« Paul Krugman on trade and wages | Main | Is federalism unfair to urbanites? »
Are there countercyclical cultural trends?
In other words, which trends or tendencies flourish when the economy is underperforming? This source makes a (weak) case for facial hair. In 1926 George Taylor claimed that hemlines went up with strong economies; presumably skirts become longer when times are bad. This post and chart suggest that dystopian science fiction movies go away in bad times.
Which of these tendencies -- if any -- are the most reasonable to actually believe?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 2, 2008 at 08:17 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Apparently the length of Japanese women's hair correlates positively with the strength of the economy.
Both this and the skirt thing seem counterintuitive to me. In a weak economy, high-earning men are in shorter supply. Wouldn't women have a stronger incentive to try even harder to attract them (i.e., longer hair and shorter skirts)?
Posted by: Brandon Berg at Mar 2, 2008 8:47:45 AM
George Taylor confused the cause-and-effect relationship: Times are good BECAUSE the skirts are short, not the other way around!
Posted by: ted_vanderbilt at Mar 2, 2008 8:53:47 AM
I once heard this about gloomy pop songs. Though, now I'm too old to know what really are pop songs.
Posted by: odograph at Mar 2, 2008 9:09:02 AM
"The upper lip can show trembling and fear when you're afraid."
Tyler, it's funny you gave them a psychological answer. As an economist I thought you would have mentioned the expense of razors and shaving cream (but maybe you did and they didn't include it?).
Here's another countercyclical cultural trend: articles about countercyclical cultural trends.
Posted by: Jason at Mar 2, 2008 9:31:54 AM
I'd expect to see an increase in sales of hair dye and certain forms of women's cosmetics, as people try to look younger in an attempt to increase their marketability.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 2, 2008 9:47:31 AM
Of course, unemployed do not have to shave!
Posted by: Student at Mar 2, 2008 10:37:23 AM
I'd guess that families become a big thing in bad times, as people turn to something that gives (the illusion of) security, when the economy can't provide any.
Posted by: Finja at Mar 2, 2008 10:39:50 AM
"dystopian science fiction movies go away in bad times"
How long are they in development, though? Could there be a lag?
Posted by: Jacqueline at Mar 2, 2008 10:52:20 AM
in 1926 (and before), the textiles and garment industry was still a huge % of the manufacturing economy. as late as 1970, T/G was still around 15% of manufacturing employment and 12% of manufacturing output in the OECD. certainly this % was higher in 1926 and even more so for textiles production in C19. a strong economy would increase demand and thus prices for fabric, leading people (especially female people - who still made a significant % of their clothing at home - and whose dresses at that time requried lots of fabric) to economize on fabric at the margin. weak economy, the reverse.
while the link is not likely to be as robust these days (in the US T/G employment output as % manufacturing is now < 5-6%) anything that closes the midriff gap on teenage/tweenage girls and brings waistlines up on man's pants certainly is the silver lining to the depression cloud.
Posted by: herman schwartz at Mar 2, 2008 11:21:43 AM
I'd guess that families become a big thing in bad times, as people turn to something that gives (the illusion of) security, when the economy can't provide any.
And church attendance.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 2, 2008 11:27:54 AM
I do not believe that any of these hypothesises (or whatever the plural of hypothesis is) are reasonable to believe.
1. Culture isn't exactly fast-moving, but trends are. Comparing 1908 to 2008 just introduces too many confounding variables that probably can't possibly be corrected.
2. Comparisons between nations would be even worse, as the cultures are VASTLY different.
3. The above points also suggest that, since culture is so vastly different, any links would have to be evolutionary in nature.
4. There's a lot we do not know about evolutionary psychology (such as how strong evolutionary factors are compared to cognitive and behavorial factors)
5. Even if we can prove a POSSIBLE link (such as feelings of insecurity---->motivation to cover lip---->beard growing), it doesn't mean that the link actually exists.
6. If we can show a link, that doesn't mean all people will respond in the same way, or will always react in the same way, as evolutionary influences are just one factor in thinking. Thoughts pass through many "lenses" in our heads. We see through an evolutionary framework, a cultural framework, a social framework, a familial framework, and an individual framework. So, people will react differently. You may grow a beard to cover your insecurity. I may simply decide to keep my head lowered. So even with an evolutionary link proven NOW, an evolutionary link may not hold throughout time.
7. The genetic structure of different peoples may lead to different responses. For instance, I may be genetically inclined to feel insecurity during times of economic distress. That doesn't mean that EVERYONE will.
That being said, these links are very interesting, perhaps too much to chalk up to coincidence. So I would say it is only rational to believe these links COULD exist, perfectly reasonable to believe these links DO exist, and unreasonable to believe any given link taken at random DOES exist.
Posted by: Robert Olson at Mar 2, 2008 12:23:03 PM
Brandon Berg,
not to claim I understand it, either, but: in a strong economy, the gini coefficient usually goes up (more inequality, at least on the high end). There are more levels to the hierarchy, so the next level is in sight. This probably makes more sense in terms of status competition than money.
Posted by: at Mar 2, 2008 12:36:45 PM
I think we'd need to calculate the correlation between stress levels and economic performance. Things like facial hair, style, and hair length may have to do with stress levels and not directly the economy. At least that's what I think.
Posted by: Daniel Reeves at Mar 2, 2008 1:00:28 PM
...pop economist?
And for that matter, hairapist?
Posted by: Mike at Mar 2, 2008 1:09:19 PM
Maybe the counter cyclical trends are just a moderation or reversal of the social change experienced in expansionist periods. More of a reversion to the mean.
It seems to me that most expansionist periods have bubbles or temporary big winners. I can think of the bizarre office environments developed during the dot com era. I think of the aeron chair as the iconic dot com design statement. http://awardsforexcellence.stores.yahoo.net/hm-aeron.html
As far as the real estate driven bubble, I think the huge suv's like the Lincoln Navigator were the iconic symbol. The era was about McMansions and to fill them up, you needed cargo space. In fact, you could view the absurdly large houses as boxes of air, and the vehicles with huge cargo space as the vehicular equivalent.
I have an image of a house frau in a Navigator, driving away from the Starbucks to go window with a cell phone in one hand.
Posted by: Ziggurat at Mar 2, 2008 5:05:58 PM
Maybe the counter cyclical trends are just a moderation or reversal of the social change experienced in expansionist periods. More of a reversion to the mean.
It seems to me that most expansionist periods have bubbles or temporary big winners. I can think of the bizarre office environments developed during the dot com era. I think of the aeron chair as the iconic dot com design statement. http://awardsforexcellence.stores.yahoo.net/hm-aeron.html
As far as the real estate driven bubble, I think the huge suv's like the Lincoln Navigator were the iconic symbol. The era was about McMansions and to fill them up, you needed cargo space. In fact, you could view the absurdly large houses as boxes of air, and the vehicles with huge cargo space as the vehicular equivalent.
I have an image of a house frau in a Navigator, driving away from the Starbucks to go window with a cell phone in one hand.
Posted by: Ziggurat at Mar 2, 2008 5:07:28 PM
70s Blockbusters and award winning films:Airport. Tower inferno.Jaws. Eartquake.Fort apache. Superman II
Deer hunter. Coming Home.Blade Runner.Rocky( he lost by Ko).It was the time of the Antihero
Stangflation.
But It was also the times of Star wars and Close encounters.
80 s the times of growth.
Et , Indiana Jones.Charriots of Fire.Excalibur.Rambo and Rocky sequels( him winning and becoming a marketing expert in the movie).
And was also the time of riske movies like 9 and a half weeks.Around the world is a cult movie
Posted by: karl at Mar 2, 2008 5:37:38 PM
I don't believe any of these.
People often see patterns in random events that aren't really there.
It's just a result of confirmation bias and randomness.
Posted by: Tim_G at Mar 2, 2008 9:36:05 PM
Reportedly, although I can't vouch for it, enrollment in graduate school is a counter-cyclical trend. The theory being that furthering your education is a good way to ride out a recession. Or more baldly, if you can't get a job, you might as well go back to school.
Posted by: Johanna Hanley at Mar 2, 2008 9:44:44 PM
Dystopian science fiction is expensive to produce?
Posted by: JasonL at Mar 3, 2008 9:17:05 AM
No one mentioned music. Bad times = good music.
Posted by: adam at Mar 3, 2008 9:15:39 PM
Posted by: 燈光音響 at May 23, 2008 11:32:47 PM
