NationStates Jolt Archive

Conspicuous consumption, defined in the American Heritage dictionary as
"n. The acquisition and display of expensive items to attract attention to one's wealth or to suggest that one is wealthy."

This means Mercedes-Benz (Bought for luxury rather than quality), designer handbags, etc.

Generally the way I observe most people today, people are very likely to think someone who drives an expensive newer vehicle from a luxury brand (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus), or maybe and carrying a designer handbag or wearing designer clothes is wealthy even if they are in debt up to their eyeballs. I know of some real estate agents who told me many people are so in debt in the first few years for their expensive homes they cannot even afford furniture to fill the homes up with.

While many with actual wealth sometimes drive older cars, do not care for fancy clothes, and generally do not try to flaunt their wealth (At least some).

So it seems to me this is the main way people are judged as far as status goes in today's Western society. By conspicuous consumption (And this is what I see commonly in society)

Though some say Academic or Job title determines status more. Several studies show that people are more likely to respect and listen to someone just because they have a Doctoral degree and can put Dr. before their name. Some say that job title and career determines status more.

There is a trend in a large section of society to worship what Orwell described as the 'Money-God'. I know one person who spent all of their money on a car, leaving their home in a terrible state. The reasoning? "A car is what people see you in, what determines your status. A house is just somewhere you sleep."

I know a guy who's a repo lawyer. Life is good for him. :D

Whether people buy more than they can possibly afford to show off or just out of ignorance is another question. It's hard to tell sometimes, but there does seem to be a trend toward "needing" visible luxury items for social purposes (to attract women, mainly). So it's probably both.

It's a marker of status amongst others who adhere to conspicuous consumption, certainly.

From what I have read, luxury goods companies such as conglomerate LVMH (Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton) and Gucci Group target mainly middle class and upper middle class in marketing, as a tendency toward conspicuous consumption is mainly among the middle class who are trying to reach up to the wealthy class. I have read several studies to this effect.

It's a marker of status amongst others who adhere to conspicuous consumption, certainly.

I am saying that is the majority of Western society, to the point where it is the marker of status to anyone even those who do not care about it, just turn on the TV and listen to music. The working class, middle classes, and even to some extent the upper middle class see it as the marker of status.

Yes and no, whilst conspicous consumption certainly seems to be an important part of status, it does not seem to be the whole of it.

Holding certain jobs, and being in positions of power still confer status - academica, teachers and doctors do not seem to be part of the elite clique of jobs to have anymore. And then there's also celebrity status, which is basically just about having lots of air time really. Let's take a certain Simon Cowell, he has a cushy job in the music industry - deciding who should be given contracts and who shouldn't - but he also gets to mouth off on TV. This would seem to confer status beyond just his having the job.

Gordon Ramsey too, he has status for being the head chef and owner of a very expensive London restaurent, but he also has status because he features in several TV shows. Most notably the show about his very expensive London restaurent.

what do you mean by status though? is it respect garnered? is it influence? is it height of profile? is it political and economic power?

i would say that status in terms of all but profile has very little to do with conspicuous consumption or even actual wealth. high profile people have the highest conspicuous consumption generally and they also get the least real respect and perhaps their influence suffers as a result and consequently so does their power. the most conspicuous consumers i can think of are 'musicians' and 'actors' and socialites. who the fuck would consider P Diddly, Paris Hilton or J Blo to have a 'high status'? they're tools.

what do you mean by status though? is it respect garnered? is it influence? is it height of profile? is it political and economic power?

Social status, and in the general population..not necessarily the top where status becomes harder and more varied to define (many famous are wealthy, and set the trends as it is as far as in the general population..on the other hand old money and old family lineages still play a huge role in the very elite, while new money plays a role in certain areas. To note Rappers have a HUGE influence on youth today, that is why marketing is gearing toward putting brand names in music. Rappers get paid to put brand names in their music. These names are a huge enough influence that you know of them, and hear of them regularly I am sure? So thats social status to the general population. But I am speaking of just seeing someone walking down the street, as in conspicuous consumption as a general marker of social status even if that person does not have real wealth. )

Conspicuous consumption, defined in the American Heritage dictionary as
"n. The acquisition and display of expensive items to attract attention to one's wealth or to suggest that one is wealthy."

This means Mercedes-Benz (Bought for luxury rather than quality), designer handbags, etc.

Generally the way I observe most people today, people are very likely to think someone who drives an expensive newer vehicle from a luxury brand (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Lexus), or maybe and carrying a designer handbag or wearing designer clothes is wealthy even if they are in debt up to their eyeballs. I know of some real estate agents who told me many people are so in debt in the first few years for their expensive homes they cannot even afford furniture to fill the homes up with.

While many with actual wealth sometimes drive older cars, do not care for fancy clothes, and generally do not try to flaunt their wealth (At least some).

So it seems to me this is the main way people are judged as far as status goes in today's Western society. By conspicuous consumption (And this is what I see commonly in society)

Though some say Academic or Job title determines status more. Several studies show that people are more likely to respect and listen to someone just because they have a Doctoral degree and can put Dr. before their name. Some say that job title and career determines status more.

yes....

Well

Well

Yep. :cool:

yes.
It started back in the 80's, in case you didn't notice. We called them yuppies or noveau riche back in those days.
too much money and not enough taste.

yes.
It started back in the 80's, in case you didn't notice. We called them yuppies or noveau riche back in those days.
too much money and not enough taste.

Which 80's?

Too much money and not enough taste has been around since... well I don't quite know what since :)

Which 80's?

Too much money and not enough taste has been around since... well I don't quite know what since :)

Exactly. I think at one point, the rich would hire hermits to walk around their estates and make indecent gestures. Now THAT is productive! :D

Conspicuous consumption might wow some, and immense wealth is definitely a potent 'in' to the upper crust, but inclusion is too complex to be pigeonholed.

A person who goes into debt buying expensive things might impress girls at a bar who don't know the whole story, but class will eventually have it say.

Some people are born into status, some people buy their way in, some people earn inclusion by virtue of their arts or talent, some people just buy the accouterments and play at it.

The right kind of jacket and shoes might make it look like you spend your summers in maine or martha's vineyard or somewhere comparable, and a summer house in one of those places might make it look like you went to the right schools and travel in the right circles, and the right schools and the right circles might make it look like you have the right background, and these are important in increasing order, with each one making the rest mere accouterments.

As long as conspicuous consumption is viewed as declasse, which it is, it will never equate to significant class and status.

While many with actual wealth sometimes drive older cars, do not care for fancy clothes, and generally do not try to flaunt their wealth (At least some).

i don't think you've really examined the way old money lives. they consume conspicuously too, only they are doing so for a different audience. see, the new rich (and the upper middle class in debt up to their eyes pretending to be new rich) are trying to impress people from their own non-rich cultural backgrounds. which means buying expensive stuff that you have heard of. old money wouldn't be caught dead doing that. their status markers are clearly visible to them and essentially unknown to you and me.

Several of the answers at least to me have been about the top 1 or 5% of the population, but I am speaking of what defines status to the general population. Of course the upper class has a separate set of rules of what defines status, and class. For instance, there is for the wealthiest 100 families in America that are old money even a Social Directory book published ONLY TO THEM, with addresses and contact information. This book is carefully guarded.

The general population does not seem to have so much of that. If you own a big house, a car, and wear designer clothes even if you are in debt your generally considered wealthy. (Often Upper Middle Class mostly) I hear of many of such people (and know of) using their home equity to finance their car etc.

I guess I have to answer that from two perspectives :

First, people who flaunt their wealth like this, by buying expensive cars, houses, clothes, electronics, holidays, etc. are most definitely doing so because they hope to achieve status this way.
The second perspective would be the perception of such flaunting, and the bestowed status by society. I know I risk being considered arrogant, but such display usually only impresses certain classes of society, and certainly not the highest ones. You can't buy taste, and just filling you life with expensive junk is not going to lift your status a lot. Ever.

I guess I have to answer that from two perspectives :

First, people who flaunt their wealth like this, by buying expensive cars, houses, clothes, electronics, holidays, etc. are most definitely doing so because they hope to achieve status this way.
The second perspective would be the perception of such flaunting, and the bestowed status by society. I know I risk being considered arrogant, but such display usually only impresses certain classes of society, and certainly not the highest ones. You can't buy taste, and just filling you life with expensive junk is not going to lift your status a lot. Ever.

Yes but consider the highest classes are in the top 5% of income earners, and probably see it as bad. Even the top 20% who make over $80,000 or so often are caught up in conspicuous consumption.

So those even with income brackets up to $500,000 i'd say are still living by conspicuous consumption as a major marker of status, and those in the lower upper class, upper middle class, middle class, and working class generally acknowledge conspicuous consumption as a primary marker of status.

We live in a society where material objects have become the primary status symbols, because of the population. Though other status symbols such as Club Memberships, Family Name, Major Career Success, being Old Money, and etc. still apply to the upper 10% of the population as the primary marker I would say. But I believe that material goods, in general in our society such as just seeing somebody on the street or their home, is the primary marker of status.

i don't think you've really examined the way old money lives. they consume conspicuously too, only they are doing so for a different audience. see, the new rich (and the upper middle class in debt up to their eyes pretending to be new rich) are trying to impress people from their own non-rich cultural backgrounds. which means buying expensive stuff that you have heard of. old money wouldn't be caught dead doing that. their status markers are clearly visible to them and essentially unknown to you and me.

It's not just money with old money though. It's stuff that you can't buy, no matter how rich you are.

Private label champagne and stuff.

I'm still waiting for conspicuous consumption of blood to become a status symbol. The wealthy have been doing it figuratively for years, and I'm bored to death of seeing stupidly large TVs and garish vehicles everywhere.

People pretending to be rich when they are not is just sad. I was born rich so i don't have to pretend.

yes.
It started back in the 80's, in case you didn't notice. We called them yuppies or noveau riche back in those days.
too much money and not enough taste.

Close, but no. You're about 60 years off - America's shift to judging people based on their consumption occurred during the 1920's.

Close, but no. You're about 60 years off - America's shift to judging people based on their consumption occurred during the 1920's.

Goes all the way back to Versailles really, where people were going in debt to impress the King and keep social status (widely reported on at the time, the indebtedness of the nobility at the time) But in that case they already had social status in wider society, was just trying to impress their "peers" roughly.

Any other reflections?

Goes all the way back to Versailles really, where people were going in debt to impress the King and keep social status (widely reported on at the time, the indebtedness of the nobility at the time) But in that case they already had social status in wider society, was just trying to impress their "peers" roughly.

Surely even before that, when have expensive/hard to get things not been used as a symbol of high status. Didn't Roman emperors dress in purple for that reason, and before them etc etc.

As others have said, consumption has been used as a status symbol for centuries, if not millenia. Having a larger, more expensive, rarer whatever almost always confers status amongst one's peer group, regardless of what that peer group is. For video gamers, it's having every system ever made and a kick ass computer. For middle-class suburbanites, its having a car and house you can't afford. For the old rich, its something else that the rest of us will never really pick up on. And so on and so forth. And none of this is new, in any way, shape or form.

I'm kinda surprised that the question needed asking.

Perhaps it's because I've taught public school and now at a university that I see the direct budding of nascent ideas about socioeconomic status and how it is reflected by things people buy. Sometimes it's subtle, such as the label of ones clothing, but it can be as demonstrative as a car or jewelry or other trinkets.

As for its cause, well, advertising is probably a significant culprit. Captialism (as much as I hate to so visibly draw the fevered rage of anti-communists who automatically assume I think capitalism is rubbish, when what I truly believe is that, much like Russian communism, American capitalism is a poorly-executed example of an effective ideology) as it is expressed in the US is another problem. I hear and read about how the economy must continue to grow for the US not to be in recession or depression. My first question is "how can anything on a finite world continue to grow in perpetuity?" -- let alone in just one nation on that world?

In order for companies to make money, people MUST buy shit. In order for people to buy shit, they must have jobs...at the companies who need to make money. (The Wal-Mart spiral: in some communities, Wal-Mart's prices are low enough to shut down other local retailers, thus forcing some to work at Wal-Mart, whose wages are low to cut corporate costs and drive up profits, thus forcing those working at Wal-Mart to shop at Wal-Mart...US capitalism writ slightly smaller).

I'm no economist...which is like saying I'm no astrologist, but that's another thread...but conspicuous consumption as a singifier of status is a natural outgrowth of the kind of free-market capitalism we have here. I've no idea what would make it better or how, and that depresses me sometimes.

As for the truly wealthy (see Chris Rock and his comparison of Oprah to Bill Gates and the difference between RICH and WEALTHY), they will always have access to things the merely rich have never heard of. Brands and products with no flash or well-known cachet, but of unsurpassing rarity, quality and expense that only a select few know about or understand.

Lewis Black also makes a point about wealth when he made fun of those people in companies like Enron, Adelphia, Global Crossing, and MCI who embezzled or otherwise stole billions of dollars. Black suggests that if it were he who had that kind of money, he wouldn't waste it on another car or another house. He'd hire, with an amazing salary and benefits, his own personal ball washer. After all, he's an important man and deserves to have hit nut-sack clean and taken care of whenever he feels the need.

THAT's the kind of thing the truly wealthy like to do (like the hermit example mentioned earlier). Like that secret society in the last Kubrick film Eyes Wide Shut, where you can pay to engage in behavior that would shock, offend or perhaps even be illegal in "polite" society. Wealth enables you, to put it gently, to be "discreetly impolite". And that takes a kind of restraint and class that the merely rich almost never possess.

That's my few cents.

As others have said, consumption has been used as a status symbol for centuries, if not millenia. Having a larger, more expensive, rarer whatever almost always confers status amongst one's peer group, regardless of what that peer group is. For video gamers, it's having every system ever made and a kick ass computer. For middle-class suburbanites, its having a car and house you can't afford. For the old rich, its something else that the rest of us will never really pick up on. And so on and so forth. And none of this is new, in any way, shape or form.

Dammit. Why can't I be that concise? Well said, and with commendable succintness.