You fucking rich little TWERP. (Kinda weak rant)

I’m confused by all the “pissing money away” comments.

There really is no such thing as “pissing money away”.
Mr. 12000 spends 12,000 on a suit. Part of that 12,000 goes to the tailor, who goes and buys food with it. Part of the money spent for food pays the cashier’s salary, which he gives part of to his kid to buy dinner at a resturant. Part of that money goes to the waitress as a tip. She uses this to help pay for college. That money gives all the researchers at universities thier jobs…and so on…and so on.
Am I missing something here? :slight_smile:

Yep, I have said it before, and I know I will say it again, I am a DUMBASS. Sorry YB, I will definately check out your site.

No. I think you can see like an eagle. :slight_smile:

Oops. Sorry I stepped on your post, Askeptic. I meant mine for Torie.

Thank you!

I said something sma-art! I am so smart! S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T, I am so smart! :smiley:

You guys are making good points in regard to material worth and such, but…

I’m still stuck on the $12,000 outfit part.
Some of you are quoting prices for suits, which the OP has clearly said “It’s not suits, either” or words to that effect.
I’d buy the watch theory, but almost no one (at least no one I have ever met) includes a watch in the price of the outfit. As for that matter, people tend to not include the cost of shoes (which would have been another good guess on expensive items).

Unless Armani and Ford are personally hand tailoring his shirts, I just don’t see it. Someone is using hyperbole. Whether it’s the rich friend or the OP, I don’t know.

I also don’t understand the friendship. The OP is seeming to make the rich guy out to be a jerk. If so, why bother with the friendship? IMO, the OP sounds pretty bitter and seems to have a chip on his shoulder in regards to the friend’s money. Friendship is a two way street, you know. I could see the rich guy writing an equally ‘tame’ rant about the OP, in regards to boorish behavior.

one last bit:

The OP states:
“AND THEN he has the nerve to tell me that I don’t know how hard it is to manage that kind of money. OBVIOUSLY you don’t either, you ass, if what you’re wearing costs more than everything I OWN. I voice dissention, but he tells me that I just don’t know how it is.”

??
What exactly does spending a jillion on clothes have to do with managing money? If he can AFFORD it, then he’s obviously managing it, no? And, he is being honest, you DON’T know how it is.

I’ve stepped back from the discussion a bit, but I’ll clear this point up since there seems to be some confusion. I asked what he meant when he referred to his $12,000 outfit, and he told me that it consisted of a shirt, pants, underpants, socks, and shoes.

This is the case, apparently, because he says that he often gets fitted for new outfits.

I have to admit caphis, that I’m having difficulty with this story. (Apologies.)

A web search shows that Mark Christopher makes custom shirts (20 fittings!) for perhaps $300.

http://www.markchristophercustomshirts.com/articles/style_makers.htm

I keep thinking that it’s $1200, not $12,000.

Can anybody explain to me how a guy can put together an outfit for $12,000 (even more!)?

Spending money on one item/activity implies either that you won’t be spending money on another, perhaps more worthwhile item/activity/endeavor or you won’t be saving that money, and thus adding to the long-run investment pool.

If he’s mentioned that he’s getting fitted for clothes that could mean anything from getting something made cheap (but well) in Thailand to getting fitted for haute couture at Chanel. A haute couture wardrobe could easily run to the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it’s said that there are only 200 or so regular haute couture customers in the world.

Not being ultra-rich or a male, my guess would be that most of the money would be in a nice jacket (there are alligator jackets for well over $12,000), good shoes, and probably the pants.

From the link that Measure for Measure provided:

That means that the tailor or seamstress took 20 different measurements of the client’s body: neck width, arm lenth, chest width, etc. etc. That doesn’t mean that the customer comes back 20 times to get fitted. Just that the measurements are very exacting. (I usually just go with a few measurements when I sew something—nowhere near 20.)

I used to work in a fabric store where many of the employees took seamstress work on the side. I don’t know what they charged exactly, but in order to pay them for anything remotely worth their time, it was going to cost a more than a little. While I’ve never been paid to sew something for someone else, I know that I couldn’t and wouldn’t consider it worth my time to sew a tailored shirt for less than $150 (for labor, material and notions), especially if I was going to use that many measurements to get the fit just right. And I’m not a professional seamstress, not by a long shot, so I wouldn’t charge as much as an experienced professional.

So actually, I thought that the guy’s prices cited in that article are pretty much reasonable or at least expected, considering the product he is providing.

Also keep in mind that some fabrics can be kind of expensive. (Not $12,000 expensive, but expensive.) You get a fine silk or a wool and you need to use several yards of it, add onto it expensive lining, expensive buttons, and so forth, and that jacks the price up. But no—nothing near $12,000!

I know how to save money by sewing, but I don’t pay myself to sew (and I avoid the ultra-pricey fabrics and notions). But if you are paying someone, let’s say, $25 an hour (not unreasonable for an exacting skill) and you add onto it expensive materials—it’s gonna add up.

And I missed a detail: the article says that the garments are hand finished. I am not 100% sure that the guy in the article meant it this way, but in my little sewing world, hand finished means that you hem it by hand, not by machine, and so forth. Very time consuming.

Damn. If that’s the case, that guy has pretty reasonable prices, really. And even though he uses cottons, they’re obviously the expensive fancy-shmantsy cottons, not the cheap $4 a yard calico/quilting cottons.

[QUOTE=yosemitebabe]
No, you’re missing the point. If you criticize someone for the car they drive, or for their hairstyle, or whatever, you’d better be able to handle people criticizing your car and your hairstyle. See?[/qoute]

Oh, I see that you’re dodging the point all righty. You’re trying to keep things morally neutral, as if there’s a continuum that runs from average folks to $12K suit guy, and that makes us all the same. Bzzzt! Wrongo! It’s like you’re saying, "Sure, that guy beat his wife to a pulp and put her in the hospital for a month, but we’ve all been guilty of violence toward our spouses, even if it’s only mental. So before you call that guy a “wife beater” be prepared to answer the question, “Have you EVER harbored a bad thought about your spouse?”

Differences in quantity can become a difference in quality, in short, and Mr. $12K suit is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over to one end of the scale here.

Not you, certainly, because you apparently wouldn’t blink at a guy wearing diamond-studded, platinum chain mail jockey shorts among the naked. It’s all the same to you.

Well, first you have to engage your brain. I think you’ve worked so hard at keeping your mind open on this issue that your brain fell out somewhere back on page 1.

See what I mean? Pepsi vs. generic soda. Vs. $12K suit. Get some perspective here.

[quote]
So where do we draw the line? Is it Pepsi vs. generic? Or a $12,000 car vs. a $20,000 car? $30,000 car? What exactly is the cut-off point—the exact spot where “justifiable” becomes “wasteful”? Who gets to decide?[/qoute]

Suit vs. car vs. $12K suit. Apples vs. oranges vs. diamond and ruby encrusted pomegranates.

You strike me as one of those people who are so desperate to ignore the inequities in our society that you walk around going, “Avert your eyes from the rich! Avoid looking at or thinking about all that wealth that you don’t have, lest you be driven mad by avarice and greed!”

Now, looky here little missy, I know that a person who’s born rich is no more responsible for his condition than someone who’s born poor (although I think a lot of conservatives don’t understand that this rule works both ways). And I’m not looking at this guy and saying, “I wish I could be an idiot popinjay in a $12K suit.” Oh, I wish I had the RESOURCES he can command all righty, but that’s a different thing. And I think it’s healthy to look around at the people around you and ask, “Is it FAIR that Oswald Popinjay III gets to spend his life lolling around on a yacht swilling expensive champagne and playing bongo butt with thong babes whilst I must clean the scuppers and scrape the barnacles all day in exchange for a glass of brackish water and a fish skeleton for dinner?” You’d rather we all squinch up our eyes and ignore such things.

Ain’t gonna happen.

Oh, please. You don’t have to be Ghandi to criticize obvious shit. This is just pathetic.

You refuse to address the concept that we all are among the naked. You live in a house and have electricity and drive a car amongst people who have none of those things. But you want to be selective in who you condemn, when in fact you undoubtedly have many luxuries that would seem extravagant to those who have much less. But that doesn’t compute with you, does it?

You won’t answer the question, I see.

Sure, we can all point to the $12,000 suit and say that’s way too much. I think that’s way too much, personally. But I also don’t think it’s any of my business because it’s not my money. Besides, that $12,000 suit could just as easily be a $12,000 painting, that maybe he buys from me some day. Do you begrudge me that? Would you begrudge yourself that, if someone were to pay you $12,000 for one of your paintings?

Or are you going to keep on plugging your ears and continue to ignore that question? Let me make it even more plain to you: do you think that any artist should be able to charge $12,000 for the artwork and do you think that anyone who buys a $12,000 painting is wrong for doing so?

Please. I would appreciate a simple yes or no answer to that.

And you strike me as one of those bitter people who thinks that everyone else’s life and personal choices are your business.

And would your lifestyle change any? Let’s explore that. Would you move to a nicer house? Get a faster computer? A newer car? Be honest now, would you?

Or would you give every penny of these RESOURCES to the naked and poor? If not, then you very likely would be “pissing away” your money in a way that would offend a great many people. Perhaps you’d buy too many books, which to some is apparently unforgivable.

Very colorful. But the root of the problem. Life ain’t fair. It ain’t fair that I can draw and my friend (the one who seethed at me when I pulled out a sketchbook) can’t draw, but I’m not going to stop drawing just to make her feel better. (I know the analogy breaks down a little, but the point is, I don’t have to stop doing the things I enjoy or buying the things I enjoy just because it pisses someone else off. It’s none of their business.)

Sure, it would be nice if the rich guy would give all his money to charity and live in a shack, but I don’t think any of us should expect him to do that. Sure, it would be nice if the rich guy lived in a 3 bedroom home in the suburbs instead of owning two mansions—sure. Sure, it would be nice if no one ever had any nice houses or nice things and we all lived in identical little boxes and everyone was the same. Oh wait—I’m not so sure that’s such a nice idea.

But that’s the point. It may seem obvious to be shocked a $12,000 suit, but it’s equally obvious to other people to criticize someone for having too many damned books. I was shocked that my sister would spend $500 on a ring. But is that equally obvious to you? Is it? How many people here would agree that $500 is shockingly expensive for a ring? Let’s take a poll and see if it’s so “obvious” to everyone.

But no, it’s so much better to just all make each other miserable over the stuff that seems obvious to us, isn’t it?

You’ve conveniently ignored torie’s and artemis’s points earlier in this thread, so I’ll refresh your memory: so, someone buys a $12,000 suit. They pay the tailors, they fund the people who make the fabric and the buttons. The money goes to people who earn a living. Just like the money for an expensive painting goes to people who earn a living.

And what about those who spend $12,000 on a boat or RV or on expensive cruises or vacations? Are they equally as evil as the guy with the $12,000 suit? Can a person go on a fancy vacation every year and spend a lot of money or does that automatically make them evil in your eyes?

Also, the guy in question has undoubtedly given more to charity than perhaps you’ll ever give in your whole life. But I guess it doesn’t matter how much they give, because they spend some money on things you don’t approve of—is that it?

I’m just gonna ramble here. It’s taken me a while to read this entire thread. I started it when it was new, but I had this sewing machine to wrestle with ;).

One issue that no one’s brought up yet is the possibility of repudiating inherited wealth. Let’s call the OP’s friend “Ruddiger”. Suppose Ruddiger didn’t wear $1200 or $12,000 or whatever outfits. Suppose he chose instead to wear faded jeans and flannel shirts and t-shirts with raunchy logos. Suppose he never talked about how much money he had, while trying to conform to what he thought was “normal” or even “poor”.

I guarantee that it would backfire on him at some point. Someone with an ax to grind would eventually find out where his parents lived. Or they’d notice that Ruddiger had perfect teeth, and Ruddiger would admit that in his youth, he’d had a lot of orthodontia. Or they’d notice that Ruddiger had the newest, latest gadget, such as a SOTA cell phone.

Then Ruddiger would find himself up against the wall, defending himself against charges of “What, you think you’re slumming? You trying to be one of the po’ folk? Fuck off back to Upper St. Clair!” Might as well “act rich” and make no bones about it, than pretend to be something you’re not and be doubly condemned, first for having money, then for being secretive about it, as if it really is wrong to inherit wealth.


When I was in grade 10, a friend of mine called Teri-Ann, who lived in the projects, introduced me to another girl, also from the projects, called Pam. Now, Pam and I could have been friends, but for the chip on her shoulder. It started slow, but eventually it was an everyday thing: “You got contact lenses? You got a new pair of corduroys? You got a whole bag of Doritos for yourself?”

It didn’t get under my skin right away. The contact lenses I could understand, because Pam also wore glasses. I remembered how envious I’d been of contact-lens wearers, and assumed she felt the same way. But I was less sympathetic about the corduroys—I mean, big deal, new pants, and they weren’t designer! And the Doritos thing really defined her position.

See, Pam had, I think, two siblings, maybe more, living with her. My sisters hadn’t lived at home since I was little. My dad was also hardly ever home, because his job required him to travel. So it was me and my mom, and my mom preferred a different kind of snack food. I didn’t think my mom was spoiling me by adding one bag of Doritos to her weekly shopping list: to me, spoiling would be allowing me to scarf them up in a day or two, then immediately running out to get more. But Pam saw it as, I didn’t have siblings to share with, so I was ipso facto spoiled.

And then there was the job thing. See, in my community, Daughter generally kept house while Mom worked. That still makes sense to me: Mom has completed her education and training, so she can earn more. Daughter can divide her time between housework and homework, so she can get into a good school, and eventually reach the same ability to earn as Mom has. But Pam and Teri-Ann both worked at a burger joint because (I think), the family needed every little bit that could be earned right then.

So Pam was down on me for not working outside the home. (I truly understood what Betty Friedan was on about after this was all over.) Finally, one day, she asked me point-blank, “Do you get everything you want?”

“Not when I don’t deserve to.”

Followed by a long discourse about basically what I said above: I did work, my mom could earn more, I needed time for my schoolwork, and I didn’t want very much to begin with. I was never a “gimme girl”, believe me. I may not have paid cold hard cash for those contact lenses, but I earned them through good behavior and trustworthyness and not asking for anything else for a while before or after.

Well, Pam basically…didn’t answer. In fact, we stopped talking to each other after that, by mutual agreement. And because I didn’t want to put Teri-Ann in the middle of this, I didn’t see much of her for a while either.

Finally, months later, she and Pam had a falling-out over something totally different, so we started hooking up again. Now, I wasn’t the one who brought it up, but we eventually got around to the subject of Pam and her “You got this? You got that?”

“Because she doesn’t have anything!” Teri-Ann snorted. “Listen, if she had your money—”

“[sigh] I don’t have money…

“If she had money, period—she wouldn’t know what to do with it! She’d spend it all on Fritos and junk jewelry!”


Boss, who also started out in the projects but worked himself up (I don’t know what happened to Teri-Ann, but I imagine she got out of that shit town and never looked back) says that in the long run, it’s bad to buy cheap. A cheap car will break down more often. So will cheap appliances. Cheap clothes will wear out faster. Cheap food is not necessarily nutritious. So there you are with car repair bills that add up to more than you paid for the car itself, a new crappy coffeemaker every year, clothes that either look like shit or likewise have to be replaced often, and poor health because you’re not eating right. That’s not getting ahead.

Mr. Rilch has followed his lead on this. They wear polo shirts and cargo pants to work, not torn jeans and concert shirts. It makes them look successful, which is highly important in the film biz, and, because the clothes are well-made, they don’t tear as often or wear out as fast. (Of course, I’m there to mend what does get torn…;))

And even the guys who are stuck in grunge mode when it comes to clothes still understand the importance of appearing to be a success. If your car is a POS, people will think, “Well, he must not earn much—must not work very often, or not for a good salary. Well, if no one else wants to hire him, why should I?” Same with gadgets. You don’t necessarily flaunt what you have, but it’s not politic to admit “I can’t afford an iPod.” Unless you have a respectable debt, like child support or a chronically ill spouse. (But you don’t want to noise that around too much either, lest people think you’re trolling for pity jobs.)

So I would say that some expenditures are definitely “justifiable”. In order to better yourself, you have to treat yourself better.

Y’know, in the play “Lemmings” John Belushi did a hilarious riff on a movement activist, saying things like, “If you are not a black lesbian mother … you are an OPPRESSOR!” and advising such people to get righteous by giving away all their worldly goods away and then digging a deep hole in the earth and covering themselves with compost and bludgeoning themselves to death.

It was a great send-up of the kind of self-important blowhards that were around in the 70s, and you sound kinda like the obverse of them. That is, they were imploring people to BE like that. You seem to think that if we acknowledge that there are great disparities in wealth in our society and that that might be, at some level, WRONG, then we have no choice but to dress in rags, eat recycled cardboard work in salt mines.

C’mon. Most folks like nice things. That’s cool. Lotsa folks don’t get enough to eat. That’s not cool. Some people have so much wealth that it’s fucking ridiculous, also not cool. I bet if we got rid of every fucking billionaire on Earth tomorrow, we’d all be just fine.

Fact is, I’d like us to all have the same level of income, I’d just like that level of income to be very high. If I could make it so that everyone on Earth could live at the level of affluence of an upper-middle class American tomorrow, and it meant all the multi-millionaires would vanish from the Earth, I’d do it in an eyeblink, and not so much as a twinge of guilt for all those lost gilded lilies.

That’s what I call the “Lotto fallacy.” “Sure there’s rich people out there, but you or I might win the Lotto and then WE’D be rich people, and wouldn’t you just hate these attitudes then?”

News. Odds are, we AIN’T gonna win the lotto. Last I read, less than 5 percent of all Americans ever move into the upper class from the middle class, in any given generation. That means 95 percent of us … don’t. And it’s stupid to base your judgements on the prospect of winning the lotto.

Sure, you’d love to define the terms of our argument. I get that. Ain’t gonna happen.

No, I’m not bitter. I’m not mad at anybody. I think I am free to think about other’s lives and personal choices, and judge them, yeah. But I’m not mad at them. It’s not their fault, it’s our economic and social systems. I’m open to various ideas on how to change them, but there is no way you are going to get me to think our economic and social systems are anywhere CLOSE to optimal with mindless blather like “Life isn’t fair.” True, the universe is morality-free, and I’m beginning to think you are the same way. But I’M not that way. And I think most people aren’t that way.

A good post, Rilchiam. You’re very wise. :slight_smile:

A slight hijack here…my daughter (senior in hs) had her cell phone stolen while she was in the front of the class, talking with her teacher. (It was turned on vibrate, and in her purse, sitting on her desk. Whomever took it, had to go into her purse and take it.) She used it only for emergency purposes at school, and her teachers were cool with it. Anyway, we never found who took it, but the teacher, for whatever reason, felt really guilty about it. He offered to replace it. However, Daughter told him, thank you, but no, she’d replace her phone herself. She didn’t feel right taking the money when it obviously wasn’t his fault that it was stolen. (He said that she’d been talking to him, and if he’d been paying closer attention, it wouldn’t have been stolen. Splitting hair, she thinks, and still felt like it was her responsibility to replace her phone.)

Anyway, he mentioned it a few more times within the following week, each time Daughter telling him, thank you, but no. Finally, he stopped saying anything. Daughter replaced her own phone.

Several weeks later, she recieves a card of apology from the teacher, with a check that would have covered about 1/2 the replacement cost. She asked me what she should do, and I told her that it was up to her. She decided to put it into her College Fund (her housing deposit is due for college within the month, and she’s responsible for that), and wrote him a thank you note, telling him that she put the money towards her College Fund Housing Deposit, and she would carry this memory of his support with her through her college times.

the teacher read the thank you note and cried. She said she was grateful that she’d taken the money and written the note, and glad that it meant so much to both of them.

No, that’s not at all what I want. I just want to point out that everyone has their own idea of what is a “nice thing” and for some people, it’s more than for other people. And I’m not going to make someone else miserable for something that is not my own business.

I did mention before that certain things bother me: having something really nice and not appreciating it. Do a lot of rich people fall into this category? Probably. Ho hum, flying to Paris again, life is so tedious. These kinds of people I do lose respect for. But having a nice life and appreciating it, and (presumably) also giving to charity? I have no desire to give these people a hard time.

But it’s not cool. Not to you. Someone hires a fine tailor to make a really fancy suit out of beuatiful fabric and that’s a nice thing, but that’s not cool as far as you’re concerned.

And so the rich guy who hires the tailor helps feed that tailor’s family. And perhaps the rich guy also gives a lot to charity. And yet that’s not enough for you.

Have you ever been to Hearst Castle? I have, a few times. It’s fabulous. It was built by a very rich man. This place is amazing. Beautiful structure, fabulous gilded pool, great artwork, beautiful inside and out. A real marvel.

Now, it’s great that this place is shared with others and I think that’s a very good thing, but had Mr. Hearst only been upper-middle-class, he’d never have been able to afford to fund and build the damned thing to begin with. Sure, when he was alive (I presume) it wasn’t open to the public, but now it is open to the public. And it exists because this guy was stinking rich. I’m glad it exists. But I guess that you would wish it never existed, and all its beauty and art also didn’t exist. Because it never would have existed without a very rich man.

No, that’s my reality. No, I’ve not made $12,000 on a piece of art. But some of my peers have charged more than $1,000 for a painting and I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility for me to get to that point as well. (The most I’ve made on a single piece was $700—that was for photo rights.) I have a decent education and I’ve tried to develop my skills and I think that they’re worth something. I don’t want some bitter, jealous person telling me that I’ve got no right to charge that much for my work. And I don’t want some bittery jealous person telling the well-off that they shouldn’t buy my work, that it’s “unjustified.”

I respect and admire “Art Angels” and yes, usually these people are loaded with money. They help support the arts and I think that’s fantastic. I’m sorry that you don’t understand where I’m coming from, but that’s not my problem, that’s just your ignorance.

Getting really good at something and getting paid well for it isn’t a lotto. It isn’t just happenstance or dumb luck, either. I see what other artists around me can earn and I don’t think I’m a half-bad artist. I can aspire to get paid handsomely for my hard work and I don’t feel guilty or greedy about that. And no amount of bitterness or jealousy from someone else is going to change my aspirations.

Of course not. Because you have no answer. You just want to keep repeating that “it’s not FAIR!” and “It’s OBVIOUS that this is too much” without exploring it further. Just repeat that over and over again and avoid any clarification. We’re getting nowhere, because you refuse to engage in an honest debate.

Sure you are. It oozes from your posts.

No, you think you are being oh-so-moral, while in fact you are being a judgmental, sour wet blanket. Contrary to your beliefs, assuming that you KNOW all about someone (how much they give to charity, how much they help out other people and fund the arts, etc.), when in fact you know little does not make you morally superior. It just makes you look petty and bitter—stewing over someone else’s private business like that.

And since you won’t even address some of the other posts here and refuse to debate honestly, well, I don’t think there’s anywhere else for this to go with you.

Why, thank you!