My company works on those houses. When I started here my frugal, Midwestern nature was offended by their ostentation but I realized that it is good that they are not hoarding their wealth but are putting it back into the economy and if some of it passes through my pocket along the way that’s a good thing.
If it’s any comfort, depending on location they often take a bath when they sell, or at least not near what they first asked.
[QUOTE=villa]
I don’t think that’s real…, gonzomax.
[/QUOTE]
I checked and found several sites with it. I do not know.
[QUOTE=nashiitashii]
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.
[/QUOTE]
So, only nice rich people are allowed to spend their money as they see fit. I get it now. Mean rich people should be taxed so that they can’t be snobs anymore! Yeah, that’s how it’ll work!
Seriously, you’re confusing the issue of “behavior towards your fellow man” with spending money in a way in which they’re not related. On top of that, why should it matter to you what the person with the fur coat thinks about you when they are wearing the fur coat? Is your sef-esteem so low that you need the approval of everyone who wears fur coats? What is the issue here? How exactly do you know when the fur coated are enjoying your coldness and when they are enjoying their warmth? I can tell you that anyone who “enjoys your coldness” or the equivalent thereof is not a happy person and never will be a happy person. So just get on with your life and don’t worry about their fur coat, or mansion, or whatever it is that you consider “conspicuous”.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I checked and found several sites with it. I do not know.
[/QUOTE]
If you take a good, close look at the book, and not the poor quality scans floating around, the retouching work is very evident. Fakey McFakerson.
[QUOTE=50million]
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!
[/QUOTE]
While I understand and agree with that in large part, I personally troubled by some considerations.
IMO, for many years the West has (in general terms) enjoyed a far higher standard of living than much of the "developing world. IMO, at least in large part, that was due to our exploitation of those areas.
As worldwide population increases, it takes a heavier toll on our environment and natural resources. The capitalistic system - and arguably human nature - encourages the “have nots” to emulate and aspire to join the “haves.”
Certain folk - myself included - believe that an entirely free market is not the best solution for all things, including “communal” goods such as clean air, open space, and natural diversity. Others certainly disagree. In my opinion they are acting very selfishly and short-sightedly - which I do not personally consider laudable. But many folks differ.
To take one narrow example, personally I think society as a whole would be “improved” if Americans adopted a way of life that allowed more bike use or walking, instead of encouraging the worldwide community to rely more heavily on cars.
But, I’m confortable with my understanding that such views are way out of the mainsteam of current American thought.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
While I understand and agree with that in large part, I personally troubled by some considerations.
IMO, for many years the West has (in general terms) enjoyed a far higher standard of living than much of the "developing world. IMO, at least in large part, that was due to our exploitation of those areas.
[/QUOTE]
If we buy oil from Nigeria at an agreed upon price is that explotation?
I didn’t think we were talking about communal goods in this post, I thought it was about “conspicuous consumption” - mansions, fur coats, Aston Martins.
Do you actually believe that if we walked and pedaled more then other countries would stop buying cars? If you do actually believe this can you give some rationale for this thought? I’m still trying to understand this thought process. The US encourages the rest of the world to use cars just because we use cars? The rest of the world wants to be just like the US?
[QUOTE=50million]
If we buy oil from Nigeria at an agreed upon price is that explotation?
[/QUOTE]
No. But I think there were decades/centuries during which western nations were not simply purchasing resources from their colonies and possessions at agreed upon prices.
Yeah, but communal goods are not unlimited, and can be adversely impacted by the cumulative effect of many individuals’ consumption. If a certain group of folks uses a disproportionate amount of a particular resource, that impacts what is left for everyone else. Probably weak analogy, but it is one thing if one rich guy builds a mansion surrounded by hundreds of acres. But if hundreds of folk build their mini-mansions, each on their own acre, the cumulative impact of their consumption on the communal resources increases.
I think the US does encourage imitation through its aggressive exportation of media. (Sorry, no cite). It seems to me that many people world-wide desire the standard of living the see on TV. Same thing happes in the US, where IMO folks get an unrealistic impression of what an “average” lifestyle should include. And, a (if not “the”) primary purpose of TV and much other media is to encourage consumption.
I think the US does enjoy a privileged position regarding its ability to influence foreign opinion and behaviors. And, IMO, arguably the most significant aspect of American culture is the desire to consume ever increasing consumer goods.
Don’t get me wrong. Capitalism is a great system. As is the encouragement of individuals to improve their situations. But IMO, both can lead to undesireable consequences if not checked or if practiced on a large enough scale.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that conspicuos consumption is immoral or “sinful,” but I do find it distasteful and sort of sad. Well, I actually find not just the consumption distasteful, but the whole pursuit of more and more money in order to have more and more things. It’s not something that I think should be legislated against or anything, and I’m very much a live and let live type person, but it’s not how I live my own life and I’m hoping that more and more people choose to live more thoughtfully and respectfully of the environment and others around them.
**
50million**, I don’t think we should pedal more so that other countries follow suit. We should pedal more because every little bit counts. My family owns one car and we try to keep driving to a minimum. We’re a four person family getting ready to buy a house…we’re looking at houses at around 1000 sq ft, not because we can’t afford more but because we don’t need more space. Do I think everyone should follow suit? No, but I wish everyone would make thoughtful decisions about what they buy and how their purchases impact the world instead of just buying buying buying more more more just for the hell of it and because they can.
[QUOTE=50million]
So, only nice rich people are allowed to spend their money as they see fit. I get it now. Mean rich people should be taxed so that they can’t be snobs anymore! Yeah, that’s how it’ll work!
Seriously, you’re confusing the issue of “behavior towards your fellow man” with spending money in a way in which they’re not related. On top of that, why should it matter to you what the person with the fur coat thinks about you when they are wearing the fur coat? Is your sef-esteem so low that you need the approval of everyone who wears fur coats? What is the issue here? How exactly do you know when the fur coated are enjoying your coldness and when they are enjoying their warmth? I can tell you that anyone who “enjoys your coldness” or the equivalent thereof is not a happy person and never will be a happy person. So just get on with your life and don’t worry about their fur coat, or mansion, or whatever it is that you consider “conspicuous”.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t need their approval, but I am a bit irked by inherent disdain and unfair treatment from people based upon my appearance. I do find that, in my area, one is either treated well or ignored in shops (or followed around in a manner that shows that one is suspected as a shoplifter) depending upon how they are dressed. I don’t personally think it’s okay to give good service to a well dressed person and give bad service to a person who does not fit your standard of dress. Outward displays of wealth are VERY IMPORTANT to a good portion of the population down here, and I don’t necessarily adhere to the rampant need to conform to the level of materialism that is displayed. Is it necessary to ignore me as a customer in any store because I am not carrying a Prada handbag and am not dressed in BeBe clothes?
As for the philanthropic cause part of my comment, I think it’s okay to judge people based on whether they’re doing good for anyone else, and it’s another beneficial aspect of actually making use of one’s wealth. I don’t necessarily think the person who doesn’t do anything with their wealth besides spend it on themselves is a bad person, but they’re not necessarily doing as much good for society as the person who contributes to philanthropic causes.
That being said, I don’t place too high a value on my appearance or others, but I do place more value (and judgment) on their actions. Do I care that they have things that I cannot afford? Not necessarily. However, just as they look down upon me for not following their measures of status, I am likely to peg them for being shallow for being ostentatious about their displays of wealth. (i.e. if you’re covered with visible designer labels, I’m more likely to mentally comment at all than if you’re well-dressed without all the visible labels of the designers.) With me, it’s all about the behavior that comes along with the spending. I’m less likely to have a negative response if I am not surrounded by people who snub me because I am not following their demand to ostentatiously display wealth in the prescribed manner.
I thnk conspicuous consumption is a relative term.
There are corners of the world where I’m sure it would be thought that all of us showing off the fact that we have enough disposable income and leisure time to afford computers and internet access to sit here and discuss this week’s American Idol was conspicuous consumption.
[QUOTE=According to Pliny]
Forbes lists top priciest homes in the world Not Like Hearst’s San Simeon castle, (or any actual royal castle) but still grand enough. <snip>
Is conspicuous consumption a bad thing, or not a problem?
[/QUOTE]
If you are opposed to global warming, to be personally consistent, you need to be majorly upset with consumption, period. It most closely parallels CO2 emissions…
Those of us exposed (born and raised, in my case) to the undeveloped world are bemused by the developed world’s standard of what is “conspicuous.” To a person whose total annual consumption is a thousand dollars, a person in the west consuming 75,000 dollars worth of goods and services is conspicuously consuming beyond imagination.
[QUOTE=nashiitashii]
I don’t need their approval, but I am a bit irked by inherent disdain and unfair treatment from people based upon my appearance. I do find that, in my area, one is either treated well or ignored in shops (or followed around in a manner that shows that one is suspected as a shoplifter) depending upon how they are dressed. I don’t personally think it’s okay to give good service to a well dressed person and give bad service to a person who does not fit your standard of dress. Outward displays of wealth are VERY IMPORTANT to a good portion of the population down here, and I don’t necessarily adhere to the rampant need to conform to the level of materialism that is displayed. Is it necessary to ignore me as a customer in any store because I am not carrying a Prada handbag and am not dressed in BeBe clothes?
[/QUOTE]
You gotta admit, there’s a certain logic and financial incentive for shopkeeps to pay particular attention to folks that appear to have a lot of money to throw around. Same reason patrons who regularly give big tips get special attention at a restaurant.
[QUOTE=scotandrsn]
I thnk conspicuous consumption is a relative term.
There are corners of the world where I’m sure it would be thought that all of us showing off the fact that we have enough disposable income and leisure time to afford computers and internet access to sit here and discuss this week’s American Idol was conspicuous consumption.
[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with this, too. I’m fully aware that my examples (1 car, 1000 sq ft house) would be seen as outrageous luxuries in almost every other part of the world. My mother, brought up in a middle class family in the 50s, grew up in a tiny house…probably not even 700 sq ft. They had five kids. I can’t even imagine that, and I certainly can’t imagine living without most of the luxuries I have (tv, microwave, electricity & running water!), but I’m doing my best to limit my family’s impact.
Here’s how I like to look at it. I’m not sure how accurate or justified it is, but I like to look at it this way:
Status Symbols are a voluntary tax on wealth. If Mr. Moneybags feels compelled to spend many times as much on his car and his clothes and his furniture and etc. as I do on mine, hey, he’s putting his money back into circulation and spreading it around to the people who make the cars and the clothes and the furniture and etc. If he has a new Porsche and I have a used Chevy, maybe his car is a little better than mine but, once you take away the impressiveness factor, it’s not several times better, and it certainly doesn’t make his life several times better or happier, than mine. And impressiveness or snob appeal only counts if you let it. You can choose not to go along with it.
[QUOTE=The Controvert]
You gotta admit, there’s a certain logic and financial incentive for shopkeeps to pay particular attention to folks that appear to have a lot of money to throw around. Same reason patrons who regularly give big tips get special attention at a restaurant.
[/QUOTE]
There’s a difference between paying more attention to folks who appear to have a lot of money (via being well-dressed) and treating someone badly because, although dressed well, they are not sporting the most label-conscious clothing or copious amounts of expensive jewelry. One thing that I had noticed when younger was that I would either be treated as a potential shoplifter or a “despicable peasant” if I went into a store in my school uniform unless I had some really expensive looking jewelry on. A lack of jewelry would give me bad treatment and snarkiness from the shopkeep, and expensive jewelry would give me attention of a neutral or positive manner. I think that, in particular, there are a few too many people who are have-nots in the system (and I’d consider the bottom ranks of a dept. store to be potential have-nots) who pay so much attention to whether one is a have or a have-not that they encourage and create more bad treatment for themselves when they are the have-not customer.
[QUOTE=hawthorne]
I’d like to slice the issue up a bit.
**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.
[/QUOTE]
hawthorne wins the thread, hands down! I don’t think anyone could produce a more cogent response to the OP. Frankly, anyone who fails to address the issues [s]he identified is wasting electrons. The issue of resource use is particularly to the point in today’s world.
[quote=dropzone]
My company works on those houses. When I started here my frugal, Midwestern nature was offended by their ostentation but I realized that it is good that they are not hoarding their wealth but are putting it back into the economy and if some of it passes through my pocket along the way that’s a good thing.Of course, hardly anyone hoards their money in a huge vault, Scrooge McDuck-style. At the very least, they deposit it in the bank, which may then use it to fund an entire new subdivision of houses. And of course, they could do other things with the money, like building a $138 million school, homeless shelter, or community center.
Well, I’m always a little disdainful of poor taste. It’s one thing to buy a $5 million home and fill it with nice furniture and quality electronics. It’s quite another to put in solid gold toilets. It’s the difference between enjoying your wealth and success and shoving it in people’s faces. It’s not immoral, just gaudy.
Too many people have responded for me to reply to everyone in turn. So I’ll go about my rebuttal this way - If anyone can come up with a definition for “conspicuos consumption” that everyone here agrees on then I will consent that “conspicuous consumption” exists and is bad for society. Failing that, I will continue with my assertion that there is no such thing as “conspicuous consumption”, it’s all in the other person’s head (the non-consumer). Good luck by the way, so far we have one person saying it’s a house over 1000 square feet and another saying it’s gold toilets. I guess I’m shoving it in someone’s face because my house is over 1000 sq ft (not by much mind you). Luckily my toilets are porcelain!
I know this is from a bit near the top of the thread but it’s something I can base a specific response to. No. There is no inherent reason that any particular person in any geographical or otherwise classed position should be held to a specific standard of living. BUT there is an inherent reason why people who have the knowledge, skills, and a bit of luck to succeed monetarily in life to the point where they can afford a higher standing of living do so. If I become wealthy, sure I’ll buy luxury goods because I can afford them and there’s a reason they are luxury goods: they’re better, and if you can afford the best, never buy anything less.
On the other hand hawthorne brought up some good points, namely, there’s a difference between being able to afford and buying the best and going out of your way to prevent other people from enjoying what they can enjoy and also getting enjoyment out of their lesser status. It’s a fine line, yes, but most reasonable people will know not to cross it
[QUOTE=Alan Smithee]
And of course, they could do other things with the money, like building a $138 million school, homeless shelter, or community center.
[/QUOTE]
One of my customers took a massive hit during the Dot Com Bust, causing him to pause construction of his palace (actually, just a very nice house) so he could afford to carry through on his enormous by anybody’s definition charity commitment. You should not jump to the conclusion that all rich people only squander their money, nor can you assume that they have quantities of money you, I, or even they can actually conceive of. Some have enough to do a lot of good and still have plenty left over to squander in truly vast amounts. :eek: