Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

> Obviously it helped that the Manhattan lawyer was very quick on her feet, but my wife commented at the time that "even from the way she was dressed, the Long Island lawyer didn't have a chance".

This is one of those veeery subtle class things. People don't realise how much they signal to establishment institutions that they don't belong through through things like how they dress. And because they don't realise it they don't even know they're being disadvantaged.

I've seen people turn up to social events with what is very clearly to an insider the 'wrong type' of suit (wrong fabric, wrong cut, buttoned incorrectly, wrong shirt, wrong tie, wrong type of shoes), with people silently judging them, but they would have absolutely no idea how much they stand out and how they're being disadvantaged by it.

Hard to tackle because it's all silent, the victims are oblivious, and there's not really any concrete action you can point to and criticise.

View on HN

Part of why I always used to try to dress significantly different than whoever I'm going to be around. I know I'm not part of the group, so I'd rather not have the uncanny valley

That very much depends on the power dynamic. Dressing appropriately is - among other things - also a statement that you want to belong to this group. But if you're a startup founder meeting with lawyers, it might pay off to be "that super nerdy tech guy" instead of "the cool just-like-us banker doing tech".

Over the years, I've read a lot about social stuff, including clothes. Your comment makes me think of a piece I read about some guy trying to do all the power dressing, take control of the situation with body language stuff and it didn't work at all on the self made man in jeans he was meeting with. The guy either didn't recognize any of it or flat out didn't care -- and didn't need to.

Indeed. I always remember that when GW Bush nominated Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court, there was quite a bit of sniggering in the media about how her outfits looked like they’re out of a Talbot’s catalog. Of course she was also woefully under-qualified for a SCOTUS appointment, but the way she dressed certainly further made her stand out as an outsider, even though she was working in the WH at the time and not exactly some random lawyer from podunk.

The great thing about dressing one or two steps above a hobo is that if anyone cares you know they're an asshole.

It's not that simple though. I see it can help us cope better if we label them as assholes, but the fact remains that the filter is there and it is silent. Nobody will tell you these things to your face, you just go through life and never get told the insider infos that people with the right background get access to. And as others have written, faking it is almost impossible anyway. Even if you have your clothes perfectly, you won't have all the right manners and mannerisms, tone etc. As someone coming from Eastern European village folk I know I will most likely never be an insider to those circles in Wester Europe or America (lawyers, doctors, professors, intellectuals etc). I feel it in every little bit fancier dinner event (academia or industry) or other similar stuff that I'm a bumbling outsider. It's not just "assholes", normal people to whom these things come naturally judge you too.

But it's ok. I did learn in my upbringing that my only value will come from studying and skills and being useful. While rich upper class people are seen to have intrinsic value by belonging to the elite tribe, through a deep web of generation-bridging connections, us plebs must deliver and are only valuable as long as we produce.

Software development and CS are good areas for this, as it requires a lot of effort beyond theatricals and signaling and there is a lot of demand so the elite does pay us through their teeth because they have to, even if they resent our nature in their bones. Although there are definitely restrictive interpretations of "cultural fit" at certain tech companies. But even as an immigrant, work in tech is one of the best ways to a comfortable life. It can be materially comfortable, but integrating to the high circles is practically impossible. We must learn to embrace and find pride in who we are I guess and stop pretending. Being authentic may be a better choice even if it goes with sacrifices.

But overall, dismissing it as just assholes does not reach deep enough. It is an issue to grapple with and process. There is a silent glass ceiling for most of us and it's definitely even a lot lower than mine for many others.

Yeah, the elite pay us through their teeth because they have to, and they inject billions into AI research aiming to automate everything, coding included.

Just as an aside, I think the phrase is “pay through the nose”. There is another phrase to “lie through your teeth” though, so maybe a it’s a “rocket surgery” type thing (I.e it’s not rocket science/brain surgery)

A quick google seems to indicate that it has been used, but my gut tells me it’s not right.

Slightly ironic given the subject of parent’s comments.

You're right, I did confuse the two and I actually know both. (I will admit I mostly read non-fiction and these phrases rarely come up). Perhaps I should read more proper literature to become an insider, haha.

Nah your writing is great, don’t worry. Language is fluid and I think it’s more fun to see it used differently in various places. If it makes sense to you, why not use these words?

Imagine if the person who said the phrase is ‘not right’ told you instead that you poop in the 'wrong' way?

Is there really a ‘wrong’ way to live or wrong way to do things? Or are there just different or alternative ways?

> Is there really a ‘wrong’ way to live or wrong way to do things? Or are there just different or alternative ways?

Yes to the former, some people go around murdering and stealing. I’m not being facetious, there’s a whole philosophy bent on subjectivism which is super interesting.

I think the English idiom OP was aiming for is "pay through gritted teeth" (ie, reluctantly).

I think 'pay through the nose' means pay a lot. Whereas 'pay through the teeth' means pay even through you don't want to.

Upon re-reading my post I think I have add that the concept of "elite" is tiered. I myself am part of a circle of white collar workers and get at least sometimes to fancy dinners where I'm not quite confused with the janitor etc. And even if I was born into the next higher class, there would be next higher circles I couldn't reach. Being, say,in a lawyer dynasty doesn't may not be enough for certain things, but I have to admit I don't know the distinguishing signals at those levels.

The point is that it may feel frustrating to feel excluded, but everyone feels that except multi-billionaires. I'd say therefore that after ensuring a Western middle-class level of comfort, the rest is mostly a mental game of accepting one's place, as there's always something higher that you can frustrate yourself over.

The point is that even a Western middle class level of comfort is beyond the reach of most of the population.

It would be interesting and possibly revealing to research the source class of tech workers to see how many don't come from a middle class background.

The only research I could find at short notice was this from the UK:

https://www.bcs.org/media/1652/social-mobility-report.pdf

The UK and the US both have poorer social mobility than Europe, so the figures in the US are likely to be even lower than here.

> The point is that even a Western middle class level of comfort is beyond the reach of most of the population

Depends on the country, and I'm not sure it's the same effect, ie not being able to pass culturally due to upbringing mismatch. Probably true for those growing up in very poor, crime ridden places where they can't learn the basic hygiene, punctuality etc needed for work.

As for social mobility, anecdotally, from who went where in my circles, tech and engineering are definitely higher in this than law and economics. Whatever is more concrete and harder to muddle the waters, is better suited for outsiders as a ladder. But the really big money is always in softer things but they a better gate-kept. I don't really think anyone tries to gatekeep the hard fields or trades too much. It's also why "the Polish plumber" is a meme. Easter European immigrants can take up such jobs and often reach a middle class income. I know many simple hardworking people who couldn't progress much due to cultural fit, but do make decent money in England/Germany etc. with physical work (like transporting stuff, setting up stages, cutting trees). Their kids do have a chance to enter the cultural middle class then.

Dressing as if you don't care what other people think is also communication.

Our choice of clothes communicates a great deal even if we don't want it to - there is no escape from this game.

Instead of merely dressing as if you don't care, you can just not care what other people think.

You are right that you still cannot escape potential consequences of this particular game, but at least you can escape being actively involved in the game itself.

Of course, there are always consequences to everything in life, but you don't have to be an active participant in everyone else's games. Just play the games you want to play.

Now, the consequences to this game do seems to be quite real. My wife is more successful in certain respects than I am, I believe, in part because she is good at playing that particular game while I just can't be bothered to give a damn.

Except it turns out that everyone's an asshole.

Why not exactly like a hobo then. Wouldn't that make you an asshole too to make the distinction?

The only difference is your level of steps is just smaller.

There are many non-asshole people who might care if your clothes had never been washed & were full of gaping holes. For example, if they were trapped in an elevator with you.

But to be generous, maybe you know relatively well-dressed hobos.

Counterpoint: dressing that way says "I don't care" and is an indication of who you are as a person. First dates, interviews, just walking on the same sidewalk... all situations where we should be making judgement calls about how close we choose to get to you.

Inside the Mirrotocracy http://carlos.bueno.org/2014/06/mirrortocracy.html

I wonder with covid how this is being impacted?

I would have called this "Mirrortocracy". More clear that you're referring to mirrors, rolls off the tongue just about as easily, and still sounds like meritocracy.

Agreed. That's what it's called in the URL

> I've seen people turn up to social events with what is very clearly to an insider the 'wrong type' of suit (wrong fabric, wrong cut, buttoned incorrectly, wrong shirt, wrong tie, wrong type of shoes)

I’ve been on one side of this, making half-conscious assumptions about other guests based on subtle sartorial faux-pas I’d have a tough time articulating, but this made me realize that I could just as easily be on the other side, and probably have been.

How is that even a thing. I'm trying to wrap my head around how someone would even make those observations, let alone justify changing how they interact with someone because of it.

I mean, like, you would think the substance bro brings to the table would matter more than his duds 'n' presentation.

If you spend every day meeting strangers in a certain context, then I imagine you can learn to notice things like that over time. I suspect an insider explaining these things to a relatively young entrant also happens.

it's relatively easy to imagine though,

tech is somewhat famously informal; so replace the black hoodie or conference t-shirt with: a shirt, tie and button-down vest.

Despite perhaps looking nice, it would undoubtedly look very out of place, you might even not trust the person as much.

As a counter example one of the best developers I've worked with wore a business suit/formal clothes regularly. But he was in his 40s and it felt appropriate with his demeanor - it didn't feel out of place at all despite the office being rather casual (I remember more than a few people wearing sweatpants around the office since they would cycle/run to work)

Oh, there are certainly exceptions to this, Gary Bernhardt (whom I highly respect for giving excellent talks) wears exactly the attire I'm describing.

But we all have implicit biases, and it wouldn't be my gut feeling to trust a person who does not present as 'one of my group' like this.. even though I'm aware of the bias.

When I worked in Windows I always loved seeing Raymond Chen in his suit amid a sea of t-shirts and flip-flops.

Or replace the $80+ "tech" climbing pants or selvedge jeans, expensive trail runners or toe shoes or whatever, tech company t-shirt, and American Giant (on the cheap end, it goes up from there) hoodie with: $25 Lee jeans or Target cargo pants, cheap big box store sneakers or cheap work boots—not, say, Redwing Heritage or you'll accidentally start fitting in with the hipster-tech variant of tech fashion, because they're kinda impractical and expensive-for-their-features compared to other work boot options, and yes of course I own some—a Nascar shirt and a wal-mart hoodie that's missing its plastic aglets because it's been washed once.

You can definitely dress in a way that doesn't look that much "lower" to an outsider but looks very wrong, and, gasp, poor to someone in-tune with tech worker fashion. So it's not just dressing too nice that does it, and hell, for that matter you can spend about as much as the cost of an on-sale Brooks Brothers suit buying a "tech shabby" outfit[0], with results that will definitely be appreciated by many your fellow tech workers, or simply overlooked by others in a way that Red-State-Working-Class or suit-and-a-tie won't.

[0] The aforementioned Red Wing Heritage boots are north of $300 for most models, full retail, and check out Arc'teryx and such for how expensive trail shoes can get ($150+, and they're not the most expensive brand), but even something like Danners are pretty pricey compared to what normal people buy for shoes; dropping $200 on a hoodie and rain layer is easy (again, go for expedition-clothing sorts of products to run up the price tag but also the tech worker cred—$300 just for a paper-thin rain jacket isn't even the top of the range); $80 merino wool hiking shirt ("I just love how it keeps me dry, but also I love talking about merino wool with other people who know how expensive it is"); and shit, jeans, sky's the limit, you can hit $200 on those while still just "buying more quality" and not even in just-paying-for-the-label territory yet.

When first starting out I wore a suit to a job interview (not a tech company, but a Fortune 100 where you could literally wear a bikini to work (man or woman) and nobody would say anything). After I was hired they pulled me aside and told me to never do that again.

I really want to know what this company is now

One of the first companies I worked at, the motto of the boss was - if they have a suit they're there to get you

At first reading this comment felt like it was going to a story of a guy going to work in a bikini - but alas.

I once went to lunch with two colleagues. One was the son of wealthy parents, the other came from the poor side of the tracks. The first was dressed in a casual t-shirt and shorts, the second in an Armani suit.

The first ordered lunch and wine, in the most unconsciously casual, elegant way. The second then tried to imitate that manner, failing pathetically. I.e. the clothes didn't take away the upper class manner, nor bestow upper class mannerisms.

It's hard to fight your upbringing.

I think this is what The Great Gatsby was about. It is also possible to spend nearly (same O() but maybe different constant factor) as much on t-shirt and shorts as an Armani suit. Plus the fit of the clothes matter almost more than the brand. But I think the biggest difference is that people who grow up rich often have this ineffable sense of ease with the world.

They're at ease in their environment, not with the world in general.

Put them on the floor of a blacksmith shop and you will see them get nervous.

In the modern west, actual blacksmithing is comparatively rare and niche. "Check out my bespoke wrought iron cuff-links", etc.

Put them on the floor of a McDonalds in a questionable neighborhood -- that's where they'll get nervous.

> The second then tried to imitate that manner, failing pathetically.

Your comment reminded me of a similar experience of mine, but in reverse.

I was washing my hands in the restrooms at work, and decided to drink some water. I bent over, cupped my hand and started drinking.

At this moment, a guy went out of another stall and walked up to the sink next to me. He was some sort of manager, I guess, because he'd always be in a suit when I've seen him around the office before. When I got up, I saw him drinking water the same way I did, only he was failing to get much of it into his mouth. :-) Obviously, this was his first time.

I'm trying to understand how ordering lunch can ever be described as "elegant." It's a mundane task. I'm largely convinced that it's not the manner, but the body it's done in or the credit card on the person.

People are really good at convincing themselves that things are just so.

Surely you remember being a teenager and acutely aware of subtle signals like that. You could identify a "try-hard" who are often disliked for pretending to be part of a culture they're not in. It's a kind of dishonesty.

Nope. I was an anime and video game geek in the mid-2000s. People talk about gatekeeping at the time, but I honestly don't remember it.

Pretty simple to notice when it's stuff that your parents drilled into your head every day of your life until you moved out.

I've been to quite a few meetings where it's widely assumed that the people in suit know nothing technical, and the ones in button-down shirts know nothing financial.

This happens in all human tribes to different extents

I used to wear a lot of button-down shirts because I think they look great. But for engineering interviews I'd always put on a t-shirt.

Nowadays I wear mostly t-shirts. The tech environment beat the button-down shirt out of me.

That rings strangely to me. I don't think I've worn anything other than a button-down shirt to a tech company (interview or otherwise) in the last...decade?

Somehow, I keep getting handed principal and director gigs and my peers are fine with me. I'm pretty sure it's OK, tbh.

I wear a shirt one/two days a month, but my default dress has been jeans+t-shirt for 20+ years working in the UK, and now Finland.

I'd "dress up" for an interview, but that's really what I think of it as. I think I average wearing a suit once a year, and that's usually for a wedding, funeral, or similar formal occasion.

I sometimes wear a button down shirt in winter, it's a surprisingly versatile piece of clothing. I tend to prefer ones that are a bit more practical than dressy.

Other than that, I've replaced t-shirts with polo shirts. Maybe it's just the t-shirts I buy, but they usually shrink weirdly and I prefer the pique fabric used in most polos. I also appreciate the collar (for protecting my neck from sun) and being able to unbutton to cool off a bit in summer. They also tend to last longer.

I have had the pleasure of bamboozling Americans with my ‘posh’ English accent and own style, making them make all kinds of wrong guesses about my level of privilege and background. Of course my accent isn’t what an English person would consider posh, my schooling was normal and my “style” is actually clueless tinged with apathy. Snap judgments can be really wrong.

There's a much greater leeway given to people from a different background, which is why moving to another country is a great way to reset your class and immigrants often make massive jumps in class compared to where they come from.

Except Americans in Europe don’t seem to have that advantage.

If you try to fit in as just another member of the group then you need to pick up on the group norms, but I fell like people react positively when you pull off something well.

I'm curious if I can short-circuit it somehow - by maybe wearing a really fancy watch or something.

For that sort of crowd, you wouldn't really cancel a major clothing faux pas by excelling in your choice of accessory.

That being said, it is also important to not look like you're trying too hard. Rolex and Omega are typically loud in the same way an "improper" suit is. They might hurt more than help, whereas Patek, Vacheron or Lange would be more impressive. Socialites who care enough about these things tend to have a certain affected air about them -- they (ostensibly, if not actually) appreciate them for fine craftsmanship rather signaling, which becomes a signal of its own. It would be an easy outsider error to assume that signal is about how expensive the watch is rather than which expensive watch it is.

Subtlety is everything. It is important not to look as though you're exerting effort to fit in. And you can afford to break from the ingroup convention if your mannerisms are otherwise "correct" and everyone in the group is aware of your status.

The mannerisms matter much more than the clothing. Personal looks too, especially face, body shape and posture. Manner of speaking completes the picture.

You can pick up old money relatively easily even if they're in a frumpy grandma sweater, even from a distance.

I wonder if all that just comes naturally to them or it feels like the "prison" it seems to me as an outsider. Constantly caring about this stuff, buying new clothes, looking out for fashion trends etc seems exhausting. I'm the typical nerdy wrinkly T-shirt and jeans guy and I know I'll not get into high circles anyway, and subjectively it feels quite freeing not to care. I spend my time immersing in stuff I'm actually interested in, not any required stuff like watches and suits and fine wines and whatever else. Or perhaps to these people it's not a burden, they naturally care about watches and fine wine... I honestly have no idea but would love to once speak honestly about such things with insiders...

Edit: upon some reflection, perhaps my stereotypes are outdated and it's not really necessary for even old-money-rich young people to care about fancy watches and wines any more. I mean some base level knowledge is needed, but I have to remind myself that when I think they may have it worse in some respects I'm probably wrong. Why would they restrict themselves to rigid bullshit, if it's not pleasant? Probably the rules are more flexible today. Probably I'm totally blind to whatever the current actual class markers are as they are invisible to us.

I think your understanding of this is backwards.

The point is that these people don't care about fashion or watches or how much you spend on your clothes. They dress conventionally instead, which is a standard that only changes over the scale of a decade or so. The mistake outsiders make is to think that the point is to follow fashion and buy an expensive watch. That's why they don't fit in - they wear something fashionable.

Also, to defend the idea a bit, the idea of a dress code is exactly that purpose - so that you don't need to worry about what you're wearing or how much it cost or wether someone thinks it's fashionable or not.

I always come back to the cinema image of the rich guy casually tossing the keys of his supercar to the valet. The reason it's "cool" is the effortless balance. He has fun with the car, but he is no petrol-head. To you & I it's an unobtainable thing, to him it's just another car.

That's how I've come to understand it. These wealthy types are not horophiles or sommeliers. They just casually appreciate beautiful craftsmanship & the taste of high quality alcohol- and who doesn't? Just look at how techies love machined metal laptop bodies, and the popularity of craft beer. The reason out-groups are quickly identified is because they cargo-cult the material things.

> It would be an easy outsider error to assume that signal is about how expensive the watch is rather than which expensive watch it is.

Right, although Patek, Vacheron or Lange are significantly more expensive than Rolex and Omega.

I know maybe you’re trying to give advice, but all I think when reading your comment is: “what a pretentious prick, what a great example of saying nothing and adding nothing to the conversation“ - your comment made me cringe. For me you’ve illustrated the point well that many in the existing elite - with inherited privilege, knowledge, and position in hierarchy - are ruined by money and obsessed with status signaling through 'elite consumerism' as a form of identity.

I mean, there are human beings who are making these ridiculously overpriced vanity watches day in, day out, in a miserable factory somewhere. All I see when I see these ads for Patek Phillippe, or similar, is a hopeless human doing work that they won't benefit from.

I wish rentier capitalism would end now, so we’d all live in a Commons-based peer production life where everyone was fed, instead of this ‘some people will buy a Ferrari and a rolex today, and some children will die from malnutrition’-world.

Luxury is a scam. The ultra rich (read: dominators) are just as anxious as the Precariat, scared to lose it all. Not to mention their kids are often ruined and unbearable people. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maWdDl_OjlQ

Edit: when I write "Patek or similar" I am really talking about any type of 'luxury good', like a Prada bag, or a cheaper-than-Rolex Michael Kors watch etc.

The people 'defending' Patek are missing my point (or I am missing them?) My point is that living in a world with artificial scarcity-creating systems is disturbing to me (Rentier Capitalism by Prof Guy Standing)[1]. It constantly surprises me how our priorities became the way they are with many of us in chains, and a few rolling around in a pool of blood-stained gold and diamonds. [2],[3]

[1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...

[2] https://vimeo.com/242569435

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7iv1fef6qo

I'd be surprised if those people making Patek watches are not extremely well paid craftsmen who really love what they are doing.

> well paid craftsmen

As opposed to "a sweatshop in a low cost geography by some human drones", like another person who replied wrote?

You do know that the Global North is hoarding IP, and that another world of Commons-based peer production is possible, right? We could all be 'well paid craftsmen' if we shifted to that. In my eyes, you're showing an incredible privilege here, being aware of, and talking about, Patek watches.

Uppppper class. [1]

[1] https://vimeo.com/242569435

I think you are underestimating the skill and craft involved in making some of these watches. Have you actually seen a movement? They're not made in a sweatshop in a low cost geography by some human drones. A watch maker is a high status craftsman and can be influential in their own right (look up the story of FP Journe if you doubt that). If you come to Switzerland you can see the actual factories for many of the producers in the area around Geneva and they are more like pharma manufacturing plants than fast fashion warehouses.

It's very uncharitable to assume that because you can't see the craft in something that it doesn't exist or is a scam. I couldn't taste the difference between two kinds of whisky if you put a gun to my head but it doesn't mean other people can't or that it's some kind of status game in disguise.

> They're not made in a sweatshop in a low cost geography by some human drones.

What the hell does that mean? 'human drones'

> It's very uncharitable to assume that because you can't see the craft in something that it doesn't exist or is a scam.

“I don't believe in charity. I believe in solidarity. Charity is so vertical. It goes from the top to the bottom. Solidarity is horizontal. It respects the other person. I have a lot to learn from other people.”

― Eduardo Galeano

What are you blaberring about? I agree that these luxury watches are mere status symbols and not a necessity, but no one's selling them at 90% margin. A considerable amount of highly skilled exclusively first world labor goes into these watches, and these devices are probably the single best type of objects where the labor that went into it is patently obvious right in front of your eyes. In fact, that exactly IS the symbol here for the most part, the fact that it's a human creation whose value is purely of the labor (the good kind) more than something that came out of the earth, and something, all considered, that holds its value over time instead of being ephemeral. I understand the angst and anger against the plutocracy but logic needn't go out the window in pursuit of an outlet for that anger.

> whose value is purely of the labor (the good kind)

What's the 'bad' kind?

> logic needn't go out the window in pursuit of an outlet for that anger

Many of these watches are Swiss. Switzerland is (or was) a known tax-haven...

It's our inability to connect the dots that baffles me sometimes. Where else do the wealthy elites get the kind of cash needed to buy these watches?

The good kind of labor is where the people doing it are free, compensated and satisfied.

If we are going to avoid Switzerland because it's a tax haven then we should probably avoid doing any commerce with any country, including the one you probably are in now (unless you're in NZ or something).

And with regards to your update - no one is talking about faux luxury consumer goods here; in fact an argument can be made that the _only_ sustainable mode of consumerism is the kind practiced by these luxury watch makers if antrhung.

High quality watches were coming out of Switzerland long before it was a tax haven. [0]

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/style/international/what-...

The US (a country without a wealth tax, and an income tax that only applies to realised, non-loopholed, income) can be a more effective tax haven than switzerland. I believe various ex-british islands may also part of the reason we get this particular bit of anglophone[1] two minute hate[2].

Yes, we're part of the Global North. We have a relatively high standard of living now, due to not having blown ourselves up twice last century, before which we were considered poor in relation to our neighbours. Compare Heidi. (Iodine in salt may have helped immensely, too.)

[1] the brits may still be salty that our bankers did to them what Soros did to thailand. Someone's gotta make sure The Market stays efficient, innit?

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23975900

How are worker protections in your jurisdiction? Solidarity is an ideal invoked here even by the pro-free trade pro-small business centre-right party.

(One way our rich flex amongst themselves is on the Züri equivalent of Groundhog Day: they ride horses around a giant wooden snowman with explosives in its head after it's been set on fire. The faster it goes boom, the better the summer will be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reuJ8yVCgSM&t=58

One can tell the Zürchers are a bunch of capitalist pigs who'll be against the wall when the revolution comes[3] because although the holiday is celebrated on a Monday evening, some of them don't even get the day off.)

[3] at the end of Cold War I, we learned we'd had a secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay-behind unit active on our soil. This was a scandal, because we are not a Nato member. Thank you, UK!

Luxury watches - maybe. Although the fact that these rare and unique precision-made craft pieces are incredibly bad at basic timekeeping compared to a $5 Casio, which is in turn pretty average compared to a $50 World Time Wave Ceptor, is both hilarious and sad.

But luxury handbags and other "fashion" items are inexcusable, because they are literally assembled in sweat shops by slave labour and then sold for four/five/six/seven figure price tags to vulgar stupid people.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90279693/did-a-slave-make-your-s...

The point of this kind of luxury isn't utility or quality - it's pure status display, combined with narcissistic indifference to the fate of the unfortunates whose work is being displayed so ostentatiously.

... incredibly bad at basic timekeeping ...

A modern minivan is faster than a classic Porsche in virtually every metric. That doesn't lessen the appeal of the Porsche; speed isn't the point.

Sorry, I should clarify that my comment wasn't intended to be advice or endorsement of the situation. I was being descriptive, not prescriptive.

I don't really have a dog in the race when it comes to whether or not such veblen goods should exist. I agree they are often only sought after as status objects, but I also can't discount the possibility that some people really do appreciate their craftsmanship.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261887

> I can tell you that the cost of a Rolex is well worth it, from the particular point of view of 'access' to the guys with watches and hey let's talk about them . The watch club. The $40 fake I had was good enough, because who is going to unwind someone else's winder at a social gathering? Similarly other Veblen goods like a Lamborghini (rent one!) that a guy talked about as a conversation piece on a Reddit AMA a day or two ago. Whatever someone is deeply interested in, they will glom onto you if you show anything like authentic interest.

I find the "short-circuit" is confidently rejecting the notion of "socially imposed norms" but appreciating the subtle ones. A funky dress shirt at an event when most are suit and tie (not required but socially imposed) without giving a wink about it - rejection of the norms. Strong handshake with a suit, mentioning their watch, speaking their lingo - appreciating the subtle ones. That short-circuits people's expectations and the rejection of the "socially imposed norms" seems to be perceived as more of a status symbol then following them is. Humans both love patterns and anomalies, so an anomaly that fits in the pattern seizes their interest.

There's nothing that signals 'lower-class' more than buying luxury goods to try to look wealthy.

A fancy watch might earn you some respect from the tiny subset of rich folks that are themselves watch affectionados, but the respect will come from your depth of knowledge about watch construction, brands and history. The fact that you own one is largely inconsequential.

If you really want to cheat the system, skip buying the watch yourself. If you study the fancy watches, you can compliment folks on their watch, and get the benefits of appearing both knowledgable and friendly.

The wealthy don't value things you can buy with money. Spending money will not impress them.

>This is one of those veeery subtle class things.

I saw Americans seriously arguing that ads are a legit means of brainwashing. My bet would be that she was a walking advertisement and any rentable image would fly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com