working class still has money for luxury?

[punisa]

instead of going into deep philosophy this time, I'd like to ask a rather simple question - how does the working class (still) have money for luxury?
Is this some social hysteria when people use their last bit of cash/credit card to buy buy buy, just to keep their consumerist sanity?

Let me give an example. My country, Croatia, has an enormous external debt. Hundreds of people loose jobs each day. Political scene is in chaos (we just survived a coup attempt yesterday).
BUT - 100.000+ people decided to use holiday season to go skiing in exotic destinations like Austria and Switzerland.

Where in the world do they get the money for that? :blink:
Or even better question - what is going on in their heads to spend so much money during the worst economic time we had here in 100 years?
I got really mixed answers so far, would love to hear what you leftists think.

Cause it just doesn't make sense to me. I'm a worker who can't afford anything, barely rent and food. Because I refuse to have any debt or credit cards. I presume others earn as much as me, or less, are these people paying with "imaginary" money?

FINAL QUESTION: how long can they support such lifestyle? When will it break and how will it break?

[Psy]

Yes it is social hysteria, hell industry has been in decline in the USA since the 1970's yet workers still shop despite the growing rust belt and army of unemployed.

As for how long can they support such lifestyle? When will it break and how will it break?

Well I think this crisis signals a long decline of capitalism so I don't think workers will be able to consume as much in the near future.

[FSL]

BUT - 100.000+ people decided to use holiday season to go skiing in exotic destinations like Austria and Switzerland.





Most people who loan money do it to buy their family's first house or pay through some necessary expenses like tuition fees, medical treatment or simply the cost of living. The people who spent their time skiing in the Alpes are for the most part members of the rulling class or are at least very close to it.

Lastly, consumerism does exist, some people do live beyond their means but this is a direct result of this economic system and not because they're crazy or greedy by nature. If people were bying less TVs and cars we'd have simply started this recession years ago. A way for capital to continue accumulating was expanding credit and breeding the modern consumer.

[punisa]

Most people who loan money do it to buy their family's first house or pay through some necessary expenses like tuition fees, medical treatment or simply the cost of living. The people who spent their time skiing in the Alpes are for the most part members of the rulling class or are at least very close to it.

Lastly, consumerism does exist, some people do live beyond their means but this is a direct result of this economic system and not because they're crazy or greedy by nature. If people were bying less TVs and cars we'd have simply started this recession years ago. A way for capital to continue accumulating was expanding credit and breeding the modern consumer.

I agree FSL. But would you say that certain portion of citizens are actually driven towards living beyond their means? Is this a psychological reaction to crisis?
I personally know a handful of these folks that went skiing, none of them could be described as the ruling class, on the contrary.
Some of them carried food from home, over the borders, because they know they won't have enough money to actually eat there.

I could even go as far as to say that many of them are currently spending their last bits of cash on luxury.
There was an interesting article in Croatian papers just this morning, a psychological analyst described this paradox as a sort of strange "revolt" against the rapidly declining quality of life in our country.
As if people are to reluctant to look at the truth and face it for what it is, instead they desperately try to hang on to their comfy vacation time.
She even says in this article that this way of handling the situation is also a "burden" of being around in socialism for so long (until 1990).

I believe these people are heading towards a complete personal collapse.
No doubt advertising media exploits this very well. New loans, the ones you use to "close your last loan", are pushed down on people hard these days.

[Psy]

I agree FSL. But would you say that certain portion of citizens are actually driven towards living beyond their means? Is this a psychological reaction to crisis?
I personally know a handful of these folks that went skiing, none of them could be described as the ruling class, on the contrary.
Some of them carried food from home, over the borders, because they know they won't have enough money to actually eat there.

Getting workers to live beyond their means is how capitalism got out of the crisis of the 1970's that is where you really saw a major push by the capitalist class to convince workers that their 'dinky homes' from the long-boom were too small and they should borrow money to move to the newer larger suburban developments and you seen a long period of major suburban sprawl that over shadowed the sprawl of the long-boom. This came crashing down in this crisis as capitalists couldn't sell the debt to other capitalists to fuel the consumption of workers as capitalists figured out it was nothing but a giant pyramid scheme that only lasted so long due its scale.



I could even go as far as to say that many of them are currently spending their last bits of cash on luxury.

That would be point of consumerism.




There was an interesting article in Croatian papers just this morning, a psychological analyst described this paradox as a sort of strange "revolt" against the rapidly declining quality of life in our country.
As if people are to reluctant to look at the truth and face it for what it is, instead they desperately try to hang on to their comfy vacation time.
She even says in this article that this way of handling the situation is also a "burden" of being around in socialism for so long (until 1990).

More like a burden of being around for the long boom as it is the same in the USA.



I believe these people are heading towards a complete personal collapse.
No doubt advertising media exploits this very well. New loans, the ones you use to "close your last loan", are pushed down on people hard these days.
It is more then advertising, capitalism for decades has been driving into workers heads that their worth is measured by their conspicuous consumption.

[RadioRaheem84]

There is a whole section of working and middle class people who live way above their means. This is a given in the United States and debt finance to purchase things like homes, cars, luxuries, etc. is what kept the middle class afloat for decades. Without it, we would be an obvious rich/poor nation. Most people in my country are in massive debt or they save up their hard earned cash to spend it on really ridiculous things.
Before the crash, most working/middle class people still thought nothing of the massive drop in purchasing power and continued to spend as if there had been no major change from their parents and grandparents generation. Traditional values (own home, car, dog, luxuries) continued even though the means of acquiring them changed drastically. To actually admit that Americans couldn't afford these things with their wages alone meant to classify whole sections of the population as poor and Americans hate considering themselves poor. We think of it as one of the worst things to be in the age of conspicuous consumption. People use luxury items to disguise the fact that in terms of real wages they're poor.

Edit: A good example that's close to home is my current situation. My gf and I are just a little above the poverty line with our combined incomes yet we're able to afford a nice apartment, two nice cars and a slew of items that would be considered luxury. We live rather comfortably and thankfully have no major worries, but technically we're poor. We have no major wealth or reserves to speak of. One paycheck or one major accident and we're pretty much screwed. Yet, my gf used to think that we're not poor because she could buy a luxury item here or there or because we're able eat out at a nice restaurant every once in a while. It was almost an insult to her for me to suggest that we're poor. No one wants to consider themselves poor and people don't because consumer products fill that obvious wealth gap. In reality though, after actually seeing true wealth for the first time last summer, I began to reevaluate my socio-economic position. The majority of us are truly working class stiffs living on subsistence wages and no amount of luxury items are ever going to disguise the ugly face of income disparity in this nation! We are getting shafted in this economy simply because we're given the opportunity to look cool in front of each other but probably look like utter tools in front of the truly wealthy.

[Ravachol]

The ascetics argument "people shouldn't live above their means" is irrelevant to socialist theory. Whether people choose (conciously or not) to live above their 'means' is irrelevant as to the question of who should control the means of production and the resources of power and dominance in a society. People claiming "workers shouldn't whine because they still buy cars" don't understand one bit of socio-economics. First of all, if they stopped buying cars, TVs and luxuries, the capitalist system would take a hard hit and capital accumulation would decrease, not exactly the thing capitalists would encourage. Secondly, the fact that 'we have it so good' (even though that argument obviously only applies to some western countries and only to some segments of it's working class) isn't the result of the current socio-economic order but the result of a combination of technological progress and labor itself.
Last of all, the working class is the rightfull owner of ALL material wealth of society, how they distribute it amongst themselves is secondary to the fact that they do not enjoy their standard of living by 'grace of the bourgoise'.

The rethoric that people 'shouldn't spend so much instead of demanding higher wages' isn't only economically infantile, it simply ammounts to saying 'shut up' without any socio-economic analysis of the class and power relations in society.

[Psy]

The ascetics argument "people shouldn't live above their means" is irrelevant to socialist theory. Whether people choose (conciously or not) to live above their 'means' is irrelevant as to the question of who should control the means of production and the resources of power and dominance in a society. People claiming "workers shouldn't whine because they still buy cars" don't understand one bit of socio-economics. First of all, if they stopped buying cars, TVs and luxuries, the capitalist system would take a hard hit and capital accumulation would decrease, not exactly the thing capitalists would encourage. Secondly, the fact that 'we have it so good' (even though that argument obviously only applies to some western countries and only to some segments of it's working class) isn't the result of the current socio-economic order but the result of a combination of technological progress and labor itself.
Last of all, the working class is the rightfull owner of ALL material wealth of society, how they distribute it amongst themselves is secondary to the fact that they do not enjoy their standard of living by 'grace of the bourgoise'.

The rethoric that people 'shouldn't spend so much instead of demanding higher wages' isn't only economically infantile, it simply ammounts to saying 'shut up' without any socio-economic analysis of the class and power relations in society.
Yet why should Marxists care if capitalists are hurt when workers cut back their consumption? Workers should be trying to stay out debt as much possible to increase their survivability within the capitalist system, we don't workers to volunteer for more exploitation through debt so capitalism can crawl to another crisis, it is just delaying the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system.

Workers should be increasing their consumption through class struggle with their bosses not through growing debt to the capitalist class.

[punisa]

Yet why should Marxists care if capitalists are hurt when workers cut back their consumption? Workers should be trying to stay out debt as much possible to increase their survivability within the capitalist system, we don't workers to volunteer for more exploitation through debt so capitalism can crawl to another crisis, it is just delaying the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system.

Workers should be increasing their consumption through class struggle with their bosses not through growing debt to the capitalist class.

I fully agree with you. Getting yourself to the point where you detach yourself from novelty items is a step towards socialism, even if just in your head :lol:

Years ago I used to spend my extra profit on stupid gadgets and items. Now I totally lost interest, even if I have some extra cash around, I have no actual need or *urge* to buy anything that is not necessary.
Not in a radical sense, just plain common sense.
I know some guys who "fight" the system by not buying anything, not even soap. To me this is just childish.
What I'm saying is that if I have a perfectly good TV/cellphone/laptop, I don't buy a new one just because its *cool*.

At first you feel a slight alienization from the society (no kidding), cause you start to look at things and products in a different way. But soon this fact doesn't bother you anymore, it actually makes you proud in a way.

Why do I mention this? Simple.
When I was just discovering communism as an ideology, probably just as any newborn leftist, I had a rather mixed emotions, although I didn't spoke out about it.
I was very pro-revolution, but also felt that classless society might not be so fun as it seems :laugh:
Now when I discarded material as a form of self recognition, I could make a full transition to a communist society without missing anything from this economic model.

[scarletghoul]

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Poverty-Stricken-Jump-C.jpg
Not all the working class has money for luxury. (as illustrated)

The working class (mostly first world) who do enjoy such opulence (the Labour Aristocracy) is only able to do so because they benefit from the exploitation and robbery of the (mostly third world) working class who do not.
So imperialist parasitism is your answer. It benefits the bourgeoisie who cede a small portion of their wealth to keep the first world workers largely contented, and makes people believe that capitalism is a fine old system.

For a better understanding of this its worth reading up on imperialism, parasitism, labour aristocracy etc

[Psy]

Punisa, it also puts the failure of the Soviet Bloc in terms of commodities a different light. For example the idea that Cubans will be happy once they have IPods, Hummers and ranch-style houses in suburban communities is totally illogical even if capitalism could deliver it. It reduces the plight of workers to just an issue of consumption that regardless of their exploition stuff can make it all better.

[Ravachol]

Yet why should Marxists care if capitalists are hurt when workers cut back their consumption?


They shouldn't care AT ALL, I was just saying it could never be an argument IN FAVOR of capitalism.



Workers should be increasing their consumption through class struggle with their bosses not through growing debt to the capitalist class.

I agree completely, I wasn't arguing for the contrary at all.

[punisa]

Not all the working class has money for luxury. (as illustrated)

The working class (mostly first world) who do enjoy such opulence (the Labour Aristocracy) is only able to do so because they benefit from the exploitation and robbery of the (mostly third world) working class who do not.
So imperialist parasitism is your answer. It benefits the bourgeoisie who cede a small portion of their wealth to keep the first world workers largely contented, and makes people believe that capitalism is a fine old system.

For a better understanding of this its worth reading up on imperialism, parasitism, labour aristocracy etc

Indeed, I was actually referring to the part of the western working class and especially the segment that is "better off" or thinks so.
The fact is that even this portion of w.class is ready to fall down much deeper very soon, just as comrade RadioRaheem84 mentioned in his example.

In a nutshell I was misled to believe that this crisis will make a change in people's minds, that people will start discarding extra luxury as an element which further destabilizes their wellbeing.
But examples showed me I was wrong, people still buy all sorts of crap and spend their money on ridiculous gadgets.
What strikes me here is that they don't even spend their earned money, 99% of these are small loans from banks.

I'm no capitalist economy expert, so could someone explain to me - for how long is this actually possible to go on? What will happen when this huge portion of western population runs out of money and don't have enough to pay back the banks?

[José Gabriel Túpac Amaru]

we buy material pleasures to hide our dead souls.

[punisa]

we buy material pleasures to hide our dead souls.

that too :laugh:
Probably not everyone, but most of the people are pressured by their social circle and tend to blend in.
Once you take the different road you'll soon find yourself extremely isolated. In a big city you might be able to find more people like yourself and that helps, but smaller towns are a different story.

[RadioRaheem84]

In the West, once you introduce flashy gadgets and clothing that can elevate you above your neighbor and make you look like you "gets yours" , all sense of rationality is lost in the wind for the working class. Any method of acquiring these products is used to feel this false sense of social mobility. This is what constitutes social mobility in the Western world these days anyways. The nicer house/apartment, car, clothes and electronic gadgets fill the void of actual economic security. Plus, sometimes these items are actually cheaper than health or car insurance, a college education, etc. Renting out a luxury apartment with a roommate or a gf is very common for the younger generation and buying a flat screen at the immigrant discount shops is all it takes to not look poor. It's a brilliant way for the capitalists to disguise income disparity. Make the items cheap abroad and sell them at affordable prices here and make it look like the working class has it better than most other nations*. When you get the working class to love being a consumer, you have them by the neck.

* To be honest, just how much better do we really have it then some other nations? I visited three Latin American nations in the last three years and found that the working lower middle class (not the extremley poor) had neighborhoods that resembled some of the neighborhoods here in the States. They had many of the same items on sale, kids knew about the latest video games, the fashion was pretty much up to date and the social scene was similar. I was expecting dirt, dirt poor people barely even subsiting on their wages. It was like that in certain sectors, actually a lot of sectors, but there was a certain class that resembled the working poor in the States A LOT.

[Antiks72]

Yet why should Marxists care if capitalists are hurt when workers cut back their consumption? Workers should be trying to stay out debt as much possible to increase their survivability within the capitalist system, we don't workers to volunteer for more exploitation through debt so capitalism can crawl to another crisis, it is just delaying the inevitable collapse of the capitalist system.

Workers should be increasing their consumption through class struggle with their bosses not through growing debt to the capitalist class.



That's all fine and dandy but most workers, at least in the U.S. aren't class conscious. That is why the very first step for any radical leftist is to instill that class consciousness.

[mikelepore]

In the U.S., the working class has luxuries to the extent that they get little things instead of the big things. They can't afford medical care, their children's college education, or to pay off their mortgage debt. Given that situation, if they save an extra $100, their debt is so large that the $100 would barely affect the unpaid principal. So they say, what the hell, I might as well use the $100 to buy a DVD player. In this way, it's hopelessness and insecurity in regard to important matters that really fuels the behavior that seems to be a consumerism habit.

[RadioRaheem84]

In the U.S., the working class has luxuries to the extent that they get little things instead of the big things. They can't afford medical care, their children's college education, or to pay off their mortgage debt. Given that situation, if they save an extra $100, their debt is so large that the $100 would barely affect the unpaid principal. So they say, what the hell, I might as well use the $100 to buy a DVD player. In this way, it's hopelessness and insecurity in regard to important matters that really fuels the behavior that seems to be a consumerism habit.

That pretty much sums it all up. But then the GOP uses this against the working class by scolding them for not using the money on insurance.