18 ms·

I think the price matters insofar as they clearly have the revenue to produce quality goods safely. But they'd rather inflict human misery on people to save 0.4

I think the price matters insofar as they clearly have the revenue to produce quality goods safely. But they'd rather inflict human misery on people to save 0.4% of the retail cost.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> they clearly have the revenue to produce quality goods safely The headline figure does “not include raw materials such as leather,” nor core costs like distribution, R&D, retail and marketing. (That a “luxury” brand can be made by abused workers is a separate farce.)
14 2y ago
I find it funny rich people buying a cheaply made Chinese product and thinking it is a status symbol and that their bag is superior.
- chmod775 2y ago
  There's not enough actually rich people around to explain the revenue these brands make. It's not rich people for the most part, just people who want to appear rich. These brands exist to separate the 100k-200k household income demographic from their disposable income, and maybe some other demographics from money they didn't really have in the first place. Most people who have money and manage to hold on to it have more sense than buying an overpriced low-quality bag that telegraphs they're a sucker.
  - GreatLdisisp88 2y ago
    You obviously havnt heard of ex-Malaysian Prime Minister's wife bag collection. There are rich or super rich people with habits like a drug addicts buying up these branded goods. Is basically like YTers getting patreon patrons. They dont need millions of followers. They just need 1000 hardcore fans that pay them monthly.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  I'd figure that the "status" it symbolizes is some combination of: - Juvenile any-excuse-to-say-I'm-betterism - Convenient stupidity - Willful ignorance - Gloating that they're in the 0.1%, and need not care what is done to the bottom 99% in the name of catering to their petty wishes (But I'll admit that, if enough of their social circle has such "luxuries", then they're stuck in a "I am in Rome, so ..." situation.)

I think the price matters insofar as they clearly have the revenue to produce quality goods safely. But they'd rather inflict human misery on people to save 0.4% of the retail cost.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> they clearly have the revenue to produce quality goods safely The headline figure does “not include raw materials such as leather,” nor core costs like distribution, R&D, retail and marketing. (That a “luxury” brand can be made by abused workers is a separate farce.)

14 2y ago

I find it funny rich people buying a cheaply made Chinese product and thinking it is a status symbol and that their bag is superior.

chmod775 2y ago
There's not enough actually rich people around to explain the revenue these brands make. It's not rich people for the most part, just people who want to appear rich. These brands exist to separate the 100k-200k household income demographic from their disposable income, and maybe some other demographics from money they didn't really have in the first place. Most people who have money and manage to hold on to it have more sense than buying an overpriced low-quality bag that telegraphs they're a sucker.
- GreatLdisisp88 2y ago
  You obviously havnt heard of ex-Malaysian Prime Minister's wife bag collection. There are rich or super rich people with habits like a drug addicts buying up these branded goods. Is basically like YTers getting patreon patrons. They dont need millions of followers. They just need 1000 hardcore fans that pay them monthly.
bell-cot 2y ago
I'd figure that the "status" it symbolizes is some combination of: - Juvenile any-excuse-to-say-I'm-betterism - Convenient stupidity - Willful ignorance - Gloating that they're in the 0.1%, and need not care what is done to the bottom 99% in the name of catering to their petty wishes (But I'll admit that, if enough of their social circle has such "luxuries", then they're stuck in a "I am in Rome, so ..." situation.)