Top SciTech Gifts 2002

Steve0987 writes "Scientific American has a list of suggested Christmas presents for the those technical people on your shopping list. There are a couple I might add to my letter to Santa." Um, I'd also like to add some wireless speakers, but the the coal from the Titanic seems a bit macabre.

Comments

Check your assumptions.

[Christopher Thomas]

Advertising works because it makes a hole that you now need to fill with the product in question. It tells you that you stink, you're stupid, you're abs aren't trim enough, that you aren't dating someone cute enough, that you'd be OH SO MUCH HAPPIER if you could just get that new Lexus,
[...]
For you to argue that runaway consumerism doesn't exist is to argue that advertising does not work

By and large, it doesn't. When was the last time you paid attention to commercials, online or in conventional media? Do *you* have a burning need to buy that Lexus or palm-pilot or to drink Pepsi because the artist-du-jour told you to?

Advertising influences _what_ people buy quite strongly (by building brand awareness), but not so much how much they spend on buying things. It represents corporations slugging it out with each other to make sure that the money that will be spent, will be spent on them.

A high-tier executive may spend most of their money on frivolous items. The rest of us spend most of it on things that are necessities (rent/mortgage, food) or things that do substantially increase our quality of life (getting a car instead of using public transit, eating a fancy meal, going to a movie).

Your argument that we'd be much happier making half as much money and kicking our "addiction" assumes that most of our money is spent on things that do not contribute to our happiness. This does not appear to be the case for most people.

Thus, your arguments do not seem to apply.

Re:Check your assumptions.

[limekiller4]

Christopher writes:
"Advertising influences _what_ people buy quite strongly (by building brand awareness), but not so much how much they spend on buying things. It represents corporations slugging it out with each other to make sure that the money that will be spent, will be spent on them."

With all due respect, bullshit. There is no other word for it.

While I'm not going to suggest that I, alone, constitute a control group, I can personally attest that since giving up TV in 1996 and radio in 1997 -- and I lived in Boston so no car, thus no billboards -- I now go into stores like Target (generally when someone I'm with goes) and it's, "nope, don't need that, nope, don't need that... All I see when I go, though, is people walking around, aimlessly, picking things up and sticking it in their cart. I used to be more or less just like them. The difference is beyond palpable.

Doesn't affect us? Have you positively lost your mind? Do you truly believe that the abdominizer ads didn't convince a few million people they needed one in the first place? Clearly, the further toward 'utterly frivolous and useless' you get, the less likely a person is to buy it, but there is a huge grey area.

Car rims are a great example. Does anyone really need those new rims? Presumably you don't consider them "necessary," so you must be arguing that they provide a "quality of life" upgrade that warrants the 80 hours you spent working to acquire them? Or are you going to argue that nobody actually buys rims?

Christopher continues:
"The rest of us spend most of it on things that are necessities (rent/mortgage, food) or things that do substantially increase our quality of life (getting a car instead of using public transit, eating a fancy meal, going to a movie)."

And as for the control group, I'm curious; which category does 21B (that's nine zeros) in credit card debt fit into? The "neccessary" or the "increase in quality of life?"

I normally don't take this hardline of a stance but then I rarely see an argument as silly as yours. People regularly drive themselves into massive debt to fulfull this commercial-subsidized vision of what we are supposed to be. Your position is not only ignorant but insulting.

Also, while you might be a nice guy, you're a full-on idiot when it comes to how advertising works, and demonstrably so.

Re:Check your assumptions.

[Christopher Thomas]

While I'm not going to suggest that I, alone, constitute a control group, I can personally attest that since giving up TV in 1996 and radio in 1997 -- and I lived in Boston so no car, thus no billboards -- I now go into stores like Target (generally when someone I'm with goes) and it's, "nope, don't need that, nope, don't need that... All I see when I go, though, is people walking around, aimlessly, picking things up and sticking it in their cart. I used to be more or less just like them. The difference is beyond palpable.

My impulse spending has dropped too, and TV had little to do with it. It's called "growing up and learning to manage your money", and most of us do go through it as we age.

Car rims and the Abdominizer nicely illustrate that not _all_ people develop this level of self-control. However, even people without the self-discipline to not buy shiny things are limited by the fact that things like rent come _first_. Their disposable income is only what's left over after housing and food are taken care of, and that's not a lot (regardless of income level, usually; people tend to respond to a prolonged surplus by moving into a nicer place).

And as for the control group, I'm curious; which category does 21B (that's nine zeros) in credit card debt [news.com.au] fit into? The "neccessary" or the "increase in quality of life?"

It represents people paying for the privilege of buying things a month earlier than they otherwise would be able to. Whether that's a calculated expenditure or bad planning depends on the person.

Again, you fail to demonstrate that most income is spent on frivolities. And without that point, your argument just doesn't hold. Calling me names won't go further towards supporting your argument.