4 ms·
Luxury goods have a definition and has little do with how luxurious the potential buyer is: In economics, a luxury good (or upmarket good) is a good for which
by mbesto 4y ago
Luxury goods have a definition and has little do with how luxurious the potential buyer is:
In economics, a luxury good (or upmarket good) is a good for which demand increases more than what is proportional as income rises, so that expenditures on the good become a greater proportion of overall spending. Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods, where demand increases proportionally less than income.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods
- dredmorbius 4y agoThe etymology is interesting, and even more emphatic: c. 1300, "sexual intercourse;" mid-14c., "lasciviousness, sinful self-indulgence;" late 14c., "sensual pleasure," from Old French luxurie "debauchery, dissoluteness, lust" (12c., Modern French luxure), from Latin luxuria "excess, extravagant living, profusion; delicacy" (source also of Spanish lujuria, Italian lussuria), from luxus "excess, extravagance; magnificence," probably a figurative use of luxus (adj.) "dislocated," which is related to luctari "wrestle, strain" (see reluctance). <https://www.etymonline.com/word/luxury https://www.etymonline.com/word/luxury>
- mbesto 4y agoluxury != luxury goods
- dredmorbius 4y agoEtymology informs. It is not definition, but does show sense evolution. That said, this etymology tends to support your position, given that at the heart of luxury is the sense of self-indulgence. Which would seem to apply to the non-essential nature of See's Candies. Regardless, I wasn't arguing for or against your view, only providing what seems to be an interesting datapoint. Cheers.
- mbesto 4y agoOk.