Please note the date of the post below to which I am replying: June 15 1997.
"Keeping up with the Joneses" abbreviated as "KUJ" is both a colloquial catchphrase and a term used by economists to refer to "relative preferences". Most reference books on phrases trace the expression to a comic strip by that name, begun in 1913, by Arthur R. Momand. Some sources incorrectly attribute both the expression and the comic strip to Irving Bacheller. However, Bacheller wrote a book titled "Keeping Up with Lizzie" that accordingly was one of Momand's inspirations for his comic strip. In perusing a pamphlet by eight-hour movement founder, Ira Steward, I found an earlier instance in which the name Jones is used in connection with precisely and unmistakabtly the sense of social emulation as indicated by the phrase "keeping up with the Joneses." The significance -- and irony -- of this occurance is that Juliet Schor, as discussed below, cited KUP as one of the factors leading today to overwork. A century and a half ago, Ira Steward had singled KUP out as one of the positive *outcomes* of reducing the hours of work. It is my contention that this uncanny reversal represents an important trajectory in the course of consumerism as well as in reflection on that course. For all the ambiguity and imprecision of Steward's pamphlet, his theory rather boldly anticipates Veblen, Keynes and current behavioralists economists. I would also place Steward, along with his posthumous collaborator Gunton, in a tradition of innovative, neglected worktime thought running from Dilke in 1821 to Chapman in 1909. But have any progressive economists heard of A REDUCTION OF HOURS AN INCREASE OF WAGES, let alone read it? Below is the KUP passage: "Many things can be done for self, family, and domicile which cost nothing but time and labor; but when done, are sure to suggest one or two things more, costing money. There is time after eight hours' labor to attend an evening concert, which adds a little to the expense, but much to the enjoyment of the family. The Smiths and Jones 'and everybody' are going, 'and who wants to be so different from everybody else.' If these are trivial considerations to intelligent minds, they are the only ones which can be brought to bear upon the masses to tempt them to bid for higher wages. The great majority of men and women must "act like other folks.' 'What will people think?' or 'What will people say?' is the most terrible question which they can be asked." On 6/15/1997, William S. Lear wrote: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1997m06.c/msg00004.htm > I apologize as this is a bit long, but I would greatly appreciate > comments and any answers to my questions near the end. > > In the latest _Critical Review_ (Vol. 10 No. 4, Fall 1996), Juliet > Schor takes part in a symposium on the book _The Joyless Economy_ by > Tibor Scitovsky. Her article "What's Wrong with Consumer Capitalism?" > quickly glances at Scitovsky's work and then develops a "structural > critique of consumerism" in the U.S. > > The article raises some interesting points and is generally quite > good, though I disagree with parts of it. I thought I would share a > summary of the article and ask some questions. > > Her motivations for writing on this topic, in addition to her concerns > about "the paucity of family and leisure time" and the increasing > commercialization of American culture, are set forth as follows: > > The United States has the world's most environmentally > damaging lifestyle, and there is an increasing consensus > among scientists and ecologists that time is running out. > We need to be weaned from artificially cheap food, air > travel, meat, air conditioning, toxic chemicals, plastics, > excessive packaging, and the mountain of garbage each of us > creates each year. > > In order to fulfill this prescription, we need to investigate both > "what determines our behavior as consumers" and if "there is a > superior (higher-quality) alternative to consumerism that is > structurally blocked". In this article, Schor only addresses the > former need. > > Before beginning her critique, she examines and dismisses the view of > "earlier critics" that needs are artificially manufactured: > > ...the critics all too commonly pointed the finger at > advertisers. This approach is hard to square with a serious > look at the evidence: many products fail, advertising > appears to be increasingly ineffective, and intense consumer > desire exists both in areas with relatively little > advertising (housing purchases) and among people who are > relatively insulated from advertising. > > Among the critics not listed is Marx, who in his _Grundrisse_ says > that the capitalist is always looking for means to spur consumption > and "to give his wares new charms, to inspire [workers] with new needs > by constant chatter". Nevertheless, Schor ends her discussion of this > with a footnote which refers readers to Michael Schudson's > _Advertising: The Uneasy Persuasion_ (Basic Books, 1984) "for a > critique of the manufactured needs view". I will return later to > criticize this part of her article. > > Her structural criticism of consumerism begins by suggesting "that the > current system is biased toward excessive production of *private* > consumption goods" (her emphasis) as opposed to "public goods, > savings, leisure time, and environmental preservation". > > This contention reminded me of Adorno's little riff in _Minima > Moralia_: > > What the philosophers once knew as life has become the sphere of > private existence and now of mere consumption, dragged along as > an appendage of the process of material production, without > autonomy or substance of its own. He who wishes to know the truth > about life in its immediacy must scrutinize its estranged form, > the objective powers that determine individual existence even in > its most hidden recesses. > > Schor takes up Adorno's challenge and posits two reasons for the bias > toward private consumption: "structural aspects of the labor market" > and the phenomenon of "keeping up with the Joneses" (which, > unfortunately, Schor labels variously as "interpersonal comparison", > "social competition", and "positional competition"---I'll use KUJ > below). > > Taking the latter bias-inducing cause first, she notes that the > "Joneses" are "friends, coworkers, and the lifestyles portrayed on > television". She then makes two claims. First, that KUJ is "often a > zero-sum game" in which, due to the increasing gap between rich and > poor in the U.S., "the vast majority of Americans" lose even as their > absolute consumption increases. Second, that KUJ does not occur > "equally around all types of goods and services", but is found "in the > realm of socially visible goods" (cars, jewelry, houses) instead of > things like mattresses. Furthermore, public goods are not subject to > KUJ since they are, by definition, shared goods. > > Schor then addresses, albeit very briefly, the second cause of bias: > "the structure of the labor market" which she covers more fully in her > book _The Overworked American_ (Basic Books, 1992). The argument set > out is > > that capitalist economies are biased toward output and away > from leisure because employers set hours of work and do not > give workers the choice of reducing their hours when > productivity growth occurs. Employers ... oppos[e] shorter > hours and ... retain a very high degree of control over work > schedules and total hours. They "charge" workers a large > premium for short-hours jobs, in terms of lower wages, less > career mobility, and reduced fringe benefits. To reduce > their hours, employees have typically changed careers, quit > jobs, or stopped participating in the paid labor force .... > Thus, the absence of a market in work hours creates a bias > toward using productivity growth to raise income rather than > reduce hours. > > The reason any increased income is not used for early retirement or > unpaid leave is due to KUJ. > > Finally, Schor revisits her earlier contention that the role of > advertising is not to blame for the problems she identifies. > Advertising and marketing are "not unimportant" and "certainly > matter". However, "even without them", we would still have the > "problem of excessive private consumption". According to Schor, the > function of advertising and marketing is to "direct [KUJ] into the > sphere of private consumption, intensify it, and accelerate it". > > Now, my criticisms and questions. > > Schor seems to present a rather mixed message about the importance of > advertising, and her brief summary of the arguments against > advertising-created needs seem to me to be extremely flat. > > First, many products do indeed fail as she claims, but this is no > argument against the overall effect of advertising. Even products > which "fail" may succeed in furthering consumerism by giving the > illusion of a broad spectrum of choices, among other things. > > Second, her claim that "advertising appears increasingly ineffective" > could simply reflect some sort of decreasing marginal returns to > advertising and again says nothing about the overall effectiveness of > the effort to create needs. > > Third, the claim that desire exists in markets where advertising is > absent (such as housing) ignores the fact that the manufacture of need > doesn't have to be an explicit campaign conducted by a producer, but > could be included in other campaigns (e.g., products for homeowners), > and in things such as sitcoms which often feature sumptuously > decorated homes with the latest in gadgetry. She mentions the > lifestyles shown on television, but does not consider them to be a > part of the effort to manufacture needs, since they are not, > apparently, properly considered advertising. > > Fourth, she claims that the widening gap between the rich and poor in > the 1980s, in which status consumption "rippled down through the > economic hierarchy", induced the poor to try ever harder to close the > KUJ gap. However, she also notes that it is "friends and coworkers" > with whom the poor (or rich) compete. If this is so, then shouldn't > friends and coworkers be in approximately the same boat, economically > speaking, thus inducing no significant rise in KUJ? The final element > of the Joneses family is the "lifestyles portrayed on television", > which, from my interpretation of manufactured needs, undermines her > contention that advertising is overrated. From what I can tell, > television shows are vessels for advertising, often with blurry to > nonexistent lines between content and advertising. This is starting > to become more and more true of newspapers as well (e.g., the _Chicago > Sun-Times_ has a standing policy that advertisers are to be featured > in news stories and non-advertisers excluded---this from _Extra! > Update_, June 1997 issue, p. 2). Thus, the only transmission > mechanism down the "economic hierarchy" for KUJ would be advertising > and/or the manufacturing of needs in general. Does my interpretation > of manufacturing needs as wider than mere paid advertising seem > reasonable? > > Fifth, I find it extremely odd that she goes so far out of her way to > claim that advertising does not create needs, but merely "directs" > existing KUJ into the private sphere. Now, if KUJ cannot exist in the > public sphere by definition, how can advertising "direct" something > that does not yet exist into the private sphere? > > As to Schudson's _Advertising: The Uneasy Persuasion_, has anyone read > it and if so, does it do a credible job of showing that needs are not > manufactured? Does anyone have any sources which have studied this > topic and come to the opposite conclusion (that needs are indeed > manufactured)? I would be grateful for as many sources as possible on > this. > > Finally, isn't it a political desire on the part of business for long > hours, since leisure can lead to the dread threat of democratic > activity? I know that Charles Beard remarked about a similar > phenomenon occuring in Rochester, NY just after the turn of the > century, in his book _American City Government_: "much to the alarm of > the good people", social and civic clubs held in school buildings were > being used for "a too-free discussion of social and economic > questions" (p. 345). I'll bet Marx must have had something to say > about this as well? Are there other reasons business wants to have > fewer workers working longer hours than vice-versa? > > > Bill -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
