I need a professor Savii. This is the work of 6 weeks and 3 revisionary drafts. Also, my Teacher wants more drafts. So consider this a mid-way point of sorts. Please leave any constructive criticism you have for me, I'm open to expanding knowledge.

---

Here's What I Think about Conspicuous Consumption
[Third Draft]
Remi Vales
2012

Conspicuous consumption is on a recent but steady rise to becoming regular once more, particularly among the rich, as evidenced by these past articles. Fuel costs are a deterrent when it comes to buying luxury vehicles, however, jewelry and other material goods or services are less consequential. Spending will only benefit higher-end stores and service-providers, since it's in their favor not to bother setting up shop near lower-income areas.

Trickle-down economics becomes a factor when discussing conspicuous consumption, and may be a thought that helps drive a person to purchase something. In theory, by buying a car, that consumer has just added another number to a salespersons' commissions total, which may result in a bonus for that employee, which may then result in a purchase by that consumer, which in turn will further drive our economy. However, that is all theoretical, and only happens to some degree. It is not likely to happen when an expensive necklace is bought, as it would not be cost-efficient to employ two new people when it only took one to sell the jewelry and you already have two others pitching sales to other potential buyers. There is no evidence that convinces them they need to hire more people.

Geographical location also has a significant effect, as does race. In a study conducted by both the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania, when comparing a $100,000-a-year person in Alabama and a $100,000 person in Boston, the $100,000 person in Alabama does more visible consumption than the $100,000 person in Massachusetts. When comparing between races, the study found that white consumers spent more on private goods, such as a better bathroom or furniture, or services such as house-keeping, compared to black consumers, who spent more on visible goods, such as sports cars or jewelry.

Consumers are also able to be placed in one of two groups, “patricians” and “parvenus”, with “the latter group ever intent on deriving status through what it buys”. In addition, patrician consumers are not as modest when it comes to luxury purchasing, such as clothing or jewelry, choosing not to exert restraint during difficult economic times. This behavior spans more than just the upper class, as it bears a similar trait to the evidence presented in paragraph three, as a possible way for economically challenged people to “prove” themselves fiscally in society. Clothing has been affected by conspicuous consumption recently as well, with designer brands placing the brand-name more openly on the clothing article, giving the impression that the consumer has wealth.


I see no real benefit to merely flaunting my supposed wealth. By wasting hard-earned income on luxury goods and services to attract attention and gain social status, such as purchases of clothing, luxury vehicles, or other means, consumers lose money that could have been spent on more necessary things, such as decent food, better education, and healthcare. People could also spend their money on a better mode of transportation, such as a bicycle or car, instead of having to rely primarily on public transportation. In terms of recreational spending, the vast majority of consumers across all demographics seem to purchase the latest smart-phones or video game consoles, even when those same people are wearing rags and riding the bus while enjoying their new gadgets. Then on the other side, you have people who will buy the trendiest shirt, and yet they cannot afford a decent usable car to get to and from work every day.