Comments on: US consumption datapoint of the day http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: bdbd http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6498 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:34:47 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-6498 Ken beat me to the tube socks bundling issue.

]]>
By: JD http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6486 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:25:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-6486 Just moved. I have never believed in stashing stuff, so moving from a kinda big house to a little apartment loft was an eye-opener. We gave away stuff for weeks before we moved, and then gave away a ton more after we moved. And yet, when all is said and done, we still have a ton of possessions. Hard to say whether we possess them, or they possess us. I still feel a bit haunted by all the baggage. I am learning to go light and tread a bit more softly on the home planet. Too bad it has taken me 60 years to get to this point . . . you harbor a host of other values when raising a family, but when it is time to let go, why stash it in a storage locker only to have to dump/donate it later?

]]>
By: Ken http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6478 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:12:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-6478 The NYT Magazine article doesn’t link to Schor’s original research, leaving me with the burning question: Is the seven-pack of tube socks I bought last week one item, seven items, or fourteen items?

]]>
By: Felix Salmon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6448 Sun, 06 Sep 2009 14:32:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-6448 Aaron, it’s worse than that: outlet malls, like self-storage, are BASED on the sunk cost fallacy.

]]>
By: ab http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6445 Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:35:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-6445 The persistence and pervasiveness of the sunk-cost fallacy has always amazed me. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at all that some industries have found ways to exploit this.

Can anyone think of a (relatively) simple way of explaining sunk costs so that people can recognize (and respond to) them properly? I’ve always liked the example of driving (say) 200 miles for a major clearance sale that turned out to be less than expected (no harm in just driving home). But even when I use that, people will still argue against it (e.g. But you’ve already driven soooo far!), so I’ve got work to do.

]]>
By: Curmudgeon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6424 Sat, 05 Sep 2009 22:13:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-6424 >> I’m sure that the number for men is a lot lower than the number for women . . .

Hmmm. You may be surprised, Felix.

]]>
By: RWB http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6418 Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:11:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-6418 Except for a small number of things, luxury items don’t retain their value, and really only have value insofar as they confer status. So a new $1000 table may signal status and wealth when you entertain guests. The same table, several years old, may no longer work as a signal of your wealth and taste. A more obvious example is in terms of clothing. It doesn’t matter how much you spent on a suit or dress, if it is out of fashion, it is no longer doing its primary job and is pretty worthless (except in practical terms of covering your nakedness).

Sure, from a purely accounting or financial point of view, it is hard to value a luxury item/status symbol. But to say that someone “threw away” $1000 when they bought an expensive table is to deny that status symbols and luxury brands have value–and in almost any human culture, they do. No one is a pure utilitarian.

]]>
By: Lord http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-6417 Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:54:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/09/05/us-consumption-datapoint-of-the-day/#comment-6417 It could still be an investment if the services it provided were worth something like $1000, but it would be hard to believe so. Maybe if it were an antique or collectible.

]]>