As readers here will know, I am a fan of the idea of the 'economics of walking about', which is an idea created by my friend and occasional co-author, Danny Blanchflower.
In that context, this article from the Huffington Post was drawn to my attention:
The latest recession indicator? The number of “recession blondes” walking around with their natural roots showing.
President Donald Trump has played coy about the possibility of his tariffs causing a recession, telling NBC News earlier this month that any economic pain would just be part of a “transition period.” But hairdressers and others in the beauty industry are already seeing hints of a recession, as business tapers off, and clients let their hair grow long and uncolored.
Fashion has always been seen as an indicator of economic sentiment, most especially with regard to skirt hemline length. Short skirts are meant to indicate a strong, confident mood, and an upbeat economy, whilst long skirts are meant to indicate an economic downturn. Anybody who notices these things will have become aware of how long many skirts are at present.
Now, it seems, we have a new indicator based upon women having sufficient money available to afford to have their hair dyed. I am absolutely certain that the article is based upon fact: the trend that it notes appears to be happening.
It has long been known that in downturns, women do not give up on fashion, but adapt to their current circumstances. It was during the 1930s that the consequence was first described as the lipstick economy. When money disappeared for everything else, women bought lipsticks if there was no other item that they could afford to enhance their morale.
I am quite sure that the present display of undyed roots is an economic necessity, but fashion will adapt to embrace it, whilst some other items, which are cheaper than dyed hair, will still be afforded.
Economics is, if it is anything of worth, a study of human adaptability. That is why I find the version of it that I enjoy partaking in so fascinating.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I just wish I had some hair so I could leave bits undyed…………
Given that you are a music fan you could go back to the mid 70’s and Blondie -Debbie Harry showed her roots and that was with all the economic upsets of the period.
I would be worried though that its just an excuse for leering by male economists unless they can come up with some statistics
Debbie Harry broke all the rules – and was brilliant for doing so. I still love her music.
[…] By Richard Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of the Corporate Accountability Network. Originally published at Funding the Future. […]
Lets face it – you like looking at women’s skirts and hair
Why not?
I notice men too.
People watching is an essential part of social anthropology, and that is core to the economcis of walking about.
I love these real economy tests! Ask the people they’ll tell you what’s going on, ignore the lies of the Oxbot PPE graduates!
I would imagine home hair dyes are going up, as did cake in Covid. Mr Kipling bakes exceedingly affordable comfort in hard times.
Long skirts might be a time of hunkering down in hard times, no time for 60s optimism. and though less cloth is needed, you save money on the need for nice footwear and tights, as these are less visible under a long skirt.
Aren’t trainers everywhere now, come what may?
Trainers would be my choice, but others might prefer stratospheric heels with stratospheric designer price tag.
🙂
In the UK yes, trainers are everywhere, as I viewed in British TV shows and British YouTube long form videos.
Less in the USA in a professional or business casual setting.
Heels are very rare here now.
Thank you, Richard.
One apologises profusely if my comment is seen as lowering the tone.
Some, but not all, readers will be aware that the social season is in full swing. Royal Ascot starts tomorrow,
I am often asked by former colleagues in private banking and wealth management or their concierge services proxies to brief “elite courtesans” booked to attend some events, usually equestrian. The sex workers, often mums and even in relationships, charge at least GBP300 per hour and GBP3000 for 24 hours, but are often flexible. They report bookings drying up. The younger ones and / or those without family responsibilities are travelling around Asia as work in Europe and North America dries up. It’s reported that clients / suitors, regulars and irregulars / savers have pulled back from the turn of the year. They recognise themselves as canaries in the coal mine.
What is the community like? Most, but not, all took up sex work due to financial distress, especially as austerity bit under the coalition. Most, but not all, are on the left.
I think that interesting.
I am not asking how you secured the data.
Thank you, Richard.
I have known some for years.
They prepare and want to put their best foot forward. We usually do a video call. Sometimes, we meet for coffee if they are in town. It’s easier than drafting something formulaic.
🙂
That’s the economics of walking about
“I think that interesting.”
In the USA they are sometimes referred to as “Convention Girls” as many follow the national Trade Fair convention circuit.
David Graeber ( the late) wrote about this in his book ‘Debt: The First 5000 Years’ if I recall.
Women and men selling sex seemed to occur more readily when debt became increasingly monetised (debt in the form of human reciprocal obligations to kith and kin preceded money debt) and when money debts created by needs elsewhere (food, shelter) cannot be repaid. I don’t think that it is the ideal career choice but there are exceptions.
The mind boggles at the lifestyle of the rich and their enablers.
Do you not consider this role as just one up from being the actual pimp? Do you get paid for your “briefings” ?
Thank you, Ali.
Most of the women operate free lance, but may have started in collective, often set up and managed by a retired sex worker. Some combine after some years.
There are no pimps involved at that level. The intermediaries tend to be for the wealthy who want all sorts of services, including transport, schooling, holidays, dining etc., arranged. Most clients (“suitors”) go direct.
May I add that the women are feminists, but have no time for, usually, middle class women who want to outlaw the profession (or “industry” as they prefer to call it). Most are educated to tertiary level. I know one undertaking a doctorate.
Very much an argument for legalising sharing premises for safety, economy and companionship. When something is underground no-one in pubic administration has much of an idea what is going on and how much of it.
Do they pay tax?
Not if they are paid in cash!
Or so it goes in the USA.
Thank you, Ali.
Yes, they pay tax, usually put through a civvy business account.
Thank you, Jen.
Yes, they pay tax. Earnings are usually put through a civvy business account.
I expect their clients claim these services as a business expense.
I very much doubt it
The other thing that is best witnessed just by sitting on a bench and “people watching” is the dreadful state of heath and poor lifestyle choices (SPF/Booze, etc.) made by so many people. Best done on a Saturday, in case all the healthy people are hiding at work.
I mention this, as I can’t help thinking “extra premiums for life insurance” or “an uplift to their annuity rate” because of my job.
1996 saw the introduction of underwritten annuities in the UK by the then Pension Annuity Friendly Society (now part of Just), and I happened to arrange the second one set up, for a publican with all sorts of health and lifestyle issues. Back then, it was estimated that around 10-15% of the population might benefit from larger pensions due to reduced life expectancy because of things like diabetes, hypertension, smoking, etc.
Roll forward to 2026 and that proportion is – quite astonishingly – around 60% of the retirement age population, according to Legal & General. So, the over 55’s are pretty sick.
I blame the easy access to cheap SPF’s (step forward Greggs) and large quantities of booze sold cheaply by supermarkets and other retailers. When I was a kid in the 1970s/80s, you could only buy booze in Pubs and specialist shops. I worked in a wine shop after school ad, when I passed my driving test, drove a Mini van delivering gin to old folk in rural Devon – they were often ex-Colonial Service back then, now easy accessibility to booze is taken for granted.
I know people who would rather buy more booze than get their hair dyed – hmm..
I love the story and do you have sources for that data, even the L&G stuff?
Whilst there is industry data on this, Richard, I’m not sure it should be shared here as this could be interpreted as “advice.” The 60% figure came from a conversation with my L&G rep a couple of weeks ago. What I would say, however, is that the process starts with the completion of a copy of the industry-standard “Retirement Health Form”. Once that has been completed, I input that data, along with the pension plan (s) details, onto a system that then invites bids for the fund from the six life offices currently selling annuities on an open market option basis (Aviva, Canada Life, Scottish Widows, L&G, Standard Life and Just). The highest bidder receives the business.
The market is competitive and the data is based on ‘utmost good faith’ principles, but life offices can, and do, randomly sample new business cases by obtaining a report from the GP or other medical specialist. It’s a very interesting part of my work and I would say that quotes are very much based on individual criteria.
The sad thing is that so few people even bother with this – recently, a chap was just going to buy his annuity from the provider he saved with (despite the provider basically saying “please don’t do this”!). We followed the process, and his annuity came in 26.7% higher by taking a little time with documentation – a touch over £2,000 per annum extra at no additional cost, for ever.
Wow…that paid your fee, with a lot more over, I am sure.
“access to cheap SPF’s”
SPF = Sun Protection Factor????
I think that should have been UPF = ultra processed food
Indeed – UPF’s
Wine stores, or off-licences as they were once called, seem to have mostly disappeared from high streets these days as supermarkets seem to have captured that market. I am by no means a prude when it comes to alcohol, but I do find it incongruous that the mini supermarkets at petrol stations are allowed to sell alcohol. Surely sends the wrong signal about don’t drink and drive.
As a matter of management history, this idea is not a product of economists. It origins (its intellectualised description) is closer to Elton Mayo, and his emphasis on focusing on attention to the detail required properly to motivate employees (a skill that is cyclically destroyed by neoliberalism every time it raises its head); developed separately by Hewlett-Packard in the 1970s; culminating in Tom Peters and Robert Waterman “In Search of Excellence” (1982). I bought that book in the 1980s. The interesting issue here is how quickly ideas disappear.
George Elton Mayo (1880–1949).
Thank you to John A and Richard, above, with regard to expenses.
Pre-2008 crisis, it was possible and not uncommon for firms, if not senior personnel, to expense.
That’s more difficult now, unless one runs the company etc.
Most clients / suitors pay to a civvy business account.
Another trend that seems to be exploding – jewellery in stainless steel rather than silver or gold.
I think that’s a good idea – I like that.
Not that I ever wear jewellery, but I know someone who does 🙂
Every day a learning day on Funding The Future!
I hope so
Economics by walking about. So agree.
I’ve noticed this on the shoe/boot front over the years. In particular Office workers commuting back in the 80s were wearing leather shoes/leather soles etc but this rare now. Black shoe like trainers seem more likely. Suits have also largely given way to much more casual dress.
Changes in real spending power must have driven some of this change as well as Fashion.