Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't need to be several months salary. I really don't know why people buy into that. Very smart marketing I guess.

But I do think rings are a sweet tradition, and they are a gift. And when you give a gift, you shouldn't be cheap about it. Everyone has a different idea of what is a cheap engagement ring, but I've seen a lot of men who make above-medial salaries say 50 dollars is perfectly fine. They get up in arms about capitalism, for the first time ever, when their fiancees complain. Give me a break. (Mine cost 1K, I picked it out, I think it's lovely)

It’s great for the woman not the man and it is not a gift.

Anonymous wrote:When are we going to end this consumer spending trap? Why only a diamond ring worth several months worth of salary can show commitment? Aren't there other ways?

There is a widely cited “rule” that you should spend three months’ salary on an engagement ring. This stems from a 1930s De Beers advertising campaign that convinced men to spend roughly one month’s salary on this purchase.

By the 1980s, one month’s salary was no longer the rule. It turned into two months. And today, many believe that a minimum of three months’ salary is a good starting point.

But Is It True?

Before we go any further, remember this: an engagement ring is all about love and commitment. While money always comes into play, it’s the thought that matters.

Let’s start with a few examples based on the three months’ salary rule:
Annual income: $30,000 – Cost of ring: $7,500
Annual income: $60,000 – Cost of ring: $15,000
Annual income: $120,000 – Cost of ring: $30,000

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't need to be several months salary. I really don't know why people buy into that. Very smart marketing I guess.

But I do think rings are a sweet tradition, and they are a gift. And when you give a gift, you shouldn't be cheap about it. Everyone has a different idea of what is a cheap engagement ring, but I've seen a lot of men who make above-medial salaries say 50 dollars is perfectly fine. They get up in arms about capitalism, for the first time ever, when their fiancees complain. Give me a break. (Mine cost 1K, I picked it out, I think it's lovely)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Buy a lab diamond. No one can tell the difference and they are 1/10 of the price.

This. And you’ll get a better quality stone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://wou.edu/wp/cloudj/files/2019/09/Engagement-rings.pdf

"The current experimental research showed that men invest greater resources in more attractive women as measured by hypothetical engagement ring purchases;

however, correlational data from actual engagement ring expenditures did not
robustly replicate this pattern.

A particularly novel finding of this study was that women desired greater resource investment to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness in male partner"

Anonymous wrote:When are we going to end this consumer spending trap? Why only a diamond ring worth several months worth of salary can show commitment? Aren't there other ways?[/quote

Let me guess. Your BF doesn’t believe in buying you a diamond to get engaged. You are self conscious because all of your friends got nice rings. Seems important now, but in 20 years see who is still happily married. The ring means so little in the lifetime of a marriage. This is from someone who has a big gorgeous diamond and a disengaged husband.