Fluent Essays

Critical Reading and The Treadmill of Consumption Discussion 16 16 unread replies. 16 16 replies. Answer the following questions (in numbered format) for Roberts The Treadmill of Consumption and then respond to two other students, noting where you had different answers. You wont see any other students posts until you post your answers.1. What is the authors primary argument? Can you identify a thesis statement or is the thesis implied?2. What key terms are fundamental to that argument? Choose two words you are unfamiliar with and look up their meaning.3. What evidence does the author provide to support the argument? Is it relevant and specific? Does the author cite reliable authoritative sources?4. What underlying assumptions shape the authors position (could be assumptions about peoples desires, buying habits, or anything you seem to notice)? Does the author consider counterarguments?5.Who is the intended readership, and do you think it affects the authors reasoning or evidence? the_treadmill_of_consumption.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview JAMES A. ROBERTS The Treadmill of Consumption Once, “keeping up with the Joneses” was a neighborhood affair; now, thanks to modern mass media, it’s a matter of “keeping up with the Kardashians” — that is, competing with the rich and famous in a never-ending spiral of status consumption. James A. Roberts’s analysis of the compulsion to signify “social power through conspicuous consumption” is a sobering read for anyone who has ever gone into debt just to have a snazzier cell phone, like GoldVish’s million-dollar white-gold and diamond offering. A professor of marketing at Baylor University, Roberts is the author of Shiny Objects: Why We Spend Money We Don’t Have in Search of Happiness We Can’t Buy (2011), from which this selection is taken. Using material possessions to exhibit status is commonplace in today’s consumer culture. We may not know our neighbors, but we feel compelled to make sure they know that we’re people of value. As humans we rely on visual cues such as material possessions to convey our status to others and to ascertain the status of people we don’t know. The quest for status symbols influences both kids and adults, although the objects we choose to display may differ with age. (Cell phones may be an exception that spans all age groups.) For young people, cell phones are seen as necessities, not luxuries. A teen or even preteen without a cell phone feels set apart, on the outside looking in. This is in part because cell phones are a way to stay tightly connected with others (text messaging “blind,” with cell phone in the pocket, is one of my favorites); however, cell phones are also important fashion statements and social props. For young people, cell phones are second only to cars as symbols of independence. Many teens see cell phones as an extension of their personality, and phone manufacturers and service providers, knowing this, give them many options to express their inner selves — ways to personalize their ringtone, change their “wallpaper,” and customize their “skin,” for example, as well as add many apps and accessories. Adults, especially men, are also susceptible to the status appeal of cell phones. Researchers in the United Kingdom studied the use of cell phones after reading newspaper stories about nightclubs in South America that required patrons to check their phones at the door. Club managers found, the stories reported, that many checked phones were props — not working cell phones. To learn more about whether and how people were using their cell phones as social props, the researchers studied cell phone use in upscale pubs in the UK. What they found is most interesting: men and women used their cell phones in different manners. While women would leave their phone in their purse until they needed it, men were more likely to take their phone out of their pocket or briefcase and place it on the counter or table in view of all. Furthermore, like peacocks strutting with their plumage in full display to attract a mate, men spent more time tinkering with and displaying their phone when the number of men relative to women in the pub increased.25 As long as consumers attempt to signal their social power through conspicuous consumption, the levels required to make a visible statement of power will continue to rise. If person A buys a new car, person B has to buy a better car to compete; and then person A has to buy a boat as well — and so on. But once basic needs are met there’s no additional happiness with additional purchases. The process of moving ahead materially without any real gain in satisfaction is often called “the treadmill of consumption.” That treadmill is a barrier to raising your level of happiness, because it causes you to quickly adapt to good things by taking them for granted. Research has shown that humans are very flexible. We tend to get used to new circumstances in our lives — including financial circumstances, both good and bad — and we make such mental shifts quickly. Economic gains or losses do give us pleasure or pain, but the effects wear off quickly. When our situation improves, having more money or possessions almost instantaneously becomes the new “normal.” As our store of material possessions grows, so do our expectations. Many researchers have likened this process to drug addiction, where the addict continually needs more and more of the drug of choice to achieve an equivalent “high.” This means that acquiring more possessions doesn’t take us any closer to happiness; it just speeds up the treadmill. I regret to say that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the existence — and potential harm — of the treadmill of consumption. If the treadmill didn’t exist, people with more possessions would be happier than those “less fortunate” souls who own less. But this simply isn’t the case. The “less fortunate” are, for the most part, just as happy as those with more stuff. Big purchases and the piling up of material possessions hold little sway over happiness. Probably the most discouraging proof for this statement can be found in the study of lottery winners. An integral component of the shiny-objects ethos is quick riches. What better way to catapult yourself past your neighbors than to strike it rich with the lottery, right? If you foresee nothing but a lifetime of fun and sun for lottery winners, you’re wrong. A study of twenty winners found that they were no happier a few years after their good fortune; in fact, some were even less happy than before they bought their winning ticket.26 If the lottery can’t pull us out of our current torpor, what hope is there for a raise at work, a flat-screen (plasma) television, an iPhone, or a new car (surely the new Lexus would be an exception)? Consuming for Status One important reason that consumers buy products is to satisfy social needs. Many of us spend a large proportion of our disposable income on so-called status items, and this trend is on the rise as we continue to embrace the shiny-objects ethos. “Wait a minute,” some of you might be saying; “hasn’t the current economic crisis stemmed the tide of status consumption?” My response to that question is that it never has in the past. Sure, we might mind (Maasik, 20171107, pp. 117-120) ... Purchase answer to see full attachment