PDA

View Full Version : Why do women need to buy branded bags?



Kael Valeran
07-11-2011, 09:20
Seriously why?

I cannot understand why women want to spend over a thousand pounds on a bag. Some have tried to justify it, but it still doesn't make sense.

For example, some claim to buy the bags for fashion, yet they are unable to accept replicas(or at least until they are told they are holding a replica)

Some claim branded goods have better quality, but that does not seem to be the case. Most of the time branded bags last long is because they take extra caution not to damage such goods. I have seen branded bags handled like ordinary bags and they DO break like ordinary bags.

What makes it logical to take hard earned cash and hand it over to a designer when you can actually get an equally useful and stylish back for ten times less the price? Or even worse, using money from another source like parents or boyfriend or husband. Spending £1000 on a bag is ridiculous me thinks, and a £300 bag(still expensive) would guarantee a good quality stylish bag.

Lady Rhonwyn
07-11-2011, 09:36
My question would be, why do some women want to spend a lot of money on silly bags in the first place? I personally hate those things. The only bag I always take with me, is a backpack... Handbags I hate. They are impractical... You don't have your hands free, or, if it's one with a shoulderband, you always have this thing bouncing on your side...

Rob Van Der Sloot
07-11-2011, 10:34
My sister enjoys collecting them, but I'm not sure if they have to be brand bags... I don't think so. It's just a hobby I guess.

Mehtis
07-11-2011, 10:41
I have a friend that does this. I just can't understand it. She tried to justify with the "lasting longer". She also said that they could be sold for quite some money down the road as "vintage". But I'd recon that her financial situation would be better in 10 years than now as most-part unemployed 20 year old. I'm buying a couch with my girlfriend right now and I rather save some now and possibly get a better couch when I have some proper income in the future.

raspberry jam
07-11-2011, 10:44
They want to impress other women. Also:
women (...) logicalhttp://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/000/249/i-divided-by-zero.jpg?1242350505

Lady Rhonwyn
07-11-2011, 12:08
They want to impress other women. Also:http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/000/249/i-divided-by-zero.jpg?1242350505

Hmm, interesting proposition... If I, as a woman, manage to divide by zero, I'll create a black hole?

I should apply with CERN!

But maybe you explained why I don't "collect" bags (or shoes, or clothes)... I'm too logical! Besides, I prefer electronic gadgets...

Qanar
07-11-2011, 12:53
And you collect armor sets...

Karuro
07-11-2011, 13:03
And you collect armor sets...

GW2 will introduce offhand purses.

Simply Kedde
07-11-2011, 13:04
Why do virtues such as vanity, greed and egoism survive?

Giggles
07-11-2011, 13:27
Jersey Shore. I think this is a bigger mystery.

RD
07-11-2011, 13:29
Jersey Shore. I think this is a bigger mystery.

Almost every person I know watches this show, regardless of gender.

MixedVariety
07-11-2011, 13:31
For some people if you have money, it means you buy the most expensive things--and lots of 'em. Handbags, shoes, jewelry and other accessories.

My wife and daughters tend to use a quality handbag that lasts for years before needing replacement. Not a brand-name one, like Gucci; they tend to go for totes from L.L. Bean or some other company known for their robust construction rather than just the attraction of the brand name.

Mehtis
07-11-2011, 13:32
We don't have Jersey Shore here, but we have BB. I'm totally baffled that people watch it.

Giggles
07-11-2011, 14:08
Almost every person I know watches this show, regardless of gender.

Hence the mystery.

I usually shoot for quality over quantity almost every time. I don't buy things for the sake of buying things but, usually when I get something, I want it to work well and last. Product lifespan is pretty important to me. I don't like the throwaway lifestyle that we have. I have no idea if spending more on handbags makes a difference at all since, well, I don't use them and try not to touch them.

Jono Mozza
07-11-2011, 14:39
Eh, I guess some women are just handbag enthusiasts.

Lady Rhonwyn
07-11-2011, 15:13
I usually shoot for quality over quantity almost every time. I don't buy things for the sake of buying things but, usually when I get something, I want it to work well and last. Product lifespan is pretty important to me. I don't like the throwaway lifestyle that we have.

the same here. If I spend money on something, I expect it to last a long time. We're fairly good at keeping things alive till long after their "economic" value has come and gone.

The only thing I will "buy and throwaway" is something I'm not sure I'll use a lot. If I end up using it a lot, I'll throw away the cheapo version and get a quality version.

Alaris
07-11-2011, 15:37
Why do women starve themselves to thinner-than-what-men-like sizes?

Same reason I think.

Gorani
07-11-2011, 15:54
There are two different things to the OP

1. Why expensive?
If expensive means good quality, I am fine with expensive bags. If it means "big logo to show off" I am not

2. Why do they need more than one (=so many)?
Because the bag needs to fit the rest of the clothing & outfit in color. :smiley:
That is perfectly fine if the woman would actually chose a bag that fits her outfit! But a friend of mine owns half a closet full of handbags and carries around only one (oversized & purple) 95% of the time.

Rob Van Der Sloot
07-11-2011, 16:09
the same here. If I spend money on something, I expect it to last a long time. We're fairly good at keeping things alive till long after their "economic" value has come and gone.

The only thing I will "buy and throwaway" is something I'm not sure I'll use a lot. If I end up using it a lot, I'll throw away the cheapo version and get a quality version.

And here I was thinking that only men thought this practically. Glad I was wrong. Most men I know, myself included, only buy things because they are of decent quality. We rarely buy a couch because it looks good. We buy one because it sits comfortable, and we can lie down on it (lazy gaming mode activate!), or sit up and read on it with proper support for our back.

Never mind if it's an ugly couch, I'll take a cheap ugly couch that sits well over an expensive good looking couch any day. More than half the designer stuff is just really uncomfortable and breaks easily.

My mother is like that. She'll buy a chair because it was made by a well known designer, and it looks interesting. Only after buying it, she'll realise that it sits as comfortable as sitting on an iron throne.

http://dhmontgomery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/wallpaper-iron-throne-1600-286x300.jpg

Zalis
07-11-2011, 16:28
This makes me thankful for a fiancée who only buys stuff on sale... She probably has 10 purses, but it's likely that none of them ever cost her more than $50. She won't even buy shoes* that are more than that, which is amazing.

*The equivalent of pokémon for millions of women


Almost every person I know watches this show, regardless of gender.

You know, I've always wondered who keeps those kinds of shows on the air... :tongue:

Lytha
07-11-2011, 16:33
I love statements like the one of the OP. "All women do some sort of stupid stuff" - just because he knows one or two that are that way.

I, on the other hand, don't know any woman who buys expensive, branded bags. That's mostly because my social circle does not really include the fashion addicts, it includes mostly the backpack + sweater & jeans type.

So, I don't know why women supposedly only buy branded, expensive bags. The reasons may be similar to why some men only buy expensive cars though: Impressing other people with this expensive item; showing off; and getting some self-esteem because they've got something with supposedly high quality.



@Alaris: I don't think that anorexia and shopping mania have the same psychological reasons. :tongue:

Raye
07-11-2011, 16:36
For what is worth, I dislike purses. My wallet, cellphone and keys fit perfectly in my pockets. Why do I need anything else? If I have to carry books and stuff I just take a backpack.

Also its harder to pick pocket than it is to snatch a purse out of a woman's hand. It is not practical, in any way.

Sent from my G2. lulz what typos?

Gorani
07-11-2011, 16:50
For what is worth, I dislike purses. My wallet, cellphone and keys fit perfectly in my pockets. Why do I need anything else? If I have to carry books and stuff I just take a backpack.


*reposted from 2008*

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/3572/kopievonimgp0045sr1.th.jpg (http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kopievonimgp0045sr1.jpg)

I checked my "handbag" ... yes, I don't like stuffing my pockets, so that one comes handy:
wallet, cellphone (not that one from the picture, the new one is smaller), keys, a half used pack of paper handkerchiefs, a small swiss army knife, a lighter, post-its,a 2''-Ikea pencil and a biro.

I am not carrying around (yes, a friend has that in her bag - I checked, because we had a similar discussion with buddies in a bar):
(wallet, cellphone, keys), a half empty 1 liter bottle of water, a paperback novel, a scarf, three packs of handkerchiefs, a variety of "women's monthy hygene products", a spoon, a mirror, two kinds of lipstick, another handful of cosmetics, a tube of hand lotion, the charger for her mobile ... and probably a few other things I can't remember.

Alaris
07-11-2011, 16:50
@Alaris: I don't think that anorexia and shopping mania have the same psychological reasons. :tongue:

Not shopping mania, rather, buying expensive brands.

The commonality would be female-female competition, which ties into self-esteem issues.

Giggles
07-11-2011, 17:01
That's mostly because my social circle does not really include the fashion addicts, it includes mostly the backpack + sweater & jeans type.

sweaters? SWEATERS!!!! GET OOOUUUUTTTTT!!!

Lensor
07-11-2011, 17:04
Why do people of all genders buy "insert overprized basically useless item here"? At least designer handbags, if you do not wear them out, can retain most of their value over time. Can you say the same for all the expensive gadgets some men (yes women do it too, but about to about the same extent as men buy expensive handbags..) tend to geek out over? Like, I dont know, wooden stereo knobs for almost $500?

Or to put it in other words; how come men's hobbies and collector's items are somehow more ok to spend huge amounts of money on for no real benefit than women's dito?

raspberry jam
07-11-2011, 17:06
Jersey Shore. I think this is a bigger mystery.Watching TV? In 2011? What is this.

Alaris
07-11-2011, 17:18
how come men's hobbies and collector's items are somehow more ok to spend huge amounts of money on for no real benefit than women's dito?

The short story is, it's the same problem.

If I wanted to argue, I'd try to make the claim that it's more frequent for women to do this, but I don't have data to back this claim, and frankly I don't care to argue.

The fact is that I don't think consumerism is justifiable in anyone. It's unhealthy and wasteful.

RD
07-11-2011, 17:33
This thread also be getting general up in here.

CHIPS
07-11-2011, 17:35
It is very funny actually. We men really don't care at all what bag they use. They using a LV bag will not make them more attractive. In fact some of us might view them as gold diggers, or expensive to "maintain".

Both my mother and sister are very practical at their shopping habits. They buy branded stuff but only when its on sale. $300 handbag for $50 that kind of thing.

Someone mentioned that this is comparable to men liking expensive cars. Well expensive cars might gives you 300+ horsepower and are usually a bust to drive. There are no such "specs" in handbags. :grin:

cosyfiep
07-11-2011, 18:02
I see men buying uber expensive gym shoes ....that perform just the same as the kmart brand (or whatever)..why do men do this?

and never heard of this jersey shore...then again I dont watch network tv (food channel and sifi are about it)...
I have owned the same purse since 2004 (bought it in japan for about $20...still works great--no reason to buy another until it totally dies).

the gotta be like or better than whomever mentality..../sigh.....never had the 'drive' to be like anyone else--I prefer being ME ...and yes, my clothes are out of date too (that 'what not to wear' show is only good if you dont do what they say). I wear what feels comfortable, I use purses that I like--and have never looked at one costing more than my first paycheck from my very first job!.....now shoes...that is another story! (though again, dont think I have a pair of any 'designer' brand....payless shoes ftw!)

Giggles
07-11-2011, 18:06
Or to put it in other words; how come men's hobbies and collector's items are somehow more ok to spend huge amounts of money on for no real benefit than women's dito?

They're called action figures, not dolls.

Zalis
07-11-2011, 18:14
I see men buying uber expensive gym shoes ....that perform just the same as the kmart brand (or whatever)..why do men do this?

If you mean gym guys buying $100+ shoes just to go to the gym or do some casual jogging for warm up, then sure.

If you mean real runners buying shoes, then I'll disagree. A person should really go to a store that puts you on a treadmill and recommends a shoe based on your stride. If you know you need a support shoe or something else specific, you might be able to find bargains elsewhere. It depends on what brands and models they carry, and I can't speak to what 'real' running shoes Wal-Mart or PayLess carry. I wouldn't recommend running long distances (or high frequency) in cheap shoes, though. It just makes injuries more likely (feet, knees, etc).

FWIW, I tend to buy the previous year's model of running shoe. They tend to be at least 25% off the average $75-120 price. I also put more miles on my shoes than a running store would recommend. My current pair is probably around the 500-mile mark.

MixedVariety
07-11-2011, 18:31
If you mean real runners buying shoes, then I'll disagree. A person should really go to a store that puts you on a treadmill and recommends a shoe based on your stride. If you know you need a support shoe or something else specific, you might be able to find bargains elsewhere. It depends on what brands and models they carry, and I can't speak to what 'real' running shoes Wal-Mart or PayLess carry. I wouldn't recommend running long distances (or high frequency) in cheap shoes, though. It just makes injuries more likely (feet, knees, etc).



Same with ice skates, for instance. If you're serious about skating--and I'd imagine this goes for roller-blades as well--you'd best be spending the extra money you should for a pair with real ankle bracing and support.

hotdogtesting
07-11-2011, 18:40
For some people if you have money, it means you buy the most expensive things--and lots of 'em. Handbags, shoes, jewelry and other accessories.

My wife and daughters tend to use a quality handbag that lasts for years before needing replacement. Not a brand-name one, like Gucci; they tend to go for totes from L.L. Bean or some other company known for their robust construction rather than just the attraction of the brand name.

I'd happily get my girlfriend a Hermes bag if and when she asks for one, but only if it is Hermes. I refuse to get her POS Chanel's and CK bags. At the tippy top, there really is a difference in quality.

RD
07-11-2011, 18:55
I see men buying uber expensive gym shoes ....that perform just the same as the kmart brand (or whatever)..why do men do this?

Two things wrong with this:
1- As long as we're talking about stereotypes, most women I know spend way more on shoes than the guys I know. The girls here at work are forever talking about one pair or another that cost over $100 or $200.
2- As Zalis pointed out, there is a big difference in shoe quality and, if you're real into your running, it makes a difference.

Giggles
07-11-2011, 19:10
I spent almost $300 on bike shoes a few years ago. zomg!

Alaris
07-11-2011, 19:27
I spend 350$ on my bow & accessories. High heels just don't have good combat value.

Lady Rhonwyn
07-11-2011, 19:38
And here I was thinking that only men thought this practically. Glad I was wrong. Most men I know, myself included, only buy things because they are of decent quality. We rarely buy a couch because it looks good. We buy one because it sits comfortable, and we can lie down on it (lazy gaming mode activate!), or sit up and read on it with proper support for our back.

Never mind if it's an ugly couch, I'll take a cheap ugly couch that sits well over an expensive good looking couch any day. More than half the designer stuff is just really uncomfortable and breaks easily.

My mother is like that. She'll buy a chair because it was made by a well known designer, and it looks interesting. Only after buying it, she'll realise that it sits as comfortable as sitting on an iron throne.

Hmm, often, something I like and sits/wears/is comfortable is also usually very expensive :grin: But I'll only buy it if I/we really need it and it fits with the rest. I wouldn't buy anything because maybe there's something that might fit with it...


(having said that, I did that once... I bought our stove and fit the kitchen around it... The stove was 1/3d of the total price of the kitchen... So, that new Kitchenaid Kitchenrobot will fit in perfectly, both with price and looks :grin:)


I love statements like the one of the OP. "All women do some sort of stupid stuff" - just because he knows one or two that are that way.

I, on the other hand, don't know any woman who buys expensive, branded bags. That's mostly because my social circle does not really include the fashion addicts, it includes mostly the backpack + sweater & jeans type.

My type of girl! You exactly described me :cool: And only my mother sometimes buys purses, not because they're brand X and expensive, but rather because she likes them, no matter the brand... (I still think she's crazy for buying those, on the other hand, otherwise I couldn't borrow one for our wedding :wink:)

Giggles
07-11-2011, 20:13
large potato sacks are comfortable. they breath well to.

cosyfiep
07-11-2011, 20:43
If you mean gym guys buying $100+ shoes just to go to the gym or do some casual jogging for warm up, then sure.

If you mean real runners buying shoes, then I'll disagree. A person should really go to a store that puts you on a treadmill and recommends a shoe based on your stride. If you know you need a support shoe or something else specific, you might be able to find bargains elsewhere. It depends on what brands and models they carry, and I can't speak to what 'real' running shoes Wal-Mart or PayLess carry. I wouldn't recommend running long distances (or high frequency) in cheap shoes, though. It just makes injuries more likely (feet, knees, etc).

FWIW, I tend to buy the previous year's model of running shoe. They tend to be at least 25% off the average $75-120 price. I also put more miles on my shoes than a running store would recommend. My current pair is probably around the 500-mile mark.

Yes I am talking about the ones just bought for the style and not for the purpose (good running/sport shoes SHOULD be an investment--as with any equipment for sports or other activities)...but buying pretty (expensive) gym shoes because you can show them off??? sorry no. (I dont even have a pair of 'gym' shoes right now...got an old pair of running shoes from the 90's---I think...)

RD
07-11-2011, 20:52
I spend 350$ on my bow & accessories. High heels just don't have good combat value.

What kind of shoes do you wear?

I'm trying to learn to kick.

Alaris
07-11-2011, 21:08
Running shoes will do just fine for kicking. You want something that is flexible and won't mess up your balance, otherwise I don't think you need anything special... just practice a bit with them if you're used to kicking without shoes to adjust to the difference.

Giggles
07-11-2011, 21:38
RDarken, keep in mind that everyone from Quebec is into professional wresting and the martial arts. So you have to take anything Alaris says with a grain of salt.

Alaris
07-11-2011, 23:30
RDarken, keep in mind that everyone from Quebec is into professional wresting and the martial arts. So you have to take anything Alaris says with a grain of salt.

That is so not true. Professional wrestling is fake, and totally not popular here.

Giggles
07-11-2011, 23:54
Oh really? Either something's changed in the last couple of years or you're a big fatty fat fat lier. I'm right next to the boarder. I have seen the chaos.

yVGfYWTw5WU

x6CCMiPTMSs

This is how you do it when you have a purse.

I17yQ8s0GiA

Leonora Windleaf
08-11-2011, 00:21
It's not only women. Some people (mostly men) would prefer to spend 500$+ extra for a guitar or bass that has the name "Fender" on it, instead of buying a Squier Classic Vibe guitar/bass, which is a perfectly fine instrument, and looks exactly the same. One could argue the quality is different, but that's not the main reason. Some people just outright refuse to buy anything that doesn't say "Made in USA" or has a famous brand name on it.

Alaris
08-11-2011, 01:47
pfft... paying extra for brand name.

Although, I'd pay extra to buy stuff that says ANet on it.

Kael Valeran
08-11-2011, 02:59
If I wanted to argue, I'd try to make the claim that it's more frequent for women to do this, but I don't have data to back this claim, and frankly I don't care to argue.

The data is published by Consulting firm A.T. Kearney, who estimates that women determine 80% of consumption, purchase 60% of all cars and own 40% of all stocks.

That is the problem with my girlfriend, I have been with her for about 7-8 years, and I love investing in stocks, for the returns. I never care about fashion and I don't spend much on anything, when I spend something more extravagant, I always go the extra mile to be more thrifty, like building my own computer, learning linux and not paying for windows etc. I can always buy a megazord computer but I don't, all the excess money goes into stocks, or longer term investments.


I'd happily get my girlfriend a Hermes bag if and when she asks for one, but only if it is Hermes. I refuse to get her POS Chanel's and CK bags. At the tippy top, there really is a difference in quality.

One day my girlfriend walked into Mark Jacobs, and bought a bag for 400£, and to her, after some explaination, Gucci and LV are not luxury brands at all, things like hermes and chanel are what she classifies as luxury. Seriously.. Gucci is low class now?


The reasons may be similar to why some men only buy expensive cars though: Impressing other people with this expensive item; showing off; and getting some self-esteem because they've got something with supposedly high quality.

Its funny you said this, because I was going to talk about it too. Men buy cars for many reasons, one of them is to attract the opposite sex, to bag women home and get into their pants. At least that is what my male friends tell me, they will never ever admit it to a woman. Also, women influence 80% of car buying decisions. I want to buy a second hand car while my girlfriend wants me to get a first hand audi before we get married. For goodness sake, the extra money must be invested!

On the other hand, men scorn branded bags, it makes the woman look like a leech. Its totally unattractive, as for your friends who wear sweaters and jeans, thats awesome.

Please do note however, that I cannot give a completely unbiased opinion on men idealogy because I have been attached for a long time and I have forgotten what it is like to be single and desperate.


I spent almost $300 on bike shoes a few years ago. zomg!

Don't worry, its less than a quarter of a chanel bag.

-----------------------------

To side track a little

There is also the problem of houses, why do women expect men to pay for houses rather than split the bill half, and even if the man is willing to pay for it, why do women want to live in luxurious homes as long as its affordable by mortgage. Look at the men in big bang theory, they are awesome.

Paying for dinner is peanuts, and I agree on many dates the man should offer to take dinner since its cheap(relatively) and men should show the characteristics such as generosity and being able to provide in a family, but the house is a totally different ball-game than dinner. Asking the man to pay the larger share of the house is unreasonable. Some women keep bringing up the 'we suffer the pain for bringing up the baby' when they are not even pregnant and they might not even be pregnant in the future. Furthermore, with faster csection procedures and the availability of epidurals etc, childbirth is now a walk in the park.

Maybe you might not face this difficulty, but its exceptional in my case, because in chinese culture, its tradition that the man receives the inheritance, some women will probably receive nothing and hence the expectation of a home often falls down to the men because homes in crowded cities cost a million dollars or more. She's not a terrible girl, she often offers to pick up the check at meals, but again like I said, the dinner is peanuts.

However, I will not ask or demand any inheritance from my parents and will even contribute to their gold-coffin fund. I have been raised to be independent and will never rely on parents fund to buy a home, I can live in a cheap small flat and that is what I'm willing to do. Problem is, there are many other competitors out there and women like to compare.

Mortgage interest is low, true, but the money is better put in investments. If all of a sudden, the man gets into an RTA and loses his arms, who is gonna pay for the mortgage? Insurance? Oh yea, actually insurance will pay for it, but seriously, there is nothing wrong being humble and living cheap, in a tiny flat, as long as you are happy.

I think the story of the fisherman and his wife is great. This is so out of point, forgive my rant, but its the OOT.

shawn
08-11-2011, 03:17
I sure hope that your gf has lots of other redeeming qualities, because from what you're telling us, she sounds like a mainstreamist consumer whore.

RD
08-11-2011, 03:23
Running shoes will do just fine for kicking. You want something that is flexible and won't mess up your balance, otherwise I don't think you need anything special... just practice a bit with them if you're used to kicking without shoes to adjust to the difference.

I don't know how to kick AT ALL right now; determined to learn. I've gotten a bit better pivoting with running shoes while boxing, though. Still kind of hard, though, especially on the pads at the gym by my apt.


It's not only women. Some people (mostly men) would prefer to spend 500$+ extra for a guitar or bass that has the name "Fender" on it, instead of buying a Squier Classic Vibe guitar/bass, which is a perfectly fine instrument, and looks exactly the same. One could argue the quality is different, but that's not the main reason. Some people just outright refuse to buy anything that doesn't say "Made in USA" or has a famous brand name on it.

While I don't know everything about every guitar, I can honestly say that this is not an apt analogy. Guitars are one thing where you really do get more for your money. I don't know where it starts and ends, but I've handled $200, $500, and $1,000 guitars and there is such a difference at all levels.

wyzim
08-11-2011, 03:48
People buy stuff to show-off all the time irrespective of their gender. My friends buy branded shoes just to say "I am a Reebok person" and ridiculously costly watches. They also buy the latest mobile phone model whether an upgrade is needed or not. A friend of mine says he has too keep an eye on what his team members are wearing so he can buy costlier stuff because he is their boss.

I also don't understand what makes people buy a Starcract II mouse, Penny-Arcade T-Shirt...or mugs and mouse-pads(unless supporting a small upcoming company). These are at least relatively cheaper.

shawn
08-11-2011, 04:20
Why do girls buy expensive purses? Ask yourself why someone would buy a 600 phone with an apple on it, when they could have paid 400 for a phone with more functionality and better hardware.

That's why.

Alaris
08-11-2011, 04:23
Agreed on guitars, even a beginner is better off putting a bit more into a guitar and getting a better one. It's not only the sound (I wouldn't care if it was), but also that a better guitar requires less effort so you can learn to play faster and it hurts your fingers less.

Also, yeah, Kael, be careful with a consumist wife... sounds like you'll have many fights about how to use money...

@Shawn: I got myself a LG Android. The salesperson was like "finally someone not just following trends and getting an iPhone". I so don't like trends.

hotdogtesting
08-11-2011, 04:39
One day my girlfriend walked into Mark Jacobs, and bought a bag for 400£, and to her, after some explaination, Gucci and LV are not luxury brands at all, things like hermes and chanel are what she classifies as luxury. Seriously.. Gucci is low class now?

It's more in the material that they use. I classify true luxury goods as not just the exclusivity of the good, but also the quality of its material.

In the case of Hermes, the stuff they throw away would be considered by lesser brands as high quality material. It's why there's no real guarantee that you'll get an Hermes bag even if you are on their wait list. If they just happen to find that there's not enough quality leathers... they simply will just make fewer bags that year.

RD
08-11-2011, 04:53
I so don't like trends.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llm0ej8ZuB1qcax21o1_500.png

Alaris
08-11-2011, 04:58
I am a trend-setter. ANet introduced zebra-striped charr to copy me.

I won't sue cuz they do make great games.

Zalis
08-11-2011, 05:22
All smart phone prices might as well be the same when people are buying the newest. Plus, don't 2-year enslav...er, contracts usually even all the prices to sub-$200 anyway?

/says the guy with a tracfone

Kael Valeran
08-11-2011, 05:30
I sure hope that your gf has lots of other redeeming qualities, because from what you're telling us, she sounds like a mainstreamist consumer whore.

She offers to pay the bills, meals, car, everything, but everything she has is expensive and branded because she comes from a really rich family. She earns a lot too, but there is no way anyone can buy a house without inheritance(not normal people anyway, but professionals can barely scrap.) She even buy me movie tickets sometimes.

Its a cultural problem, as well as property speculation problem. Houses cost a million here. so if i own a house(not really a house but a condo), I am a millionaire. In australia, or malaysia, which are only nearby, the homes cost only 400k which is 2.5 times less. She came from malaysia, so she doesn't understand the culture in singapore. Its like PRC people saying HK flats are ridiculously expensive yet they want to live comfortably, its not going to happen without some grinding.

And also, chinese tradition is that the male gets the inheritance, since she is a girl, i don't know if she will be getting any. Of course, to me, buying a house is the long term solution, one cannot live on rent or sleep on the beach for the rest of their lives, but I feel that we're from a more modern upbringing, I am willing to sleep on the beach or rent a tiny flat for a few years instead of using my parent's money to buy a flat. I can afford a house, but it will mean a 30 year mortgage(I'll probably pay it off within 10 years but seriously, she should be putting money into it too)

So there you go, she is a mainstreamist consumer whore who is older than me, earns more money than me, loads more money than me, but a house is never affordable in Singapore. I won't say she doesn't save, she saves about 13k pounds a year, which is a lot for most people but that isn't enough to bare touch the million dollar home.

For me now, its a choice of 1) providing a home so we can settle down or and have a loan, 2) use parents inheritance to buy a house, 3) sleep on the beach or rent a miserable place and invest whatever money we have 4) fight with her until she spends the next 5 years being broke repaying the loan with me.. All options are well within my reach. I know I'm on the stingy side, and I've been in the military and am willing to sleep in the roughs but I would be so much more willing if there is no expectation from me.

I wish I didn't do medicine, low income, already old, 24, and terrible job prospect(for the first 5 years). Oh yea, just remembered, its my birthday today, so happy 24th to myself.

Alaris
08-11-2011, 06:01
Plus, don't 2-year enslav...er, contracts usually even all the prices to sub-$200 anyway?

The way I see it, either you pay cash, or you pay via contract. It probably comes up to similar prices in the long run.


Oh yea, just remembered, its my birthday today, so happy 24th to myself.

Happy birthday!!

Mehtis
08-11-2011, 06:54
I totally saved money with my contract in comparison to getting it individually. Around 360€ vs. 500€ and the contract is suuuper cheap. Covers basically all my needs for 5€/month and more.

Lady Rhonwyn
08-11-2011, 07:26
All smart phone prices might as well be the same when people are buying the newest. Plus, don't 2-year enslav...er, contracts usually even all the prices to sub-$200 anyway?

/says the guy with a tracfone


The way I see it, either you pay cash, or you pay via contract. It probably comes up to similar prices in the long run.

You usually pay more than when you'd have gotten a sim-only contract.


I totally saved money with my contract in comparison to getting it individually. Around 360€ vs. 500€ and the contract is suuuper cheap. Covers basically all my needs for 5€/month and more.

We went for a sim-only contract. Why replace your phone when your old one is still perfectly serviceable? Not that I have a smartphone...

Mehtis
08-11-2011, 07:33
Well, my old one was not servicable anymore. I was looking for a new phone, then a friend referred me to this particular deal. Now I'm a real smartypants with a smartphone in my pants.

Leonora Windleaf
08-11-2011, 09:05
While I don't know everything about every guitar, I can honestly say that this is not an apt analogy. Guitars are one thing where you really do get more for your money. I don't know where it starts and ends, but I've handled $200, $500, and $1,000 guitars and there is such a difference at all levels.

This is true in most cases. A 3000$ Gibson Les Paul Custom is just miles ahead of a 500$ Epiphone Les Paul Custom.

I'm refering to a specific case here, I should have mentioned that before, sorry! I forget that I'm not on talkbass.com here, lol.

Squier, a sister company of Fender, builds licensed copies of original Fender instrument, usually with cheaper materials, and sell them for less money. A couple of years ago, Squier brought their "Vintage Modified" and "Classic Vibe" series, with much better quality materials and better construction. Now, Fender has released their "Modern Player" series, with pretty much the same stats and quality as the Squier VM/CV series, and they are also built in the exact same factory in china. Main difference is the name on the Headstock, and the price, somewhere around 100-250$ difference. A lot of people are willing to pay the difference just because it says Fender on the headstock.

MixedVariety
08-11-2011, 14:51
One day my girlfriend walked into Mark Jacobs, and bought a bag for 400£,

All I can think of when I see something like that, is how many weeks' worth of groceries that would buy my family.

Alaris
08-11-2011, 15:05
You usually pay more than when you'd have gotten a sim-only contract.

I mean, cost of phone included.


Well, my old one was not servicable anymore. I was looking for a new phone, then a friend referred me to this particular deal. Now I'm a real smartypants with a smartphone in my pants.

Same here, my phone was dying, so either I renewed with my current evil company, or I switched and got a phone at the same time.

I could get a contract + phone, or contract that included phone, or whatever.


This is true in most cases.

I tried some really expensive wines once. Apparently, anything above 50$ a bottle all tastes the same to me (as in I could probably find a cheaper bottle that would taste the same to me).

Also, even if there's a difference, I focus on differences that matter. To help make the choice, I classify the difference in what will actually improve my quality of life, what will save me money in the long run, what will create a dependency...

I generally find that spending on appearances doesn't increase your well-being, especially if done to "keep up with fashion". Instead, it creates a dependency. You're better off spending 100$ on books to learn how businesses create needs, and self-help against addiction to fashion.

Kael Valeran
09-11-2011, 00:33
All I can think of when I see something like that, is how many weeks' worth of groceries that would buy my family.

I never thought of it that way. Its a shame that the cost of groceries can be significant in some parts of the world. In Asia, a meal(very good meal) can be delivered via a hawker at the price of only 2£. Many of our food stores also open 24 hours, unlike the UK.

I got so accustomed to cheap food that I never bothered to consider groceries as 'cost'. Its just like penny change. Why is food in western countries so damn expensive anyway?

teina
09-11-2011, 00:49
All I can think of when I see something like that, is how many weeks' worth of groceries that would buy my family.

I was thinking along those lines, except with video games. :tongue: It's easy to point at people and say that they're wasting money on bags or whatever, but shouldn't we look at relative spending instead? If a millionaire hotel heiress wants to blow $1000 on a bag, that's probably like me blowing $35 on a Charr plushie. A poor family would probably be aghast at someone blowing $35 on a stuffed animal when that can feed their family for a week.

IMO if you have the money and you can afford it, go buy whatever the heck you want. If you can't afford it, it's not essential, and you still buy it anyways, then you're just bad at money.

Now, we can argue what "can afford it" means... :wink:

-T

MixedVariety
09-11-2011, 01:05
I never thought of it that way. Its a shame that the cost of groceries can be significant in some parts of the world. In Asia, a meal(very good meal) can be delivered via a hawker at the price of only 2£. Many of our food stores also open 24 hours, unlike the UK.

I got so accustomed to cheap food that I never bothered to consider groceries as 'cost'. Its just like penny change. Why is food in western countries so damn expensive anyway?

Sorry, wasn't trying to make you feel guilty.

It's not that food is expensive, so much as that I went and had a fairly large family for the times. Here's how it goes for me: I've got a family of 6. We do a pretty good job of shopping, but still it adds up to around $150-160 a week. That probably seems like a good bit of money--and it is, over $600 a month--but if you divided it out by 6 it roughly comes out to $27 a week per person. Say $28 per person. Divide that by 7 days a week, and each person in my family eats for about $4 a day...not bad for 2 or 3 meals per day. Some of that, by the way, isn't food: toothpaste, toiletries and cleaning materials, paper goods...that's all part of the grocery cost.

Even though we do pretty well considering, it's still a $600+ a month bill.

Kael Valeran
09-11-2011, 07:27
Sorry, wasn't trying to make you feel guilty.

It's not that food is expensive, so much as that I went and had a fairly large family for the times. Here's how it goes for me: I've got a family of 6. We do a pretty good job of shopping, but still it adds up to around $150-160 a week. That probably seems like a good bit of money--and it is, over $600 a month--but if you divided it out by 6 it roughly comes out to $27 a week per person. Say $28 per person. Divide that by 7 days a week, and each person in my family eats for about $4 a day...not bad for 2 or 3 meals per day. Some of that, by the way, isn't food: toothpaste, toiletries and cleaning materials, paper goods...that's all part of the grocery cost.

Even though we do pretty well considering, it's still a $600+ a month bill.

Family of 6? No wonder. But if you think that way all the time, you'll be asking, why don't people just sleep on the beach. They can avoid council tax, rent/home tax. Tents are quite durable nowadays lol. Well, I think its unreasonable to save to such an extent but we should spend well within our limits. However, the limits for majority of people are being stretched. Not everyone is a spend thrift, but I find it harder to live now than 20 years ago.

I remember my parents home 30 years ago costing only 300k, now it cost 2.4 million. By inflation rate standards the home should only cost a million tops. Food prices have also risen above inflation rates, but salary remained low for most vocations. Must be the baby boomers, our generation is going to suffer.


Now, we can argue what "can afford it" means...

It is difficult to define spending well within your limits. When you first start out, you want a home, a job, transport, and essentials like food clothing etc, but a lot of it is unaffordable especially if you did a PhD or studied for a long time and incurred debt. How much money are you willing to spend? Most people graduate at 23-24, some 25-27. What are the odds that you can provide for your family before the age of 30(where risk of down's syndrome increases for having children and hence most people compromise at 29).

Also, having a child isn't like crapping into the toilet bowl. It requires luck, and time. If you are slogging at work, there is no time to produce a child. There is always the need to get a loan if one wants to start early and hence almost everyone would be in debt(initially). Moreover, mortgages are usually under 1% interest now, its a good time to invest. So we will surely spend past our limit, possibly having a 10-30 year loan depending on skillset. On the other hand, some people are unwilling to neglect 'essentials' such as having a child during the safe period, sending children to the best schools, going for a holiday, funding on self-education etc.

I feel a 10 year loan is reasonable. anything more is insane. While it is best not to incur any loan at all, sleeping on the beach is not an option.

raspberry jam
09-11-2011, 10:59
I never thought of it that way. Its a shame that the cost of groceries can be significant in some parts of the world. In Asia, a meal(very good meal) can be delivered via a hawker at the price of only 2£. Many of our food stores also open 24 hours, unlike the UK.

I got so accustomed to cheap food that I never bothered to consider groceries as 'cost'. Its just like penny change. Why is food in western countries so damn expensive anyway?Yeah this is the cool thing about Asia. Ok, one of the cool things anyway.

RD
09-11-2011, 13:36
I was thinking along those lines, except with video games. :tongue: It's easy to point at people and say that they're wasting money on bags or whatever, but shouldn't we look at relative spending instead? If a millionaire hotel heiress wants to blow $1000 on a bag, that's probably like me blowing $35 on a Charr plushie. A poor family would probably be aghast at someone blowing $35 on a stuffed animal when that can feed their family for a week.


This is sort of logic I don't understand. Not your logic, the logic of a millionaire who has a bunch of money, so buys really expensive things. At a certain point, you get to a place where you ARE just paying money just to say you paid that much money. If you buy a $70,000 Porsche, how much better is a car that's $125,000 REALLY going to be, you know? If you buy a $300 purse, how much better is a $1,000 purse going to be?

THAT'S what I don't understand. I don't know why people are stupid enough to spend extra money that isn't necessary and I don't know why anyone gives a damn what other people think (presumably spending the extra money is a status thing).

Alaris
09-11-2011, 14:17
Part of spending on status stuff is that, stupidly, it helps getting more status. It's like "hey I make tons of money and spend it needlessly, give me contracts".

If it actually helps you climb the ladder, then it's worth the cost (if the gains are there).

Zalis
09-11-2011, 16:10
Food is expensive here. It took years for my fiancée to get over the sticker shock of U.S. food vs South America.

RD
09-11-2011, 16:36
Food is expensive here. It took years for my fiancée to get over the sticker shock of U.S. food vs South America.

hahaha you wrote fiancee this time!

My friend is living in Brazil right now. The food is SO CHEAP!!! But everything else is really expensive, so I don't know if it really balances out. Like a used, busted up smartphone is $600R (~$300 USD). Is it the same where your fiancee is from?

Zalis
09-11-2011, 16:41
My friend is living in Brazil right now. The food is SO CHEAP!!! But everything else is really expensive, so I don't know if it really balances out. Like a used, busted up smartphone is $600R (~$300 USD). Is it the same where your fiancee is from?

Yeah. It's been my experience in the Latin American countries I've seen as well. Day-to-day stuff is cheap, but most imported things, like technology, are expensive.

Leonora Windleaf
09-11-2011, 18:03
I tried some really expensive wines once. Apparently, anything above 50$ a bottle all tastes the same to me (as in I could probably find a cheaper bottle that would taste the same to me).

Also, even if there's a difference, I focus on differences that matter. To help make the choice, I classify the difference in what will actually improve my quality of life, what will save me money in the long run, what will create a dependency...

Well, a lot of it is also personal preference. With guitars (and bass, and amps) I have so far found that more expensive actually equals better, in most cases. Our guitarist has an absolutely gorgeous '79 Gibson Les Paul Custom in a lovely worn Silverburst Nitro Finish. It is hands down the best guitar I've ever played, and I think it cost about 2000€. I have also played a PRS 25th Anniversary Custom 24, which was also an absolute dream to play, and sounded epic. It cost around 3200€. It just can't compare to my Epiphone Les Paul Custom, which cost me 560€.

But then there is also personal choice and preference. I'd take my Epi Les Paul over ANY 1500+€ Ibanez/BC Rich/Jackson. I don't like shredder guitars, regardless if they are better than my Epi.

Same with amps, my 1700€ Ampeg SVT-VR is the BEST Bass amp I've ever played with. I've played many other sub 500€ amps and there is just no competition. It's the sound I've always wanted.

To contradict what I just said, I actually play a Squier Precision Bass (which I got for free and modified heavily), and it's my favourite bass so far. Go figure...

Alaris
09-11-2011, 18:27
My reply to you, regarding guitars, is that even though there is a difference, I wouldn't be able to justify a more expensive guitar "as something I need" unless I was playing professionally. Sure it sounds better and plays better, but it clearly falls into the luxury range, as something I might "want" but not something that I "need".

And even then, personally, I wouldn't pay much more than my own skill dictates. Playing a really expensive guitar at my skill level is just wrong.

teina
09-11-2011, 18:41
THAT'S what I don't understand. I don't know why people are stupid enough to spend extra money that isn't necessary and I don't know why anyone gives a damn what other people think (presumably spending the extra money is a status thing).

Would you buy a Charr plushie, or another toy that has no real use? Have you ever spent money on virtual goods? Are you saying you've never spent any money on frivolous or luxury items? If so, then congrats, I applaud you. Otherwise, you've spent money that people with less wealth than you would say "I don't know why people are stupid enough to spend extra money that isn't necessary".

Just because you wouldn't spend the money in your example doesn't mean everyone else who does is somehow "stupid". Do you think Anet would stay in business if nobody bought the frivolous and unnecessary costumes? If it really bothers you, think of it as a donation to the designers, engineers, and laborers who made the $1000 purse or the $125000 car, instead of having them in the unemployment line. Would a flat out "donation" without receiving some item somehow make the transaction morally acceptable to you?

And as Alaris pointed out, status can be an important thing, depending on your lifestyle, social circles, and business. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people do judge a book by its cover.

-T

RD
09-11-2011, 18:50
Would you buy a Charr plushie, or another toy that has no real use? Have you ever spent money on virtual goods? Are you saying you've never spent any money on frivolous or luxury items? If so, then congrats, I applaud you. Otherwise, you've spent money that people with less wealth than you would say "I don't know why people are stupid enough to spend extra money that isn't necessary".

Just because you wouldn't spend the money in your example doesn't mean everyone else who does is somehow "stupid". Do you think Anet would stay in business if nobody bought the frivolous and unnecessary costumes? If it really bothers you, think of it as a donation to the designers, engineers, and laborers who made the $1000 purse or the $125000 car, instead of having them in the unemployment line. Would a flat out "donation" without receiving some item somehow make the transaction morally acceptable to you?

And as Alaris pointed out, status can be an important thing, depending on your lifestyle, social circles, and business. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people do judge a book by its cover.

-T

In my adult life, no, I have not spent any money on any toys or virtual goods. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything wasteful I've spent money on, other than nights out with friends.

The thing is, I'm not saying spending ANY money on frivolous / fun items is stupid. I think it's stupid to waste money unnecessarily just to say they own something that's more expensive.

Status is just a fancy way of saying you're worried about what other people think of you.

Alaris
09-11-2011, 19:02
Status is just a fancy way of saying you're worried about what other people think of you.

Hahah! Well, it is like that for many people who worry about status. But like I said, some people use status to get ahead.


And as Alaris pointed out, status can be an important thing, depending on your lifestyle, social circles, and business. Whether you like it or not, a lot of people do judge a book by its cover.

You have to be careful that if you claim that in your defence (or anyone's defence), that it actually applies to them. People (women and men included) will come up with all kinds of fake reasons to act as they do, that does not make them rational.

Many women will tell you they diet and exercise for health reasons, even when their health suffers as a consequence of under-eating and over-exercising.

Consumerism is a real thing. Fashion and those bags are just one among many symptoms.

MixedVariety
09-11-2011, 19:02
In my adult life, no, I have not spent any money on any toys or virtual goods. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything wasteful I've spent money on, other than nights out with friends.



I call shenanigans.

RD
09-11-2011, 19:15
I call shenanigans.

Could be another case of definitions. I buy books, the occasional video game. I also spend money on classes and fitness, stuff to better myself. If you're counting that stuff, fine. But I indicated that "fun stuff" (and even "frivolous stuff") was out the window.

Like I said, I haven't bought any toys that sit around or what I would define as virtual goods (like hats in TF2).

I dunno why it's hard to believe.

teina
09-11-2011, 19:23
Consumerism is a real thing. Fashion and those bags are just one among many symptoms.

Absolutely. However, I'm pointing out that many, if not all, people here practice consumerism, just to a different degree. None of us are Tibetan monks living in the mountains.

When I was growing up, my family was poor. My parents worked two jobs each just to try to make ends meet. I still recall the pain in my father's eyes when I wanted a one dollar toy, and he couldn't get it for me. One, dollar. The things people on this forum have -- computers, internet, time to chat on a forum, video games -- these are all things that would have seemed wasteful and "stupid" when I was growing up, when putting the next meal on the table was the overriding concern. Yet, here I am, wasting and consumering, now that the next meal is no longer the major concern.

Well, they didn't have the internet and computers back in the stone age, but you get the idea. :wink:

-T

RD
09-11-2011, 19:37
Absolutely. However, I'm pointing out that many, if not all, people here practice consumerism, just to a different degree. None of us are Tibetan monks living in the mountains.

When I was growing up, my family was poor. My parents worked two jobs each just to try to make ends meet. I still recall the pain in my father's eyes when I wanted a one dollar toy, and he couldn't get it for me. One, dollar. The things people on this forum have -- computers, internet, time to chat on a forum, video games -- these are all things that would have seemed wasteful and "stupid" when I was growing up, when putting the next meal on the table was the overriding concern. Yet, here I am, wasting and consumering, now that the next meal is no longer the major concern.

Well, they didn't have the internet and computers back in the stone age, but you get the idea. :wink:

-T

I definitely didn't mean any offense.

That's sort of my point, though. Because there are families who cannot afford to buy toys for their kids, it drives me up the wall that there are people who can afford a $75,000 car, but opt for one that's $500,000, just because they can. I know it is their right and I am not advocating taking it away from them. I just think it's dumb to spend money on something just as a symbol of your position, not for extra functionality or whatever. Like a purse that costs $400 instead of one that is $100 or less. See? Full circle BAM!

Alaris
09-11-2011, 19:44
Could be another case of definitions.

At one extreme, I know some people that have spent on stuff that they simply haven't used. Shoes, purses, dresses... just sit in the closet waiting for that occasion, along with many other unused shoes, dresses, and purses.

By contrast, I play finish almost every game I buy, and those I don't play to the end it's usually because they were just not fun.


Yet, here I am, wasting and consumering, now that the next meal is no longer the major concern.

Sure, but to different degrees. Some people put themselves in debt to be fashionable or to buy stuff they don't need. Others pay themselves some luxuries but still make an effort to save up.

teina
09-11-2011, 20:02
I know it is their right and I am not advocating taking it away from them. I just think it's dumb to spend money on something just as a symbol of your position

So what do you want them to do with the extra money? You say you don't want to take it away from them, but you don't want them to spend it. Just let it sit in a bank? Stuff it under a mattress? I rather they spend the extras so it goes back into the system, so people can have jobs making those items, or shipping those items, or fixing those items.



Sure, but to different degrees. Some people put themselves in debt to be fashionable or to buy stuff they don't need. Others pay themselves some luxuries but still make an effort to save up.

And that goes back to my point about "able to afford" vs. "bad with money." :grin: I'm all for teaching people to be smart with their money. However, "smart" doesn't mean "don't buy stuff you want." If you can afford a $1000 purse, and you want it, and you don't put your family in financial straits with it, who am I to say that you're stupid for wanting to buy something you want? Because quite frankly, there are plenty of things you and I can afford that I find silly and a waste of money, for me, but I'm not going to go around saying "hey, don't buy a Charr plushie, it's stupid."

-T

Alaris
09-11-2011, 20:07
Yeah, but I think I need to remind you that many buy stuff they then don't use. To me, regardless of if you can afford it, this is a stupid waste of resources...

RD
09-11-2011, 20:57
So what do you want them to do with the extra money? You say you don't want to take it away from them, but you don't want them to spend it. Just let it sit in a bank? Stuff it under a mattress? I rather they spend the extras so it goes back into the system, so people can have jobs making those items, or shipping those items, or fixing those items.


I could think of lots of reasons that don't involve spending it on something that simply boosts your ego:
- Donate to charity
- Invest it
- Save it for your children's / grandchildren's futures
- Use it to buy food for needy families
- Take friends out for meals
- Buy gifts for friends
- Start a business (not getting into the 1% / job creation debate here)
- Improve your home
- Get vacation property
- Travel the world
- Get a jet ski
- Learn to fly a helicopter
- Take a class in Japanese
- Self-publish and self-market a novel
- Retire early
- Get a job that makes you happy, but doesn't earn a ton of money

Again, I'm not saying people with tons of money shouldn't buy nice things. I'm purely talking about things that are expensive "just because," where a lesser-expensive item would serve the EXACT same purpose.

EDIT:

Yeah, but I think I need to remind you that many buy stuff they then don't use. To me, regardless of if you can afford it, this is a stupid waste of resources...

#truth

teina
09-11-2011, 21:37
I could think of lots of reasons that don't involve spending it on something that simply boosts your ego:
...

Again, I'm not saying people with tons of money shouldn't buy nice things. I'm purely talking about things that are expensive "just because," where a lesser-expensive item would serve the EXACT same purpose.

Again, relative wealth and want. Those are the things that would make you happy and fits your moral compass, therefore other people have to live by it or they're "stupid"? What if they already donate, they already do things they want, they have a nice house, they've saved away enough, and they still chose to buy jewelry, or fashion, or something that doesn't fit into your definition of what's acceptable want? What if they don't want a helicopter lesson for $1000, but rather buy a purse with it? But somehow one kind of non-essential spending is ok but another is not? What if I make a proclamation that people who spend money on flying lessons for fun are "stupid"? Or people who buy guitars when they won't ever been in a band are "stupid"? Or people who play video games? "I disagree with the way you spend your money, therefore you're stupid"?

-T

RD
09-11-2011, 22:28
Again, relative wealth and want. Those are the things that would make you happy and fits your moral compass, therefore other people have to live by it or they're "stupid"?

I did not mean for the list to be all-encompassing. There are so many more things people could do with money. Don't want a helicopter lesson? What about a scuba diving lesson?

Again (I think I've said this about four times now): I'm not saying people shouldn't buy things that make them happy. But if you could get the EXACT SAME ITEM with a different label for a lot less money, but you choose to buy a more expensive one, that's a stupid decision. If I showed you two cars that looked identical, performed identical in every way, but one says "Porsche - $125,000" and one says "Honda - $20,000" and you pick the Porsche, then you're making a stupid decision.

MixedVariety
09-11-2011, 22:32
If I showed you two cars that looked identical, performed identical in every way, but one says "Porsche - $125,000" and one says "Honda - $20,000" and you pick the Porsche, then you're making a stupid decision.

I think it falls into that realm of 'what I do with my money, is my business.' If it's not hurting someone else to spend the money, and it makes a person happy even if for apparently shallow reasons, then no harm done. Now, it happens I basically agree with you from my own point of view; but I can't expect everyone in the world to see things the way I do. How boring a place it would be, eh?

Lensor
09-11-2011, 22:37
Yeah, but I think I need to remind you that many buy stuff they then don't use. To me, regardless of if you can afford it, this is a stupid waste of resources...

I totally use my Charr plushie every single day.... (he is actually sitting in a closet right now so I dont even see him)

Collectibles are almost per definition never actually used. Does not mean they are stupid purchases. To each their own I say, as long as they can afford it. A least money spent is money at work, which is good for the economy.

teina
09-11-2011, 22:40
Again (I think I've said this about four times now): I'm not saying people shouldn't buy things that make them happy.

But you are. What if people are happy to buy that $1000 purse?


But if you could get the EXACT SAME ITEM with a different label for a lot less money

But they're NOT the EXACT SAME ITEM. It's fashion. If it's the exact same item, I believe they call it "counterfeit". They serve a purpose, a social purpose, that you do not hold as valuable, therefore you mock it. If a woman wants to dress in an expensive dress, wear expensive jewelry, and carry an expensive purse, so she can get into an exclusive club, so she can have FUN, why is that not ok?


If I showed you two cars that looked identical, performed identical in every way, but one says "Porsche - $125,000" and one says "Honda - $20,000" and you pick the Porsche, then you're making a stupid decision.

Again, you're making up a non-existing situation. Please show me a $125,000 Porsche that looks exactly like a $20,000 Honda, performs exactly like the Honda, and the only difference is the price and the label.

Edit:



Collectibles are almost per definition never actually used. Does not mean they are stupid purchases. To each their own I say, as long as they can afford it. A least money spent is money at work, which is good for the economy.

Exactly. Live and let live. If it makes them happy, then it doesn't matter if it's a plushie, a virtual costume, or a purse, as long as they can afford it. I would be much more concerned about people buying video games when they're out of a job rather than someone who can afford and bought a $1000 purse.

-T

RD
09-11-2011, 22:45
Honda v. Porsche was just hyperbole. I'm not going to continue this debate because it's obviously upsetting you.


I think it falls into that realm of 'what I do with my money, is my business.' If it's not hurting someone else to spend the money, and it makes a person happy even if for apparently shallow reasons, then no harm done.

Yeah, totally, I just think it's stupid lol

Zalis
09-11-2011, 22:48
I don't go out of my way to buy items I consider frivolous, but I'm sure somebody would apply that label to something I've purchased. I don't like to have "stuff," because it inevitably turns into junk.

MixedVariety
09-11-2011, 23:14
Yeah, totally, I just think it's stupid lol

It would be stupid for me to do that, particularly in my present financial straits. I assume you feel similarly, although perhaps more out of thriftiness (or downright cheapskatedness) than actual need.

However. Honestly?...if I had a few spare million bucks hanging around, I'd definitely go for an old restored Austin-Healey 3000, a much bigger and luxurious house, etc. I'd still be sensible enough to invest a majority of my money but to some degree luxury, here I come.

Alaris
09-11-2011, 23:14
I totally use my Charr plushie every single day.... (he is actually sitting in a closet right now so I dont even see him)

I'm sure your charr has seen more use than some of those dresses I was talking about earlier.

Besides, any money sent to ANet is a dollar well spent, I say.


Exactly. Live and let live. If it makes them happy, then it doesn't matter if it's a plushie, a virtual costume, or a purse, as long as they can afford it.

Or hard drugs, or gambling, or shooting furry defenseless creatures, or giving their life savings to Camping.

Yeah, sometimes, some people have to stand up and point at unhealthy things other people do.

teina
09-11-2011, 23:19
Or hard drugs, or gambling, or shooting furry defenseless creatures, or giving their life savings to Camping.

Yeah, sometimes, some people have to stand up and point at unhealthy things other people do.

And do you honestly equate buying an expensive purse to any of those things?

-T

Alaris
09-11-2011, 23:37
And do you honestly equate buying an expensive purse to any of those things?

-T

Depends who's asking.

For some, fashion is an addiction. Is it for you?

Смерть
09-11-2011, 23:41
Or hard drugs, or gambling, or shooting furry defenseless creatures, or giving their life savings to Camping.

Whats wrong with hard drugs? :sad:

Seriously though, hard drugs are way down in price from a while back. Not that I know this from experience.

...

Lol. Hmm, I usually spend money on things I need; need being things related to work, projects, etc. And I do look for nice quality in purchases. Sometimes I do find the side item that I will save up for, like this $80 dollar set of stainless steel bronze matted... (http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj3ysofyru1qa5yrvo1_500.png) (btw, I'm still saving for these, it will be a while).

Alaris
09-11-2011, 23:59
Those are nice dice.

teina
10-11-2011, 00:05
Depends who's asking.

For some, fashion is an addiction. Is it for you?

If you've seen the way I dress, you wouldn't be asking that question. :grin:

But ok, let's play along with this tangent:


hard drugs

As you pointed out, addiction is the problem here (not to mention legality). To me, this falls under "can't afford it." It doesn't just have to be money, it can be emotional impact. Not to mention addiction usually lead to "can't afford it" monetarily sooner or later. If you're addicted to, say, buying purses or Pokemon and can't stop, then that's a problem. However, I don't see addiction as the cause of purse buying for the general public. Therefore I don't think drugs is a valid comparison.


gambling

This again falls into whether you're referring to addiction. If not, then I have no problems with people going to Vegas and blowing what they can afford in order to have what they believe is fun.


shooting furry defenseless creatures

Are you talking hunting? I believe that thread is elsewhere.

If you're talking the likes of making animal snuff films, then I would say you're close to invoking Godwin. Why not just throw in other reprehensible acts in here for comparison also? So, no, I don't believe this is in anyway a valid comparison to purse buying.


giving their life savings to Camping

If someone is giving their life savings to Camping, then that by definition falls under "can't afford it." If someone wants to give him $10, or whatever they can afford, and they really believe in him, that's their choice. I happen to disagree with a lot of other causes people donate to too, but I'm not going to go around calling them names.

-T

Alaris
10-11-2011, 00:22
However, I don't see addiction as the cause of purse buying for the general public. Therefore I don't think drugs is a valid comparison.

The list I gave was not meant to be a point-by-point comparison with fashion addiction... it was more of a list of other things people do in the name of "having fun" but in some cases can turn into harmful addictions.

And no, I won't say that just because something can lead to addiction, it should be banned. There's a lot of grey area there...

But I do think many people who buy those purses are in fact addicted for unhealthy reasons, and when that's the case, then the "I do what I want with my money" excuse is no longer valid. imo

The issue is far more insidious than you think... because we do live in a society that consumes too much, and lives off of credit. "Can't afford" is often too subjective, and gets pushed away from the all-too-familiar "can't afford not to". That is, the need to fit in or to show off trumps rationality, slowly decreasing your quality of life all the while giving you the illusion of increasing it.

MixedVariety
10-11-2011, 00:27
But I do think many people who buy those purses are in fact addicted for unhealthy reasons, and when that's the case, then the "I do what I want with my money" excuse is no longer valid. imo


Again: if they're using their own money, and not hurting someone else, what business is it of anyone's (besides maybe concerned family/friends) what they do with it? Who would you propose to give the Draconian power to, to decide how frivolous or not someone is with their own money?

teina
10-11-2011, 00:50
And no, I won't say that just because something can lead to addiction, it should be banned. There's a lot of grey area there...

I am a firm believer that we should chance erring in the direction of too much personal freedom, rather than too little.



The issue is far more insidious than you think... because we do live in a society that consumes too much, and lives off of credit. "Can't afford" is often too subjective, and gets pushed away from the all-too-familiar "can't afford not to". That is, the need to fit in or to show off trumps rationality, slowly decreasing your quality of life all the while giving you the illusion of increasing it.

As I said, we can debate "can afford" and how it applies to individuals. However, a blanket statement like "Doing X is stupid" is too general. Who's to define quality of life when we're talking big swath of grey area? If someone has all their bills paid, savings in the bank, kids in college, not late on payments, and generally have all their essentials buttoned up, then what's the difference between blowing $1000 on a trip vs. blowing it on a purse, if they get more enjoyment out of the purse? If a person buys video games even when he's out of a job, that's a problem with that person, not video games. If a person buys an expensive purse when she can't afford it, that's a problem with that person, not expensive purses.

-T

Alaris
10-11-2011, 00:53
Pfft no, I am not draconian at all. I just want people to realize that if someone says you're addicted to purses and you should think about it, then it might be worth thinking about. That's it.

Some people are waaaaaay too sensitive about stuff... and then you try to give them helpful advice and they're all like "I can do what I want with my cash" as if that's the only excuse they need to justify irrational spending.

MixedVariety
10-11-2011, 01:53
Why do they need to justify it?

And I'm all like, I can do what I want with my cash. That's just the way it is.

RD
10-11-2011, 03:48
Why do they need to justify it?

And I'm all like, I can do what I want with my cash. That's just the way it is.

I guess your question is one to yourself (not YOU, but "you" in Alaris' example). In his example, he said a concerned person was bringing irrational spending to the attention of their friend/family member and the friend/family member responded with a justification. So I would ask "Why does that person feel the need to justify their spending at all?" Could argue they're NOT trying to justify it; they're just saying "buzz off" - and you're probably right. But you don't usually get defensive about something unless you're sensitive to it, right?

I think the situation comes from concern. Ex. "You buy four purses a month... Maybe you could try only buying three and put what you save in the bank, that way you'll have money to fall back on if you ever need it." Not "WHY ARE YOU BUYING SO MANY PURSES OMG YOU NEED TO STOP."

Lady Rhonwyn
10-11-2011, 07:37
Some people are waaaaaay too sensitive about stuff... and then you try to give them helpful advice and they're all like "I can do what I want with my cash" as if that's the only excuse they need to justify irrational spending.

As long as it's their cash, who cares? Now, if that cash is borrowed (from one source or the other), that's another story altogether.

I just bought an insanely expensive mixer. I bought it for Christmas, but don't want to wait so, I baked my first cake with it 20 minutes after it was unwrapped yesterday. Which means we'll probably get another christmas gift for under the tree come december. That might seem irrational to some, but as long as it's my money, who cares? I can still do my weekly shopping, my mortgage still gets paid on time and I still got gas, water and electricity.

What seems irrational to you might not be irrational to others.

shawn
10-11-2011, 07:50
ITT: People who completely missed the point.

Lensor
10-11-2011, 09:38
Still I do wonder about the difference of standards. A woman who collects designer handbags or clothes is seen as "wasteful with money". A man who collects, well, just about anything (SW figures, wines, train sets, guitars, cars(!), vintage video games, you name it) is just seen as "dedicated to his hobby". Sure some may make fun of his interest and the amount of money spent, but I never ever hear the derogatory remarks women get about how they are being wasteful.

Somehow a woman is expected to spend all money on "useful" things, whereas a man is given much more leeway. My theory is that this is because, traditionally, the man made all the money and just gave the woman what was needed to run the household. Since it was not "her money", anything non-essential became a waste in the eyes of the man who provided it (whereas his own non-essential buys were ok, because hey, he was paying wasnt he?).

And yes, men DO spend more money on hobbies and other "non-essentials", even though the gap is closing as more women are making their own money (and are thus free to waste it any way they see fit).

Rob Van Der Sloot
10-11-2011, 09:44
When men waste their money on toys/action figures, you can't really use those things for anything. Atleast women can take their handbags along when they go out.

Then again, men also waste a lot of money on expensive devices. Such as a new flatscreen tv, or a new console. Those ARE useful purchases.

Lady Rhonwyn
10-11-2011, 10:20
Then again, men also waste a lot of money on expensive devices. Such as a new flatscreen tv, or a new console. Those ARE useful purchases.

Not always. My brother, for example, has the tendency to buy a new TV every 2 years. While the old one isn't even scratched from use! Not usuful in my eyes... We did buy that flatscreen this year too, but to replace our 10-year old CRT TV. I'd say that's a bit more useful (think only of the energy saved that way!)

I also bought a tablet this year. Useful? Depends. I do use it on a daily basis, but I could have done without as well. I also bought it because it is a fun gadget to have.

Kael Valeran
10-11-2011, 11:26
Still I do wonder about the difference of standards. A woman who collects designer handbags or clothes is seen as "wasteful with money". A man who collects, well, just about anything (SW figures, wines, train sets, guitars, cars(!), vintage video games, you name it) is just seen as "dedicated to his hobby". Sure some may make fun of his interest and the amount of money spent, but I never ever hear the derogatory remarks women get about how they are being wasteful.

Somehow a woman is expected to spend all money on "useful" things, whereas a man is given much more leeway. My theory is that this is because, traditionally, the man made all the money and just gave the woman what was needed to run the household. Since it was not "her money", anything non-essential became a waste in the eyes of the man who provided it (whereas his own non-essential buys were ok, because hey, he was paying wasnt he?).

Thats doesn't explain why men hold more shares than women and most commercial spending and advertisements are aimed at women. Sure there are men who collect really expensive toys, but that is limited, certainly not something you see on TV, on the streets etc, and every guy has a specific hobby, some are cheap as well.

This is a well known phenomenon that we observe from everyday living, it is not me who put a label on the heads of women, its the society and media, and many women are happy to accept that.

Also, I have heard many women talking about finding a rich husband, work at home etc, but never from men. Just go shopping and you will realise that women spend more money, in a departmental store, there are toys, games, and clothes, and cosmetics and perfume. Always, an entire level is dedicated to cosmetics and perfume. Another level(or two) dedicated to women's clothing and handbags, and only one level for men and electronics etc etc.

Maybe we need to change the way society depicts women and how women depict themselves.


And yes, men DO spend more money on hobbies and other "non-essentials", even though the gap is closing as more women are making their own money (and are thus free to waste it any way they see fit).

As for hobby costs, it usually never exceeds 1k pounds a year, most equipment like fishing last long. Guitars are never that expensive anyway. When talking about non-essentials, women spend enormous amounts of money on hairdressing which nobody cares about, cosmetic products(that have only slight scientific evidence) and fragrances that come in tiny 50ml bottles.

Moreover, most women I have in contact with like to talk to richer men with the following features (high collar shirts or polo tee/aftershave/drives a car/buys the dinner, etc.) Why isn't wearing a simple tshirt, spraying plain deodrant, taking public transport and sharing the cost attractive? This indirectly influence men to spend more, like buying a new car instead of that 10 year old car.

raspberry jam
10-11-2011, 11:43
Always, an entire level is dedicated to cosmetics and perfume. Another level(or two) dedicated to women's clothing and handbags, and only one level for men and electronics etc etc.

Maybe we need to change the way society depicts women and how women depict themselves.This short clip from South Park explains why the cosmetics and perfume departments are so large.

BBZ__CtB_SI

Lensor
10-11-2011, 12:28
The talk of getting a rich husband is a cultural thing, which is in direct relation with how much, on average, a woman makes compared to a man. The less of a difference, the less women will be on a lookout for a sugardaddy (and the more men will be on a lookout for a "sugarmommy"). For the record I have never met a woman looking for a rich husband so she can stay at home.

Also, men spend more money on "wants" (like fancy computers just to surf and do word processing..), but women buy a bigger number of items (again on average). That is why you see more advertising towards women even though men buy for more. It is really not rocket science.

Like, take a man who buys a $200 000 car (he can afford it, and want it, so why not). That is one helluva lof of purses or whatever a woman can buy for the same total cost if she in stead buys a $50 000 car (which is still a very nice car). The two would have spent the exact same amount on "wants", and the purses will probably even hold their value better, yet the man who spent $200 000 on a car is not "wasteful". He is just really into cars..

raspberry jam
10-11-2011, 14:13
Like, take a man who buys a $200 000 car (he can afford it, and want it, so why not). That is one helluva lof of purses or whatever a woman can buy for the same total cost if she in stead buys a $50 000 car (which is still a very nice car). The two would have spent the exact same amount on "wants", and the purses will probably even hold their value better, yet the man who spent $200 000 on a car is not "wasteful". He is just really into cars.....and he lets his wife drive it as well, of course.

Meanwhile, few husbands borrow their wives' purses.

Alaris
10-11-2011, 14:21
I think the situation comes from concern.

This is just it.


As long as it's their cash, who cares? (...) What seems irrational to you might not be irrational to others.

I think the proper response should be:

"Ok, I listened to your concerns, but in my opinion what I did with my money was not irrational. The mixer I got will see a lot of uses, I love making cakes, and it's not like I buy 5-10 mixers some of which end up in a box. I calculated that I can afford it. etc"

You don't have to justify all that to someone else, but to yourself, being honest with yourself. You need to take the concern seriously, and think for yourself if they might have a valid concern.

And yes, sometimes it's hard to make that judgment call yourself, you might need outside help.


Still I do wonder about the difference of standards.

My brother collects race car miniatures, those go at easily 45$-90$ each. He's filled a wall full of those. He knows we think he's wasting money.

And to be honest, it's easier to accept that someone's spending is bringing them happiness if they are happy. He is a happy person. In contrast, I know many who waste money on stuff and are not happier for it. This I would say is a clear sign to tell when something is addictive, when you still do it despite it not making you happy.


Then again, men also waste a lot of money on expensive devices. Such as a new flatscreen tv, or a new console. Those ARE useful purchases.

I'd argue that while useful, the difference lies in how much you spend on it. Do you really need to upgrade? Do you really need surround sound, and HD? Do you really need a screen that large?

I still play on my PS2, and the only reason I am thinking of getting a PS3 is because some games I want are just not made for PS2.


Also, I have heard many women talking about finding a rich husband, work at home etc, but never from men.

That'd be awesome actually. Except I'd want a wife instead.

Lady Rhonwyn
10-11-2011, 14:54
And to be honest, it's easier to accept that someone's spending is bringing them happiness if they are happy. He is a happy person. In contrast, I know many who waste money on stuff and are not happier for it. This I would say is a clear sign to tell when something is addictive, when you still do it despite it not making you happy.
Ah, but now you're talking about an addiction. Which will give you a short kick but when that wears off, you'll want another one.

If we go back to the original question: why a branded bag, instead of that (identical) cheaper non-branded one? I doubt that has anything to do with an addiction (in general that is), but rather with the idea that a branded one does give you more status (or bragging-power) or even because you think the quality is better. Naturally, the second is something you can check (I always try to read as many user reviews as I can before I buy something expensive), but the first is (for me) still a mystery....

Alaris
10-11-2011, 15:09
Branding and consumerism.

The status is illusory, once people realize that, big brands will start losing a lot of customers.

MixedVariety
10-11-2011, 15:15
I think the proper response should be:



I think her post makes plenty of sense as it is.

The fact is, lots of people spend money stupidly. If they didn't, the U.S. wouldn't have so many problems with debt--both personal and as a country.

However. To go back to the original opening post...why do women need to buy branded bags? Lots of reasons, not the least of them being: Because society tells them to. Like it tells men a Porsche is a better thing to have than a Ford Focus. The economy is marketing-driven, and it works to the point that people get stupid with money.

Now, some of the posts in here indicate that purchasing any luxury items, or unneeded items, is stupid under any condition. I recoil from that sort of judgement, and can only say that I'm glad you folks aren't running the planet.

Alaris
10-11-2011, 15:26
If I was running the planet, I'd spend more resources teaching people to be less stupid.

I still believe in freedom, but freedom is only as good as your ability to not be stupid about it.


Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.

Lensor
10-11-2011, 15:35
Over-consuming (i.e. beyond one's means) is the foundation of debt, that is true. But consuming (i.e. within one's means), even "stupid" consuming, is the foundation of a healthy progressing society. Consumersim is good. The trick is to keep it sustainable (both financially and environmentally).

If everyone suddenly only bought what they actually needed at any given moment, there would be a recession the likes of which we have never seen.

So be happy for the woman who can afford a brand purse and decides to buy it. Do not analyze why she does it, just be happy that she does. Because that purse (and other equally "useless" purchases) is keeping you with a job.

RD
10-11-2011, 15:46
If I was running the planet, I'd spend more resources teaching people to be less stupid.

I still believe in freedom, but freedom is only as good as your ability to not be stupid about it.

This is basically what I was saying a few pages ago lol

You can spend your money on whatever you want, but if you drop $17 MM on a shiny egg (http://most-expensive.net/faberge-egg)that's going to sit on a desk in your apartment, I'd call it a stupid decision.

raspberry jam
10-11-2011, 16:04
The status is illusory, once people realize that, big brands will start losing a lot of customers.:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing: :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Lady Rhonwyn
10-11-2011, 16:11
Branding and consumerism.

The status is illusory, once people realize that, big brands will start losing a lot of customers.

Actually, status is and never was illusory. You'll find status in all cultures and in all times. And usually status is shown by carrying/showing/owning something that is not possible to get by the masses.

Alaris
10-11-2011, 16:22
even "stupid" consuming, is the foundation of a healthy progressing society.

Spending might be good, but consuming junk is harder to justify.

It'd be easier for me to get a solid job if some of that money spent on junk would be redirected to research instead.


Actually, status is and never was illusory.

Pfft whatever.

MixedVariety
10-11-2011, 17:28
If I was running the planet, I'd spend more resources teaching people to be less stupid.


You do have quite the ego, I'll give you that. I was there once.

I like the Isocrates quote, though. Funnily enough, if J were here he'd probably point out that it describes liberalism to a 'T'. Also of some interest, it has rather nothing to do with this discussion--unless we're talking general stupidity now rather than stupidity in finance.

Alaris
10-11-2011, 17:56
Not sure about ego. I am certainly NOT saying that I would be the one doing the teaching, that's for sure. I personally don't know that much.

What I meant is that I would invest a lot more in education, research, less lying in the news, proper warning labels, etc. I'd also change the curriculum to include stuff like relationships, consumerism, etc, you know... stuff that can actually impact people's quality of life.

-----

Sorry I went a bit OT, but I think that consumerism is but one symptom of a larger problem.

MixedVariety
10-11-2011, 18:01
Not sure about ego. I am certainly NOT saying that I would be the one doing the teaching, that's for sure. I personally don't know that much.

What I meant is that I would invest a lot more in education, research, less lying in the news, proper warning labels, etc. I'd also change the curriculum to include stuff like relationships, consumerism, etc, you know... stuff that can actually impact people's quality of life.



My apologies; I thought you actually meant that Prophet Alaris would travel the world, teaching unstupidity to the masses. They wouldn't bother listening, would rather throw beer cans and feces at you.

As for slanting education in the direction of realism, I agree. One of those potential classes being, as a senior in high school, How You Are About To Be Royally Screwed By The Student Loan Companies If You're Not Really Careful.

Alaris
10-11-2011, 18:15
Yes, and "why we should invest more in intelligence and less in products".

Lady Rhonwyn
11-11-2011, 07:30
As for slanting education in the direction of realism, I agree. One of those potential classes being, as a senior in high school, How You Are About To Be Royally Screwed By The Student Loan Companies If You're Not Really Careful.

That's why we don't have those Student Loan Companies. It's called the government and everybody should learn as soon as they learn to talk that they'll be royally screwed by that no matter what you do :grin:

Kael Valeran
11-11-2011, 13:44
For the record I have never met a woman looking for a rich husband so she can stay at home.

That is a cleverly tweaked statement. Of course, not all women want to stay at home, they will lose power that way. Some want to work and still find a rich husband. Pretty sure almost no girl will settle for a poor guy(unless they are equally poor).


That'd be awesome actually. Except I'd want a wife instead.

Then you will have to listen to everything she says. even when it means 'no sex' for the rest of your life.


Actually, status is and never was illusory. You'll find status in all cultures and in all times. And usually status is shown by carrying/showing/owning something that is not possible to get by the masses.

In many cases, status is a gateway to opportunity. By having money and advertising that you have money, you attract people who are willing to work for you or entice you to their propositions, some good some bad. Its a shame not everyone treat status as a stepping stone, some flaunt about status but don't actually have the material, in other words, they are in debt.

However, with the current state of the world, you cannot afford anything without being in debt, at least in the first 5 years of work. Gone were the days where you can find a comfortable shady spot, buy some straw and build a house, then upgrade to one made of wood or bricks when you earn more.

Big bad wolf is out of business too.


Yes, and "why we should invest more in intelligence and less in products".

And there comes a point in time where knowledge and intelligence makes you want to kill yourself. You realise how people including yourself are being manipulated by the ones above, and there is officially no way for you to induce change, in psychiatric terms, you lose the locus of control, except this time, its not delusional, its really happening.

Lady Rhonwyn
11-11-2011, 14:01
However, with the current state of the world, you cannot afford anything without being in debt, at least in the first 5 years of work. Gone were the days where you can find a comfortable shady spot, buy some straw and build a house, then upgrade to one made of wood or bricks when you earn more.

I wasn't in debt the first three years I was working.... You don't have to buy a house you know, there are still houses for rent... After three years, we decided to buy a house, because I personally think that if you're young, you're better off paying a mortgage and have some property by the time you're thinking about retirement rather than paying the same amount on rent and have nothing at the end...

Zalis
11-11-2011, 14:04
Flame-catcher: Why do people buy two $500 video cards?

Alaris
11-11-2011, 14:08
And there comes a point in time where knowledge and intelligence makes you want to kill yourself.

1) You're not that intelligent if you want to suicide. As if that's gonna be of any help to anyone.

2) The more smart people there is at the bottom, the better we can find corruption at the top and deal with it.

RD
11-11-2011, 15:49
Flame-catcher: Why do people buy two $500 video cards?

People do that?

I know a few women who want a rich husband, so they can stay at home. I know guys who do, too lol

MixedVariety
11-11-2011, 15:53
1) You're not that intelligent if you want to suicide.

I think I might have pointed out before, that typically, suicidal tendencies have less to do with intelligence and more to do with the machinery of the mind malfunctioning, either for physio-chemical or psychological (or both) reasons.

Sorry for the off-topicness.

Alaris
11-11-2011, 16:03
Agreed Kael, I was replying to Kael.

Lensor
11-11-2011, 16:19
That is a cleverly tweaked statement. Of course, not all women want to stay at home, they will lose power that way. Some want to work and still find a rich husband. Pretty sure almost no girl will settle for a poor guy(unless they are equally poor).

So let me rephrase; I have never met a woman in real life who thought "rich" was a deciding factor when choosing a partner. Period.

Of course, some of the characteristics a lot of my female friends fall for often coincide with having a good income (educated, having initiative, great social skills etc) but that still does not make "rich" by itself a deciding factor. And yes, I know many women who have "settled" for a man who earns significantly less than they do.

I do worry about your social circles though if your experience is that women only want rich dudes, and dudes only spend money so they can attract women who want rich dudes..:tongue:

Ringsgold
11-11-2011, 16:44
Flame-catcher: Why do people buy two $500 video cards?
To combine central heating and awesome graphics in a single device! :D

Zalis
11-11-2011, 16:45
Financial security is HUGE for women. (as is emotional security) They may not be saying they want a "rich" guy, but they certainly won't mind.

Lensor
11-11-2011, 16:49
Again, that is a cultural thing. Everyone wants financial security. Just that when women on average earn more money for themselves, they are not (again on average) as dependant on men to provide that security.

Which, incidentally, is thought to be one of the main reasons for divorce rates going up in societies where women have careers for themselves. I.e. they are not "forced" to stay in a bad marriage for financial reasons.

RD
11-11-2011, 16:54
Again, that is a cultural thing. Everyone wants financial security. Just that when women on average earn more money for themselves, they are not (again on average) as dependant on men to provide it.

Pretty fair statement. But people on average are less likely to depend on others when they have their own money. Ex. When kids get a job, they (usually) rely less on their parents.

Zalis
11-11-2011, 16:57
@Lens: Gooo figure, right?

I don't mean that to rip on women, but the couples in general who prioritize their careers over their children and expect it to work well. It's a simple fact that men can't have babies, so someone has to provide during the pregnancy, at the very least. (and hopefully more than that)

Lensor
11-11-2011, 17:00
@ RD
Of course. I was just answering the claim about women specifically ;)

So to recap; everyone wants financial security. People who can provide that for themselves are more free. And no one should make it their business what other people do with their money, as long as they can afford it and it is not illegal.

@ Zalis
You do know that women can work while pregnant right? Just checking..
Also, there is no rule that say that only the mother can stay at home with the baby. The parents can (and IMO should) split the parental leave between them. Of course, this is impossible in many countries due to parental leave laws, but I still see this as the ideal.

Alaris
11-11-2011, 17:02
And people should be less sensitive when they receive sensible advice. Even if they can afford to do whatever they want.

Lensor
11-11-2011, 17:20
Sensible is in the eye of the beholder though. Especially if it is advice about a hobby expense that does not hurt anyone.

Zalis
11-11-2011, 17:23
@ Zalis
You do know that women can work while pregnant right? Just checking..
Also, there is no rule that say that only the mother can stay at home with the baby. The parents can (and IMO should) split the parental leave between them. Of course, this is impossible in many countries due to parental leave laws, but I still see this as the ideal.

Sorry, I've just had too many friends or relatives with complications in the late trimester. Working up until near the due date is possible, sure. I'm not trying to be combative here, but there's no guarantee. I meant "pregnancy" in the first post thinking of the time after child birth, too. So, I could've specified better.

As for who's taking off when, European countries seem to be friendlier toward employees taking time off. Here in the U.S., good luck getting enough leave for both parents to take much time off. My fiancée would like to stay home for the first few years, when the hypothetical children will be little, but we'll obviously have to play that by ear when the time comes. We just don't like the idea of other people raising our children. (i.e., strangers at daycare) We're willing to cut back and live by lower means during that time, if need be, and we're exploring ways she could work from home. Still, we're not even married yet and children are likely ~3 years down the road, so this is just stuff we've made a point to talk about ahead of time.

Anyway, she does not buy silly expensive purses or shoes. Our spending "thing" is taking trips abroad. We'll be frugal elsewhere to spend on those.

Lensor
11-11-2011, 17:33
Of course every family should do what works best for them :)

I just got my thorns out when you claim that just because men cant carry babies that means a woman must have someone to provide financially for her during and after pregnancy. I like to think of having children as a joint venture where both parties take financial as well as emotional responsibiliy. That means that both work (financial) and both stay home with the kid (emotional).

(btw here we get 18 months paid parental leave (not full pay, but still), a month of which has to be taken by the father)

Kael Valeran
11-11-2011, 17:53
I wasn't in debt the first three years I was working.... You don't have to buy a house you know, there are still houses for rent... After three years, we decided to buy a house, because I personally think that if you're young, you're better off paying a mortgage and have some property by the time you're thinking about retirement rather than paying the same amount on rent and have nothing at the end...

I wish I was in your position. Its very difficult to explain. I am in a 7 year relationship with my girlfriend, who had guided me through my life and made me into who I am. I currently live in a flat which she owns, and I pay her rent, only at a price of £350 including bills because flats are cheap in Glasgow.

I want to settle down, find a job, find a place suitable for training(post-grad). For doctors, training is different in many countries, but once you begin, it will take 5-7 years to complete and it will to very difficult to jump from one country to another. I am 24 years old and we hope to have a child before 29. My girlfriend is 1 year older than me, so... essentially I have 2 years to get everything settled. Therefore ideally, the place where I train would be the place which I settle. My parents are in singapore and hers are in malaysia, neighbouring countries, but in malaysia, the system is incredibly racist and it will be impossible to get a training post.

In singapore, there are many cons as well. At first glance, it may seem like a police-state disneyland, but in reality, most people don't actually own the homes they live in and are in debt. For the same rent I pay her, we will have to forfeit a lot of necessities in our homes.

Compare this:

700£ rent for 2
Flat in glasgow
2 double bed rooms
2 bathrooms
2 people sharing 1 kitchen
2 people sharing 1 living room
Lift to every level

700£ rent for 2
Flat in singapore
single common room each
4 people sharing 1 bathroom
4 people sharing 1 living room
Lift does not service every floor, essentially needing to climb stairs

If I want a flat that is equivalent to hers in glasgow, the rent would cost 3500 SGD, which is about 1800£. My salary is only 3000 SGD. I can't possibly throw money away like that, but she is unwilling to downgrade and rather stay in another country like australia. I have to answer to her and to her parents why we have to share a flat with strangers.

My parents would also wish I returned. From singapore to her home, its only 1 hr plane ride, she can visit more frequently too. Its balancing now between living in a foreign country or in my own home country, and this is a big decision, affecting our lives forever. Once we take a training post in singapore, we can never return to uk to train, likewise, if we are to train in the UK, we will likely never be able to get a training post in singapore again. Training posts are really tight, ask any medic and they will know.

Lets not talk about owning a home, we will probably never be able to own a home without taking a 30 year loan, the property prices are ridiculous now. I wish I had borrowed money and buy the home 3 years ago, then I would have been rich now. I planned ahead, but now, property prices have doubled and I can no longer afford a thing. Most singaporeans take a 30 year loan because its their only solution to get out of paying rent for the rest of their lives.

I have already worked 2 years, whilst in the army, and she has worked 2 years as a doctor, and I have savings of up to 70k SGD(because I invested the money many years ago) about 35k pounds and she has savings of about 25k pounds. In a few more months, we would be able to afford the downpayment of a house in the uk but it will be impossible to afford the downpayment of a house in singapore.

I can only pray that the property bubble will burst one day, which it will likely too because the government in singapore made a mistake in flat calculation, building only 8000, whilst in 2011 and 2012, there will be 25000 flats to be build. Of course, it will take time for the price to drop, hopefully it will drop fast enough so that we have a chance to settle down without downgrading our standard of living.

And the problem here is, she feels that if we return back, we will lose the financial security that we already established in the UK. However, she has not seen the dark side of things. I have heard the locals say that we are stealing jobs from them, or stealing local university spots from them, which they can potentially fill. Some even argue that the scarce training posts usually go to foreigners, and this is highlighted even in the news and official uk immigration policy websites that it will be increasingly difficult for foreign doctors to receive training.

People say having a medical degree is a passport to the world, its false, unless you are willing to live with a relatively stagnant pay for the rest of your life without chance of upgrading, or join the civil service and quit medicine.


1) You're not that intelligent if you want to suicide. As if that's gonna be of any help to anyone.

2) The more smart people there is at the bottom, the better we can find corruption at the top and deal with it.

That is because you do not have insight yet, and the rich would not want you to have insight would they? Our education paralyses us to receive such insight, and in the rare case you are intelligent enough that you do, its hopeless. Either you get recruited to become part of the rich club and bully the poor, or you resign to fate that there is little you can do about the wealth inequality and reluctantly join the rich club. But of course, what they want is majority of people to be 'rich enough' and silent, but rich enough isn't rich.



So to recap; everyone wants financial security. People who can provide that for themselves are more free. And no one should make it their business what other people do with their money, as long as they can afford it and it is not illegal.

IMHO, all of us are potentially financially secure to start with as long as we have a job, its just a matter of how low we are willing to downgrade our standard of living.

RD
11-11-2011, 18:16
@ RD
Of course. I was just answering the claim about women specifically ;)


Yeah, I was just echoing your sentiment.

Alaris
11-11-2011, 19:06
That is because you do not have insight yet, and the rich would not want you to have insight would they?

Pfft pessimism cripples you. You problem isn't lack of intelligence, it's lack of will.

Meanwhile, Occupy has gone global. It shouldn't be too hard with such a movement to be able to put pressure on the higher ups.

Already the next elections won't be able to ignore us.

Kael Valeran
12-11-2011, 02:41
Pfft pessimism cripples you. You problem isn't lack of intelligence, it's lack of will.

Meanwhile, Occupy has gone global. It shouldn't be too hard with such a movement to be able to put pressure on the higher ups.

Already the next elections won't be able to ignore us.

If I were on top, I would ensure that I would put on a show so as to trick you that you have made a change, but in reality, you haven't.

Take for example austerity measures in Europe. Nobody can do a thing even though they thought they previously elected for the 'right guy'. In reality, no matter who they elect, the results are the same, austerity measures will be applied to put pressure on the poor while the rich have the biggest say. I am not deluded, I just can't see how any european can lift his hand against such a decision(besides the rich guys above who are trying to privatise peasant cash).

The middle class are nothing but red flags for the upper class. Once the red flags signal, they will stop but essentially, its all a balancing act. They will make a change, a small one for the bigger price to pay later.

On the occupy thing, HAHAHAH watch my country.

lFhIIzA92-g

Alaris
12-11-2011, 18:09
They've been running a show for a long time, but when violent protests start happening (as has been the case), running a show becomes more and more dangerous.