MetaChat - Lake (11), Annabelle Kirk (11), and Eve Wulf (12) go to the mall

Sharon Zukin, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College and author of “Point of Purchase” (Routledge), does not deride tweens for wanting to shop because she claims it is the modern form of hunting and gathering.

“How many people bake their own bread, sew their own clothes?” she asked. “We’re not self-sufficient any more. You have to buy things today. In a way, learning how to shop is crucial today for how to survive.”

posted by matteo 23 April | 07:37

Wait a minute, you mean to tell me that junior high girls like shopping at the mall? Never woulda guessed.

posted by jonmc 23 April | 07:45

GAh.

When I was that age Mom dragged me to Sears and picked out my clothes. Ugh. Huckapoo, anyone?

posted by bunnyfire 23 April | 07:56

It's like a nature documentary.

posted by danostuporstar 23 April | 08:02

What I hate about bits like that is the almost-assumption that since this is the way it is, this is the way is has to be. That's simply not so. Sure, my 12-year-old would shop like that if she were allowed to, but she isn't. She's lucky enough to have hand-me-downs from her cool step-mom, but, otherwise, she makes do with going to Old Navy and Target a few times a year. I certainly see her classmates running around in designer jeans and toting cell phones. It seems to me that it's more about their parents' needs than their own, though.

There's a little acknowledgement of that near the end of the article, but there's not much by way of examination. The author says "The sociological move away from authoritarian parents to parents-as-friends has given rise to a generation of children that was born to shop"; well, what about that? Does the author see this as inevitable? Good? Bad? What? Is there no middle ground between making the kids wear Roe Bucks and letting them have free run in Abercrombie? I don't see any real discussion of that in the article.

A few years ago, Gene Weingarten wrote an article about a local birthday party performer, which spawned an online discussion about extravagant kids' parties in general. There were a lot of defensive parents explaining that they had to have extravagant parties, with clowns and ponies and moonbounces, because that's what was expected. Bullshit. For my daughter's tenth b-day, we strung some lights in the yard, bought plastic leis and tiki mugs, and the girls had a blast: 8 kids, $100, no worries. And this was in an urban area with lots of shopping and venue possibilities, with relatively affluent parents all around.

Maybe I'm a bit defensive about it all. No, I'm sure I'm a bit defensive about it all! I hate the competition. I hate the need to turn kids into little adults. I don't blame the kids, and I don't see it all as inevitable, either.

posted by mrmoonpie 23 April | 09:27

It scares me to read this. All I can think is, as materialistic as people are NOW, people who didn't grow up with this sort of nonsense being presented as acceptable ($60 bracelets for children? Children drooling over VUITTON FUCKING MINKS? Come on.), what will the levels of self involvement and greed be of these children once they reach college and beyond?
How will they function when they finally can no longer afford to get everything they desire because they're out working some entry level job, dealing with student loans, and mom and dad aren't buying anymore?

I went to college with people like that. They're the ones who graduated with thousands in credit card debt on top of everything else, because the idea of not shopping was too foreign to grasp.

posted by kellydamnit 23 April | 09:32

Not a surprising article. There's a lot of money in NYC, and there's people who can afford to give their kids everything they want for their rest of their lives. I used to work with (well, FOR) some of the country's most privileged kids, and like all other kids I've met, some were pretty nice and some were brats. It's comforting to me that while money can spoil, it doesn't necessarily have to.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 10:00

HA, you forgot to mention that the writer of the article was writing about her own daughter. LOLS.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 10:14

Hm... makes me wonder if she really, really WANTS people to think it's normal.

posted by kellydamnit 23 April | 10:25

What a cool b-day party idea, mrmoonpie!

posted by deborah 23 April | 10:29

Because she's writing about her own daughter, it kinda reminded me of that Disney Princess article that was in the NYT magazine a few months ago.

posted by box 23 April | 10:44

Yeah, really. This is an article about social class and status. Who's winning the points? Not little Lake Seymour, but her mother, the author, Lesley Jane Seymour, who in effect is saying to all her friends, "Not only can my daughter afford to shop for expensive clothing at the Westchester Mall, but I am considered intelligent enough to provide commentary on the matter for the New York Times. What have *you* got to show for your Ivy education?"

Hateful, sure, but that's what goes on in America.

posted by ikkyu2 23 April | 10:46

Not to mention, Lake Seymour? Is it just me or is it kind of cruel to give a child a name more appropriate to a body of water in Iowa?

posted by jonmc 23 April | 11:16

God, I hate westchester mall. (been there, didn't buy a thing as I recall.)

posted by dabitch 23 April | 11:47

This is becoming prevalent here, especially in the 'footballer and soap star' area where I live. Girls from 9, 10 upwards caked in makeup and designer labels. I find it hard to identify with that level of vanity and materialism but there seems to be no shortage of mothers who encourage it.

posted by essexjan 23 April | 11:53

And this folks, is what's wrong with our society today (according to me). Ascribing status based on whatever expensive crap you happen to be wearing and can afford to wear. And if you can't afford it, just go into debt to get it because you have to have it or no one will like you! Stuff like this makes me want to move to the mountains and shun society for the rest of my days, making my own bread and growing my own veggies and killing *shudder* my own meat.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy "fancy" clothes as much as the next person but I would not be buying my kid clothes at A&F as they will only grow out of them. When you stop growing, you can have nice clothes and until then you get Old Navy/Zellers/Target/Winners specials. I don't even buy "fancy" clothes for me! Almost everything I own I get on sale, including my "fancy" clothes and it's about once every three years that I go into a store (last one was Lucky Brand Jeans) and buy stuff that isn't on sale (and buy stuff I did, and then later felt guilty but at least I looked nice :P ).

posted by LunaticFringe 23 April | 12:23

I dunno, LunaticFringe, it sounds like this article is about rich kids who can afford it. And if you can afford it, why the heck not?

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 12:34

Between this and "My Sweet Sixteen," I like to think that it will be easier for my theoretical middle-class children to swindle and get rich off of the spoiled kids currently being raised by the wealthy.

posted by drezdn 23 April | 12:36

*vomit*

And people wonder why I mentally associate shopping with vapidity? It doesn't have to be this way. You can have fun shopping yet still do it responsibly.

And naming your daughter Lake is just a set-up for unending Titicaca jokes once she hit puberty.

posted by Eideteker 23 April | 12:42

TPS: I guess so but I still think it's needlessly extravagant and want no part of it.

posted by LunaticFringe 23 April | 12:46

There are people who are so rich (and plenty of them are right here in NYC) that shopping at a regular mall IS being modest. Different strokes for different folks.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 12:53

Sure Teeps, but the consumerism mentality and self-centeredness of these "tweens" still makes me want to barf.

Also, reminds me of this book:

I just find it scary and disgusting.

posted by Specklet 23 April | 13:15

::sigh::

Whatever.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 13:27

Yeah, what's wrong with spending $300,000 on a birthday party if you've got it? Geez. It's not their fault some people prefer to starve.

posted by danostuporstar 23 April | 13:49

I don't like them much either, but are any of us any less consumerist than they are? I mean the only difference is we consume different stuff and can't afford as much.

posted by jonmc 23 April | 13:55

::gives jonmc a kiss and a cookie::

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 13:56

I'm really fuckin' consumerist...on a smaller scale (still huge compared to 95% of the world's population) but at least I have some self-awareness about it. And I'm not proud of it.

posted by danostuporstar 23 April | 13:59

Well then, judge away.

/tired of pile-on judge-other-people threads.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 14:04

TPS, you're saying these kids are being modest, just because they (well, their parents) have enough money that they can afford it?

Only if you assume modesty is completely relative. Buying a couple of Lamborghinis every day for a fortnight wouldn't have any impact on Bill Gates' fortune, but it's not modest by any definition.

jonmc: I don't like them much either, but are any of us any less consumerist than they are?

Well, yes. I wouldn't let my children waste money on Abercrombie etc, regardless of how much money I had.

I'm always a bit mystified by the instinctive vitriolic hatred of the rich some people have (especially on Metafilter) - I don't feel that having/earning/inheriting money necessarily makes you a bad person. But shallow materialism is worthy of criticism no matter how rich the person is, so I have no problem criticising these kids and their parents.

posted by matthewr 23 April | 14:09

You know, I don't even mind folks spending the money, really. I guess $300,000 to some folks is no more than $100 is to me, right?

To me, it's more the parents' apparent resignation that it's all just inevitable. The tone of the article (and others like it) wavers between some sort of wistful regret of how kids these days are overly materialistic and mature, and how, gosh-darn-it, there's nothing to be done about it.

There are all sorts of quotes about this: "help me understand why shopping seems to have become an acceptable hobby, even an obsession, among some young girls"; "there is less of a cultural taboo on materialism"; "my posse ricochets between childlike abandon and adult composure"; "The sociological move away from authoritarian parents to parents-as-friends has given rise to a generation of children that was born to shop."

Well, and? As I think more about the article, and my reaction to it, I think that's the part that bugs me. You're the parent. If you don't like what's going on, you have the power to make a difference. No, I'm not so idealistic to think that kids always do (or, much less, feel) as their parents want them to, nor that one set of parents can change the world. Sure, I guess I can acknowledge that sometimes it's just a matter of degree. But I think the degrees do matter, that a little less is better than a lot more, and that there is, definitely, something that parents can do about it all.

posted by mrmoonpie 23 April | 14:09

Well, yes. I wouldn't let my children waste money on Abercrombie etc, regardless of how much money I had.

What I meant was this, matthewr: maybe I'll look down my nose at somebody who blows their cash at A&F, but put me in a record store and I'll part with cash if I have it. Some people will spend tons of money on jewelery some on a tech toy. Worse, better?

posted by jonmc 23 April | 14:23

Well, the shopping is one issue, but what got me is these are CHILDREN and they are dressed and are acting years older than they really are. Heck, my daughters still had barbies around at that age. Imagine how jaded these young girls will be at seventeen...

When will they learn that life is not all about THEM and the label on their consumer items?

(Yes, I love to shop. But I like thrift stores, yard sales and wherever else a bargain can be found. I can enjoy the thrill of the chase without spending an obscene amount on what is JUST A MATERIAL OBJECT that CANNOT LOVE ME BACK.)

posted by bunnyfire 23 April | 14:24

Me too, bunnyfire! Thrift stores are the best! I'd mention the name of my favorite store in FL, but I'm scared that the secret on it will soon be out, so I keep it to myself.

Ok, it's called Thrift City USA. But you didn't hear that from me!

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 14:28

What I meant was this, matthewr: maybe I'll look down my nose at somebody who blows their cash at A&F, but put me in a record store and I'll part with cash if I have it.

Sure, but not all forms of spending are equally consumerist. Someone who spends a fortune building a library of music because the music itself gives them pleasure, not merely the ownership of it, is not being nearly as materialistic/consumerist/etc as someone who spends a fortune on keeping up with the latest trends at Abercrombie and Fitch.

posted by matthewr 23 April | 14:40

I don't like them much either, but are any of us any less consumerist than they are?

Yes, I am. The amount of money I spend on things I don't absolutely need (food, cheap clothing, toiletries, and basic vehicular maintenance) probably amounts to less than $50/month. I have only bought one CD in the past year. I have not paid full-price for a book since... hell, I can't remember (I get almost all of mine from library benefit sales). I've probably seen one movie in the past year, in theaters. The only extravagance I really shell out for is my internet connection. And no, I don't download that much entertainment anymore (I used to, though). I pretty much have 'enough' stuff by now that between my massive library of used books, donated LPs and 99¢ CDs, and DVDs; and those of my friends (with whom I freely trade & lend/borrow), I have enough to keep me busy the times when I'm not out doing something (usually something fairly cheap like hiking or riding my motorcycle*) or at home working on something (programming, writing original fiction) or otherwise just talking to friends.

I don't mean to be haughty about it, but like mrmoonpie says, it ain't hardly inevitable.

* probably the most expensive leisure activity I engage in, though it doubles as a primary mode of transport

But shallow materialism is worthy of criticism no matter how rich the person is

Particularly when the rich game the system so the poor have to at least appear to live beyond their means just to 'keep up'. As a former (current?) social outcast, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Not that it's anything new, but I wish they still called it feudalism.

posted by Eideteker 23 April | 14:46

Well, I imagine the clothes at A&F are probably giving them pleasure, too. I'm not neccessarily defending them, I'm just wondering whether I (or any of us) are in any real position to cast stones.

posted by jonmc 23 April | 14:48

If I had more time, I'd photoshop the picture of those girls to look like the faces in "They Live". Spend your money so you can look like us; it makes us richer when you do!

posted by Eideteker 23 April | 14:50

OMG KIDS THESE DAYS WTF???

I did a research paper in college that required me to read through stacks and stacks of Austin newspapers from the 1890s. I came across one article about a 12-year-old boy who had gotten ahold of his father's shotgun and accidentally shot his friend dead in the street. The article went on to editorialize the irreponsibility of that generation of kids.

That will never change.

I don't like our society's conusmerism any more than anyone else, but meh. It's an article about the irresponsibility of the current generation of kids.

That will never change.

Also, it's kind of funny to read the thing, because it could be a chapter from American Psycho, what with all the name-brand dropping and all.

posted by mudpuppie 23 April | 14:53

Eide, no offense, but that just makes you a bargain shopper, out of neccessity. I'm not sayin that if I got rich, I'd be out getting diamond encrusted cellphones, but I'm absolutely sure I'd indulge myself in other ways. I'm not saying that any of this is a good thing, just admitting that I'm no bastion of purity.

posted by jonmc 23 April | 14:55

Well, I imagine the clothes at A&F are probably giving them pleasure, too.

Yes, I'm sure they do get pleasure from A&F.

If you have a completely utilitarian world-view, you'd be justified in saying that A&F gives them as much pleasure as building a record collection gives you, so therefore A&F and records must be equally worthwhile/'good'.

I'm utilitarian about some things, but not this. If you're totally utilitarian, you'd have to accept that if someone reads Romeo and Juliet and gets the same amount of pleasure as they got from reading the Da Vinci Code, then reading Shakespeare is somehow as good/worthwhile a use of your time as reading Dan Brown. That's self-evidently false, as far as I'm concerned, so I don't judge things based solely on utilitarianism.

So I don't think the fact that they get pleasure from A&F changes anything much.

posted by matthewr 23 April | 15:05

matthewr: we can argue till the cows come home about the differences in the quality of consumer goods that I, you or these girls purchasem (and FWIW, I'd probably agree with you most of the time), but whether it's a A&F tshirt, a Molly Hatchet box set, or a bag or Fritos, they're all still consumer goods. To paraphrase a wise man: we are both part of the same hypocrisy.

posted by jonmc 23 April | 15:10

That article does a great job of reminding me why I didn't enjoy being 11 and 12.

posted by box 23 April | 15:19

Someone who spends a fortune building a library of music because the music itself gives them pleasure, not merely the ownership of it, is not being nearly as materialistic/consumerist/etc as someone who spends a fortune on keeping up with the latest trends at Abercrombie and Fitch.

I disagree, and I've read authors who would find something inherently sexist in your statement. It always seems to be things that women buy the most of that are looked down upon as "materialistic". Viewing a woman buying a closet full of clothes or makeup as wasteful but a man buying a library full of books as educational! It's a common view, but it's unfair, and I don't like it. Buying stuff you like and don't need is buying stuff you like and don't need, period.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 15:21

Um, TPS, I used the example of someone buying records because that's what jonmc referred to in his previous comment ("put me in a record store and I'll part with cash").

I don't see where I referred to the record store person being male, either. So maybe hold off before pulling the 'omg sexist' card, eh?

"Viewing a person buying a closet full of clothes or makeup as wasteful but a person buying a library full of books as educational!" (implied sexism redacted)

What's wrong with thinking that? Do you really think books and clothes are equally 'worthwhile'?

If you think someone who has a passion for early Led Zep or late Beethoven, and spends money indulging it, is being just as materialistic and consumerist as someone who fritters their money away on expensive clothes, then fair enough, but it's a pretty shallow viewpoint IMHO.

posted by matthewr 23 April | 15:38

jonmc, we're not just talking about the quality of the goods being bought.

Materialism is "the tendency to treat material possessions and physical comfort as more important or desirable than spiritual values; a way of life based on material interests".

That definition seems to fit people who spend a fortune on clothes from A&F, and not people who spend a fortune on books. The pleasure from owning clothes is entirely material, and the pleasure from reading isn't.

I'm sure there are some book-buyers who are just as materialistic as A&F-shoppers, people who purely own books to be able to boast at dinner parties about their first edition of Ulysses etc. But that's not the norm amongst book-buyers.

posted by matthewr 23 April | 15:44

If you think someone who has a passion for early Led Zep or late Beethoven, and spends money indulging it, is being just as materialistic and consumerist as someone who fritters their money away on expensive clothes, then fair enough, but it's a pretty shallow viewpoint IMHO.

or maybe just an honest one. Both people are spending money on what gives them pleasure. The rest is just arguing over taste, ultimately. I like the music the music I like for purely hedonistic reasons before any others. I'm better than someone who gets a kick out of buying new pants exactly how?

posted by jonmc 23 April | 15:50

At least those girls are getting out of the house. My kid would rather starve than leave his video games.

"the tendency to treat material possessions and physical comfort as more important or desirable than spiritual values; a way of life based on material interests".

If that's the lifestyle they choose, so be it; after all, spiritual values come with their own set of negative issues.

posted by mischief 23 April | 15:51

someone who fritters their money away on expensive clothes

It's the value judgements I don't care for. And they're generally used by people trying to justify what they spend money on vs. what others spend money on. And it generally seems to be directed toward more female-oriented purchases. There's a high standard of beauty that women have to try to keep up with, but they better not spend any money doing it, because that's stupid! Damned if you do and damned if you don't. A girl can never win.

Who can know what goes on in another's mind, when it comes to money? We're all sort of crazy. I can't bring myself to spend a lot of money on nice clothes, but I'll buy an expensive bag to carry my dog around in for when we travel. And I can justify that in my mind. I think we all do similar things with ourselves when it comes to money. ::shrugs::

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 15:52

I'm a compulsive shopper when it comes to egg- or lozenge-shaped objects that fit comfortably into the palm of my hand. If I'm at a store and I pick something up, and it nestles in there just right, I start thinking about how nice it'd be to sit around at home with this thing in my hand, and before I know it, I've gone and bought it.

Bonus points go for metal objects and objects that are hollow. I have a black egg-shaped object that feels and looks like obsidian, but warms to the touch and balances gently in the palm. If you shake it by your ear, you can hear the water splashing around inside. There's no seam. It was made in India, my friend Goyal told me, at a temple where ascetics spend months making just one according to a secret process. I bought it for $40.

I'm also compulsive about books. When I'm near broke, like now, I just tighten my belt and keep my book-buying pace up. I should just go to the library, but I get off on owning books. My mom was a librarian.

TPS, your dog deserves to ride in style and comfort. It's a birthright. Keep doing what you do.

posted by Hugh Janus 23 April | 16:04

I actually had to buy the new bag, because she got too FAT for the old one. Plus she chewed the strap off.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 16:07

Both people are spending money on what gives them pleasure. The rest is just arguing over taste, ultimately.

Well, we're talking about whether reading books or buying clothes are equally worthwhile things to do. I'm not sure that's just an argument about taste. [Yes, buying books involves spending money (like buying clothes), but people generally buy books for the pleasure of reading, not the pleasure of owning the books themselves, which is a big difference from buying clothes.]

If reading books and buying clothes are equally worthwhile, why do we bother making kids read books in school, why not let them run around in the mall all day? Because they're not equally worthwhile, that's why.

posted by matthewr 23 April | 16:19

One can get all the books they want for free from schools and the public library, while free clothes are more difficult to find (especially if one has to dress a certain way for school or work). Maybe that means spending money on books is MORE frivolous then spending money on clothes.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 16:21

"why not let them run around in the mall all day?"

Because schools teach Home Ec instead.

posted by mischief 23 April | 16:36

One can get all the books they want for free from schools and the public library

Not everyone is in school. Have you ever tried to get all your reading matter just from public libraries? If your taste extends beyond the latest bestseller, it's not really a viable option. Clearly there are lots of people who do own lots of books - you seem to be saying that since libraries are free, all book-owners must be buying books purely to show off or something.

And the clothes we're talking about are A&F. No one buys A&F clothes out of necessity.

posted by matthewr 23 April | 16:37

Interlibrary loan, matthewr.

posted by mischief 23 April | 16:38

Well, we're talking about whether reading books or buying clothes are equally worthwhile things to do.

No, I'm talking about whether buying books or buying clothes are equally worthwhile things to do (and I say they are). You keep switching back and forth- reading books and buying books are not the same.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 16:38

Have you ever tried to get all your reading matter just from public libraries? If your taste extends beyond the latest bestseller, it's not really a viable option.

I do get most of my reading from the public library, and I don't read many bestsellers. But I do fine. So, yea, it is a viable option.

Clearly there are lots of people who do own lots of books - you seem to be saying that since libraries are free, all book-owners must be buying books purely to show off or something

Well, you have got me there- I don't understand the point of owning a lot of books. How many book owners really read all the books they own on a regular basis? Don't most buy them, read them once, and then they sit around forever? Seems kinda wasteful to me. At least I wear all my clothes (and constantly weed out the stuff I don't).

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 16:41

Jeez, matthewr, for somebody who values books as much as you seem to, you sure don't seem to think very highly of public libraries.

As an alternative to interlibrary loan, just request that your library buy something. Public libraries are supposed to be responsive to the public and value patron input and whatnot, and most of them actually are/do.

(Also, I can think of a few reasons to own a lot of books. Besides the same reasons that anybody would collect anything (aesthetic appreciation, profit motive, preservation of culture, warm memories, etc.), it's still worthwhile to have books for ready reference, or to loan to one's pals or fellow scholars or whoever, or to treat in ways that one wouldn't treat a library book (as with, say, cookbooks or pornography) ,or to build collections that libraries won't necessarily have available (graphic material used to be a good example of this--now zines are). That's not an exhaustive list, but I hope it's long enough to make the point that there are quite a few reasons that one might have a book collection.)

posted by box 23 April | 16:49

Nah, there's just as much inherent pleasure in owning and wearing a well-constructed, well-fitting piece of clothing as in owning and reading awesome books. Unfortunately, the books are much easier to get--you walk into any bookstore and there will be a huge variety of books to pick through, and Dumas in paperback will still be just as enjoyable as Dumas in hardcover, (though whenever possible, I still like buying hardcovers, and none of the previous applies to those abridged editions that blasphemously leave out all the references to hashish).

With clothes, the quality is much more variable, and they're much more subject to trendiness than literature is. Abercrombie sells crap (pre-trashed crap, even), and nobody but the skinniest can wear their stuff without looking like crap, but people buy it because it's what everyone's buying, and they don't really stop to consider that the clothes are poorly made en masse in a sweatshop and probably won't last more than a few months. Names like Vuitton (actually, Abercrombie too) got their status from being (back in the day) associated with quality workmanship and good (even classic) design - today Vuitton is high-end because people skip right past the "good workmanship" part and go straight to the "name-brand" part. It's like people buying books just because they're on Oprah's book list.

posted by casarkos 23 April | 16:53

You keep switching back and forth- reading books and buying books are not the same.

I mentioned this in a comment above. You buy books to read them (and if you don't, if you buy them just to show off, you're just as bad as these A&F girls). Buy a book purely to enjoy reading it is just about as non-materialistic as you can get. By contrast, you buy A&F clothes purely for materialistic reasons - to enjoy owning them, showing them off, feeling fashionable etc.

I don't understand the point of owning a lot of books. How many book owners really read all the books they own on a regular basis?

That's a different debate. I tend to buy a selection of books from charity booksales, read them, and then donate them back to charity. So at any one time, I don't necessarily own a large number of books. Also, I'm in college, so the university library has anything rare/expensive (of course, as I said above, not everyone has access to a school library). I don't enjoy owning the books, I enjoy reading them.

I don't the debate about 'who needs a lot of books' has got much to do with debate about whether books or clothes are more worthwhile buying.

Jeez, matthewr, for somebody who values books as much as you seem to, you sure don't seem to think very highly of public libraries.

Well, this is just based on my own nearest public library. Anyhoo, the whole library thing is a bit of a diversion. There aren't many people who enjoy reading who choose not to buy any books.

posted by matthewr 23 April | 16:55

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. matthewr, since your mind is totally closed. There's a whole range of reaons people buy anything, including books, but you seem completely focused on your own shopping motives, and how they're superior to the shopping motives of others. Your choice, and a common one, at least on Mefi/Mecha. Black and white thinking bores me, so I think I'm done here.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 23 April | 16:58

Yay, I can add 'closed mind', 'sexist' and 'thinks in black and white' to my list of MeCha insults!

posted by matthewr 23 April | 17:07

Anyhoo, the whole library thing is a bit of a diversion.

I kinda thought the whole book thing was a diversion. This thread has really confused me. Hey, look over there! ------->

posted by mudpuppie 23 April | 17:08

Holy shit, what's over there?

posted by box 23 April | 17:11

As an alternative to interlibrary loan, just request that your library buy something. Public libraries are supposed to be responsive to the public and value patron input and whatnot, and most of them actually are/do.

That's not the case in the UK. In my area, in common with many parts of the country, the library has gone from being open six days a week to three days a week with reduced hours, due to lack of money. The idea that a library user could ask the library to buy a particular book is unthinkable. Well, you could ask, but unless it's the latest Dan Brown or something, there'd be no chance.

I have to agree with matthewr on this. There seems to be a particular spendaholic mindset that makes the act of buying/spending the be all and end all, but it goes farther than that. In my job I have to scrutinize people's bank accounts, and the people in serious debt aren't spending their money at Borders or Waterstones, but at Dolce & Gabbano, Jimmy Choo, Versace, etc.

posted by essexjan 23 April | 17:18

Umm.

posted by rainbaby 23 April | 17:31

... the irresponsibility of the current generation of kids.

That will never change.
True, but what has changed is that parents now encourage their kids to be irresponsible. When I was a kid (there was no such thing as a "tween" then - you were either a kid or a teenager), parents did their best to instil a sense of responsibility in their kids, all the while knowing that they were out doing god knows what when the parents weren't around. The difference is that we grew up having learned the lessons (well, sometimes) from our irresponsible acts and knowing how to treat other people and ourselves with the appropriate respect.

Kids who grow up thinking that obscenely expensive birthday parties, designer clothes and an iPod Nano are a birthright never really grow up, because they never learn how to look after themselves. God help society when these people start having kids. There are some people I know who still have their kids living at home, rent and everything else free and these kids are in their 30s! How on earth is anyone going to manage on their own after going through that? I think this all stems from the "parent as friend" thing - my generation couldn't wait to get out of home and out from under the watchful eye of our parents, but kids of today have no reason to leave home when they live with their best friends who pay all their bills for them.

gah, now you've got me started again.

essexjan, I knew I was lucky with our 7-day-a-week-including-one night-and-free-parking-and-stuff (one that will come to you if you can't get out to one of the branches) library, but a library that is open 3 days a week, is just wrong in so many ways.

posted by dg 23 April | 17:59

dg, the Bank of Mum and Dad is in full swing here too. Part of the problem in the UK is the price of property. In order to buy a flat in this area (and most of the south east of England), a first-time buyer needing a 90% mortgage would have to have a deposit of £30,000 and be earning about £60,000 a year. So for young people working in the City in an office job earning (average for London) £25,000-£30,000, there's no chance of buying somewhere.

There's also what you said too, the parent-friend who continues to pay for everything, even for adult children in full-time employment. The sense of entitlement and lack of personal responsibility this engenders is disturbing in terms of how it will pan out over the next generation or two.

Increasingly through my job I'm seeing people run up huge credit card and personal loan debts, declare themselves bankrupt and, after a year when the bankruptcy's discharged, start all over again with the cards/loans. They have no assets to liquidate for the debts, and if they believe they'll never be able to afford to buy a property, the fact that the bankruptcy record will affect their ability to raise a mortgage isn't an issue.

And yes, I was very, very sad when my local library went from being open 60 hours a week to just 15 hours. It's not open in the evenings any more and only for 4 hours on a Saturday.

posted by essexjan 23 April | 18:52

Well, the price of property does affect the ability of people to get out of home (high property prices translate into high rent and property prices here have more or less doubled over the past 5 years), but the ridiculous expectations of people affect this, too. When I left home, I lived in a shitty flat that I shared with someone and all the people I knew were in pretty much the same situation - today's crop of young'uns expect to leave home and live in a palace with hot and cold running virgins and a wide screen TV in every room. We would never have expected to even think about buying property at that age, if only because we worked at entry-level jobs and were paid shitty wages because we were still learning. School leavers today expect to walk into jobs as managers and a $50k salary the day they leave school. This attitude is the root cause of the huge debts they end up with - they are not capable of living within their means or of accepting the limits of their knowledge and abilities, because their parents never taught them how to.

My eldest daughter's friends were horrified when I refused to pay for the cost of her writing-off a car that she ran into while driving uninsured and she is still paying that off 3 years later (with 4 years to go). A number of those same friends have got into similar situations and, in every case, their parents have bailed them out with no expectations of reimbursement. I just don't understand how otherwise rational people think that this is helping their kids in the long term. Maybe I'm just a hard-nosed arsehole, but I believe that kids need to learn the consequences of their actions. That's part of the job when you're a parent.

posted by dg 23 April | 19:11

that just makes you a bargain shopper, out of neccessity

I am too poor to have opinions. =(

posted by Eideteker 23 April | 21:23

Last night I was thinking about this, and I wonder if the growing "spoiledness" of kids is partially the result of the law of unintended consequences.

Here's my reasoning... More parents are waiting until they're older/more financially stable to have children. As such, when they do have kids, they have more money to spend on their children. In turn, the kids are more spoiled in the long run.

So, the reasonable desire to be able to provide for your children unintentionally leads to your children to be more "spoiled."

posted by drezdn 24 April | 08:52

23 April 2007