Financial Crisis
A Sign of the Decline of Conspicuous Consumption: Lawyer Uses Coupons
Posted Mar 10, 2009 8:42 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Conspicuous consumption appears to be on the decline, at least in Atlanta where social butterflies are wearing older dresses and even lawyers are trying to save money.
A story in the New York Times concludes the recession is affecting not only the stock market but also “the very ethos of conspicuous consumption.” The story says even those with a regular income are trying to save money by holding on to older cars and clothes and downscaling their vacations.
One sign of the times, according to the story, is the frugality of Atlanta corporate lawyer Jennifer Riley, who has begun patronizing restaurants that take coupons. Riley says big spending appears to be déclassé—at least in the short term. “I do think that maybe now it’s a little bit chic or something to save money, or to be pinching pennies,” she told the newspaper. In the long-term, she thinks Americans will return to their money-spending ways, the same way they began buying more gasoline when the prices went down.
Atlanta lawyer Monica Dioda Hagedorn, who is married to an heir of the Scotts Miracle-Gro fortune, sees another reason to refrain from big purchases. “It’s disrespectful to the people who don’t have much to flaunt your wealth,” she told the Times.
Some believe saving money is a moral plus for individuals, even though it may be hurting the economy as a whole. University of Georgia law professor Carol Morgan views the new fiscal prudence “as the right thing, as the moral thing to do.”
“Before, extravagance and opulence was the aspiration, and if we can replace that with a desire to live more simply—replace that with time with family, or time for spirituality—what a positive outcome to a very negative situation,” she told the Times.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Mar 10, 2009 8:55 AM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
tim
Mar 10, 2009 10:01 AM CST
I go to the dollar menu at fast food for lunch. I am saving as much as a I can in case the Obama depression continues to expand.
Flag this comment
in response to tim
Mar 10, 2009 10:48 AM CST
The “Obama depression” started long before January’s inauguration my poor misinformed friend. Both parties were at fault for this one. So please, please give it up with your whiney (wrong) political jabs…
Flag this comment
tim
Mar 10, 2009 11:41 AM CST
It doesn’t matter when it started. It is now the Obama Depression and everything Obama does will either help or prolong the depression.
Flag this comment
Joseph
Mar 10, 2009 11:58 AM CST
Obama isn’t at fault, but the blame does go about 95% percent to the Democrats. This crisis was caused by banks loaning money to people who couldn’t afford their mortgages. Banks wouldn’t have made these risky loans but for the Community Reinvestment Act brought about by people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (both as corrupt as can be). The bill was signed into law by President Clinton. The Democrats than started a culture of calling anyone who disagreed with the act racist.
Yes, we can find villians on Wall Street and at the heads of fortune 500 companies as well as the brokers who made these loans, but at the end of the day…
(1) big CEO bonuses are a drop in the bucket. Who cares if CEO X takes home 20 million, we’re dealing with trillions of dollars, it’s a meaningless scapecoat for Democrats however galling to the rest of us.
(2) Bush was a dolt who used our surplus to fund an ill advised war. Shame on him. That still doesn’t mean that he’s responsible for the current economic downturn.
(3) Brokers… should they have made loans without checking income. No. Should they have done a better job of disclosing the terms of 100% loans, interest only financing and the rest of the junk that Barney Frank and Fanny Mae came up with… Without a doubt. Were they under constant pressure by the federal government ot make these loans and under the mistaken impression that the government was backing these loans… YOU BET THEY WERE.
Obama didn’t cause anything. His policies will probably make things worse in the long term, but we’ll see about that. We’d all be better served if the populations of certain states (sorry mine isn’t included) would actually step up to the plate and vote the aformentioned fiends out of Congress.
Flag this comment
associate
Mar 10, 2009 1:53 PM CST
Joseph, everything you say is true, but you can’t let the R’s off the hook when they presided over a good portion of the inflating of the balloon without calling sufficient attention to the developing problem. They held hearings on it in 2005, but they should have been shouting from the rooftops and street corners.
8500 was inevitable when the balloon popped. 4 trillion plus in new spending/debt on the federal govn’t, making banks political hacks, taking over companies (auto companies first), mortgage cramdown, these sure aren’t going to HELP anything. Let the foreclosures come, let the banks and car companies go down. I guess we’re getting to the end of the denial phase and moving to the bargaining phase. We could all sure be a lot richer if we’d just move on to acceptance and quit trying to prolong the pain by throwing good money after bad. I invest in good companies, I fail to understand why the govn’t makes me invest in unprofitable companies.
We’re also in serious need of some anti-incest rules for corporate boards. I’m on your board, you’re on mine, we’re on Joe’s, and he’s on our’s. No wonder the shareholders can get any returns, we’re giving them to each other. Also, no stock options should vest for AT LEAST 5 years. That way, you have to plan for the future of the company and no amount of cooking the books will keep the value up that long before the whole thing comes tumbling down.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 10, 2009 5:31 PM CST
Many thanks to the moderator for removing the comment posted by the fake “B. McLeod” at # 1. I seem to have a little shadow today. Although I certainly sympathize with the poster positing posts as an imposter, who obviously wishes he or she could actually BE B. McLeod, in fact and in truth, there can be only one.
Flag this comment
peter
Mar 12, 2009 6:49 AM CST
Why did Obama sign the pork bill. He lied to us and said no more pork projects. Yet Obama and the members of the Obama Circle of Corruption didnt have the cahunas to tell Pelosi and Ried no more prok projects.
Obama is turning out to be a rookie puppet.
And I agree - they need to limit what Boards director’s can be on. It is just a club where you give your friends more and more money.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.