The super rich wasting money $$$

[Carrie]

I'm sure most of you have seen TV shows like "The Fabulous Life of..." or "It's Good to Be...."

Do you think it's wrong for super rich people like this to waste so much money? Britney Spears bought a $20,000 purse, and J.Lo dumps out $1,300 bottles of champange. Others go on cruises for
$120,000 a week, or have 10 Porches or whatever. That kind of money is nothing to them, just like $5 is nothing to me.

But to my grandparents, $5 is something. They are pretty well off, but they grew up in the depression, so they don't waste money. Once my grandma did waste $5 on a casino boat and she felt really guilty because she said that money could have gone to charity.

Anyway, the super rich can blow $50,000 in a day like it's nothing. Imagine how that kind of money could change another persons life! Even $1,300 would do me a whole lot of good. And if someone gave me $120,000 we could pay off our house and life would be much easier.

It seems that the super rich are so materialistic, that they won't buy a $50 pair of shoes even though they look just as good as the $5,000 pair of shoes. It's all about brand name, and it's stupid, like junior high, when it was so important to wear Keds or Guess.

Of course someone living in a 3rd world country might say the same of us. Middle income Americans waste a lot of money too.
We'll buy brand name groceries instead of generic, and buy clothes at the Gap rather than Wal-Mart.

Imagine what our extra $20 could do for someone in Bangladesh. And a couple hundred dollars could change their lives forever.

So are we any different from the super rich in our waste of money? I have at least 10 pairs of shoes, and I once paid $70 for a pair of jeans. A really poor person might think, "if you could just give up buying one pair of shoes, I could feed my family for a month."

Also, rich people donate a lot of their money, but most middle income Americans do not, even though they could spare to.

So maybe we regular people are not any better with our money than the super rich, but it still seems like it. It just seems wrong to spend $20,000 on a purse, when it could go to much better use. At least if you bought a bottle of champange, you would probably drink it.

[fatherphil]

i remember the hit the yacth building industry took with the increase of luxury tax.

remember, pamela anderson puts food on quite a few folks' tables.

[notMichaelJackson]

Originally posted by Carrie

We'll buy brand name groceries instead of generic, and buy clothes at the Gap rather than Wal-Mart.

This is a little off topic, but Walmart clothes don't always last as long as name-brand clothing products. Some people pay a little more for things because of the quality of the product, not hype.

[Carrie]

Yeah Wal-Mart clothes do kind of suck. They usually don't fit right. But Target isn't too bad. If you don't mind having clothes made in China. Does anyone know of any big chain stores
where you can get only American made clothing, that is somewhat affordable?

[Shake]

If you're not wealthy or just want to increase your wealth, remember this little gem: It's not how much you make, it's how much you keep!

If you're able to save more than someone making double what you do, you're going to come out ahead in the long run. Alternately, if celebrity X isn't able to manage his/her millions and their 15 minutes of fame runs out unexpectedly, then they're SOL.

Many of the wealthy (who got there through honest hard work, and perhaps some luck) are as much penny-pinchers as someone on foodstamps trying to feed a family.

Some other things I've learned: John and Jane Q. Public are always being told to diversify their investments, and for the average investor, this is a good strategy. The really savvy investors can make money no matter what the market is doing, and their investments are hardly diversified at all. They do their research and then invest heavily in one thing that they're very certain will do well. If it doesn't they're disciplined enough to get out before their losses become staggering. IOW, if you can't get out while you're still ahead, know when to cut your losses and save face.

As for what celebs and athletes do with their millions, it's their money, they can do with it as they like. A responsible sports team would try to help their newly rich players manage their money and make some sound investments. Sure, buy a nice house and a new car, etc. But make sure you have something set aside since you never know what may happen. How many promising athletes have been cut down by injury and had nothing left to show for it?

[Adrammalech]

I can never understand such conspicous consumption myself, I mean give me enough money for some decent food, cloths, books and a few cds and I'm a happy camper.

But in a way we pay them to live that kind of life, to live the life of immense wealth, because people want to see what it is like to really live the high life. I mean look at it, half the shows that report on entertainment don't report on the actual show or piece of music but the lives of the people. The most glaring example being VH1, an entire channel devouted to such minutia of pop culture. If we get really pissed about the stars wallowing in their own riches, then we should turn off the tv, don't go to the movies and take a trip to the park.

[meritocrat]

Sounds like someone is jealous.

How the 'super rich' spend their money and property is not your concern, as long that such spending does not harm you or infringe on your rights.

[tronvillain]

No, I do not think it is wrong for super rich people to "waste" money like that. If I was rich I would probably be doing the same sort of things, though I would help out a few people (granted, probably people I knew, but still).

[nermal]

I agree, what they do with their money is their business. I get seriously irked, however, when they push for tax increases to pay for whatever pet feel good program they're dabbling in at the moment.
Let Babs live how she wishes, but when she lives at my income level, then she can bitch about how I don't care about the homeless, the kittens, the elderly, or whatever is the cause du jeur.

Ed

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by meritocrat
Sounds like someone is jealous.
No it did not sound like Carrie is jealous. Odd comment, given the threads you like to start. I think the op made interesting and valid points, and was well thought out.

In my opinion, capitalism has been a great advance and a great boon, yet still it seems to lack a measure of common sense. Like a giant game of Monopoly, it seems all the money ends up on one side of the board. I don't really have an improvement to offer, though. Earning caps, maybe. Spread the wealth! Does a ceo really deserve the salaries of 100 line workers?

[meritocrat]

It sounds to me if she is jealous. A 'purse' is used to hold money; how can it be 'unnecessary'.

And how are 'my threads' worthy of comment here?

[Diadectes]

It sounds to me if she is jealous. A 'purse' is used to hold money; how can it be 'unnecessary'.

Yeah, but $20,000 ???? For a purse???

Crass stupidity is clearly a requirement of being super-rich, and don't the designers and manufacturers know it! Mugs and con-artists in perfect symbiosis. Let 'em get on with it, I say. As long as they pay their dues tax-wise, I couldn't give a flying f***k how shallow and gullible they prove themselves to be. Still end up as worm food along with the rest of us.

[Paul2]

celebrities are not normal "rich folk" though. they have to spend gobs of money on these new fancy dresses & purses etc just to keep themselves in the spot light. especially the ones that suck.

[Barney Gumble]

Originally posted by meritocrat

And how are 'my threads' worthy of comment here?

Been asking that for some time myself.

[callmejay]

Well, nobody's made a point which seems strikingly obvious. When the rich (or anyone else) "wastes" money, they're not taking it away from society, they're just depriving themselves of it! Somebody else now has J-Lo's $20,000 - costs. It didn't just disappear.

[Foxfire]

I honestly don't care whether or not the rich blow their money on meaningless items like $20,000 purses. It's the mere fact that some of these idiots are more worthy (at least in the eyes of society) to have so much bloody money in the first place! Of course, without obscenely rich people, I would never have that warm, fuzzy feeling that I get whenever I hear that some nimrod like Mike Tyson has squandered a sum of money greater than the GDP of some small countries (I suppose 'third-world' would be a better term than 'small' to parallel the wealth of these people. After all, the Vatican is a small nation as well!)

[stilus]

hehe, good comment callmejay!

What I wonder about though is how humanity allways ends up with a rich and powerfull group of people, who then start a ratrace at being the person of that inner circle spending the most money on things and showing them off. Who do they do it for? Themselves, their peers, and/or "those who do not have"? Do reasons change with time?

The only thing I think I understand, is that it is some kind of primate/status thing gone wild. Does anyone know if monkeys have a thing with possessions?

[Shake]

Originally posted by Diadectes
Yeah, but $20,000 ???? For a purse???

Crass stupidity is clearly a requirement of being super-rich, and don't the designers and manufacturers know it! Mugs and con-artists in perfect symbiosis. Let 'em get on with it, I say. As long as they pay their dues tax-wise, I couldn't give a flying f***k how shallow and gullible they prove themselves to be. Still end up as worm food along with the rest of us. I used to get upset at the folks who were making things like a $20,000 purse ('cause really, what's so different about a $20k purse and a $200 purse?), but then I thought, hey, if there's a market for it, then why not? If I had the name recognition to market say a $5,000 toaster that the wealthy would buy, well then you're damn straight I'd do it!

Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Bottom line. If you build your toaster and can convince folks they should pay 5-10 grand for it, more power to you. I'll never buy one, but so long as somebody will, keep on makin' 'em!

[xorbie]

Well, nobody's made a point which seems strikingly obvious. When the rich (or anyone else) "wastes" money, they're not taking it away from society, they're just depriving themselves of it! Somebody else now has J-Lo's $20,000 - costs. It didn't just disappear.

The problem here is that they are generally just giving it to other rich people. The people who sell these $20,000 purses can make two months salary easily by selling just one. They are rich, rich people. The rich just keep giving money to each other. That is essentially the problem with the trickle down theory... very little of the money they spend actually goes to middle class people, let alone the downright working poor. The money that actually gets to these people is (drumroll) tax dollars.

If J-Lo bought $200 purses for herself and maybe her entire college graduating class of 3000, that could help a nice small business stay afloat for a while. But that really is not how it works. The people who run Gucci, Prada etc are rich, and quite frankly they provide no valuble service to society whatsoever.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by xorbie
The people who run Gucci, Prada etc are rich, and quite frankly they provide no valuble service to society whatsoever.They employ countless hundreds, maybe even thousands of people in third world sweatshops, what do you mean they provide no valuable service to society? Those people might well starve if not for the $30 or $40 a month they make at the factory. Conspicuous consumption always trickles a little money down to the great unwashed masses, either via taxes on the goods supporting welfare or low wage factory work. Besides, isn't it important for the rich and famous to look good?:cool:

Warren in Oklahoma

[xorbie]

That argument is silly, because the same company could just charge $200 and have the celebrity give the other $20,000 straight to the workers. Trickle down economics is like an energy chain in an ecosystem. The idea that if the rich spend, the poor shall receive is kinda like saying "I have X amount of energy. I could give it straight to the lion, or let it 'trickle down' and give it the grass." Of course this analogy is not perfect, because the same energy can't be given to a lion and grass. However, in economics, the money is money. And trickle down econimcs is still just some idealistic nonsense.

[jayh]

Originally posted by xorbie
The people who run Gucci, Prada etc are rich, and quite frankly they provide no valuble service to society whatsoever.



No, they spend the money too. They buy houes, food, cars and provide income for people in these industries. The worst thing a person can do is horde the money.

A co-workers mother has for years made a good living as a pattern maker for a very famous and expensive purse designer. I can't see this as a bad thing. There was a coffee table book of the purses produced a few years back and she could look with pride at her handiwork embedded in these pieces.

When wealthy people build big houses, they provide jobs for construction workers and craftspeople (and typically the best craftspeople at that). And these crafters get to practice a quality and level of work that normal people could never afford to have them do.

[Theli]

This is a little off topic, but Walmart clothes don't always last as long as name-brand clothing products. Some people pay a little more for things because of the quality of the product, not hype.
And I suppose J.Lo wears he clothes out. I'm pretty sure she buys a new pair of shoes more often than any average wall-mart shopper.

One thing though I think most are missing is that rich people sort of has a different currency, even though they have the most money they don't spend the most natural resources with it.
They overpay everything they buy, wich means that their money in a sense is worth less. If every multi-millionaire singer would go through every store they could find and buy milk for all their money then we would suddenly have a big problem on our hands.

In the same sense, if all of them would give their money away to starving people in africa there would not be enough food for them to buy.

But ofcourse, the problem with celebrities being idolized is still there. I guess they are a substitute for gods. We must have something other than our lives to occupy our minds, atleast some of us. ;)

[Theli]

However, in economics, the money is money. And trickle down econimcs is still just some idealistic nonsense.
It brings to mind the arguments against downloading MP3's, that the poor artists will loose their money. But noone ever mentions the great number of people who makes money on services we don't really need, between the artist recording the album and me listening to it.

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by xorbie
That argument is silly, because the same company could just charge $200 and have the celebrity give the other $20,000 straight to the workers. Trickle down economics is like an energy chain in an ecosystem. The idea that if the rich spend, the poor shall receive is kinda like saying "I have X amount of energy. I could give it straight to the lion, or let it 'trickle down' and give it the grass." Of course this analogy is not perfect, because the same energy can't be given to a lion and grass. However, in economics, the money is money. And trickle down econimcs is still just some idealistic nonsense. My post was completely tongue-in-cheek ergo sunglass wearing smilie. I don't believe top down economics are the prime mover in the real economy, it is consumer driven much more so. Money in the hands of poor people is a lot more likely to get spent than money rich people get; they get rich by accumulating it, not spending it. And, these "conspicuous consumers" are consumers too. Hoarding wealth can constrain an economy, but hoarding cars or shoes doesn't tie up capital; the money is spent and out there circulating. The shoe seller needs to buy shoes too and so on.

I've been fond of calling "Trickle Down Economics" Trickled-On Economics ever since Ronald Reagan's attempt at same, somewhat an analogy to your lion and grass analogy.


Warren in Oklahoma, trickled on economically

Ed. to add:
A better analogy to trickle-down economics would be the buffalo and the dung beetle... :rolleyes:

[enfant terrible]

Originally posted by callmejay
Well, nobody's made a point which seems strikingly obvious. When the rich (or anyone else) "wastes" money, they're not taking it away from society, they're just depriving themselves of it! Somebody else now has J-Lo's $20,000 - costs. It didn't just disappear.

Agree 100%.

There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with rich people spending a lot of money.

[Pomp]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Does a ceo really deserve the salaries of 100 line workers?

Most of the reports I've seen now place the ratio of CEO-to-worker-earnings at over 400 to 1.

[Pomp]

Originally posted by enfant terrible
Agree 100%.

There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with rich people spending a lot of money.

I agree. The real question is "Is a society that allows a narrow subset of its members to become so fabulously rich that they can spend approximately five times the median annual income ($42,228 in 2001) on a purse while others starve a just society?"

[xorbie]

There is nothing morally wrong with rich people spending a lot of money. However, I would consider it morally defficient to spend absurd amounts of money just to hold up some status quo. And yes, we must take a close look at why these people are even allowed to make this amount of money. The top 1% of Americans owns like 90% of the goods. How is this even approaching anything near the vicinity of being borderline almost quasi-fair?

[enfant terrible]

Originally posted by Pomp
I agree. The real question is "Is a society that allows a narrow subset of its members to become so fabulously rich that they can spend approximately five times the median annual income ($42,228 in 2001) on a purse while others starve a just society?"

I don't think anyone should starve, and hardly anyone does in the US. If you are referring to the whole world, it is hard to evaluate justice when there is no central authority - whose justice then?

Also, a "just society" is an ideal, for real societies you must specify "compared to what" to make the question meaningful.

[enfant terrible]

Originally posted by xorbie
However, I would consider it morally defficient to spend absurd amounts of money just to hold up some status quo.

I don't understand this sentence. Can you write it in English, please?

[Holy Heretic]

The complainers here clearly do not understand the dynamics of the situation. No one is wasting money when they're transferring it into the hands of other people who will in turn use it to promote trade in one way are another.:rolleyes:

[xorbie]

I don't understand this sentence. Can you write it in English, please?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Maybe I am being a little too idealistic here, but people with a lot of money should maybe strive to do something constructive with that money. Like I said, rich people often spend money on other rich people. They go to restaurants where each waiter there gets $500 tips on a regular basis. The only little guy in the whole scenario that benefits is maybe the janitor.

Arguing that the spending of this exorbitant amount of money on what is obviously useless (like I need my regular hat to say Prada on it, and need to pay $500 for that) somehow helps the housekeeper of the person who walks the dog of the person who owns the store is just absurd, at least IMO. You want to help the janitors? Give them money. I have absolutely no problem with rich people buying high end computers, expensive cars, huge houses. However, unless they actually benefit from these things, I see it as morally deficient (not morally wrong). There are just so many better things that can be done with this money that it is sad and upsetting for me to watch this when the government can't even afford to give money to the families of 9/11 victims. And then the rich complain about tax cuts. For shame.

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:

[Worldtraveller]

I work as an engineer doing VIP aircraft completions. And our company doesn't do small aircraft....only 737's or bigger! So these are the really rich people I'm talking about. And the kind of money they are spending really does support many fairly well paid engineers.

On the other hand, many of the customer's complaints and the things they ask for are sometimes totally outrageous! There is definitely something wrong with the sense of entitlement these people have. They feel that changing the design in the middle of the project and having to completely rebuild and re-engineer things should be free. That's like demanding a refund on your airline flight because you didn't like the color of the interior. :banghead:

So I guess there is some trickle down, but it's probably the exception rather than the rule.

Just a slightly different perspective.
Cheers,
Lane

[jayh]

Originally posted by Worldtraveler


They feel that changing the design in the middle of the project and having to completely rebuild and re-engineer things should be free. That's like demanding a refund on your airline flight because you didn't like the color of the interior. :banghead:


That kind of behavior exists even in the low priced markets. People can be getting something for next to nothing but still expect everyone to jump through hoops at no charge.

j

[xorbie]

Like I said, if a rich peron buys a plane, I can (somewhat) understand it. I don't think a private plane is necessary at all, but if someone travels a lot and wants one, good for them if they can afford it. This is totally different from buying a plane just so you can tell your friends you have one, which I will stress is wrong in my opinion.

Moreover, I will agree that there is always some trickle down. It is just that it is fallacious to agrue that this trickle down makes an action good when it is totally unintented and often somewhat minimal.

[Shake]

Originally posted by Worldtraveler
I work as an engineer doing VIP aircraft completions. And our company doesn't do small aircraft....only 737's or bigger! So these are the really rich people I'm talking about. And the kind of money they are spending really does support many fairly well paid engineers.

On the other hand, many of the customer's complaints and the things they ask for are sometimes totally outrageous! There is definitely something wrong with the sense of entitlement these people have. They feel that changing the design in the middle of the project and having to completely rebuild and re-engineer things should be free. That's like demanding a refund on your airline flight because you didn't like the color of the interior. :banghead:

So I guess there is some trickle down, but it's probably the exception rather than the rule.

Just a slightly different perspective.
Cheers,
Lane So the customer pays a huge amount for something they want, which goes to pay the workers who put that product together (engineers in this case). The engineers go out and spend their money on things they need, etc. I'm all for the rich spending their money since it keeps the economy going. The rich still have to eat, buy toilet paper, send holiday cards, get flowers, etc. Whether they actually go to the stores themselves or pay someone to do it for them is irrelevant. The money gets put back into the economy. They also pay taxes ... property, school, state (possibly) and federal. Having huge houses also, I would imagine, brings along huge heating and cooling bills, electric, water, waste removal, etc.

They should (if anything) be encouraged to spend!

It doesn't make sense for John Q. and Jane Average to leave $500 tips, because they can't afford it. But if Joe Celebrity wants to do it, and he can afford it, then fine! No problems here.

[jayh]

Originally posted by xorbie
This is totally different from buying a plane just so you can tell your friends you have one, which I will stress is wrong in my opinion.



Why is it different? Why is it wong?

Throughout human history indications of status have been important (this occurs in other primates too). In any case the status item is relative to the resources that a person has at his disposal... in parts of rural Africa simply owning a watch (working or not--but in any case totally unneeded) is a status symbol. In other circles an equally unneeded jet or yacht serves the same social purpose. Sort of like the peacock's tail.

[xorbie]

And so now showing off is considered a good thing? Did I miss something?

[jayh]

And so now showing off is considered a good thing? Did I miss something?

No but it's not a great moral evil either. And probably deeply embedded in our behavior patterns.

j

[xorbie]

I don't understand this. I specifically mention how I don't think this is morally evil, but morally deficient. I in fact mention this three or four times. Of course it is not evil, but it certainly isn't good and I would personally look at it with disgust.

[senor boogie woogie]

Hola!

I read that Ben Affleck gave JLo a TWO MILLION DOLLAR ring. $2,000,000 ring. WHAT does a two million dollar ring look like?

I believe the average medium income in the USA is about 30,000 US a year. That ring is worth a 30,000 dollar a year job times 67 years worth of service. The salary of the President of the United States for five years. New York and California, 2 mil would buy someone a nice house and a mansion in the rest of America.

Or, someone like I can live well on 50,000 dollars a year. I could sell that ring and live decently for 40 years. Since I am 36 now, the value of that ring would set me up for the rest of my life.

The wealthy live in a different world than us. I really think that they are bored actually, so they spend to relieve boredom. Michael Jackson in that recent biography spent 6 million dollars shopping in Las Vegas. For what for god sakes?

I wish I could drink thousand dollar bottles of champaigne, two hundred dollar steak dinners, and fly to paris for the hell of it. But als, I cannot. But I teach English in China and today I am flying off for a three week trip to Southern China, which is a dream that most slobs like me can only dream of.

Party on,

SENOR

[ComestibleVenom]

As a person who's living depends upon rich people wasting inordinate amounts of money, I wholly support the practice of redistributing wealth.