Conspicuous consumption persists today. But just as the patricians of classical times changed their habits once the masses gained the ability to copy them, so too have modern American elites recoiled from accumulating mere goods now that globalisation has made them affordable to the middle class. Instead, argues Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, a professor at the University of Southern California, in "The Sum of Small Things", they have begun consuming the fruits of "conspicuous production": socially worthy things like fair-trade coffee. They also emphasise "inconspicuous consumption", of services like education. Far from making the world more egalitarian, this shift, in particular, threatens to entrench modern elites' privileged position more effectively than the habits of their predecessors ever did.
[...] Rather than filling garages with flashy cars, the data show, today's rich devote their budgets to less visible but more valuable ends. Chief among them is education for their children: the top 10% now allocate almost four times as much of their spending to school and university as they did in 1996, whereas for other groups the figure has hardly budged. They also invest heavily in domestic services such as housekeepers, freeing up time that the less fortunate must spend on chores.
Rather than frittering away that precious leisure time on frivolities, as Veblen's leisure class did, they devote it to enriching experiences, like attending the opera, holidaying in far-off lands and working out at fancy gyms. Their children, by tagging along and thus absorbing this "cultural capital", develop the sophistication needed to win admission to selective universities, vastly increasing the odds that they will form the next generation's elite.
The rich also throw lavish birthday parties for their dogs.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 08 2017, @05:37AM (5 children)
It sounds like it's trickling down more, rather than less, but it's sort of hard to tell.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 08 2017, @08:20AM (1 child)
However, when it comes to the rich buying an education for their children such that the old boys' club does its magic and keeps doors open, I don't think there's anything new about that. Where did Kennedy get his education? Which one, I hear you ask. Doesn't matter, I reply - Harvard. Every fucking one. (Note, females are apparently trash in that family and don't deserve an education - ship them off to a convent, that's a much better idea.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday August 08 2017, @11:28PM
Yes, well, I have heard the argument that George the IInd must have been clever, because he went to both Yale and Harvard, as if his family connections and need to avoid Vietnam had nothing to do with it.
The ruling classes everywhere need exclusivity for their children, so that they can create the next generation of ruling class.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @01:24PM (1 child)
I'll have to tell a neighbor (big developer and company owner) that he's out of style? He has a Tesla for commuting, enough Dodge Vipers for himself and several kids, and who knows how many other exotic cars in a warehouse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:58AM
Le petit bourgeousie, ou nouveaux riches?
Aut Masculum ultricies?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 08 2017, @07:16PM
I was thinking they're buying more services from the poors and less stuff from fat-cat running-dog capitalist factories.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @05:49AM (6 children)
Better luck next life!
Choose your parents wisely...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 08 2017, @06:03AM (5 children)
If it comes to choice, I think choosing your birth country would come easier.
I'd suggest Europe; going to opera or music concert, visiting a museum or art gallery and enrolling you kids in higher education is something that middle class can afford (both monetary and time wise) and actually do.
If you are in a hurry now, avoid the Brits on short term. God bless their soul (they need it, direly so even), they won't be Europeans for long (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @08:07AM (3 children)
Britain will remain European until they move their country away and wipe out their Caucasian population. What they will not be is subservient to the suicidal policies of the European Union. Bringing in 3rd world with dysfunctional culture and genes is bad on all levels. They will be gone, the uncertainty is just how and when.
The people that confuse Europe with EU are usually the ones that are either working for the lobbyist ministry of propaganda or that have been fooled by them.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday August 08 2017, @08:32AM (1 child)
Wanna bet Brits will be like US in 10-12 years after Brexiting?
No jobs, even more insular and isolationist than it is, spying on Americans (and on its own citizens and the citizens of the other 3 eyes) for Americans.
Perhaps with the minor difference of less free speech rights (no constitutional guarantees and the most draconian restrictions to it), not that it would matter much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:11AM
Wanna bet certain countries in Europe will be like Somalia in 10-12 years after Brexit?
You try to take a dig at USA, but I seen things man, and US is GLORIOUS country by EVERY measure. All your little communist wannabe utopias will perish soon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @11:34AM
Indeed, it weren't the brits that were importing third world trash into the UK before the european union even existed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @11:55PM
Why would you WANT to go to the opera?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @07:03AM (6 children)
Probably cost a lot to educate everyone (including the poor) properly. But in the long run it may cost them even more to not do so ;). Maybe take half the defense spending and spend it on education and healthcare instead? Defend your country.
FWIW, many Asians not from the elite class are entering top universities in disproportionate numbers (disproportionate in terms of demographics, but perhaps not in terms of conventional scores and achievements). So much so that even Harvard has made it harder for them, in order to reduce their numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Federal_Complaints_Against_Harvard_University%27s_Alleged_Discriminatory_Admission_Practice#Complaints [wikipedia.org]
But in a way that's diversity for you. Having 25% consist of these top achievers might reduce diversity. Need to have some less hardworking losers in class too ;).
FWIW I'm Asian and not one of those top achievers. I know a few of them and they are really "best of the best". You can add more required achievements and the next batch will just work harder to get all the new checkboxes checked ;). So the only way Harvard could keep the numbers down was to discriminate.
There are billions of Asians in the world, most of us know very early that we weren't born a special snowflake, we actually need to do something special to be special. Many Asian parents can be quite demanding (often abusive too). Maybe not to this extent but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkN9VdjgDwM [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @09:33AM (3 children)
It is an illusion that mediocrities can control top achievers indefinitely. Just a magicians sleigh of hand is enough to open your eyes: What would Harvard do if Asians realized that they alone can found their own new university which would overshadow any Ivy League university? Complain that it is not fair to admit only top-scoring individuals?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 08 2017, @11:21AM (1 child)
Why not? I heard an anecdote once that was how Stanford University was begun--Harvard snubbed them haughtily, and so the Stanfords went off and founded their own university because they were quite wealthy.
The only trouble I can foresee with an all-Asian university is that the Japanese will get ragged on by everybody, the Koreans will split into warring factions amongst themselves immediately, the Chinese will demand xiuxi every afternoon when everyone else wants to attend class, and the Filippinos will become increasingly irritated that everyone's always hitting on their women.
Asians are not a monolith.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @12:46PM
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 08 2017, @07:18PM
It is an illusion that mediocrities can control top achievers indefinitely.
Correct, that's why you make sure there's some lead [columbia.edu] in their water [npr.org] so they don't become top achievers in the first place.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday August 08 2017, @01:42PM (1 child)
One big objection to some sloppy terminology here: the lumping of educational services in with consumption. There is poor quality education, and the sort of private school that is more about show and running an exclusive clubhouse than education, and maybe those could be labeled as consumption. Sticking to the commonly understood meaning, education is definitely investing in the future, and not mere consumption.
I've come to realize a whole lot of things are more political than I thought. People are looking everywhere for competitive edges, and some will look for and take ways to disadvantage rivals. Education is one of the top political footballs. Social conservatives trying to wreck public education with garbage such as "teach the controversy", "abstinence only", and the general anti-intellectual hate for science, and desire to instill their religion in young minds, are merely useful idiots for those among the elites who would like education to be more exclusive. Making the public school system a hostile work environment for teachers as well as students, by cranking up competition to the extreme, and trying to instill harsh, military style discipline, also helps serve that nefarious purpose.
Several big changes should be made to the public school system in the US: First, offer preschool to all. Currently, elites spend upwards of $10k/year to send their toddlers to school, a sum that is impossible for the poor to scrape up, and from what I hear, the kids who learn foundational math and literacy skills at age 3 have a big advantage over the kids who didn't start until 1st grade. It's possible to home school, yes, but even if the parents have the time, they probably lack the skills. If preschool is such a good idea, it should be available to all. Second, change summer vacation. Perhaps have students do a week of school twice over the summer vacation, to keep them fresher. Third, make school less rigid and regimented. Be good if more of school was more about access to resources and equipment and knowledgeable adults than forced memorization to score better on tests. And fourth, make the transition from high school senior to college freshman less of a jarring brick wall by lowering fees and reforming this scandalously predatory student loan system. Your high school years are free, and required, but for college you have to take on massive student loan debt, unless your parents step up of course, and they can't entirely unless they're rich. Paying something for college seems a good idea, helps people value college education and take it more seriously, but asking for too much excludes people, and the US is definitely on the side of asking for too much.
(Score: 1) by crafoo on Tuesday August 08 2017, @04:57PM
Too many people are going to college. Most of the people I met at university shouldn't have been there. They were too immature, not prepared, and not motivated to do the work. Fewer people should be going into higher education. This will reduce the demand for student loans, reduce the demand for classroom space, and reduce the cost (lower demand).
Universities need to cut all the BS classes. You know what they are. Everyone does. If It's not a science or math class it needs to be firmly grounded in the classics and HARD AS HELL. No more BS easy rides through a poly-sci or anthropology program and into 80k+ of debt. Students are ripping themselves off and it's sickening to watch.
As far as your assessment of earlier education; I disagree with pretty much every assertion you make. It needs to be harder. It needs to be more competitive. Students should be allowed to fail and feel the consequences. There needs to be less inclusiveness and a more realistic worldview taught. Cultural Marxism is a real thing corrupting our primary education system. We as a society must recognize it and methodically confront it, stamped it out, and impart a more usable, realistic, and ethical worldview to young students. Something that will not cripple them mentally before they have even begun.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 08 2017, @01:33PM (9 children)
"they devote it to enriching experiences, like attending the opera,"
Are there actually people who think that opera is "enriching"?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday August 08 2017, @02:56PM
Vivian: “It was so good, I almost peed my pants!”
Edward: “She said she liked it better than Pirates of Penzance.”
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Tuesday August 08 2017, @03:08PM (4 children)
Kind of have to agree with this. Opera is a pretentious art form that's little more than a long running fashion among the rich because they're too culturally impotent to embrace any of the short term term fashion of the masses. They're parasites. They don't create...they feed.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 08 2017, @04:13PM (3 children)
Opera used to be an art form for the masses, several centuries ago.
Perhaps the rich just don't have any interest in the garbage that the masses consume today, like reality TV and hip-hop, and prefer to stick with something that has some real artistic value.
(Score: 2) by Weasley on Tuesday August 08 2017, @05:41PM (1 child)
Used to be. Then it was refined, perfected, and redone over and over ad nauseam. It doesn't change now. Don't get me wrong, I like it. It's just stagnant.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 08 2017, @07:53PM
I'm no big opera fan, but my quick reading of the Wikipedia article about it seems to indicate that it actually has changed starting in the 20th century (see here [wikipedia.org]), and these days they're broadcasting it live over the internet. But still, being "stagnant" isn't necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't get old listening to classical music, which is why there's still lots of symphony concerts, even though the total number of surviving works is far, far smaller than, for instance, all the music recorded in the 80s.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @12:00AM
Sigh... another ignorant buffoon calls rap "hip-hop" and thinks it has no artistic value or merit. Go actually listen to some instead of judging by the crap on the radio. Or should I judge rock, country, and all that other ear-grating bs by the stuff on top-40 stations?
(Score: 1) by crafoo on Tuesday August 08 2017, @05:02PM (2 children)
It's a farce. Opera was entertainment for the common person. Now it's "old" and therefore cultural and more dignified.
Seeing Iron Maiden perform "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" live is a much more relevant, entertaining, and culturally-significant experience than any opera.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 08 2017, @08:13PM (1 child)
It's a farce. Opera was entertainment for the common person.
A quick reading of the Wikipedia page for opera shows this to be incorrect. It started out as entertainment for courts (i.e., nobility), and wasn't until later, esp. with German opera, that it became aimed at the masses with ticket sales.
Seeing Iron Maiden perform "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" live is a much more relevant, entertaining, and culturally-significant experience than any opera.
I don't know where you live, but here in the US, while I happen to be a Maiden fan myself, if I started asking random people I'd have a very, very, very hard time finding anyone who even knows about this song, or who would want to see a Maiden concert. I don't see how something that obscure can be called "culturally-significant". I'm sure an Emerson, Lake, & Palmer concert would be extremely entertaining too (if you could resurrect the guys who are deceased), but again, hardly anyone knows who that band is any more so I think it's hard to call it "culturally significant" or "more relevant". Today, what's "more relevant" is going to be whatever stupid rapper is popular. Iron Maiden isn't that much unlike opera: it's "old" and not at all popular currently, but has a dedicated following; the main difference is that much of that following was actually alive back when Maiden had more popularity (80s), whereas no one is old enough to remember when opera was in its heyday in Renaissance Europe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @09:40PM
i'm an expert because I read wikipedia
do you have a certification in wikipedia bullshittier?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @03:29PM (1 child)
This is nothing new.
Look at what the Robber Barons and Monopolists ended up doing in the 19th Century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @12:49AM
I'm pretty sure this is happening because on some level they know that what they have wasn't earned and are concerned about the angry villagers with pitchforks and torches coming to burn their houses down.
This isn't the result of actual critical thinking or sense of conscience, this is purely a matter of the fact that if they keep front and center, they may well find out what a second American revolution is going to be like. And it's probably going to look a lot more like the French Revolution than 1776.