Tag Archives: economics

Black Friday and Consumerism

Something we sociologists are keenly interested is how society determines what  is a “good life”, regardless of whether or not that life is actually beneficial to us.

Property of The Tiny Life

The consumer culture is particularly relevant in the wake of our annual Black Friday shopping spree, when people go to incredible lengths to get the best holiday deals on stuff that, arguably, no one really needs. Black Friday has started earlier and earlier the last few years, to the point that a certain unnamed “big box” retailer actually opened their doors at 8:00 PM on Thanksgiving day. The irony is obvious – on the same day we remember to be thankful for what we have and who we share it with, we can now dash out to get the newest “big thing” that we or our loved ones don’t have.

Why are we so consumption happy, to the point that shopping for new things cuts into traditionally off-limits days such as Thanksgiving? There are a variety of opinions on the matter. Some think that society elites are increasingly promoting consumption in order to promote their own profits. There may be some truth to that, but there is a problem with this argument – people who stand to make a profit traditionally do everything to maximize profit. Something else has to have changed in society to increase the degree to which consumption consumes us (yes, that just happened).

In his classic sociological work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber argued that the rise of the protestant belief in work and profit as a sign of spiritual standing was the key to the explosion of modern capitalism. While the mechanisms of capitalism have been at work as long as people have traded goods and services, it wasn’t until the values of society shifted that accumulating wealth through trade became virtuous activity.

Something similar may be happening with consumerism. While people have always enjoyed having nice things, and producers have always been more than happy to supply nice things, a shift in values in contemporary culture (going back to the 1950’s) has allowed consumerism to become a defining feature of daily life.

So what changed? I would argue that the belief in self-determinism enables our consumer culture. In particular, American society has see a rise in the belief that people are able to create themselves as they see fit. Choice is the virtue of the day, desirable even when our choices have terrible results (for more on that read The Tyranny of Choice by Renata Salecl). If you are unhappy, there is something you can change to make it better, choices you can make to become better and happier.

This belief in choice trickles into our spending habits. For my part, I am prone to believe that owning a new piece of technology will inherently make me more productive. I’m guilty of believing that purchasing the right product will necessarily make my life better. When it doesn’t, I am unhappy again, and the cycle starts over.

This isn’t a novel idea. The Salecl book has a lot to say about it, and there are a host of social theory books that dance around the argument that consumerism is driven by the pressure to “choose a better self.”

So what do you think? Do you consume because you think it will make your life better?

If so, how do we rewire this faulty logic to become more satisfied in our lives?

What’s your consumer vice? Does it actually make your life better?

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Consumerism, Culture, Economics, Uncategorized

The Productivity-Wages Dilemma

This is a problem…

Cumulative change in hourly productivity, real average hourly compensation, and median compensation, 1973–2011*

Image

I’ve been stewing over this chart for the last couple of days, racking my brain as to how we can better ensure that workers’ wages reflect their actual output. I am not alone in this endeavor, as Lawrence Mishel, an economist, has an excellent blog post outlining his research on this phenomenon over the last twenty years.

As a sociologist, I am no stranger to the concept of alienation, popularized by Karl Marx (yes, that Karl Marx). I’m not a huge Marx fan, and generally think his solutions to problems of inequality lacked consideration of the human element. However, I think his summation of the problem of labor and wages still has merit; workers do not get paid for what they make, but instead for the time they spend working. Workers are alienated from their work because they do not directly benefit from what they produce.

I think Mishel’s work on the productivity-wage disconnect is a perfect expression of this problem. When workers are paid for “putting in their forty hours”, it is perfectly logical that, as technology makes work more efficient, those forty hours would be more profitable to employers. However, since the worker is compensated for time, rather than production, it is not surprising that increases in wages lag behind increases in productivity.

Policy-makers have attempted to fix this problem with varying degrees of wealth redistribution, minimum wage increases, and other solutions that do not address the fundamental problem of alienation; workers are paid for their time, not their labor. If we, as a society, are going to fix the gap between productivity and wages, we have to reconnect work to compensation.

How do we do this? I am a sociologist, not an economist, so I do not have a precise answer. I do have an idea for discussion. Instead of compensating time, can we not instead attach production directly to payment? This already happens in some fields. For example, freelance journalists are often paid a rate per story or per word. We could do something similar in other fields.

There are some obvious roadblocks to this. Establishing how much an individual worker’s efforts contribute to a company’s profits will take a lot of work (pun intended). Paying for hours at work is no better, though. I think most wage-workers inherently understand that what they do in an eight hour work day does not capture how much they have accomplished. Paying for productivity is a better deal for everyone. Lazy employees who drag out their tasks will receive less compensation than harder working peers, which will make it easier for employers to put their payroll to its most efficient use. For employees, working quickly and efficiently would be rewarded with more free time, helping people who work hard be able to spend more time with their families, work on personal projects, and invest in social relationships. I don’t have data for this, but those sound like things that increase overall well-being, which is something we definitely need.

Thoughts?

*Note: Data are for compensation of production/nonsupervisory workers in the private sector and productivity of the total economy.

Source: Economic Policy Institute. Analysis from Total Economy Productivity data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Labor Productivity and Costs program, data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts, and Current Population Survey Outgoing Rotation Group microdata.

5 Comments

October 22, 2012 · 6:27 pm