Hacker News Reader

Comment by deong | Hacker News Reader

I guess his point is that the high-end mechanical watch market only exists at all because of, as you say, collectors. It's older people with a bit of cash to spend on a luxury item. But those 40 year-old people grew up with cheaper versions of the same thing, and so there was a recognizable appeal in the higher-end watches. If today's 20 year-olds all buy smart watches, will they want to spend four figures on a mechanical watch when they're 40 with a bit of cash?

View on HN

Expensive watches are pointless vanity goods. I would hope that as a society we are educated enough in 20 years that people will use their excess resources to help others instead of purchasing expensive jewelery with virtually zero utility.

I recommend diversifying your hopes for the future into a few more buckets, because any eggs you put in this particular basket aren't coming back.

I am in it for the karma not the eggs.

This is a really toxic view of consumption. What level of consumption is moral to you? Can I buy a pack of chewing gum if I earn $100k? What if buying a $100k watch is a smaller percentage of my income than that pack of chewing gum?

Chewing gum aids in oral hygiene, it has utility. The opportunity cost is hardly anything. The opportunity cost of something that exists purely for aesthetic purposes is 100% of the cost of the good. In this case you're talking $1,000+ for a watch. I am always reminded of the scene in Schindler's list where he looks at the additional things he could have sold or gone without to save lives. On my death bed I don't want to look back with regret and wonder how much more I could have done to help people if I wasn't acting selfishly.

To me the moral level of consumption is as close to the minimum required to survive and make an optimal economic contribution to society. Everyone needs happiness and entertainment in their lives. The struggle is avoiding excess.

How does one hope to define "excess" if there's a carveout for "happiness and entertainment"? Beyond our Maslow needs, most of what we spend money on is arguably for "happiness and entertainment", no?

By attempting to make optimal entertainment choices. For example, watching a classic film that is in the public domain on archive.org instead of going to see the latest Disney production in the theater and paying $10 for a ticket. Borrow a book from the library. Have friends over for a game night instead of going out for drinks. There is no best solution. My hope is that people will at least try and make better choices.

I agree that most of what people spend their money on is the pursuit of happiness and entertainment. My view is that the path to true happiness does not lie in material goods or personal experiences. Rather, helping others in their struggles and seeing their lives improve leads to fulfillment.

So the moral amount of consumption is the amount you do and no more.

"Optimal entertainment choices" is so vague as to be meaningless. If I can spent 25K on a vacation and not feel it hurt my wallet, isn't that an optimal entertainment choice?

Not to pick on you, but this attitude always frustrates me. Should all artists give up their work because creating it serves no "practical" purpose? There is a middle ground in all things, but who is to say where to draw the line?

I want to live in a world where watchmakers (and other artists) are free to make any awesome and expensive thing that they can imagine. Man does not live by bread alone.

To paraphrase Admiral Adama:

It's not enough to just live. You have to have something to live for. Let it be mechanical watches.

I actively support artists and view creative contributions to society as extremely valuable. I think that a large portion of the future economy is in digital creative work. By contributing to kickstarter and indiegogo I help enable people to fulfill their creative dreams.

For things that can be digitally distributed at virtually no cost, or can be bulk produced at low cost (books, music, board games, etc.) I am fully supportive. For things that have a high economic opportunity cost, such as extremely complex watches, luxury cars, things of that nature, I have a very low tolerance because the cost is human life. As a species we have not yet reached a point where every human has the necessities of life. Once everyone has access to food, water, shelter, and internet (education), then I am all for exploring the limits of our potential in every regard.

Where do you get the idea that there's no economic opportunity cost without physical items? The whole idea of opportunity cost is intangible -- it's the difference between what you got by doing what you did versus what you could have gotten by doing something else. Distributing a book may be free, but writing a book requires maybe years of effort. Why are you giving that author a free pass for not spending that time building wells and schools in the South Sudan?

That's a very good point about the opportunity cost of time. I will reconsider my position.

I think that someone like you should figure out how to implement "conspicuous charity" - figure out a socially acceptable way for people to compete on displays of wealth and taste based on what charities they give to, and how much they give.

As an aside, I think it's your money, and if you want to spend more than I would spend on a server (which is to say, way more than I'd consider spending on a car) on a fancy watch, well, I'm going to make fun of you a little bit, but ultimately, it's your money, and your judgement. But, if fancy watches are primarily signaling, which I believe to be the case, it seems to me that you could figure out how to get the same signaling value out of proving that you gave a certain amount to certain stylish charities.

High end brands could release limited edition colors of their products at a higher price with the additional money going to some efficient charitable organization. Who wouldn't want to have an EFF themed Tesla to show off?

This is a completely naive and subjective approach. Please enlighten me as to how you intend to tell the time in the absence of a compatible power supply and/or power grid. Or when that severely limited lithium ion battery stops taking a charge after a year of use. Even if you had acceptable answers to those questions, it still leaves one to question the need for something which implements a subset of the features my phone has at the same cost.

Mechanical watches are moving art and are rarely purchased out of need. With the advent of perpetual automatics, they approach the ideal of mechanical perfection - a miniature machine which can accurately track time (and many other features) in extreme environments without the need of a power source. As such, they continue to appeal to many different people - with higher end, more complicated designs continuing to come about at higher prices. I'm a software developer and I love my automatics for both their technical merits as well as their aesthetic beauty. To each his own

Reply on news.ycombinator.com