4 ms·
I don't think it's fair to characterise this as some sort of 'trick'. A high quality item, regardless of cost, is generally going to be far more useful and lon
by esotericn 7y ago
I don't think it's fair to characterise this as some sort of 'trick'.
A high quality item, regardless of cost, is generally going to be far more useful and long-lasting, than a low quality item in a different category which costs more.
I would rather own, or buy myself, a $45 scarf than a $55 coat, assuming that the scarf is actually better in its' class and not just a scam (like some designer nonsense with a label on it).
- BeetleB 7y agoI think the parent's point was that even though I spent more, I would be viewed as less generous. Instead of buying you that $45 scarf, I'll go even cheaper. I'll spend $25 for a fancy version of something that normally costs only $10. The "trick" is for the purchaser. If I don't want to spend much money buying someone a gift, this is a hack where I can spend as little as suits me, and still be viewed as generous. Of course, the disconnect only occurs when people view all of this as zero sum. This is a classic example of a win-win: Both sides are (legitimately) happy with the situation. There's nothing wrong/evil about it.
- esotericn 7y agoSure, all of that makes sense, but my argument is that you actually are being less generous by buying a lower quality product, even if it's more expensive. The amount of money spent is not the relevant factor. You're not merely "viewed" as such. Consider a limiting case in which I spend thousands of dollars on something you don't want at all and has no resale value. That's not generous, it's just stupid, or possibly even spiteful.
- BeetleB 7y agoI think you're seriously projecting (as perhaps am I). Not everyone will view a useless $2K gift the way you would (on both the sender and receiver's side).