Could Brexit create a new breed of Yuppies?

We were considering writing, new breed of puppies, but there’s nothing cute or flimsy about Brexit.

Everyone seems to be terrified of Brexit, regardless of whether they voted for it or not.

Those who did vote to stay are writing many a story of how some random person – usually elderly – turned round to them on the London tube (if you’re smart enough to get that socioeconomic dig, if not, read on) and said, “I’m so sorry, I feel so sorry for your generation, we have created a horrible future for you now”.

Did they also mention the tears in their eyes?

And some of those who voted leave are apparently regretting the decision – yes, voting to leave is very like voting for instant nuclear warfare.

By the way guys, North Korea thinks the EU is good for Britain(1).

However, we are sure that somewhere in the Leave camp lie a group of people excited about the future. Especially economically – Yun Byung-se, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of South Korea, has already jumped at the chance to establish a bilateral free-trade agreement with London.

Who would you rather deal with? Gekko?

And sure, this may be because South Korea is in increasing competition with other high-tech exporters such as Japan, but this only makes them more keen to form a trading relationship with us. The more we can exploit this, and form other trade agreements with major partners outside of the Eurozone, the greater economic power we will become.

Perhaps this will lead to another financial “Big Bang” like we saw in the 1980s – a move away from the elitist old boy networks which have, once again, dominated finance in the Square Mile.

A heads up to Hegel, whom a friend recommended to me, as no-one understands better how the rebellion can very quickly become the elite.

And these old boy networks are not a fine selection of stuffy, toffee-nosed conservatives drinking age-old whisky: rather, liberal hippies who claim to hate capitalism yet rake in more than a brickie could ever dream of. At least Gordon Gekko was honest about his love affair with greed and unrestrained capitalism.

That’s right, those guys who voted “Remain”, those guys who live in Ealing, Fulham, the higher echelons of Chelsea, they’re the ones who are the status quo and voted for exactly that – explains why London was so keen for Remain.

Afore mentioned “absolute lad”

Geraint Anderson, anyone?

If you haven’t heard of him, look up “hypocrite” in any dictionary you may have to hand, and his name will be slap bang right under that bad boy.

This absolute lad, who is also the son of a Labour party politician, became famous in 2008 after it was revealed that he was the anonymous writer of “CityBoy”, a weekly column in thelondonpaper. Anderson then penned a novel around the same kind of thing – you know, the shock horror of prostitutes and alcoholism in the square mile.

Here’s a secret: that shit happens in the dingiest of council estates, too. You’re just paying more. It’s economics 101, and if you bought into his book for it’s shock value, you’ve made a bad investment.

How disgusting, but Anderson eased his pain by raking in some lovely bonuses, and earning a nice little packet from his writings for The Guardian.

So, no longer do we have an old boy network to compete with, rather, a new boy network of once-stoners turned stockbrokers. However, they operate in pretty much the same way – they get the job from a family member, or the friend of a friend. Someone they met at Oxford or Cambridge (sorry Hegel’s best mate).

The irony being that the liberal elite believe they are different from their conservative predecessors. You would only need look at the gentrification of London to see that happening – as the elite get richer, and drive up London house prices, the poorer are pushed further and further out.

For those of you who are excited about Brexit, you should be. Perhaps new trade agreements will open up previously closed-off markets, particularly with homage to Asia.

And with this comes the destruction of the status quo, and maybe a new kind of young person.

An excited young professional who wants to move to London and make it big, make it on the back of new and emerging markets.

If you’re from a dirt poor background, what’s the harm in dreaming of a Porsche? The very Porche you earned from that fancy new trade deal you totally nailed with some big businessman from South Korea.

You’ll be one step ahead of the game if you are already open to the idea of Brexit, and not terrified by it. A lot of the liberal elite –  and that includes university lecturers in maths, economics, history and the like – are stuck in an ideological timewarp where the EU still matters.

 

 

 

(1) http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/06/27/North-Korea-warns-Brexit-could-lead-to-a-domino-effect/8971467033396/

Footnotes plugins for WordPress are shit.

Why is beauty an investment, too?

And people ask us, why is your website called The Lipstick Effect?

It is the idea that as economic conditions worsen – you know, the usual, job losses, inflation, whatever – women buy more cosmetics, like Lipstick – during the 2008 recession, L’Oreal enjoyed a sales growth of 5.3%(1).

However, there are many different theories as to why this happens, and interpretations of the psychology behind it. Some argue that it is to peacock for mate, others suggest it is to better their chances of employment.

On the one hand, it could be that the trend simply highlights that, as opposed to “splurging” on expensive holidays and amazingly shiny Jaguars, in order to make ourselves feel better during a period of recession, we splurge on smaller things – such as lipstick.

A more developed theory, with all kind of gender connotations, suggests that as financial situations worsen, women feel more compelled to search out security in a sufficient partner who will be able to provide for them. Therefore, they buy more cosmetics in order to improve their likelihood of attracting a mate.

This theory relies very much upon the traditional male and female role models, with the male fulfilling the role as the resource-rich provider, and the female the “homemaker” – however, as times changed, particularly in the 1970s and especially the 1980s, we saw more women moving into the world of work and purchasing more cosmetics, not as a result of peacocking to attract a mate, but rather, to attract a better job prospect.

Along with this move into the world of work came a clear change of who earned the money. No longer was the woman constrained to the income of her bread-winning husband, she now had pockets of her own to fill!

The oldest example of this? Power dressing – prominent in the 1980s and epitomized by the late Margaret Thatcher, it saw the rise of sharp shoulder pads and clashing patterns. Women invested more into cosmetics and to assert their feminine power in a male-dominated workplace. Whatever you think of her, she looks badass

And so they should, considering that a few years before, they had been expected to abandon further education to pursue motherhood – it was only until the 1970s that female undergraduate numbers began to rise(2) (previously making up a mere quarter of the undergraduate population) and the Equal Pay Act was introduced into the United Kingdom.

With more education came more opportunity, and more aspiration to really punch through that glass ceiling.

Now you can certainly go into the third-wave feminist school of thought and consider things all kind of radfem, but if you look at the economics of it, and not the ideology: women invested in their looks to obtain the biggest payoff – being equal pay, or better pay than  “mousy” counterparts (i.e. dull colours, no assertion of dominance).

In fact, if we are busy getting technical here, there exists such a thing called a “beauty premium”. It’s sad but true: there is a 12% pay differential between those who are considered good looking(3), and those considered average looking (who suffer a “beauty penalty”).

Perhaps investing in products which improve your looks really do return favorable odds in an increasingly competitive job market.

Cosmetics are also considered a “low-risk” investment, because they can usually do more harm than good, unless of course applied so horrifically they repel rather than attract.

 

(1)https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/slightly-blighty/201510/the-lipstick-effect-how-boom-or-bust-effects-beauty
(2)http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/going-to-university-funding-costs-benefits
(3)http://www.igd.com/Research/Economics–horizon-scanning/Archive/The-lipstick-economist/

*Sources: NY Times, Huffington Post, Psychology Today, Boosting Beauty in an Economic Decline: Mating, Spending, and the Lipstick Effect:http://personal.tcu.edu/sehill/LipstickEffectMS20March2012.pdf

Facebook Comments