3 ms·

If I had a 100k cinema room ... I would ask myself some hard questions about my priorities in life.

ben_w 7y ago
If you were a billionaire, and 100k was 0.01% of your net worth? If someone owned a €300k home with neither mortgage nor investments, that’s the equivalent of €30. I’m may not be impressed with their blasé attitude to money, but I bet I looked more wasteful than that to a Nairobi friend of my partner when I visited on a plane ticket that cost half their annual rent, £350.
gambiting 7y ago
It's a sort of thing that you build when money is meaningless. And at that point you can still have very valid priorities - helping other people out, setting up charities, etc etc. Your house just happens to have a cinema room - it's no different "luxury" than having underfloor heating in your bathroom. It's comparably unnecessary, just on a different financial scale.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  > it's no different "luxury" than having underfloor heating in your bathroom. It's comparably unnecessary, just on a different financial scale. Underfloor heating is not unnecessary, in fact it is about 10% more efficient in operating cost[1] as it can operate at lower inlet temperatures (30-35 °C, compared to 60+ °C for conventional radiators). In addition conventional radiators are often placed on the outside-facing wall below a window, which means that much of the generated heat gets lost. As for the installation costs, for new construction conventional radiators and underfloor heating are approximately at the same price level. [1]: https://www.t-online.de/heim-garten/energie/id_73373816/fussbodenheizung-das-sind-die-vor-und-nachteile.html https://www.t-online.de/heim-garten/energie/id_73373816/fuss...
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    And $100k home cinema is more efficient than having to go to actual cinema. Still, a luxury.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      No, you want a heating in your home regardless, and if both options have the same cost, then it is not a luxury, it's standard (at least when compared to other modern countries, though)

If you were a billionaire, and 100k was 0.01% of your net worth? If someone owned a €300k home with neither mortgage nor investments, that’s the equivalent of €30. I’m may not be impressed with their blasé attitude to money, but I bet I looked more wasteful than that to a Nairobi friend of my partner when I visited on a plane ticket that cost half their annual rent, £350.

gambiting 7y ago

It's a sort of thing that you build when money is meaningless. And at that point you can still have very valid priorities - helping other people out, setting up charities, etc etc. Your house just happens to have a cinema room - it's no different "luxury" than having underfloor heating in your bathroom. It's comparably unnecessary, just on a different financial scale.

mschuster91 7y ago
> it's no different "luxury" than having underfloor heating in your bathroom. It's comparably unnecessary, just on a different financial scale. Underfloor heating is not unnecessary, in fact it is about 10% more efficient in operating cost[1] as it can operate at lower inlet temperatures (30-35 °C, compared to 60+ °C for conventional radiators). In addition conventional radiators are often placed on the outside-facing wall below a window, which means that much of the generated heat gets lost. As for the installation costs, for new construction conventional radiators and underfloor heating are approximately at the same price level. [1]: https://www.t-online.de/heim-garten/energie/id_73373816/fussbodenheizung-das-sind-die-vor-und-nachteile.html https://www.t-online.de/heim-garten/energie/id_73373816/fuss...
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  And $100k home cinema is more efficient than having to go to actual cinema. Still, a luxury.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    No, you want a heating in your home regardless, and if both options have the same cost, then it is not a luxury, it's standard (at least when compared to other modern countries, though)