It's my understanding that it was a badge of the senate, so wearing it would be like impersonation of a senator. Or worse, impersonation of the Emperor.
Snail Milker isn't a job one hears much of.
Many people will have heard of Lydia from the New Testament of the Holy Bible, who is referred to as a seller of purple, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_of_Thyatira.
A haute couture gown might cost $100k[2]. It’s not apples to apples but that’s still a difference of 10,000X.
[1] https://www.walmart.com/browse/clothing/womens-dresses/5438_... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/fashion/who-wears-paris-hau...
They make them by hand (by choice), and of course use the best materials, but a cashmere shirt at H&M is very cheap. Brands are priced out of reach of common folk, but materials and types of clothing aren't.
Is that right? I seem to think it was a myth and there was never such a law (at least enforced).
It doesn't seem to say much about actual enforcement, other than the lack of it for Louis XIII's decrees, and the repeated (and apparently ineffective) calls for stricter enforcement of the English laws.
Add to this that social status confers power and vice versa, so even if a rational king doesn't care for bling personally, he ought to wear something exclusive. Not just be cause displaying bling enhances his status and hence his power. But also because enforcing the sumptuary laws displays power, which confers status, which enhances his power etc.
My thought is that money helps covering the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Social status is present only in the upper half of it. This should mean that people may care about money but not yet about status. (And as a fun fact, the causes that leads to a "rat race" are harder to ignore as one climbs down on the same Maslow's pyramid, which at least in theory means that it should happen less for social status than for other things.)
Note, by the way, that there is also esteem from being similar to others who like you, and esteem from meeting an absolute standard that others might or might not match too.
The one's purchasing for social status are regarded as wasting their time generally (and speaking from personal experience).
Is the house what they actually need or what they think they should have based on their social status?
I used to feel like that, but as I grew up I realized that social landscape is also part of the environment, so there's utility to be gained by being mindful of what you signal with your clothes or other status symbols. A suit, for example, might not be the most comfortable thing to wear, but can help you navigate the job market and acquire support of other people - in the same way a good pair of mountain shoes can help you navigate rough terrain.
But to the extent that people are caught in a rat race, then I say it is rarely about money itself except as a means to social status. And as in my example of the rational king, even people who do have it together, need to play the status game in some form.
Sounds silly when you type it out.
I think I can argue that the level of fondness for power that we're talking about does not bring comfort, as it is the result of paranoia. It's from the inabilty to be comfortable with the world; not from a want to change it (which is a symptom).
To believe that more and more power (and money) is going to somwhow finally fix things is clearly a fool's errand of Sisyphean proportions.
I want to live in a world without rat race, corruption, power hunger, etc, but being old enough to realize that it just takes a few to abuse everyone else, I don't know what safeguards need to be put in place first, for that to be possible.
Helping other people itself requires a certain kind of power. If you have no time or resources to spare, your good cause isn't going to get very far. If you have no ability to influence other people with power to help, your impact is limited.
I'm pretty sure you have the causality backwards here. Status symbols exist to show off that you have money. If someone shows off status symbols but everyone knows they don't actually have money, they'll be seen as a poser, not a clever social hacker.
In Impro, Keith Johnstone talks about status being the most important thing actors add to make their scenes instantly "life-like". Status is everywhere in our lives yet most of us ignore it--we know it happens but we don't like to think about it. It's only when you try to recreate life on the stage that you realize, oh shoot, people are all about status.
Among the cosmopolitan elite, conspicuous consumption is considered utterly gauche; status in this subculture is demonstrated through knowledge of art and culture, through holding the right political opinions and being up on the right trends. Those same cultural status symbols would mark you as low-status in a conservative rural community.
A high-status advertising executive instantly becomes low-status if they're in a room full of hackers or conceptual artists, because their status is denominated in the wrong currency - they're just a sell-out. The symbols of their economic status actively undermine their cultural status. In certain circles, driving a Mercedes and wearing Armani are symbols of a life wasted in the corporate machine.
All status symbols are relative and context-dependent.
Regarding the causality, I disagree with you andrewflnr. For instance, jewelry is older than money and there are even statuses in nonhuman circles. I admit that it's debatable, but I think the value of money comes from the power it gives (you buy other people's time and stuff) but status can do the same and has a more permanent feel (it doesn't deplete linearly, unlike money spent). That's why in some communities, the local priest / doctor teacher is still considered more important than wealthier merchants / land owners. That's why Trump is more powerful than many wealthier billionaires.
(Hundreds of years ago, important signals would be clean skin, clothes and hair. Not to mention your accent, language proficiency and general knowledge. Today these are mostly affordable commodities.)
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-inside-library...
(The article only mentions mummy brown briefly so Ctrl+F for it if that’s the only part that interests you. Personally I think the whole article is worth reading.)