Monday, January 19, 2009

Things They Should Study: gender-based material wishlist comparison

Carol Goar has some statistics about men's vs. women's financial habits that lead her to conclude that if the economic stimulus does not address women's concerns, it won't work. On one hand, this reads like one of those articles written with the express intention of focusing on "women's issues", regardless of whether that is the best approach to the subject at hand. On the other hand, it is completely consistent with my reality. My Protect Existing Jobs policy is based on this reality, and protecting existing jobs would totally address every point Ms. Goar raises.

But the big question mark here, which I think might be a productive line of inquiry, is whether there's any difference between what men and women would spend their money on (but aren't spending it on because of financial uncertainty). Are the things they covet within their means (but they feel they shouldn't buy them) or beyond their means (i.e. the money simply isn't there)? Are the things they covet one-time purchases (capital expenditures) or ongoing lifestyle upgrades (operational expenditures)?

I'm thinking along these lines because most of the things I covet are lifestyle upgrades that are technically within my means, but I feel like I shouldn't because then if money becomes tight it will hurt to downgrade. For example, I'd very much like to use Touche Eclat and unless it runs out ridiculously quickly I could totally come up with $30-40 every time I need a new tube of concealer. But I feel like I shouldn't, so I'm making do with discontinued Skinlights purchased on ebay. I'd like to upgrade my hairdressing (I just recently upgraded from no hairdressing to hairdressing, and I like the results and want to go further) and the money is there, but if I lost my job having spent that much on my hair would be inexcusable. I'd love to get my bras at Secrets From Your Sister, but if they're as good as they say they are I won't be able to go back to ill-fitting $12 numbers from La Senza, and then if my bra explodes while I'm unemployed I'm screwed. With the exception of real estate, everything I covet is an operational expenditure that I probably could afford. And, with the exception of real estate, everything I covet is girly stuff.

My non-spending could be fully addressed with job security. If I were certain I was never going to lose my job, I would totally buy all those things. I would be buying $30 make-up and bras with prices in the three-digit range and the best hair stuff money can buy for the rest of my life.

But when I think about the men around me, the stuff they covet is different. They seem to covet more one-time purchases that they aren't purchasing because the money simply isn't there. A big-screen TV with surround sound. A car. A trip. A new computer. Their non-spending could be addressed by putting more money in their pocket. If the money was suddenly there for a big-screen TV, they'd get one. So, following Carol Goar's logic that women are underrepresented on economic decision-making, perhaps this is why some of our politicos seem to be under the impression that a tax cut would be an effective economic stimulus?

Now I have no way of knowing if I'm typical of women or if the men in my life are typical of men. But looking at all of this, I'm thinking perhaps someone should study the coveting habits of different economic groups to try to figure out what it would take to get different people spending.

No comments: