what we consider normal is pretty high tier for most of the countries on this list. a car? air conditioning? access to clean water? normal day for us. luxury for some of these places.
Our standard of living is definitely higher. That might affect this metric some but I can also see a logical difference between the floor being higher and the individual self measure of happiness.
It is funny, based on all actually statistics and measures, the median American is better today than at any point in history.
Yet, despite that, people imagine that there was this boomer golden age in the past where things were better. People romanticize this imaginary past about a booming 50s and 60s which was maybe only true for 10% of Americans.
For the vast majority of people, there are more opportunities today.
Also, it is just a fact that household income, adjusted for inflation, is higher today than at any other point in American history. There was maybe a small group of white (given the time) educated elite who did better in the past, but it is a fact that America is more prosperous today that at any point in history.
There is a saying that goes "The cavemen didn't have to worry about cancer and heart disease because they died by 40." The same is true for modern America. The previous generations didn't need to worry about student debt because only the elite could actually go to college. These are real issues, but they are issues that are symptom of success.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
> Also, it is just a fact that household income, adjusted for inflation, is higher today than at any other point in American history. There was maybe a small group of white (given the time) educated elite who did better in the past, but it is a fact that America is more prosperous today that at any point in history.
This point in particular always forgets the fact that about 80 years ago, household income gradually increased as we went from 1 earner to 2 earner households. That process is still ongoing to some extent and so this stat in particular is rife with issues compared to just... looking at income adjusted for inflation and income inequality.
In 1967, literally only 35% of households were single income. The majority (53%) were dual income in some form. What you are referring to is a stereotype created from the Flintstones.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20140602.htm
> In 1967, literally only 35% of households were single income. The majority (53%) were dual income in some form. What you are referring to is a stereotype created from the Flintstones.
...Which is why 80 years ago happens to be back towards 1940 when WWII started requiring women to cover jobs traditionally done by men, and not 1967.
In 1940, we literally didn't have most modern amenities and America was involved in a full scale war effort.
I can guarantee you that life was not better in 1940 than it is today and the average person was not economically better off.
You neglect the absolute psychological power of the "feeling that things are going better". It's not about the moment it has always been about the flow.
Are you going to tell me my college graduate GF that had to live with a roommate in a 2B apartment and could not just graduate and buy a house while I was also renting a room in a townhouse in a shitty neighborhood were not anomalies that these kids feel they were?
I'm sorry, can you reword your question? I'm not sure I understand what the question is.
If you are asking about housing, that is a straight up problem with lack of building. After 2008, a lot of builders went under and no one actually noticed until like 2016 when the 2008 oversupply evaporated. Combining the lack of builders with shitty zoning restrictions has created a major housing issues.
There is only 1 way to fix a supply shortage, and that is through increasing production. People like to blame a lot of things for the shortage, but those other things might, at most account for 1% of the issue. The real issue which is probably 70-80% of the overall issue is that there simply were not enough houses built in the last decade, and we are feeling the crunch now.
Luckily, politicians have started to realize this issue and places like California (who was really hit by this issue) have done things like ban low density zoning. So hopefully this is going to be an issue we see resolved in the next few years, if not the next decade. We know what the issue is, and it will only take mild government action to fix it. It is just a matter of politicians acknowledging those issues.
It was not a real question, I was just pointing out that there seem to be a LOT of people on Reddit that hate boomers, or older people in general, and think that for some reason that a single family home is the average starter place to live for adult Americans. They feel that they are younger and "have" to have a roommate and that is bad or wrong and they are the only people to ever have to do this because of the mean older people.
True. In all honesty, the thing that annoys me the most is that the size of that average American home has more than doubled since the 1950s. So while people on Reddit feel like they aren't getting what their parents had, they are actually unknowingly trying to buy a home that is doubled the size.
This is a weird thing to me. I was born in born in the Bronx. One my street there was a mix of single family homes, on small lots, and town homes and condos. None the homes were huge but many were 3 generation homes, grandparents, parents, and kids. That seemed to be normal for at least a generation before I was born as well. My grand parents home was 1,700 square feet and we had 7 people living in that house.
I get where you're coming from but out money at this point cannot buy what it bought in the past, they could work and afford to raise families on single salary homes, most cannot do that these days.
>afford to raise families on single salary
Again, this is you looking at things from a skewed perspective. In the 1960s, the majority of households were dual income. And for those that weren't, it wasn't like the wife sat around doing nothing. She repaired clothes and did house work which decreased the need for the additional salary because families needed to spend less money.
When the Simpsons first aired in the late 80s, Homer's salary 35k or the equivalent to 80k today. They almost never ate out on the show, had 1 car, didn't splurge on things while shopping, and lived in a medium sized city, not a metropolis.
In the 50s and 60s, all that could be had on a salary of about 6-9k a year.
If you make 80k today, today, you can still have that lifestyle. But again, you are imagining your modern desires on people in the past. Eating out used to be a luxury not a multiple nights a week thing. And families had 1 car, the kids might have saved up money from a job to buy a beater in their late teenage years, but that is it.
What you have written is exactly my point. Our lifestyles, culture, and habits are different. They have changed and not always for the better. Look at what you wrote, if I make 80k today I can afford what a person could for 9k. That would be fine if wages have matched inflation but they absolutely haven't.
Or from looking around in the real world
Big houses, trucks, trailers, quads, boats
Maybe we claim not to measure our success in what we own, but our actions speak louder
If you ignore context and don't comprehend nuanced definitions... This isn't high level communication here.
Let me go have experiences with my basketball trophy... that I purchased.
The ego you're protecting right now is what causes people to purchase trophies that only reflect on status.
What fucking subs are you on? I've been here a while and I can't even think of a sub where everyone is dick measuringly materialistic. When is some anonymous person's income even relevant here?
I get the feeling you're projecting insecurities and the upvotes come from a similar place.
I'm made of negative money.
In China, showing off your wealth through luxury goods are often encouraged as means to get higher status
Do that in the US and you’ll be labelled a ‘show-off’ in no time, even in the rich in the US wear normal shirts like everyone else 🇺🇸
And even then most range rovers/expensive cars are not a status symbol.
Of course you can always find some idiot that says, "I've got a xyz back home! Do you even know how much money I/my family/whoever makes?!?" But, generally, most people that get the nicer cars enjoy having the nicer cars. There's Tacoma guys, range rover families, jeep gals, corvette guys, Cadillac grandma's, etc. They all enjoy having that specific vehicle though.
True, if you drive La Jolla, San Diego or Beverly Hills you can find streets full of Range Rovers or AMG GLE coupes. It’s like people tend to live together and horrible taste in crossover coupes is contagious.
True, though I do wish public attire became more formal again - the old photos of every dude on the street walking around with a suit (or at least a blazer) and a hat are super cool
Edit: apparently I need to clarify that I don't want laws around public dress codes, and that "more formal" doesn't have to mean just "suits" - everyone just putting in some effort would make a substantial difference.
And if you want it to be even remotely comfortable you have to spend even more. I love dressing up but I have my *one* suit because that shit is fuckin' PRICY.
>Uncomfortable
Only because we're practically forced to buy off the rack due to cost, and wear the wrong fabric all the time.
>impractical,
Have you ever used the pockets in a blazer? It's super versatile.
>expensive
Again, forced to buy off the rack due to cost. If suits came back, the cottage industry of taylors and seamstresses would come back too. You'd also get more mileage out of your clothes since you wouldn't be chasing the latest trends quite as bad.
>unnecessary
Yeah, pretty much. It's all just ~~ascetic~~ aesthetic.
Everyone should be dressed like the Vatican guards at all time outside. I the Doge of the United States have decreed it. You may return to your normal lives.
I wear a suit every day for work. They are uncomfortable and restrictive. They are stuffy when it is warmer than like 60 degrees Fahrenheit. They are expensive and costly to maintain. I hate wearing suits and don't understand why someone would just choose to wear one voluntarily.
I suppose that it might relate to the fact that some of those countries towards the top are just catching up to us as our standard of living has been so much higher for decades. And French people lol
Most of them are being desperately poor. Some of the others still have lots of people who lived through desperate poverty and their attitudes haven't adjusted to abundance.
The US has (generally) reached the level of wealth where more wealth doesn't make us happier.
Great illustration of how mazlow’s pyramid impacts culture. Poorer populations are more focused on lower rungs, and thus measure status in more material terms. Richer countries begin to focus on higher levels as means of differentiation.
Looks like a public sentiment survey. Ask 2000 to respond yes, no to a question and extrapolate to society as a whole. Not perfect, and prone to bias, but if you can get a large and wide enough population you can minimize that to a degree.
Because it's probably not a study, it's probably just a one time survey. You advertise a survey on social media in a bunch of these countries, ask them to identify some basic demographics then ask them to say if they agree or disagree with a series of statements.
Political research groups, think tanks, news organizations, and consumer report agencies do it all the time.
So it's definitely not an unbiased survey. You are only getting people that are dumb enough to have Facebook. And they have to be on it looking at ads that pop up. So you don't get anybody that have ad blockers. You aren't getting anybody that doesn't have Facebook. And you also aren't getting anybody that's too busy at work to do the survey. Those are the people that are working hard to get money and buy things.
Remember that YouTube add that played all the time a few years ago, where the guy is showing off his Lamborghini and then pans over to a bookcase in the garage saying something like "you know what I value more than this Lambo? Books."? That commercial filled me with the white hot rage every time.
How is this even possible when every aspect of American life is dominated by consumerism? The country is in debt because everyone's maxing out their credit cards to purchase shit they don't need.
I thnk the key is 'measuring.'
If everyone owns an iPhone or expensive Samsung, you're not 'better' than the guy next to you. If 'everyone' has at least a vehicle in the household, you're not 'better' than the next guy either.
The US has a skewed baseline by default, what would be considered wealth items or luxury goods elsewhere is just 'stuff' in the US. We have 3 television sets in this household, 3 cell phones, two PCs and two cars (albeit one isn't running ATM). Most are older, because we obviously didn't go purchasing all at one shot, and most of the \~stuff\~ are budget items.
Statistically, we're probably low income or very lower middle class by American standards.
For other parts of the world, we're rocking it.
Just because their buying that stuff doesn't mean the average person will flex their ability to purchase something on other people. Especially after the pandemic, it seems like most people will generally just keep to themselves. Plus our standard and poorer countries standards are skewed a bit.
After all, even the poorest areas like rural parts of the US or poor neighborhoods will still have things that are seen as luxury in other parts of the world. Phone, cars, internet, computers. We're not getting these things to flex, we're getting them because we need them. The average person in America needs a car, needs internet, needs a phone and/or computer simply to get to/do their job, get groceries or stay in contact with relatives and friends.
I think we like fancy toys because we like to play with fancy toys. We care less if people see us playing with fancy toys. Also, the ability to afford fewer fancy toys is often seen as a sign of financial responsibility. Being debt free and saving money? That is how Americans "feel" rich. Which is honestly why we all feel so poor. Because we really do like playing with fancy toys,
Consumerism is not necessarily the same as conspicuous consumption, which I think this chart tends to hint at. We tend to buy a lot of shit that we want, but not necessarily to show it off.
I 100% see this. I married into an eastern European family and HOLY SHIT.
They (except my wife, she was born in America) are WILDLY materialistic. They will stretch themselves so far to have the nicest kitchen, car, etc..
I get questioned all the time why we drive a 300k mile Toyota and a 15 year old wrangler, and I'm just like... Why not? Theyre fun as hell.
We get judged hard, especially since we have a pretty high combined income but it doesn't bother either of us.
A rationale could be:
US is a consumption driven economy. Power of US dollar + size of US middle class + US purchasing power parity and market size + favorable import policy means we can live in that enviroment.
All the countries on top are protectionist economies or have weaker currency intentionally to boost exports.
Either way, if you think American materialism is on par with South Korea you are seriously delusional and don’t know much about the world outside of America
I don't know if this is fair per se.
Our rich still strive to show off their wealth. They just hide it behind things like, "having a space program when most countries don't" and "owning people through debt"
What's more, not only do people judge their own status by their possessions, they judge others.
So if someone doesn't have a lot of material possessions they are somehow deemed less successful. And yet one of the most mentally satisfying things in the world is to be responsible for as few possessions as possible.
In contrast, Buddhist monks in general keep very few possessions - you can't take them to nirvana with you. And achieving transcendence is not really possible if you're drawn back to earth to keep track of material possessions. One would not consider a monk/nun to be unsuccessful - s/he has chosen a different path. It's not for the materially-oriented to judge those who choose to have less, vs. those who want more but can't have it, which is one of the many ways to suffer.
Measuring your success by experiences or memories instead of items is like the people who say "its not weather you win or lose its how you play the game" only the people without stuff say "is not about the stuff you have"
This is so true, my Arab relatives were horrified that my white, American side of the family regularly thrift… they made me throw away my thrifted clothes. Sometimes I like how they care about material things when it comes to keeping the home and body clean, and indulging in luxury items like good quality perfumes… but being too uptight with second hand items is too much for me.
Kinda adds up to why some international folks come across so awkard about stuff like this sometimes in the US.
Was in this facebook social group and people would post intro threads with text and pictures. One dude posted a picture of himself wearing a bunch of Gucci, a mercedes, a rollex watch, etc. He was just an average dude with an average job, lived in a fucking 1 BR apartment way outside the city where it's cheap just so he could afford to buy luxury items with a normal job. One of his pictures was him wearing a $500 Gucci Tshirt and he was bragging about how it was real...but he lives in a 1 BR apartment an hour outside the city deep in the suburbs as a 30 year old so obviously doesn't have money. Dude got roasted fr.
People will say that because they've been raised with sayings like "you can't buy happiness", but will still compare other people's things as measures of their success, and brag to everyone thw moment the own a new toy. All while thinking they're enlightened because material things aren't the *only* thing they care about.
Everyone in the US secretly has inside of them, a version of that guy saying "I just bought this new Lamborghini. But never mind that, you know what I'm more proud of? Those bookcases behind it filled with KNOWLEDGE"
Further proof why China is a plague on Earth. We need to liberate the Chinese citizens and dismantle their communist oligarchy. Make way for Democracy!!
Those 21% are the people we see all over social media with nice things.
This creates a false reality that everyone is obsessed with materialism.
Maybe because they generate so many likes.... from other people who are materialistic.
It's one big selfish psycho circle jerk.
The same people who always brag about their consumerism and material possessions also answered that they don't care about it on this supposed survey. At least other countries seem more honest and realistic.
You wouldn't know this from Reddit. I swear, most of the people on this site only measure their success on if they can afford fancy toys.
Measuring anything on Reddit is probably a bad idea.
Gold banana for scale.
I have three gold bananas and one platinum one.
what we consider normal is pretty high tier for most of the countries on this list. a car? air conditioning? access to clean water? normal day for us. luxury for some of these places.
Our standard of living is definitely higher. That might affect this metric some but I can also see a logical difference between the floor being higher and the individual self measure of happiness.
I don't think this is about how much have, it's about whether you think your possessions puts you above people with less than you.
Reddit is full of abnormal, psychologically damaged people. Not the best measure of what the average Joe believes tbh.
It is funny, based on all actually statistics and measures, the median American is better today than at any point in history. Yet, despite that, people imagine that there was this boomer golden age in the past where things were better. People romanticize this imaginary past about a booming 50s and 60s which was maybe only true for 10% of Americans. For the vast majority of people, there are more opportunities today.
What? Are you saying mass civil/racial unrest and 2 drafted wars werent the good old times?
Also, it is just a fact that household income, adjusted for inflation, is higher today than at any other point in American history. There was maybe a small group of white (given the time) educated elite who did better in the past, but it is a fact that America is more prosperous today that at any point in history. There is a saying that goes "The cavemen didn't have to worry about cancer and heart disease because they died by 40." The same is true for modern America. The previous generations didn't need to worry about student debt because only the elite could actually go to college. These are real issues, but they are issues that are symptom of success. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
I really appreciate your thoughtful response to my joke. Thanks!
> Also, it is just a fact that household income, adjusted for inflation, is higher today than at any other point in American history. There was maybe a small group of white (given the time) educated elite who did better in the past, but it is a fact that America is more prosperous today that at any point in history. This point in particular always forgets the fact that about 80 years ago, household income gradually increased as we went from 1 earner to 2 earner households. That process is still ongoing to some extent and so this stat in particular is rife with issues compared to just... looking at income adjusted for inflation and income inequality.
In 1967, literally only 35% of households were single income. The majority (53%) were dual income in some form. What you are referring to is a stereotype created from the Flintstones. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20140602.htm
> In 1967, literally only 35% of households were single income. The majority (53%) were dual income in some form. What you are referring to is a stereotype created from the Flintstones. ...Which is why 80 years ago happens to be back towards 1940 when WWII started requiring women to cover jobs traditionally done by men, and not 1967.
In 1940, we literally didn't have most modern amenities and America was involved in a full scale war effort. I can guarantee you that life was not better in 1940 than it is today and the average person was not economically better off.
I'm not arguing that though. I'm arguing the stat for household income is flawed because of changing societal norms.
You neglect the absolute psychological power of the "feeling that things are going better". It's not about the moment it has always been about the flow.
Are you going to tell me my college graduate GF that had to live with a roommate in a 2B apartment and could not just graduate and buy a house while I was also renting a room in a townhouse in a shitty neighborhood were not anomalies that these kids feel they were?
I'm sorry, can you reword your question? I'm not sure I understand what the question is. If you are asking about housing, that is a straight up problem with lack of building. After 2008, a lot of builders went under and no one actually noticed until like 2016 when the 2008 oversupply evaporated. Combining the lack of builders with shitty zoning restrictions has created a major housing issues. There is only 1 way to fix a supply shortage, and that is through increasing production. People like to blame a lot of things for the shortage, but those other things might, at most account for 1% of the issue. The real issue which is probably 70-80% of the overall issue is that there simply were not enough houses built in the last decade, and we are feeling the crunch now. Luckily, politicians have started to realize this issue and places like California (who was really hit by this issue) have done things like ban low density zoning. So hopefully this is going to be an issue we see resolved in the next few years, if not the next decade. We know what the issue is, and it will only take mild government action to fix it. It is just a matter of politicians acknowledging those issues.
It was not a real question, I was just pointing out that there seem to be a LOT of people on Reddit that hate boomers, or older people in general, and think that for some reason that a single family home is the average starter place to live for adult Americans. They feel that they are younger and "have" to have a roommate and that is bad or wrong and they are the only people to ever have to do this because of the mean older people.
True. In all honesty, the thing that annoys me the most is that the size of that average American home has more than doubled since the 1950s. So while people on Reddit feel like they aren't getting what their parents had, they are actually unknowingly trying to buy a home that is doubled the size.
This is a weird thing to me. I was born in born in the Bronx. One my street there was a mix of single family homes, on small lots, and town homes and condos. None the homes were huge but many were 3 generation homes, grandparents, parents, and kids. That seemed to be normal for at least a generation before I was born as well. My grand parents home was 1,700 square feet and we had 7 people living in that house.
I get where you're coming from but out money at this point cannot buy what it bought in the past, they could work and afford to raise families on single salary homes, most cannot do that these days.
>afford to raise families on single salary Again, this is you looking at things from a skewed perspective. In the 1960s, the majority of households were dual income. And for those that weren't, it wasn't like the wife sat around doing nothing. She repaired clothes and did house work which decreased the need for the additional salary because families needed to spend less money. When the Simpsons first aired in the late 80s, Homer's salary 35k or the equivalent to 80k today. They almost never ate out on the show, had 1 car, didn't splurge on things while shopping, and lived in a medium sized city, not a metropolis. In the 50s and 60s, all that could be had on a salary of about 6-9k a year. If you make 80k today, today, you can still have that lifestyle. But again, you are imagining your modern desires on people in the past. Eating out used to be a luxury not a multiple nights a week thing. And families had 1 car, the kids might have saved up money from a job to buy a beater in their late teenage years, but that is it.
What you have written is exactly my point. Our lifestyles, culture, and habits are different. They have changed and not always for the better. Look at what you wrote, if I make 80k today I can afford what a person could for 9k. That would be fine if wages have matched inflation but they absolutely haven't.
They have... It seems like you might have some skewed perspectives on things due to the media. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
Or from looking around in the real world Big houses, trucks, trailers, quads, boats Maybe we claim not to measure our success in what we own, but our actions speak louder
Houses are an investment. The others... For fun. Those aren't fucking trophies. Things you earn and experiences to have.
>Things you earn and experiences to have. I think you just defined what a trophy is
If you ignore context and don't comprehend nuanced definitions... This isn't high level communication here. Let me go have experiences with my basketball trophy... that I purchased. The ego you're protecting right now is what causes people to purchase trophies that only reflect on status.
What fucking subs are you on? I've been here a while and I can't even think of a sub where everyone is dick measuringly materialistic. When is some anonymous person's income even relevant here? I get the feeling you're projecting insecurities and the upvotes come from a similar place. I'm made of negative money.
Redditors think Funko pops = real life assets (stocks, real estate etc...)
In China, showing off your wealth through luxury goods are often encouraged as means to get higher status Do that in the US and you’ll be labelled a ‘show-off’ in no time, even in the rich in the US wear normal shirts like everyone else 🇺🇸
[удалено]
Mid 2000's dodge chargers-
Challengers. Especially the V6 ones
For the most part I feel like that's the God's honest truth.
I think it depends on what kind of nice stuff. People who have less flashy but noticeably higher quality stuff usually are just wealthier.
It is especially bad for China in the housing market
It's bad for you because it makes housing and wealth at all without obeying you.
In US Chevy Tahoe is one of the most popular low-key wealth cars. Not Range Rovers
And even then most range rovers/expensive cars are not a status symbol. Of course you can always find some idiot that says, "I've got a xyz back home! Do you even know how much money I/my family/whoever makes?!?" But, generally, most people that get the nicer cars enjoy having the nicer cars. There's Tacoma guys, range rover families, jeep gals, corvette guys, Cadillac grandma's, etc. They all enjoy having that specific vehicle though.
True, if you drive La Jolla, San Diego or Beverly Hills you can find streets full of Range Rovers or AMG GLE coupes. It’s like people tend to live together and horrible taste in crossover coupes is contagious.
Rolls Royce is the wealth car
True, though I do wish public attire became more formal again - the old photos of every dude on the street walking around with a suit (or at least a blazer) and a hat are super cool Edit: apparently I need to clarify that I don't want laws around public dress codes, and that "more formal" doesn't have to mean just "suits" - everyone just putting in some effort would make a substantial difference.
Uncomfortable, impractical, expensive, unnecessary
Yeah nothing like getting swamp ass in the middle of July wearing a full wool suit. Eff that shit
I have no idea how people did that before the advent of air conditioning
Linen suits for summer.
Why would you wear a wool suit in the summer? Cmon now
And if you want it to be even remotely comfortable you have to spend even more. I love dressing up but I have my *one* suit because that shit is fuckin' PRICY.
>Uncomfortable Only because we're practically forced to buy off the rack due to cost, and wear the wrong fabric all the time. >impractical, Have you ever used the pockets in a blazer? It's super versatile. >expensive Again, forced to buy off the rack due to cost. If suits came back, the cottage industry of taylors and seamstresses would come back too. You'd also get more mileage out of your clothes since you wouldn't be chasing the latest trends quite as bad. >unnecessary Yeah, pretty much. It's all just ~~ascetic~~ aesthetic.
>It's all just ascetic You mean aesthetic?
Yeah. I do.
You did not think this true. If more formal means no chicks wearing yoga pants you couldn't be more wrong.
Be the change you want to see, just don't try to force others to do the same.
I *do* dress nicely. It's not a suit but I put some decent effort in. Did I say I wanted to force anyone to do anything?
Everyone should be dressed like the Vatican guards at all time outside. I the Doge of the United States have decreed it. You may return to your normal lives.
I wear a suit every day for work. They are uncomfortable and restrictive. They are stuffy when it is warmer than like 60 degrees Fahrenheit. They are expensive and costly to maintain. I hate wearing suits and don't understand why someone would just choose to wear one voluntarily.
I love wearing suits…if it’s over 80 degrees it’s too hot in a suit even if it is a summer fabric.
To look better.
Just hit the gym and look good in everything.
Even if you hit the gym you won’t look good in *everything*. I agree with OP.
Go for it - go on a 1 person crusade to bring back Victorian attire!
> even in the rich in the US wear normal shirts like everyone else 🇺🇸 Contra-point: every last fucker who wears or insists others wear a suit.
When do you run into these people demanding suits?
The finance and political sectors, and some sales types, are still heavily besuited.
Americans show off all the time. China is just the biggest country with luxury goods you cry about.
Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have this unspoken rule called "Jantelagen" which discourages displays of personal success.
Indeed, directly translated as "the law of Jante", originating from a poem by a Danish/Norwegian author.
That is fucking terrifying for the countries above us then lol
ikr? For me this chart isn't about how "un-materialistic" America is, but rather, "what the fuck are the countries above us doing?"
I suppose that it might relate to the fact that some of those countries towards the top are just catching up to us as our standard of living has been so much higher for decades. And French people lol
Fr*nch 🤮
Most of them are being desperately poor. Some of the others still have lots of people who lived through desperate poverty and their attitudes haven't adjusted to abundance. The US has (generally) reached the level of wealth where more wealth doesn't make us happier.
Tbh I have noticed that the people who flash status symbols the most are ones without money.
Great illustration of how mazlow’s pyramid impacts culture. Poorer populations are more focused on lower rungs, and thus measure status in more material terms. Richer countries begin to focus on higher levels as means of differentiation.
How is this measured
Looks like a public sentiment survey. Ask 2000 to respond yes, no to a question and extrapolate to society as a whole. Not perfect, and prone to bias, but if you can get a large and wide enough population you can minimize that to a degree.
There is no fucking way that this so-called study is legitimate
Because it's probably not a study, it's probably just a one time survey. You advertise a survey on social media in a bunch of these countries, ask them to identify some basic demographics then ask them to say if they agree or disagree with a series of statements. Political research groups, think tanks, news organizations, and consumer report agencies do it all the time.
So it's definitely not an unbiased survey. You are only getting people that are dumb enough to have Facebook. And they have to be on it looking at ads that pop up. So you don't get anybody that have ad blockers. You aren't getting anybody that doesn't have Facebook. And you also aren't getting anybody that's too busy at work to do the survey. Those are the people that are working hard to get money and buy things.
Rings true. Flaunting expensive possessions in the US makes one look like a douche to the vast majority of people, I'd say.
Remember that YouTube add that played all the time a few years ago, where the guy is showing off his Lamborghini and then pans over to a bookcase in the garage saying something like "you know what I value more than this Lambo? Books."? That commercial filled me with the white hot rage every time.
#IM JUST HERE IN MY GARAGE, GAINING KNOWLEDGE.
That's probably somewhat true. Especially these days. Lots of down to earth and content people.
I’ve noticed Americans tend to be more humble when it comes to wealth (certainly not all), despite the overall perception.
We measure our success by what we earn on paper, not what we currently have.
[удалено]
[удалено]
New nations like Sweden and Great Britain as well. I don't think there is any correlation to this guy's theory.
Older nations like Turkey, South Korea 🥹
Nah. China has plenty of digitization and you're way more dependent on foreign material items despite your shorter history.
How is this even possible when every aspect of American life is dominated by consumerism? The country is in debt because everyone's maxing out their credit cards to purchase shit they don't need.
I thnk the key is 'measuring.' If everyone owns an iPhone or expensive Samsung, you're not 'better' than the guy next to you. If 'everyone' has at least a vehicle in the household, you're not 'better' than the next guy either. The US has a skewed baseline by default, what would be considered wealth items or luxury goods elsewhere is just 'stuff' in the US. We have 3 television sets in this household, 3 cell phones, two PCs and two cars (albeit one isn't running ATM). Most are older, because we obviously didn't go purchasing all at one shot, and most of the \~stuff\~ are budget items. Statistically, we're probably low income or very lower middle class by American standards. For other parts of the world, we're rocking it.
Hell I'm considered poor and low class in America, but compared to some places in Russia and India, I'm fuckin rich.
You a baller my guy
Just because their buying that stuff doesn't mean the average person will flex their ability to purchase something on other people. Especially after the pandemic, it seems like most people will generally just keep to themselves. Plus our standard and poorer countries standards are skewed a bit. After all, even the poorest areas like rural parts of the US or poor neighborhoods will still have things that are seen as luxury in other parts of the world. Phone, cars, internet, computers. We're not getting these things to flex, we're getting them because we need them. The average person in America needs a car, needs internet, needs a phone and/or computer simply to get to/do their job, get groceries or stay in contact with relatives and friends.
I think we like fancy toys because we like to play with fancy toys. We care less if people see us playing with fancy toys. Also, the ability to afford fewer fancy toys is often seen as a sign of financial responsibility. Being debt free and saving money? That is how Americans "feel" rich. Which is honestly why we all feel so poor. Because we really do like playing with fancy toys,
[удалено]
Cope some more chief regardless of people lying on a survey with this many countries still ontop of us were not the most materialistic or close to it
This graph was most likely made by Mastercard or VISA
Consumerism is not necessarily the same as conspicuous consumption, which I think this chart tends to hint at. We tend to buy a lot of shit that we want, but not necessarily to show it off.
I want to see the data .. no way this isn’t skewed
I 100% see this. I married into an eastern European family and HOLY SHIT. They (except my wife, she was born in America) are WILDLY materialistic. They will stretch themselves so far to have the nicest kitchen, car, etc.. I get questioned all the time why we drive a 300k mile Toyota and a 15 year old wrangler, and I'm just like... Why not? Theyre fun as hell. We get judged hard, especially since we have a pretty high combined income but it doesn't bother either of us.
Based 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇪🇸🇸🇪
In Murica only the one percent own anything besides debt.
A rationale could be: US is a consumption driven economy. Power of US dollar + size of US middle class + US purchasing power parity and market size + favorable import policy means we can live in that enviroment. All the countries on top are protectionist economies or have weaker currency intentionally to boost exports.
Op, do you think there are only 21 countries in the world?
u/AmericanGoldenJackal
Conditioned answers. It’s a lie, like everything else in our empire of lies.
Either way, if you think American materialism is on par with South Korea you are seriously delusional and don’t know much about the world outside of America
That’s why you deleted your post in AskAnAmerican and beetlguised me here?
Cope harder
Troll Harder.
Go to Bergen County and Diamond Bar and ask the first generation Korean immigrants and ask if America is materialistic and watch their jaws drop lmao
Not the least materialistic more like 11th most materialistic
I think it's 17th, but yea, kinda goofy.
16th, there is one that is the global average which is above us
I see, I'm doo doo brained :)
It's okie
71% of what?
Ummm… see how the top countries on the list are poor.. I think countries which don’t have stuff, naturally want more..
Maybe China is just more meritocratic and they are actually right.
Because you can't have shit in Detroit.
Y'all Asian countries need some Jesus in yo life. 'Cept you Japan. You alright.
Only 1% of USA populations has the money to be materialistic and the rest of the 99% needs to make ends meet.
Cause everyone is fucking poor
I don't know if this is fair per se. Our rich still strive to show off their wealth. They just hide it behind things like, "having a space program when most countries don't" and "owning people through debt"
What's more, not only do people judge their own status by their possessions, they judge others. So if someone doesn't have a lot of material possessions they are somehow deemed less successful. And yet one of the most mentally satisfying things in the world is to be responsible for as few possessions as possible. In contrast, Buddhist monks in general keep very few possessions - you can't take them to nirvana with you. And achieving transcendence is not really possible if you're drawn back to earth to keep track of material possessions. One would not consider a monk/nun to be unsuccessful - s/he has chosen a different path. It's not for the materially-oriented to judge those who choose to have less, vs. those who want more but can't have it, which is one of the many ways to suffer.
Sweden represent.
Only like 11 people own everything as I'm told.
USA! USA! USA!!!!!! China sucks.
Measuring your success by experiences or memories instead of items is like the people who say "its not weather you win or lose its how you play the game" only the people without stuff say "is not about the stuff you have"
I don't own much so I have gotten used to just not caring. 😂🥲
American citizens *claim* to be less materialistic. We all know that's not true. We invented Keeping up with the Joneses.
"Money just doesn't matter to me" - All the rich people I know as I look at their Kia in front of their $6m house.
I wonder what this graph would look like if the question was “how much I earn”
Because most of us don't own shit and accepted that we never will under the current conditions
What's the source for this?
This is so true, my Arab relatives were horrified that my white, American side of the family regularly thrift… they made me throw away my thrifted clothes. Sometimes I like how they care about material things when it comes to keeping the home and body clean, and indulging in luxury items like good quality perfumes… but being too uptight with second hand items is too much for me.
Kinda adds up to why some international folks come across so awkard about stuff like this sometimes in the US. Was in this facebook social group and people would post intro threads with text and pictures. One dude posted a picture of himself wearing a bunch of Gucci, a mercedes, a rollex watch, etc. He was just an average dude with an average job, lived in a fucking 1 BR apartment way outside the city where it's cheap just so he could afford to buy luxury items with a normal job. One of his pictures was him wearing a $500 Gucci Tshirt and he was bragging about how it was real...but he lives in a 1 BR apartment an hour outside the city deep in the suburbs as a 30 year old so obviously doesn't have money. Dude got roasted fr.
Flaunting your “wealth” is looked down upon usually
Checks out
People will say that because they've been raised with sayings like "you can't buy happiness", but will still compare other people's things as measures of their success, and brag to everyone thw moment the own a new toy. All while thinking they're enlightened because material things aren't the *only* thing they care about. Everyone in the US secretly has inside of them, a version of that guy saying "I just bought this new Lamborghini. But never mind that, you know what I'm more proud of? Those bookcases behind it filled with KNOWLEDGE"
Further proof why China is a plague on Earth. We need to liberate the Chinese citizens and dismantle their communist oligarchy. Make way for Democracy!!
Yea, because 40% of us *litteraly* can't be
That’s surprising
Well, walk around a city in the US and notice how people dress. Casual, not too brand conscious
We’ve accept that we can’t own things in this economy
Those 21% are the people we see all over social media with nice things. This creates a false reality that everyone is obsessed with materialism. Maybe because they generate so many likes.... from other people who are materialistic. It's one big selfish psycho circle jerk.
The same people who always brag about their consumerism and material possessions also answered that they don't care about it on this supposed survey. At least other countries seem more honest and realistic.