Unboxing. Shop with me videos. Excessive PR packages and constant ads. It goes without saying that consumerism is rife on TikTok and the app thrives on it. The paradox between the worldwide economic strain that every region is experiencing,and the influx of mass consumption is one that never ceases to amaze me.
This topic was inspired by my introduction to fashion and beauty blogger Becca Bloom, whose parents are billionaire business moguls Simon Yiming Ma and Heidi Chou, owners of the tech and real estate company Camelot Information Systems. Becca has sparked mass controversy for building a platform based on demonstrating her exorbitant wealth and luxury items, giving the everyday person a snapshot into a life they will likely never experience.
While criticism has been bubbling around her name for a while, it has intensified due to a video she made about gender equality. However, when the same logic was applied to wealth equality and her lack of it, she became defensive and rather snappy with the people calling her out. Many have rightly criticised the influencer for being insensitive and slightly out of touch given the American governments new implementation issues with SNAP, which has pushed millions into deeper food insecurity.
To put it bluntly, no one wants to watch her eat off one hundred-thousand-dollar plates, unbox four hundred thousand dollar jewellery, and flex luxury outfits while people do not know where their next meal is coming from. In response to the recent criticism, Becca went Angel Tree shopping for children, an American initiative where people adopt a child for Christmas by buying gifts the child has asked for when families may not be able to provide for them. However, people still felt this was minuscule compared to her enormous wealth and criticised her for choosing to buy cheaper things for the Angel Tree children while she drapes herself in the finest materials and qualities. One TikToker stated that she bought them things she would never buy for her own children.
Another influencer who fits this niche is twenty two year old Chloe Liem, also known as Chloe L for short. She has built a page of 1.2 million followers being a self proclaimed stay at home daughter, a rich daughter who does not have to work, constantly flaunting her spending habits and her frequent trips to Van Cleef. Her most viral videos include things I thought were normal growing up rich, along with endless jewellery hauls and luxury shopping trips. Her wealth and her out of touch blasé attitude are at the centre of the vast majority of her content.
Whilst some may argue that these wealthy people are not obligated to post any charitable donations they make, I argue the same can be said for the incessant need to post every purchase they make. If one finds it necessary to post what they spend, there is nothing stopping them from posting what they give away, assuming they give away anything to begin with.
Throughout this discourse many have chimed in that if they were in Becca’s shoes, they would never need to seek validation from others and would much rather enjoy their wealth in comfortable silence, detached from the everyday world. However, it appears that for the 0.1% percent who truly have the world at their disposal, even that is not enough. They still crave the one thing money cannot buy and that is likeability.
It is not hard to believe that people who are used to buying their way through every scenario would be confused when they realise that one cannot pay the internet to like them. They desperately attempt to market themselves as relatable while ninety nine point nine percent of the world will never be able to relate to even a fraction of their lifestyle, as most people struggle to make ends meet. Wealth hoarding is unethical as it is, but the need to build platforms off flaunting it feels slightly insidious to me.
Nonetheless, influencers like Chloe L and Becca Bloom continue to grow their platforms with masses of people blindly supporting them. Influencers like these build their brand on parasocial relationships and on others living vicariously through them. Their lower class fanbases defend the excessive displays of wealth because deep down they believe that this might be them one day.
Not only is this delusional and unrealistic but it exposes how many everyday people would behave in the same way had they been granted the same opportunity. By aligning yourself with worlds that do not serve or benefit you socioeconomically, you are basically admitting that your morals are no better. It reveals an every man for himself mentality, a quiet confession that if you had that kind of wealth, you would behave the same way. It shows a lack of empathy for people who are actually suffering because you are choosing to admire and protect those who flaunt excess rather than question the systems that keep you struggling.
At the core, you believe that somehow if you work hard enough you will reach the same economic heights. The reality is that billionaires are not built from one persons hard work but from the exploitation of many. Most billionaire companies thrive off the blood, sweat, and tears of thousands of underpaid workers. Wealth hoarding and uneven distribution mean that this level of wealth simply circulates within the same circles. Rich people marry rich people, do business with rich people, and give opportunities to other rich people over normal people.
To be blunt, you are more likely to be eaten by a whale, struck by lightning, or do practically anything else than become a billionaire. Supporting people who choose to live on a different plane of reality from those suffering and flaunt it, while you live paycheck to paycheck, will never do anything for you.