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

Veblen goods

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: Veblen goods

#31

Post by charlesdm »

throwawaymath wrote: post #29
charlesdm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High five. They have nice watches. Which model do you own? Jaeger-LeCoultre owner here

1815 38.5mm in white gold, model 235.026. Funny you say that, because at the time I was torn between the Lange and a Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin, model 130842J. I like the form factor and complications of the JLC, but the simplicity and movement of the Lange won out for me.

Nice watch! I have a JLC Master Ultra Thin Moon as my main watch, which I absolutely love.

I tried the Ultra Thin, but I found it was a bit too thin for my wrist.

Re: Veblen goods

#32

Post by jessriedel »

allenz wrote: post #16
duality wrote: post #12

Sounds related to but subtly different from a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good .

The difference is that Veblen goods are luxury goods whereas Giffen goods are inferior goods ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_good ).

Well, the mechanisms are generally different too. Giffen goods can exist even for simple models with homoeconomicus. Veblen good generally involve a signaling/status story.

Re: Veblen goods

#33

Post by ghaff »

charlesdm wrote: post #25
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #2

I've never understood the desire to own things like Rolex watches. It's a watch. It tells you what time it is. You can get a pretty durable one that'll last you nearly a lifetime for under $100, especially if you get a digital one since there's no moving parts to break. So why spend $5,000+ on one? I mean, yeah you might want to get something fashionable and shiny, but that doesn't require a $5,000 purchase. I feel t…

I love mechanical watches, but in addition to that, it's also the only acceptable piece of jewellery for a man to wear. However, the fact that something with so many small moving mechanical pieces can actually function still blows my mind to this day.

> it's also the only acceptable piece of jewellery for a man to wear

Not quite.

Though the only other one that can be a status symbol to any significant degree (among the assumed demographic) is a class ring--assuming you went to an "appropriate" school.

Re: Veblen goods

#34

Post by jacobevelyn »

zeth___ wrote: post #28
jasode wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's a watch. It tells you what time it is. I'm not a fancy watch buyer but I'll try to explain some of the thinking. To luxury buyers, it's not a "watch". Instead, it's "jewelry for the wrist that just happens to tell time." Therefore, explaining the technical superiority of the quartz crystal accuracy of a $10 Casio watch compared to the mechanical springs of a Rolex watch is an ineffective critique. It's not even…

It's a status symbol. To them the Rolex is like a code base written in idiomatic Haskell, the Casio is a code base for a pet shop written in php sprinkled across a dozen html files.

For what it's worth, my $9 bright pink Casio has netted me more compliments over the past six years (and it's still using the original battery!) than probably every other accessory/item of clothing I've worn over that time combined.

Re: Veblen goods

#35

Post by dagw »

ghaff wrote: post #33
charlesdm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love mechanical watches, but in addition to that, it's also the only acceptable piece of jewellery for a man to wear. However, the fact that something with so many small moving mechanical pieces can actually function still blows my mind to this day.

> it's also the only acceptable piece of jewellery for a man to wear Not quite. Though the only other one that can be a status symbol to any significant degree (among the assumed demographic) is a class ring--assuming you went to an "appropriate" school.

Cuff links are another example of acceptable jewelry for men, but they're hard to wear casually.

Re: Veblen goods

#36

Post by trhway »

read some years ago in the context of high end speakers:

"so, you are're just packaging $500 of speakers in nice boxes and selling it for $80K?"

"you don't understand. The people are paying for the price."

Re: Veblen goods

#37

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

throwawaymath wrote: post #13
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #2

I've never understood the desire to own things like Rolex watches. It's a watch. It tells you what time it is. You can get a pretty durable one that'll last you nearly a lifetime for under $100, especially if you get a digital one since there's no moving parts to break. So why spend $5,000+ on one? I mean, yeah you might want to get something fashionable and shiny, but that doesn't require a $5,000 purchase. I feel t…

I own a $25,000 Lange & Söhne. While watches are a time-honored way of signaling, I didn't buy it to show off. I've actually never met anyone who recognized it, and off the top of my head I can't remember ever even getting a compliment on it. I'd never buy a Rolex, because they're too loud :) Here's the disconnect you're struggling with: you don't value watches. Or more accurately, you don't appreciate them beyond si…

> relate to them through the broader experience of spending a lot of money on a hobby.

And when it comes to the hobby of expensive watches...you get nothing but an expensive watch.

Every other hobby, you get something.

PC gaming? You've got games you can play, and a monster computer that can run them with beautiful graphics.

Card games? You've got a collection of cards and can quickly build new decks to adjust to the changing meta.

Model trains? I've seen some really impressive miniature towns people have built around a model train set.

I just don't understand expensive watches.

> Here's the disconnect you're struggling with: you don't value watches. Or more accurately, you don't appreciate them beyond simple utilitarian timekeeping.

That sums it all up pretty well. If I'm spending a lot of money on something, I want there to be at least something useful or enjoyable that I'm getting out of it, beyond the enjoyment of simply having it, which typically is not something ever feel about things. Things are just things. The only value they have IMO is their utility.

(Though I would certainly attach sentimental value to something that was made by hand by a relative and passed down)

Re: Veblen goods

#38

Post by reubenswartz »

arthurofbabylon wrote: post #21

Can anyone recall this effect occurring with a software product?

I've seen enterprise products with great features try to be way cheaper than the "market" price and get very little traction. Raise prices to around market level, and people are suddenly excited about the features and buying.

Re: Veblen goods

#39

Post by phyzome »

charlesdm wrote: post #25
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #2

I've never understood the desire to own things like Rolex watches. It's a watch. It tells you what time it is. You can get a pretty durable one that'll last you nearly a lifetime for under $100, especially if you get a digital one since there's no moving parts to break. So why spend $5,000+ on one? I mean, yeah you might want to get something fashionable and shiny, but that doesn't require a $5,000 purchase. I feel t…

I love mechanical watches, but in addition to that, it's also the only acceptable piece of jewellery for a man to wear. However, the fact that something with so many small moving mechanical pieces can actually function still blows my mind to this day.

Watches (on the wrist or a chain), rings, cuff-links (as mentioned by another commenter), necklaces (sometimes), probably some brooch or lapel pins.

Alternatively, to hell with "acceptable", wear the jewelry you want to wear.

Re: Veblen goods

#40

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

jasode wrote: post #8
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #2

I've never understood the desire to own things like Rolex watches. It's a watch. It tells you what time it is. You can get a pretty durable one that'll last you nearly a lifetime for under $100, especially if you get a digital one since there's no moving parts to break. So why spend $5,000+ on one? I mean, yeah you might want to get something fashionable and shiny, but that doesn't require a $5,000 purchase. I feel t…

>It's a watch. It tells you what time it is. I'm not a fancy watch buyer but I'll try to explain some of the thinking. To luxury buyers, it's not a "watch". Instead, it's "jewelry for the wrist that just happens to tell time." Therefore, explaining the technical superiority of the quartz crystal accuracy of a $10 Casio watch compared to the mechanical springs of a Rolex watch is an ineffective critique. It's not even…

> To luxury buyers, it's not a "watch". Instead, it's "jewelry for the wrist that just happens to tell time."

That's probably the best description I've seen for appreciation of expensive watches.

FWIW though, if you were to wear a knock-off of a luxury brand with your fancy suit at some event, would anyone even notice without taking a close look to specifically examine your watch?

Post reply on HN