24 November 2016
Shopping and Benches
Will benches and loos really make the older generation spend more?
by Lynda Goetz
The International Longevity Centre is, according to its web site, ‘a futures (sic) organisation focussed (sic) on some of the biggest challenges facing Government and society in the face of demographic change’. According to an article by John Bingham, the Social Affairs editor of The Sunday Telegraph, this august body is bringing out a report this week which not only states that,“The design of shops can prevent or encourage access to the high street and thus foster spending,” but calculates that the lack of basic amenities such as seating in shops and high streets, as well as driving older people out of town centres, could be costing British retail business as much as £3.8 billion a year in lost revenue.
This report concludes that the absence of seats in shops could help explain what economists have called ‘the retirement consumption puzzle’. This, in case the jargon is not self-evident, refers to the fact that (obviously young) economists are mystified by the fact that older people do not spend money as liberally as the economists and retailers would like them to – in spite of the fact that many are more comfortably off than when they were younger. The report, like so many, was commissioned by a group with an interest in the issue; Anchor, the care and housing charity. They clearly have a point. Their campaign to persuade councils and retailers to provide seating for shoppers will make a trip to the town centre so much easier and more pleasant for many, not just the elderly, and will undoubtedly bring with it economic benefits. But isn’t there honestly another element at work here?
When my elderly mother (in her 90s) was living with us, I used to take her with me to the shops occasionally. Much of the time she did not have the desire or the energy to go. The problems of lack of seating and lack of loos (other than on the top floors of department stores or in the basements of cafes, often with difficult-to-negotiate steps) were definitely obstacles to an easy and relaxing outing, and any attempts to encourage their reinstatement are to be applauded and supported. Pregnant women and parents with small children will similarly benefit from such steps, and these are people who are at the stage in life where they need things. They may not be flush with cash, but children grow out of things; pregnant women change shape and houses need furnishing. Fashion matters. By the time one reaches retirement, and certainly by the time many are having mobility problems or living with relatives or in a retirement home, one needs a great deal less. Surely this is part of the explanation for that conundrum worrying those young economists?
At this later stage of life you may enjoy an outing to the town centre with friends or family or even alone, but many older people, even those still living in their own homes, do not have the spendthrift habits of the young. They have not purchased cheap clothing and chucked it out next season, so they probably have enough blouses, shirts, skirts, trousers and jumpers for a lifestyle that is, perhaps sadly but by its very nature, less social than it used to be. They have trusty old favourites, not bought cheaply, that they still enjoy wearing. They may be sitting on chairs that have seen better days, but would rather give or leave the money to their children than buy new ones for themselves ‘at this stage’. They are not tempted by sofas which can be purchased on years of free credit and probably have more than enough plates, tea-pots, kitchen equipment, household linen and knick-knacks to ‘see them out’. Of course it is fun to buy new things, even when you are older, but a lifetime of accumulated ‘stuff’ (and often the worry that someone is going to have to deal with all this when you are gone) is a serious deterrent to the blandishments of the high street.
On the other hand, many people who are retired are now spending more money on ‘experiences’. This is in many ways a new area of retailing, but is not one that requires attendance in the high street. These outings can be organised with travel agents on the phone or with the online pedlars of cruises, sky dives, skiing, diving, trekking, whale watching or whatever interests you. Bungee or base jumping may be a tad extreme, but many of those at the younger end of the retirement bracket are still fit and keen to take advantage of the fact that they now have disposable income and free time (unless they have been roped into grandparental duties by their own struggling offspring) to see something of that world that they have been watching on TV during their working years and to experience activities which were never even available when they were young.
Perhaps The International Centre for Longevity should be ‘asking difficult questions and presenting new solutions’ on the long-term implications of the unhealthy lifestyle of the current under-15 generation? Maybe they could calculate how in the ‘futures’ (presumably this refers to the many possible alternatives?) to replace the billions of pounds now being spent in the international economy on activities and travel by the current retirement consumers. Perhaps by the time the under-15s reach old age, globalisation will have become a fantasy of the past and these overweight and under-exercised old people will be able to puff and potter their way around well-designed national shopping centres spending money to replace all the poorly-made stuff with built-in obsolescence they have been purchasing all their lives. At this point, the report’s conclusion that “It is vital that all communities, large and small, better understand the changing demographics of their communities” may well have been realised and the elderly as well as all other generations will understand and take seriously their responsibility to keep on spending – in the U.K.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
