LINK (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-25/u-s-holiday-sales-advanced-a-marginal-0-7-spendingpulse-says.html)
QuoteU.S. holiday sales growth slowed by more than half this year after gridlock in Washington soured consumers' moods and Hurricane Sandy disrupted shopping, MasterCard Advisors SpendingPulse said.
Retail sales grew by 0.7 percent from Oct. 28 through Dec. 24, the Purchase, New York, research firm said yesterday, without providing a dollar figure in the billions. Sales grew at a 2 percent pace in the same period a year ago. SpendingPulse tracks total U.S. sales at stores and online via all payment forms.
Here's my issue: It seems like we're getting some very mixed messages in regards to spending, especially during the holiday season. Articles like this come out, saying that sales have slumped which could lead to more economic troubles (or is indicative of them, depending on who you listen to). In other words, people need to buy more to help buoy the economy.
However, at the same time, we're constantly being told that Christmas has become too commercialized, that the point behind the holiday should be about family, remembering the birth of Christ (for Christians), and coming together as a community, rather than about buying the most expensive gifts, over-buying for the kids, or spending tons on unnecessary decorations, etc. That we, as a society, are teaching our kids poor values by overloading them with "stuff" instead of with "experiences".
On top of that, there's the whole reason we're in a recession: over-spending for one's income. That's left a lot of the more responsible folks gunshy when it comes to spending, especially during the holidays. They save more than they spend because they don't want to end up hurting due to those who overspend again. They, as responsible individuals, don't charge when they don't have the money. They spend what they can afford rather than going overboard. I would hazard a guess that this is probably the majority of the population throughout the first-world nations.
Is there a way that the population as a whole can help the economy while still spending less? Or this is entirely a policy issue?
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 10:01:47 AM
sales have slumped
Actually sales growth has slumped. Slightly different.
QuoteIs there a way that the population as a whole can help the economy while still spending less? Or this is entirely a policy issue?
Sure. We could give our income to someone else to spend, like the government.
No spending, no economic activity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 10:12:59 AM
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 10:01:47 AM
sales have slumped
Actually sales growth has slumped. Slightly different.
Sales slump if adjusted for inflation?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 10:12:59 AM
Sure. We could give our income to someone else to spend, like the government.
No spending, no economic activity.
So, being responsible and reducing gluttonous spending is killing the economy, yet we're admonished to be responsible and reduce the gluttonous spending. :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 12:17:32 PM
So, being responsible and reducing gluttonous spending is killing the economy, yet we're admonished to be responsible and reduce the gluttonous spending. :hmm:
Killing the economy is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?
The people who argue for decommercialization of Christmas are not basing their argument on responsibility. There's nothing irresponsible about buying things you can afford. Rather the argument is based Protestant virtues such as humility, quietism, reverance, etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 12:21:21 PM
The people who argue for decommercialization of Christmas are not basing their argument on responsibility. There's nothing irresponsible about buying things you can afford. Rather the argument is based Protestant virtues such as humility, quietism, reverance, etc.
If that's the case, it has little to do with being an actual Protestant. It's a common theme everywhere, anymore. Basically, everyone I know is tired of the gift-giving frenzy that Christmas has become. For the past few years, my friends and I have agreed that there will be no exchange of gifts. Part of that is disparate income levels, but mostly, we're just tired of the whole pressure to buy "just the right thing". Instead, we have a Yule party (not everyone celebrates Christmas) where everyone brings a dish and a bottle of something to drink. When we have given gifts, the rule was that it had to be handmade or a re-gift - no exceptions.
And we're not alone. I hear about it a lot anymore. Maybe it's just the crowd that I run with, but the grumbling about excessive gift-giving is pretty much everywhere. This includes families with small children as well as us "older" folks. In general, people don't want to do the whole Christmas shopping thing beyond just the immediate family. The trend appears to be growing, though, again, I accept that that may just be in my corner of the world.
What you're describing is not what I would describe as complaints about gluttony or ostentatiousness or responsibility. Rather it sounds like clarification of the inherent ambiguity of gift giving. No one wants to feel like the Scrooge who gave nothing but got lots of nice presents, or the dickhead who gives a ball point pen and gets a watch in return. Communally agreed rules eliminate this coordination problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 12:36:26 PM
What you're describing is not what I would describe as complaints about gluttony or ostentatiousness or responsibility. Rather it sounds like clarification of the inherent ambiguity of gift giving. No one wants to feel like the Scrooge who gave nothing but got lots of nice presents, or the dickhead who gives a ball point pen and gets a watch in return. Communally agreed rules eliminate this coordination problem.
And results in a significant slow-down in spending money around the holidays.
And this goes beyond just the holidays. It may be the recession, but we're definitely getting a lot of messages regarding how to avoid spending money on things you don't need. More importantly, how to live better on less. This, too, slows the amount of spending that's going out of each household that buys into this way of thinking. It's important, from my perspective, because I believe that people really do buy more crap than they'll ever use/need, and I'd rather we weren't such a throw-away society. This seems to be a more popular attitude, as well.
The point I'm trying to make is that from the social perspective, the message is to spend less and live more, but the economy demands more spending in order to turn things around. The dichotomy is troubling to me.
There are a number of people, especially in the wake of Teh Great Subprime Meltdown, advising people to not overly leverage, not spend more than you earn, and to save for retirement. But I can't think of significant portions of "society" telling people to buy less for the sake of buying less. Besides those seven Maryknoll nuns living in a yurt outside San Francisco of course.
You don't frequent the same places that I do. :)
The Mommy-Network, as it's sometimes called, is all about saving over spending, spend time not money on your kids, live on less in smaller places, etc. As I said, part of it is the whole economic downturn, but it's really taking hold. There are dozens of websites that are all about how to pinch pennies but live better lives. It's a complete cultural turn-around from when my kids were little and everything was about buying bigger, better, and more. Now, there are articles titled, "If you're going to buy your child just three gifts for Christmas, what should they be?" and stuff like that. Birthday parties are no longer about having the most kids in the best playland.
Sure, there are still those who buy a lot, but in general, I'd say that the trend is going more toward living on less than on the Bigger, Better lifestyle of years past. If that's the case, then the economy isn't going to get better based on consumer spending. Nor is that going to be a good indicator on economic growth.
My problem with consumerism is not that it leads to spending, but that it leads to pointless spending. I'm sure people will always find some things to spend money on, and spending money on less pointless shit means spending more money on pointful shit. And even if removal of consumerism will lead to less spending and thus economic contraction, does it have to be a bad thing? If people have to work less because they don't have to fund worthless spending, I don't see a problem with that. I think Americans could definitely use more leisure and less material gluttony.
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2012, 01:26:42 PM
My problem with consumerism is not that it leads to spending, but that it leads to pointless spending. I'm sure people will always find some things to spend money on, and spending money on less pointless shit means spending more money on pointful shit. And even if removal of consumerism will lead to less spending and thus economic contraction, does it have to be a bad thing? If people have to work less because they don't have to fund worthless spending, I don't see a problem with that. I think Americans could definitely use more leisure and less material gluttony.
:yes:
In other words, it's conspicuous consumerism that is going by the wayside. The question is: how much of an affect is that (or will that) have on the economy? Enough that it will cause significant problems? If so, what are the options for rebuilding? Because like you, I think that, culturally, that's a good thing.
What I think is happening Meri is that in the 80s and 90s people put an unsustainable lifestyle on their credit cards and home equity loans, and what we're seeing now is a return to more sustainable spending habits.
Folks wanting to cast their actions in the most favorable light possible could try to spin this as a virtuous return to the simple wholesome life. But until we start seeing soccer moms living like Franciscans I think it's just spin.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2012, 01:42:17 PM
What I think is happening Meri is that in the 80s and 90s people put an unsustainable lifestyle on their credit cards and home equity loans, and what we're seeing now is a return to more sustainable spending habits.
Folks wanting to cast their actions in the most favorable light possible could try to spin this as a virtuous return to the simple wholesome life. But until we start seeing soccer moms living like Franciscans I think it's just spin.
However it's coined, the result is the same: people are spending less.
So, given that, what affect will it have on the economic growth? Will this "trend" effect things seriously?
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 01:55:32 PM
However it's coined, the result is the same: people are spending less.
So, given that, what affect will it have on the economic growth? Will this "trend" effect things seriously?
Sure. Joan for example just won't shut up about how consumer deleveraging is affecting the economy and absolutely necessitates that the government run a deficit of Latin American proportions just to keep our heads above water.
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2012, 01:26:42 PM
My problem with consumerism is not that it leads to spending, but that it leads to pointless spending. I'm sure people will always find some things to spend money on, and spending money on less pointless shit means spending more money on pointful shit. And even if removal of consumerism will lead to less spending and thus economic contraction, does it have to be a bad thing? If people have to work less because they don't have to fund worthless spending, I don't see a problem with that. I think Americans could definitely use more leisure and less material gluttony.
:yes:
In other words, it's conspicuous consumerism that is going by the wayside. The question is: how much of an affect is that (or will that) have on the economy? Enough that it will cause significant problems? If so, what are the options for rebuilding? Because like you, I think that, culturally, that's a good thing.
Yes, in part what you and DG are talking about is the reaction to consumerism for it's own sake, and actively thinking about ones own resources and what could in part replace, consumption as a long term economic motivator.
And of course it is a rather difficult circle to square, what with 70% of the economy being consumer spending.
Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 02:04:25 PM
Yes, in part what you and DG are talking about is the reaction to consumerism for it's own sake, and actively thinking about ones own resources and what could in part replace, consumption as a long term economic motivator.
And of course it is a rather difficult circle to square, what with 70% of the economy being consumer spending.
So what are the options on the table? I'm tired of the pressure to spend more that's coming from economists and the government. What else can be done to fix this problem?
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 02:05:56 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 26, 2012, 02:04:25 PM
Yes, in part what you and DG are talking about is the reaction to consumerism for it's own sake, and actively thinking about ones own resources and what could in part replace, consumption as a long term economic motivator.
And of course it is a rather difficult circle to square, what with 70% of the economy being consumer spending.
So what are the options on the table? I'm tired of the pressure to spend more that's coming from economists and the government. What else can be done to fix this problem?
I think in part you've already articulated the 'answer' to the question DG posited, you and others tired of the conventional way things are done, just need to get on doing what you described, ways that suit you and make you happier.
Then in the round, if enough people do that, then aspects of the economy will change in response. It won't be a steady state but a gradual evolution.
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 02:05:56 PM
So what are the options on the table? I'm tired of the pressure to spend more that's coming from economists and the government. What else can be done to fix this problem?
As for the economy and needing more spending to boost it, yeah, we are a consumer driven economy. I wonder though if we'll be fine spending less on the consumer side if the economy was in good shape? There must be much of the economy that is driven by other goods and services that aren't really consumer driven. Medical, financial, housing, heavy manufacturing for business use, and more.
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 01:02:47 PM
You don't frequent the same places that I do. :)
The Mommy-Network, as it's sometimes called, is all about saving over spending, spend time not money on your kids, live on less in smaller places, etc. As I said, part of it is the whole economic downturn, but it's really taking hold. There are dozens of websites that are all about how to pinch pennies but live better lives. It's a complete cultural turn-around from when my kids were little and everything was about buying bigger, better, and more. Now, there are articles titled, "If you're going to buy your child just three gifts for Christmas, what should they be?" and stuff like that. Birthday parties are no longer about having the most kids in the best playland.
Sure, there are still those who buy a lot, but in general, I'd say that the trend is going more toward living on less than on the Bigger, Better lifestyle of years past. If that's the case, then the economy isn't going to get better based on consumer spending. Nor is that going to be a good indicator on economic growth.
I saw an article recently that there's a huge surplus of millions of McMansions type homes, but a shortage and more demand for smaller homes.
I live in a Cape, six rooms, three bedrooms, cellar and glad that I don't have a larger house needing more to heat and cool it, costing more and using more resources unnecessarily.
Here you go Meri, the Sales in the UK, a one minute video worth watching:
Boxing Day sales: Bargain hunters queue at Selfridges
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20844912 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20844912)
The first guy appears to have no idea why he's queuing, just that he will be buying something, almost anything !
Quote from: KRonn on December 26, 2012, 02:38:58 PM
I saw an article recently that there's a huge surplus of millions of McMansions type homes, but a shortage and more demand for smaller homes.
I live in a Cape, six rooms, three bedrooms, cellar and glad that I don't have a larger house needing more to heat and cool it, costing more and using more resources unnecessarily.
Yeah it's a good point, Kronn, a lot of people have now reached the state that it's become a chore and time consuming just to look after everything they've already got, so why go still further into the already blotted 'bigger and better' camp.
What you already have is the equivalent of what the proper Victorian urban upper middle class had, you're just lacking the servants. :D
Hehe, I guess the servants these days could be the appliances! :D At least for lower classes like me ;)
Quote from: merithyn on December 26, 2012, 10:01:47 AM
LINK (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-25/u-s-holiday-sales-advanced-a-marginal-0-7-spendingpulse-says.html)
QuoteU.S. holiday sales growth slowed by more than half this year after gridlock in Washington soured consumers’ moods
Color me skeptical that any significant number of people spent less because of gridlock in Washington.
Agreed on that dps.
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2012, 09:11:08 AM
Color me skeptical that any significant number of people spent less because of gridlock in Washington.
Same. The downturn in spending has been coming for a long while, and it's starting to be considered "cool" to be frugal. This has nothing to do with anything going on
right now and everything to do with a multi-year recession causing a change in focus and priorities.