Should Americans Be More Materialistic?
Here's an interesting paradox at (as Grant McCracken would say) the intersection of economics and anthropology: All right-thinking humanistic people agree that it's better to spend your time and money on having good, meaningful experiences rather than acquiring material possessions. For consumers, then, intangibles are better --more culturally prestigious--than stuff. For producers, on the other hand, the hierarchy is reversed. It's better to make stuff than to provide services. "Good jobs" are in manufacturing. "Bad jobs" are in hotels. This cultural prejudice goes beyond wages; in fact, people will insist without checking that a service job like, say, giving facials, must pay badly, even when it doesn't.
With this paradox in mind, latest NYT column looks at the shift from buying things to buying experiences:
LISTEN to the jobs debate carefully, and you might get the idea that the problem with the economy is that Americans just are not materialistic enough.
We spend too much of our income on restaurant meals, entertainment, travel and health care and not enough on refrigerators, ball bearings, blue jeans and cars.
Manufacturing employment is sluggish because of rising productivity - making more with fewer people - and foreign competition. But that's not the whole story, especially over the long term. Production is changing, but so is consumption.
As incomes go up, Americans spend a greater proportion on intangibles and relatively less on goods. One result is more new jobs in hotels, health clubs and hospitals, and fewer in factories.
In 1959, Americans spent about 40 percent of their incomes on services, compared with 58 percent in 2000. That figure understates the trend, because in many cases goods and services come bundled together.
Read the rest here, and related articles here and especially here.
And for an experience embodied in a good, buy (and read) the new paperback edition of The Substance of Style.