4480Re: Time magazine catches on to the childfree movement, misses the green angle
- Aug 16, 2013People who display wealth in our society get more respect and have people look up to them and admire them.
This is probably seen best with women's clothing. Women's fashions change "every season", so to be really in fashion a woman has to throw out her old wardrobe - or give it away - and buy a whole set of new clothes 4 times each year!
This is ridiculous. Clothes last far longer than that, unless one has certain types of jobs or other activities where they are ruined frequently. The point of changing fashions so frequently is quite simply to make more money for the designers, manufacturers, and clothing stores.
The people dictating the fashions are those who are making money on the new designs. It's not driven by demand for more of certain types of clothing. E.g., I would expect there to be more demand for wool sweaters in winter and more for shorts and bathing suits in summer.
So, a woman who always wears the latest fashions certainly is spending more money on clothing than someone who wears practical clothing, or out of style clothing. It tells everyone who sees her that she has wealth - and associated status - as to be able to buy a new wardrobe every 3 months. The fascinations with brands and designers makes that even more intense - she's not only able to replace her whole wardrobe every 3 months, but she buys expensive clothes every 3 months!
Men have historically been the "breadwinners" - the ones who provide the money for their women to buy clothing. Men's fashions do not change rapidly. They are pretty simple. But, men always complain how much money their wives spend on clothes - and still provide it! No matter what their economic class is. The women go and get the highest-status clothing. This allows the man to show off how much money he has, which makes his status go up.
People pay more attention to those they perceive as having more status and the associated money. This is why it is rare to find a relatively-wealthy person who dresses in practical clothing, or does not particularly care about fashion. That is also why there are notions for "dress for success" - that if you dress in "good" clothing, that the promotions and money will follow. All too often, that's true.
In a sensible world, we would be promoting the best qualified for a particular job. Some jobs, such as sales, the person has to give off an aura of being rather upscale... you wouldn't buy a new car or home from someone with ripped, faded, bluejeans, a faded shirt, and a wide tie of the 1970s. In most though, it's the most intelligent, most creative, best educated, best experienced person who is best for the promotion or better job. How he or she dresses has nothing to do with it!
It's long been shown that men who are perceived as more successful have more appeal to women - including and especially women who are much younger than they are - and fertile. Men's fertility can go on for many years, while a woman's is limited. That includes men who are not available - men are still attractive if unavailable. That gives these men who are showing their success and wealth an even better chance at spreading their genes. Rearing those children is either taken as the woman as a single parent, or the man may feel some responsibility - and even continue the affair with her, if he perceives her as the mother of his children... if he can get away with it. Or, she had a partner too, and he rears the perceived-upscale man's children without his knowledge. That is much like a bluejay rearing of children - but it can get one's gene's out.
--- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "ES" <everiman@...> wrote:
> Which begs the question, what makes people behave *irrationally* when it comes to accumulating wealth (or the appearance of wealth), in other words what is the motivation for having more than you need?, or are they behaving irrationally?
> What is the purpose of *displaying* wealth?
> An evolutionary psychologist/anthroplogist might say that displaying wealth ie, surplus, is a demonstration of biological fitness, like the peacocks tail, an ornament that has zero or negative survival value. In other words the motivation is procreation.
> Keeping score in a Darwinian world, there is only one outcome that matters, how many offspring that are equally or even more successful in producing offspring that an individual can produce.
> Which is why I follow the discussion in this group with great fascination :-)
> --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Beth" <rudrakrsh@> wrote:
> > If you live frugally - within your means - when you want or need to buy something, you've got the money saved to purchase it. You pay for it once, not pay for it and pay 18% interest on it for 5 years - effectively paying for it twice. You aren't "keeping up with the Jonses" that way. You are living within your means, and are likely accumulating a savings account which can come in useful in case of an unusual expense, a long-term expense, retirement, or so forth.
> > You also are not essentially enslaved to the job and its income that is allowing you to keep your head above water with all of that debt.
> > Still, it's a basic principle of economics that wants are unlimited while resources are limited. It's human nature to want more and more and more. But, getting those things leaves one with the millstone of debt around his or her neck, unable to get more, and having to keep paying for what was once had.
> > That goes for goods and services as well as children. It's difficult to have enough saved for the contingencies that come about with children. Most people don't worry about it, and trust that someone else will pay for them.
> > Beth
- << Previous post in topic