Two stories caught my eye today. The first in the Guardian finance section claimed luxury goods firms are back in fashion. Green shoots are being seen in the rich soil of Hermes and Mulberry bags. Apparently. The other story was on the front page of the Mail
Pensions: the painful truth. We are spending too much and saving too little. I don’t have one and think I will just have to keep working and spending less. But I don’t have a £4,000 handbag either. Victoria Beckham famously has all 100 version of the Birkin bag, which are at least £4k each. Will the recession be a blip or a turning point. As ever – its down to us.
I’m not sure whether the recession will a blip or a turning point. It might of course be neither, or both, in that when it ends we will still continue to spend but that what we actually spend our money on will subtly change. I actually think this was happening to a point before the recession kicked in: the very nature of the world we live in (in the more prosperous parts, at least) means that we have a reasonable level of income above what we need for survival, and therefore we will spend that money on something. But the things we spend it on were – I think – beginning to change from the vulgar and crass (the £4k handbags you refer to) and towards experiences, often shared with friends and family. This has its drawbacks (e.g. binge drinking) but also its positives – it is more social, and better for us as human beings. What will be interesting as the economy kicks back in is how much people will have learnt to survive on less money; will couples who have got by on one wage decide to keep that way? Will they trade two wages and financial security for freedom and a happier life? Or will they see work as a means to happiness in itself, and therefore get back out there asap?
You’ve probably considered all of this in your book, so maybe I’ll just buy it!
You speak to the ambivalence of shopping JM – it is the way we connect and are social but that is not its prime purpose. We use it and adapt it to be human – but why don’t we be really human and live in a socio-economic system that isn’t just about profit, status, is designed to make us unhappy and untimely will destroy our ability to live on this planet?
Generally speaking, I think it’s probably a good thing if Victoria Beckham’s spending some of her cash on handbags. It’s keeping the economy moving and keeping some people in work. What I don’t know – but I’m sure I’ll find out when I read the book – is how the effects of celebrity bag-buying filter down to the rest of us.
I’m interested in the idea of a system that “is designed to make us unhappy and untimely will destroy our ability to live on this planet?”. Are you actually saying that the current economic system is deliberately designed to create unhappiness and destruction or that these are the by-products of the economic outcomes that suit the people with the most power?
I think its excatly that David. If we are fulfilled then we dont go back for more and then the system stops working. As for VB and here nandbags this is the crux of the debate- do we just want more growthg and therefore jobs at any cost or can we have a dynamic economy in which we all work less, spend less and enjoy life more?
I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy (heh! heh!) the conspiracy theory angle. Insistence to believe in this will do much harm to your very valid cause. Who is supposed to be orchestrating this? As an advisor to Brown, you are in a better position than most to know, so if you don’t… maybe no one is deliberately orchestrating anything?
I have just finished my job as a marketeer with a FTSE 100 company. It’s nothing like as easy as you make out. We tinker, we try to influence but most of our effort comes to nought.
The lack of satisfaction in purchasing is due to the constant striving of companies to produce more seditious products to ensure future sales growth. It’s that simple.