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

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: Veblen goods

#41

Post by dagw »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #40
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…

> 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?

Depends a lot on the knock off. Some are terrible. I have a colleague that wears an "Omega" that is laughably bad. Some of the better ones though are much harder to spot.

Re: Veblen goods

#42

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

jacobevelyn wrote: post #34
zeth___ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a different kind of signalling, for a different demographic with different values.

Re: Veblen goods

#43

Post by girvo »

typomatic wrote: post #20
kleiba wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, see and that's the thing: I simply cannot even imagine having a hobby that would have me spend thousands of dollars. I would sooner switch hobbies. I mean, I don't mind if others have such hobbies -- to each their own. As a matter of fact, I have some friends, too, who are into collecting expensive watches. Yet, I still don't get it, just like in the grandparent comment.

> I simply cannot even imagine having a hobby that would have me spend thousands of dollars. I would sooner switch hobbies. Your imagination needs work. Being on HN, I'd assume that you have at least one hobby that necessitates a significant amount of electronics (gaming console + TV, monitor + PC, laptop). Any one of these (if you actually care about the hobby) will run you thousands of dollars. You'll probably dodg…

Spot on. I’m into three main hobbies: gaming (and game development), audio production and recording, and photography (digital & film). It wasn’t until the other day when someone pointed out that all those hobbies are quite expensive that I sat down and thought about it: while I bought a lot of my gear second hand and did a good job of making my purchases efficient, it really does add up!

Re: Veblen goods

#44

Post by mhermher »

typomatic wrote: post #20
kleiba wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, see and that's the thing: I simply cannot even imagine having a hobby that would have me spend thousands of dollars. I would sooner switch hobbies. I mean, I don't mind if others have such hobbies -- to each their own. As a matter of fact, I have some friends, too, who are into collecting expensive watches. Yet, I still don't get it, just like in the grandparent comment.

> I simply cannot even imagine having a hobby that would have me spend thousands of dollars. I would sooner switch hobbies. Your imagination needs work. Being on HN, I'd assume that you have at least one hobby that necessitates a significant amount of electronics (gaming console + TV, monitor + PC, laptop). Any one of these (if you actually care about the hobby) will run you thousands of dollars. You'll probably dodg…

I think the difference is that the hobby is the thing you do, not the act of buying itself. I have a probably un-utilitarian hobby of building/upgrading maintaining my desktop computer. But still, the hobby is the building/upgrading/maintaining part, not the buying part, using the thing is great too, but I probably don't purely need everything I've put into it. So in a way, I don't get it either. With the watch example, the hobby seems to be the act of buying itself, since you don't actually doanything.

Re: Veblen goods

#45

Post by girvo »

dagw wrote: post #41
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Depends a lot on the knock off. Some are terrible. I have a colleague that wears an "Omega" that is laughably bad. Some of the better ones though are much harder to spot.

I have a Rolex knock off, purchased in the mid 2000’s in HK for $200AUD that is so good that two watch repair places I’ve taken it to have declared it one of the best fakes they’ve ever seen. Which is quite amusing because I got it mostly as a joke! It’s quite a lovely mechanical watch on its own, even without all the “Rolex” bits.

Re: Veblen goods

#46

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

moate wrote: post #22
ghaff wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more of $30 Timex guy myself for day-to-day wear. But there are people who appreciate the craftsmanship associated with high-end watches. There also is such a thing as fashion which I don't personally much care about (within reason) but many do. Most people who have some amount of money spend it on things that aren't strictly utilitarian.

You're all fools! All you need is a good stick and the sun's light and you can tell the time of day! Wasting 30 dollars on a watch! Joking aside, there are people who refuse to ascribe anything BUT utilitarian value to things as a sort of anti-consumerist view. Going to be hard to convert them.

Expensive mechanical watches don't work very well. For all the marketing written about craftsmanship and history and so on, the harsh truth is that they're not nearly as good as keeping time as a cheap digital watch with a quartz crystal.

(Casios are rated between and 1 and 0.5 secs/day, while a Rolex Chronometer is rated to 2 secs/day. High end quartz watches that cost thousands can be rated to 5 secs/yr. Of course a phone that supports NTP on a network should be at least as accurate as that.)

So the only reason for buying an expensive watch is to signal that you can afford an expensive watch. And if you're going to do that, you might as well have a piece of solid gold surgically implanted in your forehead.

If that's ridiculous - and it is - why is it any more ridiculous than spending tens or hundreds of thousands buying a watch that may well be ugly, inelegant, bulky, or even vulgar, and isn't even outstandingly good at being a watch?

Re: Veblen goods

#47

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

newnewpdro wrote: post #19
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 silly is that wearing $5k+ on your wrist is effective at influencing people. What's even more silly is your ignoring that fact. So-called status symbols are actually quite effective at getting people to pay attention to you, which is kind of important if you wish to compel them to do things.

That's why it's silly. It's not just the watches, or handbags, or cars - it's the political implication that this form of display increases your social influence, and your ability to acquire further wealth.

If that's true - and it seems to be - that strongly suggests politics and economics are superficial and essentially trinket- and appearance-driven, and only very distantly related to genuine achievement or merit.

IMO that's not just a problem, it's a disastrous failure of spirit, ethics, and imagination. It's fine if your institutions and values are operating at a pre-rational barely sentient level, but if you're trying to aim higher, it really isn't such a good thing.

Re: Veblen goods

#48

Post by mattbierner »

Interesting. I often find that my perceived 'luxuriousness' of a product decreases the perceived value of it. Like I'm sure Rolls makes nice autos and all that, but because they are created specifically to be high-end status symbols, they become cheapened in my mind and therefore cannot truly be high-end status symbols. A valuable good or experience is instead one that has an authentic story (which is hard to judge), or is super niche and shows an understanding and appreciation of the field, or is old and unique and difficult to obtain.

I collect camera lenses for example and see people drop crazy money on old Leicas. And they are nice lenses but it's such a stereotypical choice that I can't help but negatively judge anyone who actually buys or aspires to them. Their brand's mystique has cheapened them for me. And let's not even get started on Hasselblad...

Re: Veblen goods

#49

Post by asdignoionio »

arthurofbabylon wrote: post #21

Can anyone recall this effect occurring with a software product?

Apple software (kind of). It's tied to specific hardware, so it's hard to say if people are paying for the software or the hardware.

I have seen people turn down free software because they mistakenly believe an expensive program must be better. But that's not really the same, since that isn't a form of showing off.

Re: Veblen goods

#50

Post by trhway »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #40
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…

> 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?

>would anyone even notice without taking a close look to specifically examine your watch?

usually it is noticeable by taking a [even not so close] look at the wearer :)

For example, looking at that guy in his "fancy suit" an idea of knock-off would never ever cross your mind :

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/world/europe/in-russia-a-...

Post reply on HN