The author, Tara Moshizi, reflects on the post-interest rate hike era, marked by a paradoxical return to aspirational luxury despite widespread economic hardship. This phenomenon is exemplified by a quote from the Netflix series ”The Perfect Couple,” where a butler mocks the extravagant whims of his wealthy employers, suggesting they might as well buy a monkey out of sheer boredom. Moshizi argues that this seemingly absurd scenario resonates with many in the middle class who, during the period of low interest rates, adopted frivolous spending habits, creating the illusion of affluence. This involved purchasing overpriced apartments, indulging in gourmet charcuterie boards, and “investing” in designer jeans equivalent to a month’s rent. The subsequent rise in interest rates shattered this facade, forcing a reckoning with financial realities, yet a curious trend emerged.
Despite the economic downturn, a collective yearning for luxury persisted within the middle class. This desire manifested in various ways, from the embrace of the “soft girl” aesthetic, a homemaker ideal romanticizing domesticity and reliance on a provider, to the projected increase in Christmas spending. Furthermore, reports indicated that luxury consumption remained stagnant rather than declining, suggesting a resilience, or perhaps a denial, of the prevailing economic climate. This aspiration towards luxury becomes a form of escapism, a way to counter the dreariness of financial constraint by indulging in the fantasy of wealth. Moshizi questions the sustainability of this charade, proposing that 2025 should mark a return to fiscal responsibility, a conscious alignment of lifestyle with actual means rather than aspirational ones.
Social media amplified this luxury obsession, evolving beyond mere displays of expensive purchases. A new layer emerged: derision towards those unable to participate in the high-end market. Moshizi cites the example of Vestiaire Collective, an online retailer of pre-owned luxury goods, which published videos mocking the clutter and low prices of H&M, urging consumers to ”break up with fast fashion.” This, Moshizi argues, is a thinly veiled form of classism disguised as environmental concern, as Vestiaire’s ultimate goal isn’t to discourage consumption, but to redirect it towards their own platform. This creates a divisive atmosphere where financial stability becomes a status symbol, and those who cannot afford luxury are deemed inferior.
This post-interest rate hike era witnessed a resurgence of class tensions, highlighted by the controversy surrounding the Nobel banquet menu. Expressen columnist Anna Gullberg criticized the serving of porridge, a humble grain dish, deeming it inappropriate for such a prestigious event. The fact that it was a meticulously crafted, modern take on risotto by award-winning chef Jessie Sommarström was irrelevant. Gullberg’s argument centered on the perception of porridge as a “poor man’s food,” unsuitable for the affluent attendees. Moshizi contends that the true source of discomfort wasn’t the dish itself, but its incongruity with the prevailing obsession with luxury. The porridge, a symbol of frugality and simplicity, clashed with the desire to project an image of opulence and extravagance.
Moshizi connects these seemingly disparate threads – the aspirational ”monkey-buying” mentality, the social media shaming of fast fashion consumers, and the Nobel porridge debate – to paint a picture of a middle class grappling with the cognitive dissonance between economic realities and aspirational lifestyles. The author argues that this collective pretense of affluence, this desire to ”fake it till you make it,” has become exhausting and ultimately unsustainable. The relentless pursuit of luxury, even in the face of financial constraints, fosters a climate of anxiety and competition, creating a chasm between those who can afford the lifestyle and those who cannot.
Moshizi concludes with a call for authenticity. She suggests that instead of persisting in this charade of affluence, 2025 should be a year of embracing financial realism. The author advocates for a shift in mindset, encouraging a focus on living within one’s means rather than chasing unattainable lifestyles. The concluding statement, ”None of us can afford a monkey anyway,” serves as a poignant reminder of the absurdity of this pursuit, urging readers to abandon the pretense and embrace a more grounded and financially responsible approach to life. This resonates with the overarching theme of the article, a critique of the post-interest rate hike era’s paradoxical obsession with luxury in the face of economic hardship.
