3 ms·

I find the most interesting bracket the 5-8M one where almost anything highend / luxury becomes a commodity.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago
Another related interesting one is that rich people don't wear brands anymore - brands are for normal people, they're advertised to look like they are for the rich but their prices are still in range for a lot of people if they put some money aside. This starts with iphones and airpods and goes to Louis Vuitton and the like. The tech billionaires don't wear anything branded or flashy besides their $1M watches, just good and well fitting clothes.
- mathverse 1y ago
  The definition of rich is not a tech billionaire though. It is literally anyone that can afford the LVMH and co. It is definitely aimed at rich people just not billionaires. But yes these brands become commodity from a certain point...although one has to be rich to be fully dressed in those clothes and change / rotate every day.
snowwrestler 1y ago
You think that happens at wealth = $5 million? One high-end luxury house costs more than that.
- mathverse 1y ago
  I am thinking liquid not net worth.
  - snowwrestler 1y ago
    Yes, exactly, a person with $5 million liquid can afford to buy maybe 1 luxury home. Sure they probably already own a home, but 2nd homes are not uncommon luxuries. As a reminder you said “almost anything highend / luxury becomes a commodity.” Or look at this way: $5 million throws off $200k/year (pre-tax) with a “safe” pull rate of 4%. Ok so now you want to buy a luxury car, that’s over $100k. You’ve spent most of your annual income on one car. Hardly a commodity! $5 million is enough to sustain an upper class income in most metro regions. But a long way from commodifying luxury.
    - Suppafly 1y ago
      >Ok so now you want to buy a luxury car, that’s over $100k. There is a reason rich people lease a lot of times and buy things with borrowed money that they'll never have to pay back.

Another related interesting one is that rich people don't wear brands anymore - brands are for normal people, they're advertised to look like they are for the rich but their prices are still in range for a lot of people if they put some money aside. This starts with iphones and airpods and goes to Louis Vuitton and the like. The tech billionaires don't wear anything branded or flashy besides their $1M watches, just good and well fitting clothes.

mathverse 1y ago
The definition of rich is not a tech billionaire though. It is literally anyone that can afford the LVMH and co. It is definitely aimed at rich people just not billionaires. But yes these brands become commodity from a certain point...although one has to be rich to be fully dressed in those clothes and change / rotate every day.

snowwrestler 1y ago

You think that happens at wealth = $5 million? One high-end luxury house costs more than that.

mathverse 1y ago
I am thinking liquid not net worth.
- snowwrestler 1y ago
  Yes, exactly, a person with $5 million liquid can afford to buy maybe 1 luxury home. Sure they probably already own a home, but 2nd homes are not uncommon luxuries. As a reminder you said “almost anything highend / luxury becomes a commodity.” Or look at this way: $5 million throws off $200k/year (pre-tax) with a “safe” pull rate of 4%. Ok so now you want to buy a luxury car, that’s over $100k. You’ve spent most of your annual income on one car. Hardly a commodity! $5 million is enough to sustain an upper class income in most metro regions. But a long way from commodifying luxury.
  - Suppafly 1y ago
    >Ok so now you want to buy a luxury car, that’s over $100k. There is a reason rich people lease a lot of times and buy things with borrowed money that they'll never have to pay back.