5 ms·

This article connects the virtue of appearing professional to overspending on luxury goods as if they are identical. I'm reminded of the "chav" subculture in B

This article connects the virtue of appearing professional to overspending on luxury goods as if they are identical. I'm reminded of the "chav" subculture in Britain and their love of Burberry. (Extreme example: http://i.imgur.com/8QxFSh5.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8QxFSh5.jpg) I don't get the feeling that they're trying to open doors to the British upper-class, but rather using it as a status-symbol within their own community. Personally I don't see anything wrong with that; everyone wants to look good for their peers. But I feel like the author is trying to make it more noble than it is.

allendoerfer 11y ago
I thought of the same thing. I do not think, that you buy status symbols to move to an upper class, I think they are uniforms to identify yourself within your own class and move to the top of it. Excessive manicure, hair extensions etc. are expensive but seem like a stupid investment. They (in my mind, subjectively) lower your social status, because they are uniforms of the lower class. Moving one class up, a big car is expensive, but you still will not be accepted in the (upper) middle class if you do not have a proper job or you wear a uniform of the lower class. The question arises whether your house is paid of or not and why you bought that car if it is not The farther up you rise in the Bildungsbürgertum [0], the more subtle the indicators get: Do you use foreign words, that indicate your French/Latin language education? Which instruments do your children play? Do your children play football (soccer) or tennis? The point of these status indicators is, that you can not fake them easily. You can not pay of your house if you do not have a proper paying job. You have to get a certain education to show of certain skills. If you have these things you already belong to the respective class. Edit: Wanted to add one more thing: My most favourite social status indicator is the number of children. It seems to me, that having more than 3 children is an indicator of either the lower class, because the marginal costs of an additional child are mostly paid by the state, or the upper class, because you they can handle the marginal costs on their own again. The middle class often does not want to pay these costs. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsb%C3%BCrgertum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsb%C3%BCrgertum
- busyant 11y ago
  > My most favourite social status indicator is the number of children. It seems to me, that having more than 3 children is an indicator of either the lower class, because the marginal costs of an additional child are mostly paid by the state, or the upper class, because you they can handle the marginal costs on their own again. The middle class often does not want to pay these costs. I don't get this. How good of an indicator can it be if >3 is both upper and lower? And is the middle class really pinned at 3?
  - allendoerfer 11y ago
    I do not know, if it is really true, it is just how I perceive it here in Germany. Seems plausible taking into account, that Germany both has the second lowest birth rate worldwide and a relatively large middle class. You can see the social status as a vector of social indicators that together define which class you belong to. The "> 3 kids" indicator assigns or strengthens your assignment to a class, depending on which other indicators you have.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >I don't get this. How good of an indicator can it be if >3 is both upper and lower? The same as any other indicator that has the same boundaries meaning different things on different "modes". 100% cpu is bad if it's from stalled program, but great if it's from a number-crunching app you created to utilize all cores.
- marincounty 11y ago
  In most of America, we don't have a ridid class system. At least where I grew up, how much money you had, and what clothes you wore meant absolutely nothing. In fact, it often worked against you if you happened to have rich parents--the whole spolied rich kid thing. As adults, I guess Americans start to stereotype, but we don't have hard and fast demarcations between low class and upper class. I'm not saying Americans aren't racists, but the whole class thing was never a big deal where I grew up, or I didn't notice it? I have noticed a bit of a change lately, but it's still not a ridid system. I have never heard a guy talk about the economic class a women fits into--Never! They find that special person and will do anything to win them over. In other words, they find that person they find Perfect, and want a relationship--period. (The're usually rejected, but that's another topic.) I have seen women judge people on how much money they come from, but it's not as strong as in other countries, and it usually/always comes from jealousy. Yes, looks do matter. It's a commodity, especially when you are younger. How much money you have doesn't come into the picture until later in life, but that's for men. A pretty, caring female is not judged on how much money she makes. In a lot of circles, it might even work against her? Some of you will call me a sexist over that statement, but it's just something I have noticed. A rich guy who looks/acts like Donald Trump will get his pick. A rich women does not get the same perks. Yes--it's wrong, but I can care less over the happiness of the wealthy. (There I go, I am using wealthy as a demarcation of class? Yes, in American we do talk about the wealthy, and 1 percenter's, but we don't associated it with class, morals, manners, or intelligence. (Donald Trump is a perfect example of a "upper class" person in America. It just doesn't work?) Over the years, I have sat watched movies/series about the upper classes(usually in Great Britain), and always found them hilarious. I know it's because we don't have a monarchy--thank goodness--personally I couldn't stomach all that pomposity, and family lineage b.s.. (This is coming from a 40 someting, who's always lived in liberal communities.) I don't want to argue--I never even come back to posts. I hope I didn't offend anyone concerning their perceived class?)
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
I'm sure I've read a study that claimed that in communities that will be assumed to be poor, more obvious shows of wealth are more common. Which seems a fairly common sense result and would explain a preference for a white t-shirt with an expensive logo rather than a plain white t-shirt. And generally the core functional requirements (warmth, shade etc.) of clothes must be a tiny fraction of what we use them for in society given fashion, tribalism and status signalling.
- malka 11y ago
  > in communities that will be assumed to be poor, more obvious shows of wealth are more common. Your sentence made me think of a saying that we have in France : Knowledge is like jam, the less you have, the more you spread it. (La culture c'est comme la confiture, au moins on en a, au plus on l'etale)
Fede_V 11y ago
Being able to signal that you are respectable is very important, especially if you are a member of a minority group that faces constant stereotyping, and I think the author makes this point very vividly. However, the way you signal that you are respectable is not through conspicuous consumption, but through things like accent, education, knowledge of social norms, shared friendship networks, etc. Poor minorities are definitely underprivileged when it comes to those things - and this is a very serious issue, but spending on things like expensive Nikes or a Gucci bag won't suddenly ingratiate you to authorities or the upper social classes. If anything, the 'ghetto fab' aesthetic specifically rejects the restrained and minimalistic taste displayed by members of the elite. So - I think the author makes a very good point that minorities face lots of difficulties and stereotyping, but she tries to make conspicuous consumption seem far more noble than it is... people buy expensive jewelry as a status marker within their own tribe, not as a way to better themselves.
- kokey 11y ago
  I think you and nostromo describes the situation well from a European, or British, perspective and I think this is different from the US perspective covered in the article. I think the cultures around material status symbols are very different, and social mobility too. In Europe the signals are around things which can't easily be changed over one or even two generations, so material wealth has a different purpose.
  - fauigerzigerk 11y ago
    I'm not sure how what you are saying relates to social mobility. Most European countries, but not Britain, have a lot more social mobility than the US: http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202010.pdf http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202... There are of course many different measures of social mobility so this may not be a generally accepted fact. I feel that language dominates all other signals in Europe, which may be the reason why it doesn't make much sense to buy luxury goods to signal status.
- calibraxis 11y ago
  Conspicuous consumption definitely works, regardless of what some individuals may (believe they) feel about it. Take HN for example. Many well-known startup-y devs joke about those who visit here, like most do with Youtube commenters. After sheepishly mentioning "I sometimes find a useful article there..." the disdain for me becomes palpable and I no longer bring it up out of embarrassment. Nevertheless, wearing the HN shirt is likely effective in some cultures (like a secret handshake). Even if in others it's a Mark of a Fool. And even if it brands you as a wannabee, bosses and investors may see you as a useful wannabee.
tbrake 11y ago
That conflation doesn't exist very strongly in the article at all imo. The piece was about signals. Using the language and mimicking the dress of those acting as gatekeepers to send in-group signals that open doors/ease engagements. "Hey, I'm one of you, treat me better."
calibraxis 11y ago
From the article: "And nothing is more logical than trying to survive." HN commenters may "feel" like "the author is trying to make it more noble than it is." But in reality, the obvious point of the article is to educate the reader on the "logic" behind decent survival. I prefer the author's focus on logic to commenters' "feels". Perhaps these vague feels exist because mainstream media tries to make Dickensian stories out of African-American struggles; mawkish sentiment to make the audience "feel" like they care. Inculcating kneejerk expectations.

allendoerfer 11y ago

I thought of the same thing. I do not think, that you buy status symbols to move to an upper class, I think they are uniforms to identify yourself within your own class and move to the top of it. Excessive manicure, hair extensions etc. are expensive but seem like a stupid investment. They (in my mind, subjectively) lower your social status, because they are uniforms of the lower class. Moving one class up, a big car is expensive, but you still will not be accepted in the (upper) middle class if you do not have a proper job or you wear a uniform of the lower class. The question arises whether your house is paid of or not and why you bought that car if it is not The farther up you rise in the Bildungsbürgertum [0], the more subtle the indicators get: Do you use foreign words, that indicate your French/Latin language education? Which instruments do your children play? Do your children play football (soccer) or tennis? The point of these status indicators is, that you can not fake them easily. You can not pay of your house if you do not have a proper paying job. You have to get a certain education to show of certain skills. If you have these things you already belong to the respective class. Edit: Wanted to add one more thing: My most favourite social status indicator is the number of children. It seems to me, that having more than 3 children is an indicator of either the lower class, because the marginal costs of an additional child are mostly paid by the state, or the upper class, because you they can handle the marginal costs on their own again. The middle class often does not want to pay these costs. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsb%C3%BCrgertum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsb%C3%BCrgertum

busyant 11y ago
> My most favourite social status indicator is the number of children. It seems to me, that having more than 3 children is an indicator of either the lower class, because the marginal costs of an additional child are mostly paid by the state, or the upper class, because you they can handle the marginal costs on their own again. The middle class often does not want to pay these costs. I don't get this. How good of an indicator can it be if >3 is both upper and lower? And is the middle class really pinned at 3?
- allendoerfer 11y ago
  I do not know, if it is really true, it is just how I perceive it here in Germany. Seems plausible taking into account, that Germany both has the second lowest birth rate worldwide and a relatively large middle class. You can see the social status as a vector of social indicators that together define which class you belong to. The "> 3 kids" indicator assigns or strengthens your assignment to a class, depending on which other indicators you have.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >I don't get this. How good of an indicator can it be if >3 is both upper and lower? The same as any other indicator that has the same boundaries meaning different things on different "modes". 100% cpu is bad if it's from stalled program, but great if it's from a number-crunching app you created to utilize all cores.
marincounty 11y ago
In most of America, we don't have a ridid class system. At least where I grew up, how much money you had, and what clothes you wore meant absolutely nothing. In fact, it often worked against you if you happened to have rich parents--the whole spolied rich kid thing. As adults, I guess Americans start to stereotype, but we don't have hard and fast demarcations between low class and upper class. I'm not saying Americans aren't racists, but the whole class thing was never a big deal where I grew up, or I didn't notice it? I have noticed a bit of a change lately, but it's still not a ridid system. I have never heard a guy talk about the economic class a women fits into--Never! They find that special person and will do anything to win them over. In other words, they find that person they find Perfect, and want a relationship--period. (The're usually rejected, but that's another topic.) I have seen women judge people on how much money they come from, but it's not as strong as in other countries, and it usually/always comes from jealousy. Yes, looks do matter. It's a commodity, especially when you are younger. How much money you have doesn't come into the picture until later in life, but that's for men. A pretty, caring female is not judged on how much money she makes. In a lot of circles, it might even work against her? Some of you will call me a sexist over that statement, but it's just something I have noticed. A rich guy who looks/acts like Donald Trump will get his pick. A rich women does not get the same perks. Yes--it's wrong, but I can care less over the happiness of the wealthy. (There I go, I am using wealthy as a demarcation of class? Yes, in American we do talk about the wealthy, and 1 percenter's, but we don't associated it with class, morals, manners, or intelligence. (Donald Trump is a perfect example of a "upper class" person in America. It just doesn't work?) Over the years, I have sat watched movies/series about the upper classes(usually in Great Britain), and always found them hilarious. I know it's because we don't have a monarchy--thank goodness--personally I couldn't stomach all that pomposity, and family lineage b.s.. (This is coming from a 40 someting, who's always lived in liberal communities.) I don't want to argue--I never even come back to posts. I hope I didn't offend anyone concerning their perceived class?)

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

I'm sure I've read a study that claimed that in communities that will be assumed to be poor, more obvious shows of wealth are more common. Which seems a fairly common sense result and would explain a preference for a white t-shirt with an expensive logo rather than a plain white t-shirt. And generally the core functional requirements (warmth, shade etc.) of clothes must be a tiny fraction of what we use them for in society given fashion, tribalism and status signalling.

malka 11y ago
> in communities that will be assumed to be poor, more obvious shows of wealth are more common. Your sentence made me think of a saying that we have in France : Knowledge is like jam, the less you have, the more you spread it. (La culture c'est comme la confiture, au moins on en a, au plus on l'etale)

Fede_V 11y ago

Being able to signal that you are respectable is very important, especially if you are a member of a minority group that faces constant stereotyping, and I think the author makes this point very vividly. However, the way you signal that you are respectable is not through conspicuous consumption, but through things like accent, education, knowledge of social norms, shared friendship networks, etc. Poor minorities are definitely underprivileged when it comes to those things - and this is a very serious issue, but spending on things like expensive Nikes or a Gucci bag won't suddenly ingratiate you to authorities or the upper social classes. If anything, the 'ghetto fab' aesthetic specifically rejects the restrained and minimalistic taste displayed by members of the elite. So - I think the author makes a very good point that minorities face lots of difficulties and stereotyping, but she tries to make conspicuous consumption seem far more noble than it is... people buy expensive jewelry as a status marker within their own tribe, not as a way to better themselves.

kokey 11y ago
I think you and nostromo describes the situation well from a European, or British, perspective and I think this is different from the US perspective covered in the article. I think the cultures around material status symbols are very different, and social mobility too. In Europe the signals are around things which can't easily be changed over one or even two generations, so material wealth has a different purpose.
- fauigerzigerk 11y ago
  I'm not sure how what you are saying relates to social mobility. Most European countries, but not Britain, have a lot more social mobility than the US: http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202010.pdf http://www.oecd.org/eco/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202... There are of course many different measures of social mobility so this may not be a generally accepted fact. I feel that language dominates all other signals in Europe, which may be the reason why it doesn't make much sense to buy luxury goods to signal status.
calibraxis 11y ago
Conspicuous consumption definitely works, regardless of what some individuals may (believe they) feel about it. Take HN for example. Many well-known startup-y devs joke about those who visit here, like most do with Youtube commenters. After sheepishly mentioning "I sometimes find a useful article there..." the disdain for me becomes palpable and I no longer bring it up out of embarrassment. Nevertheless, wearing the HN shirt is likely effective in some cultures (like a secret handshake). Even if in others it's a Mark of a Fool. And even if it brands you as a wannabee, bosses and investors may see you as a useful wannabee.

tbrake 11y ago

That conflation doesn't exist very strongly in the article at all imo. The piece was about signals. Using the language and mimicking the dress of those acting as gatekeepers to send in-group signals that open doors/ease engagements. "Hey, I'm one of you, treat me better."

calibraxis 11y ago

From the article: "And nothing is more logical than trying to survive." HN commenters may "feel" like "the author is trying to make it more noble than it is." But in reality, the obvious point of the article is to educate the reader on the "logic" behind decent survival. I prefer the author's focus on logic to commenters' "feels". Perhaps these vague feels exist because mainstream media tries to make Dickensian stories out of African-American struggles; mawkish sentiment to make the audience "feel" like they care. Inculcating kneejerk expectations.