3 ms·
There is a still a threshold. To even be able to spend 'a few grand' on such things means you have at least that much disposable income, which many many people
by Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
There is a still a threshold. To even be able to spend 'a few grand' on such things means you have at least that much disposable income, which many many people do not. So you may not necessarily be 'rich', but you are most certainly not 'poor'.
- prepend 3y agoI disagree. There’s a lot of consumer debt. People go into debt to rent houses and cars just to post instagram photos. Id say this proves you have at least credit to charge $1,000 or $12,000 for a year. If I was rich, I would not value such a service that has such a bullshit filter. Especially one they is so easy to scam. I expect there are real services that have ways to vet members for actual wealth. I also expect they have PR firms working to stay out of articles like this. But if you want fake rich or people who want to look rich, then you want this kind of PR.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y agoSounds like you wouldn't use this service regardless of whether you were rich or just had good credit (and neither would I) but that's not the point I was making. It's that having $12k a year (either debit or credit, it doesn't matter) that you don't need to spend on things like food and rent is still a luxury for a great many people. People who would never be able to use this app no matter how much they wanted to. This fee is therefore an effective barrier to entry for a considerable segment of the population as intended.
- prepend 3y agoOr $12k is just a cost of doing business to scam or market. And not a good filter at all. I’m not against spending $12k/year on luxury items. But I’m against spending $12k/year on pointless things.