This seems as good an opportunity as any to bring up another part of the "basic" concept which feels really unhealthy: the idea that "basic" is consuming commodity, mass-market goods, and that high status is distinguishing yourself through sophisticated taste in what you consume.
This mindset is problematic for at least a few reasons:
- Every choice of consumption becomes an opportunity to over-examine
- Devaluing goods because they're common lures us into a needless chain of "upgrades" as productivity improves. We can never have a post-scarcity economy if we're taught to shun whatever isn't scarce.
- All of this plays into the framing that we're first and foremost workers and consumers.
Would we not all be happier and healthier consuming decent but not spectacular mass-produced and inexpensive food, drink, clothing, housing, cars, etc, instead of coveting a rare beer, or looking down our noses at people buying starbucks?
Kids, like the rich, distinguish themselves by their tastes because their creations are not yet up to prevailing standards. But what really matters is not what you like, but what you create—whether that's a house, a web site, or a feeling of comfort for a friend who's sad.
Gourmets are tremendous bores; gourmet chefs are heroes.
> This seems as good an opportunity as any to bring up another part of the "basic" concept which feels really unhealthy: the idea that "basic" is consuming commodity, mass-market goods, and that high status is distinguishing yourself through sophisticated taste in what you consume.
It's also a marketing tactic to be exotic and to add a strange element to the center of your product that no one has, because if you're incomparable, you'll never have to compete on quality.
Commodity products actually have to be better to command loyalty, not just something you can mention in conversation to make your tastes seem more exotic and you seem more knowledgeable and experienced.
I don't think conspicuous consumption is a thing that can be prevented, though, as long as there is a middle class (or any other form of aspiring courtier.)
> ...consuming decent but not spectacular mass-produced and inexpensive...
Sadly, in a crowded city, the economics don't incentivize retailers to hold middle-tier goods. High ticket items have better margins for the same shelf space. Low ticket items ensure some sale. But that decent mustard you can find in any suburban supermarket? Never in a city corner store.
Which is to say, you've a nice dream that, often, unintentionally our society conspires against allowing.
I completely agree, but I can't help but note this only sounds like a radical concept in the context of West coast liberals pretending their snobbiness is erudition.
I don't think this is specifically a West Coast thing. My supermarket has dozens or perhaps hundreds of cheeses, and so do large supermarkets all over the US. Surely that's because someone's buying the niche varieties, and going to a party and saying "oh you're still buying brie? you have to try reblochon."
This mindset is problematic for at least a few reasons: - Every choice of consumption becomes an opportunity to over-examine - Devaluing goods because they're common lures us into a needless chain of "upgrades" as productivity improves. We can never have a post-scarcity economy if we're taught to shun whatever isn't scarce. - All of this plays into the framing that we're first and foremost workers and consumers.
Would we not all be happier and healthier consuming decent but not spectacular mass-produced and inexpensive food, drink, clothing, housing, cars, etc, instead of coveting a rare beer, or looking down our noses at people buying starbucks?