This article borders on the tragically comic, though unfortunately, it feels unintentional.

Read the logic carefully for why black families overspend on conspicuous consumption. It's because (say the authors) black low-income families can "technically" afford flashy stuff that other black families would find confer visual status. A white family, by contrast, with similar income, could not afford the toys of another (presumably wealthier) white family because most white families spend on far more expensive toys. This is because the "average" white family is richer than the average black family, but poorness is absolute in the authors' minds. A poor white family has the same income as a poor black family, but ASPIRES to a far higher level of income and is thus dissuaded from even playing the consumption game. Because rich white families, therefore, buy REALLY nice stuff, while rich black families only buy sorta nice stuff, only poor black families are ever tempted into the conspicuous consumption game.

Take that in for a long, long moment. Count the number of problems you have with it. I've got at least four, and have only been pondering for about half an hour.

Some fun highlights (I'll only do 2):

1. Who says race is the determining characteristic of who one compares oneself to? Where are you getting this? Why wouldn't an aspiring black family aspire to EXACTLY the same nice things a white family does? Seems like TV and movies have more influence on what people want than just neighbors. Otherwise, someone PLEASE explain to me the sudden rise in Kristal, Hennessey, BMW,etc. sales to the hip-hop community and its' devotees. The trend towards purchase of super-luxury items by ANYONE'S definition (white or black) by rap stars and those who want to imitate them is well-documented. How does that fit with this thesis? Doubt they saw neighbors consuming these.

2. Even if neighbors were to drive consumption, since when did families ever compare themselves to the "average" for their race? Just because the "average" white family makes ~$20k more than the "average" black family, the authors argue, a poor white family has a far greater income gap to overcome to compete and is thence dissuaded from conspicuous consumption. The problem here is that (apart from the fact that rich is rich and sets the tone pretty broadly -- see above) since when do poor white families and rich white families live in the same "community?" Where is this community, where you have a McMansion across the street from a trailer park? In fact, poorer communities tend to be poorer, period, regardless of skin color. A poor white family in a poor white community would not be comparing itself to the notional "average white" family's consumption basket. They would compare themselves to that of their wealthiest neighbors who are unlikely to be any richer in a white than a black low-income community. So, the relevant geegaws would be just as affordable.

This article is an example of poor logic and poor science put at the service of creating buzz for a controversial cause. It contributes nothing substantive to the debate except perhaps for the empircal confirmation that visible consumption spending as a percentage of total spend tends to be higher among lower-income black communities than white communities of similar income (need to be cautious here of course -- study is unpublished and unreviewed, so even this may end up being nonsense). Interesting, if true, and, on the face of it fully supportive of Cosby's view.

The rest of the piece is a slalom through poorly supported assertions, half-baked analyses, and unwarranted or flat wrong conclusions. Well done. You'll get a ton of readers and contribute nothing to the debate.

Although I see flaws in the article there certain flaws in your rebuttal. People do not compare themselves to the "average", they do compare themselves to people they interact with. From that they get a feel for what is needed to display success.

Another problem with your argument is that TV has a large impact on people and this would be equal for blacks and whites, however, blacks and whites do not watch the same programs. Commercials are usually targeted to the people who watch that program.

Interesting, but I'm not clear what you are trying to say.

1. You say people "compare themselves to people they interact with." True enough, so far as it goes, I suppose - hard to argue with but only because it says very little. It also is exactly what I was pointing out as the flaw in the authors' reasoning -- they argue that families compare themselves to a racial average and I argue that is wrong. What is your point? As I mention above, you have to define the relevant community. The authors argue that the relevant community is defined by the average of a given race. I argue this is incorrect as the "average" is often not present or even visible in a low-income community, be it white or black. So, why would a white family be less tempted to consume conspicuously than a black if income strata within the relevant community are similar?

2. Your second point is more interesting. You point out that black and white communities do not watch the same shows and so what is considered "conspicuous consumption" would therefore not overlap. Possibly true and theoretically interesting. Not sure that it bears out empirically though. The advertisers on prime time do not seem to make that fine a distinction -- you in fact tend to see similar consumer products advertisied in similar time slots regardless of demographic. The messaging might be different -- you might see more of a prominence for actual black or hispanic families in shows that skew to that demographic, but you do not see particularly different products being pushed. Moreover, your point does not address why what I would argue are clearly race-neutral ultra-luxury products -- high-end champagne and very expensive sports cars -- have found such a niche within the hip-hop community when they are: a. so clearly out of the range of affordability of most middle-class, let alone low-income, US families regardless of race; and, b. were clearly NOT the established status symbols of low-income communities (black or otherwise) a decade or so ago and thus could hardly be used as examples of keeping up with the Joneses.

1. It is interesting that you say my statement says very little when your statement basically says the same thing except with different words. First, more blacks would find themselves in lower income communities than whites since more blacks are lower income. The "lower average within those communities" would affect the spending patterns of those who are members of the community if you accept the author premise. The author states this has more of an influence on what people spend on visible consumption than other factors. the author is contending also that whites in higher income communties would spend less on items which show visible status. However, the authors would also have show that people who can't afford those things showing visible status in the lower income groups also spend less on such items.

The flaw in the article if you read the study is the data is aggregated at the state level. How you can draw the conclusion the author draws at a lower level from data a higher level seems somewhat suspect.

2. Are you saying that advertising are so stupid they advertise the same product regardless of who watches the show. Even you yourself acknowledge spending patterns are different among various demographics but yet you would have me believe that advertisers do not adjust for the demographics watching the shows. For example, very few blacks watch "Friends" and "Sienfield". So you are saying companies who had products used primarily by blacks but not whites would advertise the products on this show.

To acknowledge your point their has always been less diversity in advertising in prime time. However, this is because there is an overlap in the shows appeal so only those products which appeal to everyone will be advertised. However, not all advertising is spent in prime time. Only 43% of advertising is spent on TV. This includes "all" TV so the advertising in prime time is much smaller than this. What percentage of time are people only seeing advertising aimed primarily at their own demographic group?

From my perspective your argument overemphasizes the importance of prime time advertising.

<link>

There's a few issues with what you wrote above, but let's focus in to keep things simple. Ignoring point 1 -- which you seem to now acknowledge you agree on -- let's focus on your second point.

There, you write: "Are you saying that advertising are so stupid they advertise the same product regardless of who watches the show."

No. Exactly my point. Aspirations are not in fact as different as stereotypes and quick reactions might imply. The fact that advertising focus does not change is true -- watch the commercials. You might conclude that advertisers are stupid -- harsh and probably unfair, though complexity in the business world is the cause of more than what you might at first assume. More likely, differences in tastes are just not all that pronounced after all.

You again, by the way, ignore the problem of ultra-luxury goods. Not sure why.