Fair point.
What about cars or houses?
What about cars or houses?
Doesn't the fact that the original quote literally acknowledges "bums on the corner" imply that he wasn't referring to housing at all?
I personally developed a feeling for things which are at the edge of "diminishing returns" curve. I get the things which are high-end enough, but not in the "pay 3x more to get 1% more" region.
Buying high quality things is a thing, but buying things just because they are high end and flashy is something else.
If I failed to convey what I tried to say in my first comment, let me give another examples.
Personally, I'll pay pretty penny for a bass guitar, if its build quality and features is worth it, not because of hype or it's a signature model of someone else's.
I'll buy a high end computer or a car with all (meaningful) options installed, not because I want to show off but I'll need the features or processing power.
I buy high end audio gear (for listening or recording), not because to brag about it but to use it.
And when I buy these things, I use them until they run out of steam, not until they're out of fashion.
Being rich is better than being poor. The Warhol quote has nothing to do with that fact.
As someone who started out very poor, and is now ~ 30x above that. I strongly subscribe to the idea that happiness from income is very logarithmic. The first 2-3x income was life changing. I'm talking going from eating pasta, rice and beans for most meals to fresh fruit and veg, lean cuts of meat. From renting a room in a noisy apartment with 4 other people to having my own place that was both safe and quiet. My reading list was suddenly more constrained by time instead of price or library backlog.
I suppose it's down to my starting position, a content disposition and a boring lack of imagination, but my expenses have now ~ 5x'd what they were when I was on the strugglebus, but still very modest, and I honestly can't identify any spending that would make my life better or make me happier long term.
This is very rarely the case. For tailored or custom clothing, sure, but that doesn’t end up being the most expensive. Silly designer brands with lower quality do.
[Honda Fireblade: throttle open and in the red, eyes closed and smiling.]
/s
In other words, it's still perceived as a sign of status.
the people who have the real money are flying in private jets.
Toto survives by brand name reco only nowadays.
Where I live pretty much all new houses are being built with granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Whether that's a good thing is a whole other topic ...
Claims presented without evidence. My slightly modified Subaru Wagon from '05 "out-accelerated" base Teslas - dead even in 1st gear, started pulling once the shift to 2nd happened. (Most) EVs cannot shift gears to get torque multiplication, so they start fast, but fall off as speeds get higher. My Kia gas car will outrun all but the model 3 performance - which the average person is NOT driving. Neither of those cars are "niche".
Slightly modified is doing some heavy lifting there. No 2005 Subaru wagon in stock config is anywhere close to beating a Model 3.
> (Most) EVs cannot shift gears to get torque multiplication, so they start fast, but fall off as speeds get higher.
Pretty much irrelevant, because they’re still blisteringly fast up to 60 which is where most of the acceleration happens in day to day. Nobody really cares about 60-80 or 60-100.
> My Kia gas car will outrun all but the model 3 performance - which the average person is NOT driving.
What Kia is that? Even the stinger GT (which is definitely a niche car) is slower than a regular dual motor model 3.
'19 Stinger GT AWD. jb4 (piggyback) - dual model 3 couldn't pass me on track (he had more experience than I did) - he cornered a little better due to low center-of-mass, I pulled on him in the straights. Repeatedly.
I'd believe it. I wouldn't call adding 20%+ horsepower to a car 'slightly' modifying it though. The original point still stands that your niche car (a performance version of the Subaru Legacy, with a tune on top of it) still barely manages to go toe-to-toe with a stock Model 3. If you left it stock, it would definitely be slower.
> '19 Stinger GT AWD. jb4 (piggyback) - dual model 3 couldn't pass me on track (he had more experience than I did) - he cornered a little better due to low center-of-mass, I pulled on him in the straights. Repeatedly.
So, you're proving my point? Stinger GT is already a niche car. You then threw a tune on it, which is even more niche. Compare it to a performance model 3 if you want to be fair in that case. I guarantee there's more performance model 3 owners than there are Stinger GT owners.
It’s not particularly noteworthy that the road version a vehicle used by Subaru’s WRC team can keep up with a Tesla if you modify the ECU and add more boost.
We bought it mostly because we wanted an EV for power backup for the house. We get ice storms in the winter and it can knock out power for days, and we need to be able to keep almost 1,000 gallons of aquariums running during them. The F150 extended range has that in spades and was cheaper than the equivalent power wall system.
It's basically a whole house backup generator that we can happen to drive around.
It's as capable, if not more so, than your standard F150 at truck duties in everything except towing. And it's a bit of a mixed bag there, it can tow way more than a standard f150, but it cuts the range to 1/3 so you have to charge pretty often. Still, 100 miles towing 10,000 pounds is nothing to sneeze at.
As for the generator aspect, with its 135 kWh battery pack, I can power the aquariums for weeks and weeks.
The F-150 extended range is 3.8 as you state, but then the Tesla Model 3 performance comes in at 2.8.
https://www.0-60specs.com/tesla/model-3-0-60-times
https://www.fordoffeasterville.com/blogs/4896/ford-lightning...
I presume that F150 ain't getting round the corners very quickly.
I reckon optimising for straight line speed is a strange goal.
Regardless, optimizing a pick up for 0-60 time is a strange goal, unless you have some express desire to launch 2x4s a great distance in a complicated way.
Someday, commentators filling air time on ESPN's "Need to Yeet" may bring up this comment as "the Casual Remark That Started it All".
When land and labor (and fees leveraged by the city, state, etc.) are extremely expensive, the additional cost for these "luxury" items is very low by comparison. The buyers for these homes are buying everything new and it makes little sense to save $10k or so on such a visible amenity that is expensive to retrofit afterwards, on a home that costs $500k.
It is the same reason why crank windows are gone from cars. They aren't really status symbols.
Like car colors, new house design decisions tend to be driven a lot by various current fashions because they're the low risk for purchasing reasons whether by developers or perceived resale by buyers.
Personally, I didn't care. My new color schemes are muted but not neutral. And my kitchen/dining room choices were, I think, practical for the most part.
That has more to do with automotive engineering being tightly coupled to academic engineering and the latter having gone through a "people are idiots, rob them of the ability to put force on anything at every opportunity" phase.
The current Model 3 and Model Y are properly built competitively priced cars with many luxury features (such as huge trunks, rear climate control, all wheel drive, etc) and gadgets (Netflix on huge touchscreen, self-driving, etc).