CDZ What are you worth?

[oldsoul]

Actually you have unwittingly provided a great solution. You get bonus points for that. That was an excellent suggestion. We could reset the system every 20 years. for say a century. That way people could prepare for each reset and learn via reinforcement the way to break out of cycles of poverty. That would educate the maximum amount of people and those people could teach their kids how to prepare.

The point was to be able to help others and leave your children a legacy of how to acquire/grow wealth and how to give back to people less fortunate. No I wouldnt be better off working as little as possible because doing something constructive brings rewards apart from material gain. You gain in knowledge as well for example. I have never seen such a society. I doubt its even possible that you could create such a society as people naturally want to learn and do things.

People do not inherently want to do pointless and useless things. There is no reason to teach children how to "break out of poverty" if the system provides a mechanism of reset that ensures it. What they inevitably learn (knowledge) is to bide their time and wait for the next great reset. There would also naturally be LESS appeal in helping the needy, after all, they are eventually going to benefit the most from the reset and if they are needy it means they simply squandered their resources through their own choices. We both had an ice cream sandwich, you ate all of yours, why should I now give you half of mine?

We could reset the system every 20 years. for say a century.

The system would last no longer than 40 years. After the first reset, people would learn that it's pointless to gain wealth. That it is FAR better to not gain wealth, enjoy your time relaxing and waiting for the next redistribution where all of your wealth will again be restored through no effort on your part. It would become "the norm" to skim by doing as little as possible because, what is the point of gaining wealth that will be confiscated and redistributed? If anyone did manage to gain wealth, they would be foolish to hold on to their wealth until the redistribution. They would start spending their wealth on anything they could think of before the reset. The "objective" in such a system would be to have NO wealth when reset time came. Another bizarre point in time would come just before the reset when it would be virtually impossible to spend your wealth because no one would want to gain your wealth.

This is why I said I would do as little as possible. What is the point? It would simply be taken anyway, or in the case of me doing/earning nothing, given, in part, to me because I have nothing. I would simply subsist on what I could grow, scavenge, hunt. I would simply "disappear" into the woods, only to "reappear" shortly before the "reset", so I could collect on someone else's' work.

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you think wealth inequality is a problem that needs fixing?

Speaking for myself, yes and no.

No, because by itself, I don't view wealth inequality as a problem. Wealth is merely the thing one obtains as a result of being more adept at doing that which society values. Among humans, wealth is measured by money received as compensation for one's intellectual acuity/ingenuity. Among non-human societies, take lions for example, it's a lion's (male) physical strength that lion societies most value, the compensation being the number of offspring males can sire and see to maturity. Obviously, feline socioeconomics are less complex than is human socioeconomics, but the foundational elements are no different. It's just that the basis of measurement differs. I'm sure there must lions around somewhere that "pine" of the fact that they aren't strong enough to sire scores of offspring just as we have humans who bitch and moan about not being as wealthy as others.

Yes, because the consequences of so many people being so much more successful than others has reached the point where too many folks are griping about it and it may lead to civil calamity. The masses must be kept content enough so they don't literally revolt, for that's good for neither them nor the people/institutions against which they revolt.

 

[SingleVoyce]

I never went to college or did criminal acts. I made my money the hard way, I earned it. I have no debt and house paid for and never inherited one penny or accepted one penny of government assistance and never gamble. My net worth today is $750,000 today including house, a tidy sum but not rich in any sense of the word.

I have heard an alternate definition of rich that would include you.

Any reasonable definition of rich would include someone with a net worth of 750K or more. This is near the 90th percentile of Americans and the 99th percentile of the world. It always amazes me that many Americans do not realize how rich they actually are but instead look at the billionaires as the only ones to whom that term should apply.

 

[SingleVoyce]

Do you think wealth inequality is a problem that needs fixing?

Speaking for myself, yes and no.

No, because by itself, I don't view wealth inequality as a problem. Wealth is merely the thing one obtains as a result of being more adept at doing that which society values. Among humans, wealth is measured by money received as compensation for one's intellectual acuity/ingenuity. Among non-human societies, take lions for example, it's a lion's (male) physical strength that lion societies most value, the compensation being the number of offspring males can sire and see to maturity. Obviously, feline socioeconomics are less complex than is human socioeconomics, but the foundational elements are no different. It's just that the basis of measurement differs. I'm sure there must lions around somewhere that "pine" of the fact that they aren't strong enough to sire scores of offspring just as we have humans who bitch and moan about not being as wealthy as others.

Yes, because the consequences of so many people being so much more successful than others has reached the point where too many folks are griping about it and it may lead to civil calamity. The masses must be kept content enough so they don't literally revolt, for that's good for neither them nor the people/institutions against which they revolt.

Somewhere along the line this conversation moved from income equality to wealth inequality. This seems to happen to most discussions of this topic when, in fact, they are two very different subjects. The OP did not mention any notion of retention of income which would be necessary to create wealth but he also did not disallow it. If you allow the retention of some income then those who manage to retain some of their 100 per day will start to accumulate wealth and those who spend it all will not so differences in wealth will begin to appear. There will still be incentives for individuals to acquire wealth.

 

[Boss]

Any reasonable definition of rich would include someone with a net worth of 750K or more. This is near the 90th percentile of Americans and the 99th percentile of the world. It always amazes me that many Americans do not realize how rich they actually are but instead look at the billionaires as the only ones to whom that term should apply.

The problem is $750k is just an arbitrary number that doesn't mean much. To someone without a penny to their name living in a cardboard box, $750k is very wealthy.... but to someone who lives in Beverly Hills, it's chump change. The "average" person has no concept of how much it costs to maintain an upper-income lifestyle. Not to sound like I'm whining about the woes of rich folk but it costs a lot of money to maintain that level of living. The bills are much higher than anyone can relate to in terms of basic things that are expected and required. If you are lucky enough to own a private jet or yacht, you have to pay for a place to put it, you have to pay to have it maintained and serviced. If you own a mansion, you have to pay people to keep it clean and you have to pay for insurance and utility bills. It's not cheap. Go out and price having to replace a ceramic tile roof on a typical mansion. If you are among that upper-level social class, you can't go rolling into a formal gathering in your $700 Taurus wearing your $50 suit from J.C. Penney. It costs a lot of money to maintain an image and image might be very important to your continued success in being wealthy.

Back about 20 years ago, I thought I was hot shit... I had just made my first big fortune by selling a technology to a big corporation and realized a huge windfall. To me, I was rich as fuck... but I attended a gala in Atlanta later that year where you could literally SMELL the wealth on people. As big shot as I thought I was, these people made me look like a shoe shine boy. They were billionaires, some didn't even know how much wealth they had. So wealth is subjective. $750k in total assets these days is not that much. But some look at that amount and think... I'd never have to work another day in my life! You'd be very surprised at how quick you could spend that amount.

So from MY perspective... "Wealthy" is the amount in which you personally have satisfaction that you are wealthy. Someone else cannot make that determination for you and it's pointless to think they can. We're fortunate to live in a free country where you can attain all the wealth you desire through your own hard work and initiative. Many countries simply do not have that luxury or freedom. You are essentially trapped in the "class" you are born in and there is nothing you can ever do about that. We don't have "class" in America... we use the term all the time... but no one is confined by their "class" in this country.

 

[320 Years of History]

Americans do not realize how rich they actually are but instead look at the billionaires as the only ones to whom that term should apply.

Well, that comparative wealth thing seems in my experience really something only folks who aren't yet wealthy, or occasionally those who are new to it, do. Comfortable folks look at one another and just know they are all more than adequately adequately able to indulge in pretty much whatever crosses their minds to indulge in. Where any individual rich person stands relative to other folks is mostly among the last things that'd cross one's mind. At the most, it's just gossip because someone created in that moment's conversation a reason to discuss it. Even there, only a small share of rich folks are of a mind to engage in that sort of gossip.

It costs a lot of money to maintain an image and image might be very important to your continued success in being wealthy.

Yes, there are folks who are quite well off and who feel as though they have to maintain some sort of public image. The vast majority of those folks are celebrities, and image, for many of them, plays a very real role in maintaining their ability to generate income. Most folks who are well heeled indulge in the pricey gee-gaws and whatnot that you mentioned as examples for one reason: self indulgence simply because they can indulge themselves lavishly. In many ways, it's a behavior quite similar to gambling in that one knows one is almost certain to get no greater net benefit from spending a ton on "whatever" that doesn't actually perform any better than a far less expensive version of the item/service, but it just feels nice to do so insouciantly.

Take that $50 suit you mentioned. (Is there still such a thing as a $50 suit?) The fact is that if I go buy one that is well tailored to fit me and you buy a $5000 one that's equally well tailored, there'll be no apparent difference when we both wear them for the first time to the same event next week. Now if someone pats you and I on the back, that person may notice the nicer feel of your suit's material compared to mine. If it's really hot or really cold outside, your suit will likely make you feel a bit better dressed for the weather. Six years from now, it's a wholly different matter, assuming we both wear our suits weekly. That said, I can buy a brand new $50 suit every three months for six years and look like a million bucks all the time and still not spend $5000.

So why would one spend $5K on a suit? Well, there can be all manner of reasons, but what is not a reason is any tangible need to do so. That leaves emotional reasons -- it makes them feel good somehow (one's personal/private image of oneself, if you will) -- and simple convenience (the $5K suit store was the most convenient one for one to shop at, and having the means not to have to care about how much one spends, one just did shop there), or being very particular about "something" and being willing and able to pay for one's persnicketiness with regard to it. Those drivers, more so than public image maintenance, tend to be what is going on with "quietly" wealthy folks when they spend extravagantly.

 

[SingleVoyce]

Any reasonable definition of rich would include someone with a net worth of 750K or more. This is near the 90th percentile of Americans and the 99th percentile of the world. It always amazes me that many Americans do not realize how rich they actually are but instead look at the billionaires as the only ones to whom that term should apply.

The problem is $750k is just an arbitrary number that doesn't mean much. To someone without a penny to their name living in a cardboard box, $750k is very wealthy.... but to someone who lives in Beverly Hills, it's chump change. The "average" person has no concept of how much it costs to maintain an upper-income lifestyle. Not to sound like I'm whining about the woes of rich folk but it costs a lot of money to maintain that level of living. The bills are much higher than anyone can relate to in terms of basic things that are expected and required. If you are lucky enough to own a private jet or yacht, you have to pay for a place to put it, you have to pay to have it maintained and serviced. If you own a mansion, you have to pay people to keep it clean and you have to pay for insurance and utility bills. It's not cheap. Go out and price having to replace a ceramic tile roof on a typical mansion. If you are among that upper-level social class, you can't go rolling into a formal gathering in your $700 Taurus wearing your $50 suit from J.C. Penney. It costs a lot of money to maintain an image and image might be very important to your continued success in being wealthy.

Back about 20 years ago, I thought I was hot shit... I had just made my first big fortune by selling a technology to a big corporation and realized a huge windfall. To me, I was rich as fuck... but I attended a gala in Atlanta later that year where you could literally SMELL the wealth on people. As big shot as I thought I was, these people made me look like a shoe shine boy. They were billionaires, some didn't even know how much wealth they had. So wealth is subjective. $750k in total assets these days is not that much. But some look at that amount and think... I'd never have to work another day in my life! You'd be very surprised at how quick you could spend that amount.

So from MY perspective... "Wealthy" is the amount in which you personally have satisfaction that you are wealthy. Someone else cannot make that determination for you and it's pointless to think they can. We're fortunate to live in a free country where you can attain all the wealth you desire through your own hard work and initiative. Many countries simply do not have that luxury or freedom. You are essentially trapped in the "class" you are born in and there is nothing you can ever do about that. We don't have "class" in America... we use the term all the time... but no one is confined by their "class" in this country.

A good article on the subject at the link below.

What It Means to Be ‘Wealthy’ in America Today | TIME.com

 

[320 Years of History]

Any reasonable definition of rich would include someone with a net worth of 750K or more. This is near the 90th percentile of Americans and the 99th percentile of the world. It always amazes me that many Americans do not realize how rich they actually are but instead look at the billionaires as the only ones to whom that term should apply.

The problem is $750k is just an arbitrary number that doesn't mean much. To someone without a penny to their name living in a cardboard box, $750k is very wealthy.... but to someone who lives in Beverly Hills, it's chump change. The "average" person has no concept of how much it costs to maintain an upper-income lifestyle. Not to sound like I'm whining about the woes of rich folk but it costs a lot of money to maintain that level of living. The bills are much higher than anyone can relate to in terms of basic things that are expected and required. If you are lucky enough to own a private jet or yacht, you have to pay for a place to put it, you have to pay to have it maintained and serviced. If you own a mansion, you have to pay people to keep it clean and you have to pay for insurance and utility bills. It's not cheap. Go out and price having to replace a ceramic tile roof on a typical mansion. If you are among that upper-level social class, you can't go rolling into a formal gathering in your $700 Taurus wearing your $50 suit from J.C. Penney. It costs a lot of money to maintain an image and image might be very important to your continued success in being wealthy.

Back about 20 years ago, I thought I was hot shit... I had just made my first big fortune by selling a technology to a big corporation and realized a huge windfall. To me, I was rich as fuck... but I attended a gala in Atlanta later that year where you could literally SMELL the wealth on people. As big shot as I thought I was, these people made me look like a shoe shine boy. They were billionaires, some didn't even know how much wealth they had. So wealth is subjective. $750k in total assets these days is not that much. But some look at that amount and think... I'd never have to work another day in my life! You'd be very surprised at how quick you could spend that amount.

So from MY perspective... "Wealthy" is the amount in which you personally have satisfaction that you are wealthy. Someone else cannot make that determination for you and it's pointless to think they can. We're fortunate to live in a free country where you can attain all the wealth you desire through your own hard work and initiative. Many countries simply do not have that luxury or freedom. You are essentially trapped in the "class" you are born in and there is nothing you can ever do about that. We don't have "class" in America... we use the term all the time... but no one is confined by their "class" in this country.

A good article on the subject at the link below.

What It Means to Be ‘Wealthy’ in America Today | TIME.com

People who advocate simplicity have money in the bank; the money came first, not the simplicity.
― Douglas Coupland, The Gum Thief​

Does anyone really care what empirical figure cited by "whomever" delineates the defining line between wealthy and not wealthy?

Everyone wants to ride with you in the limo, but what you want is someone who will take the bus with you when the limo breaks down.
― Oprah Winfrey​

I haven't read the article yet, but articles themed as the title suggests always make me chuckle. They do because I suspect that most if not all folks know whether they are or are not wealthy Americans, regardless of what a news article says. If one is not, whatever resources one has/generates are clearly less than whatever it takes to be wealthy in America. If one thinks one is wealthy, one knows that at least as many resources as one has/generates are enough to be wealthy in America. What is "wealthy in America" isn't discretely definable in terms of some single figure.

You don't have to be like most people around you, because most people around you will never become truly rich and wealthy.
― Manoj Arora, From the Rat Race to Financial Freedom​

 

[SingleVoyce]

Any reasonable definition of rich would include someone with a net worth of 750K or more. This is near the 90th percentile of Americans and the 99th percentile of the world. It always amazes me that many Americans do not realize how rich they actually are but instead look at the billionaires as the only ones to whom that term should apply.

The problem is $750k is just an arbitrary number that doesn't mean much. To someone without a penny to their name living in a cardboard box, $750k is very wealthy.... but to someone who lives in Beverly Hills, it's chump change. The "average" person has no concept of how much it costs to maintain an upper-income lifestyle. Not to sound like I'm whining about the woes of rich folk but it costs a lot of money to maintain that level of living. The bills are much higher than anyone can relate to in terms of basic things that are expected and required. If you are lucky enough to own a private jet or yacht, you have to pay for a place to put it, you have to pay to have it maintained and serviced. If you own a mansion, you have to pay people to keep it clean and you have to pay for insurance and utility bills. It's not cheap. Go out and price having to replace a ceramic tile roof on a typical mansion. If you are among that upper-level social class, you can't go rolling into a formal gathering in your $700 Taurus wearing your $50 suit from J.C. Penney. It costs a lot of money to maintain an image and image might be very important to your continued success in being wealthy.

Back about 20 years ago, I thought I was hot shit... I had just made my first big fortune by selling a technology to a big corporation and realized a huge windfall. To me, I was rich as fuck... but I attended a gala in Atlanta later that year where you could literally SMELL the wealth on people. As big shot as I thought I was, these people made me look like a shoe shine boy. They were billionaires, some didn't even know how much wealth they had. So wealth is subjective. $750k in total assets these days is not that much. But some look at that amount and think... I'd never have to work another day in my life! You'd be very surprised at how quick you could spend that amount.

So from MY perspective... "Wealthy" is the amount in which you personally have satisfaction that you are wealthy. Someone else cannot make that determination for you and it's pointless to think they can. We're fortunate to live in a free country where you can attain all the wealth you desire through your own hard work and initiative. Many countries simply do not have that luxury or freedom. You are essentially trapped in the "class" you are born in and there is nothing you can ever do about that. We don't have "class" in America... we use the term all the time... but no one is confined by their "class" in this country.

A good article on the subject at the link below.

What It Means to Be ‘Wealthy’ in America Today | TIME.com

People who advocate simplicity have money in the bank; the money came first, not the simplicity.
― Douglas Coupland, The Gum Thief​

Does anyone really care what empirical figure cited by "whomever" delineates the defining line between wealthy and not wealthy?

Everyone wants to ride with you in the limo, but what you want is someone who will take the bus with you when the limo breaks down.
― Oprah Winfrey​

I haven't read the article yet, but articles themed as the title suggests always make me chuckle. They do because I suspect that most if not all folks know whether they are or are not wealthy Americans, regardless of what a news article says. If one is not, whatever resources one has/generates are clearly less than whatever it takes to be wealthy in America. If one thinks one is wealthy, one knows that at least as many resources as one has/generates are enough to be wealthy in America. What is "wealthy in America" isn't discretely definable in terms of some single figure.

You don't have to be like most people around you, because most people around you will never become truly rich and wealthy.
― Manoj Arora, From the Rat Race to Financial Freedom​

The whole point of the article was that there is no single figure. People do not really know whether or not they are wealthy. Two people with exactly the same amount of wealth may give completely different answers when asked if they are "wealthy".

 

[320 Years of History]

Any reasonable definition of rich would include someone with a net worth of 750K or more. This is near the 90th percentile of Americans and the 99th percentile of the world. It always amazes me that many Americans do not realize how rich they actually are but instead look at the billionaires as the only ones to whom that term should apply.

The problem is $750k is just an arbitrary number that doesn't mean much. To someone without a penny to their name living in a cardboard box, $750k is very wealthy.... but to someone who lives in Beverly Hills, it's chump change. The "average" person has no concept of how much it costs to maintain an upper-income lifestyle. Not to sound like I'm whining about the woes of rich folk but it costs a lot of money to maintain that level of living. The bills are much higher than anyone can relate to in terms of basic things that are expected and required. If you are lucky enough to own a private jet or yacht, you have to pay for a place to put it, you have to pay to have it maintained and serviced. If you own a mansion, you have to pay people to keep it clean and you have to pay for insurance and utility bills. It's not cheap. Go out and price having to replace a ceramic tile roof on a typical mansion. If you are among that upper-level social class, you can't go rolling into a formal gathering in your $700 Taurus wearing your $50 suit from J.C. Penney. It costs a lot of money to maintain an image and image might be very important to your continued success in being wealthy.

Back about 20 years ago, I thought I was hot shit... I had just made my first big fortune by selling a technology to a big corporation and realized a huge windfall. To me, I was rich as fuck... but I attended a gala in Atlanta later that year where you could literally SMELL the wealth on people. As big shot as I thought I was, these people made me look like a shoe shine boy. They were billionaires, some didn't even know how much wealth they had. So wealth is subjective. $750k in total assets these days is not that much. But some look at that amount and think... I'd never have to work another day in my life! You'd be very surprised at how quick you could spend that amount.

So from MY perspective... "Wealthy" is the amount in which you personally have satisfaction that you are wealthy. Someone else cannot make that determination for you and it's pointless to think they can. We're fortunate to live in a free country where you can attain all the wealth you desire through your own hard work and initiative. Many countries simply do not have that luxury or freedom. You are essentially trapped in the "class" you are born in and there is nothing you can ever do about that. We don't have "class" in America... we use the term all the time... but no one is confined by their "class" in this country.

A good article on the subject at the link below.

What It Means to Be ‘Wealthy’ in America Today | TIME.com

People who advocate simplicity have money in the bank; the money came first, not the simplicity.
― Douglas Coupland, The Gum Thief​

Does anyone really care what empirical figure cited by "whomever" delineates the defining line between wealthy and not wealthy?

Everyone wants to ride with you in the limo, but what you want is someone who will take the bus with you when the limo breaks down.
― Oprah Winfrey​

I haven't read the article yet, but articles themed as the title suggests always make me chuckle. They do because I suspect that most if not all folks know whether they are or are not wealthy Americans, regardless of what a news article says. If one is not, whatever resources one has/generates are clearly less than whatever it takes to be wealthy in America. If one thinks one is wealthy, one knows that at least as many resources as one has/generates are enough to be wealthy in America. What is "wealthy in America" isn't discretely definable in terms of some single figure.

You don't have to be like most people around you, because most people around you will never become truly rich and wealthy.
― Manoj Arora, From the Rat Race to Financial Freedom​

The whole point of the article was that there is no single figure. People do not really know whether or not they are wealthy. Two people with exactly the same amount of wealth may give completely different answers when asked if they are "wealthy".

Well, I suppose I have to trust what the article says. I certainly haven't canvased wealthy folks to find out if they know they're wealthy or not. To be sure, my sense of how wealthy (or at least high earners) people perceive themselves is based on anecdotal observations of folks who are wealthy, yet not billionaire-wealthy, rather than folks who are "sorta" wealthy or near wealthy:

• Parents sending their kids to posh schools know they are wealthy because non-wealthy people can't/don't spend $65K/yer per child on school and assorted other "stuff" that goes along with sending one's kid to schools like that.
• Folks living in $6M+ homes know they are wealthy because non-wealthy folks just don't/can't buy houses that cost that much.
• Folks who attend high-ticket charity events know they are wealthy because non-wealthy folks aren't invited. What'd be the point of inviting folks who've demonstrated neither the will nor wherewithal to donate the kind of money the charity aims to raise at the event?
• Members of posh social and sporting clubs know they are wealthy because folks who aren't don't don't get invited to become members. Why insult someone by offering membership to someone who lacks the means to join and maintain a membership?
• People paying $500K+ per year in taxes know they are wealthy because their tax bill is dramatically higher than most folks's gross earnings.
• Folks doing all those things year in and year out, they know they are wealthy too.

Those are the thoughts that are going through my mind when I think about the idea that article poses whereby folks who are wealthy don't know it or think so. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how it's possible to be wealthy and not be aware of it. Maybe there are a lot of wealthy folks expressing some sort of false humility or something. I don't know; I would just hope there aren't that many folks who are indeed wealthy and don't realise it. That would take a tremendous level of isolation from "the real world" for one to genuinely misperceive one's socioeconomic position relative one's countrymen in general. It's one thing to not know whether one is wealthier than another individual. It's a whole 'nother thing -- a think I'd call gross ignorance -- to be unaware or unsure that/whether one is wealthy relative to the population as a whole.

Maybe I should read the article to find out if its author distinguishes between wealth and high income. In my mind, the two pretty well go hand in hand, but I realize they don't necessarily have to. Certainly among folks who spend nearly every cent they earn, the two don't go together.

 

[Boss]

Yes, there are folks who are quite well off and who feel as though they have to maintain some sort of public image. The vast majority of those folks are celebrities, and image, for many of them, plays a very real role in maintaining their ability to generate income. Most folks who are well heeled indulge in the pricey gee-gaws and whatnot that you mentioned as examples for one reason: self indulgence simply because they can indulge themselves lavishly. In many ways, it's a behavior quite similar to gambling in that one knows one is almost certain to get no greater net benefit from spending a ton on "whatever" that doesn't actually perform any better than a far less expensive version of the item/service, but it just feels nice to do so insouciantly.

Take that $50 suit you mentioned. (Is there still such a thing as a $50 suit?) The fact is that if I go buy one that is well tailored to fit me and you buy a $5000 one that's equally well tailored, there'll be no apparent difference when we both wear them for the first time to the same event next week. Now if someone pats you and I on the back, that person may notice the nicer feel of your suit's material compared to mine. If it's really hot or really cold outside, your suit will likely make you feel a bit better dressed for the weather. Six years from now, it's a wholly different matter, assuming we both wear our suits weekly. That said, I can buy a brand new $50 suit every three months for six years and look like a million bucks all the time and still not spend $5000.

So why would one spend $5K on a suit? Well, there can be all manner of reasons, but what is not a reason is any tangible need to do so. That leaves emotional reasons -- it makes them feel good somehow (one's personal/private image of oneself, if you will) -- and simple convenience (the $5K suit store was the most convenient one for one to shop at, and having the means not to have to care about how much one spends, one just did shop there), or being very particular about "something" and being willing and able to pay for one's persnicketiness with regard to it. Those drivers, more so than public image maintenance, tend to be what is going on with "quietly" wealthy folks when they spend extravagantly.

Do you not comprehend that everything you just said was predicated on YOUR analysis of what is "wealthy" or "lavish" or "indulgence" or "luxury" or "extravagant" ??? Is that point not getting through to you or something? There are $5,000 suits because someone wants one. It's not YOUR decision to make! It's not for YOU to judge! You can spend YOUR money however you like. You may think a $5000 suit is a waste, and that's why they make cheaper suits. If everyone had the same desires and opinions we could have ONE suit for everyone!

The point I was making before was that when you are in the upper-wealth category, the cost of living is much higher because you have to maintain certain standards... some of them you can't control. It just costs more to insure a mansion as opposed to a mobile home. Replacing the clutch on your Maserati cost more than replacing the clutch on your Pinto. With a high-end lifestyle comes high-end expense. So while you may think that a certain amount is "wealthy" the person who has that wealth may not agree. We simply can't have a society where we put YOU in charge of determining what is or isn't extravagant or luxurious. THAT universe is just never going to exist.... and that's a good thing because a lot of people earn decent living catering to the wealthy. Somewhere, there is a tailor making bank on selling high-quality $5000 suits. Somewhere, a mechanic is employed because he has private jets to service or yachts. A real estate agent is making good income selling mansions. A wedding coordinator is sending her kid to college by planning wealthy people's weddings. Cities and communities are gaining property tax revenues... on and on and on... It's not BAD to have wealthy people who spend their money.

We've gotten LOST in this insanity of demonizing wealth status like it's a BAD thing. Like people shouldn't BE wealthy... or they should be shunned for it... ashamed of it... condemned and persecuted. It's all seemingly rooted in insidious jealousy and envy for what someone has that we don't and it needs to end. It's nothing more than Marxist-Socialist Class Warfare and it has no place in a free market society with free enterprise and constitutional liberty.

 

[320 Years of History]

Do you not comprehend that everything you just said was predicated on YOUR analysis of what is "wealthy" or "lavish" or "indulgence" or "luxury" or "extravagant" ??? Is that point not getting through to you or something? There are $5,000 suits because someone wants one. It's not YOUR decision to make! It's not for YOU to judge! You can spend YOUR money however you like. You may think a $5000 suit is a waste, and that's why they make cheaper suits. If everyone had the same desires and opinions we could have ONE suit for everyone!

If you think for a minute that folks who spend lavishly or extravagantly don't know they are doing so, you don't give folks the credit they deserve. It may be debateable whether buying a $500 suit is lavish spending, but nobody buying a $5000 one is unaware that they are spending lavishly.

YOU can claim that those remarks are merely MY analysis of luxury good consumption behavior and motivations, but I can assure you they are not merely my views.

• Evidence for two facets of pride in consumption: Findings from luxury brands
  
• Pride and Regulatory Behavior: The Influence of Appraisal Information and Self-Regulatory Goals
  
• Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: An individual differences' perspective.
  
• Luxury Goods Consumption: A Conceptual Framework Based on Literature Review
  
• The Devil Wears Prada? Effects of Exposure to Luxury Goods on Cognition and Decision Making
  
• Why Do We Buy Luxury Brands—and How Do They Make Us Feel?
  
• Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence
  
• The Less Conspicuous Road to Virtue: The Influence of Luxury Consumption on Socially Valued Behavior
  
• Psych Study: When You’re Bummed, You’re More Likely to Buy
  
• Global Powers of Luxury Goods 2015 Engaging the future luxury consumer
  
• Theoretic Perspectives on Luxury Brand Dimension of Emerging Luxury Brand Consumption Based on Perceived value
• Redefining the Meaning of Luxury Goods: A Conceptual Paper
  
• Satisfaction emotions and consumer behavioral intentions
  
• The role of emotional satisfaction in service encounters

Understanding the economic principle of substitutes and reading the papers I've linked above, you'll see too that damn near everything about luxury consumers behavior is about emotional coddling on the part of consumers, emotional pandering/placating on the part of sellers, and almost never about there genuinely being a tangible and practical reason for the behavior.

Take a basic service/need, transportation. There simply is no practical basis for spending thousands of dollars for a car in order to obtain transportation from point A to point B. One can't even say that getting from A to B,.even in the same period of time or with equal flexibility in choosing a route or intermediate destinations, requires owning a car. What does car ownership deliver that non-ownership does not deliver as comprehensively? It allows one to exercise less thought before deciding to go somewhere because the car is sitting there waiting to be used; it offers greater convenience in terms of one dimension of time management prior to commencing the trip. The thing is that convenience is an emotionally demanded quality.

The point I was making before was that when you are in the upper-wealth category, the cost of living is much higher because you have to maintain certain standards... some of them you can't control.

All of those things are fully controllable. One is not required because one is in the "upper-wealth category" have any obligation to spend princely sums on anything.

Warren Buffett's home​

One need only choose not to spend so much on "stuff" to control the costs one incurs.

You may think a $5000 suit is a waste, and that's why they make cheaper suits. If everyone had the same desires and opinions we could have ONE suit for everyone!

What I wrote about had nothing to do with the elasticity of demand, how "worth it" consumers consider luxury goods. I wrote about what motivates luxury goods consumers to demand luxury goods in the first place. I said the reasons why people buy them is (1) because they can and (2) because they can, they do so to satisfy an emotional need of some sort. Obviously, filling that need by purchasing a given good/service is something that some consumers consider "worth it" and others do not.

I didn't make a qualitative assertion/judgment about whether spending $5K on a suit is a waste. I didn't because there is no objective reality that makes that sort of spending wasteful, i.e., not "worth it." It'd be absurd for me to do so, just as it'd be absurd for anyone who's read any of my posts discussing economics to think that I would. Why? Because I've on multiple occasions discussed and referred to elasticity of demand, which is nothing more than economists' way of describing the "is it worth it" aspect of demand (actual consumption, not wanting to consume), it'd be nuts for me to suddenly ignore that principle. Readers who actually bothered to understand what I have written in that regard, would know there's no way I'd have made the sort of qualitative judgement described in the "red" text above.

Elasticity identifies the extent to which consumers (as a whole) determine that a good/service in question is simply not the money they must spend to demand it. If a good/service is perfectly elastic, that is, consumers will consider it "worth it"/not a waste of money only if the price does not increase. If they price were to increase, consumer demand would disappear, but as long as the price holds at a given sum, consumers will demand as much of the good/service as they want.

Obviously, the other extreme is observed when demand is perfectly inelastic (vertical demand curve). When consumers assess their demand for a good as perfectly inelastic, they will consume the same quantity of the good/service no matter what be its price.

Note:
It's essential to understand that the elasticity will vary by how consumers and suppliers position the good/service in question so as to differentiate them. For example:

• Shirts, silk shirts, custom made shirts, white shirts, formal shirts, etc.
• Shelter, house, condo, three bedroom house, house in "such and such" an area, contemporary design/style home, investment, etc.

Differentiation is what inspires consumers to perceive a given good/service as being "worth it." The act of differentiating a good/service is pare art and part science. The science part is found in knowing what levers to pull; the art part is in crafting the message that pulls them.

Somewhere, there is a tailor making bank on selling high-quality $5000 suits. Somewhere, a mechanic is employed because he has private jets to service or yachts. A real estate agent is making good income selling mansions. A wedding coordinator is sending her kid to college by planning wealthy people's weddings. Cities and communities are gaining property tax revenues... on and on and on... It's not BAD to have wealthy people who spend their money.

I don't have a problem with there being goods and services suppliers that thrive by catering to the demand for luxury goods. I don't know why you think I might, but I also don't care why you may think that of me.

The demand for luxury goods/services exists, and providers/producers don't really give a damn why the demand exists; they only care about being demanders' (consumers') preferred provider for meeting the demand. Producers/providers are well aware that emotional motivations that give rise to luxury consumers' demand. They are also well aware of the elasticity of that demand for their goods/services and they know there's money to be made filling that demand. Producers merely "tap into" the demand by triggering the purchase response that consumers believe satisfies their emotional need. The tactics they use to do so are those of emotional marketing.

• The Effects of Emotional Marketing on Consumer Product Perception, Brand Awareness and Purchase Decision — A Study in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
  
• A New Concept of Marketing: The Emotional Marketing
  
• Customer Communications Management in the New Digital Era
  
• The Science of Emotion in Marketing: How Our Brains Decide What to Share and Whom to Trust
  
• Do Emotions in Advertising Drive Sales?
  
• Emotional intelligence and marketing effectiveness
  
• Emotional Brand Attachment: Marketing Strategies for Successful Generation
  
• The role of emotional satisfaction in service encounters

 

[Boss]

If you think for a minute that folks who spend lavishly or extravagantly don't know they are doing so, you don't give folks the credit they deserve. It may be debateable whether buying a $500 suit is lavish spending, but nobody buying a $5000 one is unaware that they are spending lavishly.

YOU can claim that those remarks are merely MY analysis of luxury good consumption behavior and motivations, but I can assure you they are not merely my views.

Again, your opinion of what is lavish or extravagant is not everyone's opinion. It does not matter if some collection of others agree with your opinion. It doesn't even matter if the person who is doing the buying believes it is extravagant, it's their right to spend their money the way they please. They worked for it, they earned it, it's the fruit of their labor. It's not up to you or anyone else to make that determination, it is up to the individual.

...reading the papers I've linked above, you'll see too that damn near everything about luxury consumers behavior is about emotional coddling on the part of consumers, emotional pandering/placating on the part of sellers, and almost never about there genuinely being a tangible and practical reason for the behavior.

It does not matter what you believe the reason is. You can link "papers" from wherever to support your Marxist views all day long... it doesn't matter. You are again making the determination of what is "tangible and practical" about someone else's behavior.

Okay... So, the other day, I purchased a Yeti cooler. I do a lot of camping with friends and family and I have been wanting one of these. While searching for where I could find the best deal on this specific cooler, I discovered a consumer test of the Yeti vs. a generic brand which sells for considerably less. The generic brand performed just as well as the more expensive Yeti. Now, you might argue, from a "tangible and practical" perspective, there was really no need for me to purchase the Yeti. But that decision was not yours to make. Perhaps I don't want my friends and family to look at my cooler and think Boss is a cheapskate... he bought the generic brand! I may feel that I am a person who can afford the best and that makes me feel better, to purchase the best.... even if it's the "best" only because it cost more... or the brand is associated with being the best. The choice is MINE to make and it is up to ME to decide if it is "tangible and practical". You are continuing to try and apply YOUR standards to MY choices.

I don't have a problem with there being goods and services suppliers that thrive by catering to the demand for luxury goods. I don't know why you think I might, but I also don't care why you may think that of me.

What I think of you is that you want to micromanage the decisions and choices of others based on your own precepts. It's troubling to me that you don't seem to understand different people have different ideas of value, tangibility, practicality, luxury, extravagance. It's simply not your determination to make. You might prefer the generic cooler over the Yeti and brag to your friends and family about how much money you saved and what a smart consumer you were... that might be appealing to you. It doesn't appeal to me... I have a different opinion, I want my friends and family to see that I bought the top of the line. It doesn't mean one of us is wrong and the other is right, we're different people with different opinions, desires and motivations.

All of those things are fully controllable. One is not required because one is in the "upper-wealth category" have any obligation to spend princely sums on anything.

No, some of them are certainly not controllable. If I want to live in Beverly Hills, it's going to cost me more than living in Compton. If I am wealthy, I can live in either place but I desire to live in Beverly Hills. It's not in my control to live there as inexpensively as I could live in Compton.

With your transportation argument, I might find value in owning a Mercedes and you may think that is excessive luxury. It's going to cost me more to service my Mercedes than you pay to service your Nissan. But I may find value in the brand and I may get many more years of service from the Mercedes, or I may like the way I look behind the wheel of a Mercedes. It's MY choice based on MY opinion of value, not YOURS. You may find the Nissan a better value... that's YOUR choice based on YOUR opinion of value, not MINE.

I could be a high-profile lawyer who desires to convey an image of success to his clients. That might not be of importance to you. It may seem opulent to you while I find value and tangible practicality in my choice.

 

[RodISHI]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

I read through all the posts and have a question or two, maybe more.

In this scenario who owns the products, raw materials, supplies, equipment, property and businesses? How do you manage all those aspects?

Who determines what products will be available? What the products will be made of? And who determines what those products will cost?

Do people get a paycheck for the learning process, school, training programs, etc.? What happens when a breakdown occurs (illness, injury, etc.)?

Is there seniority in this new program? If so how do you determine who has the seniority? Is that determine by ability, raw talent, intelligence, learned trade or time and grade?

 

[320 Years of History]

If you think for a minute that folks who spend lavishly or extravagantly don't know they are doing so, you don't give folks the credit they deserve. It may be debateable whether buying a $500 suit is lavish spending, but nobody buying a $5000 one is unaware that they are spending lavishly.

YOU can claim that those remarks are merely MY analysis of luxury good consumption behavior and motivations, but I can assure you they are not merely my views.

Again, your opinion of what is lavish or extravagant is not everyone's opinion. It does not matter if some collection of others agree with your opinion. It doesn't even matter if the person who is doing the buying believes it is extravagant, it's their right to spend their money the way they please. They worked for it, they earned it, it's the fruit of their labor. It's not up to you or anyone else to make that determination, it is up to the individual.

...reading the papers I've linked above, you'll see too that damn near everything about luxury consumers behavior is about emotional coddling on the part of consumers, emotional pandering/placating on the part of sellers, and almost never about there genuinely being a tangible and practical reason for the behavior.

It does not matter what you believe the reason is. You can link "papers" from wherever to support your Marxist views all day long... it doesn't matter. You are again making the determination of what is "tangible and practical" about someone else's behavior.

Okay... So, the other day, I purchased a Yeti cooler. I do a lot of camping with friends and family and I have been wanting one of these. While searching for where I could find the best deal on this specific cooler, I discovered a consumer test of the Yeti vs. a generic brand which sells for considerably less. The generic brand performed just as well as the more expensive Yeti. Now, you might argue, from a "tangible and practical" perspective, there was really no need for me to purchase the Yeti. But that decision was not yours to make. Perhaps I don't want my friends and family to look at my cooler and think Boss is a cheapskate... he bought the generic brand! I may feel that I am a person who can afford the best and that makes me feel better, to purchase the best.... even if it's the "best" only because it cost more... or the brand is associated with being the best. The choice is MINE to make and it is up to ME to decide if it is "tangible and practical". You are continuing to try and apply YOUR standards to MY choices.

I don't have a problem with there being goods and services suppliers that thrive by catering to the demand for luxury goods. I don't know why you think I might, but I also don't care why you may think that of me.

What I think of you is that you want to micromanage the decisions and choices of others based on your own precepts. It's troubling to me that you don't seem to understand different people have different ideas of value, tangibility, practicality, luxury, extravagance. It's simply not your determination to make. You might prefer the generic cooler over the Yeti and brag to your friends and family about how much money you saved and what a smart consumer you were... that might be appealing to you. It doesn't appeal to me... I have a different opinion, I want my friends and family to see that I bought the top of the line. It doesn't mean one of us is wrong and the other is right, we're different people with different opinions, desires and motivations.

All of those things are fully controllable. One is not required because one is in the "upper-wealth category" have any obligation to spend princely sums on anything.

No, some of them are certainly not controllable. If I want to live in Beverly Hills, it's going to cost me more than living in Compton. If I am wealthy, I can live in either place but I desire to live in Beverly Hills. It's not in my control to live there as inexpensively as I could live in Compton.

With your transportation argument, I might find value in owning a Mercedes and you may think that is excessive luxury. It's going to cost me more to service my Mercedes than you pay to service your Nissan. But I may find value in the brand and I may get many more years of service from the Mercedes, or I may like the way I look behind the wheel of a Mercedes. It's MY choice based on MY opinion of value, not YOURS. You may find the Nissan a better value... that's YOUR choice based on YOUR opinion of value, not MINE.

I could be a high-profile lawyer who desires to convey an image of success to his clients. That might not be of importance to you. It may seem opulent to you while I find value and tangible practicality in my choice.

Fine....you keep thinking that. I can tell you just don't understand, and I know for sure I'm not going to keep trying to explain it to you. I can tell you have made no effort to comprehend it. That's your choice.

 

[Boss]

I read through all the posts and have a question or two, maybe more.

In this scenario who owns the products, raw materials, supplies, equipment, property and businesses? How do you manage all those aspects?

Who determines what products will be available? What the products will be made of? And who determines what those products will cost?

Do people get a paycheck for the learning process, school, training programs, etc.? What happens when a breakdown occurs (illness, injury, etc.)?

Is there seniority in this new program? If so how do you determine who has the seniority? Is that determine by ability, raw talent, intelligence, learned trade or time and grade?

We've kind of evolved away from the OP point. It was intended to get people thinking in terms of their value and worth rather than income. The issue of "ownership" was introduced and I added to the scenario the condition that Federal government would also confiscate all wealth and distribute it equally, so that everyone starts off the same.

The problems continued to come up with the scenario and it became obvious that there is no way to ever make things absolutely fair for everyone all the time. It cannot be done. The more "fairness" you install, the less individual freedom you have. If you have 100% fairness for all, you have 100% oppression for all. There is no other way to ensure fairness.

 

[Boss]

Fine....you keep thinking that. I can tell you just don't understand, and I know for sure I'm not going to keep trying to explain it to you. I can tell you have made no effort to comprehend it. That's your choice.

Well, I think I do understand and YOU are the one having trouble with that. No need for you to continue trying to explain the same thing. I get what you're saying, I disagree with you.

 

[320 Years of History]

Fine....you keep thinking that. I can tell you just don't understand, and I know for sure I'm not going to keep trying to explain it to you. I can tell you have made no effort to comprehend it. That's your choice.

Well, I think I do understand and YOU are the one having trouble with that. No need for you to continue trying to explain the same thing. I get what you're saying, I disagree with you.

I can tell you think you do. Seeing as I wrote the remarks, and seeing how you've responded to them, what you've written in response, I know for sure you do not.

 

[RodISHI]

I read through all the posts and have a question or two, maybe more.

In this scenario who owns the products, raw materials, supplies, equipment, property and businesses? How do you manage all those aspects?

Who determines what products will be available? What the products will be made of? And who determines what those products will cost?

Do people get a paycheck for the learning process, school, training programs, etc.? What happens when a breakdown occurs (illness, injury, etc.)?

Is there seniority in this new program? If so how do you determine who has the seniority? Is that determine by ability, raw talent, intelligence, learned trade or time and grade?

We've kind of evolved away from the OP point. It was intended to get people thinking in terms of their value and worth rather than income. The issue of "ownership" was introduced and I added to the scenario the condition that Federal government would also confiscate all wealth and distribute it equally, so that everyone starts off the same.

The problems continued to come up with the scenario and it became obvious that there is no way to ever make things absolutely fair for everyone all the time. It cannot be done. The more "fairness" you install, the less individual freedom you have. If you have 100% fairness for all, you have 100% oppression for all. There is no other way to ensure fairness.

I agree with you that things won't always be fair. Keeping things in perspective and being 'Just' is a different issue. A person can make six to eight dollars an hour for stocking or two hundred an hour if they have a talent that someone else is willing to pay for. I started out on a learning curve teaching myself thirty plus years ago making $1.65 an hour. Over the years that talent expanded and ultimately I made up to four hundred per hour. What we can't afford in a society in the corrupt to rule and take advantage of the less fortunate.

 

[Boss]

What we can't afford in a society in the corrupt to rule and take advantage of the less fortunate.

But that is exactly what you get in a Socialistic society and what a Constitution based on individual liberty mitigates through free enterprise and free markets.