Possessions as Social Capital

[rodeosweetheart]

Another group of non-drivers consists of people with intractable seizure disorders. Also the phobic.

You are quite right, of course!
I was just talking about the perception where I live. Now where my son lives, Portland, Oregon, that perception is not the same. He commutes to work via bike, as do many.

So I was not trying to say if you see someone on a bike, they have a substance abuse issue, not at all. Just saying what the perception is where I live.
Sorry to be unclear!

[ToomuchStuff]

Why do they do it, well, you have to ask them. We make judgments both conscious and unconsciously all the time, for several reasons. (from social to survival)
There are many reasons I am aware of that people do this:
Want (either social acceptance thing, or desire to own one that could be influenced by outside force, or inside force)
Lack of knowledge (for example comes from a poor family, that when they got back taxes, would "splurge it" on some toy then be back to paycheck to paycheck).
Lack of self control (this normally IMHE goes along with, rather then being the only reason. If the only reason, then typically called addiction).
Showoffedness (I realize not a word, but what word has been coined in some discussions I have had. Dealt with those that believe live for today because of various reasons to those that have a car payment, and instead of having money in the bank, they spent that money on new rims, drove like an idiot causing engine issues, then didn't have money to fix the engine, lost job, couldn't make the car payment, and wondered why they didn't get to keep the rims when the car was repossessed).

The effect of it is worse on those with lower incomes, but I don't doubt it affects higher income people. The big question being how much of what I am aware of, is actual and how much of it, is actually a commercial (think about Oprah and Martha Stewarts, good things, for example). The line will blur there, where the "sex in the city" example is clearly commercial, because those people don't exist/can't also influence the decisions.

For the other examples, if one were to apply for a network admin job, with a flip phone, I would be asking (as the interviewer) about their other phone, that they could tether to and remotely access the network, in case of emergency.
While I know a few people that have ridden bicycles due to loss of license, I have seen more of them on 49cc scooters and riding lawn mowers/tractors. Bicycles are good exercise, but if you live in an area where your going 10 miles one way, to have to go back and 10 miles the other then, they are not as friendly an option. They also wouldn't work for someone like me, whose job entails shopping/ordering/picking up supplies and such. (brought back 1500lbs of supplies in one trip two weeks ago, in a 100 mile trip)

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well there's doing what you need to to look ok to an employer (though I don't know that I've ever had any phone on me in an interview - I was unaware I should be flashing the smart phone in the interview. Wouldn't having your phone ring in an interview be considered rude by itself?). But beyond doing what one needs to to get a job for the income, why should one worry about what anyone else thinks of one? Yes one has to appear a certain way for a job, but outside of the job, why care?

Even the not wearing shoes, maybe in some jobs they fire you for it, but I've only ever been told to put on shoes. I don't have the clout to fight them on it, and why would I? I mean really I'm going to die on that hill.

I don't know if DUI would be assumed if you biked to work around here (because really if you had a DUI I think they would figure you at least took public transit), but eccentricity certainly would be, because almost noone does it, mostly because who lives close enough to work to bike to work, you know? And biking is pretty dangerous, cars will run you over, dedicated bike lanes are few etc.. Public transit is a more used option I'm sure and some of my coworkers use it (we're all coming from different places of course and sometimes it's more or less convenient). Still most people do use cars.

[rodeosweetheart]

One of the challenges of getting to the point where we can scale down our use of resources is that we (the lucky, "rich" ones) have Been There Done That with consumerism, and we can wipe the cake off our faces and say, "nah, now I want stop consuming for the benefit of the planet."

I guess I see it rather differently. I live in a very cold climate. It is tough to figure out how to pay the propane tank. I can pay the propane bill now, when I am working. If I elect to stop working, or I get fired, or I get sick again and can't work, then I may have to rethink where I live. So I don't see it that I am in the Marie Antoinette category. And it is incredibly wasteful, really, for 2 people to live in this 1100 square foot house--we could easily get more people in this house, enjoying the warmth of the propane, so if I am going to do what you are saying, then i am going to need to invite a couple more people to live here, which I am probably not going to do unless they are related to me, in which they are welcome to come.

I just think if you have the choices, you are very well off, but rich--well, if I lose the job and can't heat the house, as many do around here, then they lose the house, then they lose the car--I just don't seem much security in our current society, and a lot of confusion about what is rich, what is poor. I had to pawn my wedding ring to buy food for my kids. Does that make me poor? I have an IRA. Does that make me rich?

My mother said at her dad's funeral many, many people came up to her and said that her dad kept them going through the depression. That he let them live in rental properties and didn't collect rent for years. That he gave them credit at his little grocery store. He lost most of his business in the depression.

IMHO, if one owes creditors one is poor, but if one has the opportunity to make money, the income making ability, the health to make it with, one is rich. I don't buy the categorization of poor and rich that you are using, with the rich "scaling down their use of resources" to help the poor--I don't see the connection, really, and don't accept the categories; they just don't make sense to me anymore.

Well, I guess if you are really, really rich, and can support yourself and your family ad infinitum--just thinking about the definitions here.

[dmc]

Is this true for women with pierced ears?

That of coarse is fine. But within reason, no big holes you can stick your finger through or your entire ear riddled with earings. I don't care what anyone wants to do, but you are representing the company. I was hiring engineers, starting pay was 60k fresh out of school, with a vehicle back in 2006. That was good money for a 22yr old and we had plenty of applicants.

If you want to express yourself you can maybe get a job at the music store or pot shop. Just a fact of life in the mid-west. It may very well be different where you are at.

[SteveinMN]

Paul, thank you for creating this thread; it's an excellent question and I'm very pleased to see the participation!

I think catherine made an excellent point:

So when you walk into an interviewing situation, you are presenting your brand.

For people who are just getting to know you, and for better or for worse, that brand depends heavily on appearance. We all want to see signs of success in those we hire: we're likely to be less confident about the lawyer who shows up in an ill-fitting suit and has poor diction or in the mechanic whose tow truck wheezes and bangs when he arrives to pick up your car.

But the possessions are situational, if you will. In IT that current smartphone is important, partially for what it can do and partially because it's a symbol that you stay current with technology and are willing to spend your own money on it. To address a couple of ANM's points specifically, if I wanted to provide my interviewer with some detail (s)he wanted to know, I have no problem consulting the phone (my contacts and notes) quickly for that detail so we could conclude that part of the conversation and move on. The phone can serve as a status symbol, but I'd say its absence speaks more loudly than its presence. And I disagree about getting into that debt/have-to-work cycle for a smartphone given the salaries these jobs pay. It's just as easy to get into that debt/have-to-work cycle for much more expensive things co-workers never see (like vacation homes, a woodshop full of power tools in the garage, an ATV or motorcycle, ...).

For my friend who makes her living painting fine art, a smartphone might serve as an indicator of success ("I sell enough art to afford to buy and feed a smartphone") but no one would think less of her artistic ability if she did not have one. I would argue that 20-somethings find smartphones more of a must-have than his/her parents and grandparents because it meets their communication styles; yet 20-somethings have not bought into the idea -- as their parents and grandparents have -- that owning a new car is worth paying several hundred dollars a month for several years. Those possessions as social capital differ generationally.

To tie this into yet another current conversation on this board, I think possessions as social capital are tied into the notion of "clarity of purpose and intensity of life." Clearly, Steve Jobs, with his everpresent black turtleneck and khakis, did not use possessions as social capital personally despite being able to afford whatever he wanted to wear or drive. In fact, there's kind of an irony that Apple has made so much money on the perception that Apple products are "what all the cool kids buy". (I do differ on that point to a degree.)

I doubt that anyone here could name what Lady Gaga drives or how big her TV at home is or even if she owns either item. And I believe people would not think as long about Lady Gaga being TV-less as they would the person in the cubicle next to theirs. Maybe it's because the person in the next cubicle is so similar to us that we expect the same kinds of possessions.

I suspect we are, indeed, more willing to excuse absence of possessions by people who choose to do without them than people who cannot seem to afford them. In the article Paul and I linked, if the woman being interviewed had a reputation as a star in her field, having been referred by former coworkers, maybe her choice of undergarments would not have hurt her chances for the job.

Looking forward to more responses...

[catherine]

I suspect we are, indeed, more willing to excuse absence of possessions by people who choose to do without them than people who cannot seem to afford them.

This just popped up on my FB feed: http://sftimes.co/?id=127

So what are the judgments that go through your head when you read about him vs. the two other photos that follow:



vs. him:


vs. her:

[rodeosweetheart]

Here are the honest thoughts that went through my head looking at the photos.
No judgments, just thoughts, as I thought them. So maybe perceptions ?
Oh I hope that old man must love birds
I hope he has enough to eat and a place to sleep
What a beautiful bedspread on his bed
My, he collects money for orphans--that is a beautiful thing
The young people are hope of country;s future--how wonderful that the old can help the young
What are these other pictures of?
They seem different--are they other people in the town who are homeless
I hope I do not end up like that middleaged lady who looks about my age and is holding the sign about jobs

So I guess the only judgment was that the people looked like life was very hard, and I hope they have enough to eat, and then I hope I do not follow the same trajectory of the lady with the sign

Were the last two supposed to homeless women in America?
What judgment were we supposed to be making or not making?
Why judgment?

[redfox]

Yes, the photos of indigent people trying to survive as a comparison is jarring. Being homeless and poor is horrifying. We as a nation should be ashamed.

[catherine]

What judgment were we supposed to be making or not making?
Why judgment?

Thank you for posting your observations!

I just asked you to observe your thoughts and judgments because the OPs original question is, to what extent do we use, or are our possessions used by others, to gain or deny us entrance into our tribes or social circles? I think it's a great question. And Steve followed up with how choice with regard to our possessions or lack of them plays into how others perceive us.

So the reason I posted those specific pictures is because it looks like all of those people have no money, either by choice (as in the first case) or circumstance (as in the second two cases. Furthermore, the second two pictures MIGHT represent different things to different people We have undoubtedly created stories about all of these people in our heads after looking at the pictures without having spoken to them or met them. And we might decide on the basis of those stories whether or not we would like them to be part of our social circle. Are we comfortable "hanging out" with any of them? If I had posted pictures of Jordan Belfort (the real Wolf of Wall Street), and Kim Kardasian, and Martha Stewart, who, if any of them, would you feel comfortable hanging out with? And to what extent do their possessions dictate that? You might really think Belfort is cook because he expensive cars and watches, or you might think Martha Stewart is cool because she has an awesome kitchen, or you might think none of them are enough like you to gain them entrance into your social circle. o it's not a question of haves or have nots at all. Your "tribe" is who you identify with and want to hang out with.

We brand ourselves, like it or not, and so our possessions and even our lack of them to some extent are our social capital. Many of us would love to associate ourselves with Mother Teresa, but would we love to associate with some of the lepers she housed?

I have a friend who is homeless and he and eight other men live in tents down by a river nearby. They have their own social capital, part of which may be their possessions. If I set up a tent next to them the possessions I brought into the tent may or may not buy me into their circle.

I'm just asking questions provoked by Paul's OP, that's all.