The new status emblem: it’s not what you spend – it’s how hard you work

The rich used to show how much they could spend on things they didnt require. Today, a public display of productivity is the new emblem of class power

Almost 120 years ago, during the first Gilded Age, sociologist Thorstein Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption. He used it to refer to rich person flaunting their wealth through wasteful spending. Why buy a thousand-dollar suit when a hundred-dollar one serves the same function? The answer, Veblen said, was power. The rich asserted their predominance by showing how much fund they could burn on things they didnt need.

While radical at the time, Veblens observation seems obvious now. In the intervening decades, conspicuous consumption has become profoundly embedded in the texture of American capitalism. Our new Gilded Age is even more Veblenian than the last. Todays captains of industry publicize their social position with private islands and superyachts while the president of the United States encompass nearly everything he owns in gold.

But the acquisition of insanely expensive commodities isnt the only way that modern elites project power. More recently, another form of status display has emerged. In the new Gilded Age, identifying oneself as a member of the ruling class doesnt simply require conspicuous consumption. It necessitates conspicuous production .

If conspicuous consumption involves the adore of luxury, conspicuous production involves the adore of labor. It isnt about how much you spend. Its about how hard you work.

Nowhere is the cult of conspicuous production more visible than among Americas CEOs. Todays top executives are devoted work-worshippers, nearly to the point of perversity. Apple CEO Tim Cook told Timethat he begins his day at 3.45 am. General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told Fortunethat he has worked 100 -hour workweeks for 24 years. Not to be outdo, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer told Bloomberg Newsthat she used to work 130 -hour workweeks. And so on.

It goes without saying that these individuals arent working out of necessity. The vast majority of Americans work because their survival depends on a wage. By contrast, Mayer, Immelt and Cook could retire tomorrow and still live very comfortably for the rest of their lives, with plenty left over to pass on to the next generation their collective net worth is nearly $1.5 bn.

But conspicuous production isnt about fulfilling ones material wants. Its about the public display of productivity as a emblem of class power. In an era of extreme inequality, elites need to demonstrate to themselves and others that they deserve to own orders of magnitude more wealth than everyone else. Cook is approximately 500,000% richer than the average American but he wakes up at 3.45 in the morning. This is the hallmark of conspicuous production: it justifies the existence of an imperial class by showcasing their superhuman levels of industry.

The irony is that grueling workweeks arent exclusively an upper-clas phenomenon. Far from it. Many less fortunate Americans perform similar accomplishments of productivity, although they have fewer incentives and opportunities to advertise it. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute found that Americans employees run significantly more hours than they did a few decades ago especially women, black people and the poor. A black woman in the bottom fifth of earners ran 349 more hours in 2015 than she would have in 1979. The reason is simple: wages have scarcely budged since the 1970 s, which means todays workers have to work harder to make ends meet.

Compare the woman running long hours for minimum wage with the woman running the same hours for $30 m a year. One is trying to avoid starvation and homelessness; the other is broadcasting her power and prestige. The labor of the latter isnt necessary in the normal sense but neither is a ten-thousand-dollar handbag. If conspicuous consumption celebrates gratuitous spending, conspicuous production celebrates gratuitous running. Both convey predominance by making a spectacle of excess.

In the first Gilded Age, excess looked like a woman in pearls alongside a woman in rags. In the second Gilded Age, it looks like a woman who works hundred-hour workweeks but doesnt require the money, alongside a woman who works just as hard but can scarcely keep a roof over her head.

Yet conspicuous production takes many forms. Even people who cant afford to retire tomorrow can still engage in some version of it and enjoy a portion of the elite status that it bestows. Veblens most provocative debate was that the wastefulness of the rich inspired appreciation , not anger. Other class tried to imitate it as best they could: middle-class people couldnt live like a railroad baron, but they could indulge in little luxuries to bid up their social standing. The same regulation applies to conspicuous production. Most Americans will never attain the decadent heights of CEO-style hyperwork, but they can still make a fetish of productivity.

Peak
Peak productivity: technology has allowed us to turn our lives into a dashboard of data that can be monitored and measured. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

One way is to turn your leisure into labor by working on yourself. The more obvious instance is workout, which has acquired a compulsive character among members of the urban professional class. The neighborhoods where theyre likely to live are littered with boutique fitness studios such as SoulCycle and luxury gyms such as Equinox. These are places where the labor of self-improvement and self-purification continue long after the labor required to pay ones bills objectives. And there were alongside a complementary ecosystem of juice bars and organic food stores, where one obtains the proper ga to power the production of the ego.

The stated reason for all this really is health. But the amount of day that many better-off Americans spend exerting far exceeds what is required to be healthy. Thats because the intricate demands of todays fitness and nutritional regimens arent ultimately about wellbeing. Theyre designed to express class power. In the second Gilded Age, you can typically calculate a persons taxation bracket by their physique class is literally engraved on the body. Richer bodies arent merely thinner but precisely muscled in all sorts of ways. They reflect an enormous and, strictly speaking, unnecessary expenditure of effort. They represent work in excess of want, signaling wealth through wastefulness and justifying ones possession of it through the performance of personal virtue.

But you dont have to be a CEO or an affluent professional to partake in conspicuous production. Technology has attained it possible for everyone to see everything as an opportunity for productivity. You can measure your sleep, sexuality and steps with a Fitbit, your attractiveness with Tinder, your wittiness with Twitter, your popularity with Facebook. You can transform your personality into a dashboard of data streams that can be monitored, analyzed and optimized with the precision of an industrial process. You can turn your life into a factory and not just metaphorically. In making yourself, you render economic value for others. The hours you spend on these platforms may be unwaged, but they generate real revenue for the companies that own them.

This is the genius of conspicuous production. It not only promotes a culture of overworking, it constructs our dwindling sum of leisure time economically productive. There is no escape: either were working for the company or were working on ourselves, but were always running. Eight hours for work, eight hours for remainder, eight hours of what we will was the anthem of the workers who first demanded the eight-hour-day more than a century ago.Those distinctions dont make sense any more. Even our sleep is factored into our productivity score the entrepreneur of the ego never gets to clock out.

Today, the old slogan of the labor movement sounds like utopian science fiction. Imagine a society that claimed so little of our labor. Imagine a world where the poor didnt have to work so hard to exist, and the rich didnt have to work so hard to appear worthy of their wealth, because rich and poor didnt exist.

Read more: www.theguardian.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *