Truck and Barter: Monthly Bill Fatigue

October 10, 2004

Monthly Bill Fatigue

By Kevin

Christopher Stern of the WaPo lets people complain about both unnecessary and necessary luxuries. Monthly bills take up too much discretionary income! They are separating the haves from the have nots! Many people are spending too much money on cable TV, cell phones, and other services billed monthly! The rest can't afford them!:

Economists and academics are beginning to grow concerned about Americans' willingness to cede a regular chunk of their monthly paychecks to new conveniences and services, saying it is taking a serious bite out of discretionary spending, a key driver of the nation's economy. They also worry that new services are contributing to a growing divide between consumers who have the means to secure special treatment, such as access to free-rolling highway lanes, while others are stuck in bumper-to-bumper standstills.

Excuse me, but consumers have discretion with their discretionary income; why should choosing "new" services be a worse choice for those dollars than any other? Should the "haves" choose goods and services that they think make them worse off? Should they be forced to save those dollars, or be required to spend them on Gucci handbags, or should they be redistributively taxed so that the poor, too, can get HBO? These are the fundamental questions, and no real answers are given to them.

Overall, I'm not worried about individuals' discretionary spending (althought government discretionary spending is another matter); in fact, I'm freaking overjoyed that for $150 a month, or $3 a day, practically anybody can access an incredible library of entertainment, sports, and edutainment on television. For $20 a month, people can continually rent DVD's from NetFlix. Great! Sirius, Comcast, and Netflix are not causing a two-tiered society; get over it!

In the argument over pricing and payment methods, "economists" should not be lumped together with other "academics." In fact, a large swath of economists across political and ideological divides view HOT lanes as a partial solution to traffic and financing problems. Most economists do not worry when people pay for premium services; do you hear economists insisting that 1st class be removed from commercial airlines? There is no fundamental difference between HOT lanes and 1st class on airplanes. If the former save you time in exchange for money, the latter give you a far more pleasant experience.

Of course, the author interviews Jeremy Rifkin:

"We are creating a two-tiered society, not just the way we pay bills or drive on the highways," said Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation of Economic Trends, author of "Age of Access," a book that argues the world is being transformed into a pay-as-you-go society.

Regardless of how we pay for them, the costs always accrue as we go. Mr. Rifkin wants more universally collectivized spaces, and government financing of them. I could respect his opinion if he stated it without the scary rhetoric...

The real moral of the story is that people should not be lax with their expenditures:

Cable, telephone, Internet and other subscription services are also benefiting from changes in the way people pay their bills. Many consumers have fees -- for their gym membership, their online professional journal, their newspaper delivery -- directly applied to their credit cards, which they in turn pay on a monthly basis. Others take advantage of automatic-debit programs that allow companies to pluck money right from the customer's bank account. After they sign off on the first bill, some consumers may not notice the monthly fee unless they take a close look at their bank statements or credit card bills.

Are these the same people who graduate high school unable to read, or the ones who can read but don't care? If after 13 years of government or private education you have not developed a habit of reading your bills--that is, you don't really care to know who is taking your money--what does that say about the aims and methods of education? Your problem is not that you won't be able to afford to listen to Howard Stern in 2006, while others will.

Posted at October 10, 2004 11:47 AM

Comments

The difference is a question of flexility. When you are talking about goods, restuarnat meals for example, and you get into a tight budget situation it is very easy to quit eating in restaurants. But if you have a monthly payment obligation for your cable TV you can not easily shut it off for a couple of months. One place I've seen this is leasing autos. If you buy a car when you finish making your payments you own the car free and clear and your discretionary income goes up until you make a decision to buy another car. But if you lease, at the end of the lease you do not own the car. You do not have the option of doing nothing and having a period of time with no payment obligations.

I agree completely with most of what you say, but moving into an environment when services take up an ever growing share of spending does change the volatility and flexibility of the system -- sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad.

Comment by spencer at October 10, 2004 12:40 PM | Permalink