The ways in which people express status varies from social group to group
It seems a bit of a sweeping statement to claim that owning a pen is vain, and could use a bit more clarification/justification to show the basis for making a claim like that. If any such claim relies on ethnographic or sociological studies, then wouldn't it be appropriate to cite those when making such a claim?
Without that, such a claim could justifiably be described as reverse snobbery.
"If any such claim relies on ethnographic or sociological studies, then wouldn't it be appropriate to cite those when making such a claim?"
I think you might have wrong end of the stick. I have no idea if there are any studies on the cultural capital of pens. The point is a general methodological one - we can only understand the 'status' that any given commodity is supposed to possess by first investigating the particular ways in which it functions in a definite social group.
"So does this notion only apply to people who demonstrate this status?"
Everyone is always 'demonstrating status' all of the time so I hardly think this is enough to condemn someone.
But to get to the point: obviously buying a $4000 pen is a conspicuous symbol of status by which to differentiate yourself from other people. IMO it is utterly grotesque: in a world based on radical inequality where billions of people live miserable, indigent lives, buying a pen for that amount suggests that you care more about appearing to be rich that about helping anyone. It is a farcical, individualist act of petty self-congratulation.
I never claimed that 'owning a pen is vain'.
When I ask "Where is the cut-off", it's to prompt thought, to draw out an answer to the question: where is that cut-off?
"obviously buying a $4000 pen…is utterly grotesque"
Another aspect to that debate are those who didn't buy the pen. For example, those gifted it in a will, or who win it as a prize. Or even of those who do buy it, perhaps an aspiring writer, who spends the entirety of their advance on this pen - not to signify or demonstrate their wealth - but as relief that they've finally been signed, as proof to themselves that they're not an imposter. Sure, it might not be the most practical use of their money, but does it justify the ad hominem of "grotesque"?
Yes, there is vast inequality in the world, and $4000 would be an enormous amount of money to a vast number of people. But if that's the argument, it doesn't matter whether it's a pen, a car, a house, a painting, an antiquity, a rare MtG card; the argument simply becomes: is it grotesque to spend $X when there's a cheaper alternative?
IMO both are relevant to the evaluation of anybody who buys the $4000 pen. There is a distributional element (the money is better spent on those who actually need it), an ideological element (you live in a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities), a cultural element (you are playing a status game in which useless things are feted), and a character element (the third & to some extent first of these things suggests that those who buy $4000 pen's are terrible, vain people)
I already addressed why I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual. But clearly (in my mind, anyway) in the global political, economic and cultural conditions in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque.
the symbolic capital of a pen…
(a system that inculcates desires for useless commodities)…
(a status game in which useless things are feted).
I don't think there is an axiomatic answer about the 'cut-off' above: it's contextual.
in the global political, economic and cultural conditions
in which we live the purchase of a $4000 pen is grotesque
When it comes to challenging behaviour, and especially describing certain behaviour as "grotesque", it feels like there might be a better way to separate them.
The numbers matter when it comes to discussing (and influencing/lobbying) policy. The world's richest 8 people have the same wealth as 50% of the world's population [1]. Is that grotesque? Bill Gates uses some of that wealth to help some of the poorest people in the world. Does that offset his grotesque wealth? Does that justify it?
In the USA, a CEO earns 2,617 times the average salary for American workers [2]. Is that grotesque?
In the UK, the average FTSE100 CEO earns 129 times their average employee. 20 years ago, that figure was only 45 times, or roughly a third of the current inequality [2]. Which is fairer? What could be done to make things more fair?
These questions and discussions are important, because they can inform policy. For example, tax rates and bands - such as 90% tax rate on earnings over $X (which has been done in the past, but seems to be politically untenable at the moment). If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/w...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/business/britain-ceo-exec...
Pen's are not useless. But the clear implicature of what I said is that the functional difference between an ordinary pen and a $4000 pen is negligible such that the $4000 pen is useless given that fact (i.e. one might as well go ahead and use a normal pen).
That is not an axiomatic answer, it's my answer under the present state of things (I was explicit on that point).
I don't really understand the point of this pedantry? I think all of the things you list are fairly grotesque. But I don't have any great interest in wandering from a discussion about conspicuous consumption to one about tax policy. To be frank: I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly.
"If you want to call certain spending grotesque, it's helpful to have a reasonable rationale for that figure."
I have already given you a rationale. To claim otherwise is supercilious. You may not like it; but there is one.
It would be prudent to articulate the specifics in order to deliteate alternatives to capitalism. This would be "formulating policy", or "pedantry". You can't have it both ways. If you just want your argument to be heard and not discuss the specifics then say just that: "I don't care about the specifics, I know how i feel about it already."
You're absolutely unable to give a rationale despite your claims. So reading your posts, I'm still unsure if we should we all get the cheapest option we can get for anything because money can be "better spent helping others" or not. Is buying a car that is not the cheapest one available also a "farcical, individualist act of petty self-congratulation." ? Is it impossible to fulfill altruistic as well as personal goals ?
Also, why would money be better spent on "those who actually need it" (no definition is provided, from your stance and hate of wealth I'd guess people that can't afford 4000$ pens) than on elite craftmanship ? Do these craftsman, who produce something you're actively interested in (creating some kind of bond) not deserve money for their art ? Better give it away to something you have no emotional bound to ?
>To be frank: I am interested in alternatives to capitalism, and a great deal of the existing order of things bothers me profoundly.
Oh, really ? What a surprise ! A sadly common trait amongst hateful and judgemental people who show blatant inconsistencies coupled with a compulsive need to press reply.
I have given a rationale. It was not especially complicated but, then, this is a thread on hacker, and not a manifesto. I don't see why identifying a paradigm case of conspicuous consumption requires that I offer either a comprehensive program of public policy, or a normative philosophy of what one should and should not buy. I can perfectly well defend the proposition that people who buy $4000 pens are doing something terrible on its own terms. Which I have been doing.
My position is straightforward: there are reasons based on cultural capital, and on political economy, for the proposition that those who buy these pens are worthy of contempt. I broke these down as follows above:
1. Distributional: in that the $4000 pen is functionally useless relative to a pen 1/100th its price, and that we live in a world of palpable inequality where billions of people live in misery, to buy the pen is to suggest that you think very little about other human beings
2. Ideological: This is a little more complicated. I have the view that capitalism is a system that has an inherent drive to inculcate the desire for commodities, whether or not they are especially useful or not. This is a kind of genetic argument (you have the desire because and only because of the economic conditions in which you live), and an ideological argument (that desire is created by and supports capitalism; it helps to perpetuate a very unjust set of relations by giving you highly distorted preferences).
3. Cultural: these kinds of items are part of a cultural game of symbolic capital played among the super-rich, by virtue of the fact that they have everything (and more) than anyone could possibly need, and need to find some other way of differentiating themselves from others. It has much the same function as buying branded clothes - the desired property is not the clothing, but the status that comes with it.
4. The above 1-3 suggest that whoever buys a $4000 pen is a shallow person who doesn't care about other humans, and who is unduly concerned with their social status within a sub-culture of similarly noxious people.
"Oh, really ? What a surprise ! A sadly common trait amongst hateful and judgemental people who show blatant inconsistencies coupled with a compulsive need to press reply."
Again, if you think that I am somehow inconsistent then demonstrate it. Don't just allege it. I don't really see what the word 'judgmental' is doing here. Yes, I have an evaluative take on conspicuous consumption - this seems like a fairly standard kind of evaluative thought. Do you not evaluate the social world? The allegation that I have a 'compulsive need to press reply' is also rather strange. I have replied once to each reply to me.
I am not hateful. We just live in a very unjust world.
This kind of debate tactic always puzzles me, forcing a binary state on an opinion. The quoted bit even implies a spectrum, given the adjective 'utterly'.
I can't imagine you saying the same to a friend who said "I went for a very long drive last weekend" > "What's the cutoff for long? 50 miles? 100 miles?"
forcing a binary state on an opinion.
It doesn't have to be binary, but when someone states a certain figure - "$4000 is obviously grotesque" - then a binary state has already been established. $4000 and above is grotesque, below is, well, possibly grotesque, possibly not. Uncertain, clearly. That seems a sensible starting point for a discussion, to understand what makes $4000 grotesque, and does it also apply to $3000, $2000 - to understand the rationale for such a statement.
I can't imagine you saying the same to a friend who said
"I went for a very long drive last weekend"
> "What's the cutoff for long? 50 miles? 100 miles?"
I grew up in mid Cornwall, where a trip to Plymouth (55 miles) was generally considered a long drive. These days, I consider driving to Chamonix (780 miles) a long-ish drive, and to Istanbul a properly long drive. So knowing that my idea of a "long drive" has changed over time, and knowing my notion could easily differ from theirs, yes, I'd easily ask what they considered a long drive.
By the way, I never bought a product for showing off in my life. Wait, I lie: I bought a $30 tshirt because it had a cool version of the Debian logo. But otherwise, I don't have anything to rationalize :)
I should make it concrete with an example. Say someone buys a $4000 pen, which has a 75% profit margin. Those $3000 were not wasted, they just moved from the buyer's bank account to the company owner's bank account, which could use them for anything, including helping the poor.
Meanwhile, the $1000 went to pay for actual resources that were used up, and so in the POV that these pens are useless compared to helping the poor, that's the actual waste.
In your hypothetical, there's an (arguably) beautiful pen in the world, now, which wasn't there before. Surely that must have some value?
Otherwise, all forms of human endeavor are kind of pointless and a net negative for the world, right? If we only count the costs and ignore the product of the work?
The person who was saying it was negative was Emma_Goldman above, who decried the purchase of a $4000 pen in a world where billions of people live miserable, indigent lives.
What I'm saying is, it's not so bad, because of those $4000, most of it was just moved to someone else's bank account, the actual use of resources was small. Effectively, the buyer just delegated the power of alleviating poverty with that money to someone else.