Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children.

Same here.

It's always so perplexing to me when non-kid adults visit and post on any dcurbanmom forum.

Designer clothes and purses.

Anonymous wrote:A home next to a highway
A home on less than 1/2 acre
A home within feet of my next door neighbor
A Tesla
A WFH job

who thinks a home next to a highway is desirable? ppl get it bc they can afford it.

Fame, popularity. High position
Lavish wedding , parties.etc

I’m introvert.
I just want to live quietly with my money and my love ones. Do everything I want to do. And spend most of my time not talking or meeting anyone I don’t want to.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I prefer the material and the only way someone can tell what brand they are is if they lift up my shirt and look for the logo at the back of my waist which fortunately never happens. I tried the Amazon knock offs and don’t like them.

I think the term “conspicuous consumption “ is way overused. Some people recognize and enjoy the design or quality difference and some don’t. It doesn’t have to be an insult. Something like a LV keychain? That’s for the label. But a designer purse? No, that’s also design, function, and style. It’s ok to appreciate good design. It doesn’t make you shallow.

No sorry. You just need to own it.

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.

I prefer the material and the only way someone can tell what brand they are is if they lift up my shirt and look for the logo at the back of my waist which fortunately never happens. I tried the Amazon knock offs and don’t like them.

I think the term “conspicuous consumption “ is way overused. Some people recognize and enjoy the design or quality difference and some don’t. It doesn’t have to be an insult. Something like a LV keychain? That’s for the label. But a designer purse? No, that’s also design, function, and style. It’s ok to appreciate good design. It doesn’t make you shallow.

Big law partnership.

I am not into restaurant food and don’t like eating in them
I will much rather cook and eat at home

Anonymous wrote:Designer clothes and luxury cars.

I'm happy in my mostly Target/Macys wardrobe and my Toyota. BUT I'll drop exorbitant amounts on travel/vacations/food.

To each their own.

Same! I’ll spend tens of thousands on exotic travel but I never buy designer clothes or shoes. I drive an old car. I never get manis or pedis. I dye my own hair (and sometimes trim my own hair too). Never get facials or massages. Etc…

Anonymous wrote:A home next to a highway
A home on less than 1/2 acre
A home within feet of my next door neighbor
A Tesla
A WFH job

I don't think other people want a home next to the highway or within feet of their next door neighbor. Sometimes it can't be helped with finances or timing not it's not desirable to people

Pickup Trucks.
Tiny sports cars.

Anonymous wrote:A home next to a highway
A home on less than 1/2 acre
A home within feet of my next door neighbor
A Tesla
A WFH job

I’m not sure anyone finds these things “desirable.” Sometimes in expensive areas you are forced to make compromises to stay on budget. That’s not the same thing as something being desirable.

Disney anything.

A home next to a highway
A home on less than 1/2 acre
A home within feet of my next door neighbor
A Tesla
A WFH job

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.

You can get much cheaper leggings at Old Navy or Target, you know. Lulus are something that many people, including you apparently, think desirable, but the PP does not. You don’t seem to understand the premise of this thread and it’s bringing the vibe down.