Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Crosscut Blog »

May 18, 2008 11:56 PM | last updated May 19, 2008 12:03 AM
Advertisement
Advertisement

Rich Jerk Watch

By Knute Berger

I was scanning the pages of the May issue of Seattle Business Monthly, a sister publication of Seattle magazine, where I write a column and serve as editor-at-large. I had time to kill in a waiting room and was looking to see what excites the local CEOs.

Any regular reader knows I am fascinated by the creepy ways Seattle's nouveau riche spend their money, so the first thing that caught me eye was an item about "suites" at Swedish Medical Center. Busy executives can rent executive suites that are set up like fancy apartments, with "gracious entry, a living room, a place for dining" and an exam room. They are fitted with "plasma screen TVs, spa-like bathrooms and fresh flowers" to make business professionals feel at home, like maybe they're at the Westin. The purpose: a full physical exam in fancy surroundings. The cost is $4,500 — which is about a year's worth of medical insurance premiums for an individual Group Health member. Group Health has yet to install plasma TVs, however.

According to the mag, it's so popular that Swedish has added a suite (there are now three) to lessen a six-month backlog in reservations from macho-moneymakers who are apparently too sissy for an old fashioned white exam room. Perhaps the sound of a snapping rubber glove just sounds less scary with plush carpet.

Then I stumbled on a piece with a word I hadn't heard (though I'm sure Crosscut readers are way ahead of me on this). It was in a story about a Seattle company called Bag Borrow or Steal that rents high-end fashion accessories online, mostly to women who want to try out the latest Sex in the City-style shoes or purses. Here's the explanation:

Because fashion trends come and go so quickly, women want to have over-the-top luxury accessories for special occasions without suffering buyer’s remorse or over-cluttered closets, [chief marketing officer Jodi] Watson says. Once customers have finished with their fashion statements, they can exchange them for the next things on their lists for a monthly fee, à la Netflix.

Women also use the company as a way to try the items out before sinking a few grand on the newest Gucci. The “steal” option in the company’s title allows customers to purchase any accessories, sometimes at discounted rates, depending on the make and condition of the item.

So it's a business that doesn't promote consumption, but in a way restrains it: instead of buying wardrobes with quick expire dates, you rent and return them. Sort of high-end fashion recycling.

So who rents this stuff? "Transumers." No, these aren't spendy trans-sexuals or transvestites, they're "people who want to experience luxury without the hassle of ownership."

I well know the hassle of owning a pair of socks that I have to pick up and wash instead of returning them by FedEx to the sweatshop in Burma where they were made.

Looking a little further, I found this definition of transumers:

Transumers are consumers driven by experiences instead of the 'fixed', by entertainment, by discovery, by fighting boredom, who increasingly live a transient lifestyle, freeing themselves from the hassles of permanent ownership and possessions. The fixed is replaced by an obsession with the here and now, an ever-shorter satisfaction span, and a lust to collect as many experiences and stories as possible. Hey, the past is, well, over, and the future is uncertain, so all that remains is the present, living for the 'now'.

We used to call these people shallow, jet-setting twits, but they seem to share a lot in common with the kind of amenity hungry global "creative class" newbies Seattle plans to have inhabit its downtown luxury towers. Better make those buildings returnable.

Comments
dizzying moral calculus
Report a violationPosted by: Sean on May 19, 2008 7:54 AM
Knute, I'm struggling to find consistency in your views of government and the rich.

This and other articles you've written say that rich people, especially those who dare to live in Seattle, are bad bad bad. However, just a few articles back we learned that rich people who come home from Whole Foods with liters of expensive bottled water packed in in tripled-up paper grocery bags are good good good.

As for the nanny government, it's bad bad bad unless of course it is trying to curb development of high end condominiums for rich people, which make's it good good good.

Say Greg Nickels issued a press release scolding people for renting instead of buying their Prada shoes. Who's the bad guy in that scenario, the rich people or the nanny government?
RE: dizzying moral calculus
Report a violationPosted by: knute.berger@crosscut.com on May 19, 2008 3:53 PM
Crosscut WriterSean: There's a difference between opinion and the force of public policy. Greg Nickels wants to punish people for bagging their groceries "incorrectly" and wants Seattleites to drink less bottled water. I think, as a matter of policy, he should stop micromanaging the consumer behavior of regular people, especially when he's promoting larger policies (development for example) that have a far greater negative impact on the city's sustainability efforts than plastic bottle wielding miscreants. Developers get incentives, shoppers get a bag tax. I don't like it.

I don't think rich people are bad bad bad. Some of my best friends and most faithful readers are rich! I do think, however, that Seattle used to benefit from a general ethic among the affluent the conspicuous consumption was to be avoided, in part because consumption promoted class divisions and modeled bad behavior. I also like Ben Franklin's idea of putting a cap on wealth. I like Bill and Melinda Gates' dedication to giving so much away.

I loved (and miss) the egalitarian city Seattle once tried to become. It wasn't perfect, but the city of bungalows was about spreading benefits and basics widely, not money money money and monster houses. That is personal taste and stems from the way I was "brung" up.

The people of Seattle are very lucky to be free of the tyranny of my opinions ever becoming law. The same cannot be said for the government nannies who occupy City Hall, the county courthouse, and various other legislative offices.
RE: dizzying moral calculus
Report a violationPosted by: Sean on May 19, 2008 8:21 PM
The city has changed dramatically, even since '92 when I arrived. It was a city with plenty of space for kids like me - long of hair and short of cash. It was the Seattle I fell in love with. I miss it and always will.

But it's gone now, and no one can bring it back.

Now, as for buildings and bags, the city would offer monetary incentives for pro-social behavior. Call it a tax or an incentive, it amounts to the same thing. You end up with more money in your pocket if you do the right thing than if you don't. So, why is it ok to regulate one set of private citizens, developers, while at the same time claiming everyone else is off limits?

I suspect it comes down to the fact that building regulations don't cost you anything personally, but a grocery bag tax would. This kind of argument is not especially persuasive (though it may generate grunts of approval from the peanut galler). Moreover, if no one is willing to concede anything to the common good, we all suffer for our foolishness.

As for the old "the big mean politicians make the law, I'm just a cuddly little journalist with no power at all" argument, there should be a law against trotting that one out in print. You do have a pulpit and from it comes the power to shape public opinion and law. In many respects, jounalists have more influence than politicians. That's why free press is the first thing to go in a dictatorship.

By the way, Nickels didn't propose a tax on bottled water, he merely pointed out the benefits of drinking from the tap. Seems like a reasonable use of his pulpit to me.
Rich Jerk Watch
Report a violationPosted by: robhen1 on May 23, 2008 1:37 PM
Your Blog, your opinion. BUT is it really that you're either jealous or, if considered rich, feeling guilty? If you have it to spend and it isn't immoral, indecent or against GOD, why bother writing about it?

There once was a time that cars, color tv's, boats, even a good pair of shoes were only affordable by the rich. Now what? Believe me, just because some one has more than you does not make them, or you, any less (or more) of a person.

Doctors used to make house calls and any doctor that did not have at least one wealthy client resigned himself and his family to poverty. Why? Because the poor could not afford to pay him/her!

The hospitals must (by government demand) accept and treat any emergency patient whether they can pay or not. Some don't even try, which makes things far more expensive for those who do because the hospital tries to make up the difference by charging the payers more. So now they have a plan to make money by tapping a market that will pay extremely more and you find fault with the clientele???
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement