Thank you for posting- this is a viewpoint I never considered before. I was told that poor people had no way of affording large investments like houses and instead spent that money on status symbols.
>>Status symbols — silk shells, designer shoes, luxury handbags — become keys to unlock these gates. If I need a job that will save my lower back and move my baby from medicaid to an HMO, how much should I spend signaling to people like my former VP that I will not compromise her status by opening the door to me?
It is about keys to get past the near-invisible micro-gatekeeping
Think of mad libs for the rest of my comment and we might actually reach some form of understanding.
I used to spend <hours> every month getting ready to go work. A half hour before every shift just to make sure that what I was wearing wasn't "too ghetto" in someone's mind before I walked out my front door. Why? So I wouldn't attract unwanted attention. Not from police officers, store clerks, or random Karens intent on trouble. If I could get that time back, oooh boy!
I used to speak overly properly to certain people so that they knew my education wasn't the "poor, public school variety" and therefore wouldn't give me extra grief my asking unanswerable questions or putting blockades in my way "just because". It doesn't mean they didn't, it just means it felt easier to me. Maybe it worked, but probably not. They probably just thought I was showing off...
I worked on giving up swearing for years. I did it solely to appear more like the people I was interacting with on a daily basis. Ultimately, we all make minor, but impactful, changes to ourselves for the sole purpose of improving outcomes. How many times have you adjusted your resume to accommodate changes in hiring policies or procedures?
This is no different;the modus operandi is simply more analogue. Buy a handbag, get an interview. Adjust your brochure, (get a sale or) a job in this case.
Don't you think this is too short an argument to dismiss an as complex topic as this is?
What, aside from this argument (which I'd like to found an study providing evidence of what you wrote, and one providing evidence of exactly the contrary), you think explains _better_ the observations than their arguments?
You need not to use something expensive, only things that you think _looks_ expensive. But, what looks expensive, if not, obviously, the things that are expensive.
They totally do. I know, because I was raised to save money by buying cheaper and could afford more expense. I got feedback about it and side comments about it. (None of that is ugly or dirty, just not expensive.) Being programmer, it does not matter much, but if I wanted to do management or something more human oriented, I would need to buy more expensive to not be outcast.
People who care, do know it. And they make decisions.
The article provides multiple anecdotal examples of where expensive status symbols were a clear factor in someone’s ability or inability to access jobs and opportunities.
Do you have better evidence than this or can you only provide confident but unsubstantiated opinion?
I do. I have a family member who works in the industry and I’ve seen the market research.
No one can tell. You might have a very specific bag that has a recognizable design but you are going far beyond signaling wealth and half the time people assume it’s a knock-off.
Not even close to true. Handbags have a branding and hierarchy that’s more intricate that men’s fashion, and a cheap suit is a strong filter in law and banking.
Doesn’t have to be fair, but playing the game is important in many fields.
