This is one thing I don't get. Why do some people like to pretend to be anti-consumption while engaged in an economy based on consumption?<p>Let's put it this way, if all the people, no matter what their income, just took their income, spent it on the basics and then saved or invested the remainder, we'd all pretty much end up poorer. No titans of industry (who would buy consumer goods in a if consumption was avoided), few service workers, few skilled jobs, fewer blue collar jobs. Mostly we'd have government employees and people in essential services (farmers, physicians, educators, etc).<p>No work at Starbucks, or Amazon, or Google or Tesla. I mean, who would need to buy anything beside the basics from Amazon, and since commerce would be de-emphasized, no need for advertising (adwords) on google.<p>I guess we could live pretty retro lives, living like we were all Amish or similar, but is that what would be best?<p>Certainly disposable consumerism is arguably bad, but what if we all decided quality was paramount and instead of buying ten cheap things, we bought one expensive but durable thing costing the same as the ten cheap things?<p>Anyway, our economic system, neo-liberal capitalism, (and others as well) depend on consumption, frugal wealthy people would impact the economy negatively.<p>Look, I dislike Hollywood (it's cheap, base, and unimaginative, rarely is there "Art") for various reasons, but, at the same time, I understand that overpaid actors mean that lots of ancillary jobs in Hollywood exist due to their opulent, unfrugal, spednthrift lifestyles.