Diamonds Suck (2006) • Hacker News Board

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#161

Post by GuB-42 » Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:23 PM UTC

boobsbr wrote: post #47

If your marriage being successful, fulfilling and happy depends on a chunk of expensive rock and/or metal, you'd better not get married.

It is not about the object itself, it is about respecting your partner's values. If an expensive ring means a lot to your partner, then it is definitely important for your marriage.

The same can be said for extramarital sex. Assuming proper precautions are taken to avoid medical issues, rationally, it is not a big deal. And yet, besides a small minority of couples who embrace open marriage, this is hugely important.

If requiring some compromise warrants not getting married, no one will ever get married.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#162

Post by Qub3d » Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

ivanhoe wrote: post #159

I always thought of the engagement ring tradition as a financial safety-net for a woman, in a culture where it was customary that only men work and women stay home. Woman in such setup has no "her" money, but if she owns an expensive ring that she can easily sell that gives her some level of freedom, if needed.

Its an interesting theory, but falls apart in practice. The parent article mentions the abysmal resell value of diamonds.

Ignoring the advertisement at the end, this article sums things up pretty well: https://www.diamonds.pro/education/sell-diamonds/

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#163

Post by stinos » Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

charlesdm wrote: post #137

stinos wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet plenty of people love buying luxury items for the feeling it gives them For me that is the huge rip-off next to the financial part: for a lot of these luxury items the extra money doesn't get you proportionally more or better functionality nor quality (2 things which are imo actually worth money since they give you something practical and useful back). It's often more about looks and how it feels. But do the peop…

Why would it be a rip off? You act as if 'overcharging' for something is always a rip off. If I'm walking in a desert without water.. I'll likely be billing to pay (a lot) more than if I had a bottle with me. Luxury goods often have more price elasticity compared to other items, but they still deliver value to the people buying them. Not that you need an entire Louis Vuitton collection, but splurging can be fun. It's…

You act as if 'overcharging' for something is always a rip off.

Syntactically those 2 terms indeed have a similar feel to them - 'over' doesn't have a good connotation in 'overcharging'. But I'm not sure why you think I consider them to always be equivalent, I don't.

they still deliver value to the people buying them

It's exactly the worth of that (perceived) value I was questioning.

It's really not your call to make whether spending on luxury items is worth pursuing -- depends on how high your income and wealth is.

You're not claiming I cannot take part in this discussion if my income isn't high enough, are you :] Anyway, rest assured: my income and wealth are such that I could buy more than a bunch of VT bags or rings with diamonds or whatever. Even more I'm no stranger to having bought overpriced luxury items in a distant past so I kind of know what I'm questioning here. Ha, it's exactly the reason I'm questioning it. But even if it were not why would I not be allowed to ask questions about other's motives?

Also: perception is everything in the world

Correction: a part of the world. A part which is way too big for my liking and for which I consider myself extremely fortunate I don't have to deal with it often. I want to be taken serious for who I am and not because of what I look like. Also: one can look well dressed (to whatever standard) in clothes which don't cost a dime so there's a fine line between 'well dressed' and 'expensively dressed so it must be well'.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#164

Post by throwawaymath » Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:25 PM UTC

Antimachides wrote: post #152

charlesdm wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ultima…

I was talking about diamonds and extravagence desired purely to display wealth and social status (women are particularly vulnerable to this folly), not dinner dates, flowers, and mechanical watches. Like the two month salary rule for an engagement ring would be a ludicrous thing to expect of a man. Run from that woman.

> I was talking about diamonds and extravagence desired purely to display wealth and social status (women are particularly vulnerable to this folly)

Now you're just being casually sexist. If you want to judge people for how they choose to celebrate their mutual affection that's fine. So diamonds aren't your thing, thanks for sharing. But let's not go down the rabbit hole of litigating one gender's susceptibility over another's.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#165

Post by gnulinux » Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

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…

> (especially given about half will end in divorce)

If a person was married in their 20s and 30s but their marriage ends in a divorce in 40s this person spent a very significant part of their life with a companion. It simply doesn't matter that the marriage ended up with a divorse, as long as it lasted and both parties were satisfied, it was a marriage. The fact that the marriage ended up with a divorce doesn't make it less quality, or less worthy to spend more money on.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#166

Post by yesenadam » Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:40 PM UTC

lgl wrote: post #157

xstartup wrote: post #86

Yes, this post missing the point that I as a diamond buyer already know this but it will not stop me from purchasing more diamonds. In a hypothetical world, if a diamond could be bought for $10K and sold for $10K, where is the risk? Then it's no longer for only rich, others can take a loan from a bank and purchase diamonds. When I pay for a diamond, I don't pay for its intrinsic value. I pay for diamonds because othe…

When I pay for a diamond, I don't pay for its intrinsic value. I pay for diamonds because other people around me feel they are expensive and you've to be rich enough to set your money on fire (like you do while purchasing a diamond). It's a signal for others that I am "fuck you money" rich. This may have been a sarcastic post (?) but why do you care if other people think you have "fuck you money"? That just makes you…

Agree, except I think it's more that it makes him (hazarding a wild guess it's a guy!) sound like a total jerk, an empty loser and an epic twat, probably with a tiny dick.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#167

Post by asr » Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

arkh wrote: post #106

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…

> Average U.S. wedding cost $30k in 2014 Averages are mostly useless for this kind of things where some people can go crazy on prices. What is the median? Are other deciles available to check? But I think the most important would be with the cost of a wedding / current capital owned and cost of wedding / revenues ratios.

Average or median, the more fundamental problem is that this number is just wrong. Wedding industry statistics are spin from wedding-industry-affiliated companies, who have a tremendous incentive to convince you that it's normal to spend this kind of money on your wedding (as an average U.S. household--make sure you spend more if you are above-average!).

The source here, valuepenguin.com (which is trying to sell you wedding insurance), cites three data sources. Once source is no longer online. The other two sources (TheKnot and Costofwedding.com) claim to have conducted surveys. But The Knot just surveys people on its own website (not representative). Anyone want to venture a guess as to whether a representative number of courthouse-ceremony-and-lunch-buffet-afterwards weddings are counted in these figures?[1]

Meanwhile, Cost of Wedding is "owned and operated by The Wedding Report, Inc." and reports the results of a survey The Wedding Report did. And The Wedding Report has this gem in its methodology description:

We take a bottom up approach to "Average Wedding Cost." The total "Average Cost" is calculated using "Weighted Demand Average (WDA)," which is; average spent times demand equals the weighted demand average. Sum of weighted demand average for all items equals the average wedding cost. Using WDA instead of a summed average gives a better calculation, because it takes into account all items that couples may or may not purchase.[2]

As far as I can tell, this means the average cost is calculated by first determining average costs for each item you might possibly purchase, and then adding them all up as if every couple purchases every item! Umm... no. That's not how you do math.

[1] "Respondents were recruited throughout the year from TheKnot.com membership." https://xogroupinc.com/press-releases/the-knot-2017-real-wed...

[2] https://www.theweddingreport.com/index.cfm/action/home/view/...

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#168

Post by dmoy » Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

tvanantwerp wrote: post #138

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…

I'm immensely grateful that my wife is from Hong Kong. Wedding gifts there take the form of cash in a red envelope, and it's normal to get married at a profit. When I explained to her that American weddings are usually held at a considerable loss, her reaction was to set the wedding budget to as close to zero as possible. I think the Hong Kong idea makes much more sense--a newly married couple needs a financial boost…

Yea I did weddings in both China and the US. (Way cheaper city in China than HK too). US wedding probably cost us $13-15k including plane tickets. Chinese wedding we were way up, but gave all the money to parent. She was lugging a giant bag of cash though.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#169

Post by koolba » Wed, May 30, 2018, 2:52 PM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #160

koolba wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's life. It's fine throwing money away sometime. Sure if you have the money. The problem is that most people don’t and spend what would be a down payment on a house on complete bullshit. It’s a terrible way to start a marriage and likely leads to higher rates of divorce.

That strikes me as a problem with fiscal irresponsibility, not a problem with the object of the irresponsibility.

It's by far the biggest example of fiscal irresponsibility. What's particularly egregious is when the families of the bride (_cough_ her mother _cough_) or groom push them towards spending they can't afford. The wedding industry preys on those weak emotions knowing that many couples won't push back on the non-sense.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#170

Post by Antimachides » Wed, May 30, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #164

Antimachides wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about diamonds and extravagence desired purely to display wealth and social status (women are particularly vulnerable to this folly), not dinner dates, flowers, and mechanical watches. Like the two month salary rule for an engagement ring would be a ludicrous thing to expect of a man. Run from that woman.

> I was talking about diamonds and extravagence desired purely to display wealth and social status (women are particularly vulnerable to this folly) Now you're just being casually sexist. If you want to judge people for how they choose to celebrate their mutual affection that's fine. So diamonds aren't your thing, thanks for sharing. But let's not go down the rabbit hole of litigating one gender's susceptibility over…

>But let's not go down the rabbit hole of litigating one gender's susceptibility over another's.

I don't want to go down that rabbit hole just to save my own time. But the genders definitely have their susceptibilities.