of four decades, experienced one of the largest drops in average family size in the world, from 6.3 children per woman in 1960 to 2.3 children in 2000. What made the drop so curious is that, unlike the Draconian one-child policy in China, the Brazilian government had in place no policy to limit family size. (It was actually illegal at some point to advertise contraceptives in the overwhelmingly Catholic country.) What could explain such a steep drop? The researchers zeroed in on one factor: television.

Television spread through Brazil in the mid-sixties. But it didn’t arrive everywhere at once in the sprawling country. Brazil’s main station, Globo, expanded slowly and unevenly. The researchers found that areas that gained access to Globo saw larger drops in fertility than those that didn’t (controlling, of course, for other factors that could affect fertility). It was not any kind of news or educational programming that caused this fertility drop but exposure to the massively popular soap operas, or novelas, that most Brazilians watch every night. The paper also found that areas with exposure to television were dramatically more likely to give their children names shared by novela characters.

Novelas almost always center around four or five families, each of which is usually small, so as to limit the number of characters the audience must track. Nearly three quarters of the main female characters of childbearing age in the prime-time novelas had no children, and a fifth had one child. Exposure to this glamorized and unusual (especially by Brazilian standards) family arrangement “led to significantly lower fertility”—an effect equal in impact to adding two years of schooling.

In a 2009 study, economists Robert Jensen and Emily Oster detected a similar pattern in India. A decade ago, cable television started to expand rapidly into the Indian countryside, where deeply patriarchal views had long prevailed. But not all villages got cable television at once, and its random spread created another natural experiment. This one yielded extraordinary results. Not only did women in villages with cable television begin bearing fewer children, as in Brazil, but they were also more able to leave their home without their husbands’ permission and more likely to disapprove of husbands abusing their wives, and the traditional preference for male children declined. The changes happened rapidly, and the magnitude was “quite large”—the gap in gender attitudes separating villages introduced to cable television from urban areas shrunk by between 45 and 70 percent. Television, with its more progressive social model, had changed everything.

Four quick thoughts:

1. Such shows (TV and radio) have been used deliberately by public health organizations to fight AIDS. It is one thing to hold training sessions and open and maintain clinics but it is another to have successful soap operas that promote certain behaviors.

2. These situations provided some fascinating natural experiments. I occasionally ask students this very question: how might you set up a natural experiment to test the effects of television? In the United States, outside of some ultra-controlled environment a la The Truman Show, it is difficult to quickly answer this question.

3. Sociologist Juliet Schor nicely explains the mechanism behind this in The Overspent American. Mass media presents average residents a new, commonly known reference group to which they can compare themselves. Instead of primarily comparing themselves to neighbors or acquaintances, viewers started seeing what “middle-class” or “normal” look like on television and then work to emulate that.

4. Media output is not simply entertainment – something is being promoted. Being able to watch and experience this critically is crucial in a world awash with media and information.

McMansions have marble floors, hardwood dominates elsewhere

Posted on by

In addition to their size, McMansions are often said to have other defining characteristics like granite countertops and stainless steel appliances. Here is another suggested defining feature: marble floors.

Solid hardwood is the residential flooring gold standard, unless you’re in a McMansion, where marble might rule. But in Tucson, where tile has been the class act for so long, increasingly hardwood floors have the look for high-end homes. And more modern products that capture the look of hardwood – engineered hardwoods, a hardwood veneer over high-density plyboard bases, and laminates (convincing photographic reproductions of hardwoods over high-density board) – are moving in on the traditional tile, polished concrete and carpet throughout the area.

Hardwoods – from oak, the most common, maple and hickory, to exotic tropical woods and our own rock hard mesquite – are enjoying a resurgence in custom homes.

I can’t say that I have seen too many McMansions featuring marble floors. When I think of marble floors, I think of the expansive foyers of mansions that might also feature things like winding staircases and ornate chandeliers.

Hardwood floors seem to dominate many housing forms today from urban lofts, condos, starter homes, and McMansions. I’m not quite sure why this is but here are a few possible reasons: it is relatively easy to maintain; it has a reasonable price point compared to other options; people really don’t like the look of carpet, particularly in important social areas like a kitchen, dining room, and foyer; there are some sustainable options (if you are willing to pay for it); and it is what homebuyers appear to want. I might also add that marble floors might be considered too pretentious compared to hardwood which is viewed as both durable and classy.

Australia retakes the lead for largest new homes in the world

Posted on by

In recent years, Australia and the United States have alternated having the largest new homes. New data suggests Australia has retaken the lead:

In any case, that Australian homes should be costly is not so surprising given the peculiarities of the domestic market.

The Australian dream requires you to own a detached house with a large garden, a land-hungry type of accommodation that makes up no less than 76 percent of all homes.

Three-quarters of all homes have three or more bedrooms, and almost a third have four or more. The average newly built home is now the largest of any country at 243 square meters (2,615 square feet), taking the McMansion mantle from the United States.

And, while it is one of the emptiest countries on the planet, it is also one of the most urbanized, with most of the population crowding the coast in just eight sprawling cities.

I wonder how much this has to do with something I suspect is at play in the United States: housing starts may be down but those that are being built are primarily aimed at the upper ends of the market toward people who haven’t been hit as hard by the recession.

It is interesting that this is buried in the final paragraphs of a story about the Australian housing market. The overall piece suggests that a country can have large homes without necessarily having an overextended housing market like we see in the United States. One complaint about McMansions in the United States is that they have ruined the housing market, pushing buyers and lenders to have bloated mortgages and generally corresponding with American habits of overspending and incurring debt. But it doesn’t have to be this way: the article tells of different mortgage patterns in Australia such as homeowners paying them off quicker and having a small amount of subprime loans. In other words, having a large home doesn’t have to be tied to the ideas of profligate spending if the system is set up in a different way.

Discovering America’s consumer habits at yard sales

Posted on by

A photographer discusses what he has seen at American yard sales:

After traveling the country for four years shooting Yard Sales, Ruffing’s photos document consumer habits, low-budget marketing, the movement of military families and telling evidence of the economic recession…

Ruffing, 33, says he spent several days working on the assignment [at the “world’s longest yard sale” 700 miles long] and was quickly drawn in by the culture. One of the first things he noticed was the way yard sales have become their own little marketplaces with unique advertising strategies. Sellers aren’t creating high-end Nike or Budweiser commercials, but he says they will go to great lengths to create inventive ways to increase traffic…

Yard sales also have a unique way of demonstrating consumption habits, he says. While his work doesn’t compete with the famous photos of people squished against Best Buy doors on Black Friday in terms of pure shopper madness, they are still a window into our lust for stuff…

Fortunately, there is also a flipside to the doom and gloom, he says. To many people, both buyers and sellers, he says yard sales also represented a new and more calculated approach to living within our means.

I wonder if anyone has calculated the average lag time for how long certain products take to make it to yard sales.

It sounds like we could draw another interesting conclusion: Americans simply have a lot of stuff. This reminds me of the book Material World: A Global Family Portrait which includes photographs of families from around the world with all of their worldly possessions in their front yard. Even with an “average” American family, the Americans had far more stuff than everyone else. And I would suspect Americans have only collected more (on average) since that books publication in the 1990s.

This also reminded me of Dave Ramsey who often tells people to hold a yard or garage sale so they can make some quick money and popular shows like Pawn Stars where people are looking to turn their objects into cash. People may like their stuff but they also often like turning that stuff into cash (often overvaluing their own possessions – just look at Craigslist) so they can they buy more.

The New York Times on a McMansion travel trailer

Posted on by

The comparisons have been made in the pages of the New York Times before but here is another example: the travel trailer compared to McMansion.

Yet the passing of the Opera hasn’t prevented other trailer companies from trying to break out of the box. Here are five other head-turning trailers…

JAYCO SEISMIC The innovation here is room. A virtual McMansion on wheels, the Seismic has its own garage at the rear, though that space — from 80 to 112 square feet, depending on the model — can be used instead as a spare bedroom or a workshop. The back wall can be swung down to do double duty as a patio.

Seismic prices range from $71,000 to $130,000.

A so-called fifth-wheel trailer, the Seismic is pulled by a pickup using a hitch similar to those used on semitrailers.

So an extra-large trailer is akin to a McMansion. Also, there are some hints here of another characteristic of McMansions that in the past has been used to tie trailers or RVs to McMansions: luxury or excessive consumption. Who exactly needs a Jayco Seismic trailer? Clearly, this trailer is only available to a certain (wealthy) crowd. However, it is unclear from this article whether there are more “refined” or “sophisticated” trailers that could still be large without getting labeled a McMansion.