5 ms·

As an European, I’m gonna guess that it’s likely that the comparatively conscious Europeans had grown even more self-aware of the mortality, the future, the pas

by cromka 6y ago

As an European, I’m gonna guess that it’s likely that the comparatively conscious Europeans had grown even more self-aware of the mortality, the future, the past, and our choices. The ongoing trend of reducing travel, the carbon footprint and the global warming would be inversely proportional to luxury spending, and it probably shows in numbers like these.

xwolfi 6y ago
Luxury spending is made to satisfy a very deep human need: show off purported wealth, possibly like animal dances before mating. So, the carbon footprint and global warming, while interesting problems, won't exactly supercede mating parades in humans. Possibly instead, europeans lost a lot more money in the crisis, dont want to mate anymore, or stores are closed. I doubt, as a European myself, that fringe political consideration mattered when choosing between a Vuitton and a chinese handbag. Possibly, the Vuitton had a smaller footprint.
- qnsi 6y ago
  second hand has way smaller footprint. Also your take about signaling wealth is hilarious. Do you think reasonally educated women would prefer a guy with luxurious clothes? For me and my network that would be obnoxious. There is also counter signalling which you can read about. It explains why billionaires in Sillicon Valley wear H&M t-shirts and not L&V
  - tim333 6y ago
    In my experience women are surprisingly influenced by what clothes a guy wears. I've had a couple of women say to me that they are puzzled themselves as to why they are attracted to guys who dress well/cool in ways that don't really make logical sense.
    - murukesh_s 6y ago
      when in the modern history attraction made logical sense? i thought attraction was a measure of physical/mental fitness when such traits mattered (pre-cavemen) for hunting and raising kids.
  - Bayart 6y ago
    >second hand has way smaller footprint. Guess what, handcrafted goods retain far more value and last much longer on the second hand market. The luxury industry and the second market have a lot of synergy. >Do you think reasonally educated women would prefer a guy with luxurious clothes? They do. Women much prefer men who aren't negligent about their appearance. And it's not just about bling.
  - FDSGSG 6y ago
    >It explains why billionaires in Sillicon Valley wear H&M t-shirts and not L&V Cucinelli and Loro Piana, not H&M :)
- flohofwoe 6y ago
  I'd argue that this sort of "showing off" has now mostly been replaced with driving an electric vehicle, consuming organic food or turning to vegan food (and talking about it), keeping your body in shape at the gym, etc... All fairly expensive activities, but none of those include luxury fashion ;) As with many other things, the pandemic might just have accelerated a change that was slowly happening anyway.
- simonebrunozzi 6y ago
  Brilliant comment - you also managed to describe what I already believed to be true, but in a much more succinct way.
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  There may be some merit to the "money problems" arguments, although I'm not sure that people buying luxury fashion items have been hit particularly hard by the crisis. > Luxury spending is made to satisfy a very deep human need: show off purported wealth, possibly like animal dances before mating. This seems more likely to me. To show off, you need to be in the presence of other people. With widespread lockdowns and bans on gatherings, there's less of an opportunity to do this.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    The rich people in Europe aren't 100,000x richer than the average individual. They are 5x, sometimes 10x, and very rarely 100x richer. Most of people that were considered rich here really got poor, especially since many of them derived income from running service and tourism businesses. The few hyper-rich industrialists who profited are much less than a statistical error. Consider: It is rather usual to be acquainted or even a friend with a dollar millionaire in the US, and low millions "aren't even much", while just few million euro places you near the absolute top in Europe.
    - FDSGSG 6y ago
      Depends on where in Europe. The really rich tend to congregate in a few places. A few million won't get you far in Courchevel, you'll still feel poor in Porto Cervo and be nobody at all in London.
anovikov 6y ago
There's absolutely no carbon footprint in luxury spending, because luxury goods are by definition very high-markup. Every buck spent on a Birkin handbag saves that amount from being spent on a gas-guzzling SUV, or more realistically, considering the target group, from being spent on a couple of private jet flights that would emit tens of tons of CO2. If anything, luxury spending must be promoted to reduce carbon intensity of national economies.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  This is a hilarious take. I love it
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  Poe’s Law rearing its head on HN again.
- tim333 6y ago
  Of course it depends which luxury spending. A buy a Van Gogh, not a megayacht campaign might help.
  - anovikov 6y ago
    This is correct, but any luxury spending is still better than non-luxury for the same amount. Private jets are probably the worst, and even them are much better per dollar spent than non-luxury equivalent: cost of fuel makes a much smaller fraction of trip costs than with airlines.
Bayart 6y ago
The environmental criminals in the fashion industry aren't Channel, Hermès and the likes, they're the H&M and Zara of this world. The carbon footprint of the luxury industry is probably insignificant compared to fast fashion dumping chemicals in South East Asian rivers.
- FDSGSG 6y ago
  Hermès seems to be doing a pretty good job with carbon offsetting https://finance.hermes.com/en/climate/ https://finance.hermes.com/en/climate/
wolfretcrap 6y ago
Which rich person is in Europe? All my friends who got rich aren't living in EU, they are in Thailand, Dubai, China, Indonesia or US. All of them have told me EU isn't a good place to spend your money, your money buys more in Asia and they'll only go back to Europe when they get old or run out of money because Europe is a good place to get old because of health services being offered there. Other half friends who are in Europe don't have enough disposable income to afford more than a summer vacation to some other cheap European country.
- FDSGSG 6y ago
  Your friends probably aren't very rich :) For those with a 50MM+ net worth London is probably the most attractive place in the world, and it shows.
  - wolfretcrap 6y ago
    Please tell what's there in London which makes it the most attractive place?
    - FDSGSG 6y ago
      No problem, but you don't have to trust me. The fact that the ultra rich from around the world are moving to London is very well documented. I'll list some reasons anyway: I think we can agree that English is the lingua franca? This automatically renders any place which isn't English speaking less attractive to most people. So out of the big cities we're left with London, New York, maybe Dubai and Hong Kong. I've lived in and arranged relocations for clients to all of these cities. Out of these Dubai has a really unpleasant climate for half of the year, the rest are mostly okay. Only NYC and London have reasonably available high end real estate, in HK an Dubai the quality of finishing tends to be really shit no matter how high end you go. Schools? NYC and London are your only options if you want your kids to have the best education, London definitely edges ahead here and is reasonably close to top schools like Le Rosey. Restaurants? Dubai is out, the rest are fairly even. Demographics? If you're not Chinese you'll have an increasingly difficult time in HK, especially with the recent developments. The other cities are incredibly diverse. Stability? HK is out, NYC will seem iffy to many thanks to the increasing polarization in American politics. Dubai's long term prospects remain to be seen, but despite Brexit UK seems more than okay. Safety? Dubai and HK are incredibly safe as long as you don't upset the government. London is still much safer than NYC. Location? Dubai and London win here. DXB and London are both extremely convenient air travel hubs. For most of the world NYC is far. HKG isn't great unless you're coming from Asia. I think in the end for most of the ultra rich considering moving abroad it'll be a choice between NYC and London. Unless your family already holds US passports, odds are London is the better destination.

by cromka 6y ago

xwolfi 6y ago

Luxury spending is made to satisfy a very deep human need: show off purported wealth, possibly like animal dances before mating. So, the carbon footprint and global warming, while interesting problems, won't exactly supercede mating parades in humans. Possibly instead, europeans lost a lot more money in the crisis, dont want to mate anymore, or stores are closed. I doubt, as a European myself, that fringe political consideration mattered when choosing between a Vuitton and a chinese handbag. Possibly, the Vuitton had a smaller footprint.

qnsi 6y ago
second hand has way smaller footprint. Also your take about signaling wealth is hilarious. Do you think reasonally educated women would prefer a guy with luxurious clothes? For me and my network that would be obnoxious. There is also counter signalling which you can read about. It explains why billionaires in Sillicon Valley wear H&M t-shirts and not L&V
- tim333 6y ago
  In my experience women are surprisingly influenced by what clothes a guy wears. I've had a couple of women say to me that they are puzzled themselves as to why they are attracted to guys who dress well/cool in ways that don't really make logical sense.
  - murukesh_s 6y ago
    when in the modern history attraction made logical sense? i thought attraction was a measure of physical/mental fitness when such traits mattered (pre-cavemen) for hunting and raising kids.
- Bayart 6y ago
  >second hand has way smaller footprint. Guess what, handcrafted goods retain far more value and last much longer on the second hand market. The luxury industry and the second market have a lot of synergy. >Do you think reasonally educated women would prefer a guy with luxurious clothes? They do. Women much prefer men who aren't negligent about their appearance. And it's not just about bling.
- FDSGSG 6y ago
  >It explains why billionaires in Sillicon Valley wear H&M t-shirts and not L&V Cucinelli and Loro Piana, not H&M :)
flohofwoe 6y ago
I'd argue that this sort of "showing off" has now mostly been replaced with driving an electric vehicle, consuming organic food or turning to vegan food (and talking about it), keeping your body in shape at the gym, etc... All fairly expensive activities, but none of those include luxury fashion ;) As with many other things, the pandemic might just have accelerated a change that was slowly happening anyway.
simonebrunozzi 6y ago
Brilliant comment - you also managed to describe what I already believed to be true, but in a much more succinct way.
vladvasiliu 6y ago
There may be some merit to the "money problems" arguments, although I'm not sure that people buying luxury fashion items have been hit particularly hard by the crisis. > Luxury spending is made to satisfy a very deep human need: show off purported wealth, possibly like animal dances before mating. This seems more likely to me. To show off, you need to be in the presence of other people. With widespread lockdowns and bans on gatherings, there's less of an opportunity to do this.
- emteycz 6y ago
  The rich people in Europe aren't 100,000x richer than the average individual. They are 5x, sometimes 10x, and very rarely 100x richer. Most of people that were considered rich here really got poor, especially since many of them derived income from running service and tourism businesses. The few hyper-rich industrialists who profited are much less than a statistical error. Consider: It is rather usual to be acquainted or even a friend with a dollar millionaire in the US, and low millions "aren't even much", while just few million euro places you near the absolute top in Europe.
  - FDSGSG 6y ago
    Depends on where in Europe. The really rich tend to congregate in a few places. A few million won't get you far in Courchevel, you'll still feel poor in Porto Cervo and be nobody at all in London.

anovikov 6y ago

There's absolutely no carbon footprint in luxury spending, because luxury goods are by definition very high-markup. Every buck spent on a Birkin handbag saves that amount from being spent on a gas-guzzling SUV, or more realistically, considering the target group, from being spent on a couple of private jet flights that would emit tens of tons of CO2. If anything, luxury spending must be promoted to reduce carbon intensity of national economies.

imwillofficial 6y ago
This is a hilarious take. I love it
JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
Poe’s Law rearing its head on HN again.
tim333 6y ago
Of course it depends which luxury spending. A buy a Van Gogh, not a megayacht campaign might help.
- anovikov 6y ago
  This is correct, but any luxury spending is still better than non-luxury for the same amount. Private jets are probably the worst, and even them are much better per dollar spent than non-luxury equivalent: cost of fuel makes a much smaller fraction of trip costs than with airlines.

Bayart 6y ago

The environmental criminals in the fashion industry aren't Channel, Hermès and the likes, they're the H&M and Zara of this world. The carbon footprint of the luxury industry is probably insignificant compared to fast fashion dumping chemicals in South East Asian rivers.

FDSGSG 6y ago
Hermès seems to be doing a pretty good job with carbon offsetting https://finance.hermes.com/en/climate/ https://finance.hermes.com/en/climate/

wolfretcrap 6y ago

Which rich person is in Europe? All my friends who got rich aren't living in EU, they are in Thailand, Dubai, China, Indonesia or US. All of them have told me EU isn't a good place to spend your money, your money buys more in Asia and they'll only go back to Europe when they get old or run out of money because Europe is a good place to get old because of health services being offered there. Other half friends who are in Europe don't have enough disposable income to afford more than a summer vacation to some other cheap European country.

FDSGSG 6y ago
Your friends probably aren't very rich :) For those with a 50MM+ net worth London is probably the most attractive place in the world, and it shows.
- wolfretcrap 6y ago
  Please tell what's there in London which makes it the most attractive place?
  - FDSGSG 6y ago
    No problem, but you don't have to trust me. The fact that the ultra rich from around the world are moving to London is very well documented. I'll list some reasons anyway: I think we can agree that English is the lingua franca? This automatically renders any place which isn't English speaking less attractive to most people. So out of the big cities we're left with London, New York, maybe Dubai and Hong Kong. I've lived in and arranged relocations for clients to all of these cities. Out of these Dubai has a really unpleasant climate for half of the year, the rest are mostly okay. Only NYC and London have reasonably available high end real estate, in HK an Dubai the quality of finishing tends to be really shit no matter how high end you go. Schools? NYC and London are your only options if you want your kids to have the best education, London definitely edges ahead here and is reasonably close to top schools like Le Rosey. Restaurants? Dubai is out, the rest are fairly even. Demographics? If you're not Chinese you'll have an increasingly difficult time in HK, especially with the recent developments. The other cities are incredibly diverse. Stability? HK is out, NYC will seem iffy to many thanks to the increasing polarization in American politics. Dubai's long term prospects remain to be seen, but despite Brexit UK seems more than okay. Safety? Dubai and HK are incredibly safe as long as you don't upset the government. London is still much safer than NYC. Location? Dubai and London win here. DXB and London are both extremely convenient air travel hubs. For most of the world NYC is far. HKG isn't great unless you're coming from Asia. I think in the end for most of the ultra rich considering moving abroad it'll be a choice between NYC and London. Unless your family already holds US passports, odds are London is the better destination.