Discussing Consumer (Over)Spending

There is no doubt that what happened to the security guard who was trampled to death at Wal-Mart on Black Friday of last year was a terrible tragedy. No matter how good the deals at that particular store on that particular day, none of them were worth a human life. It seems like a natural reaction after such an event to take a closer look at our morals, at the philosophy of our social and personal living, and Anna Quindlen in her December 22, 2008 Newsweek article "Stuff Is Not Salvation" did just that, with all the very logical, sensible conclusions coming out of it.

For the most part, I agree with her: stuff really does not bring salvation. What you own does not define what kind of person you are in the eyes of your family or your close friends. In fact, the more and the fancier the possessions, the less the people close to you might think of you - especially if they know that you cannot realistically afford such possessions and must go into debt, be it credit card or any other kind, to acquire them. However, our lives are not spent only around the closest people we know. It may be true for a family living out in rural Pennsylvania, but a significant part of the American population is living in cities and other areas of large concentrations of people, where creating an image for oneself is important for one's social and professional success - and to which the "trifles" of material possessions often significantly contribute.

One line from a great film American Beauty comes to mind, where a hot-shot real estate agent tells his desperate competitor: "In order to be successful, one must project an image of success." This is true not only in real estate business, and in fact not only in business. People who do not know you well create their impression of you from the way they see you first, and only then, if you get to converse with them, from the way they interact with you. The importance of making a "first impression" is so common-knowledge that the phrase itself has become a colloquialism. This is because that first impression is often the strongest and longest lasting among all others people will make of you.

An expensive, well tailored suit on a lawyer or a marketing executive, or a sleek luxury car he or she is driving, for example, projects an image of a successful professionals with many clients. This, in turn, leads people to believe that a person thus dressed is good at what she or he does, and so makes them more inclined to seek his or her services when the need for such arises. Would wearing less expensive clothing or driving a less flashier car make them less knowledgeable and skillful at what they do? Most likely no, but a difference in how they are perceived by others might cause them to lose potential clients.

Even while making this point, I do not argue that there is merchandise out there, being offered to consumers, that can truly be defined as "trifles." It is doubtful that one would benefit in any way from a giant-screen, last-generation, high-definition television set - which will become obsolete in less than a year due to the consumer-driven push for constant and fast-paced technological advancement. I am equally certain - in fact, I know, having tried both - that a highly touted Dyson vacuum cleaner works no better than a new Eureka vacuum cleaner, while costing almost $400 more. And I am also sure that everyone in America can live without a salad tosser, an electric carving knife, or skin-contact thermometers (which, by the way, usually do not work well). Still, I am not ready - and probably will never be - to say that we all should move to the countryside, grow food only for our own consumption, give kids only one birthday gift, and forget about all the material things that we supposedly do not need. After all, what one needs is decided on a very individual level, and I doubt very much that a farming family in rural Pennsylvania can decide what a New York urbanite does or does not need.