The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class

Excellent

I was happy with this book. It shed a lot of light on the cultural practices of different economic classes and the reasons behind why certain behaviors exist. There are plenty of examples that show not just what people are buying, but the social influences that accompany their economic peers. From t shirts, coffee companies, breast feeding, and clothing and make up, the author does a good job pulling back the curtain and showing the process behind these purchases and behaviors. You'll learn the thought process behind an entrepreneur who sells a five dollar cup of plain black coffee as well as the social factors that allow upper class mothers the freedom to chose between organic produce and processed food. It get's a tad repetitive, but it's still an interesting read.

The author shows convincing data about the gap between the elite and the rest of the population, but sound rather accusing of the rich who now, instead of investing into material elements (silver spoons, giant TVs, sports cars) now dare to invest into education and expensive food habits. Personally I find investing into Yale, kale or breast feeding a good choice, and if this becomes aspirational for the broader population, earth is a better place than one where people aspire to drive around in 400hp sports cars. Net - interesting facts, but no usable consclusions.

I’m not clear there’s a deeper message that goes with this book The basic theme is that traditional conspicuous consumption has given its way to 1. “Inconspicuous consumption” on expensive “moats” from the riff-raff that only the rich can spot each other engaging in, with examples ranging from clear nail polish to Ivy League education and better healthcare. 2. “Conspicuous leisure” the poor cannot not dream of if they are to hold on to their less flexible jobs (example: breastfeeding, hitting the gym at lunchtime) 3. Purchasing the fruits of “conspicuous production,” as best exemplified by the movement toward “authentic products” that cost a fortune to make because they deliver on some parameter the consumer fixates on. For example, specialty coffee (as opposed to still very expensive Starbucks), fixed-gear bikes, vinyl records, mechanical wristwatches etc. It’s never, not once, 100% clear if the author is bemoaning this change or merely documenting it as the current state of affairs. She does celebrate cities, however, and dedicates a chapter to them as the setting where these patterns of consumption were born. She also draws a distinction between the old conspicuous consumption, which was entered into by a proudly idle leisure class and the new forms of 21st century conspicuous consumption: the latter is squeezed into the heavy schedule of the “meritocracy” that earned its money through work and is often aimed toward ensuring that the privilege is passed on to its children. My summary of the book is as follows: the author and her PhD candidates have done TONS of work documenting consumption patterns of the 5 quintiles of the income distribution across time. The book is worth reading just to peruse those tables. I’m happy I bought it, basically. On the other hand, the analysis regarding the three “new” forms of consumption is a bit too facile for my taste. Rich people spend on all this stuff because they can. Period. Some of them (the author included) also do so because they mistakenly believe their offspring will get to run the world, provided they can send them to Princeton. That last assumption is so naive, you have to laugh. Trust me, I’m Greek. I’ve seen this play out in real time and pretty it ain’t. So my recommendation is the following: download the stats on which this book was based from the author’s sundry academic papers and reach for the work of Mark Greif. Greif does a ten times better job than Elizabeth Currid-Halkett of describing all these phenomena, for the simple reason that he does not sit on the fence; he truly hates all this baloney, as well he should.

Reasonably interesting but a bit repetitive and not too many take always for em.