Category Archives: Pop culture

Greed: It’s Not Just For Wall Street

After my last post, full of invective against greed by Wall Street bankers and corporate chiefs, it’s only fair that I mention that we are all guilty of some greed. When President Obama said in his inaugural address that the current financial crisis is a result of “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age,” he wasn’t just talking about Wall Street. “Collective” means all of us, and we all share some blame. Or if not actually “all,” at least most of us.

Most of us were on a consumption binge of one sort or another. Some were buying things they didn’t need, others were buying things they couldn’t afford. The most obvious, and painful, example, is in the housing market. Folks bought more house than they could afford, and often more than they needed, seduced by low teaser rates, or by the chance to get a big win by selling it later. Others bought houses purely as investments, planning to flip them, only to be squeezed by rising mortgage payments and falling housing prices. Some refinanced with foolish mortgages, so they could “take money out of the house” and use the tax-subsidized proceeds to buy consumer products.

But it wasn’t just houses. We bought giant flat screen TVs, charging them to our credit cards. We drove around in monstrous Ford Excursions (financed by the geniuses on Wall Street), burning a gallon of gas every 15 miles. We drank bottled water instead of tap, we carried Coach purses, we stayed at 4 Seasons hotels when our income was purely Hamptons Inn.

While the Wall Street big shots may have taken huge bonuses with our tax dollars, they weren’t the only ones looking for the big score. We all wanted some goodies, whatever our income level. Those days are over. The goodies are nice, if they haven’t been repossessed, but we can’t afford them anymore. We couldn’t afford them then, which is the whole point. The days of living beyond our means are over. That doesn’t mean we’re going to be in yurts, heated only by burning cow manure. It just means that maybe we don’t need to have the biggest and newest, all the time.

Obama: Greed is “Shameful”

This is the second in a series of posts about the need for Americans to step up and be more responsible. We all knew this need was coming – it has been a theme running through many of my posts – but when President Obama called it out during his inaugural address, I decided to address it more directly. My first entry in this series was about NIMBY attitudes preventing environmental projects from moving forward. Today’s entry is about greed, particularly among corporate executives and Wall Street bankers.

When Obama said during his inauguration that “what is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world,” my guess is that he meant businesspeople too. And yet just three days after the inauguration, the Wall Street Journal ran an article about companies using dicey calculations to boost the value of pension payments they are making to senior executives. I won’t get into the mathematical details, but the basic story is that instead of using IRS rates to discount the value of future pension payments, companies are using their own rates, to generate a higher payment.

For example, one of the executives profiled, John Hammergren of McKesson, is due to receive $84.6 million, rather than the $66.4 million he would be paid using the IRS rate. This man made $38 million in 2008, $25 million in 2007 and over $10 million per year for the last several years. And on top of all this money he gets paid, he is due a pension payment of $66 million. But that isn’t enough…he seems to need even more money, so he monkeys with the numbers to boost that pension by another $20 million.

Merrill Lynch is a steady source of greed. First you have John Thain (am I the only one who thinks he’s a dead ringer for Mitt Romney?)

romn

spending $1 million to redecorate his office. His excuse: the redecoration was done during better times. Dude, if you’re spending $1 million of shareholder money on office decorations, you are being greedy, no matter how well your company is doing. Then there is Thomas Montag, who Thain recruited to Merrill from Goldman Sachs with a guaranteed pay package of $39 million for 2008. Mr. Montag’s debt unit lost $16 billion in Q4 of 2008. Because of those losses, taxpayers have had to invest over $20 billion in Bank of America to support its acquisition of Merrill, and agree to share losses on $118 billion in assets. But has Montag (who, let’s not forget, after 20 years at Goldman is already rich) offered to take less of his bonus? No way. Why? Because he is greedy.

Of course, the ultimate symbol of greed was the recent news that Wall Street bankers paid themselves $18 billion in bonuses while taxpayers bailed out all their companies. It was this act of greed that President Obama called “shameful.” And he was right. For bankers to insist on getting their multi-million dollar performance bonuses, when their companies clearly had not performed, and were taking taxpayer money to survive, is the apex of greed. Companies claimed that they had to pay bonuses to retain employees. Where were those employees going to go? Bear Stearns? Lehman? I don’t think so.

Look, I understand people wanting to make money. I understand the desire to be rich. But rich people grubbing for the last dollar…I have to ask: have you no sense of decency? Responsibility and duty – to the nation, to our neighbors – means sometimes leaving a little money on the table. If we are to “begin again the work of remaking America,” as President Obama encourages us to do, reducing greed is a good place to start. How can we expect to solve problems like Social Security, health care, or global warming if everyone is grabbing as much money as they can? Whether the sacrifice is flying commercial instead of private, or buying a 30″ flat screen instead of 50″, if we are going to build America back up we must all change our attitude from “I want it all now” to “I’d like most of it, but I’m willing to share.” Let’s show a little restraint and try to come together to solve some really difficult challenges.

Sitting at the Front of the Bus

No, sorry, this isn’t about Rosa Parks, nor is it a riff on the great Otis Redding song, although I listened to his greatest hits this morning. This post is about a far more quotidian subject, namely my daily commute.

Every day I take the express bus downtown to my office. Here in San Francisco, express buses are double-length, with some seats running along the walls and other seats perpendicular to the walls. The first several seats, 10 or so, are all along the walls, and they are all meant to be given up to elderly or handicapped passengers. In fact, a big blue sticker above these seats clearly states that:

Federal law mandates that the front seats of the bus be given up for seniors and persons with disabilities. Please do not sit in those seats if a senior or person with a disability needs a seat.

The express bus is a commuter bus, so there are almost never elderly or handicapped passengers. 99% of the passengers are healthy yuppies heading to work; therefore it would be silly to leave those front seats empty, waiting for some Nana who will never board the bus.

However, I find it interesting that it is nearly always women who sit in these seats. Men will move to the back, standing if the bus is full, rather than sitting in the front seats. Women, on the other hand, often don’t even look to the back; if the front seats are open, they plop their apple-shaped derrieres right down.

I’m not sure of the reason for this disparity, but let me throw out a few possibilities:

  • Women wear high heels and want to sit down as soon as possible
  • Men are afraid of breaking the rules
  • A man knows that if a senior actually boards, he will be expected to give up his seat before a woman, and he doesn’t want to hassle with the mid-ride change
  • Women internalize that one day they will be pregnant, and these seats thus will be reserved for them

Again, nobody is actually taking seats from seniors, so there is nothing wrong with sitting in these front seats, but I find the strong gender difference to be fascinating. Any suggestions?

Seth Rogan and the Mortgage Crisis

Professor Gary Cross, of the University of Pennsylvania, has a new book out, called Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity. In it he traces concepts of adult masculinity from Victorian gentlemen to the man in the gray suit of the 1950’s through the deconstruction of tradition in the 1960’s counter culture and culminating in the modern boy-man, exemplified by the genial slackers portrayed by Seth Rogan in virtually every movie he has ever been in.

What does that have to do with the mortgage crisis? I place Professor Cross’ cogent analysis in a broader context of evading responsibility, which has become more and more the American paradigm during the period Dr. Cross analyzes. As men have transitioned from working downtown to getting stoned while they play video games…

….so too Americans have transformed themselves from a thrifty nation of hard workers into a society of debtors who leapt at the “free money” given them by cheap mortgages and (falsely) rising house prices.


Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

And while Mr. Rogan’s character in Knocked Up became responsible toward the end of the film, it took the crisis of Katherine Heigl’s pregnancy to force that maturation. In the same way, not until this year’s financial crisis did Americans recognize that they were living beyond their means. They would have continued to toke at the mortgage-backed bong, one hand on the joystick and the other in the Cheetos bag, had not Fannie and Freddie’s financial water suddenly broke, uncomfortably thrusting us all into mandatory adulthood.

Post Scripts

None of this should be taken as an attack on Seth Rogan himself. He is clearly way too busy to actually be a stoned slacker, and I’m sure he now has more than enough money to support several giant mortgages.

Also, lest you think Professor Gary Cross is something of a dilettante, you can download his extensive publication list from the Penn website. Full disclosure, however: he is a fellow graduate of Harvard Divinity School, so I tend to support him.

The Myth of the Dehydrating Cocktail

People say that drinking alcohol dehydrates you. We all know the clichés: drink a glass of water between each cocktail, sip water along with your wine, chug Gatorade before you go to bed. Virtually everybody I know has a secret for surviving a long night of drinking, and those secrets always revolve around aggressive hydration. Science agrees, telling us that alcohol serves as a diuretic by inhibiting a hormone that regulates water absorption in the kidney.

I don’t care what science says. I know that my mouth waters in anticipation when I am making a cocktail; how could my mouth make this mistake? Moreover, common sense tells us that the dehydration risk is overstated. Consider the screwdriver, that most basic of cocktails. Two parts vodka to five parts orange juice. Orange juice — so wet, so delicious, so not just for breakfast any more – can’t be dehydrating, not with just two hits of vodka. Or contemplate a single beer, which has the same amount of alcohol as one shot, but diluted down with 11 ounces of sky blue water. That’s 11 times as much hydrating liquid as dehydrating alcohol.

But I don’t even care what common sense says. I reject the myth of the dehydrating cocktail because I know that drinking alcohol is more mental than physical. Drinking is a metaphysical act, transcending any impact on the body. I posit that drinking is an act of self-realization, one that affirms our own humanity. By drinking, we establish that we are more than just physical manifestations; we are controlling our minds, and thus our beings.

How can being drunk affirm the self? Because our minds make us human. Ever since that crisp French morning when Descartes said “cogito, ergo sum,” philosophers have situated the self within the mind. With lesser minds we would be nothing but tall bald monkeys; but with our big brains we achieve self-consciousness, the ontological root of humanity. By drinking, we focus on that human brain, not our bodies. With alcohol we seize control of our mind – its inhibitions and fears, the dark doubts that plague our sober thoughts – and bend it to our will.

Indeed, drinking is an act of free will, of choosing mind over matter. By controlling our mental state we control our very being, rejecting the nausea or dizziness with which our bodies seek to reclaim their concreticity. Just as we choose our minds over our bodies, we can similarly choose to reject dehydration. When drinking I affirm all that is human – and humane – about me; I prioritize my mind, and thus necessarily subjugate my body and its paltry claims of dehydration.

Please, Firemen, Show Us Some Respect

For the second day in a row, my bus this morning was delayed by a fire truck in the middle of the road. In neither case was the truck fighting a fire; in both cases, all the firemen were standing around watching the traffic their truck had stopped.

Look, I know that firemen are heroes. Their whole job is to put themselves in danger to save our lives and property. That is awesome. We owe them gratitude and appreciation. But when they’re not in emergency mode, is it that hard for them to show the rest of us a little respect?

A New American Sense of Responsibility?

Over the past few months I have seen more and more data indicating that Americans are cutting back their consumption in the face of the deteriorating economic situation. Retailers, restaurants, car companies, airlines – it seems as if everybody is feeling the pain. Just last week the Wall Street Journal called the trend “U.S. Retools Economy, Curbing Its Thirst for Oil.”

I am wondering if maybe this trend will last beyond the current economy and represent a new, or renewed, sense of responsibility in America. The past few decades have been an orgy of consumerism in America (and much of the developed world, but I’ll focus on America simply because I know it best), as people lived beyond their means, purchasing things they didn’t need and couldn’t afford. Possibly the best quote I have heard on this trend came from Art Wong, a worker at the port of Long Beach, who was on NPR’s Marketplace:

You know, we’re being stretched, and I turn to my kids every so often and I ask them, how many more pairs of jeans do they need? How many more handbags can they buy? And how much room do they have in their closets? And they keep going, and they keep buying, and the port keeps seeing more and more cargo coming through here.

This consumption frenzy brought with it a number of problems. There were environmental considerations, both from the production of consumer goods and from the gasoline sucked down by the SUVs that were a major outlet of purchasemania. There were price dislocations from people purchasing items (homes, Tiffany bracelets, fancy meals) that they couldn’t afford. There were macroeconomic impacts as we financed our purchases with overseas capital. Finally, I think there were moral and psychological consequences (not surprising to regular readers of this blog) from an entire population giving up on any sort of self-restraint or thought for the future.

With gas prices above $4 per gallon and economic growth stagnating, our reduced consumption is not surprising. But maybe, just maybe, this decline in purchasing represents a broader change, a sense that untrammeled consumerism is simply unsustainable. Perhaps people were jolted awake by the impact on the environment, or the national security ramifications of our addiction to oil, or the deflation of the housing bubble. Are Americans now looking beyond their own material wants?

Maybe, and maybe not. Perhaps there is no broader sense of responsibility, but rather the inexorable force of economics. Maybe people still don’t care about the environment or national security, and all they really want is a bigger Jet Ski, but they simply no longer have the money to satisfy their wants. That is certainly what the economists think. “We’re going back to the good old days of living within our means,” said David Rosenberg, chief North American economist for Merrill Lynch. Adds another:

We’re seeing the birth pangs of a new economic structure,” said Neal Soss, chief economist for Credit Suisse First Boston. “The next year or two or three will be about the transition to a new equilibrium. Consumption by households will grow more slowly than their incomes, which is the exact opposite of the last 25 years when consumption grew faster than incomes.”

Although I would prefer to think that we are getting more responsible, and that issues larger than our checkbook are driving these new spending patterns, I suspect that A) the economists are right; and B) it may not really matter. Even if economics are behind the change, those economic conditions show no signs of changing in the near future, or possibly the medium future. There is even a theory that this shift is permanent, and that America’s days of being an economic powerhouse are over. “The world has become multipolar,” according to UC Berkeley economist Barry Eichengreen. “Our dominance will decline.” Jared Diamond, of Guns, Germs & Steel fame, even says that the developed world only has 30-50 years of first world living before we outstrip our own resources.

Either way, this change in spending, this “retooling of the economy,” looks like it will be with us for a while. This has tremendous implications for companies that sell to consumers. Think about:

  • Utilities dealing with decreased demand for energy
  • Car companies finally forced to produce smaller cars
  • Construction with a focus on energy efficiency and green materials
  • Appliances that are cheaper, smaller and use fewer resources
  • Consumers actually turning down credit card offers because they aren’t buying things
  • Retailers changing their product assortment
  • Discounters (Wal-Mart) gaining market share at the expense of stores that catered to the overreachers (Neiman-Marcus)

Convenience Consumption, Part 2

Just a few days after finishing my entry on convenience consumption I read in The Atlantic a great article by Virginia Postrel on what she termed “inconspicuous consumption.” She explores the works of several economists who show that spending on visible consumption goes up as neighborhood income goes down. In other words, people in poor neighborhoods are more likely to buy flashy cars and watches than people in wealthy neighborhoods.

Postrel notes that when Veblen was writing in 1899, America was a much poorer country than it is now, so the wealthy wanted to show off. But now, the wealthy have already established themselves, so it’s the better off among the poor who engage in the most conspicuous consumption. She quotes Euromonitor:

“Bling rules in emerging economies still eager to travel the status-through-product consumption road….[but] bling isn’t enough for growing numbers of consumers in developed economies.”

This plays right into my thesis of convenience consumption. The upper class no longer needs to display its wealth, so it displays its importance, as measured by convenience. Gaudy bling has been left to the hoi polloi while the upper class focuses on Fiji water and packaged meals from Whole Foods.

Convenience Consumption

Many people are familiar with conspicuous consumption, Thorstein Veblen’s brilliant term from Theory of the Leisure Class for describing how upper classes consume as a way of displaying wealth.

But it seems like now we are seeing a new form of consumption where people are consuming for convenience instead of conspicuousness. Of course, people have always paid for convenience – that’s why last minute plane flights are so much more expensive than advance fares – but the convenience consumption I’m seeing has certain differentiators:

  • there is a cost to society
  • the gain in convenience is marginal
  • the consuming seems driven by appearances as much as convenience.

Bottled water started me on the path to this theory, like a spring feeding a Fiji bottling plant. The growth in bottled water consumption in the U.S. has been dramatic, growing to 9.4 billion gallons and $12.6 billion in 2008 from 4.7 billion gallons and $6.1 billion in 2000. On a per capita basis, this represents growth to 29 gallons per year from 13. That’s a lot of water. Everywhere you go, people are swigging from plastic bottles of water: in the car, on the bus, walking down the street.

The cost of all those plastic bottles, however, transcends the $1.50 that the consumer paid. Only two out of ten water bottles consumed in the U.S. are recycled, with the rest going to the dump. That adds up to 38 billion bottles tossed into landfill every year. In addition, it takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce the water bottles consumed in the US every year. Finally, it takes thrice the clean water put in every bottle just to produce that bottle. Combine the garbage generation with the natural resource consumption, and drinking bottled water clearly has a cost to society.

Carrying your drinking water in a bottle is convenient, but not significantly more convenient than getting water at your destination. This is America, where virtually all tap water is safe to drink, and virtually all houses and offices have sinks with taps. It is challenging to imagine a circumstance where an urban or suburban American is more than 30 minutes from a source of clean drinking water.

So why the billions of bottles of water? Proper hydration has clear health benefits but I question that as the root cause. It feels more like people want to show – to themselves and to others – how busy they are. Realistically, nobody is so thirsty on their bus ride to work that they have to drink water from a bottle. We can all wait until we arrive at our office and fill our water glass then. But drinking from a bottle demonstrates to our busmates how busy we are, and how hip to hydration.

If nobody is so thirsty that they have to drink on the bus, much like nobody has such an important phone call that they can’t delay it while waiting in line at Starbucks, why are we doing both? By paying for unnecessary convenience, we can demonstrate to the world how much we NEED that convenience, how important we are. The parallel to Veblen is clear. But in a green world, conspicuous is out, convenience is in. In the modern world, you prove your worth not by owning a mansion in Newport, RI, but by being so busy that you need to drink, talk and eat on the run.

If I’m right about convenience consumption, what are the implications for the future? I predict that food will continue to be conveniencized. There is already Go-Gurt and Lunchables for kids, but I think that package food for adults on the go will continue to expand. Because lord knows, when people are hungry they have to eat…NOW! And if it’s gourmet, that’s all the better, since after all, we live in Veblenland.

Flip-flops and Long Pants

I was driving the other day and saw a woman waiting to cross the street wearing work pants – slacks, or trousers, or whatever you want to call them – with flip-flops.

Her pants were long, so they dragged on the ground as she walked. This is not an uncommon sight; I see a woman similarly dressed several times a day here in downtown San Francisco. I asked my friend Lisa, who was in the car, to explain. “Well, long pants are very stylish for women right now. Of course, they need to be worn with high heels to look right. But high heels usually hurt like hell, so we wear flip-flops to and from work.”

That seemed logical, and Lisa is my definitive source on such matters. “But,” I queried Lisa, “I see that all the time, and it totally frays the pants. What do women do about that?” Lisa looked at me as if I were a moron (not the first time she gave me that pitying look, by the way) and declared “they get new pants.”

I had always been annoyed by the flip-flop with long pant look, but never really knew why. Maybe it was the discordance of combining beach wear with work wear. Maybe I’m just compulsive enough that the dragging hems vexed me. But during my conversation with Lisa, distaste crystallized into theory. I began to see this look as emblematic of something more than just fashion; I saw it embodying a troubling aspect of our society.

Allow me to explain. The woman I saw crossing the street – let’s call her Sarah – wants to be fashionable, so she wears long pants. But long pants demand high heels, which hurt. Yet Sarah wants to be comfortable too, so she switches out the high heels for flip-flops whenever possible. She wants fashion AND comfort. There is a cost to Sarah having her cake and eating it too: frayed pants. But that cost doesn’t faze Sarah, since she can always buy new pants.

Sarah is like America: she wants to look good and feel good, and damn the consequences of having it all. She refuses to suffer even a modicum of discomfort for her style, and solves her dilemma by overspending, throwing away pants that cost more than the entire wardrobe of much of the world.

In many ways beyond fashion, America wants to have it all. We want to drive giant SUVs yet not pay much for gas. We want our taxes cut yet our services increased. We want cheap and easy mortgages yet our bank deposits to be safe. I personally want to date supermodels who are also nuclear physicists. But in each case the reality is that we can’t have it all.

As a final little fillip to this flip-flop entry, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had an article on a California legislator who is trying to ban helium-filled mylar balloons because they float away and can short out power lines or kill sea animals who swallow them. The party planning industry is fighting the ban. Says one party planner of her clients: “everybody wants something high-end and glitzy.” Exactly. They want their 10-year old’s birthday party to look like a celebrity wedding, even if it kills a sea otter or two.