Conspicuous Automotive Consumption, Then and Now
10/08/2013
Everybody makes fun of the ostentatious tacky tail-finned cars of the 1950s. And with good reason.
But this is just as bad, though in a different way. It's certainly every bit as ostentatious.
2013 Cadillac Escalade "Truck"
The whole "Sport" "Utility" Vehicle thing has been annoying for a long time, though at this point I suppose everyone has learned to ignore the absurdity of vehicles originally designed for sport and utility becoming the preferred mode of suburban transportation. But luxury SUVs from Cadillac, Mercedes, et.al. take it a bit further. The Escalade is one of the most ostentatious, and the addition of a stubby little truck bed just leaves me shaking my head and wondering why.
Notice the shift in tone of the ads: in the first one it's just "Don't you want to look rich?" In the second, it's "Don't you want to look rich?" plus a bit of "Don't you want to look unconventional?"
I've read that the SUV fashion was partly driven by EPA fuel economy standards, which caused ordinary passenger cars to get smaller, but did not apply to trucks, which the SUVs technically are. If that's true, then the push for fuel economy is responsible for the revival of the gas guzzler. Unintended consequences strike again.
I've always thought SUVs became so popular largely because women like them, since they feel safer in them.
And it can't have hurt that a different executive department, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, highlights how unsafe small, fuel-efficient cars are.
Posted by: Marianne | 10/08/2013 at 02:48 PM
That's definitely a big factor, that women like them, for safety among other reasons. I've heard women say as much. Both sexes tend to like big, comfortable, preferably luxurious, cars. Personally I get a kick out of high gas mileage.
Posted by: Mac | 10/08/2013 at 03:03 PM
Everybody makes fun of the ostentatious tacky tail-finned cars of the 1950s.
I have never heard anyone make fun of tail-finned cars. Is that how you amuse yourselves in South Alabama?
Posted by: Art Deco | 10/08/2013 at 03:43 PM
Really?!? Maybe you're too young. I suppose it's fallen off in recent decades, but it used to be a standard jibe, often mixed with others at the expense of the 1950s.
Posted by: Mac | 10/08/2013 at 03:49 PM
"Unintended consequences strike again."
Indeed. We would have been better off just straight up raising the gas tax.
Posted by: jacobus | 10/08/2013 at 09:28 PM
I drive a mini-van. Here, that's a small car! :o
That truck thing sure is ugly. :P
Posted by: Louise | 10/08/2013 at 09:37 PM
Personally I get a kick out of high gas mileage.
Indeed. I'd quite like a Ford Expedition which is an 8-seater because then we could fit all the family and perhaps have extra space for luggage, but the mileage is so much worse on those things. Plus, I don't really like the idea of driving trucks. A full size van would be very handy, but again -- mileage.
Posted by: Louise | 10/08/2013 at 09:40 PM
I must confess to a temptation to sneaking out at night and spray painting the word "OINK" on Humvees and other obnoxious "cars". But then we have a huge 10 seater Ford van, which gets appalling mileage. We bought it last summer so that all the (then) seven chitlins could go on vacation; the old We Are Family schtick. But the oldest two were total assholes, complaining and tormenting the youngins, and we came home early....We do need to get rid of that behemoth, but we sure didn't get it for status or to look cool.
Posted by: Daniel Nichols | 10/08/2013 at 09:47 PM
Big vans and SUVs are perfectly justifiable for big families. Passenger miles per gallon are probably quite high. But I work in a rather ritzy part of town, and have always found it somewhere between amusing and annoying to see a new Suburban or a Tahoe or any one of those monster SUVs tooling around occupied by a lone woman, or perhaps a woman and one child.
Louise, I guess you're familiar with the term "mommy van"? :-)
What a shame about your vacation, Daniel. Teenagers....
And Hummers--actually I was going to add that to this post as the sort of ultimate in ostentation, but was out of time. To my knowledge I have never personally known anyone who owned one, and if I meet someone who did would definitely start off with a negative impression.
Posted by: Mac | 10/08/2013 at 10:11 PM
There are very few people on Earth who actually need a $75,000.00 car. In most cases it's pure look-at-me b.s.
Posted by: Rob G | 10/09/2013 at 12:13 PM
To my knowledge I have never personally known anyone who owned one,
I had a landlady who did. She was a local merchant and an agreeable sort with whom to do business. A great deal of snow in our part of the world made a market for vehicles like that.
Posted by: Art Deco | 10/09/2013 at 01:11 PM
But then, who are we to judge? :-)
Posted by: Mac | 10/09/2013 at 01:11 PM
I was responding to Rob.
I would think a Hummer over the top even for a snowy clime. There are plenty of 4wd vehicles that would do the job. In any case, there's no such excuse in this part of the country. I think the only Hummer I've ever heard explain himself was a guy interviewed in the local paper when they first appeared on the market. He admitted frankly that he just liked the feeling of being the biggest dog on the road.
Posted by: Mac | 10/09/2013 at 01:16 PM
There are very few people on Earth who actually need a $75,000.00 car. In most cases it's pure look-at-me b.s.
Since you can get a serviceable used car for under $20k, one is not compelled to purchase a household passenger car for even half that.
Some people have a mess of disposable income and some people appreciate the technical and aesthetic aspects of an automobile. My great-grandparents loved their woody wagon, and not because they were histrionic.
Posted by: Art Deco | 10/09/2013 at 01:30 PM
Several years ago I was driving a 90-year-old neighbor to the store, and we were sitting at a stoplight when a Hummer pulled up alongside us. I said something about how ugly it was and how unnecessary, but my elderly neighbor was in love at first sight, and said, man, he'd love one of those, if only he were younger...
There's just something about big cars for some people. A complicated mystery.
Posted by: Marianne | 10/09/2013 at 01:30 PM
I don't really get it. I can sort of see the momentary appeal of taking a huge thing like a Hummer for a drive. I can't really enter into the mindset that would like to own it drive it all the time. Least of all can I imagine being willing to spend many tens of thousands of dollars on it.
I'm not immune to the appeal of beautiful, well-made, high-performing cars (like this one), though I would never actually buy one, even if I could afford it. The appeal is obviously much milder for me than for a lot of people, but I understand it. But the appeal of the Hummer pretty much escapes me. I guess that's why I conjecturally attribute it to something like sheer ego.
Posted by: Mac | 10/09/2013 at 02:38 PM
I can't really enter into the mindset that would like to own it drive it all the time.
Maybe you ought to enter into winter in Central New York for five months.
Posted by: Art Deco | 10/09/2013 at 10:28 PM
I would like an antique car, but first I would have to learn how to fix it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Champion
http://classiccars.com/listings/view/450045/1930-packard-antique-for-sale-in-volo-illinois-60073
Posted by: Art Deco | 10/09/2013 at 10:34 PM
Does a Hummer really provide much of an advantage over ordinary full-size SUVs with 4-wheel-drive? There are people here who actually use their SUVs and pickups off-road for hunting and fishing, but don't think I've ever seen a Hummer that looked like it had been in the woods.
I covet that Studebaker. My father, through the '70s and '80s, bought five or six behemoths dating from the mid-'50s to mid-'60s. He'd see them sitting in somebody's yard out in the country and make an offer. When he died, the family decided to sell them, and I seriously considered buying one. I think there was a Chrysler Imperial among them. But the same consideration stopped me: what's that movie line?...a man's got to know his limitations? You really need to be able to work on cars in a pretty serious way to own an old car. Also I had no place to put it.
Posted by: Mac | 10/09/2013 at 11:10 PM
In my old neighbourhood there was somebody who owned a Hummer. That neighbourhood had no street parking, so it would often be found in the back alley, tucked up against the garage, but still blocking more than half of the width of the alley. Very annoying.
We know a family, with 8 kids, who drive a big 10-passenger van to get around. They amused us with a story about being summoned to city hall to defend the application to license it as a private vehicle (as opposed to a business vehicle). They all trooped in and they got their license right away.
We know another family in which there were 15 kids (!); they drove an actual school bus.
Posted by: Craig | 10/10/2013 at 11:41 AM
Now that the laws in most places (I assume) require that everybody in the car be seat-belted at all times, and children be strapped into car seats, big families have a really hard time. I hate to think what those big vans cost.
Before that, you could just stuff 'em in any old way. I was one of five children and on long trips we used to sleep on the floor, or in the back of a station wagon. I guess the safety improvement is worth it, but I wonder.
Posted by: Mac | 10/10/2013 at 12:37 PM
But the oldest two were total assholes, complaining and tormenting the youngins, and we came home early.
Sorry to hear it, but I identify with that! (Actually, in our case it would be a different pair of children, but I can still relate).
Posted by: Louise | 10/10/2013 at 03:58 PM
Well, I'm quite a bit younger than you, Mac, but I was also stuffed in the back of the station wagon when I was a kid. Apparently when I was a baby my parents just set up a playpen in the back of the van and let me play there!
These days this would probably get you in court with "Children's Aid Services". It would be almost as bad as smoking.
Posted by: Craig | 10/10/2013 at 03:58 PM
Passenger miles per gallon are probably quite high.
Good point! Hadn't thought of it quite like that. :)
But I work in a rather ritzy part of town, and have always found it somewhere between amusing and annoying to see a new Suburban or a Tahoe or any one of those monster SUVs tooling around occupied by a lone woman, or perhaps a woman and one child.
Our very entertaining former PM, Paul Keating, called them Toorak Tractors (Toorak being a fancy part of Melbourne).
Louise, I guess you're familiar with the term "mommy van"?
Yessir! I always know I'm in the right place when I see a great long line of such cars at a park or similar when I go to a home schoolers' event!
Did you see this? (I put it on FB a while back).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ4FWWnqrvU
Posted by: Louise | 10/10/2013 at 04:04 PM
Before that, you could just stuff 'em in any old way. I was one of five children and on long trips we used to sleep on the floor, or in the back of a station wagon. I guess the safety improvement is worth it, but I wonder.
When our fourth child was born we could no longer use a normal car because of these laws. Now even kids up to 7yo are required to sit in child-seats which just means that most families with more than 2 children have to make sure the back seat will accommodate 3 child-seats and have the requisite anchorages etc. Nothing much is geared for big families.
I remember Mum and Dad taking us to the drive-in when we were in primary school and we lay on the station-wagon floor,half-asleep, for the trip home - which admittedly was pretty short.
I do like the modern child-seats for the 0-4 age group because it really is handy being able to tie them down securely! (I mean, for my convenience, above all!)
A friend of mine in his early fifties is one of ten children and I think they somehow just all used to pile in to their large sedan. :o
When I was a baby, I was just plopped into my bassinette which was just plopped onto the back seat.
I cannot forebear to add "Never did me any harm."
Posted by: Louise | 10/10/2013 at 04:19 PM
Apparently when I was a baby my parents just set up a playpen in the back of the van and let me play there!
I like it!
These days this would probably get you in court with "Children's Aid Services". It would be almost as bad as smoking.
Or letting your kids drink soda. Or sugar-free soda.
Posted by: Louise | 10/10/2013 at 04:21 PM
Oh yeah, I should have remembered--even when my children were young (early 1980s) we didn't necessarily strap them in. I remember one of them standing between the front passenger seats in our Volkswagen Rabbit. And when we had an old Volkswagen van, wandering around in the back. I'm not sure when we got real consistent about seat belts. In the late '80s, maybe? And I can't remember whether we used a car seat with our youngest.
The video is hilarious, Louise. I missed it on Facebook.
Posted by: Mac | 10/10/2013 at 05:40 PM
Heh! When we were in the apartments I saw that skit on The Incredible Crew, which the kids loved to watch and I had tears rolling down my cheeks. :)
When I was about 5yo, we had these really nifty harnesses, which somehow attached to the seatbelt and enabled a child to either sit or stand up (we must have been pretty small for that!) They were cool. By the 80's, seatbelts were mandatory throughout the car, in Tasmania IIRC and I think baby capsules came in around then.
Posted by: Louise | 10/10/2013 at 10:23 PM
"baby capsules"--heh
Posted by: Mac | 10/10/2013 at 11:22 PM
Supposedly, Escalades top the list of the vehicles most likely to be repossessed.
Posted by: Peter | 10/12/2013 at 08:09 PM
That's not surprising.
Posted by: Mac | 10/12/2013 at 11:48 PM