Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well it's perplexing to me. As someone who can easily exercise a little bit of self-control, and who has an IQ somewhere north of a sea anemone, I know when I can't afford something without going into debt, and make my purchase decisions accordingly. No amount of marketing, or advertising, makes me put myself on the edge of "ruin". I've been poor (the first 25-28 years of my life), and I have no intention of going back there. And years of self-discipline has finally put me in a place that I shouldn't have to worry about that again.
I think we're talking about two different perspectives with regard to spending. Personal debt in the US is running pretty high, but not everybody subscribes to the consumerist mantra of buy,buy,buy..But, in general, America has been viewed as a place of unlimited personal prosperity, and specifically, that view has defined the dream. I used the term, subliminal, for a reason, because most people don't question their unconscious "decisions," nor are they aware of the underlying drive that creates, not just a wanting, but a feeling of need.
Most of us don't "need" most of what we think we do, that false sense of need is marketing manifested. I think you are comparing yourself to the obvious over spenders, and most people are truly confused over the terms, marketing, and advertising, and that has been brought up here in others posts. At any rate, you may think that those who confuse wanting with needing are just stupid, or that they are weak, but the sales of junk in America, and the mountains of "stuff" piling up in thrift stores and dumps is evidence of a marketing system that is embedded in the unconscious thoughts of millions. In other words..I'm not discussing you, as opposed to others, but I AM speaking about others and the forces which motivate them.
...not everybody subscribes to the consumerist mantra of buy,buy,buy.
Only if you define that in the juvenile terms of the Budweiser argument. The drive to buy, buy, buy is almost uncontainable for most Americans, no matter how selective, discerning, upscale or careful they are in their buying.
Know anyone short of retirement age who's just... stopped spending? Lives on a minimum and lets uncashed paychecks pile up on the desk? Or (horrors!) actually reduced their income to match a simple lifestyle?
Or are you going to argue that buying the right things for the right reasons isn't 'buy buy buy'?
Since you express this well, I will try to answer in kind -
The disagreement here seems to be based on the idea that we're completely independent individuals whom no one and nothing can influence unless we let them - usually expressed as 'if we're so dumb, gullible and weak-willed that they can influence us.' (Like those suckers over - make that down - there.)
The problem is that it's not a matter of us over here, and "marketing" over there, across some kind of level playing field or debate stand with equal rules, and we only have to compete in some weight-matched bout where we can win if we really want to, and we can refuse to engage unless we choose to.
Marketing is propaganda, influence, behavioral control and engineering on the most massive scale imaginable, and we've swum in this sea for generations. The intensity of the effort is almost beyond comprehension. (To start with, marketing isn't done by the graphic designers and packaging developers and hasn't been for decades; it's done by some of the best behavioral engineering teams in the world.) The exhortations of who we are, how we should live our lives, and how all the products we buy shape those two things are absolutely incessant and omnipresent. It takes an astounding level of indifference or ignorance to not recognize that - but such ignorance, indifference and smug self-assurance is sold just as hard by marketing as the products they push. You're just too smart for them, Vic... but look up that name in a carnie lingo glossary.
Dismissing this because you "just saw an ad and didn't run right out to buy the thing" - the Budweiser argument - and all such thinking is based on a gross misunderstanding of what marketing's objectives are. And the most crucial thing to understand, beyond GM's wish to sell you a Vette or A-B's wish to sell you a Bud or Apple's wish to have you run down and stand in line for the next iPhone, is that marketing as a whole pounds and pounds and pounds on the notion of consumption for consumption's sake - as a whole, as an entire industry, as an arm of the consumer goods world, it all pushes you to buy, buy, buy, regardless of what you actually buy. And that drives nearly every decision in your life, from education to career to major life choices; it's all about being able to consume your maximum possible share.
Those who are going to quote and splutter one or two lines of "Bull****!" and "Not me, bud!" can save the effort. Really. Heard it. Herd it, too.
Those who are disturbed by this thumbnail sketch of things are the ones who got it. And should learn the real process that controls too much of your lives and decision-making and life choices. Because, in the end, it's the reason any of us are "living on the edge" - and why I maintain that the proportion of those in that position is much, much larger than conventional, smug assessment makes it.
Put another way - we could all be doing much better, as individuals, families and a nation, if we understood how utterly callous and predatory our economic system is at this street level, and rejected it.
Are you here to teach the uneducated overspending under earning masses:>0
Only if you define that in the juvenile terms of the Budweiser argument. The drive to buy, buy, buy is almost uncontainable for most Americans, no matter how selective, discerning, upscale or careful they are in their buying.
Know anyone short of retirement age who's just... stopped spending? Lives on a minimum and lets uncashed paychecks pile up on the desk? Or (horrors!) actually reduced their income to match a simple lifestyle?
Or are you going to argue that buying the right things for the right reasons isn't 'buy buy buy'?
I think I could safely say that even those who feel they are immune to the persuasion of marketing have been, and most likely will continue to be unaware of the magnitude of all that PSYOP strategy used by marketing types. And yes, there are people who truly believe that frugality, or affordability is somehow trumping the efforts of marketers. Some posters are simply unaware of the forces involved when they make "their decisions" to buy.
I think I could safely say that even those who feel they are immune to the persuasion of marketing have been, and most likely will continue to be unaware of the magnitude of all that PSYOP strategy used by marketing types. And yes, there are people who truly believe that frugality, or affordability is somehow trumping the efforts of marketers. Some posters are simply unaware of the forces involved when they make "their decisions" to buy.
My touchstone for is a very elderly uncle by marriage, who spent 50+ years ministering to the poor in Haiti. He's now unhappily retired, too old and frail to remain in the areas he served for so long. He belongs to an order with a strict vow of poverty; his possessions would fit in a small suitcase, and that includes books, which as with dorm mates are sort of collective property anyway.
I've discussed my field with him a number of times (and unfortunately I am now estranged from him by divorce). He absolutely conceded commercial influence on his thinking about personal wealth, spending, etc.
So I tend to reject suburbanites who say they aren't.
There are a lot of false arguments that either deny the influence of consumerism or misrepresent it; the frugality argument is one, minimalism is another - I break out about two dozen 'myths and illusions' people believe that are contrary to the facts of fostered consumption. And with very few exceptions - see Uncle Sean above - we are driven to fail in the name of supporting this system.
Or, really, any tax bracket. You either make so little you get Medicaid, or enough that you get a subsidized exchange policy and the only thing that's going to be $100/mo is minimal catastrophic coverage for 20-something males. Maybe.
This isn't true. We used to have coverage for about $80/month with subsidies, and since cost sharing the silver plan had out of pocket maxes that were about $2k. It jumped up last year so we're at about $180, but that's two middle aged people.
Not saying it works for everyone but the notion only catastrophic coverage is available is false.
This isn't true. We used to have coverage for about $80/month with subsidies, and since cost sharing the silver plan had out of pocket maxes that were about $2k. It jumped up last year so we're at about $180, but that's two middle aged people.
Not saying it works for everyone but the notion only catastrophic coverage is available is false.
I maintain my position while noting that some states have some subsidy brackets for some people that provide better coverage at lower cost. Those tend to be narrow exceptions, not representative of what the overall insured population pays and gets.
Since your location is "Portugal" I'm not quite sure who's providing this coverage.
My touchstone for is a very elderly uncle by marriage, who spent 50+ years ministering to the poor in Haiti. He's now unhappily retired, too old and frail to remain in the areas he served for so long. He belongs to an order with a strict vow of poverty; his possessions would fit in a small suitcase, and that includes books, which as with dorm mates are sort of collective property anyway.
I've discussed my field with him a number of times (and unfortunately I am now estranged from him by divorce). He absolutely conceded commercial influence on his thinking about personal wealth, spending, etc.
So I tend to reject suburbanites who say they aren't.
There are a lot of false arguments that either deny the influence of consumerism or misrepresent it; the frugality argument is one, minimalism is another - I break out about two dozen 'myths and illusions' people believe that are contrary to the facts of fostered consumption. And with very few exceptions - see Uncle Sean above - we are driven to fail in the name of supporting this system.
Who takes care of elderly uncle now? Shelter, food, medical, ... ? 50 years of ministering the poor in Haiti did not leave him much time to work in the US.
I DID have TV for many years, but still trying to think of a single thing I purchased due to advertising.
It would be entertaining to hear people's honest examples of purchases they made, solely due to advertising. Anyone? If I think of one, I'll post.
On that subject, how many have actually "ask your doctor" for a certain advertised pill? That seems so bizarre to me.
None. I’ve never made any decision mainly or solely based on advertising. That’s not even what it’s for! It’s much more like, “Oh Spider-Man is already out now? Sweet I want to see that!” Or maybe someone else, “They’re making a Gears of War 5?! I’ll preorder that!” I already wanted to see Spider-Man since I saw the first one, a commercial for it just lets me know it’s here.
I’ve gotten hungry before and seen a fast food ad and decided to go eat there once, I thought it would be funny / ironic, and no it didn’t lead to financial ruin. If advertising worked so well, I’d be doing it more! My business has been around for 11 years, we are B2B, I’ve yet to discover a single form of advertising that has a positive return for us so we have tried it all and just ditched each one after a year or two or three of them not working. We make ads for other companies, though, since it’s a video production company, so I’m happy to be a man behind the curtain and corrupt your innocent, susceptible minds my pretties
Seems pretty basic that people start out in life with lower incomes....and live accordingly. I shared an apartment for years. Definitely was paycheck-to-paycheck for me, for years. I didn’t buy a house until I could afford one. The price was a little less than the national median cost of a home, (and much less than the “average” cost) for that year.
As for my salary, it was higher than the median salary. I had no student debt - I didn’t actually even get serious about college until my employer offered to pay my tuition (the degree benefited them). I bought a brand new car the same year I bought my house. I put enough down on it that my payment was less than $300. Paid off in 4 years. I don’t like living on the edge, so I make sure that doesn’t happen....or at least, I do my best to avoid it.
Now it is way harder. Some barista jobs want college degrees. If you live in a high cost metro, living with roommates is still $1000 (or more) for a room. Student loan debt is $50k, and they no longer have as many of the really low payment options. I have some friends that pay $700 or more a month for student loans.
Where I live, maybe 5% of homes in the region are affordable to median income earners. It is hard not to be on the edge these days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
