Consumerism effects

A recent study from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in 1950, households spent 37 percent of their income on food and clothing, whereas in 2010 we spent 13 percent of income on the same goods. Simultaneously, grocery stores have evolved to become warehouses with products of vast varieties and historically low prices. Many people see this cheap consumption as evidence of a society obsessed with materialism, a belief supported by the extravagant abundance of grocery stores.

But is this true? Consider a scenario where a furniture store is offering you unlimited amounts of sofas for free. How many do you take? Just one? Maybe two? Why not three? Because likely the first couch would be useful in the living room, the second, maybe a bedroom. But the third—would just waste space. Sofas, along with most material possessions, decrease in usefulness with each addition until a point where another sofa would provide no further use.

In 1950, families had fewer items as it took a large percentage of income to afford the bare necessities; thus, making additional purchases could substantially improve a family’s welfare. Today, since we make more money and therefore consume more goods, additional purchases will not improve welfare nearly as much as they did in 1950. Instead, we reach a desired consumption much sooner with enough remaining income to spend on things that make our lives meaningful—education, traveling, concerts—asserting the opposite of what critics claim: Consumerism makes us value material goods less, not more.

THOMAS MOORE

Fort Smith