Hacker News Reader

You're signaling spiritual wealth/enlightenment instead of economic wealth.

This leads to you mimic the surface characteristics of the working class. Old car, old clothes, fashionably unfashionable, hobbies that involve working with your hands, etc. I think this is admirable but I also think that people generally have to go through an immature phase where they buy dumb shit to signal their status before they get to the situation you were raised in.

I don't like the article. It's just bourgeois-bashing and the people who get turned on by that old pastime tend to be somewhat venal themselves.

Buying dumb shit is the sort of experience the rich can afford that puts such a perspective on life that allows you to then shoot for more fufilling goals/works/community. All the fairy tales in the world arent going to teach you better than living the experience of excess.

Not everyone outgrows this though. I'd argue that most don't, even.

Case in point, Trump.

That's the things bout economics...there's dumb shit you can buy at EVERY LEVEL!

My boys are experiencing they first stead incomes at 18 with their first non-home-chore jobs.

They're spending some of that money on Hotwheels, and personally, I'm happy letting them experience that, they save a little, they spend a little, they get hooked on getting things they want...because it incentivizes them to be successful.

Let’s not pretend we live in a meritocracy when we can see via legislative acts a whole lot of wealth is owned due to political corruption.

I don’t like the defense of the booj class by proles such as yourself when such kowtowing is effectively putting the boot on the necks of the masses.

Best not upset them or you might not get paid yourself, right? Talk about venal. “Let the rich be! I need to make my paper!”

You're right and I'm (to a point) aware that my values are a weird pastiche of an imagined working class. Before I turned 25 all I did was while away the day peacefully, now I don't feel ok if I'm not productive in some very immediate way like painting a door. I won't pretend that's not silly.

What I hope to convey is that luxury is a trap if you're not already independently wealthy. And if you are financially free, you can still be sucked back into wage-slavery by wanting too much stuff. And even if you transcend that level of wealth, you can still find more fulfilment by spending your money on things that improve someone else's situation. Stop being fleeced by people exploiting your psychology for their enrichment.

It makes me feel better to buy a burrito from a family restaurant than a Hermès bag. Could we status-signal in that direction? Will it make a difference?

> No wonder so many people are eager to bring out the pitchforks. Is this the behaviour we expect from our most successful?

Is this behavior representative of the most successful? This article appears to have been compiled by looking for some of the most egregious examples of ridiculous things to buy, a real get-out-the-pitchforks kind of work, but surely there are those who are merely buying things like real estate and US equities. I can only imagine that if the coverage is broadly characteristic of this class, it would be almost accidental that it is so.

"If you're reading it, it's for you."

I hope the people portrayed in this article aren't representative but I do know there are two possible reactions to the piece: Being grossed out by the lifestyle or thinking it's a good idea to emulate it. Since the NYT chose to not portray anyone taking a bath on a speculative sneaker purchase, I can only assume their intention is to glorify this behaviour. So I choose to be outraged by it publicly as a counter balance.

The problem is that it doesn't convey the subtlety that occurs when your income starts to drastically outstretch your expenses. I can't speak for anyone else, but _my_ brain can't wrap itself around the additional income...You have $1000 in income, and you make sure you keep your expenses to $900. So you have $100 extra...and you scrimp and save, and eventually you have $200 extra.

240 months later you don't feel any safer that you have $125000 in savings...meanwhile, you've upgraded your house 3 or 4 times, have upgraded the car 3 or 4 times, bought all the food and clothes and vacations...but you're still the same scared little rabbit you were when you had $200 extra.

People may or may not contribute to a greater cause with the extra money, but that's not the only factor into how people think about money.

Additionally, money does NOT follow value. That guy that IPO'd and his net worth went from $25,000 to $130M? It really wasn't from anything he did, it's lottery money. Is it fair? Meh, I dunno, I'm just pointing out the trope. But if you suddenly found yourself there, why WOULDN'T you buy the most expensive $item? It doesn't affect the number in your checkbook any.

We have the same brains our ancestors had...all it needed to do then was learn how to find the next meal.

I don’t think I could waste money like that. Compare a $100k watch to hiring an electrician for a year. In SK / AB Canada there are a lot of electricians out of work due to downturns in resource sectors, but there’s a lot of work they could be doing. It’s just that the work that could be done would be for poor people and no one is going to pay for it.

Owning the wealth gives you the ability to allocate labor and the current wealth owners aren’t doing a good job. Redistribute the wealth IMO.

> Compare a $100k watch to hiring an electrician for a year.

US$ 100K watches are generally built by hand by a craftsman (usually Swiss or German) and may take more than a year to build:

* https://www.alange-soehne.com/en/timepieces/1815-tourbillon/...

* https://www.chrono24.com/alangesoehne/lange-1-rose-gold-tour...

What makes the work of the electricians, carpenters, plumbers, etc, any better or worse than that of a fine machinist?

You're not wrong, it's just understand that you are making a value judgement, and not everyone has the same values as you.

And here's a Canadian watch maker:

* https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/canadian-comeback-kid-one-...

* https://www.bradleytaylor.ca

> It’s just that the work that could be done would be for poor people and no one is going to pay for it.

Which is why we have taxes and social safety nets (which was added to by CERB).

> What makes the work of the electricians, carpenters, plumbers, etc, any better or worse than that of a fine machinist?

You’re right that it’s a value judgement. A tradesman might be able to fix problems that impact essentials (electricity, water, shelter) for 100 people in a year while a fine machinist makes a single watch for a rich person.

I think it’s shameful to be spending resources on frivolous luxury goods when such a huge chunk of society lacks the essentials required for a reasonable standard of living.

People are free to spend their own money however they wish.

If you think you (or the government/society) can spend their money in a way that is "better" than they themselves can, take it from them (e.g., taxes).

> I think it’s shameful to be spending resources on frivolous luxury goods when such a huge chunk of society lacks the essentials required for a reasonable standard of living.

In large swathes of the world, the computer you're typing on, the phone you have, and that ice cream you enjoyed the other night would be considered "frivolous luxury goods."

Be careful what you wish for.

I am personally kind-of-ok with the watch purchase you describe. What I'm not ok with is the extra ~100K tacked onto the watch price by the brand going exclusively towards status.

My problem with conspicuous consumption isn't the relative utility being bought, it's the values that it signals to waste money for the luxury of wasting it. Making it desirable as a society to set money on fire instead of using it to better your situation is the real damage.

You build a widget for a buck...but you can SELL the widget for ten. Are you going to leave $9 on the table?

to some extent, it's a "don't hate the player, hate the game" situation. I think it's actually great that we have a system where craftspeople can continue to see returns on developing their skills way past the *good enough" point. what's not so great is when the value of a thing is dominated by the logo on it rather than its design. but it's hard to point to a specific person whose fault this is. if you can 10x something's value by putting your stamp on it, why not? and if you're the watchmaker, why not let them?

Sometimes I do exactly that, but leaving money on the table is a privilege of wealth and not the point. What I certainly won't do unless my family is starving is buy the widget from someone else for a buck and then use exploitative tactics to convince people to buy it from me for twenty.

It's very rarely the craftsman who makes the real margin. That's left to the conglomerate who owns the brand.

That’s a logical fallacy, though...the guy that buys a $20M jet is employing the people that made the jet, advertised it, procured the fuel, built and maintained the airport, fabricated the raw materials that went into making it...the ‘rich guy conspicuously spending money on a jet’ is stimulating the economy in different ways.

You're not wrong, but there are diminishing returns. There are only so many people that can buy and maintain jets.

One person buying one jet for $20M (plus operating costs), is probably a lot less money velocity that a whole bunch of folks getting $20M in (e.g.) stimulus checks and deciding to buy $20M worth of economy class airline tickets.

Or put another in a different transportation sector: only so many folks that can afford Ferraris, and pay to maintain them.

Whereas if money were less concentrated / more distributed, more folks could buy Fords (or Fiats). The amount of money stimulating things with 10 (or 100) Ferraris is much less than 1000 or 10'000 Ford/Fiats. More workers, more mechanics, etc.

You're right in that the rich person can stimulate the economy, but would a bunch of less well-off folks spending the same quantity have a larger multiplier? I'd hazard to guess that the answer is yes, they would.

> use exploitative tactics to convince people to buy it from me for twenty

The article is about watches, cars, and baseball cards. As entirely optional/luxury goods, there is no "exploitation" involved.

If it was about food, medicine, or other essentials, I might agree with you.

There's no coercion for sure, maybe I'm using the word "exploitative" badly. What I mean is that we've built an economic system to exploit certain flaws (vanity, need for status, etc) which we call luxury. I'm fine with building a better gadget, marketing its benefits and selling it at a profit. I'm not ok with preying on the insecurities of my clients. Which is what I think conspicuous consumption goods are 99% of the times.

It's an increasing scale with no upper limit. Financially, I don't even register on the chart...but I'm already seeing things like "Do I buy the $600 laptop because it's all I can afford, or the $1299 one because I -Like- it and it won't affect my outcomes any."

This, with more yachts.

a laptop is kinda like a shoe though. my friends that buy the cheapest possible laptop always end up replacing it after a couple years. not for performance, but because it broke and repairing it isn't much cheaper than a new throwaway machine. they think they're saving money, but they're really not. a good business laptop will feel slow 5-8 years later, but there's a much better chance that it still works.

That’s not the point. Once you reach a certain level of income, it goes from “how much do I have to spend for the necessity” to “I can spend more than I need to, because I have enough money to not miss the difference.”

I guess I'm just nitpicking the example, sorry.

> I grew up with money. From day one my mother berated me for turning on more lights than I needed in the house, or wasting the last bit of butter on the packet. Our cars were always economy models and I drive a 17 year old car right now - fully bought and paid for by my dad 17 years ago for $15K. It's not a "beater". Why would I invest wealth-creating money on a depreciating asset to replace a perfectly good tool?

this isn't an example of being enlightened, frugal, eschewing conspicuous consumption, etc. it's exactly what people mean by the phrase "penny wise, pound foolish". you drive yourself (and presumably others) around in a 17-year-old car when the cost of a brand new one that meets modern crash-safety standards would be nothing to you. the risk/cost tradeoff makes no sense for someone of your (or your family's) means. I would also critique your dad's paying cash for a car when he presumably had great credit, but that's a more debatable point.

You are 100% right. I don't mean to imply my family's values around money are in any way ideal. They're antiquated, way too conservative, inherited from hard times.

My point is that worshipping frugality, independence and wealth-building is less likely to mess up my life than yearning for a $30M Porsche collection. Sorry if I didn't make my point very well.

What kind of small gifts do you treat people to? I have trouble finding things that I don't consider to be positive for me (feels good giving) but negative for the recipient (more useless junk they'll pretend to appreciate, or unhealthy consumables).

Not OP, but drunken me impulse-bought a perfume for my girlfriend yesterday. Hope it smells as good as I remember.. The weekend before I spent 3hrs in the kitchen treating my friends to a nice dinner.

I'm ok with unhealthy consumables if people enjoy them, but generally: Food, nice soaps, candles, shows, wine, anything they need from the shops while I'm there. Small loans without expecting the money back in some cases. It's hard that a day goes by that I don't get something for someone.

On the other hand I really hate mandatory gift-giving: Christmas, father's day, valentine's, birthdays. I make the minimum effort I can get away with then.

If you have been financially unaffected by the coronavirus, give your stimulus money away to friends / family that were drastically affected, like restaurant workers.

Or, if you're not big on giving money for whatever reason, have all your meals come from delivery for a month or two! That will help a lot of people go back to working.

Why do you care what someone else does with their money? This should only bother you if the economy is a zero sum game. It’s not.

It is a zero sum game over short timescales. Over long timescales the situation is actually worse since the more money you have, the more you can make. So whoever starts with a small advantage ends up with a huge advantage, and whoever starts out behind might fall into poverty and end up with nothing. Wealth redistribution of various kinds- governmental and otherwise- is all that keeps the system stable at all.

You're right, it bothers me more than it should, maybe as an allergic reaction. I want to inoculate myself against this behaviour.

I've never berated anyone for spending their money, mind you, and hopefully I never do. But I can feel the pull of this behaviour on aggregate. I get snide comments half the times I go surfing on my car or my board from people wit literally ten times less yearly income than me who blow it all on leasing new Mercedes station wagons every 3 years. Going to dinner with some friends feels like a game of who can blow the most money nonchalantly. No thanks.

I don't how your part of the world is, but living in Lisbon in your mid-30s you can feel how people are spreading themselves thin financially to keep up with the Joneses. I've started taking a public posture against it because I feel someone has to. I've seen this movie play out and it ended with a lot of people giving their homes back to the bank.

The economy is a sum of its parts. Like the money could be spent in ways that are more impactful.

And you know how to spend it better, right? Just not enough to earn it yourself.

Why do you think I don’t know how to earn it myself?

In fact, if the people with money are spending it, that’s GOOD for the economy and benefits you and I more than if they’re just sitting on it.

> No wonder so many people are eager to bring out the pitchforks.

Only those with a superiority complex or or the ones indoctrinated with with certain ideologies that preach hatred against people of different class or race. Everybody else couldn't care less what they do with their own money.

There's certainly an entire industry of people selling useless shit to rich people, but when I heard about it was from a friend who worked at a call center when they used to reach them via phone :D

Why do you think it's unfair or morally wrong? I mean, people buying stupid collectibles is just money moving from dumb people to smarter people, as it always does.

I think it signals the wrong values to the rest of society. We're all influenced by behaviours we see glorified or rewarded. There's damage being done collectively. But I don't think the person engaging in luxurious consumption is a bad person for it. I just think they're being suckers.

In fact, maybe these people are not even dumb. Maybe they are buying into this stupid shit just to be hated, and see it as a reward from society for their achievements? If society hates rich, why should the rich not try to compete in attracting the hate, just seeing it as a sign of recognition, and try to get the top bang for the buck (without going to jail)?