(Today we welcome Robert Frank, author of “Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class." Please join us in the comments -- jh)
We hear a lot about income inequality these days and if you're like me, you probably wonder, other than the fundamental unfairness of it all, why this matters. After all, life isn't fair --- get back to work and stop lallygagging.
As it turns out it matters a great deal, and that sense of dissatisfaction and anxiety so many of us feel is a direct result of the conspicuous consumption of the fabulously wealthy overclass trickling down through society and making it necessary for people to constantly buy more, even as they are earning the same. According to Frank, it's not just keeping up with the Joneses or class envy or any of the other things that people usually attribute to those who live beyond their means. It's a natural, human response to the context in which they live. Frank makes a compelling case that measuring yourself against your neighbors, co-workers or whatever, isn't just a matter of "keeping score." It's the way we make sense of the world. And that measure is affected every day by what the super-rich are buying.
In a delightfully droll passage, Frank describes going shopping to replace the battered $89.00 bar-b-q he'd used quite happily for years, until all his repairs finally failed and it fell apart. He sees this amazing Viking grill extravaganza with burners for stir frying and rotisseries that practically cook the food itself and deliver it to your table. It costs $5,000. But, boy is it awesome. He reluctantly turns away and contemplates a different model with some of the same features, but now that he's seen the top of the line, it just isn't as impressive. But being a responsible consumer he realizes that he can't be that extravagant and he considers buying this more basic model -- for $1,160. It's so improved from the banged up old $89.00 model on which he'd happily grilled for years they might as well not even be called a bar-b-q, but in spite of that, he feels a vague sense of disappointment at what it doesn't have compared to the fancy Lamborghini level grill. Buying it would feel positively frugal, even though it's ridiculously expensive on its own terms. I'm sure you've all been there. You have no idea what's out there, but once you see something with all the bells and whistles you subconsciously compare everything else you see to it. And something that you would have found to be an amazing improvement over what you once had, suddenly becomes a compromise.
For the record, Frank settles on a $250.00 Weber and felt extremely frugal buying it --- though it cost three times what his other grill had cost. But you can also tell by the loving detail with which he describes those more expensive models, that they made a lasting impression. He went back a year later to look at them again and the top of the line model was now $13,000.00 --- and that $1100.00 model now looks like a worthless piece of junk by comparison.
This is the mechanism by which the extremely wealthy change the context of our everyday lives in ways we aren't even aware. And in a society that ties such fundamental community functions such as schools and public safety to property values and perceptions of power, it is almost a matter of necessity that the middle class keep reaching for the bigger house and the bigger car in order to maintain a stake in their community. It is perfectly understandable that people want to have their kids educated in good schools and live in safe neighborhoods.
Neither is it counter-intuitive that if you need to be taken seriously by people who have money, you have to appear that you have money too. I remember being confused when I first started working in a business where there were always a lot of recent college grads in entry level grunt positions driving very fancy cars and dressing in designer clothes. It took me a while to realize that they were all children of wealth. As a result of their ability to give the properly successful appearance, those of us who didn't have money spent far more on such things than we had any right to, merely to even be in the running. I suspect this gets worse every year as America continues to shed the last vestiges of Puritan social restraint against the flaunting of extreme wealth.
The problem is that middle class American incomes are not even close keeping up with what they need to spend in this kind of environment and haven't been for more than two decades, while income gains for these super-rich have been stratospheric. That's what's making everyone feel the squeeze: the middle class are working themselves into an early grave and taking on more debt than they can manage not because they are foolishly trying to keep up with Paris Hilton but because they have to in order to hang onto the place in society they already have.
Frank discusses in some detail the costs of this striving and I think we all can imagine what they are in terms of health and satisfaction. This is a sick little merry-go-round we're on. Fortunately, he has a novel solution that I would hope the powers that be would consider: a progressive consumption tax that would give an incentive for the rich to think twice about this reckless extravagance that's dragging everyone else down. It would encourage saving among the rest of us, which virtually all economists agree is sorely needed, and if nothing else would force the super-wealthy to at least kick in something for the public good while they're running themselves ragged shopping for expensive gew gaws.
This is a very accessible little book, written in easy to understand language that gets to the heart of the problem for average people who are just trying to make a living and raise their kids and find some way to leave this world a little better than they found it. It gives us some real insight into how we actually find our place in the world around us and well, pursue happiness. That important knowledge leads to how we might change policies to actively encourage that fundamental American value.
Please welcome Dr Robert Frank to the FDL book salon.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Welcome Dr. Frank!
zed
Welcome Dr. Frank!
I’m going down to get the others…
Loved your video!
Already done.
The Buddhism it’s often called the Hungry Ghost.
musicsleuth @ 1
Many thanks for the fine introduction, Digby. I’m delighted to have this chance to share thoughts with FDLers on what is, to my mind, the most pressing economic issue of our age.
Thanks so much for being here today, Dr. Frank.
To commenters: Please keep Book Salon thread on topic. If you want to go OT, please feel free to do so in the previous thread.
as una sailable wealth the middle class suffers, shrinks disapears and we devolve into a robber baron economic system
the new economy brags about becomeing “global”
what does global really mean?
it means export jobs to countries that cost pennies on the dollar, import those goods at obcene profit, shrink the middle class where no small bussiness can compete
jefferson had the right idea, he knew aquired unasailable wealth would be the ruin of a government by the people and for the people
there is nothing wrong with exporting jobs, however it MUST be done to coutries that have collective bargaining
a community of laborers must be able bargain for the market price of their product
just as every supplier bargains for the market value of their product, labor must be able to do the same
if that becomes the rule, then the globe will benefit and the world population will share the wealth of growth
A progressive consumption tax certainly sounds like the kind of class war I can endorse. We’d better brand it — the “Paris Hilton” tax? — before the other side does.
Welcome Dr. Frank and hugs to Digby. *s*
Mike Huckabee arguably won many straw votes yesterday because of his push for a flat tax. Perhaps this will be an opportunity to promote progressive taxation in rebuttle to his proposal which will surely get additional air time soon.
I am astounded to the degree to which we have submitted to the venal Reaganite line that the economy improves to the degree that resources are channeled to the most ultra-wealthy among us.
The exact opposite should be the common sense solution — we should be proud of the degree to which our nation’s enormous, astounding productivity should be going to its 50 - 70% working class majority.
Yet I’m terrified that this tremendous opportunity we have sitting right in front of us to remake our economy in a green and alternative energy model in a more just fashion, will instead be once again largely lost to have a few sputtering billions shunted to the ultra-rich once again.
TeddySanFran @ 9
we should brand it;
“robber baron prevention tax”
Bob,
Thanks for coming. I can’t tell you how much I enjoyed the book. Your insights into how we see ourselves among our brethren were a real revelation to me. I had not previously realized just how affected we all were by the ever rising standard of living among the very rich.
I live in a very wealthy place, and have always considered myself rather impervious to such things, but after reading the book I recognized certain behaviors in myself that I hadn’t considered. Very interesting stuff.
Is there any chatter among the economist/political types about this progressive consumption tax?
Dr. Frank,
As a 41-year-old, I’ve seen the workscape completely transform since I left high school.
Without a consumption tax or other corrective measure, where do you see our economy 20 years from now?
Why have a progressive consumption tax instead of just rolling back the Reagan Bush progressive income tax cuts?
I am in my 50s. I grew up in a middle class family - lower middle class, to be sure. Now, I don’t have much money. I don’t have kids, and I’m single. I had to cash in my modest IRA. No 401k plan, no career-type job. But I can read complicated stuff and when I try hard, I can talk pretty. And I have a computer. What am I? Am I economically lower class but educationally middle class?
Oh wait. Woman in her 50s - maybe I don’t even come up on the radar.
But seriously - the disconnect is weird.
TeddySanFran @ 9
I think we should reserve the name “Paris Hilton tax” for the estate tax, the one GWB has been trying so hard to repeal.
When Sam Nunn and Pete Domenici introduced a bill calling for a progressive consumption tax in the mid-1990s, they called it the Unlimited Saving Allowance tax, probably a better name from a marketing standpoint.
Oops - sorry: a gracious good afternoon to you, Dr. Frank!
marcie @ 15
good idea but the last thing we should do is call it a roll back of tax cuts
what we need to call it is;
“the return of middle class wealth to the middle class”
continue with;
recovered from the the wealthiest people on the planet that were recipients of middle class investments aquired over generations, given to the wealthy by the wealthy as if it was theirs to give”
Eureka Springs @ 10
I agree completely. I was on Diane Rehm’s radio show a few weeks ago discussing inequaliity with several other guests and was delighted that a commentator from the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute actually endorsed a progressive consumption tax.
Dr Frank -
How can the disatrous effect of globalization on the American labor pool be addressed?
Must we go back to a system of tarifs and protectionism? Or is there another way to reinvigorate the American middle class?
Hi Dr. Frank-
I’m enjoying reading the discussion. Thanks.
Canada put into effect a new ‘goods and services’ tax in the 1980s I believe. Do you know how that extra tax affected middle class Canadians?
It makes sense to me to tax those more who have more disposable income. I think it is a way.
Digby, you rule.
Dr. Frank, keep on fighting the good fight.
The US is at the bottom for education in the world; infant mortality rates; cost of living; quality of life, and other criteria. Countries like India and Brazil mirror the US in those same categories, with large GDP figures that eclipse most Scandinavian countries, but are considered 3rd World countries simplt because their GDP per household is low, and the US is dangerously close to that.
I hail from a mid-level city in the Midwest, and when I travel back to visit relatives, I am appalled at the number of large residential developments on old farm land, big-haired blondes and balding, tanned-golf too much crow-magnum types driving large SUVs, tailgating me at every turn, turning into these houses, living largly on leveraged debt so they may look like “they are well-off” but their actual income versus debt actually makes them lower middle class, but they are under the assumption that they are fooling everyone. That has got to change.
Digby @ 13
When I proposed this tax in an article in 1997, I got a nice letter from Milton Friedman enclosing a 1943 article he’d published in the American Economic Review. In the article he called for exactly the same tax as the least painful way to raise revenue for the war effort. Now we can call it the least painful way to raise revenue for universal health care.
Dr Frank - is a progressive consumption tax seen as a tool more to modify consumer behavior for healthier psychological wellbeing of communities or is it intended to promote purchase of products that have more concrete benefits such as better efficiency and decreased pollution? If the concrete advantages of innovation are more expensive, I can imagine a scenario of opposing goals being created in some instances.
sangemon @ 21
we need to tariff any country that does not have collective bargaining for their work force
no unfair playing flelds
if a corporation pays less for a laborer we need to tariff that corporation the differance
Dr. Frank,
Thanks for coming. I wonder if you’ve read Kevin Phillips’ The Politics Of Rich And Poor, which he wrote roughly eighteen years ago? You’d think that by now we’d have gotten the message that these are disturbing trends, and yet we still seem to have not internalized this lesson.
Bob,
Just as an aside, when I was reading the book I kept wondering what to make of this extreme inflation in CEO salaries. How does that relate to your thesis?
sangemon @ 21
The thing that economists like about freer trade is that it makes the total economic pie larger. The bad thing about the trade for the US is that the gains from trade are very unevenly distributed. Those at the top gain a lot and unskilled workers actually fall behind. But closing the borders wouldn’t be the right strategy, even if it were feasible. When the pie gets larger, there’s enough for everyone to get a larger slice than before. What we need to do us use tax policy more aggressively to redistribute the gains fron trade. If we have the political power to shut down trade, surely we have the political power to do that.
Hi Dr Frank.
My name is Cassie and I am 15.
We don’t buy much stuff new. Usually used or we don’t buy it or we use someone else’s. We are trying to get back INTO the middle class. My panties and socks are always new but most stuff isn’t. And that is fine.
I have friends who have lots of new stuff and everything expensive, and I don’t think it makes them happier. The giant flat screen TV’s are cool, but we don’t need one.
How about the “Paris Hilton dog-purse tax?”
Hi,
Thanks Dr. Frank and Digby.
Dr Frank: In terms of the ‘keeping up with the super-rich” I have to say the one thing I really want these days, is just some peace and quiet, to be able to walk through a clean neighborhood in the morning on the way to work.
It seems in the big cities (on the West Coast at least) there are quite a few younger people who many in America would consider rich, or doing really well. And yet, we find ourselves living in next to treatment centers, in ‘up-and-coming’ industrial neighborhoods, etc.
This isn’t just by choice of people trying to be cool and urban. This is where we can afford to live.
How far, and how fast, has what was once considered a “middle class” lifestyle driven out of reach of everyone except the truly wealthy?
Cujo359 @ 27
This message was near the top of the political agenda in the late 1990s, then disappeared for reasons you know in 2001. But now I think we’re beginning to focus in on it again. With a few more seats in both houses of Congress and a change of occupants in the White House in 08, we’ll be in a position to start dealing with the problem.
snarKassandra @ 30
You make an important point. No one needs fancy stuff to be happy. But most parents want their kids to live in safe neighborhoods with good schools. And it’s the spending by the super-rich that has launched an expendiure cascade all the way the income ladder that has made housing such neighborhoods so much more difficult for middle class families to afford.
Robert Frank @ 30
Thank you.
But this raises another question. If the size of the pie just keeps getting bigger, what happens to the planet? The growth of the world economy translates to the growth of the use of the Earth’s resources, and we are all living in a finite system.
How can the pie just keep getting bigger? Isn’t that just another form of the old pyramid scheme?
TeddySanFran @ 31
Terrific!
Robert Frank @ 35
But if you work hard and study you can be in the honors classes at the regular school.
Do you think a really populist message is best for Democrats to win the White House next year? Are Americans tired of leaders who’ve infinitely enriched their cronies?
Welcome, Dr. Frank. Very nice to have one of the most innovative economists visit this blog today. As an econometrician, I am thrilled.
Hope I’m not out of line suggesting that anyone interested in economics check out his prevous books and intro economic texts (don’t be afraid, he is a good writer IMHO).
I think you’ve done very innovative work. Rare to have welfare economic ideas developed with such potentially rich empirical and policy content. So, I hope some of what are considered to be his wild ideas catch on like, oh, Akerlof’s or Engle and Granger’s. I’m not a tax expert at all, so will just listen but had to say I am very glad you are here.
TheGris @ 32
Here’s a rough description of the expenditure cascade process that has made decent middle-class housing unaffordable. Top earners have more money, so they build bigger mansions. The middle-class doesn’t care, but the new mansions shift the frame of reference that defines what people just below the top consider desirable or necessary. (Perhaps it has become the custom in top circles to have one’s daughter’s wedding reception in the home, rather than in a club or hotel. Or maybe the big mansions at the top provide cover for those who secretly wanted to build bigger all along.) So people just below the top build bigger. Their spending, in turn, affects others just below them. And so on, all the way down the income ladder. As a result, the median size of a newly built house in the US is more than one-third larger now than in 1980, even though real median family earnings have scarcely risen since then. Of course, middle-income families could vow to limit their spending on housing to what they could comfortably afford. But in that case they’d pay another, steeper price. Like it or not, there’s a clear link between neighborhood house prices and neighborhood school quality. A family that buys a house whose price is below average for its area will also end up sending its children to below-average schools. And so most middle-class families work longer hours, save less, borrow more, and commute longer distances in order to meet community standards on housing expenditure.
There seems to be a nexus of corporate, media, and governmental benefits to keeping us all scrambling for a certain standard of living. Keeps all the adults in a household working more hours; then they are too tired to pay attention to political issues that are expensive to business constituencies (environment, workplace safety, health, child care, etc.)And of course fuels an economy less dependent on manufacturing and more on distribution and services.
??
Digby @ 28
I know this is addressed to the dr. but I’d like to add my 2 cents
contrary to common belief, the price of a product has very lttle to do with the cost to manufacture the product
the price of the product relies mostly on what people will pay
if nike can get 100 dollars for a pair of sneakers and that’s the price that gives the best return vs. investment, it doens’t matter if those sneakers only cost 3 dollars to make, they still charge 100 dollars.
when a corporation finds a prodcut that the public is willing to pay a certain price, they get that price, then they shop to manufacture it for less so they can make mroe money
when they can manufacture it for less money they cost analyse, if they lower the price will they sell enough more to make more money then if they continue selling it for the original price
they also have to consider marketing impression…for instance piere cardin oversold their product and they became worth much less by lowering their brand image
so, when a corporation finds the right ballance and they make that much more money they simply give themselves bonuses to make up the differance…they do not return those profits back to the consumer and they don’t re invest it in the company unless they are force to re invest
this is why windfall profits taxes are so important…when properly executed windfall profit taxes force corporations to re invest their profit back into their bussiness and therefore the economy
we need windfall profit taxes properly designed and we need progressive income taxes that make it unatractive to award golden umbrellas with more value then entire countries
TeddySanFran @ 38
I do think the electorate seems receptive to realistic proposals for easing the financial squeeze on the middle class.
Bob
Wondering if you had a comment on the Canadian G $ S tax.
wesgpc @ 39
Where should I send your check?
When we moved from the city center closer to the airport (to be closer to work), I quickly became familiar with the size of newer homes and how this affect the bottom line. You can hardly find a home built in the last 10 years that doesn’t have 3-4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths (one of which is larger than a bedroom).
It was quite the culture shock moving from our 100 year old house that used to hold a family of seven and only had one bathroom. Both homes (new and old) are in good school districts, but the consumption expectations are completely opposite — at least in terms of the house.
How do you address this phenomenon?
Milan River @ 44
The GST is a national sales tax, which means it is highly regressive. The Canadians and the Europeans make up for that regressivity by having highly progressive benefit programs like national health insurance. But why not start with a progressive tax in the first place?
Robert Frank @ 47
well, a value added tax would eliminate the gray economy.
everyone who bought something would pay into the system instead of “cash” bussineses being virtually imune from income tax
I think you would still need a tax return system in order to keep it equitable…it would still be a progressive tax if it’s designed correctly I think
Dr. Frank,
I like the idea of a progressive consumption tax. However, how would you account for the lag effect it would have on the US economy, where 2/3 or more of the economy is based on consumer consumption? If you propose to limit that (which I am a fan of, irregardless of the short term hit on the economy), where can the hit on the economy be made up?
perris @ 42
I don’t mean to trivialize this discussion, since increasingly large homes are a very good gauge over time. Another bellweather is the vastly expansive and expensive weddings featured on Life/Style teevee channels. This expenditure has seeped down the ladder as well. I am shocked to hear about young brides who expect four or five showers, with large staffs attending to their whims on their special day. This is, unlike a home, not an investment but simply outlandish one-time consumer spending.
A similar argument can be made, I believe, about automobiles in American culture. It’s hard to find a car without power windows today, which was not the case when I first starting buying cars.
Hi, Bob.
I’m a tax lawyer.
What’s your take on the alternative minimum tax?
It’s beginning to kill middle class families in high-tax states like New Jersey.
It raises so much revenue, both parties in power are addicted to it.
Get Tough @ 49
There is no rule that 2/3 of total spending should be consumption spending, For the last two years our personal savings rate has been negative, which means we’ve been spending more than we earn. This can’t go on. If we saved more, there would be less consumption but more investment. The jobs created by investment spending are just as valuable as those created by consumption.
TeddySanFran @ 52
My daughter refuses to buy a new car. Why buy a new car, she says, when there are so many perfectly fine already-built cars in existence already.
I’m so proud of her!
Jonathan @ 52
Get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax. There are many better sources of revenue that a tax that leaves the wealthy alone but clobbers the middle class.
Howdy:
How do we get back to that downhome, frugal, practicallity of our depression-raised parents?
Pay cash for everything, stay out of unnecessary debt, buy and keep working appliances and vehicles for their lifespan, spend money on real important things like education and healthcare.
How do we resist this KOWTJ mentality and appreciate an environentally sustainable lifestyle?
If we did, would it be adverse to the current way the economy works?
Robert Frank @ 41
Thank you for that answer. I have to say, I’ve seen this firsthand with people I know with kids. They move to the suburbs, commute, work long hours and while they’re clearly stretched, they buy new minivans at the first opportunity.
At which point, it’s one more payment to make each month. The cycle continues.
It also seems that the big companies use their benefits packages to great advantage. People feel they can’t leave a job because of their “great” (i.e. “I have one”) health care package.
As Gordon pointed out above
Gordon @ 42
It may not be an overt conspiracy (or is it?) but the confluence of consumer spending habits, corporate health care, and tax policy here in the US sure seem to work well for the super rich. And nobody else.
sangemon @ 54
This ties in with Digby’s earlier remarks about how standards escalate without our even being conscious of it. A friend wanted to build a two bedroom house. His real estate advisor talked him out of it, say no one would want to buy it when it came time to sell. So he built one with four bedrooms.
James @ 57
That is how we live. We don’t even have a credit card. If we can’t afford it, we don’t buy it.
But we don’t know all the ways of growing food and making our own jam and salsa and stuff.
This is a topic near and dear to my heart for many reasons.
What do you think of a return to more local,small business based economies? I feel like one huge problem is that we don’t make alot of our own stuff in America anymore. My big peeve is food,I’ve felt for years that it’s not smart to outsource most of a nation’s food supply. It leaves you at the mercy of too many variables.
James @ 56
The economy would work just fine if everyone paid cash for everything, except perhaps for a first house.
Dr. Frank,
Welcome to the Firedoglake Book Salon. I was on two weeks ago discussing my new book, THE TRAP (which you were kind enough to blurb–thanks!). I hope you’re enjoying the intellectual—and touch-typing—work out.
To what extent do you think the middle-class feels it’s falling behind because of the spike in middle-class necessities like healthcare coverage and higher education? I love your Weber grill example, but haven’t lots of other consumer goods have become much less expensive in recent decades (an airline ticket to London, a polo shirt at Macy’s, etc.)? Isn’t it the necessities that matter most–even if a Weber grill can take a toll psychologically?
Robert Frank @ 59
Not so long ago, that was three bedrooms. Thanks to that rule, I have an extra room to store all the junk I no longer use.
There’s probably a lesson in all that somewhere.
anangryoldbroad @ 60
There’s a lot to be said for buying from the producers who can produce products most cheaply. But part of the costs of things we buy don’t show up in their price tags. Shipping food across the country creates a lot of additional congestion and pollution, yet the consumer doesn’t see those costs in the price of produce. So there’s strong economic logic behind the movement urging conbsumers to buy food produced locally.
James @ 56
That would be nice. Totally agree. How about regulating television adds, where the majority of people who watch television shows with an over-abundance of commercials are more likely the same people who can’t afford to buy the products advertised, prohibiting banks from issuing credit cards to people with too much debt to pay off their existing debts, regulating big pharma and eliminating drug adds for boners, leg cramps, sleepless nights, irritability, restless legs (my favorite) and the culture that do what you want, and buy a pill when the “do what you want” has become too much. I’m ranting.
The most conspicuous consumption in which our country engages is buying toys and services for its war mongering. Why not put the tax increase where it really belongs, on the industries who are profiteering on wars?
Then we could have good, government funded health care, education and housing.
I’m now living in Venezuela where President Chavez is using his oil profits for the benefit of the health and welfare of the people. Admittedly, that’s a wholly un-American concept, but its great to live here!
Are any presidential candidates talking about a progressive consumption tax in their platforms?
It’s funny, in the book Dr Frank offers a thought experiment in which you are offered one of two “worlds”. In World A you can live in a house that is 4,000 square feet while others live in a house that is 6,000 square feet. In world B, you can live in a house that’s 3,000 square feet while others live in one that is 2,000 square feet. Which would you choose?
I guess I am unusual because I would have picked World A — but that’s because I currently live in a tiny beach style cottage and yearn for a lot more room. The funny thing is that 3,000 square feet would be a great improvement too — I guess I’m just greedy. But then I also am used to being the smallest house on the block.
It’s an interesting question. It kept a dinner party entertained as we all discussed the variables that would drive that decision and the property tax and public safety aspect seriously played into this for people with young kids. I was less concerned, but did wonder whether I wanted to be the nicest house in the slum.
The next thought experiment was about leisure time in which in World C you would have four weeks and others would have six weeks and World D in which you would have two weeks and others would have one. Like those in the book, everyone at the (rather boozy by this time) table agreed that we would take the four weeks in a second because …. damn, who gets four weeks in this country?
TeddySanFran @ 51
I have to wonder two things: first, has this excess truly permeated the culture? How deep does it go? It’s also true that increasing numbers of people are not getting married, or are living together. Second: let’s say a not especially wealthy family does put on an extravagant wedding. Let’s say for them, “extravagant” means $15,000.
See, I think that sometimes people blow unreasonable amounts of money on things like this because in their hearts they simply don’t believe they are ever going to amass the money required to put three kids through college and buy a nice house, and fund their retirement. But the wedding (or the plasma TV or the iPhone)is within the realm of the possible. It’s not stupidity, it’s just acting on a desire to have something special and delightful, something that makes you feel like you are, however briefly, part of the perceived mainstream.
It’s not a good idea, but we get the constant hard sell, and also, I can understand the desire. So far, I can resist it (it helps to have cancelled my cable TV service), but I don’t have kids wanting weddings, either.
Robert Frank @ 58
I’m an amatuer economist–I work in the field somewhat tangentally, so I know the ins-and-outs, but probably know too much to be dangerous–Speaking of home sales, how do you see the current real estate bubble shaking out? Good for lowering housing prices, or just good for the hedge funds to sell short on the market right now?
It took me too long to write my last post, so I read your reply after I already re-asked a question… sorry!
There are so many side effects to new/used big-ticket items. For example, moving from our 100 year old house to an newer one twice as large (with better insulation and higher-efficiency HVAC and appliances) actually reduced our gas and electric bill. Similarly with cars, newer ones are generally safer and have better fuel-efficient options with their hefty price tags.
What kind of economic incentive is there to encourage the manufacture of cars and homes with the same safety and energy efficiency of the monster cars and houses for sale today?
TeddySanFran @ 68
Not that I’m aware, and maybe it’s too complicated to raise as a discussion point at this stage. Obama and Edwards have been particularly clear about their plans to repeal the Bush tax cuts for top earners, and that’s a good start.
Why are people so down on apartments? Why do they think houses are better? Not all houses are nicer or even bigger. But people look down on you if you live in an apt instead.
musicsleuth @ 72
Al Gore’s proposed carbon tax would be a great place to start. Use more energy if you must, but be prepared to pay the full social costs you impose by doing so.
Robert Frank @ 73
It’s been said that the tax cuts that should really be repealed are the Reagan tax cuts.
Cujo359 @ 63
See George Carlin’s wonderful rant about “stuff”. :)
As an American expat in Canada, I can tell you that the GST/PST does put a drag on the economy. It encourages a grey-market economy (especially in services, where everyone who can subverts it by paying in cash). And with the US dollar going this low, it’s increasing the incentive for people to shop over the border as well, which takes that money out of the local economy.
It is indeed a regressive tax that falls too heavily on the working classes. It needs to be replaced by something else; but, if anything, those kinds of changes happen even more slowly here than they do in the States.
Generally, though, moving to Canada has been a major downshift for us, precisely for the reasons Dr. Frank states. We live right next door to the richest neighborhood in Canada (West Vancouver); but the level of overt opulence, even there, doesn’t hold a candle to what you’d see in a similarly affluent neighborhood in the US. There’s very little in the way of high-end designer stuff. People don’t wear bling. The houses are indeed getting bigger; but the lots are very small, and density is high.
We’re enjoying having less pressure to Buy Stuff. Canada — and particularly BC — was largely settled by Scots Presbyterians who were extremely thrifty and modest; and that ethic, I think, is still evident in people’s attitude toward material wealth here. Yeah, there are people who go in for the ostentatious. But there’s plenty of cultural support yet for those who don’t want to follow their lead.
And even more support for those who go ostentatiously small, which seems to be a gathering trend here. We traded in the BMW on a Prius. I weeded my wardrobe to the basics, and am sewing my own again. As soon as the kids are gone, we’ll be downsizing the house, too. And even the richer people in town seem to see the virtue of this. To me, this says that reversing the upward consumption cycle is possible.
snarKassandra @ 74
Apartments are great. Manhattan uses less energy per capita than almost any other city and no one there looks down on apartment dwellers.
snarKassandra @ 74
You have to live in the right neighborhood to find one. If you’re in the boonies, it’s kind of tough. Also, the trend in our area is to renovate them and turn them into condos.
How do we know that any taxes collected for anything will not just go to pay for the Iraq war?
Digby @ 69
Well, that depends now, doesn’t it? For me, World A is better - I get a bigger house and my neighbors won’t be so inclined to drop by.
Others may have different priorities, but it’s hard to believe anyone would take Worlds B or D.
Dr. Frank,
There are many different social systems and taxing policy combinations used by countries around the globe.
Give us your analysis of these 2; the best and the worst.
It’s so difficult to get a good sense of the magnitudes of wealth involved in our economic system. I have never in my life (I’m 40) read a decent budget story. I’ve been on something of a crusade to get better budget stories written. Anyway, Americans often have a good idea of their own budget and their net worth, but they have almost no realistic idea of what the US fiscal picture looks like. What role do you think our ignorance of basic economics plays in this problem?