The Wall Street Journal reported recently on spending trends: "A non-scientific study of Commerce Department data suggests that in February, U.S. consumers spent an annualized $1.2 trillion on non-essential stuff including pleasure boats, jewelry, booze, gambling and candy." Also in today's news, Women's Wear Daily interviews Sonic Youth's Kim Gordon about selling her artwork online through Exhibition A. More news and links below.
DESIGN NEWS OF THE DAY
• Americans spend $1.2 trillion a year on nonessential goods | Wall Street Journal
• Sonic Youth's Kim Gordon sells her artwork online | Women's Wear Daily
• Vanilla Ice's Former Waterfront Digs Hit the Market | Curbed
• We're All Invited to the Wedding | New York Times
• A Williamsburg home built for Steve of "Blue's Clues" | Architizer
Photo: Flickr member jingdianjiaju used under Creative Commons License 2.0
Before & After: Emily Henderson Transforms a Senior's Studio Space
Monica & Austin's Charming Bungalow
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Ercol Bar Stool
How To Cook Fluffy, Tasty Quinoa
True Greek Recipe: Paximadi Bread Salad with Tomatoes, Feta and Capers
Consumption is what we live for!
who says I don't neeed a pleasure boat? Wait...what the heck is a pleasure boat?
I bet the credit card companies are loving this haha
Candy is essential.
Booze is essential.
It's says that it is a non-scientific study. Why would that be any of their business or anyone else's business for that matter.
Oh wait...if you have disposable income to spend on non-essentials then you have excess money to allocate towards taxes! I hear a sucking sound and rationale for government and more taxes.
Hmmm....is this not what our whole capitalist system consists of?? Is this a surprise to anyone? That aside, I think it is a good idea to step back and examine our lifestyles occasionally. A lot of the "things" that we need in life cannot be bought.
Jewelry is essential, particularly when one has a well curated wardrobe.
This amounts to an avergage of $325 a month per person. Not that outrageous at all - especially if alcohol is included.
I have two issues.
First, why is the Dept of Commerce doing a non-scientific study? What's the point if it isn't scientific?
Second, just because I don't need a swimming pool to live doesn't mean it doesn't add to my satisfaction. Some "needs" contribute to enjoying life rather than just living it.
I would argue that both booze and candy IS necessary.
So, in February [the month that brought us Valentine's Day], there was an excess of sales in jewelry, candy, and alcohol, and "pleasure boats". I'm willing to bet there were jumps in sales of flowers, greeting cards and other pleasure items as well, just like every February.
In June the commerce dept. will release a study stating that Moms are unnecessary and we spent too much money on them.
Thats only averages to about a few thousand per person per year....its not that much money. If you splurge on a designer bag and a fancy patio set, you pretty much hit the average for the year. This doesn't even take into consideration restaurants or entertainment etc. And if we are only considering the wealthiest 10% of the population, I welcome them spending $1.2 trillion dollars. Some of that has to trickle down to the rest of us.
Yet another example of completely assinine and useless government 'research'. Is anyone really surprised? As if government has any business telling anyone else they're spending on non-essentials. Pot, kettle, black. GardenMuse, I, too, hear a rationale for more taxes.
If you're spending on wants rather than needs, it's only a problem if you can't afford them.
If you look at the American budget, there are a whole lot of people who should put away the credit card for that Cartier watch and get a nice, servicable Timex instead.
... why are ppl getting so cranky about this article, which in itself and in tone is pretty couched and inoffensive? Is it really so upsetting that at the end it proposes that a value-added tax already prevalent in other parts of the world might be useful for ___? It does make me wonder if I spend an "excess" of $4000/year. It could be possible, which is a little sad considering what stage I'm at in life. XD Perhaps I will wait a week before stocking up on ice cream again.... >.>
Having lived under the tyranny of the VAT I can tell you it was no joy joy. In fact I found it definitely curtailed spending and that wasn't always a good thing.