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.
Are families more materialistic than yuppies? Is a family who has two big SUVs, a house with a yard in an upscale, safe, clean leafy suburb with good schools and who shops in bulk at Costco inherently more materialistic than the single yuppie? The single yuppie who rents a studio in a gritty urban neighborhood and doesn't even own a car, just bikes and takes the subway everywhere, and ships.at the bodega or farmers market?
When you're a single yuppie, you crave the urban lifestyle. You don't want a car, you just want to take the subway and bike everywhere. You walk to the bodega or farmers market instead of drive to Walmart or Costco for groceries. As long as you live in a walkable, transit friendly neighborhood that doesn't have an astronomically high crime rate, you're fine. You'll be moving around a lot between different neighborhoods, careers, and cities, so you aren't thinking about buying a big house. You just want a small but comfortable apartment.
Then you get married and have several kids. Now you care a lot more about a neighborhood with a very low crime rate and a good school district. With young kids, you want a big SUV to contain your whole family, especially since big cars tend to be safer than compact cars. You will want at least two cars, one for commuting and another for the other spouse/teenage children.
You will want to settle down, stay in one place, because you don't want to move your kids around different cities too much, then they'll be uprooted from their childhood friends. So you'll turn to home ownership. You'll also want a house, not an apartment, because you now have a spouse and several kids. You want a house with a yard for your kids to play in. You'll buy toys, computers, gadgets to entertain your kids, buy a large TV for the whole family to gather around. You'll drive to Costco in your SUV and buy lots of stuff in bulk. You'll treat your spouse and kids to nice dinners and vacations to celebrate anniversaries, graduations, etc.
And of course, a family friendly suburb that's safe, clean, filled with Costcos, has good schools, and plenty of houses with big yards is going to be more expensive. Nice neighborhoods cost more than bad neighborhoods.
So now suddenly, to single yuppies, your life looks very consumerist and materialistic. Big house, big car, more cars, Costco, gadgets and toys for your kids, living in an upscale suburb... All that seems so materialistic compared to the single yuppie renting a studio in a gritty urban neighborhood, biking and taking the subway everywhere, not even owning a car.
I've noticed that when people on City Data are asked which cities are the most materialistic, they tend to point to some sprawling, low COL city where big houses and big cars are all the rage. But it is these same supposedly materialistic cities that are immensely popular with families seeking for safe, clean suburbs with good schools, and a yard of their own.
So my question is: do you perceive wanting a big house, big car, an extra car, an address in an upscale suburb, to be materialistic if it's because you have several kids? Are families with several kids inherently more consumerist and therefore materialistic than singles?
I think there is a general human instinct to appear high-status, which has a few purposes --- including getting access to the best mates, going on fun adventures, and getting people to respect you which can boost your confidence. On average, this instinct becomes less important as you get older and have kids. But some middle-aged married people who were highly status-driven as young adults in cities will still be fairly status-driven when they've moved out to the suburbs.
Status doesn't have to be in the form of wealth, though, it can also be listening to the right bands, having a bunch of tattoos, doing a lot of drugs, wearing the latest indie/punk clothing, having sufficiently radical left-wing opinions, being involved in the right local organizations. This form of status has the same purposes as the form that comes from showing off your wealth, but it's accessible to people who don't have the skills, education, or family connections to get rich but do have social maneuvering skills and an eye for aesthetics. Middle-aged people who aimed for this kind of status when young tend to still live in urban environments, in my experience.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,870 posts, read 81,892,720 times
Reputation: 58331
I thought the term "yuppies" died off after the 1980s, but . . .the answer is NO.
Both are materialistic, it's just a matter of how you spend your money. You did a good description of how caring parents spend to ensure the comfort, safety, and future of their kids.
On the other hand, the "yuppies" may spend just as much money or more, but on other things such as:
-Travel to Europe on vacation 1-2 times a year
-Eating out at expensive popular restaurants
-Buying expensive drinks at night clubs
-Going out to expensive live shows/concerts
-Buying expensive designer clothes and shoes
-Rent in expensive downtown areas of big cities (where their rent may be more than a suburban mortgage payment)
-Participate in expensive "experience" events, such as indoor skydiving, escape rooms, murder mystery dinners
Are families more materialistic than yuppies? Is a family who has two big SUVs, a house with a yard in an upscale, safe, clean leafy suburb with good schools and who shops in bulk at Costco inherently more materialistic than the single yuppie? The single yuppie who rents a studio in a gritty urban neighborhood and doesn't even own a car, just bikes and takes the subway everywhere, and ships.at the bodega or farmers market?
When you're a single yuppie, you crave the urban lifestyle. You don't want a car, you just want to take the subway and bike everywhere. You walk to the bodega or farmers market instead of drive to Walmart or Costco for groceries. As long as you live in a walkable, transit friendly neighborhood that doesn't have an astronomically high crime rate, you're fine. You'll be moving around a lot between different neighborhoods, careers, and cities, so you aren't thinking about buying a big house. You just want a small but comfortable apartment.
Then you get married and have several kids. Now you care a lot more about a neighborhood with a very low crime rate and a good school district. With young kids, you want a big SUV to contain your whole family, especially since big cars tend to be safer than compact cars. You will want at least two cars, one for commuting and another for the other spouse/teenage children.
You will want to settle down, stay in one place, because you don't want to move your kids around different cities too much, then they'll be uprooted from their childhood friends. So you'll turn to home ownership. You'll also want a house, not an apartment, because you now have a spouse and several kids. You want a house with a yard for your kids to play in. You'll buy toys, computers, gadgets to entertain your kids, buy a large TV for the whole family to gather around. You'll drive to Costco in your SUV and buy lots of stuff in bulk. You'll treat your spouse and kids to nice dinners and vacations to celebrate anniversaries, graduations, etc.
And of course, a family friendly suburb that's safe, clean, filled with Costcos, has good schools, and plenty of houses with big yards is going to be more expensive. Nice neighborhoods cost more than bad neighborhoods.
So now suddenly, to single yuppies, your life looks very consumerist and materialistic. Big house, big car, more cars, Costco, gadgets and toys for your kids, living in an upscale suburb... All that seems so materialistic compared to the single yuppie renting a studio in a gritty urban neighborhood, biking and taking the subway everywhere, not even owning a car.
I've noticed that when people on City Data are asked which cities are the most materialistic, they tend to point to some sprawling, low COL city where big houses and big cars are all the rage. But it is these same supposedly materialistic cities that are immensely popular with families seeking for safe, clean suburbs with good schools, and a yard of their own.
So my question is: do you perceive wanting a big house, big car, an extra car, an address in an upscale suburb, to be materialistic if it's because you have several kids? Are families with several kids inherently more consumerist and therefore materialistic than singles?
This post describes two of my relatives to a tee. I think the suburban one is more materialistic. The city one is more snotty. They are both annoying. lol.
Perhaps if the city dweller had more money they would spend it on luxuries available to them in the city but they are not very well off.
I suppose it can be a toss-up, depending on lifestyle but certainly the suburban lifestyle is car dependent and newer suburban homes are pretty large.
Are families more materialistic than yuppies? Is a family who has two big SUVs, a house with a yard in an upscale, safe, clean leafy suburb with good schools and who shops in bulk at Costco inherently more materialistic than the single yuppie? The single yuppie who rents a studio in a gritty urban neighborhood and doesn't even own a car, just bikes and takes the subway everywhere, and ships.at the bodega or farmers market?
Why stereotype?
you find all kind of people everywhere
You look at me and my house, you would think I'm materialistic, based on your definition
I'm in my 40s and the most expensive car I've bought for myself was .... $4500
Every other car I've bought for myself was between $1800-4500
The debate premise is flawed. Families, in general, are not tossing money around and acquiring the biggest and best of everything. Many are struggling. Not all Yuppies are living as depicted in the OP. The "American Dream" is built on acquisition and conformance. There are certain economic classes that achieve that regardless of their family or Yuppie status. There seems to be a thread (not a trend) running through our culture and society that intentionally rejects that "Dream" for whatever reason or self-image they pursue. Priorities also change with age or the arrival of children.
Why stereotype?
you find all kind of people everywhere
This. By the time you finish listing all the caveats and exceptions to some wannabe stereotype it has lost any meaning. There are many more engaging things to occupy your mind with.
I thought the term "yuppies" died off after the 1980s, but . . .the answer is NO.
Both are materialistic, it's just a matter of how you spend your money. You did a good description of how caring parents spend to ensure the comfort, safety, and future of their kids.
On the other hand, the "yuppies" may spend just as much money or more, but on other things such as:
-Travel to Europe on vacation 1-2 times a year
-Eating out at expensive popular restaurants
-Buying expensive drinks at night clubs
-Going out to expensive live shows/concerts
-Buying expensive designer clothes and shoes
-Rent in expensive downtown areas of big cities (where their rent may be more than a suburban mortgage payment)
-Participate in expensive "experience" events, such as indoor skydiving, escape rooms, murder mystery dinners
So in other words, the yuppie is dying from the covid restrictions and the other person has less to complain about.
The debate premise is flawed. Families, in general, are not tossing money around and acquiring the biggest and best of everything. Many are struggling. Not all Yuppies are living as depicted in the OP. The "American Dream" is built on acquisition and conformance. There are certain economic classes that achieve that regardless of their family or Yuppie status. There seems to be a thread (not a trend) running through our culture and society that intentionally rejects that "Dream" for whatever reason or self-image they pursue. Priorities also change with age or the arrival of children.
True. Lots of kids living in the poor inner city. Lots of families who are poor.
But the American ideal for families tends to be living in a safe, clean, upscale, suburb with good schools, owning a single family home, a couple of SUVs, and shopping at big box stores. It's simply a lot easier to rent a studio, go car free, and bike, take the subway everywhere when you're a single.
The urban, inner city, transit oriented life is for singles. The suburban, car culture, home ownership, single family house, Costco, and SUV driving lifestyle is overwhelmingly for families.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,969 posts, read 25,568,746 times
Reputation: 12193
I think most people are very sensitive to the expectations of their peers. Many would prefer living on the edge of what they can afford rather than live leaner but never have to worry about getting your stuff taken away if the economy tanks. I am now solidly middle class but my depression era grandmother and mother instilled in me a sense of frugality. I couldn't have a house with a two story living room ceiling, I'd only see the heating bill going through the roof.
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.
