4 ms·

1. Prestige = status symbol. OK. We get it. 2. Quality... Well, my phone is my watch. Moot point. I'm not buying and discarding $20 Timex's every year. Not to

• Nadya 11y ago
  1. I said skip over that for a reason. :) 2. Do you bring your phone out during lengthy business meetings? I still see that as rude, even if all you are doing is checking the time. Checking a wristwatch is far more acceptable and subtle in that scenario. Perhaps you aren't in lengthy business meetings or perhaps your work environment is a bit more forgiving at looking at your phone during a meeting. 3. Beanie babies were a 90's fad based on thin air and speculation. Watches and other antiques with years of history backing up their ability to maintain and increase in value is a different kind of investment. Luxury items are luxury items. They tend to maintain or increase in value based on that merit alone. Beanie Babies aren't luxury items, thus are worthless only a few years after the collection fad died out. It's written to answer why one would buy a pre-owned luxury watch but the reasons apply to new items as well.
  • mfoy_ 11y ago
    All I'm saying is that a luxury watch doesn't bring anything fundamentally new to the table. There's no reason anyone would look at the Rolex on your wrist and be jealous of anything other than the status it implies. It's not like a starving person watching someone eat.
    • Nadya 11y ago
      You seem to be missing the argument that a Coke is not a Coke when someone cannot afford the Coke and has to buy Shasta. I'm not arguing in defense of luxury brands. I live an incredibly frugal lifestyle. But the argument that a Coke is a Coke does not hold up when you move outside of commodity goods and enter the realm of luxury goods. Luxury goods are the counter example to a Coke being a Coke. The argument that a Coke is a Coke is that you are drinking the same Coke as the President of the United States of America. Even if you're just some bum off the streets. That argument fails to hold for any luxury brand item. The bottle of wine you hold in your hand is not the same bottle of wine that the multi-billionaire is holding in theirs. The inequality and "spending money for spending moneys' sake" is explicitly encoded into the practice of selling "prestige"/luxury items. These items are designed to separate the wealthy and the poor. Coke isn't designed that way: it's a confirmation bias. Selecting data that supports a given claim while ignoring all data that counters the claim. I make no argument as to whether luxury goods are a good or bad thing. Only that it is naive to think that income inequality is not widespread or a "problem" because "everyone drinks the same Coke". That is simply not true in many other markets and regarding many other goods: many of which are entirely designed and priced to be outside of the commonmans' income level. >"What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it. " The richest consumers do not buy the same things as the poorest in many markets. Sure, they drink the same Coke. They don't drink the same wine. They don't buy the same cars. They don't buy Section 8 Houses. They don't buy single-ply toilet paper. They don't buy their generic no-name brand clothes at Walmart. They aren't flying coach. The difference between all of those markets and Coke is there isn't a luxury brand soda. So of course the rich will drink the same Coke as the poor.