Should luxury goods exist?

[Petrolheadia]

I've found many people on this very website saying that luxury goods should not exist.

Their reasoning is that first, such things are a waste of resources, and second, they are needless compensation devices for posers that reinforce divisions in the society.

Well, I strongly disagree.

First, I believe that people who put exceptional work into society, however it is measured (money, social credit, some form of meritocracy), should be able to receive a compensation for their troubles; the thing disputable should be how we measure usefulness of a person, not if we reward them for it.

Second, I usually find this argument borne out of envy, as many luxury goods are bought by true enthusiasts.

Also, luxury goods aren't just for the rich - when they age, they get... a bit cheaper.
A 1998 Jaguar XJ8 was at least £70k in today's money as new, but you can now buy one for £1400.
A 2008 Pioneer Elite PureVision PRO-FHD1 would cost over $9k in 2018 dollars when new, but now goes for as low as $200.
iPhone 6? $649 new, a bit over $150 used.
Actually, when I think about it, I'd like to thank the rich for buying these goods, so they can depreciate into such prices.

In a similar vein, a non-money-based system could distribute used luxury goods to the lower classes.


And what do you think? Should there be luxury goods? Or maybe we should all be equal shiny happy people?

[The Black Forrest]

Sure why not.

The wealthy have Luxury goods and the rest have smartphones, TVs, Music, Game consoles, etc.

Compensation is not always about being exceptional. Hell there was the homedepot ceo has was fired and walked away with 210 million.

But as to envy sure there are people who do that. Hell I would love to have an old P-51 fighter but I don't sit around suffering my situation.

My question? If they can afford luxury goods; why do they need tax cuts? Obviously to buy more but you get my point.

[Petrolheadia]

Compensation is not always about being exceptional. Hell there was the homedepot ceo has was fired and walked away with 210 million.

These people are often given guaranteed payouts, because otherwise, who would come and run a failing company if they can get a steady income from a good one?

[Abarri]

I personally don't think there's anything wrong with luxury goods per se. Why? Because people are bound to have wants along with their needs. So yeah, luxury goods unsurprisingly exist.

[North Curbstompia]

I believe luxury goods should exist. In terms of resources, how many of these luxury items are being produced? How many Ferraris are being built compared to say Honda Accords? How many mansions are being built compared to townhouses? Luxury items are optional. Nobody is making you get them, so why restrict it? If people want it and have the money for it, they'd buy it. If not enough people are buying it for the prices set, then the company producing said goods would reduce it in order to stay in business.

Now for the compensation devices for posers part, that's purely psychological. I think the people going on about how luxury goods shouldn't exist are experiencing jealousy. They come up with reasons for why it shouldn't exist, but they still feel pangs of jealousy although they might not want to admit it. Combine that with their idea of "if I can't have it, nobody should" and of course they'd want to get rid of luxury items. Rather than getting a better job or simply saying "it's nice, but out of my budget", like most people would, they attack it in a way to cope with their own short comings.

[The Black Forrest]

Compensation is not always about being exceptional. Hell there was the homedepot ceo has was fired and walked away with 210 million.

These people are often given guaranteed payouts, because otherwise, who would come and run a failing company if they can get a steady income from a good one?

They are always guaranteed a payout. The argument being "they won't make the tough decisions" You should be rewarded for success; not failure.

[VoVoDoCo]

I'm don't see anything wrong with luxary goods. I suppose we're just suppose to leave diamonds in the ground? Outlaw autographed t-shirts?

[The Black Forrest]

I'm don't see anything wrong with luxary goods. I suppose we're just suppose to leave diamonds in the ground? Outlaw autographed t-shirts?

Have DeBeers release what they own and diamonds would be worth as much as a pretty stone.

[Ohioan Territory]

If people are willing to put their resources into creating luxury goods, and if others are willing to voluntarily give up their money for said goods, I don't see a problem with luxury goods existing. It's not like they do any harm to anyone.

[Sicaris]

I'm don't see anything wrong with luxary goods. I suppose we're just suppose to leave diamonds in the ground? Outlaw autographed t-shirts?

Of course not. Just burn them all, according to far leftists.

[Zakuvia]

I'll agree with the sentiment here. Luxury goods, per se, aren't a bad thing. Have you become highly successful in monetary terms? Sure, go ahead, get a yacht if you want. But what's missing there is the idea of luxury goods being subsidized in terms of the already monetarily successful receiving tax money, or tax discounts. That's where I'm more than willing to pop a few holes in the HMS Goldman Sachs and give the fishies a new hotel.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yes they should/thread

[The Black Forrest]

I'm don't see anything wrong with luxary goods. I suppose we're just suppose to leave diamonds in the ground? Outlaw autographed t-shirts?

Of course not. Just burn them all, according to far leftists.

How many left handed pyromaniacs do you know?

[New Emeline]

I'm don't see anything wrong with luxary goods. I suppose we're just suppose to leave diamonds in the ground? Outlaw autographed t-shirts?

Of course not. Just burn them all, according to far leftists.

Not fully automated luxury gay space communists

[Dagnia]

They should exist, but their wastefulness should be offset by something that does some good. I would have no problem with bringing back the luxury tax in the US, which we had for all things until 1993 and on luxury cars until 2002. I agree though that an outright ban on luxury goods would be a bad thing for everyone economically as well as a sign of a malignant mediocrity, who having no chance to rise in life, envies their social and intellectual betters.
A problem with even a tax on luxury goods is the definition of a luxury is different from person to person, and even if you were to take a poll on what most people consider a luxury changes depending on where they are and the times. Is it a feature? A brand name? Purely a dollar amount? My relatively new Honda has many features of a Mercedes from 20 years ago. Heated side mirrors were a feature that would have been unthinkable for me getting my first car, but are something I couldn't live without, especially when I was living in Buffalo. Luxuries eventually become commonplace things after a few years, generations, or centuries. Even condemning luxuries on this forum, you are doing it on devices that had initial costs of thousands and through services that would have gone for hundreds per month a generation ago, and now they are throw-away devices even the poorest can afford to drop in a toilet. Within our lifetimes, I suspect the poorest people (in the first world at least) will live in the tacky McMansions currently owned by yuppies and they'll think they're getting a raw deal.

[Underdark Cave]

If people are willing to put their resources into creating luxury goods, and if others are willing to voluntarily give up their money for said goods, I don't see a problem with luxury goods existing. It's not like they do any harm to anyone.

Ever heard of blood diamonds?

[Garden at 6th Mile Road]

It's all right... if you know what exactly to spend on?

All these? Not so much.

There's also this... http://www.glace-ice.com/

It's JUST ICE.

[Albrenia]

I've no problem at all with luxury goods in general.

[Jebslund]

They should exist, but their wastefulness should be offset by something that does some good. I would have no problem with bringing back the luxury tax in the US, which we had for all things until 1993 and on luxury cars until 2002. I agree though that an outright ban on luxury goods would be a bad thing for everyone economically as well as a sign of a malignant mediocrity, who having no chance to rise in life, envies their social and intellectual betters.
A problem with even a tax on luxury goods is the definition of a luxury is different from person to person, and even if you were to take a poll on what most people consider a luxury changes depending on where they are and the times. Is it a feature? A brand name? Purely a dollar amount? My relatively new Honda has many features of a Mercedes from 20 years ago. Heated side mirrors were a feature that would have been unthinkable for me getting my first car, but are something I couldn't live without, especially when I was living in Buffalo. Luxuries eventually become commonplace things after a few years, generations, or centuries. Even condemning luxuries on this forum, you are doing it on devices that had initial costs of thousands and through services that would have gone for hundreds per month a generation ago, and now they are throw-away devices even the poorest can afford to drop in a toilet. Within our lifetimes, I suspect the poorest people (in the first world at least) will live in the tacky McMansions currently owned by yuppies and they'll think they're getting a raw deal.

Seems to me there's a rather simple solution to determining what constitutes a luxury good:

First, next-gen consoles, computers, and phones should be considered luxury items until the initial affordability drop (the point where, for example, a $300 console drops to $200). Second, any goods sold by companies who do not advertise for purposes of only selling to elite clientele (certain jewelry makers, certain car makers, etc) or to give the appearance thereof (Kirby, certain kitchenware companies, etc). Third, any goods sold primarily by stores which do not list their prices in the tradition of, "If you have to ask the price, you can't afford to shop here). Beyond those? Have the number crunchers find the average MSRP for a given category (compact cars sold as new, for instance). Any goods sold as new which exceed this average by more than one quarter of it would be considered luxury goods if a generic (off-brand) item exists which provides comparable utility. Medicines, sanitary pads, and prescription medical devices (canes, wheelchairs, eyeglasses, hearing aids, etc.) are exempt, as are basic food supplies (things you'd find in a food box from the local GRM/Salvation Army/Soup kitchen lunch bag/etc.) and water.

[Internationalist Bastard]

If necessities are what keep us alive, luxuries are what make life livable

[Farnhamia]

If necessities are what keep us alive, luxuries are what make life livable

And no taking away luxuries right when I get to the point when I can enjoy and afford them.

[The Knockout Gun Gals]

We all know luxury goods exist as a capitalist tool to satisfy population while they greedily take the money off the populace.

[Underdark Cave]

We all know luxury goods exist as a capitalist tool to satisfy population while they greedily take the money off the populace.

What would you use money for if there were no luxury items?

[Bombadil]

We all know luxury goods exist as a capitalist tool to satisfy population while they greedily take the money off the populace.

What would you use money for if there were no luxury items?

Yuh.. like I can't imagine..

Rather than strictly ban luxury goods i do have to question the inordinate amount of money spent on relatively pointless things.. the entire make up world is a decent example, $600 for some rose scented mayonnaise that promises to rejuvenate and lighten the skin..

..but beyond that, glacier water from the foothills of K2, don't even get me started on accessories for pets.. I mean a lot of this is mere peacockery.. a need to display, the fact that it's not enough to just have money, one must let everyone else know you have this money to ensure they know you're better than them..

..what would you use money for, maybe the realisation that the majority of success is circumstance and luck. You could help relieve debt for people, perhaps provide housing rather than have those 15 empty houses.. there's a million things one could do with money rather than buy a fake sense of self worth.

[Underdark Cave]

What would you use money for if there were no luxury items?

Yuh.. like I can't imagine..

Rather than strictly ban luxury goods i do have to question the inordinate amount of money spent on relatively pointless things.. the entire make up world is a decent example, $600 for some rose scented mayonnaise that promises to rejuvenate and lighten the skin..

..but beyond that, glacier water from the foothills of K2, don't even get me started on accessories for pets.. I mean a lot of this is mere peacockery.. a need to display, the fact that it's not enough to just have money, one must let everyone else know you have this money to ensure they know you're better than them..

..what would you use money for, maybe the realisation that the majority of success is circumstance and luck. You could help relieve debt for people, perhaps provide housing rather than have those 15 empty houses.. there's a million things one could do with money rather than buy a fake sense of self worth.

Oh but if people will spend money on others, then why should I work?
I assume someone will be a nice person and pay for my debt, my housing, my life...