The Pew Research Center recently asked a sample of Americans what they consider to be life's necessities. Here's a chart with the key results.
Felix Salmon reacts:
I'm quite surprised that the landline phone is still considered more of a necessity than a cellphone -- I can't imagine that's going to continue to be the case for long. I am interested in the huge drop in the perceived necessity of the microwave, however. Yes, there's something about microwaves which just feels old-fashioned and unnecessary -- but the microwave hasn't really been replaced by anything ... I'm also surprised that 52% of people consider a TV set to be a necessity, while only 23% of people consider cable or satellite TV to be a necessity: subtract the second number from the first, and you get a good indication of the sheer power of network TV. I'm sure that, too, will erode quickly.
The huge drop in the perceived necessity of clothes dryers, home air conditioning, and dishwashers is I think partly a response to the economic crisis, but more a response to the bursting of the housing bubble: people don't define themselves by their appliances in the way that they did during the housing boom.
What went up in perceived necessity? Nothing, really -- nothing more than the margin of error of 3.6 percentage points, anyway. Although it would have been interesting to see the results if intangibles had been included in the survey.
Well put. The Pew survey findings show the fragility of the old suburban, fordist, "keeping up with the Jones'" consumption bundle and lifestyle. But while that "old order" appears to be declining, we're still awaiting something new to replace it.
What might that be: What are some elements of a new normal?.
If the Pew data are accurate, it's not tech-driven consumption - less than a third (31 percent) of those surveyed consider high-speed internet a necessity, and just 4 percent say they need an iPod.
But there are many things that are not asked about, as Salmon notes, like " intangibles,'" or spending on personal development (education, learning), higher-quality food, exercise, health-care, green products, or a cleaner environment.
The rise of a new set of consumption priorities - and a new lifestyle - are tied to longer-run economic recovery. Ever since Keynes, government spending has been seen as a key mechanism for stimulating demand. New Deal spending and the rise of military Keynesianism during World War II are frequently cited as being critical to recovery from the Great Depression. While government spending can play a useful short-term role, it is insufficient to power real long-run growth. New patterns of private consumption are required to undergird the broad and sustained level of consumer demand that is needed to fuel sustained innovation, enable the growth and expansion of new industries, and drive long-run economic development. It was the rise of suburbanization and of the post-war suburban way-of-life, as I've noted before, that powered post-war recovery and expansion.
The emergence of new consumption patterns takes time. The Great Depression began in 1929, and it was not until the 1950s and 1960s that the new suburban lifestyle burst onto the scene fully formed. My dad was an eight-year-old in 1929; my mother just five at the time. Both grew up in small apartments in Newark's Italian district, packed with nine or so family members. My father's family had no refrigerator and even lacked full plumbing. They could scarcely imagine how dramatically their lives would change by the late fifties, when they bought their first suburban home (on what was farm when they were growing up), filled with all manner of modern conveniences, not to mention a shiny Chevy Impala that my dad used to commute to work in the garage.
It's still very early in the resetting process. Transformations on this scale take time. So it's hard to fully grasp what a new consumption bundle and new lifestyle might look like. But one thing is clear: It will be less oriented around the auto-housing industrial complex: We'll all be spending relatively less on cars and housing and energy, that is, if we're going to have money left over to create demand for the emerging, new stuff required to power a new round of growth and prosperity.
Iff we look closely it's possible to discern some emergent threads of a new consumption pattern. We're already experiencing the fall of some of the biggest symbols of post-war consumption - big cars and SUVs, oversized suburban McMansions, and conspicuous consumption of various sorts. There's a shift toward smaller cars and smaller dwellings, toward walkable neighborhoods; toward more authentic, organic and energy-efficient products; and from material goods to experiences generally.
None of this has come together yet, Still, it's likely that sooner or later these emergent trends and patterns will congeal into a new, more organized consumption bundle and way of life.
How long might it take for this new normal to emerge, and what will it look like?
Your thoughts?
Richard Florida
Actually, not a single one of these items are “necessities.” In fact, my great grandparents lived quite happy lives not even being aware of many or most of these things until well into their adulthoods. They all fit into the “nice to have” category, like maid service or a weekly lunch at The Palm. A fairer test would have ranked these “nice to have” things against each other, e.g., given the choice, would you rather be without a car or a telephone?
I would agree that McMansions are falling out of fashion, however, I don't really see that information supported in the study, not really. Sure cars are less necessary when one considers that consumers are just plain worried whether they will have a job tomorrow, the need to have a fancier car, or trade in every so often for the new model just isn't "necessary" or practical. So by default someone can insert the outdated model of big houses and big cars, and the Jones into the results. And the -3% I would be curious to know how many of those people had the option of mass transportation and now are deciding to use it.
I sure do hope there is a shift, if not to smaller cars, to better cars. Evidence GM, Ford and Chrysler, and sadly even the foreign makers know about American's conspicuous consumption and make their cars less gas efficient for the US. Not so overseas. The thought that I feel in my gut that the change in our lives needs to happen now, but we are floundering around without political will or even where to start to make the real changes, just plain hurts.
We don't need wide open spaces, we don't need to chop up the green scape for more subdivisions, we don't need more and longer roads. Wish the study had asked if people needed better mass transportation options, or farmer's markets with fresh produce, or affordable higher education, or simple ways to improve energy consumption at home, now, that don't have mercury (as the killer silver lining). It's still the wild west in many people's minds, conquering the open spaces. What is needed is a shift to creativity, a little more simplicity, and compact environments that save money, energy and improve human interaction - people working on behalf of people, not against one another, grinding it out on the highway in hours long commutes. Something that will power a higher level of existence and take us beyond needing a TV set and instead the "need" to improve our lives. Altruistic sure, but why not? Maybe the new consumption bundle is being a better person.
Feh. The text at the Pew Center does at least have a couple paragraphs of mushy cross-demographic analysis. Which IMHBCO is the only way to do anything productive with this set of questions.
Either that or go ask some real questions to the omitted 30-80% of people about what they perceive as necessities.
I am a single male living in a condo downtown in a modestly sized city. For me the only necessity is my cell phone and my bicycle which is not on the list.
I hate the idea of living in a big house in the suburbs. The suburban mentality seems to want to build a castle and isolate yourself from everyone else. Don't go to a pool hall. Buy your own pool table and play by yourself in the basement. Don't go to the park for a pick-up game of basketball. Put up a goal in your drive way. Don't go downtown, one way streets are so confusing and where are you going to park?!
Aside from the few things listed above, I generally spend my money on good food and doing fun things like going to concerts, shows, bars, and so on. I view my home not so much as my castle, but as a launch pad for going out on the town. I ride my bike or walk everywhere. I still have a car for longer trips or when the weather is terrible, but I just don't drive very much, and could get by without one. I will always pick a local establishment (where you get to know the people) over chain restaurants/bars/stores.
All in all, it is a great lifestyle, and will only get better as the city builds more bike paths, and more people move downtown. There is a strong feeling of place that is so lacking in the suburbs, and I really feel connected and like I belong. So yeah, the only thing on that list that I view as a necessity is a cell phone.
Please explain how you can make these assumptions. If you take the percentage of people who believe dryers, TVs, microwaves and other appliances are not necessities, and compare them with the current market % of people who own them, you’d have to assume shifts in buying that are unrealistic. 52% say TVs aren’t necessary in 2009?! I’ll believe that when I see TV sales depressed when the rest of the economy starts humming again. Cell phones? I find it hard to think that more people want microwaves that cell phones. I’d wager most consumer heard the question as ‘If you had to eliminate certain appliances and devices from your life, which of these would you consider unnecessary?‘
People change their living standards when they have to - unemployment, illness, etc. The oil crisis that helped precipitate the 1993-4 recession was much more restrictive on gas consumption than the temporary rise in oil prices in 2008. I never thought big cars would make a comeback!
I think the reason your new consumption bundle hasn’t shown up is that the current one will not significantly change. People might pay less for the car and house, and the rate of replacement might slow, but I don’t think the Pew bundle itself with change, except to the extent technology does.
In other words the housing market and auto markets might change their product lines away from McMansions and SUVs and towards more efficient models, but predicting a whole new ‘bundle’ seems outside the results of the survey.
Americans may have to adjust to smaller growth or even decline in living standards, but they will still buy and replace TVs, cable, cell phones, etc., which are ubiquitous throughout the world. In the real world, this are necessities.
Just as Obama’s stimulus package differs radically from FDRs, the scope of lifestyle changes after this deep recession will not be as dramatic as in the 1950s. The New Deal built the super- and infra-structure needed for America’s rise in economic power after WW2. Obama’s stimulus seeks to repair and make that infrastructure more efficient. Slower growth and change seem more in order for the American economy, not barrel-ahead debt-financed consumption. Repair and unwinding are the notions of the day.
The poll numbers are described as "perceived necessity." So I think it's understood that, for example, the 34% who said a clothes dryer wasn't a necessity, are not about to start using a clothesline. To get valid data on what people really "need," it might be more useful to see how quickly they repair or replace that dryer if it stops working. The exit-polling effect is built into any study - people will tend to give the answer they think is proper, which isn't always how they really feel. But those results have their own usefulness.
By functional analysis, it's pretty easy to demonstrate, as commented, that a cell phone is more useful than landline, assuming one's home has decent cell coverage. So, that result reflects a sense of tradition and security.
there is a generic reference to macmansion and downsizing, but where is the data and/or evidence? i would like to cite a couple of personal experiences (btw, i am italian and live in tuscany in a 160 mq house in the country):
. an american tv program (cnn if i recall correctly) does a show on energy conservation and recycling somewhere in california; the lovely owner proudly and positively shows the reporter all that the two occupant have done to exploit all the savings they are experiencing, ending by casually mentioning "in our wonderful 5,000 square foot home"! the reporter did not even blink.......
. the daughter of friends from florence (italian) came to visit us (the two occupants) and marvelled on how large our house is; that same summer friends from the states came to stay with us and one remarked something to the effect that our place was so nice and COMPACT (her emphasis)...
looking at the list, it is not that much different from a list that you would draw in any of the western european countries....the glaring differences are, besides the cars, those related to the mammouth size of the dwellings that in a lot of cases house only two people (oh, i almost forgot, THE MALLS! with the energy consumption of one of those behemoths you could provide to the needs of a couple of 14,000 people strong towns nearby our place)
saluti,
roberto
I agree with your post. I point out that the US needs "compact" environments - your noting the mall sizes and houses is so right on. Europe just has had more time to get the urban and rural environment mix right, or at least better than anywhere else. It's also the most enjoyable and healthy living I've ever experienced.
I'm Canadian, so perhaps our needs are vastly different. But as a Baby Boomer, less is more. I want an office that fits into a backpack. I do want a landline for business. The cell is primarily for emergencies or when travelling. I less life maintenance. I want a smaller home that doesn't require a lot of work. I was safe secure investments producing a second income to my professional income. I want time. I want to continue to travel. I want the luxury of being able to say no. Or yes. The older I get the less I care about things. If I have something, then I want the absolute best I can afford and something that is outside of trends. I want my time for me and for the people I can about.
I didn't see this survey addressing any of this. This survey is rather old-fashioned. It focuses on old notions and not who we are or who we aspire to be. It is probably four-to-five years behind what I have seen happening with my friends, family and colleagues. But then perhaps that's why US automakers and other industries are in such trouble.
I'm Canadian, so perhaps our needs are vastly different. But as a Baby Boomer, less is more. I want an office that fits into a backpack. I do want a landline for business. The cell is primarily for emergencies or when travelling. I want less life maintenance. I want a smaller home that doesn't require a lot of work. I want safe secure investments producing a second income to my professional income. I want time. I want to continue to travel. I want the luxury of being able to say no. Or yes. The older I get the less I care about things. If I have something, then I want the absolute best I can afford and something that is outside of trends. I want my time for me and for the people I can about.
I didn't see this survey addressing any of this. This survey is rather old-fashioned. It focuses on old notions and not who we are or who we aspire to be. It is probably four-to-five years behind what I have seen happening with my friends, family and colleagues. But then perhaps that's why US automakers and other industries are in such trouble.
What American citizen need above items I think that one is normal.They are most essential things for today`s living. Iam living in India, compare to U.S India is poor country, my father had not a single item which you listed, but I have all items,I think they are not luxury for me, they are quite essiental for me. Nacessary of modern living.My father` era therewere not a scope for more earning today we Indan did good progress,little intellgent,opportunity, hardwork,bit of manapulation anyone can earn in India money to buy all items which you tell are essential for U.S.citizens is also true for Indians.
In ten years the USA will look more like Europe does: less materialistic, more conservation ethic, lighter footprint. But we'll still use too much energy and be responsible for the emission of too much greenhouse gas. Better, not good.
Before I begin a substantive answer to your question, I want to thank you for posing it. I don't know that I have ever read a blog on the Atlantic's website that explicitly invites the reader to engage in meaningful dialogue with the writer. It's a refreshing change. I will also note that of the twelve replies posted so far, only one addresses your question.
What will the new consumption pattern look like? Many have asserted that it will be more urban, primarily because the price of fuel will compel people to live closer to where they work, although many other forces clearly matter. Maybe. I suspect that will be true in the short term, but in the long term I suspect that what drives people to the suburbs (bigger and cheaper housing with plenty of closets, lawns, free parking, good educational systems, etc.) is part of human nature, so migration out of the cities will eventually resume.
Perhaps people will consume more "experiences" than goods. I suspect that throughout American history people have spent progressively less on material goods, since we know how to manufacture and distribute things so efficiently and quickly. Thus, I suspect that we've been spending more on services and experiences (again, I am arguing that this trend has been occurring for decades). So, maybe this trend will simply continue. We'll take more trips; we'll consume more entertainment (movies, theatre, concerts, etc.); we'll eat more meals out; we'll develop ever more sophisticated virtual worlds and computer games; we'll take more classes, whether in traditional academic subjects or in leisurely pursuits like cooking and gardening.
Finally, I suspect that we'll spend more on medical care and enhancing our physical and mental capabilities. I don't mean that we'll simply spend more because the baby boomers are aging, but as biotechnology advances, we'll figure out how to cure more illnesses, think better and faster, prevent conditions by proactively replacing parts of ourselves and just generally live longer. That kind of maintenance and enhancement costs a tremendous amount, but we'll be happy to pay for it.
Concerning the landline phone, I've hesitated to eliminate mine because I feel I'd have to add another cell phone and have it designated as the residence's 911 line. If you have an emergency and you're able to dial but not able to speak coherently, emergency services will (or should) come to your residence in response to the call. So, you really do need to have a phone designated as the residence's 911 number.
For 911, you need to know exactly where the phone is located in case of an emergency. That cold be accomplished with a base charger. Based on my experience with occasionally misplacing my cell, I'd want to tether the 911 cell phone to the base charger.
Also, at this time I have the landline connect to one wall phone and 2 cordless phones. If I were to go with another (single) cell phone, it wouldn't be as convenient. I'm not aware of how I could have multiple cell handsets with the same number.
Right now, I'm paying ~ $20 per month for a landline 911 phone: thats for basic local service and we never use it for long distance. We certainly use it for other things, but I consider its primary purpose to be 911. Another wireless line would cost me ~$10 + taxes and fees per month (~$12 - $15)and we wouldn't have the additional handsets.
Another reason why people might say landlines are necessary is because they have to buy basic phone service to get DSL. I don't know this for a fact. Can you have DSL without landline service? Could the survey's results on these 2 questions (landline phone and high speed internet) be linked in this way?
Finally, concerning living through The Depression, both of my parents were raised on Virginia farms. My dad was born in 1919 and my mom was born in 1921. She had a 4th grade education he dropped out after 8th grade. The Depression seemed to have more of a lasting influence on my dad, possibly because his parents had a problem marriage that eventually ended in divorce. The most unusual habit that I can remember about my dad is that he re-used dental floss. I know it sounds gross but it's true.
The philosophy when I was growing up was to "wear it out and use it up" and I'm still very conservative in my spending habits. We access the web at the local college and public libraries but we have cell phones. We don't have cable tv. I drive an 85 Toyota pickup and a 98 Toyota Avalon.
When I buy an 'essential' item, I lean toward higher quality products that will last longer. I think that's being frugal. However, I use each piece of dental floss one-time-only.
minerHokie