Anonymous wrote:Sidewalks
Being skinny
Bacon
Mansion

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ANY sort of conspicuous consumption. Lulu, stanley, LV, Tesla, fancy kitchens.

Teslas are actually practical.

Also odd that Lulu is on this list. I mean I guess I could do a bunch of research to find athleticwear that performs as well but costs less, but why? How much time spent to save $30?

And as for “fancy” kitchens….most people do not spend lots of money on kitchens for them to be impractical. The better appliances perform better, and yes, tend to look nicer. This is for the space that is the beating heart of my private residence that the public does not see. How is that “conspicuous consumption”?

Right, so in those categories you would fall into the "others think are desirable" part of the OP. Its literally the point of the thread.

I guess my point is that I don’t think of Teslas

or Lulus as particularly desirable or aspirational (which seems to be what people are really talking about) either. They just…are? So it’s hard for me to think of them as great examples of gross “conspicuous consumption” against which PP is railing. It doesn’t seem quite worthy of the hate.

Is the point that if *other* people seem to think of them as Name Brands à la Gucci, LV (in other words, aspirational “lifestyle” brands), then am I really being such a conspicuous consumer? I mean, they’re leggings?? I’m puzzled.

They are $120 leggings that YOU think are desirable (I certainly hope if you are paying that much!) and I actively do NOT want. Literally the words of the OP. What don't you understand? Same with Tesla - overprice junk to me. Desirable to others.

The first PP that mentioned these items called them “conspicuous consumption”, and others disagree that these are things that one buys just for the status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ANY sort of conspicuous consumption. Lulu, stanley, LV, Tesla, fancy kitchens.

Teslas are actually practical.

Also odd that Lulu is on this list. I mean I guess I could do a bunch of research to find athleticwear that performs as well but costs less, but why? How much time spent to save $30?

And as for “fancy” kitchens….most people do not spend lots of money on kitchens for them to be impractical. The better appliances perform better, and yes, tend to look nicer. This is for the space that is the beating heart of my private residence that the public does not see. How is that “conspicuous consumption”?

Right, so in those categories you would fall into the "others think are desirable" part of the OP. Its literally the point of the thread.

I guess my point is that I don’t think of Teslas

or Lulus as particularly desirable or aspirational (which seems to be what people are really talking about) either. They just…are? So it’s hard for me to think of them as great examples of gross “conspicuous consumption” against which PP is railing. It doesn’t seem quite worthy of the hate.

Is the point that if *other* people seem to think of them as Name Brands à la Gucci, LV (in other words, aspirational “lifestyle” brands), then am I really being such a conspicuous consumer? I mean, they’re leggings?? I’m puzzled.

They are $120 leggings that YOU think are desirable (I certainly hope if you are paying that much!) and I actively do NOT want. Literally the words of the OP. What don't you understand? Same with Tesla - overprice junk to me. Desirable to others.

Anonymous wrote:Big boobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ANY sort of conspicuous consumption. Lulu, stanley, LV, Tesla, fancy kitchens.

Teslas are actually practical.

Also odd that Lulu is on this list. I mean I guess I could do a bunch of research to find athleticwear that performs as well but costs less, but why? How much time spent to save $30?

And as for “fancy” kitchens….most people do not spend lots of money on kitchens for them to be impractical. The better appliances perform better, and yes, tend to look nicer. This is for the space that is the beating heart of my private residence that the public does not see. How is that “conspicuous consumption”?

Right, so in those categories you would fall into the "others think are desirable" part of the OP. Its literally the point of the thread.

I guess my point is that I don’t think of Teslas or Lulus as particularly desirable or aspirational (which seems to be what people are really talking about) either. They just…are? So it’s hard for me to think of them as great examples of gross “conspicuous consumption” against which PP is railing. It doesn’t seem quite worthy of the hate.

Is the point that if *other* people seem to think of them as Name Brands à la Gucci, LV (in other words, aspirational “lifestyle” brands), then am I really being such a conspicuous consumer? I mean, they’re leggings?? I’m puzzled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanley cup

+ 1

I don’t even play hockey.

Anonymous wrote:Hotel free lobby breakfast