Not Like Hearst’s San Simeon castle, (or any actual royal castle) but still grand enough.
So, is that sort of thing all right “if the guy can afford it”, or is he doing something wrong (as in sin, if you use that term)?
One of the interesting things about wealth is that it is mostly justified by saying the money is actually not being hoarded, simply that control is concentrated. That the wealth is in factories or Trump’s office towers, etc, and thus being utilized by many every day.
But then there are the personal palaces sitting idle, and I’d guess many multi-million dollar yachts shrouded up in port.
On the other side of the balance sheet, of course, are much more expensive commercial buildings that sit idle all the time, for a wide variety of reasons. Hotels in receivership with many more marble bathrooms. Not a problem because they are vacant for “business reasons”, which somehow get more slack than “personal flauntery”.
Is conspicuous consumption a bad thing, or not a problem?
As long as nobody is actively harmed, I don’t think I have any business expressing a moral concern. I can think of scenarios where I might express such a concern though - perhaps if the community dynamics of a quaint old village were being destroyed by a rich guy systematically buying up properties in one area (probably not an excellent example).
I don’t see a problem with it at all. Isn’t much of the allure of Europe caused by centuries or monuments to conspicuous consumption. It happens in the U.S. as well. I love going to see the gigantic mansions overlooking the water in Newport, RI for example. They have surely paid for themselves economically speaking and added charm and mystique to an area. Even without those factors, the money is eventually going to be spent somewhere and all of those construction dollars flows down to craftsman of every sort. If the money is rightfully yours, I don’t place any absolute value judgement on how you use it unless I personally feel it is stupid or tacky.
I’ll be completely honest with you - I think conspicuous consumption is morally and socially wrong… for everyone else. Damn, I’ve got to get me a house like that. It’ll match my H-3.
I have to admit that I feel some contempt for people who are into conspicuous consumption because it seems like a desperate cry for attention. However, I also recognize that I could be seen by people of lesser means as being equally guilty. (My household consists of only two persons. Why do we have such a big house? Why did I go out and buy a set of nice furniture when I already had a serviceable couch set?, etc.)
I think we all have our own forms of conspicuous consuption. We buy nice clothes because we want others to think we look good and impress them with our taste. We wax our cars and worry about scratches because we want them to look shiny and new. Some people have cell phones just for the status symbol value or buy clothes with large logos on the front announcing that it was expensive. Humans have always tried to communicate messages about status with their possessions.
A billionaire’s enormous house and a kid’s flashy tire rims are pretty much the same. Their intent is to impress others with a display of disposable income or aesthetics. The only difference is the amount of money involved. Does the fact that it’s so much money make it inherently worse? I’m not sure.
For me, there’s no fine line between having some luxuries and an ostentatious display of wealth, but the homes mentioned in the article are definitely examples of the latter. Things like that, or Jay Leno’s massive collection of rare cars, or all the million-dollar-plus jewelry you see on various stars, sends a message of, “I have more money than your entire family, look at all this useless shit I can buy! Aren’t you jealous?”
Call me cold-hearted, but I actually don’t like conspicuous consumption. Buying a really fancy house, however, may not qualify. The consumption, first off, must be conspicuous: intended to show off. I personally feel that one should not waste money on too many frivolities in life, and should generally not buy vastly more than you really need. Or, equally, have a use for. If you really intend to entertain 50 of your closest friends every week (and real friends, not people you want to show off to), go right ahead.
I’d agree that it is more a matter of aesthetics than morality. A lot of conspicuous consumption is so grotesque that it effectively counterbalances the natural envious feelings that I have about lacking the cash to consume at the same level. For instance, on a much smaller scale than the OP’s mansion; those vile Dolce & Gabbana outfits/handbags which are plastered with the ‘D&G’ logo. I don’t see how certain brands have apparent self-evident worth, especially where any decent tailoring is overshadowed by the branding itself. In contrast, the mansion could be considered fairly inconspicuous (depending on the height of your hedges).
**Resource use in display: transfers v dissipation **
What resources get used in the process? The more that get used up, the more we should be concerned about conspicuous consumption. Take two extreme cases: in the first, there is an object that’s already in existence (let’s say the Mona Lisa) whose ownership confers top dog status. In the second, top dog status is gained by having everyone - in ignorance of everyone else’s capabilities and efforts - compete for top dog status by holding a bonfire of costly goods, the biggest bonfire wins. The first case is harmless - the person who wants it most/ is richest transfers some of their purchasing power to another because they want to and nothing gets used up in the process. The second is extremely destructive.
Incentives: status treadmill v prizes confer general benefits
Suppose top(ish) dog status (which is valuable) is gained by working hard for visible swag at the cost of quiet picnics with the family. If the extra effort doesn’t yield lots of extra production, everybody’s worse off than if no-one worked a bit harder and had a few more picnics. If on the other hand, hard work by talented people in pursuit of status yields great technological advances that confer benefits on everyone, that’s a good thing.
Welfare effects of status: relative position v envy
One possibility in a world where status is important is that I have enjoyment from other things and any enjoyment of status from conspicuous consumption merely enhances my enjoyment of life. I’ve got the snazzy coat and I’m enjoying walking around being warm as one of the perks of being top dog. Another is that my rewards from status involve enjoying your suffering at your lack of status. I’ve got the snazzy coat; it’s reminding you how cold you are, it’s reminding me how cold you - the losers - are, and I’m digging it. “I’ve got a nice coat” is fine. “I like my nice coat because it makes you feel like a fucking loser” isn’t.
I reckon there’s a little from column A and a little from column B in each category. My guess is that there’s enough destructive stuff going on to cancel out most of the downside of progressive income tax’s effects on work incentives. And enough countersignaling (“So you need to signal your status with fancy clothes? I wear anything and figure the right people will know.”) to reduce the envy story to not much, at least amongst the genuine rich. Maybe display goods like jewellery, snazzy cars and opulent houses could use a corrective tax.
It is all relative. I am a divorced guy living in a 3 BR 2 bath house on a couple acres of land. I could live just as easily in an efficiency apartment. If I had loads of cash I would spend a large portion of it on things that some might feel extravagant.
It offends me aesthetically and clashes with the frugal values I was brought up with.
But unless such consumption is stomping over the environment (like, say, a mansion that destroys a wetland or trafficking in endangered animal products like ivory) or poorer people, then I can’t really give a rational argument against it, and can think of several for it.
We’ve discussed in the past whether there are moral attributes associated with owning a home of a certain size, or driving a certain model/style car. And many folk are of the “if you can afford it, knock yourself out” camp.
But I think “conspicuous consumption” does have some undesireable results in what I perceive to be its trickle down effect, convincing folk further and further down the economic ladder that a certain style of living/consumption is the standard. Which IMO tends to lead folks in the US to aspire towards an environmentally unsustainable level of consumption.
In an era of soon-to-be-decreasing traditional energy resources, I personally dislike thinking about the amount of energy that goes into heating two-story entry ways and “volume ceilings” in so many middle-of-the-road family homes. A large pristine lawn, that requires considerable energy and chemicals to maintain. A house in the ex-urbs, requiring trips in a low-mileage luxury SUV to commute or perform the smallest chore. We export media, where the emphasis is on the consumption of consumer goods, and the image is portrayed that under-employed young New Yorkers can afford to live in cavernous lofts and wear designer clothes.
It seems as tho the gap is narrowing between the standards of living in US and the rest of the world. Folks in developing countries are consuming more energy, buying more cars, and demanding more consumer goods than ever before. What standard of living will be sustainable on a global basis? Is there an inherent reason why an average American or Western European is entitled to a standard of living many times that of a person living in most of Asia or Africa?
I detest it while being aware that people are free to do what they like with their money.
I have a deep-rooted rejection of the kind of person who buys ostentatious cars and flaunts their wealth, especially in a country where most people are poor. There is also a practical aspect - being discreet about your wealth may ensure you are not a target for robbery or worse.
At the same time, I realise that my middle-class lifestyle, which includes driving one of the cheapest cars on the market, while not ostentatious, is still beyond the reach of most people in the country I live in, so would that also fall under the definition of conspicuous consumption?
Why does wealth have to be justified again? How is this any different from someone making minimum wage telling you that joining The Straight Dope is conspicuous consumption? Or spending $12 on movie tickets? Neither of these things is needed and you’re just throwing it in their face that you can affort it and they can’t. So, we’re not only going to tax the crap out of rich people, we’re also going to tell them what, with their left over money, they can and cannot spend it on?
Please feel free to call Paris Hilton and her ilk idiots for spending xx,xxx on a designer handbag; just be prepared to be called an idiot by someone else for indulging in whatever your “thing” is. I have probably $10,000 worth of cycling equipment (accumulated over a long period). Am I commiting sin?
I have no problem with owning a huge mansion. I would love to own one myself! But it seems like at a certain point you start getting into diminishing returns. If I had $138 million to burn, I’d like to think that I would spend $10 million, maybe $20 million, on my mansion, and then use the rest for something philanthropic like starting a charitable foundation. $20 million will put you squarely into the “unbelievably huge mansion” range, and once you’re there, what’s the qualitative difference between $20 million and $138 million? Another hundred rooms that you’ll never need to use, on top of the fifty you already have?
That said, if somebody else really thinks that the $138 million mansion is really worth it, more power to 'em.
We’re all entitled to spend whatever money we have earned - whether earned in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, or Australia. Hey, even money earned in the Poles can be spent. Spend it on what you want!
I really don’t know why this topic has my panties in such a wad today - I’m not in the demographic capable of “conspicuous consumption”. It’s just so inane. I say there is no such thing as “conspicuous consumption”, only an assertation by others that some “consumption” is “conspicuous”.
This is mostly where I draw the line on conspicuous consumption. If having something means that you look down upon someone who does not have that same thing or level of status goods as someone who is inherently undeserving of them (or lazy), then I tend to get offended by your displays of wealth. If you live well, dress well, and do not think less of people who cannot afford to live at your status level, I am less likely to be bothered by your displays of wealth. However, it would be my preference that you do something to give back to the community if you have an extremely large amount of disposable income. (What’s extremely large to me? More than $5,000 per year to purchase frivolous things, even after things like cars, houses, going out to dinner every night, buying expensive designer clothes, going on vacations multiple times per year, etc. If you have enough money that you could easily toss a hundred dollar bill to a homeless person and it would not affect your budget, you probably should be making at least small donations to some sort of philanthropic purpose, IMO. Becoming a member of a museum, donating to charities, or even just volunteering in your free time would be nice.) I do, however, realize that this is a pretty high expectation of the average person who has a lot of money. I just like the idea that those who have a lot of money would want to give something back to the communities around them as a show of gratitude for the wealth they have amassed. It’d be a double bonus if they taught their offspring the value of the wealth that they may (or may not, depending upon the money’s lasting value) inherit before it landed in their control.