12 ms·

Modern American elites have come to favour inconspicuous consumption

143 points by SQL2219 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
PeanutCurry 9y ago
I'm not rich but I make enough on a yearly basis that I can pay my rent, have a few hundred dollars worth of fun per month, and still tuck away enough money for the future that as long as things continue or don't become/stay terrible for longer than a year I should be able to maintain the lifestyle that I like. Of the disposable/fun things that my budget goes towards, none of the things in this article are things I find appealing. Don't get me wrong, nice things are nice. Go figure. But I work in a mixed city with people from much higher and much lower than me on the economic latter. In my experience, owning a lot of nice things means that you're going to have a harder time befriending people who are significantly lower on the income latter. I don't expect this to be a problem for everyone, but for me and I suspect people like me, it's difficult because I just like going out and being social in meatspace. There's plenty I could do to overcome that when I meet new people, but I don't want to have to overcome walking in and looking like the rich guy. And I don't want to have to think about going to a concert at a bar in a poor neighborhood because I drove a nice car. Things like saving for my children, as the article discusses, make sense because they tie in with long term happiness imo. If I ever do have children it's not hard for me to imagine wanting to give them as much support as I can to ensure they succeed. I wouldn't want to see them struggle because of resources. But luxury goods don't affect me longterm happiness in the same way and often they feel to me as having a social opportunity cost. The difference in price between what I drive and a nice car could fund a lot of bar nights, concerts, parties at people's houses, etc. And that's just not a cost that's worth it from my perspective.
- elorant 9y ago
  That's why a lot of rich-ish people own two cars. The good one and a less flamboyant one for every day use.
  - seanp2k2 9y ago
    Tons of rich people drive a Prius, because they get the government to give them a fat rebate for buying an EV, and Priuses are cheap to run + hold their resale value well. Teslas are also pretty popular now for similar reasons. There should be a limit on the tax break for hybrids, since you still get it on a Porsche 918 Spyder, and I very much doubt that that car will help reduce greenhouse gasses as much as I doubt that whoever is buying it needs a tax break. Stop subsidizing the rich. Plenty also just have a cheap car because they don't see spending a ton on a car is worth it. Drive around some super fancy neighborhoods and you'll see plenty of minivans, normal pickup trucks, Hyundais, Hondas, etc. Part of it is also camouflage.
    - Grustaf 9y ago
      >There should be a limit on the tax break for hybrids, since you still get it on a Porsche 918 Spyder, and I very much doubt that that car will help reduce greenhouse gasses as much as I doubt that whoever is buying it needs a tax break Without the tax break they'd surely buy a similar car with a combustion engine so it still makes sense if the purpose is to reduce pollution.
      - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
        I'd rather have the tax break. WIthout it, the person buying the sports car might just buy a different, non-hybrid model. I'd much rather encourage folks to buy them, with the hopes that they'll eventually replace all-gas models as they become more popular. At that point, we can drop the tax breaks.
        sseveran 9y ago
        Where I live its not really the tax breaks, its you can get HOV lane stickers.
        Broken_Hippo 9y ago
        Heh. Here you get tax breaks and/or subsidized, get to drive in the taxi/bus lanes, plus you get to go through the tolls at a reduced cost (or maybe free). It is a really convenient thing, honestly. As far as I know, they have planned phase-outs to some of this and I'd expect more of the same. After all, electric car ownership is already pretty high (I'm in Norway) and eventually they'll need the tax revenue. For now, though, I'm fully supportive of these sorts of incentives if for nothing else than smog reduction.
- justboxing 9y ago
  > and much lower than me on the economic latter. I found this group of people after I joined my local boxing gym. It totally grounded me. It takes an extraordinary amount of discipline and hard work to be a professional boxer. And yet most professional boxers I know are at the very low end of the income ladder. Their friendship is real and genuine and I really love that and try to support them in every which way I can...
  - cableshaft 9y ago
    Yep, have a hobby, especially an inexpensive one, and you can bond with people of all economic strata based on that. Mine is board games. I already have a ton, so I don't need people to have their own. We can meet at a public space, like a food court, not spend a dime, and all have a great time. We don't really care what everyone's economic status is, just how we interact with each other while playing the games.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Sukotto 9y ago
Interesting, but just a review of the book so not so actionable. I liked this guide by the Financial Samurai [1] who advocates his readers avoid living a conspicuously rich lifestyle. It's been a few years since I read it, but a quick skim makes me think it's held up pretty well despite its paranoid tone. [1] http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-rise-of-stealth-wealth-guide-to-staying-invisible-from-society-rage/ http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-rise-of-stealth-wealth-g...
- madengr 9y ago
  Sounds similar to Dave Ramsey.
hkmurakami 9y ago
>Chief among them is education for their children: the top 10% now allocate almost four times as much of their spending to school and university as they did in 1996, whereas for other groups the figure has hardly budged. How much of this is driven by the heavy increase in postsecondary education costs, as well as a Masters degree being the new Bachelors degree for setting your child apart from the pack? (I know many parents who press their child to go for a Masters with this rather superficial reasoning)
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  It's more that, for people who have the money, the process of throwing serious money at education starts much earlier, and the amount of money is higher than ever. Go read about extremely-competitive pre-kindergarten programs with gigantic waiting lists for parents desperate to start their child on an Ivy League track as soon as possible. Follow up with top private schools, intense private tutoring, and parents who literally do things like buy a clinic or an orphanage somewhere in a developing country so their child can "work" there for a couple summers and write about the experience in their admissions application: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/to-get-to-harvard-go-to-haiti.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/to-get-to-... Richard Weissbourd, a child psychologist and Harvard lecturer who has studied the admissions process in the interest of reforming it, recalled speaking with wealthy parents who had bought an orphanage in Botswana so their children could have a project to write and talk about. He later became aware of other parents who had bought an AIDS clinic in a similarly poor country for the same reason.
  - madengr 9y ago
    Funny, everyone I know who is doing well never went to an Ivy League school. The most wealthy (net worth probably $100M) never went to college. I'd say wealth is built from grit, education, and frugality, not pedigree. If anything, all the online, open courseware has shown me that the Ivy Leauge coursework is no different than that of most state universities. My kids will have a choice of two in-state schools. If they can get into an Ivy League, that's fine, but they must fund the difference.
Grustaf 9y ago
>The modern equivalent of Victorian worsted-stocking wearers are hipsters, who imitate the wealthy’s penchant for farmers’ markets and fair-trade lattes, even if they cannot afford a cruise to Antarctica. As a life-long hipster I must object to this. Hipsterdom has nothing to do with wanting to appear well off financially. It is a combination of a longing for authenticity and wishing to separate oneself from the hoi polloi, but through sophistication and coolness. The proportions may vary from hipster to hipster but in no case is it an attempt to imitate the wealthy.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  > Hipsterdom has nothing to do with wanting to appear well off financially > through sophistication and coolness In order for cool to exist, there must be un-cool, which is everyone else. So you're completely right in that hipsters aren't trying to show that they're richer than others. Just that they're better. In that sense, hipsters and the conspicuously wealthy are united.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Everyone has their own definition of cool, hipsters, punks, comic book nerds, star trek nerds, soccer hooligans.... If anything being "normal" allows you to appreciate more forms of cool, even if it's just by gawking.
  - Grustaf 9y ago
    >So you're completely right in that hipsters aren't trying to show that they're richer than others. Just that they're better. In that sense, hipsters and the conspicuously wealthy are united. The author claimed that hipsters do what they do to mimic the wealthy, which is not true. The fact that they, as any human being, strive for some kind of status and exclusivity, is a different question altogether.
    - smallnamespace 9y ago
      You're right that every person and every community values status to some extent or another. But in most communities, there is a core (often economic) activity or set of values that confers status that is not directly related to the status itself. Being a good maintainer or creating useful projects gives you status in the open source community. Rendering or arguing sound, legally difficult decisions confers status if you're a judge. These communities are fundamentally open: anyone who can do those things can join and raise their status in those communities. On other hand, the conspicuously wealthy and hipsters tend towards the extreme end of the status-seeking, with a lot of emphasis on exclusivity. The source of the status is very closely aligned with the status itself. The conspicuously rich country-club set make a little community for themselves just based on the fact that they can prove to each other how rich they are. And the defining trait of a hipster is being able to show how cool they are, which means that status itself is the key to entry in the community. Please note that I'm not trying to beat up on you -- we need status-driven people in the world, else few would ever want to become a politician or a leader. But I do think that hipsters as a community take status drive much further than most other groups, sometimes to comical effect.
michaelt 9y ago
Rather than frittering away that precious leisure time on frivolities, [today’s rich] devote it to enriching experiences, like attending the opera, [...] The modern equivalent of Victorian worsted-stocking wearers are hipsters Maybe it's different where I live to where the author does, but most operas I've seen have had a predominantly grey-haired audience, and management obviously worried about the future of their ageing audience. Plaid shirts, bushy beards, tattoos, piercings, single-speed bicycles and people in their 20s have not been in evidence.
- Spearchucker 9y ago
  Royal Opera House always seems to have a good range of ages. Maybe it depends on the opera.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Interesting, I'm rather young and I can't imagine any of my friends wanting to see a play (unless it's provided free by the university's drama society or they have to attend), much less an orchestra performance, and much less an opera. I doubt they'd be able to decide to see one opera over another too :)
    - azernik 9y ago
      The specific cultural experiences have changed with a younger generation - hot-off-Broadway musicals, live concerts, music festivals, etc.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >devote it to enriching experiences, like attending the opera Most rich patrons of the opera wouldn't know an "enriching experience" if it bit them in the ass. It's about going out and showing off in wealthy circles.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  A few years ago I used to take the "seats" (you actually stand up) on the higher floor of the opera (Paris) and at the intermission I went in the orchestra and took a free seat I spotted during the first part. I thought the median age wasn't as high as I expected it to be. And the median age was also slightly higher in the higher cheaper rows. (that's only anecdotal observation)
headmelted 9y ago
I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm something of an odd duck. I don't really understand the desire that people have for status symbols and "keeping up with the Joneses" - but what really confounds me is the decisions virtually everyone else in my life makes when it comes to money. It's like this is the conversation happening in my head: "Look, we're friends. I know what you do for a living, so I can guesstimate within a not-orders-of-magnitude margin of error what kind of money you make. You clearly can't afford this car/house/gadget without going into debt, and this is a luxury purchase. What the f* are you doing dude?", but I obviously don't say this because it's none of my business. Some of my friends (and even extended family) seem to have some very naive views about the nature of money and wealth, and this is the part that really makes me uneasy. It seems that going into high levels of debt and living month-to-month is, at least where I am in the world, the universally and culturally accepted lifestyle strategy. I genuinely can't understand it at all. Is there something everyone else knows that I don't? I'm fortunate I guess in that I have a STRONG preference that my friends/family don't know my personal finances or think I earn less than I do (I don't need our income differential making good friendships weird), so it suits me not to have showy toys and trinkets. I also get a lot more satisfaction knowing I'm making progress each month on a small but growing safety net for my kids rather than a shiny SUV in the driveway.
- elorant 9y ago
  People buy luxury items either because they enjoy their quality (the minority), or more often because they make them feel good about themselves. When you're not satisfied with your life but you don't want to look miserable you buy an expensive car and immediately you're way above the stack because let's face it, 80% of the population out there thinks exactly like that. People can't value ideas, ethics, knowledge and such, it's much easier to value items. You own a Mercedes you're someone successful. People start treating you differently. And that's the single most exhilarating thing about looking successful, it creates a reality distortion field for pretty much everyone around you. You get more chicks, everyone wants to be your friend, your opinion is more valued, and the list goes on. So you see, they get something out of the equation and that's why they're willing to enslave their lives into debt. Success is like a drug, and if you can't achieve it at least you can fake your way into it.
rumcajz 9y ago
That makes me think about "luddite fallacy". The common understanding is that we can survive increasing productivity because people will always want more stuff. However, the implicit assumption there is that once we get beyond satisfying basic needs the demand will be driven up by conspicuous consumption. Yet, the logic of conspicuous consumption may as well work the other way round: Where being fat was seen as a sign on high social status once today it's a sign of low social status. One can signal status be consuming less rather than more.
- icebraining 9y ago
  One can signal status be consuming less rather than more. Being thin doesn't mean necessarily consuming less; see the millions spent on diet books, courses, coaches, etc.
  - Grustaf 9y ago
    Yes, it's not about eating less, and definitely not about spending less on food. It's about showing that you have the leisure to worry about such things.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  Yet, the logic of conspicuous consumption may as well work the other way round: Where being fat was seen as a sign on high social status once today it's a sign of low social status. One can signal status be consuming less rather than more. Actually, this doesn't mean that the fat person is consuming more - in fact, they might be consuming less in bulk. The contents of their consumption differ greatly though. While the well-to-do person might be eating a lot of fresh vegetables, lean meats, and plenty of whole grains, the poor person might dine entirely on cheap boxed food, TV dinners, and dollar-menu fast food while spending less per month on food.
- p0nce 9y ago
  > One can signal status be consuming less rather than more. Is anyone seeing this happening?
- ashark 9y ago
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
Also: Everything from Last Psychiatrist on aspirationals e.g. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_future_lea.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_f... (TLP, you're dearly dearly missed)
kristopolous 9y ago
Maybe I'm not the mainstream, but the more money I have, the less obligated I feel to use any of it. Every car I've owned has been cheaper than the previous and honestly these days I'm mostly public transit. But at the same time, I've become many times richer between each car purchase. I love the non connection and unpreciousness of my possessions - how profoundly and easily replaceable they are and how detached I am from them. At the end what is wealth other than excess of liberty and freedom. An ability to purchase luxury without much concern for the cost is at its highest form when someone can also dismiss most of the luxury as frivolous and not purchase it at all.
- madengr 9y ago
  Probably has more to do with age. 20 years ago retirement was 40 years away; now it's only 20, and have kids college to save for. Though I'm making 3x what I did 20 years ago, I'm a lot more frugal. Nothing impresses me anymore either. A used car is just fine. I don't need any more guns. I buy my clothes at Costco. Really nothing to spend money on, despite being in upper 5% income bracket.
  - mlvljr 9y ago
    I like the guns part :) Which ones do you have already?
    - madengr 9y ago
      Several AR, FAL, misc battle rifles and carbines, 1911s, shotguns, etc. Let's just say more than I have fingers and toes to count them. What I don't have is any east block guns, other than an old Mosin Nagant; I'd like a few good AK. Also a Fostech Origin 12, and maybe SCARs. The gun industry has grown so much over the last 20 years there is just too much to choose. Don't worry, all securely in safes, except for the 1911 on my hip.
      - mlvljr 9y ago
        Not bad, any SMLEs?
Shivetya 9y ago
I find it a bit odd, I think a better version is the elites have returned to how the elites used to always be, not how the celebrity elites are. Explained, the tech industry created a lot of wealth that was had by people not used to having large amounts of money and they did what people usually do in that case; see lottery winners. Celebrity wealth is like the Hollywood stars type, flashy cars, clothes, and gadgets, that are all appearance oriented. The long term wealthy or those having grown up in it always favored enriching activities, from sports to trips to the arts. You can see it in the philanthropic actions which are of completely different sort than those who demonstrate their wealth celebrity styles whose philanthropic tend to be similar; demonstrative and self congratulatory.
humanrebar 9y ago
> Between 1996 and 2014 the richest 1% fell further behind the national average in the percentage of their spending dedicated to bling. Do you count their home(s)? Conspicuous consumption also looks like: - having homes in particular neighborhoods - certain kinds of upgrades to the homes (elaborate pools, media rooms) - extra homes (Paris, Manhattan, in the mountains, on the beach)
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  Real estate is usually considered an investment, is it not?
  - dx034 9y ago
    Only if you buy it for value appreciation and/or income. If you buy a second home in an area that you like instead of one with high potential upside it's not an investment. I would guess that few vacation homes are bought for the return they generate. If you want to invest in real estate, you'd rather buy homes in large cities.
jimmywanger 9y ago
I read this book the other day, and for the life of me I can't remember the name, and I wish I could. It's a fairly nasty but accurate book. It's the difference between how the nouveaux rich and the bluebloods signal wealth. For instance, if you're newly lower upper class, you like splurging on nice kitchens and laundry facilities - stainless steel/granite countertops and new appliances with all the bells and whistles. If you are truly wealthy and have been for generations, you tend to not give a shit about your kitchen or your laundry facilities - that sort of thing is just for menials, as you're not spending any time in the kitchen, and you wouldn't be entertaining your guests there - that's what the dining room and parlour are for. One consequence of the Cultural Revolution in China is that none of the newly minted rich are truly bluebloods - wealth is only a few generations old. Hence the splurging on nice purses and nice cars. A truly wealthy person wouldn't be caught dead in the front seat of a Lamborghini - he owns the Bentley and pays for a driver to live with him so he doesn't have to bother with driving. Like I said, it's a truly insightful and as a consequence a nasty book. If I can find the title I'll update this post.
fundabulousrIII 9y ago
The only real privilege is to live away from those you don't want to deal with and have the ability to do and think what you want within reasonable limits (which may not apply to popular conception but law). Aside from that the things that are good: fast cars (and place to drive them), private library, private environment that incorporates gym, pool and a computing infrastructure that allows latency-less research and investment + computing. You can get that for about 400K a year household.
scottLobster 9y ago
I don't know if I qualify as an "elite", given that I'm "merely" in the 86th percentile of American households by income, but I take issue that the article equates things like fair-trade food, going on a nice vacation, seeing a show and going to a nice gym as status symbols. I buy free-range/organic whatever because in some cases it's genuinely healthier/tastier (ex: grass-fed beef, uncured bacon, hormone-free chicken, legit Extra Virgin Olive Oil, etc), and the benefit to the animals/farmers is a bonus. I see shows because I enjoy them, I take nice vacations every once in a while because I enjoy them. I buy nice coffee because I use a french press and can taste the difference over Folgers. I go to a nice gym because I enjoy the jacob's ladder machine, the general cleanliness and high availability of equipment. None of that is to show off to anyone. Sure I might bring it up in conversation if I think it's interesting and relevant, but it's hardly the "look at me and how awesome I think I am!" vibe that driving a Hummer, living in a Mansion or wearing $50 designer T-shirts is.

143 points by SQL2219 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

I'm not rich but I make enough on a yearly basis that I can pay my rent, have a few hundred dollars worth of fun per month, and still tuck away enough money for the future that as long as things continue or don't become/stay terrible for longer than a year I should be able to maintain the lifestyle that I like. Of the disposable/fun things that my budget goes towards, none of the things in this article are things I find appealing. Don't get me wrong, nice things are nice. Go figure. But I work in a mixed city with people from much higher and much lower than me on the economic latter. In my experience, owning a lot of nice things means that you're going to have a harder time befriending people who are significantly lower on the income latter. I don't expect this to be a problem for everyone, but for me and I suspect people like me, it's difficult because I just like going out and being social in meatspace. There's plenty I could do to overcome that when I meet new people, but I don't want to have to overcome walking in and looking like the rich guy. And I don't want to have to think about going to a concert at a bar in a poor neighborhood because I drove a nice car. Things like saving for my children, as the article discusses, make sense because they tie in with long term happiness imo. If I ever do have children it's not hard for me to imagine wanting to give them as much support as I can to ensure they succeed. I wouldn't want to see them struggle because of resources. But luxury goods don't affect me longterm happiness in the same way and often they feel to me as having a social opportunity cost. The difference in price between what I drive and a nice car could fund a lot of bar nights, concerts, parties at people's houses, etc. And that's just not a cost that's worth it from my perspective.

elorant 9y ago
That's why a lot of rich-ish people own two cars. The good one and a less flamboyant one for every day use.
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  Tons of rich people drive a Prius, because they get the government to give them a fat rebate for buying an EV, and Priuses are cheap to run + hold their resale value well. Teslas are also pretty popular now for similar reasons. There should be a limit on the tax break for hybrids, since you still get it on a Porsche 918 Spyder, and I very much doubt that that car will help reduce greenhouse gasses as much as I doubt that whoever is buying it needs a tax break. Stop subsidizing the rich. Plenty also just have a cheap car because they don't see spending a ton on a car is worth it. Drive around some super fancy neighborhoods and you'll see plenty of minivans, normal pickup trucks, Hyundais, Hondas, etc. Part of it is also camouflage.
  - Grustaf 9y ago
    >There should be a limit on the tax break for hybrids, since you still get it on a Porsche 918 Spyder, and I very much doubt that that car will help reduce greenhouse gasses as much as I doubt that whoever is buying it needs a tax break Without the tax break they'd surely buy a similar car with a combustion engine so it still makes sense if the purpose is to reduce pollution.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      I'd rather have the tax break. WIthout it, the person buying the sports car might just buy a different, non-hybrid model. I'd much rather encourage folks to buy them, with the hopes that they'll eventually replace all-gas models as they become more popular. At that point, we can drop the tax breaks.
      - sseveran 9y ago
        Where I live its not really the tax breaks, its you can get HOV lane stickers.
        Broken_Hippo 9y ago
        Heh. Here you get tax breaks and/or subsidized, get to drive in the taxi/bus lanes, plus you get to go through the tolls at a reduced cost (or maybe free). It is a really convenient thing, honestly. As far as I know, they have planned phase-outs to some of this and I'd expect more of the same. After all, electric car ownership is already pretty high (I'm in Norway) and eventually they'll need the tax revenue. For now, though, I'm fully supportive of these sorts of incentives if for nothing else than smog reduction.
justboxing 9y ago
> and much lower than me on the economic latter. I found this group of people after I joined my local boxing gym. It totally grounded me. It takes an extraordinary amount of discipline and hard work to be a professional boxer. And yet most professional boxers I know are at the very low end of the income ladder. Their friendship is real and genuine and I really love that and try to support them in every which way I can...
- cableshaft 9y ago
  Yep, have a hobby, especially an inexpensive one, and you can bond with people of all economic strata based on that. Mine is board games. I already have a ton, so I don't need people to have their own. We can meet at a public space, like a food court, not spend a dime, and all have a great time. We don't really care what everyone's economic status is, just how we interact with each other while playing the games.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Sukotto 9y ago

Interesting, but just a review of the book so not so actionable. I liked this guide by the Financial Samurai [1] who advocates his readers avoid living a conspicuously rich lifestyle. It's been a few years since I read it, but a quick skim makes me think it's held up pretty well despite its paranoid tone. [1] http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-rise-of-stealth-wealth-guide-to-staying-invisible-from-society-rage/ http://www.financialsamurai.com/the-rise-of-stealth-wealth-g...

madengr 9y ago
Sounds similar to Dave Ramsey.

hkmurakami 9y ago

>Chief among them is education for their children: the top 10% now allocate almost four times as much of their spending to school and university as they did in 1996, whereas for other groups the figure has hardly budged. How much of this is driven by the heavy increase in postsecondary education costs, as well as a Masters degree being the new Bachelors degree for setting your child apart from the pack? (I know many parents who press their child to go for a Masters with this rather superficial reasoning)

ubernostrum 9y ago
It's more that, for people who have the money, the process of throwing serious money at education starts much earlier, and the amount of money is higher than ever. Go read about extremely-competitive pre-kindergarten programs with gigantic waiting lists for parents desperate to start their child on an Ivy League track as soon as possible. Follow up with top private schools, intense private tutoring, and parents who literally do things like buy a clinic or an orphanage somewhere in a developing country so their child can "work" there for a couple summers and write about the experience in their admissions application: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/to-get-to-harvard-go-to-haiti.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/to-get-to-... Richard Weissbourd, a child psychologist and Harvard lecturer who has studied the admissions process in the interest of reforming it, recalled speaking with wealthy parents who had bought an orphanage in Botswana so their children could have a project to write and talk about. He later became aware of other parents who had bought an AIDS clinic in a similarly poor country for the same reason.
- madengr 9y ago
  Funny, everyone I know who is doing well never went to an Ivy League school. The most wealthy (net worth probably $100M) never went to college. I'd say wealth is built from grit, education, and frugality, not pedigree. If anything, all the online, open courseware has shown me that the Ivy Leauge coursework is no different than that of most state universities. My kids will have a choice of two in-state schools. If they can get into an Ivy League, that's fine, but they must fund the difference.

Grustaf 9y ago

>The modern equivalent of Victorian worsted-stocking wearers are hipsters, who imitate the wealthy’s penchant for farmers’ markets and fair-trade lattes, even if they cannot afford a cruise to Antarctica. As a life-long hipster I must object to this. Hipsterdom has nothing to do with wanting to appear well off financially. It is a combination of a longing for authenticity and wishing to separate oneself from the hoi polloi, but through sophistication and coolness. The proportions may vary from hipster to hipster but in no case is it an attempt to imitate the wealthy.

smallnamespace 9y ago
> Hipsterdom has nothing to do with wanting to appear well off financially > through sophistication and coolness In order for cool to exist, there must be un-cool, which is everyone else. So you're completely right in that hipsters aren't trying to show that they're richer than others. Just that they're better. In that sense, hipsters and the conspicuously wealthy are united.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Everyone has their own definition of cool, hipsters, punks, comic book nerds, star trek nerds, soccer hooligans.... If anything being "normal" allows you to appreciate more forms of cool, even if it's just by gawking.
- Grustaf 9y ago
  >So you're completely right in that hipsters aren't trying to show that they're richer than others. Just that they're better. In that sense, hipsters and the conspicuously wealthy are united. The author claimed that hipsters do what they do to mimic the wealthy, which is not true. The fact that they, as any human being, strive for some kind of status and exclusivity, is a different question altogether.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    You're right that every person and every community values status to some extent or another. But in most communities, there is a core (often economic) activity or set of values that confers status that is not directly related to the status itself. Being a good maintainer or creating useful projects gives you status in the open source community. Rendering or arguing sound, legally difficult decisions confers status if you're a judge. These communities are fundamentally open: anyone who can do those things can join and raise their status in those communities. On other hand, the conspicuously wealthy and hipsters tend towards the extreme end of the status-seeking, with a lot of emphasis on exclusivity. The source of the status is very closely aligned with the status itself. The conspicuously rich country-club set make a little community for themselves just based on the fact that they can prove to each other how rich they are. And the defining trait of a hipster is being able to show how cool they are, which means that status itself is the key to entry in the community. Please note that I'm not trying to beat up on you -- we need status-driven people in the world, else few would ever want to become a politician or a leader. But I do think that hipsters as a community take status drive much further than most other groups, sometimes to comical effect.

michaelt 9y ago

Rather than frittering away that precious leisure time on frivolities, [today’s rich] devote it to enriching experiences, like attending the opera, [...] The modern equivalent of Victorian worsted-stocking wearers are hipsters Maybe it's different where I live to where the author does, but most operas I've seen have had a predominantly grey-haired audience, and management obviously worried about the future of their ageing audience. Plaid shirts, bushy beards, tattoos, piercings, single-speed bicycles and people in their 20s have not been in evidence.

Spearchucker 9y ago
Royal Opera House always seems to have a good range of ages. Maybe it depends on the opera.
- ue_ 9y ago
  Interesting, I'm rather young and I can't imagine any of my friends wanting to see a play (unless it's provided free by the university's drama society or they have to attend), much less an orchestra performance, and much less an opera. I doubt they'd be able to decide to see one opera over another too :)
  - azernik 9y ago
    The specific cultural experiences have changed with a younger generation - hot-off-Broadway musicals, live concerts, music festivals, etc.
coldtea 9y ago
>devote it to enriching experiences, like attending the opera Most rich patrons of the opera wouldn't know an "enriching experience" if it bit them in the ass. It's about going out and showing off in wealthy circles.
jrimbault 9y ago
A few years ago I used to take the "seats" (you actually stand up) on the higher floor of the opera (Paris) and at the intermission I went in the orchestra and took a free seat I spotted during the first part. I thought the median age wasn't as high as I expected it to be. And the median age was also slightly higher in the higher cheaper rows. (that's only anecdotal observation)

headmelted 9y ago

I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm something of an odd duck. I don't really understand the desire that people have for status symbols and "keeping up with the Joneses" - but what really confounds me is the decisions virtually everyone else in my life makes when it comes to money. It's like this is the conversation happening in my head: "Look, we're friends. I know what you do for a living, so I can guesstimate within a not-orders-of-magnitude margin of error what kind of money you make. You clearly can't afford this car/house/gadget without going into debt, and this is a luxury purchase. What the f* are you doing dude?", but I obviously don't say this because it's none of my business. Some of my friends (and even extended family) seem to have some very naive views about the nature of money and wealth, and this is the part that really makes me uneasy. It seems that going into high levels of debt and living month-to-month is, at least where I am in the world, the universally and culturally accepted lifestyle strategy. I genuinely can't understand it at all. Is there something everyone else knows that I don't? I'm fortunate I guess in that I have a STRONG preference that my friends/family don't know my personal finances or think I earn less than I do (I don't need our income differential making good friendships weird), so it suits me not to have showy toys and trinkets. I also get a lot more satisfaction knowing I'm making progress each month on a small but growing safety net for my kids rather than a shiny SUV in the driveway.

elorant 9y ago
People buy luxury items either because they enjoy their quality (the minority), or more often because they make them feel good about themselves. When you're not satisfied with your life but you don't want to look miserable you buy an expensive car and immediately you're way above the stack because let's face it, 80% of the population out there thinks exactly like that. People can't value ideas, ethics, knowledge and such, it's much easier to value items. You own a Mercedes you're someone successful. People start treating you differently. And that's the single most exhilarating thing about looking successful, it creates a reality distortion field for pretty much everyone around you. You get more chicks, everyone wants to be your friend, your opinion is more valued, and the list goes on. So you see, they get something out of the equation and that's why they're willing to enslave their lives into debt. Success is like a drug, and if you can't achieve it at least you can fake your way into it.

rumcajz 9y ago

That makes me think about "luddite fallacy". The common understanding is that we can survive increasing productivity because people will always want more stuff. However, the implicit assumption there is that once we get beyond satisfying basic needs the demand will be driven up by conspicuous consumption. Yet, the logic of conspicuous consumption may as well work the other way round: Where being fat was seen as a sign on high social status once today it's a sign of low social status. One can signal status be consuming less rather than more.

icebraining 9y ago
One can signal status be consuming less rather than more. Being thin doesn't mean necessarily consuming less; see the millions spent on diet books, courses, coaches, etc.
- Grustaf 9y ago
  Yes, it's not about eating less, and definitely not about spending less on food. It's about showing that you have the leisure to worry about such things.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
Yet, the logic of conspicuous consumption may as well work the other way round: Where being fat was seen as a sign on high social status once today it's a sign of low social status. One can signal status be consuming less rather than more. Actually, this doesn't mean that the fat person is consuming more - in fact, they might be consuming less in bulk. The contents of their consumption differ greatly though. While the well-to-do person might be eating a lot of fresh vegetables, lean meats, and plenty of whole grains, the poor person might dine entirely on cheap boxed food, TV dinners, and dollar-menu fast food while spending less per month on food.
p0nce 9y ago
> One can signal status be consuming less rather than more. Is anyone seeing this happening?
ashark 9y ago

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

Also: Everything from Last Psychiatrist on aspirationals e.g. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_future_lea.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/luxury_branding_the_f... (TLP, you're dearly dearly missed)

kristopolous 9y ago

Maybe I'm not the mainstream, but the more money I have, the less obligated I feel to use any of it. Every car I've owned has been cheaper than the previous and honestly these days I'm mostly public transit. But at the same time, I've become many times richer between each car purchase. I love the non connection and unpreciousness of my possessions - how profoundly and easily replaceable they are and how detached I am from them. At the end what is wealth other than excess of liberty and freedom. An ability to purchase luxury without much concern for the cost is at its highest form when someone can also dismiss most of the luxury as frivolous and not purchase it at all.

madengr 9y ago
Probably has more to do with age. 20 years ago retirement was 40 years away; now it's only 20, and have kids college to save for. Though I'm making 3x what I did 20 years ago, I'm a lot more frugal. Nothing impresses me anymore either. A used car is just fine. I don't need any more guns. I buy my clothes at Costco. Really nothing to spend money on, despite being in upper 5% income bracket.
- mlvljr 9y ago
  I like the guns part :) Which ones do you have already?
  - madengr 9y ago
    Several AR, FAL, misc battle rifles and carbines, 1911s, shotguns, etc. Let's just say more than I have fingers and toes to count them. What I don't have is any east block guns, other than an old Mosin Nagant; I'd like a few good AK. Also a Fostech Origin 12, and maybe SCARs. The gun industry has grown so much over the last 20 years there is just too much to choose. Don't worry, all securely in safes, except for the 1911 on my hip.
    - mlvljr 9y ago
      Not bad, any SMLEs?

Shivetya 9y ago

I find it a bit odd, I think a better version is the elites have returned to how the elites used to always be, not how the celebrity elites are. Explained, the tech industry created a lot of wealth that was had by people not used to having large amounts of money and they did what people usually do in that case; see lottery winners. Celebrity wealth is like the Hollywood stars type, flashy cars, clothes, and gadgets, that are all appearance oriented. The long term wealthy or those having grown up in it always favored enriching activities, from sports to trips to the arts. You can see it in the philanthropic actions which are of completely different sort than those who demonstrate their wealth celebrity styles whose philanthropic tend to be similar; demonstrative and self congratulatory.

humanrebar 9y ago

> Between 1996 and 2014 the richest 1% fell further behind the national average in the percentage of their spending dedicated to bling. Do you count their home(s)? Conspicuous consumption also looks like: - having homes in particular neighborhoods - certain kinds of upgrades to the homes (elaborate pools, media rooms) - extra homes (Paris, Manhattan, in the mountains, on the beach)

vanderZwan 9y ago
Real estate is usually considered an investment, is it not?
- dx034 9y ago
  Only if you buy it for value appreciation and/or income. If you buy a second home in an area that you like instead of one with high potential upside it's not an investment. I would guess that few vacation homes are bought for the return they generate. If you want to invest in real estate, you'd rather buy homes in large cities.

jimmywanger 9y ago

I read this book the other day, and for the life of me I can't remember the name, and I wish I could. It's a fairly nasty but accurate book. It's the difference between how the nouveaux rich and the bluebloods signal wealth. For instance, if you're newly lower upper class, you like splurging on nice kitchens and laundry facilities - stainless steel/granite countertops and new appliances with all the bells and whistles. If you are truly wealthy and have been for generations, you tend to not give a shit about your kitchen or your laundry facilities - that sort of thing is just for menials, as you're not spending any time in the kitchen, and you wouldn't be entertaining your guests there - that's what the dining room and parlour are for. One consequence of the Cultural Revolution in China is that none of the newly minted rich are truly bluebloods - wealth is only a few generations old. Hence the splurging on nice purses and nice cars. A truly wealthy person wouldn't be caught dead in the front seat of a Lamborghini - he owns the Bentley and pays for a driver to live with him so he doesn't have to bother with driving. Like I said, it's a truly insightful and as a consequence a nasty book. If I can find the title I'll update this post.

fundabulousrIII 9y ago

The only real privilege is to live away from those you don't want to deal with and have the ability to do and think what you want within reasonable limits (which may not apply to popular conception but law). Aside from that the things that are good: fast cars (and place to drive them), private library, private environment that incorporates gym, pool and a computing infrastructure that allows latency-less research and investment + computing. You can get that for about 400K a year household.

scottLobster 9y ago

I don't know if I qualify as an "elite", given that I'm "merely" in the 86th percentile of American households by income, but I take issue that the article equates things like fair-trade food, going on a nice vacation, seeing a show and going to a nice gym as status symbols. I buy free-range/organic whatever because in some cases it's genuinely healthier/tastier (ex: grass-fed beef, uncured bacon, hormone-free chicken, legit Extra Virgin Olive Oil, etc), and the benefit to the animals/farmers is a bonus. I see shows because I enjoy them, I take nice vacations every once in a while because I enjoy them. I buy nice coffee because I use a french press and can taste the difference over Folgers. I go to a nice gym because I enjoy the jacob's ladder machine, the general cleanliness and high availability of equipment. None of that is to show off to anyone. Sure I might bring it up in conversation if I think it's interesting and relevant, but it's hardly the "look at me and how awesome I think I am!" vibe that driving a Hummer, living in a Mansion or wearing $50 designer T-shirts is.