Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#31

Post by wyager »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #29
wyager wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather everyone be uneducated and poor as shit? Honestly, this is such an insane sentiment. Things are getting better for everyone! Increased focus on health and education is obviously a good thing for society; you have to have some seriously fucked up priorities if you think jealousy is a reasonable objection to that fact.

You've strawmanned me into a black & white cartoon character, sufficiently that my views can be labelled "jealous", "fucked up", "insane". That is way out of bounds for HN. Recognizing the flaws in a system is not advocating tearing it down, or even shifting direction. For instance, you can simultaneously believe that the carbon emissions of countries lifting themselves out of poverty will be an ecological disaster,…

The belief that exact equality of outcome is more important than human progress is insane (and very destructive), and it doesn't deserve a polite response.

Feel free to advocate for politically motivated artificial poverty, and I'll feel free to object in very strong terms.

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#32

Post by Raphael_Amiard »

There is nothing new or subtle about it. This subject has been thoroughly explored by the French school of sociology, most notably Pierre Bourdieu, some 60 years ago, with much more detail and academic rigor.

I understand that an article cannot show the same level of detaik as a sociology book, but framing it as new is either disingenuous or uneducated.

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#33

Post by dagw »

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #25
guelo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is to tax the rich (gasp!) and provide good education and health care for everybody.

How is that an alternative? Both can and should co-exist. Edit: that is to say, yes, I'm in favor of taxing the rich and universal healthcare. I don't see how enacting those policies would be an alternative to people investing their resources in improving their own lives in ways that are harmless to society at large, if not beneficial.

How is that an alternative? Both can and should co-exist.

Sure, but in countries that have a really good free public university system even the rich want to send their kids there. In fact going to to a private fee-charging university can be seen a sign that you weren't smart enough to get into a good university on your own merits.

That being said the rich can and will use their money to increase the chance of their kids getting into those good universities by moving to neighborhoods that increase the chances of their kids getting into good primary schools, so that they can get into good high schools.

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#34

Post by reitzensteinm »

wyager wrote: post #31
reitzensteinm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've strawmanned me into a black & white cartoon character, sufficiently that my views can be labelled "jealous", "fucked up", "insane". That is way out of bounds for HN. Recognizing the flaws in a system is not advocating tearing it down, or even shifting direction. For instance, you can simultaneously believe that the carbon emissions of countries lifting themselves out of poverty will be an ecological disaster,…

The belief that exact equality of outcome is more important than human progress is insane (and very destructive), and it doesn't deserve a polite response. Feel free to advocate for politically motivated artificial poverty, and I'll feel free to object in very strong terms.

But I didn't advocate for that, and no reasonable person would have put those words in my mouth based on my original post.

If you're looking for an argument, why not just walk down the street shouting at random people that look like they might have socialist leanings. I guess it takes less courage to do it over the internet.

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#35

Post by lordgrenville »

nopinsight wrote: post #12

Spending more on health, education, and retirement is thinking long-term. Is that a cause or an effect of being wealthy? Perhaps in the old days, when overt classism was still accepted, conspicuous consumption yielded something for the spender. Now it is often frawned upon in the West, why bother? So the money saved is invested in consumption/investments with better returns. That is rational.

Exactly. the article may be correct that luxury spending is declining, but investing in education, retirement and health aren't replacements for that - there are other reasons why they correlate with wealth, but they're not for social capital. Also, from my small anecdotal familiarity with the rich, I don't think that they impress each other by name-dropping The Economist and New Yorker articles (perhaps a subset of the educated do, but not all of them are rich).

I believe the real luxury good of today is exclusivity and privacy: private dating apps and social networks, vacations, clubs, etc. This article covers it well: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/magazine/how-privacy-beca...

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#36

Post by vilmosi »

nopinsight wrote: post #12

Spending more on health, education, and retirement is thinking long-term. Is that a cause or an effect of being wealthy? Perhaps in the old days, when overt classism was still accepted, conspicuous consumption yielded something for the spender. Now it is often frawned upon in the West, why bother? So the money saved is invested in consumption/investments with better returns. That is rational.

> Spending more on health, education, and retirement is thinking long-term. Is that a cause or an effect of being wealthy?

Probably an effect. You can't choose to invest long-term if you can't afford it.

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#37

Post by shalmanese »

anguswithgusto wrote: post #16
TrickyRick wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it really stupid? I thought it was an interesting analysis of consumer behavior

"The new, subtle ways" of signalling wealth in this article are neither new, subtle, nor interesting. You're telling me: -Rich people bragging about going to/sending their kids to nice schools -Eating fancy food -Ostentatiously namedropping highbrow pop culture are some sort of recent phenomena? Come on :)

Traditionally, there was "old money" and "new money" where entry into the old money class didn't rely solely on wealth but also on subtle social signifiers. What's new is the emergence of a class of "new old money" that adopts the same social signalling techniques of old money, even with new wealth.

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#38

Post by wyager »

reitzensteinm wrote: post #34
wyager wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The belief that exact equality of outcome is more important than human progress is insane (and very destructive), and it doesn't deserve a polite response. Feel free to advocate for politically motivated artificial poverty, and I'll feel free to object in very strong terms.

But I didn't advocate for that, and no reasonable person would have put those words in my mouth based on my original post. If you're looking for an argument, why not just walk down the street shouting at random people that look like they might have socialist leanings. I guess it takes less courage to do it over the internet.

Well then please, tell me how to interpret your post about the "self perpetuating inequality" of the search for health and wisdom.

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#39

Post by nopinsight »

vilmosi wrote: post #36
nopinsight wrote: post #12

Spending more on health, education, and retirement is thinking long-term. Is that a cause or an effect of being wealthy? Perhaps in the old days, when overt classism was still accepted, conspicuous consumption yielded something for the spender. Now it is often frawned upon in the West, why bother? So the money saved is invested in consumption/investments with better returns. That is rational.

> Spending more on health, education, and retirement is thinking long-term. Is that a cause or an effect of being wealthy? Probably an effect. You can't choose to invest long-term if you can't afford it.

There are many poor people in developing countries who sacrifice a lot of things and save every bit they can to invest in the education of their children. This phenomenon is very pronounced in China and several countries with Confucius influence.

Families with this kind of mindset are unlikely to stay poor for more than 1-2 generations. (This is probably one reason why hundreds of millions in China arose from poverty to middle-class in a single generation, although I do not see many economists in the West discussing it in the context of China's rise.)

---

"Zhang Yang, a bright 18-year old from a rural town in Anhui province in China was accepted to study at a prestigious traditional medicine college in Hefei. But the news was too much for his father Zhang Jiasheng.

Zhang's father was partly paralysed after he suffered a stroke two years ago and could no longer work. He feared the family, already in debt to pay for medicines, would not be able to afford his son's tuition fees.

As his son headed home to celebrate his success, Zhang Jiasheng killed himself by swallowing pesticide.

Zhang's case is an extreme. But East Asian families are spending more and more of their money on securing their children the best possible education.

In richer Asian countries such as South Korea and emerging countries like China, "education fever" is forcing families to make choices, sometimes dramatic ones, to afford the bills.

There are families selling their apartments to raise the funds to send their children to study overseas.

---

Extreme Spending

...

It is not just middle-class families. Workers also want their children to do better than themselves and see education as the only means of ensuring social mobility. Some go deep into debt.

"Families are spending less on other things. There are many cases of rural parents not buying healthcare that their doctors urge on them... Part of the reason is that they would rather spend the money on their children's education," said Mr Kipnis.

"

From http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24537487

Re: The new, subtle ways the rich signal their wealth

#40

Post by vilmosi »

nopinsight wrote: post #39
vilmosi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spending more on health, education, and retirement is thinking long-term. Is that a cause or an effect of being wealthy? Probably an effect. You can't choose to invest long-term if you can't afford it.

There are many poor people in developing countries who sacrifice a lot of things and save every bit they can to invest in the education of their children. This phenomenon is very pronounced in China and several countries with Confucius influence. Families with this kind of mindset are unlikely to stay poor for more than 1-2 generations. (This is probably one reason why hundreds of millions in China arose from poverty…

> Families with this kind of mindset are unlikely to stay poor for more than 1-2 generations. (This is probably one reason why hundreds of millions in China arose from poverty to middle-class in a single generation, although I do not see many economists in the West discussing it in the context of China's rise.)

What? China's economic boom has little to do with their view on education. They "simply" moved from farmers in extreme poverty to 6 day/12h shifts factory workers in poverty. I don't dispute it's relatively better for everyone, but it's hardly something to aspire to (particularly since other countries made the transition ages ago, so it's not even replicable unless we're talking about a really poor country that now has to compete with China too).

The BBC article has a much more negative spin about this than you portray. It even suggests it can be detrimental to the country.

The real reason some cultures obsess about education is because there are severe and very real penalties if you fail some exam in middle school.

Finally, this is direct contradiction with your parent comment. Are poor people poor because they don't invest in the future or are they more likely to? Because if all you're saying is that poor people who invest long-term will not stay poor, that's almost a tautology.

Post reply on HN