Being Thrifty Stymies Economy
Being Thrifty Stymies Economy?
By Drew Davis; Executive Director; 03-07-09
Available at http://www.wiscnews.com/wde/opinion/441888
Frugal. Thrifty. Prudent. Parsimonious. What do you think of when you hear those words? Good Will. Gently Used. Well Worn. Thrift Store. For some, these are endless outlets for style, fad and fashion. Under today’s economic uncertainty, however, they have become more than that for many; they have become The. Facts. Of. Life.
Whether you’re a regular “patron of the Saint” [Vincent de Paul] or a sporadic Goodwill shopper, being thrifty during a time of economic downturn is a double- edged sword; regardless of how you swing it, someone is going to get hurt. Perhaps, before giving thought to the bigger picture, many of us have chosen to pull that sword from the stone and wield this weapon of frugality. Turning to Goodwill, the Saint, or other outlets for gently used items during our time of tight fiscal management, however, has introduced another confounding variable for our road to recovery: a country-wide reuse it mentality.
It is certainly understandable that, to save every penny possible, we are embracing the already-produced and trending toward the recycled. Demand for donated items is increasing across every socio-economic class, and a trip to Kohl’s, Abercrombie, or even Wal-Mart is being replaced by visits to Goodwill, America’s Thrift Store, and St. Vincent de Paul. This increasing demand, though, is not being matched by a prior pattern of product turn-over and article donation. In the spirit of reusing, people are electing to stretch the lives of their clothing, appliances and furniture a bit longer instead of donating them and purchasing anew. It appears to be a Catch-22; and the people suffering the most are those whose situations were not exactly beacons of hope before this repression.
Our new societal “reduce, reuse, recycle” retail mentality—inverted consumerism as I call it—has translated into a sustained blow for the merchandise and manufacturing sectors of our economy. CNN Money reported that retail sales fell for the sixth straight month in December, the longest consecutive stretch of monthly declines in the last four decades. With malls and supercenters, rarely can people go in and simply buy one thing. You may walk in for a new shirt, sweater or sport coat, but on your way down the aisle you pass a sharp looking scarf, sale on laundry detergent and those “As Seen on TV” products at half the price advertised on the commercial. Suddenly you’ve purchased all three and, while walking out, realize that you forgot to buy that new shirt you went in for to begin with. That’s not just the beauty of consumerism, it’s the backbone. And I know my mother is not the only victim.
The upside to such a scenario is that you’ve just purchased three things that were recently manufactured and now need to be replaced, stimulating demand, production, and jobs. Disconnecting ourselves from this type of retail exposure by electing to shop elsewhere removes us from the consumerism equation altogether—eliminating the possibility of passing by that classy scarf, those discounted DVDs or “As Seen on TV” products.
Am I asserting that people should abandon thrift outlets like Goodwill or St. Vincent de Paul? Of course not. Supporting these venues provides for our communities in other ways. Goodwill Industries returns 84 percent of total revenue back to its communities by underwriting educational seminars, training workshops, and career service programs for those with limited access to such resources. And St. Vincent de Paul provides opportunities for the spiritual to translate their faith into works by offering support in the form of consultation, intervention, or direct dollar donations. What is important is that we recognize the very real impact that each of our consumer decisions has on the greater economy and just how reactive and vulnerable these industries are at the macro level.
Even as our pocketbooks have tightened up these last couple of years, the money we’ve been giving to charities has been setting new records—$300+ billion in 2007. I posit this: A bird in the hand may be worth two in the bush, but if we had put that $300 billion into the economy up front every year, would we now be hunting for an $800 billion nest egg to feed the flock? We may never know. What we do know is that when those chickens come home to roost they’ll find we had to sell the coop to pay for the straw.
Drew Davis is a columnist for Capital Newspapers, headquartered in Madison, WI.
