dirtdobber

Are you asking me for a non-hypocritical position on the diamond market? My position is simply that natural diamonds are a luxury item. Claiming that there's suffering involved in obtaining natural diamonds and therefore you should only purchase synthetic (non-luxury) diamonds, is a view that is inconsistent with the way most people live. Otherwise, we'd all stop buying clothes, shoes, cell phones, coffee, etc. Essentially every product you use, unless you take extreme care, involves human trafficking at some point in the supply chain.

Or, is some level of human suffering ok for you to have the luxury of using an iPhone?

I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point was not that there's not human suffering in the diamond industry, nor that it isn't bad. My point is that you, a person that cannot afford expensive natural diamonds (speaking statistically here, I don't know you personally), probably should not cast moral judgments on others that can and do purchase expensive natural diamonds. This is due to the fact that you, a person that can afford a cell phone, chooses to purchase a cell phone, despite that industry experiencing similar levels of human suffering. Therefore, I am forced to believe that in the counterfactual world where you can afford expensive diamonds, you would buy them.

Except they're not functionally identical. Natural diamonds function in society as a luxury item. Synthetic diamonds have always functioned as a utility item (used in chainsaw blades, for example). Synthetic diamonds certainly do not function as a luxury item and they're not marketed to people with money.

Look, I have no problem with synthetic diamonds in the same way that I have no problem with reprints of Salvador Dali paintings. But, the market for original Salvador Dali paintings is very different than the market for reprints even though they might appear "functionally identical."

Dude, the copper in your phone required untold human suffering and exploitation to acquire.

You want to profess some grand moral judgement about purchasing mined minerals, but I guarantee all of that moral judgment goes out the door when it comes to products that you can afford and want to buy.

Rolex doesn't put synthetic diamonds on watches. Cartier doesn't put synthetic diamonds on bracelets. Tiffany's won't put synthetic diamonds on rings.

If you think that natural diamonds are trending towards no longer being a luxury item, then don't buy them at all (why purchase a synthetic one if you think the diamond market is just a marketing ruse anyways?)

I've never met someone that bought a synthetic diamond that didn't immediately try to justify it. I think that says a lot.

Some women would honestly prefer a 0.5-1.0ct natural vs a 2.5ct synthetic.

In any case, the ring is for her, so I'd recommend making sure she's on board with what you're thinking.

Regardless, I view natural diamonds as having "real" value in the luxury space and synthetics as... Not.

If case 2 happens, it just means that diamonds get replaced with something else like gold, and gold luxury items become much more expensive. In any case, your future wife probably doesn't really want that massive synthetic diamond. It's a human thing, whether we (the HN crowd) think it's ridiculous or not.

I know a jeweler personally that sells synthetic and natural diamonds. He can spot the difference from a mile away between a synthetic and a natural diamond (synthetics look extremely pure and have no flaws). His wealthy clients buy natural diamonds. Not because it's a "better investment" but because they can.

If you can buy a knockoff Louis Vuitton for 5% of the cost of the real one, great, go for it! Most people won't be able to tell the difference (I certainly can't). But the market for authentic Louis Vuitton isn't going anywhere, and the people that can afford it will buy the real ones, and the people that can't will buy the fake ones.

As long as there's a distinction between natural and synthetic, synthetic diamonds will drop to a dollar a carat while naturals only become more of a status symbol.

EDIT: changed real to natural when referring to diamonds

This is only true under the assumption that the *source* of the money that you are paying back the loan with appreciates.

For example, consider taking out a loan that requires $1,000 monthly payments over 30 years. Assume that you pay back this loan with your labor (i.e., income from your job), and let's suppose you make $100K/yr. Most people can think of their jobs as an appreciating asset as long as they are receiving standard C.O.L. raises. However, suppose that 30 years later, you are still making the same exact $100K salary. Then, although you are "paying back your loan with cheaper dollars," the impact of making those loan payments is actually the same in terms of your buying power.

Year 1: $1,000/month (inflation-adj. salary = $100,000; relative impact on buying power = 12K/100K = 12%) Year 30: $1,000/month (inflation-adj. salary = $36,254; inflation adjusted payments is $4,950; relative impact on buying power = 4950/36250 = 12%)

^ this is assuming a 3% inflation rate.

Note that almost everyone is getting C.O.L. raises, especially over 30-year time spans. However, this point is especially relevant for shorter term loans, and for people who may not experience wage increases.

Why would the garbage man do my dishes?

Look, I throw away my trash because it's super convenient and the city provides a wonderfully helpful service of hauling my garbage off for me. But if the city comes to me and says "Hey, we want you to come out here and help us dig the landfill, because it's actually easier if you do it" -- then I'd probably just light my garbage on fire or toss it in a river.

Gas at the closest station to my house is currently at $3.40 (according to Google Maps)

EDIT: I don't see anywhere on my bill that I'm paying a peak rate. I do charge my car at night though, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm paying the electric company extra just to do that.

To me, it seems almost entirely explained by culture.

I am saving a bit on repairs as well. I was spending close to $1500 a year on maintenance for the old car (but it was 8 years old and had 100K miles on it). We also had a nice tax incentive for buying EVs/PHEVs, so that helps.

Unfortunately, the city gets very upset about the recyclable materials being in plastic bags (something about it messing up their machines). I like it better this way because I don't have an indoor bin full of loose, used plastics and paper which feels unorganized and dirty.

I feel like these small, yet annoying, inconveniences hurt participation (in addition to the countless stories of plastics and garbage just being thrown into the same hole in the ground, or into an ocean patch off the coast of some other country).

I'm not complaining too much since I plan to keep this car until the wheels fall off anyways, but it does seem like the accelerated depreciation of EVs versus gasoline cars is a good reason not to buy at the moment.

EDIT: I should clarify, my vehicle is a PHEV. I couldn't commit to giving up gasoline given the added convenience of being able to quickly fill up on gas for long road trips. That being said, I drive less than 10K miles a year and probably only use ~1 tank of gas every 2 months.

Also, someone could have received lots of income, say 5 years ago, at which point their income tax would be very high. The following years their income tax might be low if they, e.g., don't sell any stocks or take distributions from various trusts they have set up.