Does being called a consumer bother you?
July 29th, 2006 | by
mbhunter |
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I guess I’ve read one too many news articles about the effects that reduced “consumer spending” are having on the economy. “Consumers are having trouble finding the mojo to keep spending.” “The Chinese consumers aren’t spending enough; they have a savings glut.” “Consumers were spending in droves this past month.” Blah blah blah …
We’re all consumers to a point. We consume things, even if it’s just food, water, and oxygen.
But this isn’t what the media, economists, etc., mean by “consumer,” of course: Consumers are organic life forms with credit cards or, optionally, cash, who exist solely to collect a paycheck, buy things at stores, and occasionally get married and have little consumers.
Which, I suppose, is true to a point as well. But the kinds of comments in the first paragraph instill a social conditioning. Spending is good, and saving is bad. Spending helps the economy. Saving hurts it. Spending leads to prosperity. Saving, to recession.
The way our economy is set up, this is true, too! Things would grind to a halt if people — oops, consumers — stopped buying things. Consumer electronics, my goodness! Imagine the carnage if we stopped buying big-screen TVs. All of those companies would go out of business, and the consumer-electronics workers wouldn’t collect their paychecks, and they couldn’t buy stuff. Or real-estate developers who have just broken ground on new 100-plus-unit subdivisions — mercy! Fewer buyers means prices go down and less money in the builders’, agents’ and developers’ pockets. And the home-owning consumers wouldn’t be able to pull out as much equity in their homes to buy the big-screen TVs. A disaster in the making!
This slowdown, recession, Depression, will happen one way or another. It has to: We’re importing greater than $2 billion more than we’re exporting as a country, each and every day. We can’t consume forever. But, I imagine we’ll find new and better ways to consume, which will put off the inevitable for a while longer but will make any recovery that much worse.
Somehow, the consumer will get the blame for the slowdown, anyway. We just didn’t go deep enough into debt to keep the economy humming along. We selfishly looked after our own retirement and saved more than we should have. We let those high gas prices get to us and started eating in more. We naively thought that spending less than we earned was wise. We voted with our pocketbooks, and our guy lost.
At the same time, though, never in the history of mankind have there been such a variety of things to buy. Our vehicles are bigger, our computers are faster, our tents are lighter, and our fast food has been more fattening than it ever has before. And, frankly, we always want more, don’t we? If somehow, somewhere, some business could manage to sell us something for free, we’d want it delivered, too!
It’s in a consumer’s nature to consume.
But the stuff doesn’t last. It’s consumed. It’s gone. That’s probably what bothers me about the label “consumer.”
Your thoughts?
| 2.5 |
9 Responses to “Does being called a consumer bother you?”
By tanya on Jul 29, 2006 | Reply
It doesn’t bother me one bit. What would you rather be called?
By mbhunter on Jul 29, 2006 | Reply
How about an American citizen? Or a person? “Mighty Bargain Hunter” works for me.
By Penny Nickel on Jul 29, 2006 | Reply
Great post. Your quotes help illustrate how the term often implies it’s our nature– and responsibility!– to buy more and more stuff. That our economy, our country as a whole, will only be strong if we dutifully spend and consume as much as we can, and if we want to save more (or God forbid, work less) we’re bad citizens. It makes me think of some of the “get back to shopping or the terrorists win!”-type comments made after 9/11, which really, really bothered me.
I think the use of the term is just a symptom of something bigger… but phasing out the term would certainly be a step in the right direction. “Consumer” suggests that the primary role of everyday people is to buy products and fuel the economy. What’s a term that says that the economy is something we can tap into to serve us in building respsonsible, fulfilling lives?
By mbhunter on Jul 29, 2006 | Reply
Penny Nickel, thanks for the comments!
I remember the post 9/11 comment you speak of.
Your last question is a good one. If we find the answer we might be able to achieve a lot of things. I start looking for the answer by noting that there are different places to tap into the economy besides walking up to a cash register.
By vm on Jul 30, 2006 | Reply
er, I think you guys are being a bit sensitive and over the top.
Maybe you should stop caring what the media “labels” you. Frankly, I don’t care what they say, nor do I feel as if the collective term “consumer” applies to me.
If you feel that the label “consumer” implies it is your duty and responsibility to spend and help the economy….you need to get out more and stop caring what other people think of you
By mbhunter on Jul 30, 2006 | Reply
VM, thanks for your comments!
Some questions for you: Where do you go when you’re getting out more? Given that your life is a lot more exciting than mine (not that difficult, frankly!) how much of it revolves around commercial entertainment? Do you weigh the options about what you’re spending to do that? Or do you just go out and have a good time? Where did that response originate from? I’m not judging you for going out and having a good time, but instead questioning where our predispositions come from.
By Financial Freedumb on Jul 31, 2006 | Reply
Actually, I think the term consumer is accurate…consuming is a must, saving is not. Fact is everything in nature consumes…only a few actually save…honey bees? So does the term bother me? Not really.
By Tracy W on Aug 3, 2006 | Reply
Speaking as an economist, by saving you’re doing good things for the economy in the long-run.
If everyone reduced their spending and started saving, there would be some short-run economic disruption. All those people who make TVs, etc, would lose their jobs. But there would be more funds available for investment, growing the economy more. And people would meet their savings targetts and then start spending again, but thanks to economic growth they’d be able to do so at a higher level. If you like, think of the increased spending as being on health care, the arts, environment, etc, rather than plasma-screen TVs.
If everyone decided not to consume much, then the economy would be smaller, but people would be happier (according to revealed preferences). So no problem for an economist.
In the short-run, these things matter for predicting the economy over the next few years.
But the stuff doesn’t last. It’s consumed. It’s gone. That’s probably what bothers me about the label “consumer.”
That’s life. We’re all going to die. That doesn’t mean that what we do with the temporary life we have is unimportant.