Personal Finance
Underconsumption core is in as budgets tighten
Recently I posed this question to my teenage daughter: Aren’t we tired of influencers?
“No,” she said.
But despite my daughter’s opinion — she’s 16 — I know I’m not the only one fed up with the barrage of things I’m told to buy on social media. Which is why the rise of “underconsumptioncore” came as a welcome shift away from influencer culture — and made me finally feel seen.
More from Personal Finance:
‘Recession pop’ is in: How music hits on economic trends
‘I’m looking for a man in finance’
‘I cry a lot but I am so productive, it’s an art’
Years ago, I made a commitment to live with less. But adhering to a standard more in line with minimalism than overconsumption is a vow I’ve had to renew yearly, monthly, daily.
Let’s just say it’s a struggle. Instagram doesn’t help.
Increasingly, I have found the incessant shilling of everything from protein shakes to private vacation villas exhausting. Not to mention how this steady stream of influencer marketing is often at odds with my own lifestyle aspirations (and budget).
Pro tips: I have a screen time limit set for Instagram, keep sponsored posts “snoozed” and regularly “report” ads that feel intrusive. Also, I follow “the 48-hour rule,” which requires waiting at least two days before making any discretionary purchase, through social media or otherwise.
‘An arms race for consumer dollars’
Although most Americans say they are living paycheck to paycheck, consumers routinely spend more than they can afford on impulse purchases, many studies show — particularly those advertised on sites such as TikTok, Instagram and Facebook.
“We are bombarded with shopping opportunities,” said Casey Lewis, a social media trend expert and founder of trend newsletter After School. “Now it’s sort of an arms race for consumer dollars.”
One report by Intuit Credit Karma found that roughly 2 in 5 Americans have purchased products advertised on social media in the past year, and nearly a quarter — 23% — of them coughed up $1,000 or more on those purchases.
Generation Z, especially, makes shopping decisions heavily driven by TikTok and Instagram, where influencer recommendations play a very significant role, another KPMG report showed.
The rise of #underconsumptioncore
TikTok‘s latest financial trend, #underconsumptioncore, is about making the most of what you already have and rejecting the temptation to buy more (and more and more). That’s also something personal stylist Allison Bornstein told me in 2023, which has stuck with me ever since.
The timing is on point, given that consumers feel increasingly cash-strapped and their confidence in the economy is showing signs of strain, according to Brett House, economics professor at Columbia Business School. “It’s a movement that is cyclical, driven by macroeconomic conditions,” he said.
In fact, the idea behind underconsumption has emerged with “predictable regularity” at similar times in recent history, including in the early 1990s, then when the dot-com bubble burst in early 2000 and again during the Great Recession, House said. “In each case the aesthetics were a little different, but it represented a back-to-basics mentality.”
This time around, #underconsumptioncore stems from a number of other factors, as well, including a desire to live more intentionally and sustainably. Gen Z is also the most eco-conscious generation.
But still, this trend is primarily born out of necessity. To be sure, few people can afford all of this stuff.
Young people are just sort of like ‘enough, we can’t possibly keep up.’
Casey Lewis
social media trend expert
Americans are feeling the pain of persistent inflation, with various reports showing many have exhausted their savings and are now leaning on credit cards to make ends meet.
Financial well-being is deteriorating and young adults, especially, are struggling.
Similarly, interest in “conscious consumerism” and “de-influencing” have also peaked, both of which aim to put a lid on social media-related overspending.
“Young people are just sort of like ‘enough, we can’t possibly keep up,’ and it doesn’t feel good anymore,” Lewis said.
But whether #underconsumptioncore is simply a mood or a movement, it’s still hard to say. “The lifespan of this trend depends, in a lot of ways, on how long the economy continues to slow and incomes remain below price gains,” House said.
Lewis is skeptical about whether this trend will have any sustained traction at all. Already, her feed is being overrun with #backtoschoolhauls, including outfits, gear and dorm décor, she said.
Home Alone (1990)
20th Century Fox
The classic Christmas movie “Home Alone” tells the improbable tale of a family who leaves their 8-year-old son home when they leave for vacation.
Yet in the years since the 1990 film was released, viewers have focused on another question — how wealthy was the fictitious McCallister family featured in the movie?
The family orders 10 pizzas on the eve of their trip, lives in a house that can sleep 15 people (including extended family) and all fly to Paris for the Christmas holiday.
“They’re well off and in a good place financially,” Cody Garrett, a certified financial planner, owner and financial planner at Measure Twice Financial in Houston, said of the first impression of the McCallisters’ circumstances.
But the family may not be quite as wealthy as they seem, Garrett said.
To better understand the details of the McCallister family’s financial circumstances, Garrett recently did a deep dive analysis of the family’s finances from “Home Alone” and “Home Alone 2: Lost in New York,” which debuted in late 1992, and hosted a webinar with around 25 financial planners to discuss financial planning opportunities that arise in the movies.
Both movies were shot long before social media made it popular to flaunt personal wealth online. Nevertheless, the lifestyle the McCallister family shows to the world may not necessarily be an indication of their wealth, Garrett said.
“There’s a lot of things that are showing that they spent a lot of money, or at least financed a lavish lifestyle to the public,” Garrett said. “But inside their own home, they’re actually maybe a little scared about money.”
What the McCallister lifestyle would be worth now
The Home Alone Experience created by Disney+, opens in London, offering an immersive experience inspired by the Christmas movie, with set recreations of the McCallister family’s home.
David Parry Media Assignments | PA Wire | AP
What looked lavish more than 30 years ago when the first two movies were shot is now even more luxurious today, thanks in large part to the effects of inflation.
The actual five-bedroom, six-bathroom Winnetka, Illinois, home where the movie was filmed was listed for $5.25 million in the spring. Today, it is still under contract, and a final sale price won’t be known until the deal is finalized, according to Zillow spokesperson Matt Kreamer.
To buy the house at $5.25 million today would cost approximately $34,000 per month, with principal, interest and property taxes, according to Kreamer. That’s with 20% down and a 7% mortgage rate.
To comfortably afford the home, you would need $100,000 per month in income, assuming you’re adhering to an affordability threshold of not spending more than one-third of your income on housing costs, Kreamer said.
“It’s a pretty spectacular house, and certainly one of the more famous movie homes that people can instantly recognize,” Kreamer said.
In 1990 when the first movie debuted, the home would have likely been worth a little less than $1 million, Kreamer estimates, which is still high for that time.
Yet the home may not necessarily point to a high net worth for the McCallister movie family.
“I would not be surprised if they don’t have much equity in their house,” Garrett said, given the couple’s stage of life and circumstances.
In the films, the McCallisters are also driving what at the time were relatively new cars — a 1986 Buick Electra Estate Wagon and a 1990 Buick LaSabre — each of which would be valued at $40,000 in today’s dollars, according to Garrett’s estimates.
While the family is eager to show their wealth — including mother Kate paying in cash for the $122.50 pizza bill while also offering a generous tip — they’re frugal when it comes to the things people don’t see, Garrett said.
How the family talks about money can sometimes point to a scarcity mindset, he said. For example, Kate mentions she doesn’t want to waste the family’s milk before they leave on vacation.
The family’s lifestyle isn’t paid for all on their own. Peter’s brother Rob actually foots the cost of the Paris trip for the family. That airfare would cost around $55,650 today, GoBankingRates recently estimated.
What financial planning lessons are hidden in the movie
Many major details about Kate and Peter McCallister’s finances are not disclosed, including what they do for a living.
Nevertheless, the financial planners who evaluated the family’s circumstances saw some holes that could be addressed with planning.
On the top of their wish list: proper insurance coverage.
Because Kate and Peter McCallister have five children, having enough life and disability insurance should they pass away or become unable to work should be a top priority to ensure their dependents are provided for, according to Garrett.
The movie — which includes many slips and falls at the family’s home as 8-year-old Kevin tries to ward off a pair of robbers — also signals a need for an umbrella insurance policy, in case the McCallisters are found liable for injuries or damages that occur.
Kate and Peter — who forget or lose their son Kevin in both of the first two “Home Alone” movies — would also be wise to make proper estate planning arrangements in the event they can no longer provide or care for their children. That includes having wills, powers of attorney, advance directives, beneficiary designations, trusts and proper account titling, all kept up to date.
The couple should name physical and financial guardians who can care for the children. They may also establish a pre-need guardian for the children who can step in if the parents are unable to care for them even for a short period of time, said Aubrey Williams, financial planner at Open Path Financial in Santa Barbara, California.
“If the parents are not there to take care of the kids, there’s the possibility that kids, even if briefly, will become a ward at the state because there’s no one to care for them,” Williams said.
After a strong start to the holiday season, consumer spending is on track to reach record levels this year. But many of those purchases will soon be returned.
December’s peak shopping days are closely followed by the busiest month for sending items back, which experts dub “Returnuary.”
This year, returns are expected to amount to 17% of all merchandise sales, totaling $890 billion in returned goods, according to a recent report by the National Retail Federation — up from a return rate of about 15% of total U.S. retail sales, or $743 billion in returned goods, in 2023.
Even though returns happen throughout the year, they are much more prevalent during the holiday season, the NRF also found. As shopping reaches a peak, retailers expect their return rate for the holidays to be 17% higher, on average, than usual.
More from Personal Finance:
The ‘vibecession’ is over
Economists have ‘really had it wrong’ about recession
Trump tariffs would likely have a cost for consumers
“Ideally, I hope there is a world in which you can reduce the percent of returns,” said Amena Ali, CEO of returns solution company Optoro, but “the problem is not going to abate any time soon.”
How returns became an $890 billion problem
With the explosion of online shopping during and since the pandemic, customers got increasingly comfortable with their buying and returning habits and more shoppers began ordering products they never intended to keep.
Nearly two-thirds of consumers now buy multiple sizes or colors, some of which they then send back, a practice known as “bracketing,” according to Happy Returns.
Even more — 69% — of shoppers admit to “wardrobing,” or buying an item for a specific event and returning it afterward, a separate report by Optoro found. That’s a 39% increase from 2023.
Largely because of these types of behaviors, 46% of consumers said they are returning goods multiple times a month — a 29% jump from last year, according to Optoro.
All of that back-and-forth comes at a hefty price.
“With behaviors like bracketing and rising return rates putting strain on traditional systems, retailers need to rethink reverse logistics,” David Sobie, Happy Returns’ co-founder and CEO, said in a statement.
What happens to returned goods
Processing a return costs retailers an average of 30% of an item’s original price, Optoro found. But returns aren’t just a problem for retailers’ bottom line.
Often returns do not end up back on the shelf, and that also causes issues for retailers struggling to enhance sustainability, according to Spencer Kieboom, founder and CEO of Pollen Returns, a return management company.
Sending products back to be repackaged, restocked and resold — sometimes overseas — generates even more carbon emissions, assuming they can be put back in circulation.
In some cases, returned goods are sent straight to landfills, and only 54% of all packaging was recycled in 2018, the most recent data available, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Returns in 2023 created 8.4 billion pounds of landfill waste, according to Optoro.
That presents a major challenge for retailers, not only in terms of the lost revenue, but also in terms of the environmental impact of managing those returns, said Rachel Delacour, co-founder and CEO of Sweep, a sustainability data management firm. “At the end of the day, being sustainable is a business strategy.”
To that end, companies are doing what they can to keep returns in check.
In 2023, 81% of U.S. retailers rolled out stricter return policies, including shortening the return window and charging a return or restocking fee, according to another report from Happy Returns.
While restocking fees and shipping charges may help curb the amount of inventory that is sent back, retailers also said that improving the returns experience was a key goal for 2025.
Now 33% of retailers, including Amazon and Target, are allowing their customers to simply “keep it,” offering a refund without taking the product back.
For shoppers, return policies are key
Increasingly, return policies and expectations are an important predictor of consumer behavior, according to Happy Returns’ Sobie, particularly for Generation Z and millennials.
“Return policies are no longer just a post-purchase consideration — they’re shaping how younger generations shop from the start,” Sobie said.
Three-quarters, or 76%, of shoppers consider free returns a key factor in deciding where to spend their money, and 67% say a negative return experience would discourage them from shopping with a retailer again, the NRF found.
A survey of 1,500 adults by GoDaddy found that 77% of shoppers check the return policy before making a purchase.
Top personal finance New Year’s resolutions for 2025
How to Maintain a Fixed Asset Register for your business
In the blogs: Just in time
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
Are American progressives making themselves sad?
U.S. Beneficial Ownership Information Registry Now Accepting Reports
-
Economics5 days agoBOI Reporting and the impact of the recent Federal Injunction
-
Economics6 days agoRussian central bank surprises markets by holding key rate at 21%
-
Economics1 week agoUK inflation, November 2024
-
Leaders5 days agoJeff Bezos Is The Architect of Modern Ecommerce
-
Economics7 days agoThe Biden administration pursued a mistaken policy on LNG exports
-
Economics5 days agoAfter a chaotic scramble, Congress strikes a budget deal
-
Finance5 days agoIndia may have fastest growing e-commerce sector
-
Technology1 week agoArtificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Transforming the Future