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

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#141

Post by charlesdm »

Antimachides wrote: post #131
charlesdm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything is about money though. Want to have an extravagant wedding? Fine. Want something basic? Also fine. Yes: diamonds, jewellery, mechanical watches etc are all bad value for money. People don't buy them because they're bad value. They buy them because they like wearing them, and women buy jewellery because it makes them feel pretty. That's life. It's fine throwing money away sometime.

Not fine with me. If a girl wanted a diamond ring and/or and extravagant wedding I'd dump her. Materialistic, low IQ and shallow. Though that's what most people are, I suppose.

You must be a catch. Depends what you're looking for in life, I guess.

There's a difference between shopping until you drop, and giving the woman you love the occasional gift to show that you love and appreciate her.

Yes, it's not required, you don't _NEED_ expensive jewellery or fancy weddings, but if you have excess money that you are not investing, why not?

On the flipside, I also like getting nice gifts. Don't you?

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#142

Post by comicjk »

charlesdm wrote: post #6
isostatic wrote: post #4

> If I can prevent a single reader from needlessly dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring, this site will be a success. Financial worries are the #1 cause of stress in a married relationship - there is absolutely NO excuse to start your married life by taking on that level of debt. Average U.S. wedding cost $30k in 2014, while the average engagement ring was $5600, or 19% of the cost [0] https://www.val…

Not everything is about money though. Want to have an extravagant wedding? Fine. Want something basic? Also fine. Yes: diamonds, jewellery, mechanical watches etc are all bad value for money. People don't buy them because they're bad value. They buy them because they like wearing them, and women buy jewellery because it makes them feel pretty. That's life. It's fine throwing money away sometime.

Besides the fact that most people don't have any savings cushion, making this terrible advice for them, you're neglecting the social pressure aspect. Many people feel compelled to overspend on weddings by the expectations of their friends, family, and society. Discussions like this one help to ease that pressure, to allow people to make wedding decisions with less fear of what people will think.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#143

Post by charlesdm »

comicjk wrote: post #142
charlesdm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything is about money though. Want to have an extravagant wedding? Fine. Want something basic? Also fine. Yes: diamonds, jewellery, mechanical watches etc are all bad value for money. People don't buy them because they're bad value. They buy them because they like wearing them, and women buy jewellery because it makes them feel pretty. That's life. It's fine throwing money away sometime.

Besides the fact that most people don't have any savings cushion, making this terrible advice for them, you're neglecting the social pressure aspect. Many people feel compelled to overspend on weddings by the expectations of their friends, family, and society. Discussions like this one help to ease that pressure, to allow people to make wedding decisions with less fear of what people will think.

I'm just saying: go for what you want. You don't really have to do anything in life -- it's all up for debate.

If I had plenty of money and nothing more important to spend it on, I'd (personally) go for a crazy fun extravagant wedding. If not, then I wouldn't. If you have no savings, obviously don't spend a ton on a wedding...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#144

Post by gregoriol »

mysterydip wrote: post #80
tzaman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Must be cultural differences then - nobody around here (Central Europe) cares or asks about rings.

She's even had random strangers (like a store checkout clerk or hotel front desk) ask to see it closer and then compliment what a good job I did (not tooting my own horn, I and others think it's just as silly as you do, but if you want the girl you get her what she wants).

"but if you want the girl you get her what she wants"

That's the sadest thing I've read today.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#145

Post by Antimachides »

charlesdm wrote: post #141
Antimachides wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not fine with me. If a girl wanted a diamond ring and/or and extravagant wedding I'd dump her. Materialistic, low IQ and shallow. Though that's what most people are, I suppose.

You must be a catch. Depends what you're looking for in life, I guess. There's a difference between shopping until you drop, and giving the woman you love the occasional gift to show that you love and appreciate her. Yes, it's not required, you don't _NEED_ expensive jewellery or fancy weddings, but if you have excess money that you are not investing, why not? On the flipside, I also like getting nice gifts. Don't yo…

Give her a blood diamond to show my affection? No thanks. I'm not brainwashed to think love is suitably communicated through the purchase of goods and services. Excess money not being invested? By golly I better not use it for any form of good; it must obviously go to De Beers!

Just tell someone you love them and do nice things for them and be there for them. It's free.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#146

Post by RandallBrown »

lordvigm wrote: post #107
isostatic wrote: post #4

> If I can prevent a single reader from needlessly dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring, this site will be a success. Financial worries are the #1 cause of stress in a married relationship - there is absolutely NO excuse to start your married life by taking on that level of debt. Average U.S. wedding cost $30k in 2014, while the average engagement ring was $5600, or 19% of the cost [0] https://www.val…

Holy shit 30k? Hopefully the average is just skewed up by rich people. If middle class people are plunking down that much, it would be insane

I don't think so. I'm currently planning a wedding and while I hope to see the final price is under 30k, it would be very easy to go that high.

Just buying dinner and drinks for 150 people (which seems like a lot, but it's really easy to come up with a list that long) will probably cost you $5000. Then you need another place to put those people and that's another $5000. Then you might want a nice photographer for at least another $2000. Add in music, decorations, lodging, clothing, etc. and you're almost to 30k for a pretty "normal" wedding. Once you start getting higher end food/drinks/venue then the prices go up quickly.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#147

Post by bluedevil2k »

LordHeini wrote: post #17

As a sidenote, the rings with diamonds thing is mostly an American fad. All people i know in Germany have just plain gold rings. It is way nicer because it is more a symbol of commitment than a show of wealth. Those never get out of style, can hardly be damaged and if need be can be replaced cheaply.

American, Canadian, and Japanese thing.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#148

Post by charlesdm »

Antimachides wrote: post #145
charlesdm wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be a catch. Depends what you're looking for in life, I guess. There's a difference between shopping until you drop, and giving the woman you love the occasional gift to show that you love and appreciate her. Yes, it's not required, you don't _NEED_ expensive jewellery or fancy weddings, but if you have excess money that you are not investing, why not? On the flipside, I also like getting nice gifts. Don't yo…

Give her a blood diamond to show my affection? No thanks. I'm not brainwashed to think love is suitably communicated through the purchase of goods and services. Excess money not being invested? By golly I better not use it for any form of good; it must obviously go to De Beers! Just tell someone you love them and do nice things for them and be there for them. It's free.

It's not, and it doesn't need to be a diamond -- it could be flowers, a nice dinner, a exciting getaway together to some obscure place, etc. But the way you're expressing this is you'd laugh someone away for buying something for you.

I'm into mechanical watches. Just because I find them interesting, not for show. I'm not brainwashed, but heck, getting one I really want from someone I love would be close to the ultimate gift. Do I need it? Of course not. Do I expect it? Of course not.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#149

Post by bluedevil2k »

zeroxfe wrote: post #103
Oras wrote: post #98

I know I will get a hell of downvotes for this, but "Brainwashed" term can also be applied to people trading Bitcoins? Some people agreed that it is valuable and gave some tokens a huge value and its a market now.

Diamond prices are artificially inflated by a single organization. Bitcoin is priced by the market. (Yes, there is lots of manipulation in the latter, but it's still not comparable to diamonds.)

Wrong. The DeBeers monopoly doesn't exist anymore and the market sets the prices on diamonds. Nearly all diamonds are priced through auctions now a days.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#150

Post by bluedevil2k »

nialv7 wrote: post #122
Oras wrote: post #98

I know I will get a hell of downvotes for this, but "Brainwashed" term can also be applied to people trading Bitcoins? Some people agreed that it is valuable and gave some tokens a huge value and its a market now.

Well, I guess it could be true that some people are "brainwashed" to trade bitcoin. But I think there are some differences between the two. First, diamond is not in itself useful. While it some industrial uses, that is not where its value comes from. The value of diamond is the result of misinfomation about its rarity and an extensive marketing campaign. On the other hand, BitCoin (or rather, blockchain) promised to…

Wrong. The belief that DeBeers is a diamond monopoly and controls the market is outdated. In fact, DeBeers is now only the 2nd largest diamond miner, after Alrosa, a Russian mining company.
Post reply on HN