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

Diamonds Are Bullshit

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 774 posts

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#221

Post by will_brown »

guelo wrote: post #97
Zimahl wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pity those in this thread saying that their fiancee wouldn't listen to reason about this. Karma be damned but women as a whole are swayed more by marketing then men are. They've been sold the princess wedding, the diamond ring, the brand-name clothing, etc. It's difficult to break them of this so sometimes the fight isn't worth it. I didn't pay for my wedding so that was my in-laws problem although it wasn't grandi…

> women as a whole are swayed more by marketing then men are Either you provide a scientific cite for that claim or that is a straight up sexist statement. In case you haven't heard there's a lot of stupid irrational purchasing behavior by guys too.

I thought it was an interesting statement so I looked into it a little. I personally was less curious if there was a difference in the way men and women react to a constant advertisement, but I wanted to know the % of marketing dollars spent marketing towards women vs men. I did not find those exact numbers, but stumbled onto :http://www.she-conomy.com/facts-on-women

There are a ton of crazy figures to digest on that page, again none addresses which sex is "swayed" more by a given advertisement. For example, "Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases including everything from autos to health care"; "Senior women age 50 and older control net worth of $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth"; and "Wealthy boomer women...make 95 percent of the purchase decisions for their households".

Assuming it is true, women making 85% of consumer purchases is kind of mind blowing. This does not necessarily mean women are swayed more by marketing, but I think it is safe to say women as a whole are targeted by marketing campaigns more than men - at least after reading these numbers that is how I would market a consumer product.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#222

Post by mech4bg »

jlgreco wrote: post #216
mech4bg wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the implication when you say they need therapy.

Absolute nonsense. Therapy is very useful to many people who are not mentally ill. I would venture to say that most people who see therapists are not mentally ill. If you think "mental illness" when somebody says "therapist", you probably need to do some reevaluation.

Out of genuine interest (it's hard to convey tone via comments sometimes), can you expand on this comment a bit?

What do you consider mental illness to be? And what is therapy in your view?

The term 'mentally ill' in my view has been stigmatized quite a bit, and being 'unwell' mentally does not mean you are crazy, but that you have issues you feel you need to deal with. Isn't that the point of seeing a therapist?

An interesting blog on this topic here:

http://www.theage.com.au/executive-style/culture/blogs/all-m...

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#223

Post by wutbrodo »

maratd wrote: post #166
kyrra wrote: post #132

(person I know) worked for GE (General Electric) on their industrial diamond production process back in the 90's, and I got to hear lots of fun stories from this. Diamonds that are man-made[1] are stronger (fewer imperfections) than those that are mined from the earth. Because of this, industrial diamonds tend to be man-made. (for reference, industrial diamonds when cutting hard materials, such as metals). While work…

> so they just leave De Beers to run around gouging consumers That's kind of missing the point. If diamonds were 5 bucks a piece, women would no longer be interested in receiving rings bejeweled by them. A woman wants a man who is financially secure. If you can't afford a shiny rock, you can't afford what's coming after it either, so there's no point.

I doubt the point is to demonstrate financial security: Spending three months' salary on a single ring would seem to indicate financial irresponsibility more than financial security (unless it's like a rebate and you sell the ring once you're married? /s).

I'm inclined to agree that you're right about the price being the point. I think it has more to do with "You're worth it to me". I still think it's utter bollocks.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#224

Post by burgreblast »

mikestew wrote: post #37
steveklabnik wrote: post #4

It's linked within the article, but it's worth pointing out that "Have you ever tried to sell a diamond"[1] is very much worth your time, and has been discussed here many times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4535611 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1405698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1110283 1: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you...

Not only is it linked in the article, it is very much a replay of the original Atlantic article. I didn't see a lot of added value in the article posted here, so just go read the Atlantic's.

Yup. I just read the Atlantic article a few days ago. This piece gave me the feeling the priceonomics author did too.

I'm not much of a fan of simply rewriting content for one's blog.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#225

Post by drivebyacct2 »

riffraff wrote: post #168
shocks wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about a house? All three covered.

I am not sure what you guys buy in the US as engaging rings, but I think one can safely assume a ring is not worth even a tenth of an house?

Not necessarily a tenth, but most people here don't buy houses outright. It would be a significant investment towards a down payment or month' of mortgage payments.

The silly/sad/stupid thing is when you put it in context of a ring+marriage ceremony. The same way many college students are starting out life with debt, they often go and add 25-30K of extra debt between an expensive, value-less ring and a wedding ceremony.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#226

Post by rayiner »

clicks wrote: post #219
rayiner wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

De Beers isn't a monopolist and hasn't been once since 2000, when key producers in Canada, Australia, Russia, India, etc, started selling diamonds outside the channels. The negative externality caused by diamonds is tiny in comparison to the ones caused by fossil fuels. For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce oil consumption. I take an electric train to work and walk everywhere els…

For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce oil consumption. That may be true in Europe and the East coast but it is not true for large remote country areas etc. It's certainly not true for where I live -- there are no bus/train routes that can get me to my workplace from my home, and I cannot re-locate because of my financial position. I know of countless others in similarly tied posi…

Sure, but what about all those people who have a choice? Where is the Atlantic article excoriating Silicon Valley and companies like Facebook, Google, etc, for not moving out of the suburban wasteland to a place where it is possible to live a life that causes less violence to the environment?

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#227

Post by drivebyacct2 »

qiqing wrote: post #101
clicks wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My sister is still mad as hell at her husband for not having spent enough for their wedding (he spent about $25k), and I've heard her once or twice complain about the ring. I'll occasionally take shots at my sister for this (because, well, she's my sister and she loves taking shots at me too so it's fair). But my God I don't dare challenge the issue of spending extravagantly on rings/weddings with another woman (I on…

A friend-of-a-friend of mine synthesized a diamond in his lab for his wife, and etched diffraction gratings on some of the lower faces to customize the frequency of reflected light (he could do arbitrary colors this way).

Now this is the nerdy approach to diamonds that would be totally worth it. I would also love to read more about this.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#228

Post by rayiner »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #220
rayiner wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because I advocate relationships where contributions are granulated and distributed according to participant interest, not participant gender. Okay how do you distribute child-bearing according to participant interest? How do you distribute child-rearing according to participant interest, bearing in mind that an infant just wants to suck on a breast and doesn't care about your views on gender roles.

> Okay how do you distribute child-bearing according to participant interest? Adoption. > How do you distribute child-rearing according to participant interest, bearing in mind that an infant just wants to suck on a breast and doesn't care about your views on gender roles. There are some limits to what can be shared. I advocate going right up to that line. A woman who wants to raise a baby at some point has to make t…

> Adoption.

The IQ of children is highly correlated with the IQ of parents. Adoption is not, for educated couples, an alternative to having their own children.

> A woman who wants to raise a baby at some point has to make tough choices about formula, breast pumping, bonding, and her other priorities in life.

You can make things as equal as possible, but no more. My wife and I have almost identical educational backgrounds. We accepted very similar jobs out of school (she will technically be making more money than me considering benefits). We had our baby her last year of school so she wouldn't have to take maternity leave, with the negative stigma associated with that. I'm taking a couple of years off from working at a large law firm so I can work a 9-5 with a judge and take more baby responsibilities and allow her to focus on her career. We're trying extremely hard to make things as equitable as possible between the two of us.

But at the end of the day if my wife had suffered a complication in child birth (it is still the most dangerous thing most people do), it would have fallen to me to provide for her and the child. I was not the one who had to take that bodily risk, therefore I assumed by default the "provider" role, or at least had to be fully prepared to assume that role. Therefore, it was totally rational for her to have been concerned, pre-marriage, about my ability to do so.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#229

Post by eli »

Zimahl wrote: post #199
mikeash wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As much as you don't need it, a $2000 60" HDTV is still more functional than a purse that costs the same amount of money. Are you serious? Is this a joke? A purse actually serves a useful function. It doesn't serve $2000 of function, but it's useful in that it lets you carry around important items. A TV serves no useful purpose whatsoever . None. Zero. There is nothing useful in your life that the TV lets you do. I…

You are saying that a TV that probably costs to make at least a portion of that $2000 is worth less than a purse that can be knocked off to look EXACTLY THE SAME but cost 2 orders of magnitude less are the same? I won't bother arguing the value of a TV. I think there are many that can argue the value of a designer purse.

What does the cost of manufacturing have to do with an item's utility? You can get a cheap knockoff TV that looks the same as the expensive brand too... It will look the same from a distance, anyway. Just like a cheap knockoff purse.

Re: Diamonds Are Bullshit

#230

Post by clicks »

rayiner wrote: post #226
clicks wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce oil consumption. That may be true in Europe and the East coast but it is not true for large remote country areas etc. It's certainly not true for where I live -- there are no bus/train routes that can get me to my workplace from my home, and I cannot re-locate because of my financial position. I know of countless others in similarly tied posi…

Sure, but what about all those people who have a choice? Where is the Atlantic article excoriating Silicon Valley and companies like Facebook, Google, etc, for not moving out of the suburban wasteland to a place where it is possible to live a life that causes less violence to the environment?

Absolutely I agree with you there. But you can't just excuse a wrong in one situation by saying that some injustice in some other unrelated situation exists... so there. And anyways, with cars you actually have a purpose... you use it to transport yourself. Sure we're burning fossil fuels, but at least there is some gray area here, there is some room for debate. There's an unquestionable utility there you have to account for -- not so with the ring, as we've discussed in another parent comment.
Post reply on HN