*blink*

[unixronin]

So, in one or another of the Batman movies, one of the journalist characters comments that the rich are different from other people.  If this item is anything to go by, I'd say the difference is they're more gullible.  $1895 regular retail for a vest that, aside from the name on the label, isn't noticeably different from similar items sold for about $1830 less by the likes of, say, Old Navy or Dillard's?  Just what exactly does over $1800 worth of "better" look like that doesn't show in this photo?

Fashionistas are from another planet.  Seriously.

Comments

[otherbill.livejournal.com]

Yes, but if it retails for $1800, think of the bargain they're getting when they can buy it for $800! That's over half off!!

-rolls eyes-

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

My experience with the non-Hollowwood rich, is that they buy very high quality, and use it for years. Most bought jewelry from a specific pawn shop that specialized in jewelry. (Jewelry is a good example for this. Stones are worthless unless over a carat. The true cost of a piece is the cost of the metal. Very nice items can be bought from pawn shops for their true value, rather than the inflated costs most stores charge.)

Fashion is not a real consideration for the wealthy. They buy conservative things that will not go out of fashion. This type of nonsense is bait for the idiot upper middle class and the brand new lottery winners.

Anyone that has worked and saved their way to wealth would never part with that much lucre for such a cheap item. I am reminded of a friend of mine, who is VERY well off, waiting in line for a <$20.00 refund at the airport. That is typical of the wealthy that I know.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I should have said "nouveau riche" rather than "wealthy". What I really had in mind was the Bling Set.

[rbos.livejournal.com]

And then there are the rich brats from immigrant HK families..

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

There are two parts to this.

Anyone well educated has a sense of the value of money, and wants value in exchange for money. So, shop at sales, look for deals, etc.

On the other hand, for every level of wealth, there is an amount of money below which purchases should be beneath your notice. Bill Gates is worth around $40bn, and probably doesn't think much about anything less than $1m, unless it's right in front of him (like a restaurant bill). It's a waste of his time, otherwise.

This leads to behavior like, "I saw that, it cost less than my "notice" threshhold, so I bought it."

Which looks like madness to someone who is counting pennies and dollars.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It's a valid point. And I think there's a valid argument that the high-fashion designers for the wealthy segment are exploiting that.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I have heard that argument, from my social peers, many times. The point I was trying to make is that my direct experience says that this is not true. The wealthy do NOT have a threshold below which they do not care. The closest thing to that being true is that they no longer do their own taxes.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Given the size and complexity of the federal tax code, plus tax codes of however many states you may be involved in, it's insane to do your own taxes - having the model in your head plus tracking changes is a full time job. Then add penalties for getting it wrong.

This is why there are professional tax accountants. This is also why all Congresscritters and state legislators should be required to do their own taxes by themselves, and be audited every year.

W.r.t. spending I think you missed the distinction I was trying to make, i.e. what's worth worrying about in abstract in the context of one's total wealth, versus what's right in front of you at any given moment.

When I'm in a store and shopping, I'm almost always thinking, "is this the best price for this item? Is it worth what they're asking?" That's the "I want value for money" half of the equation working. Bear in mind that worth is not simply a question of cost+markup, but also "worth to me."

However, there are times when I just say, "I want to do/buy this thing, it's less than $X which is beneath my notice, so I'm just doing it."

But everyone hates being dinged unnecessarily, even when the amount of money involved is trivial. The trouble is, one has to recognize that when the amount of money involved is "trivial" in context, it's a psychological tick, not a rational decision. I have this issue over hotels that deliver that awful rag "USA Today" to my doorstep, and then charge me $1 extra each day. I always refuse, and try to get the amount reversed. Of course, it's not rational, but ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

This is also why all Congresscritters and state legislators should be required to do their own taxes by themselves, and be audited every year.

I could DEFINITELY go along with that.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

I am not really missing the point.

There is a tendency to lump all the rich into the "Paris Hilton" crowd. That is simply because that group is conspicuously rich and incredibly wasteful.

The wealthy that I know are the founders of companies, or sit on the boards of Russell 2000 companies, or are past executives of those companies. They are clearly in the top 1% of all earners in the country. The tendency you are describing, to have a "doesn't matter" threshold much higher than mine, doesn't survive contact with any of my personal experience.

I think that Sam Vimes has a clearer perspective on what it means to be wealthy than most of us. It means not buying a $10.00 pair of boots that will only last a few months, so you have to replace them six times a year. It means buying the $50.00 pair of boots that you will never need to replace. It means saving everything, so that when you need something, you never need to go out and buy it, it just needs to be pulled out of storage. Given that Terry Pratchett is the second most wealthy author living in the UK, he just might have some real insight.

I am not missing your point, I just feel that it doesn't match my personal experience, so I believe it to be in error.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It means not buying a $10.00 pair of boots that will only last a few months, so you have to replace them six times a year. It means buying the $50.00 pair of boots that you will never need to replace.

When I go out and buy tools, for example, I don't buy the cheapest tool I can find that'll get the job done. I buy the best quality tool I can justify buying for that job and the number of times I expect to use that tool again in future. Since I try to avoid buying specialized tools that are only good for one job that you might have to do twice in ten years, that usually means I have a lot of future uses of the tool in mind.

That way, I very seldom have to buy a tool twice.

$1800 for a fairly boring and vanilla vest is still insane, even if I liked that style or had a use for it, which I don't.

(I believe I've identified a safari vest that will do what I wanted, for $30 from an online milsurp vendor.)

Exactly!

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

The quote you use is not mine, but Sam Vimes, a character in Terry Pratchett's Discworld. In that fantasy, the $10.00 boots are the only ones that are possible to buy because of income, $50.00 is three or four months gross salary.

Why would anyone assume that someone who is capable of amassing large quantities of cash, (or even just keeping the same) loses the habit of frugality? The habits that enable folk to become wealthy do not allow spendthrift behavior, even at the sub dollar level. They are just like you and your tools. They buy the best that they can justify. That is probably better quality than I can afford.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

I don't like that jacket it looks too emasculating. :)

There is a time when quality counts and leather is that time. I bought a 100 dollar leather coat that is pretty wretched. So if I ever do get another one

I'll either go in better informed or save my money and buy goretex.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, to me it looks like something a very junior accountant at a rather stuffy accounting firm might have worn in about 1930.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Really? I think it's gorgeous. Nice clean lines, a good European cut.

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

I won't go so far as to say gorgeous but it is nice clean lines. Neck is a bit high and so are the pockets. Take the pockets off and drop the neck by an inch and it would be lovely.

[blackcoat.livejournal.com]

1800usd worth of lovely?

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

Not unless it was made with cloth of gold.

So if you want his bike... take the opportunity to visit the other Gweepers. :-)

[blackcoat.livejournal.com]

Note the "Never, ever doing the Iron Butt thing again." It would be stupid expensive to ship it across the US, and there really isn't much further away I could live and still be in the lower 48.

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

So you're in San Diego then. :-)

Oh well.

(It's not that I want him to sell the bike but needs must when the devil drives)

[blackcoat.livejournal.com]

Just south of San Fransisco, actually. But it's actually *shorter* to San Diego then me by about 30 miles. (it's more of a straight shot, no hook through the rockies/sierra nevadas.)

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

Huh. So Redwood City or South San Francisco?

We lived in Valley West in San Jose, off of 880 (the Dixon Landing exit) in Milpitas, and in Tracy.

[blackcoat.livejournal.com]

Moss Beach, actually.

Little sleepy town right below Pacifica on 1, basically the west end of 92. I live about three hundred yards from the Pacific. You really can't get much more west then I without moving to hawaii. (That's another reason why SD is closer. They're South EAST of me. :)

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

I keep forgetting how much the Southern California coast hugs in.

I used to live in Morro Bay above San Luis Obispo. Attended Cal Poly for a year.

[olafthunderfoot.livejournal.com]

the link didn't work for me!