Hairy Dave Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I think you also have to consider the market has shrunk so much, even as the population increases. In the 60s and 70's EVERY kid wanted to play guitar. Now they just want to play games, text and watch Facebook. I mean, there are exceptions, but the numbers simply aren't there. I agree Murph, so many markets vying for everyone's attention now. If it's not pick up and play (like most games consoles) it's not as attractive. You have to practice guitar, and it hurts lol. Modern music doesn't help either. Many young people prefer manufactured pop music produced on computers without an instrument in sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Yeah, when I'm feeling like a cynical old man, I get thinking that when I was a kid, if a kid misbehaved his folks wouldn't let him play outside and made him stay in the house. Now it seems if a kid misbehaves in the house, he's punished by having to go outside and play away from the computers. I find it hard to imagine many kids 12 and under playing at Daniel Boone or Natty Bumpo in the woods at dusk... feeling the air and smelling the smells of leaves and whatever else; stalking silently and seeking to leave no trail while seeking tracks left by other creatures there... Or adapting a lawnmower engine to run one's bicycle or board and baby-buggy-axle built go-carts. <sigh> m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Id be thinking that the guitar marketplace was something of a mini-bubble. The industry had run out way past the market for working musicians and were catering to collectors, enthusiasts and wannabes. It was probably not sustainable for the long term. What's interesting to me is that the market for the high end stuff doenst seem to have taken much of a hit. Quality vintage and boutique rarities still move pretty quickly, from what I can see on the various forums. Such is the nature of the recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Rambler... I hope this isn't taken as being "political," but I don't think in the US at least there is a real "recovery" as much as "restructuring" that's creeping awfully slowly. In a sense, I think you're correct - it's just cannot agree with the term "recovery." We're instead restructuring after a disaster while hunkering down against long term poor economic weather. Recovery is returning to a good place; restructuring is rebuilding something different. To me, the bottom line is that there is some truth and many blind spots in "our" political perspectives. World economies are restructuring with an increasing burst of population and technology, along with an increasing accommodation of government with larger corporations. That brings unanticipated consequences for all political perspectives regardless that some think they can control it. For example, the real changes that brought the move out of the great depression of the '30s weren't thanks to governmental economic effort as much as it came from WWII. Few imagined or considered at the time how that would become a wholesale restructuring of world economies and politics. Restructuring is upon us again. I think most of our collective politicians in general know the above, but find it politically impossible to address. Instead, they bunch up into "parties" where different surface views are exploited for public support that need not really reflect reality. Meanwhile beneath the radar, "restructuring" whether in socialist or relatively more capitalist societies, is coming by macroeconomic and cultural default. Where it's going I have no idea, but I can say whence it came. Here's a great example: The four-bedroom home I was raised in cost about $3,000 in 1950, roughly Dad's income at the time while building a post-war small business. We had a big yard and an expectation that in cold weather the furnace would run out of coal and it'd be a chilly morning. Home and vehicle air conditioning functionally didn't exist. Restructuring... I now live in less than a quarter of the floor space, but with reliable gas heat, electric air conditioning, computers, televisions, "smartphones" - and a 15-year-old Jeep. Those aren't life choices I consciously made, btw, those were default positions brought by changing times. Ditto guitars and guitar purchasing habits. A Gibson ES175 or a Telecaster when new, needed only spending on an amp and amp cord. Now? Look at all the pedals and other options today's guitarists have that take away from the cash for the guitar itself. It ain't unlike my choices on a place to live. That's the restructured economy and culture that guitar makers have to consider. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Rambler... I hope this isn't taken as being "political," but I don't think in the US at least there is a real "recovery" as much as "restructuring" that's creeping awfully slowly. Right. Might have said "recovery", but point being that the folks on the upper end have pretty much bounced back and are back to spending, if they ever slowed down in the first place (hence the sustained prices on high end stuff). Meanwhile, the rest of us muddle along and hope for better days. I think folks in, say , Ohio get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Actually I think the folks on the high end still buy "high end" guitars - but no more than I still buy low-end guitars if I have a likely job. Yeah, they're at a different level, but the relatively well off have an economic fear of losing "everything" that is little different psychologically from paycheck folks trying in general to "save" more than they did pre 9-11 too, whether they're government or business employees. Both are relatively in a holding pattern. What they're not doing is investing on what they perceive to be shaky in the current economy. That translates into almost anything with potential to create wealth rather than shift it. You can argue it's better to shift it whatever you find socially important, but that's a red herring argument when more ain't being invested to create wealth and employ rising populations. Shifts of ownership create nothing regardless who gets it and how they spend. I'm seriously trying to keep national "politics" out of this, but the bottom line is that in nearly 50 years of journalism, through ups and downs, wage and price freezes, stock market crashes, etc., I've never seen the degree of pessimism. I'd also suggest that regardless who "wins" the current U.S. election, anyone with much non-political economic perspective is certain only of uncertainty in the economy. They often won't tell you why because it's politically incorrect for almost everyone. What voters generally believe, regardless which side they support, is either entirely wrong or at least significantly wrong in probably 66 percent of the subjects of dialog. Look at it this way: If a gross national product increases at 3 percent per annum, the adult population at 4 percent per annum, and cost for a basic marketbasket of expected lifestyle increases at 5 percent per annum, what eventually will happen regardless of other issues and political priorities? m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I'm seriously trying to keep national "politics" out of this, but the bottom line is that in nearly 50 years of journalism, through ups and downs, wage and price freezes, stock market crashes, etc., I've never seen the degree of pessimism. I'd also suggest that regardless who "wins" the current U.S. election, anyone with much non-political economic perspective is certain only of uncertainty in the economy. Hey m... I really don,t see how you can separate 'politics' from 'economy'. They are linked. Government is political. Government policy effects the economy. There are many examples to cite! Socialism/capitalism are diametrically opposed! The degree of pessimism that you are witnessing is a direct result of Americans NOT WANTING to see their country relegated to a third world status and economy by Government policy. It really is quite basic..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Hey m... I really don,t see how you can separate 'politics' from 'economy'. They are linked. Government is political. Government policy effects the economy. There are many examples to cite! Socialism/capitalism are diametrically opposed! The degree of pessimism that you are witnessing is a direct result of Americans NOT WANTING to see their country relegated to a third world status and economy by Government policy. It really is quite basic..... I think you have SEVERLY misunderstood this thread. This is a few guys who wish to discuss the economy, and Fender, WITHOUT discussing politics. I think it would be helpful if you made the same effort in avoiding it, even if you don't think it is entirely possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 No Stein, I understand it. It bored me. I went past it. Sorry, if it upset you enough to comment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I've never seen the degree of pessimism. Nor have I. I have to wonder how this is affecting Gibson as well. With a much smaller market share and a more expensive product I would think keeping 3 factories open is a challenge to Henry & Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Okay, I'll even go so far as to say that politics do play a role in the economy - a large role. But my concept isn't a matter of immediate politics, but long-term. I don't think that our current economy that the politicians are talking about is sustainable given increases in population world-wide. But nobody wants to mention that. Even the Chinese who became a solid producer in the aftermath of their one-child policy are questioning whether they might return to the kind of population increases they'd seen before. Guitars and other relatively inexpensive home musical instruments, IMHO, long term are likely with entertainment devices among the few items that I believe have a long-term solid marketplace, granted, with some ups and downs. But I'm sorry, remember that since I was a kid in school becoming aware of the world around me, I've watched the U.S. and world population more than double - while freedoms and overall expectations have actually shrunk. I'm not talking about firearms rights that I personally believe it, either. Look at the increases in "security" at airports, the increased difficulty in getting a drivers license, the inevitable sort of cards we'll need to vote. I don't see all this as "partisan politics" as it has been treated, but rather as a view of the effect of increasing populations and technology aiding us in placing ourselves into little boxes instead of reaching out to do, learn and be more in a society of our peers. Politicians talk about the next four to 10 years; I'm looking past my own lifespan that may be another 15, 20 years at most. I'm quite happy I have no children or grandchildren to live there and I'm concerned we see politics stuck in short term argument. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.