Lux Populi and Charity

In his op-ed piece in the Washington Post, George Will describes the democratization of luxury. With the profusion of millionaires world wide, increased wealth in the hands of the middle and upper middle class and mass production of luxury goods, conspicuous consumption is no longer what it once was. It has become easier to keep up with the Joneses, even the very posh ones. Consequently, Will claims that the new positional goods may lie in the realm of philanthropy rather than in the market for deluxe items like fancy cars, name-brand personal items or second and third homes. The rich may better ensure their "elite" status and boost to the ego by giving spectacularly rather than by spending on trophy blings or laughably priced booze, even if it is a limited edition $200,000 bottle of Hennessy cognac.

Enough, already, with compassion for society's middle and lower orders. There currently is a sympathy deficit regarding the very rich. Or so the rich might argue because they bear the heavy burden of spending enough to keep today's plutonomy humming.

Furthermore, they are getting diminishing psychological returns on their spending now that luxury brands are becoming democratized. When there are 379 Louis Vuitton and 227 Gucci stores, who cares?

This is the outer symptom of a fascinating psychological phenomenon: Envy increases while -- and perhaps even faster than -- wealth does. When affluence in the material economy guarantees that a large majority can take for granted things that a few generations ago were luxuries for a small minority (a nice home, nice vacations, a second home, college education, comfortable retirement), the "positional economy" becomes more important.

James Twitchell, a University of Florida professor of English and advertising, writing in the Wilson Quarterly, says this "lux populi" is "the Twinkiefication of deluxe." Now that Ralph Lauren is selling house paint, can Polo radial tires be far behind? When a yacht manufacturer advertises a $20 million craft -- in a newspaper, for Pete's sake; the Financial Times, but still -- cachet is a casualty.

As Adam Smith wrote in "The Wealth of Nations," for most rich people "the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eye is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves." Hennessy understands the logic of trophy assets: It is selling a limited batch of 100 bottles of cognac for $200,000 a bottle.

There is some good news lurking amid the vulgarity. Americans' saving habits are better than they seem because the very rich, consuming more than their current earnings, have a negative savings rate.

Furthermore, because the merely affluent are diminishing the ability of the very rich to derive pleasure from positional goods, philanthropy might become the final form of positional competition. Perhaps that is why so many colleges and universities (more than 20, according to Twitchell) are currently conducting multi billion-dollar pledge campaigns. When rising consumption of luxuries produces declining enjoyment of vast wealth, giving it away might be the best revenge.

Speaking of charity, this is the time of year until Christmas when most of us will be writing checks to our favorite causes and institutions. In case you would like to add to your list, please consider animal welfare organizations - your local animal shelter is a good choice. (If anyone is interested, I will be happy to provide a list of my favorite animal charities.) To help out with educational initiatives in schools, you may want to check out the wide ranging list that the Science Seed bloggers have compiled.

Comments

[Dean C. Rowan]

Will really is an idiot, isn't he? I'm inclined to believe barely a single word of this cynical, almost hateful baloney. A large majority take Vuitton bags for granted because illegally pirated bags are available for a dime a dozen, not because more can afford the real thing. On the other hand, maybe some bottles of cognac are indeed worth a couple hundred grand. (I don't mean this in the bland sense that such is what the market will bear, but that the cognac is, in fact, really, really good.) And anyway, how's a Vuitton bag an instance of the great complexity supposedly exploited by the wealthy? (See the full article for this reference.)

The only truthy message to emerge from Will's insipid musings is that the merely affluent or very rich aren't by virtue of that fact reliable arbiters of taste. I imagine that many of them even exercise their showy charitable giving tastelessly.

"Middle and lower orders"?! Does he mean "classes"? Of course he does, but he can't bear to utter the word. He ironically ascribes banality to the CPI...but I think he genuinely means it.

[Anna]

I'm in agreement with you, Dean, on several points, including the (peculiarly American) unwillingness to accept any belief in non-market aesthetic value, coupled with an unwillingness to utter the verboten word, "class" (except, under other circumstances, to charge those who do say it with "class-warfare."). David Brooks invokes a similar apoplexy in me. I wish the two would just found a middlebrow men's club in a suburban den somewhere and spare us these pearls of right-leaning, armchair philosophy.

My personal aversion to Vuitton bags, which I suppose I could afford even on my middle class public interest lawyer's salary if I forwent other interests, is 1) an aversion to paying a company to act as walking advertising for them, and 2) they're ugly.

I adore Cognac, which I can't really afford-- at least not the good stuff-- on my own, but man, does it give me a doozy of a head-ache.

Yes, I too can provide insightful commentary on the commodities of our times. Someone syndicate me!

I don't care if rich people donate to my preferred causes tastelessly (Rich people, take note! You may vulgarly donate to my non-profit at www.pai-ca.org, or write me in you want further suggestions), so long as they donate. That's what keeps this mess of an inequitable society stumbling along.