We can't "spave" our way to freedom
Post-election social media anxiety misunderstands how you build community
I took a break from posting for obvious reasons. I wanted to collect myself and get my mind back together. Like others, I felt that I was going to be disappointed and went to sleep, hoping to skip the actual announcement and wake up just to the news. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. In the quiet of the early morning, I was awake when the news first broke. So, I deleted social media apps from my phone for a week, hoping that time with my thoughts and my family would help. Now, I’m back online and thinking through the weird ways our retail-obsessed culture is beginning to process over the next four years.
A few days ago, beauty industry chemist Javon Ford encouraged consumers and followers to “stock up on favorite products” in anticipation of the tariffs that Trump announced would be part of his economic plan. According to a BBC news article, many economists believe that these taxes on imported goods will mean prices for goods increasing by 20-60%. Of course, this assumes companies do not absorb these taxes (meaning less profit) and instead raise prices for the goods to compensate. Ford pointed out that these tariffs would hit imported ingredients and materials as well as Korean beauty products. The thought is well-intentioned and part of his brand, helping consumers find quality and affordable ways to consume beauty products. While products are relatively inexpensive (although inflation is still high), you should get products now so that you don’t spend more money later. However, spending money now to save money in the future isn’t always a sound personal finance strategy.
Most personal finance professionals caution consumers to be wary “spaving” (a portmanteau of spend and saving). For some who have trouble regulating spending habits, spending more could cost consumers more if they’re not careful. In a CBS news article about “spaving” and its impact on personal finances, coach Nicole Victoria cautions against impulse buying more than what you can realistically use for the sake of saving. The article also notes that this tactic can also potentially be troublesome for buyers with existing or potential credit card debt. The tactic only works if you have the disposable income to spare and if you’ll realistically use it in a cost-effective time span. Buying more Korean sunscreen now to use for the next four years is only cost-effective if tariffs happen as economists expect, a consumer’s financial status stays the same or improves, and the product’s effectiveness remains the same. Those are a lot of variables to control.
More often, the rhetoric around spending more now to save later pops up between Black Friday and the holiday seasons. Marketing language abounds at these moments, convincing us to spend more than we might want. According to an article by CNBC, American Express found that 86% of adults aged 23-38 spent more than they planned during the holiday season. Marketing rhetoric is one piece of this issue. Gift guides, social ads, and influencer marketing ramp up the impression that you’ll unlock a core memory or really show someone you care by dropping hundreds on an item. I suspect that this holiday season, anxiety over the results of the 2024 election might prompt even more anticipatory spending.
Some posts do remind consumers not to spend on items they don’t actually need or use. And there is rightly placed worry about how tariffs could affect the cost of repairing laptops, cars, and other everyday appliances. And yes, in this case, fixing something now that might be more expensive to fix later could be better financially in the long run. However, the crux of my worry about our consumer culture doesn’t come from these posts. I am talking about elective purchases or luxury retail goods. There’s a narrative pervasive on social media that part of the way we show and exhibit political, social, or cultural values is through spending. Although not explicitly stated, encouraging people to buy from small creators before the tariffs seems a part of this dynamic. There’s an implication that you’re also supporting an identity or community through the next few years by buying merchandise, particularly as he calls these brands “your favorite small business owners.” Yes, it seems benign. Some brands you want to find may be less available. But, Ford himself is a business owner and so doling advice about spending that subliminally points to how it helps his business fosters community, familiarity, and loyalty, which troubles me. Yes, businesses build trust by being transparent about how policies and economic shifts affect their products. However, social media cannot emulate the same kind of community that’s fostered at a farmer’s market or a small town. Brands can only build parasocial relationships versus an IRL business investing in neighborhood Little League teams to give back to their community.
It seems we’re on a track again as a culture where the response to political uncertainty and cultural shifts to focus on spending. From 2020 through now, there have been numerous calls to boycott this or that as part of a larger movement. The logic of these boycotts seems to be withholding the possibility of profit, which should influence change in the desired direction. However, boycotts aren’t as simple as narratives about famous Civil Rights boycotts might suggest and are harder to sustain and manage. A Newsweek article reports that the Starbucks boycott, which has been ongoing in support from December 2023, seems to have also ended with VP Harris’s loss. Consumers might also be realizing that retail decisions might not have as much influence on political realities in this day and age.
In a social media age, these boycotts seem to be about feeling good or virtuous in spending. And the impulse again is understandable. Many can feel there’s a lot that they cannot personally change in the world and want to be able to help in a small way. So not, buying Starbucks and instead buying syrups for home use seems like a workaround. However, this seems to be less about actually doing good and about virtue signaling or performing good. In a The Financial Diet video essay, owner Chelsea Handler argues that we’re in an age where we culturally deal with anxiety with overconsumption. She details how trends like fast fashion hauls, mukbangs, or restocking videos exploit actual needs like community, belonging, and nourishment by encouraging consumers to overspend on food, clothes, or beauty products. In all of these scenarios, we’re trying to solve political, cultural, and social problems with our wallets, and it might not work the way we hope.
I could write a whole post on boycotts and our misunderstanding of them. For now, I’ll say that CEOs are not beholden to public sentiment the way public officials require public buy-in. What makes money and what makes for good or bad policy have been conflated in society, but that doesn’t mean that consumers can affect political change through spending choices the same way that CEOs change policies with their dollars.
And so, as we move into a second Cheeto-in-Chief era, I want to think critically about how to organize for and support one another in this time. Below, I’ll add some resources that, I think, allow us to better understand and find solutions, at least for the New York region.
NYC based resources