What is wrong with conspicuous consumption?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand the negativity associated with financially successful people partaking in conspicuous consumption. So what if someone works hard and makes a good living? Who cares if they want to spend their money on goods that bring them joy?

Isn't hard work and success something to aspire to?

I hear ya.

MAKE ALL OF THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But spend none of it because shhhhhhhhhhhhh people might find out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Conspicuous consumption bothers me for two reasons. One, it displays values that places material possessions above people and relationships. Two, every material item takes a toll on the environment. The more things you have (that will eventually end up in a landfill), the faster we deplete our planet of valuable resources and natural beauty.

These are the reasons.

But if no one spent money we would have no economy. And if we have no economy no one has any money. And if no one has any money, no one pays taxes. And if no one pays taxes then there is no money to support anything.

I really don't understand how people don't understand the basics of economics. Is it more complicated than that. Of course. But the basic premise remains. How you spend the tax money is a whole other ball of wax. However, we need people to earn money, spend the money, and pay taxes.

You can spend money without conspicuous consumption. You can pay for private schools, have a smaller but higher-quality house, purchase fewer clothes that may be more expensive but that you keep forever. Pay for maintaining things, not just acquiring new ones.

It's very easy to spend a lot of money but not have a lot of "stuff."

This is fine. But to say that private schools, any kind of expensive house and expensive clothes is not conspicuous consumption is also misleading. You just happen to judge these things worthy.

Yes consume in the way I approve of and you're fine. I personally don't care that KK took her family to an island. She can afford it and she did it. I can afford what I can afford so I do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand the negativity associated with financially successful people partaking in conspicuous consumption. So what if someone works hard and makes a good living? Who cares if they want to spend their money on goods that bring them joy?

Isn't hard work and success something to aspire to?

I hear ya.

MAKE ALL OF THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But spend none of it because shhhhhhhhhhhhh people might find out.

"Give me attention! I'm rich but insecure!"

That's what your flashy car, gaudy ring and expensive purse really say to the rest of us. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

The attack on conspicuous consumption is misplaced IMO. It is often hinged on characteristics like "need", or "public display", but none of these exist solely in the market for extremely expensive or luxury products/services.

The fact is that at every income level, people spend money in a way that their finances allow them to do. In terms of absolute "need", the line drawn is typically very arbitrary and entirely self-serving to the argument. When does an "Italian dinner" become more than need? Is the Italian nature of the dinner in and of itself beyond the definition of "need"? Is a $10 plate of spaghetti a need? What about $20? $30? Why could you not just boil some spaghetti at home for the price of $0.50? As people's lives have gotten better, what was previously considered luxury goods have become cheaper and cheaper to obtain. Things like automobiles, digital watches, cellphones, big screen TVs, were all at one time considered luxury items. Clearly, then, none of these things meet the definition of "need". Or do they?

Public display is also a rather subjective bar to meet. Even the clothes sold at Wal-Mart gives *some* consideration to how it looks to other people. Is that public display? A $2000 Burberry sweater can certainly be considered "public display" but where is the cut-off line between Wal-Mart and Burberry? Again, this is an arbitrary standard.

So what conspicuous consumption amounts to, is one group of people using their lower standard of living to cast aspersions on the higher standard of living of other people, until they themselves begin to enjoy that higher standard of living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that it demonstrates your values, and a lot of people reject your values. But it shows us who you are, so I guess that’s helpful.

By "us" you mean "you", and "you" is limited to you and your kind, which means: not everyone. Don't pretend that YOU are the ultimate and end-all judge of anyone other than yourself.

Every statement is not a general statement of fact, only a statement of individual preference and opinions.

The poster specified the “us” in the previous sentence.

[Anonymous]

Only big spender I ever liked in my old town of blue collar split levels was a grand dad who was a widow and rich but stayed in starter home as wife loved it.

He was like 75 had a brand new Ferrari he often parked in street in winter when his massive speed boat was in his driveway for winter.

Once drive 80 mph up my block driving his granddaughter to school and gave the head of PTA the finger when she said slow down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The attack on conspicuous consumption is misplaced IMO. It is often hinged on characteristics like "need", or "public display", but none of these exist solely in the market for extremely expensive or luxury products/services.

The fact is that at every income level, people spend money in a way that their finances allow them to do. In terms of absolute "need", the line drawn is typically very arbitrary and entirely self-serving to the argument. When does an "Italian dinner" become more than need? Is the Italian nature of the dinner in and of itself beyond the definition of "need"? Is a $10 plate of spaghetti a need? What about $20? $30? Why could you not just boil some spaghetti at home for the price of $0.50? As people's lives have gotten better, what was previously considered luxury goods have become cheaper and cheaper to obtain. Things like automobiles, digital watches, cellphones, big screen TVs, were all at one time considered luxury items. Clearly, then, none of these things meet the definition of "need". Or do they?

Public display is also a rather subjective bar to meet. Even the clothes sold at Wal-Mart gives *some* consideration to how it looks to other people. Is that public display? A $2000 Burberry sweater can certainly be considered "public display" but where is the cut-off line between Wal-Mart and Burberry? Again, this is an arbitrary standard.

So what conspicuous consumption amounts to, is one group of people using their lower standard of living to cast aspersions on the higher standard of living of other people, until they themselves begin to enjoy that higher standard of living.

Really? My $10 NASA hoodie from Walmart gives the same public display as something with the obvious Burberry print on it? Someone's non-brand-name purse is the same as someone's Chanel? Come on now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The attack on conspicuous consumption is misplaced IMO. It is often hinged on characteristics like "need", or "public display", but none of these exist solely in the market for extremely expensive or luxury products/services.

The fact is that at every income level, people spend money in a way that their finances allow them to do. In terms of absolute "need", the line drawn is typically very arbitrary and entirely self-serving to the argument. When does an "Italian dinner" become more than need? Is the Italian nature of the dinner in and of itself beyond the definition of "need"? Is a $10 plate of spaghetti a need? What about $20? $30? Why could you not just boil some spaghetti at home for the price of $0.50? As people's lives have gotten better, what was previously considered luxury goods have become cheaper and cheaper to obtain. Things like automobiles, digital watches, cellphones, big screen TVs, were all at one time considered luxury items. Clearly, then, none of these things meet the definition of "need". Or do they?

Public display is also a rather subjective bar to meet. Even the clothes sold at Wal-Mart gives *some* consideration to how it looks to other people. Is that public display? A $2000 Burberry sweater can certainly be considered "public display" but where is the cut-off line between Wal-Mart and Burberry? Again, this is an arbitrary standard.

So what conspicuous consumption amounts to, is one group of people using their lower standard of living to cast aspersions on the higher standard of living of other people, until they themselves begin to enjoy that higher standard of living.

Most of the people I know who judge conspicuous consumption are wealthy or upper middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only big spender I ever liked in my old town of blue collar split levels was a grand dad who was a widow and rich but stayed in starter home as wife loved it.

He was like 75 had a brand new Ferrari he often parked in street in winter when his massive speed boat was in his driveway for winter.

Once drive 80 mph up my block driving his granddaughter to school and gave the head of PTA the finger when she said slow down.

Sounds like a complete a$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The attack on conspicuous consumption is misplaced IMO. It is often hinged on characteristics like "need", or "public display", but none of these exist solely in the market for extremely expensive or luxury products/services.

The fact is that at every income level, people spend money in a way that their finances allow them to do. In terms of absolute "need", the line drawn is typically very arbitrary and entirely self-serving to the argument. When does an "Italian dinner" become more than need? Is the Italian nature of the dinner in and of itself beyond the definition of "need"? Is a $10 plate of spaghetti a need? What about $20? $30? Why could you not just boil some spaghetti at home for the price of $0.50? As people's lives have gotten better, what was previously considered luxury goods have become cheaper and cheaper to obtain. Things like automobiles, digital watches, cellphones, big screen TVs, were all at one time considered luxury items. Clearly, then, none of these things meet the definition of "need". Or do they?

Public display is also a rather subjective bar to meet. Even the clothes sold at Wal-Mart gives *some* consideration to how it looks to other people. Is that public display? A $2000 Burberry sweater can certainly be considered "public display" but where is the cut-off line between Wal-Mart and Burberry? Again, this is an arbitrary standard.

So what conspicuous consumption amounts to, is one group of people using their lower standard of living to cast aspersions on the higher standard of living of other people, until they themselves begin to enjoy that higher standard of living.

I like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attack on conspicuous consumption is misplaced IMO. It is often hinged on characteristics like "need", or "public display", but none of these exist solely in the market for extremely expensive or luxury products/services.

The fact is that at every income level, people spend money in a way that their finances allow them to do. In terms of absolute "need", the line drawn is typically very arbitrary and entirely self-serving to the argument. When does an "Italian dinner" become more than need? Is the Italian nature of the dinner in and of itself beyond the definition of "need"? Is a $10 plate of spaghetti a need? What about $20? $30? Why could you not just boil some spaghetti at home for the price of $0.50? As people's lives have gotten better, what was previously considered luxury goods have become cheaper and cheaper to obtain. Things like automobiles, digital watches, cellphones, big screen TVs, were all at one time considered luxury items. Clearly, then, none of these things meet the definition of "need". Or do they?

Public display is also a rather subjective bar to meet. Even the clothes sold at Wal-Mart gives *some* consideration to how it looks to other people. Is that public display? A $2000 Burberry sweater can certainly be considered "public display" but where is the cut-off line between Wal-Mart and Burberry? Again, this is an arbitrary standard.

So what conspicuous consumption amounts to, is one group of people using their lower standard of living to cast aspersions on the higher standard of living of other people, until they themselves begin to enjoy that higher standard of living.

Most of the people I know who judge conspicuous consumption are wealthy or upper middle class.

I only see it among strivers who have some strange idea that very wealthy people don't buy themselves nice things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attack on conspicuous consumption is misplaced IMO. It is often hinged on characteristics like "need", or "public display", but none of these exist solely in the market for extremely expensive or luxury products/services.

The fact is that at every income level, people spend money in a way that their finances allow them to do. In terms of absolute "need", the line drawn is typically very arbitrary and entirely self-serving to the argument. When does an "Italian dinner" become more than need? Is the Italian nature of the dinner in and of itself beyond the definition of "need"? Is a $10 plate of spaghetti a need? What about $20? $30? Why could you not just boil some spaghetti at home for the price of $0.50? As people's lives have gotten better, what was previously considered luxury goods have become cheaper and cheaper to obtain. Things like automobiles, digital watches, cellphones, big screen TVs, were all at one time considered luxury items. Clearly, then, none of these things meet the definition of "need". Or do they?

Public display is also a rather subjective bar to meet. Even the clothes sold at Wal-Mart gives *some* consideration to how it looks to other people. Is that public display? A $2000 Burberry sweater can certainly be considered "public display" but where is the cut-off line between Wal-Mart and Burberry? Again, this is an arbitrary standard.

So what conspicuous consumption amounts to, is one group of people using their lower standard of living to cast aspersions on the higher standard of living of other people, until they themselves begin to enjoy that higher standard of living.

Really? My $10 NASA hoodie from Walmart gives the same public display as something with the obvious Burberry print on it? Someone's non-brand-name purse is the same as someone's Chanel? Come on now.

It sends a message. It could be that you are poor and can't afford a better quality purse. But people like you want to virtue signal with these choices and that is no better than conspicuous consumption as you hoard wealth and try to pretend to be just like "the poors."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The attack on conspicuous consumption is misplaced IMO. It is often hinged on characteristics like "need", or "public display", but none of these exist solely in the market for extremely expensive or luxury products/services.

The fact is that at every income level, people spend money in a way that their finances allow them to do. In terms of absolute "need", the line drawn is typically very arbitrary and entirely self-serving to the argument. When does an "Italian dinner" become more than need? Is the Italian nature of the dinner in and of itself beyond the definition of "need"? Is a $10 plate of spaghetti a need? What about $20? $30? Why could you not just boil some spaghetti at home for the price of $0.50? As people's lives have gotten better, what was previously considered luxury goods have become cheaper and cheaper to obtain. Things like automobiles, digital watches, cellphones, big screen TVs, were all at one time considered luxury items. Clearly, then, none of these things meet the definition of "need". Or do they?

Public display is also a rather subjective bar to meet. Even the clothes sold at Wal-Mart gives *some* consideration to how it looks to other people. Is that public display? A $2000 Burberry sweater can certainly be considered "public display" but where is the cut-off line between Wal-Mart and Burberry? Again, this is an arbitrary standard.

So what conspicuous consumption amounts to, is one group of people using their lower standard of living to cast aspersions on the higher standard of living of other people, until they themselves begin to enjoy that higher standard of living.

Really? My $10 NASA hoodie from Walmart gives the same public display as something with the obvious Burberry print on it? Someone's non-brand-name purse is the same as someone's Chanel? Come on now.

Who said they are the same? Read my previous post again. It says nothing of the sort.

[Anonymous]

I think it's somewhere on the spectrum between rude and boastful and inconsiderate to those who have less. We don't need to further highlight the great divide between haves and have nots in our country. Isn't it enough that you can provide for your family and enjoy financial security without flaunting it in everyone else's faces?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand the negativity associated with financially successful people partaking in conspicuous consumption. So what if someone works hard and makes a good living? Who cares if they want to spend their money on goods that bring them joy?

Isn't hard work and success something to aspire to?

I hear ya.

MAKE ALL OF THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But spend none of it because shhhhhhhhhhhhh people might find out.

"Give me attention! I'm rich but insecure!"

That's what your flashy car, gaudy ring and expensive purse really say to the rest of us. Sorry.

I really don't understand how people can be so limited intellectually to think that THEIR point of view is the only one that matters and is widespread. This kind of thinking is judgmental and self-absorbed. And does nothing to help the world a better place. That is not to say I agree with conspicuous consumption, just that your holier than than attitude is equally as unappealing.