4 ms·

But surely doing whatever works for you is OK? Some people love "creating memories", some people love to have more "social status", some love $4 wooden rings, s

But surely doing whatever works for you is OK? Some people love "creating memories", some people love to have more "social status", some love $4 wooden rings, some love $40K diamond rings; everyone is different, let all the flowers bloom. (De Beers are still the big baddies though)

dbrgn 3y ago
If you have lots of money and like fancy rings, sure, go for it! If you just finished your college, sit on a big pile of student loans, work in your first job and then spend several months of income on a shiny rock, then that is a bad financial decision, no matter whether you love diamond rings or not. (And from what I hear, this situation happens a lot, due to social pressure and "desired social status".)
- smikhanov 3y ago
  I personally would never even think of denying a poor graduate from trying, however clumsily, to impress the girl he fancies with some unaffordable ring. Bad financial decision? Maybe. Story of beautiful romance? Absolutely.
  - ahoka 3y ago
    Do you seriously think that healthy relationships can be bought with money?
  - closewith 3y ago
    > Story of beautiful romance? Absolutely. Going into unaffordable debt for a trinket is a story of beautiful romance to you? That's just profoundly sad.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    "Aww, you risked bankruptcy unnecessarily because you think I'm vain. And now you want me to be financially bound to you for life. How sweet."
kajaktum 3y ago
> But surely doing whatever works for you is OK? Externality exists. The 40K$ diamond ring goes to some of the worse people in our society.
mhardcastle 3y ago
Social status is positional and follows arms race dynamics. Everyone would have more money and nobody would suffer worse ring-positional-status if everyone spent proportionately less. Also, there is a deep body of economics and psychology literature describing how individual spending decisions are sometimes suboptimal in predictable ways, particularly that we under-value experiential purchases. It doesn't contradict general "live and let live" principles to think that cultural emphasis on positional goods is bad, nor that individuals might be better off if they made different consumption choices.

dbrgn 3y ago

If you have lots of money and like fancy rings, sure, go for it! If you just finished your college, sit on a big pile of student loans, work in your first job and then spend several months of income on a shiny rock, then that is a bad financial decision, no matter whether you love diamond rings or not. (And from what I hear, this situation happens a lot, due to social pressure and "desired social status".)

smikhanov 3y ago
I personally would never even think of denying a poor graduate from trying, however clumsily, to impress the girl he fancies with some unaffordable ring. Bad financial decision? Maybe. Story of beautiful romance? Absolutely.
- ahoka 3y ago
  Do you seriously think that healthy relationships can be bought with money?
- closewith 3y ago
  > Story of beautiful romance? Absolutely. Going into unaffordable debt for a trinket is a story of beautiful romance to you? That's just profoundly sad.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  "Aww, you risked bankruptcy unnecessarily because you think I'm vain. And now you want me to be financially bound to you for life. How sweet."

kajaktum 3y ago

> But surely doing whatever works for you is OK? Externality exists. The 40K$ diamond ring goes to some of the worse people in our society.

mhardcastle 3y ago

Social status is positional and follows arms race dynamics. Everyone would have more money and nobody would suffer worse ring-positional-status if everyone spent proportionately less. Also, there is a deep body of economics and psychology literature describing how individual spending decisions are sometimes suboptimal in predictable ways, particularly that we under-value experiential purchases. It doesn't contradict general "live and let live" principles to think that cultural emphasis on positional goods is bad, nor that individuals might be better off if they made different consumption choices.