Books

Do Americans Shop Too Much? (New Democracy Forum)

Average customer rating:

Do Americans Shop Too Much?
Hell yeah they shop too much!
Yes They Do
Yes! Americans Do Shop Too Much!
Book Review

Do Americans Shop Too Much? (New Democracy Forum)
Juliet Schor , Joshua Cohen , and Joel Rogers
Manufacturer: Beacon Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Popular Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Consumer Behavior | Marketing & Sales | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Shopping & Commerce | Reference | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Popular Culture | Social Sciences | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Consumer Guides | Reference | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

Consuming Faith: Integrating Who We Are with What We Buy
Buy American: The Untold Story of Economic Nationalism
Economic Justice for All/10th Anniv. Ed. (Publication / United States Catholic Conference)
A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide
College and Society: An Introduction to the Sociological Imagination

ASIN: 080700443X

Book Description

Juliet Schor breaks a taboo by exposing Americans' shopping habits to moral society. Schor disapproves of unfettered private consumption, not only because we already use up so much, but also because overspending to bolster a sense of self does not lead to happiness. Along with her critique, Schor suggests intriguing ideas for making 'status' goods accessible for all--for example, imposing high taxes on expensive items to subsidize lines of affordable 'luxury' goods. A firestorm of responses follow from economist Robert Frank and others. NEW DEMOCRACY FORUM A series of short paperback originals exploring creative solutions to our most urgent national concerns. The series editors (for Boston Review), Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers, aim to foster politically engaged, intellectually honest, and morally serious debate about fundamental issues-both on and off the agenda of conventional politics.

Customer Reviews:

Do Americans Shop Too Much?.......2004-12-15

Juliet Schor presents the premise that a problem exists with consumption in the United States, brought on by strategic product advertising and marketing that divides consumers between those that have status goods and those that seek these status goods. The rise of television, Schor asserts, has conveyed this message to consumers, and television works to "...inflate the viewer's perceptions of what others have, and by extension what is worth acquiring-what one must have in order to avoid being `out of it'" (9). Striving to stay competitive and level in socioeconomic status and in the capitalist workplace of America has created dissatisfaction among many Americans with their lifestyles, as they strive to fit in with these status "norms." Schor describes this cycle of consuming, to remain on an even status plane with others and increase well-being, as being on a "positional treadmill." Furthermore, Schor cites, "One survey of U.S. households found that the level of income needed to fulfill one's dreams doubled between 1986 and 1994" (10), and notes that median income in American households is even exceeded by this amount. The current American consumption situation, according to Juliet Schor, is damaging to the environment through negative product "externalities" like pollution, that are not reflected in product price. Consumerism facilitates easy control over government policy by corporate leaders, decreases leisure time, and creates a retail culture of uniformity.
After outlining six assumptions of consumer behavior and processes in the capitalist American workplace, Schor presents seven components of what she calls the "Politics of Consumption," a political framework that ought to exist in order to transform the current situation of American consumerism into a "new consumerism." One component Schor discusses is that a "new consumerism" must be ecologically sustainable, as current American consumption patterns are drastically over-demanding of the Earth's natural resources; that is, it is not at all possible for the Earth to sustain the current population if everyone possessed the quality of life that a typical American possesses. Although I agree with Schor on this premise thoroughly, I disagree with the support used in preaching for environmental sustainability, and with her proposals for change. Schor cites global warming trends regarding sport utility vehicles, air conditionings and global travel, as well as the energy and resource use of home development, and the subsequent loss of open space that arises from such development, all as evidence for the need of environmental sustainability. Schor, however, fails to properly address the main cause of environmental degradation, that is, the imbalance in world resource use and consumption, and the attitude that has been instilled in American culture of superiority, elitism, and a lack of global consumer perspective.
Americans are inundated through the media, advertising, cultural norms, and governmental policy, with the idea that the United States is somehow better than the rest of the world, having the right to consume at disproportionate levels at the expense of other nations and other peoples. The obesity problem in the United States directly supports this premise, as millions and millions of Americans suffer from obesity through over-consumption of food resources, while millions suffer from malnourishment around the world. Until American attitudes of consumption are modified into those of global concern, and Americans begin to realize the global impact of their purchases and lifestyles, environmental sustainability will be difficult to achieve. While Schor stresses a need to "...educate, mobilize, and change practices at the neighborhood and household level" (30), she fails to address the lack of worldwide perspective of the typical American consumer. Encouraging someone to recycle for example, or purchase "fair trade" food products is not one in the same as cultivating a new sense of the global environmental and social impact of consumption. Americans are taught that they ought to do what is right for them and those they support, and thoughts of adverse effects on subsidiary peoples in other parts of the world do not enter their thought process during consumption. Attitudes are at the root of the sustainability problem, and although governmental regulation of environmental policy is necessary to address immediate and surface level concerns, true environmental change cannot be achieved until consumption perspectives are changed. This premise should be at the root of Schor's argument as well.
Furthermore, I disagree with Schor's main premise that the current American consumption problem is based on this cycle of consumers trying to fit in with status norms and remain level with other consumers that are on a higher socioeconomic level than they. Other factors have contributed to the over-consumption in American culture, such as the advance of a technological and global economy, as well as the increase in income, work diversity, and product availability. Current trends in consumption may merely be a natural result of shifting economic conditions in America, and not of fierce socioeconomic competition. Lamont and Molnar's assertion that individuals have been found to seek "social maximization" by, "...centering their attention on other spheres and activities: intimacy, creativity, morality, religion, education, and the arts..." (78), displays that consumption in the modern American economy may not be the lone venue for achieving self-satisfaction and "well-being." Whatever the cause of the current trend of over-consumption in the United States, steps must be taken to alleviate its effects on the environment, social structure and attitudes, and other peoples and institutions in America and worldwide.

Hell yeah they shop too much!.......2004-10-07

American culture of consumerism appears to be quite similar to a cocaine addiction. Shopping becomes the drug, begging to be consumed with every new clearance rack at any given department store. Consumers become fueled with the need to fill a void within their daily lives. There are many valuable critiques on the addictive shopping habits of Americans living in the twenty-first century presented throughout Juliet Schor's Do Americans Shop Too Much?
Materialism can be, and in fact is, addictive. "Shop-aholics," if you will, are not only hurting themselves, by carrying out shallow existences, but are supporting a system that will create an even greater unequal distribution between the wealthy classes and the growing poor. Of course, as it's argued, consumerism boosts jobs so, then, why should we worry about spending habits at all if spending money is for the greater good anyway?
The truth is that while the purchasing of any sort of product supports the capitalist market that America needs to maintain its economic strength, we must not forget to question whether or not the current economic system benefits all Americans. Douglas Holt reminds us that we must understand that the most effective kind of change will only happen at the structural level. More clearly, to question consumerism is also to question the structure in which consumerism is born. If consumerism were to be critiqued in the forefront, then capitalism would embody the entire backdrop of the discussion. Holt refers to the market system when he states, "Intervening with market structure rather than market content is also politically preferable" (Schor 67). In essence, our money is doing the speaking in this country. How, where, if, and when we spend our money is undoubtedly heard by the people running our country. In this context, "the people running our country" not only refers to the government as a whole but also refers, more specifically, to the manufacturers of all goods being consumed on a day-to-day basis. The extravagant amount of time Americans spend shopping has been heard by the manufacturers; manufacturers are, perhaps, only fulfilling the strong desire to have more that Americans display through their spending habits. Their spending habits are, arguably, part of the unavoidable effects of a society structured through capitalism.
A reasonable question, then, comes into play: Who should bare the brunt of the blame for the negative, greedy effects of consumerism, the companies or the consumers? The answer is not as black and white as Juliet Schor infers. Juliet Schor answers the question of the title of her book (Do Americans Shop too much?) with a resounding `Yes!' However, she fails to emphasize the necessary, follow-up question to such a problem. That question being, of course, `What now?'
Juliet Schor emphasizes that the mainstream way of life for most Americans involves filling every free moment in their lives with shopping. That is, Americans shop on lunch hours, weekends and holidays. Personally, I think that Americans shop in excess due the convenience of stores in close proximity, twenty-four hour shopping access, store bargains (clearance, "50-75% off!"). In the eyes of a customer, life becomes full of "good deals".
The easy access and availability of credit cards is one of the main major causes of overspending. Having access to a credit card is dangerous because you are not in direct handling with a concrete form of cash. You do not realize the amount you are spending until the inevitable bill appears in your mailbox a month later. Yet, even then, the bill can be put aside; it is easy to ignore something that doesn't need to be paid immediately. Of course, not ever paying the bill, or paying it later than was allowed, results in late fees, higher interest, and bad credit. This reflects very poorly on the consumer giving him/her a bad reputation.
Economists refer to the attainment of a comfortable, middle class standard of living as the "good life". However, the question lies in the amount we consume and whether this amount produces inequality, alienation or power (4). Often times, the values which we live get passed down onto our children, who learn excessive consumption to be the norm.
A couple different authors critiqued Schor's book. Some authors agree with Schor's ideas while others disagree. One interesting argument revolves around the driving forces of consumption. Juliet Schor believes that consumption is driven by the poorer classes wanting to "purchase" their way into a better social class by having more stuff. However, Douglas Holt points out, "it is not the upscale emulation" that is driving consumption but the "differentiation" (64). "Differentiation," as Holt sees it, has to do with people seeing consumption as a way to define, and redefine, their identities. It has to do with the idea that we will become what we consume. To some degree, there is quite a lot of freedom in this view. If one's self-concept can be redefined through each purchase; there are no limits to becoming who we have always dreamed of becoming. Yet, Holt and Schor's opinions collide without either one of them realizing it. Perhaps some people dream of escalating their social class while, at the same time, do so by following the lead of those people already well off.

Yes They Do.......2004-10-04

After finishing Schor's Do Americans Shop Too Much, I came to have a great appreciation for the democracy forum that the book is structured in. Although Schor's writing dominates the book, I found the contributing authors to be just as important. Not only did they give different perspectives to the debate, but I thought that some, especially Robert Frank, had better ideas on how to curb the ridiculous amount of consumption in America. This is why I enjoyed the book; it allowed me to be critical of the author's ideas and enabled me to choose the theories I agree with.
The first concept that struck me in Schor's "New Politics of Consumption," was that well before I was born many people already believed America had a consumption problem. Schor states, "...in the 1960s and early 1970s, a far reaching critique of consumer culture was a part of our political discourse." (p. 3) This makes me unable to compare today's culture with an America that did not over consume. Coming from this viewpoint, it was a challenging and interesting process to step back and analyze the culture I am a part of. Schor refers to the current culture of consumption as "The New Consumerism."(p. 7)
An integral part of "The New Consumerism" is the idea of "...competitive consumption..." (p. 8) Schor's idea is that people are consuming materialistic products at a high rate because they want to have what the "...social group with which they identify..." has. (p.8) Schor says that although in the 50's people identified with their neighbors down the street, they now identify with the people they see on TV who have much higher standards of living. This in turn takes consumption to a much higher level, where people are spending more than they have to compete with those in higher classes. (p. 9)
Schor supports her theory with three strong points. The first is that in a study by Fournier and Guiry, only 15% of the participants said they would be "...satisfied with...being middle class." (p. 10) The next is that the savings rate dropped from 8% in 1980 to zero when the book was published. Along with this comes increased credit card debt in the average American home. (p. 10) The last and strongest point is that Americans' "...quality-of-life measures...began to diverge from GDP in the mid-1970s after moving in tandem for decades." (p. 12)
Although Schor's theory and support are persuasive, I had to question the reality of her theory. To do this I took a look at my family's consumption practices. I analyzed three products recently purchased my parents to determine why we bought them. The first is a DVD player. By no means is the DVD player a necessity, but it is much more convenient and higher quality than VHS. I think this purchase was not to compete with others, but to keep up with technology. If my parents wanted, they could still use a reel projector, but they would have a very hard time renting movies on a Saturday night.
The next is the purchase of a home in northern Wisconsin where we moved this summer. They had to take a large loan to afford the place, which fits right in line with Schor's idea of people spending more than they have. However, housing prices have increased dramatically all over the country in the past 20 years, and especially in northern Wisconsin. Although my parents had to take out a loan, they moved into a house that is noticeably smaller than their previous home. At the same time, the new house is almost twice as expensive. Again, I do not think this purchase and loan was to compete, but rather to maintain their same quality-of-life amidst high real estate prices.
The last product is an SUV. Even though my parents are environmentally conscious, my Dad felt he had to buy an SUV to handle our long driveway in the middle of a northern Wisconsin winter. I will give my parents the benefit of the doubt on this purchase and call the four wheel drive a necessity for the winter. However, I wholly agree with Schor that the purchase of an SUV in a setting where it isn't necessary is merely for the status.
My thoughts on the concept of "competitive consumerism" coincide with both Schor's and Twitchell's views. Twitchell stated that, "More often than not what we once condemned as luxury has become necessity for a reason..." (p. 47) I agree with Twitchell in that the purchase of expensive houses and technology products are not competitive, as long as the house is not ridiculously more than what someone needs. However, I agree with Schor in that purchases of unneeded mansions and SUV's are to compete socially.
One area where I completely disagree with Schor is within her solutions for the over consuming America, what she calls "A Politics of Consumption." (p. 28) Her fourth element, "Democratization of consumption practices," is highly unrealistic. (p.30) She states, "Why not tax high-end `status' versions of products while allowing the low-end models to be sold tax free?" (p. 31) I do not believe this idea would ever be accepted in America; partly because it would require an overhaul of our current economic system and because people would not want higher taxes on products they like to buy.
A much more plausible solution comes from Robert Frank in his essay "Market Failures." (p. 37) His solution comes in the form of a consumption tax. (p. 41) Although this theory would also be difficult to implement, it would be easier to administer and more likely to go over well with the American public. His idea is to tax people not on income, but rather the difference between peoples' income and how much they save. This would discourage people from all income levels to spend needlessly and encourage them to save more. When people stop spending needlessly they stop over consuming.
Overall, Do Americans Shop Too Much has valuable insights. Schor did an excellent job of bringing the problems of over consumption to the surface. However, I believe her solutions for these problems were sometimes naïve and unrealistic. The addition of more realistic opposing arguments gives the book a high value.

Yes! Americans Do Shop Too Much!.......2004-09-28

In Juliet Schor's essay on the consuming habits of Americans, she makes many bold statements about what she calls the "New Consumerism", the trends of the current shopping world. I feel that her claim that this new consumerism has brought about an up scaling of lifestyle norms and a growing gap between consumer desires and incomes is very valid. I am frequently being reminded in my classes, texts, etc. that there is a substantial difference between the upper class and the lower class in America, and so I think she has a point when she voices her concern that discussion of solutions to this problem must be furthered. Juliet Schor goes on in her essay to discuss reasons behind this new growing problem. One of these reasons which she goes into great depth about is competitive consumption. She explains it as "the idea that spending is in large part driven by a comparative or competitive process in which individuals try to keep up with the norms of the social group with which they identify"(page 8). I think this is true, especially I would say among younger consumers whose self concept is still in large part derived from what their peers think of them. Growing up in America today has seemed to me to be a lot of trying to fit into the right groups, the "in crowd" by buying as many name brand clothes, shoes and other commodities as possible, and starting at an early age. I think this notion is quite evident each time I see another Abercrombie Kids, Baby Gap or Pottery Barn Kids Store being opened up in my local malls.
Schor also addresses the issue of advertising, especially television advertising, playing a much larger role now in today's consumerism problem. She says that with television made available to the rich and poor classes alike, the luxury lives of TV characters and the rich and famous are broadcast into the homes of all Americans, inflating our perceptions of what others have and making us want to be like them. I'm not quite sure if this has as great of an effect on us as Schor believes. I think that we still have the ability to reason and decide just how real those lives on TV are, but I do see that we have a tendency to wish we could enjoy a bit more of the fun vacations, cars, and huge homes of the stars we see on TV. Schor describes this perception as the first in a chain of effects on the American consumer; the next ones being overspending to attain this desired lifestyle, leading to decreased savings, leading to stress and worry and ultimately a decline in quality of life.
In the last part of Schor's essay, she gives her solution as to what might solve our consumer problems. She attacks the conventional view of a consumer in economics, saying that "it exaggerates how rational, informed, and consistent people are. It overstates their dependence. And it fails to address the pressures that consumerism imposes on individuals with respect to available choices and the consequences of various consumption decisions" (page 19). So, basically her arguments then proceed to give examples of when the average consumer is irrational and the like; credit card debt, impulse buying, trends in brand loyalties, etc. I tend to agree that the conventional view of a consumer as a fully informed, rational and careful purchaser does not fit the majority of American consumers I know, nor does it comply with my own habits. The collective response that Schor prescribes for the problems of today center around making a distinction between wants and needs, attaining quality of life rather than quantity of stuff, ecological sustainability and democratization of consumption practices. She also discusses having a better politics of retailing and the "cultural environment", referring to the need for restriction on advertising in public schools, doctor's offices, etc. She says that because consumers will pay a little more for responsibly produced goods, we should also have an exposé of commodity "fetishism". Lastly, she wants to see a consumer movement where independent organizations and consumers pressure companies, influence politics, provide objective information on products and pressure the government to enact new policies. My response to her suggestions for success is mixed. I believe that we definitely need to pressure corporations and the government to be more ecologically sustainable, as do Jack Gibbons and Betsy Taylor in their criticisms of Schor's essay. I do however think that as James B. Twitchell wrote in his response to her essay, the reason that many of us consume certain goods is not for the goods themselves, but for the meaning, symbolism, or status that they bring us. Schor didn't even address a way to change the consumer's long held belief in the meaning of products we consume. We need to be effective in getting at this core issue influencing rising consumption. I think that Schor might have possibly overlooked what one of her critics, Douglas B. Holt wrote about in his critique as being the issue of differentiation. He said that people want to consume goods and services associated with different identities in order to experience those identities. This makes sense to me, because so often athletic shoes endorsed by famous athletes, clothing brands worn by favorite celebrities, cars seen driven by admired people and even hairstyles and makeup are all sought after and consumed in order for the average citizen to feel like they have stepped into the shoes of another person. If the average citizen has found a way to escape their life and social class by simply making a purchase, then it will not stop him or her when they discover that the manufacturer was sloppy in the production, or that purchasing the good supports unethical advertising, etc. Many of her critics have made valid points so I can understand the justifications of their suggestions and many of her original prescriptions. After reading the whole book I believe that it would take a combination of ideas to turn the "new consumerism" trend into a positive light. I too am an American consumer, and while I want things to be fair and to change for the better, I also see that it is going to take an awful lot for me to save instead of splurge on that next American Eagle sweater sale that comes my way.

Book Review.......2004-07-01

Juliet Schor's "Do Americans Shop to much?" is a factual based novel on how our economy is using more natural resources than what is needed. She expresses the main points of emphasis by writing her opinion and having responses from others. She also points out arguments that I would have never gained interest in and with this I have become more socially aware of the situation of our economy and nation that ranks number one in power but fails to realize the importance of the old mighty dollar.
She draws the points of how she thinks we, especially the upper and upper middle class, consume to much of earths natural resources for our own good and its destroying the little that we have left. The fact that a person who is living off of slim next to nothing can get by, then why can't someone of the highest class do the same and stop getting what they don't need. I say to that, whats the point of being rich if you cant show that you are rich. Everyone wants to live happy, having money is the number one way to go. Those who said that they are content with what they have and don't need fancy and luxury items to live is lying, let the truth be told they to would be buying unnecessary items that they feel they need but in actuality don't.
Juliet Schor touches the facts about taxing luxury items so maybe the rich wont buy as much and when they do, more can come back to those who don't have as much. Truth is, the people who have the power to make all this happen are rich themselves, passing this as a law is pretty close to impossible. The fact that even if this law would e passes, it would just give the rich more reason to up hold these luxury items because one less of those with money will be able to afford them. So us being the persistent selfish people we are, will do whatever is possible to make sure that we obtain that. Its only in our nature to do so and it shows everyday.
Most of What Schor discusses doesn't make the most sense to me. If you have the money, use it. There should be no restrictions on the money you earned. The ones telling you to give it to causes that are better for the economy are the ones with no money most of the time. I say do you. Buy what you want to at any time you want. Because those same people that are telling you what to do with your money would be buying or spending that money the same way you are.
What she says does make sense, but it's such a pessimistic way of looking at our higher class. She's looking at the glass as being half empty instead of half full. Sure you have your upper class old aged Caucasians who only want the rich to get richer and the poorer to get poorer. But that is just how our economy is. The rich cannot blame for what they have and how they use it. But society can for setting this up as a lose lose situation for the loser and a win win situation for the winner. The fact being that the way things are now, aren't going to change anytime soon.
She fells to touch the basis I think of how most of the upper class today got to where they are. Not all of them were born into wealth. And its usually the ones with the most money who started everything themselves. That's truly not fair to those who worked hard for everything that they had and are being rewarded with all of their money. For those who haven't had the same luck as those entrepreneurs who have made plenty out themselves, there is a reason, either the drive wasn't there to reach the goal or certain events that were well out of their control held them back with no other choice. My point is that we do all this complaining and we wouldn't give a second thought to not doing what the rich man is doing with his money. Everything is like this for the reason. If you don't like it, do something about it, which I highly doubt.

Books:

Books