Can a T-Shirt Be Worth $275?

OrnotBitwise

OrnotBitwise

Watermelon
I read this article on the train this morning and actually laughed out loud. Embarrassing, that. Upon reflection, though, I find it more disheartening than funny.

I suppose that outrageous over-consumption is better for the rest of us than hoarding would be. At least they're "stimulating the economy," though how much good employment the luxury clothing industry generates is open to question.
There it is, hanging on a rack next to all the other clothes.

It's just a black T-shirt for women, nothing special. In fact, it looks quite ordinary. But the price tag on it can tell a different story -- both about the company that makes it and the person who buys it.

If you browse through Gap, you'll find that black T-shirt for $14.50 ($20 if you buy two). Go to H&M and sift through the piles and you can get one for only $7.90. Stroll across the glossy floors of Bloomingdale's and you'll find a simple black T-shirt in the Armani section of the store priced at $275.

Why such a wide discrepancy in price? It may just be that you get what you pay for. Or perhaps it's what you think you're paying for. In the case of Armani, it could simply be about status.

Milton Pedraza, chief executive of the Luxury Institute, a research company that focuses on the top 10 percent of the country's wealth, said some people are more able to justify spending $275 on a T-shirt than others.

"It may be incredibly wasteful to some people, but it makes you feel powerful," Pedraza said. "It makes you feel wealth. You're paying for that intrinsic value."
Click to expand...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/15/BUGDROL38G35.DTL

Think, for a moment, about the "intrinsic value" the pundit from The Luxury Institute -- snicker -- is talking about. At first I dismissed it as stupidity: there is no such thing as intrinsic value outside of food, air and, possibly, shelter and sexual favors. Then I realized he wasn't talking about the value of the article itself at all . . . .
 
LadyT said:
Fiscally irresponsible and impractical (sp?) yes. But I don't believe that its unethical. You're actions aren't hurting anyone.
Click to expand...
It's also very, very human. Not very humane, perhaps, but entirely human. "Human" as in "mostly-hairless-ape."

This really is what wealth and status are all about, you know? Status is important: we're hard-wired that way. Desire for it varies a lot from individual to individual, just like every other desire, but it's the driving force behind our society just as it is behind every other primate society.
 
Well, you don’t know what they do with the rest of their money. You know, I don’t think that what you spend on material objects is the best judge of what kind of human being you are. It’s very likely that Angelina Jolie has spent 275.00 on a t-shirt, or something just as stupid. But look at what she has been doing for people.

So I just feel that, first of all, a 275.00 t-shirt, that’s retarded. Sharon Stone once wore a black turtle neck from the GAP to the Oscars with a floor-length formal skirt, and she looked so great that everyone wanted to know where she got her “gown”. Well, she got half of it from the Gap. Certain things, t-shirts, turtle necks, you just can’t tell the difference no matter what this article says. On a 5.00 Wal-mart tee, sure, but otherwise no. But more importantly, what matters is, is the person buying this, stepping over homeless people with their noses wrinkled up, happy assing along believing everything they have they had coming to them, without a thought or a deed to those less fortunate? Or, do they spend a significant part of their fortune trying to help others?

If they do, then I can forgive their foolishness in getting a good feeling from buying a 275.00 t-shirt. But personally, I would direct them to the shoe department, because if you’re going to spend big money on things that don’t really matter, the shoe department is where you want to start.
 
I stand by my assertion it is unethical. It is so much higher than what the market rate for a t-shirt should costs its totally unreasonable.

In our personal lives we have a right to provide for our needs and a reasonable level of confort for ourselves and our families. What we make in excess of that should be used to help others. Does it make someone that much more happy in their life in a legitimate fashion to have a 275 T-Shirt compared to the happiness that can be conferred upon others by donating the difference to a charity.

I have heard many liberals say libertarians are unethical for not being willing to submit to forcibly having their taxes withheld in order to help the poor.

I think this is far worse. Freedom demands that we exercise our freedom and that include financial freedom responsibly. This is the type of bourgeois spending that is a large part of why we are hated in the world.

Check out the King of Bhutan's idea of Gross Domestic Happiness.
 
Darla said:
Well, you don’t know what they do with the rest of their money. You know, I don’t think that what you spend on material objects is the best judge of what kind of human being you are. It’s very likely that Angelina Jolie has spent 275.00 on a t-shirt, or something just as stupid. But look at what she has been doing for people.

So I just feel that, first of all, a 275.00 t-shirt, that’s retarded. Sharon Stone once wore a black turtle neck from the GAP to the Oscars with a floor-length formal skirt, and she looked so great that everyone wanted to know where she got her “gown”. Well, she got half of it from the Gap. Certain things, t-shirts, turtle necks, you just can’t tell the difference no matter what this article says. On a 5.00 Wal-mart tee, sure, but otherwise no. But more importantly, what matters is, is the person buying this, stepping over homeless people with their noses wrinkled up, happy assing along believing everything they have they had coming to them, without a thought or a deed to those less fortunate? Or, do they spend a significant part of their fortune trying to help others?

If they do, then I can forgive their foolishness in getting a good feeling from buying a 275.00 t-shirt. But personally, I would direct them to the shoe department, because if you’re going to spend big money on things that don’t really matter, the shoe department is where you want to start.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree.

Wanting to feel special in that way really is a perfectly normal, human desire. It isn't, perhaps, the nicest thing about us but it is entirely natural. And we all do it, to some extent.

I'm in the process of shopping for a new Prius -- At last! -- and, hard-headed materialist though I am, I find some of the little bells and whistles very enticing. I don't want my Prius to look just like every other Prius on the road. I want some of the luxury options too, gawdamnit!
 
See if you can get that hookup that lets you use all those batteries in the back so you can drive 30 miles on pure electric.

If I could afford a Prius I would try to do that.
 
IHateGovernment said:
In our personal lives we have a right to provide for our needs and a reasonable level of confort for ourselves and our families. What we make in excess of that should be used to help others. Does it make someone that much more happy in their life in a legitimate fashion to have a 275 T-Shirt compared to the happiness that can be conferred upon others by donating the difference to a charity.
Click to expand...

You could easily argue that their buying a $275 is helping someone in a factory somewhere keep and/or get a job or that the $275 is helping a parent in the corporate office put a way for college or to help them keep medical benefits. I think you're assumption is flawed in that the excess isn't necessarily not helping people. You don't know that.

IH8 said:
This is the type of bourgeois spending that is a large part of why we are hated in the world.
Click to expand...

Nah. Its our propensity to destabilize and exploit nations that have garnered hate toward the US. Our bourgeois spending is a satellite hatred. If we minded our business and weren't a war machine, I don't think people would give two $hits about how we spend our money.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Get the regular one and donate the difference to charity.
Click to expand...

So am I to understand that you consider any indulgence above the bare minimum "unethical"? Is there a finite market limit to what constitutes as "unethical" according to your standards?
 
You could easily argue that their buying a $275 is helping someone in a factory somewhere keep and/or get a job or that the $275 is helping a parent in the corporate office put a way for college or to help them keep medical benefits. I think you're assumption is flawed in that the excess isn't necessarily not helping people. You don't know that.


It isnt' helping some worker doing slave labor in the Mariana Islands. I think we both no it goes to some corporate fat cat. I'd rather buy the cheaper shirt and use the difference to help those being used as slave labor in these clothing factories.

Nah. Its our propensity to destabilize and exploit nations that have garnered hate toward the US. Our bourgeois spending is a satellite hatred. If we minded our business and weren't a war machine, I don't think people would give two $hits about how we spend our money.

True it is an ancillary concern but I know that it is a big beef with people overseas.

So am I to understand that you consider any indulgence above the bare minimum "unethical"? Is there a finite market limit to what constitutes as "unethical" according to your standards?

No. I would say arbitrarily I admit that spending over 5 times the prevailing amount for what would be considered a basic item to be overly frivolous and thus unethical. So if you could reasonably get a home approrpriate for your family size in your area at 300,000 dollars if you pay 3 million dollars instead that is unethical.

This is purely my opinion. Obviously since I am a Libertarian it has absolutely no bearing on my political beliefs.

I will also admit I tend to not like rich people or things associated with wealth and have a huge distaste for this bling bling culture of ours.
 
Well no one agrees with me here apparently.

I think Jesus or Ghandhi would though for what its worth.

I'm not a religious man.

However when my wife had a world religions class and as part of it visited different places of worship she told me about this sermon the Imam at a Mosque was giving about spending in the way of Allah. This was in Trenton and a primarily black neighborhood and the Imam spoke of the immorality of wasteful spending on bling bling type items as it withheld assistance to your fellow brothers.

when she told me about what he had said I found it very inspiring and affirming.

Here's a little bit about it I found on google.

http://www.youngmuslims.ca/articles/display.asp?ID=58
 
IHateGovernment said:

It isnt' helping some worker doing slave labor in the Mariana Islands. I think we both no it goes to some corporate fat cat. I'd rather buy the cheaper shirt and use the difference to help those being used as slave labor in these clothing factories.
Click to expand...


You also forget that there are non-fat-cat-ordinary people that work in offices, distribution centers and in sales forces that rely on Tiffany's, Armani, Michael Kors, etc revenues to provide them with a 401K, medical benefits, and a living. While I do think that people in 3rd world and developing countries are exploited, working in horrible factory conditions is a heck of a lot better than the alternatives for young women and children that have to fend for themselves.

"True it is an ancillary concern but I know that it is a big beef with people overseas.

IH8 said:
No. I would say arbitrarily I admit that spending over 5 times the prevailing amount for what would be considered a basic item to be overly frivolous and thus unethical. So if you could reasonably get a home approrpriate for your family size in your area at 300,000 dollars if you pay 3 million dollars instead that is unethical.
Click to expand...

????? huh ?????? This makes no sense to me unless you have an arbitrary square footage limit and home features in your opinion of what constitutes as enough.

Obviously the home for $3 million would have a lot more to offer than the $300K home.

IH8 said:
I will also admit I tend to not like rich people or things associated with wealth and have a huge distaste for this bling bling culture of ours.
Click to expand...

Oh, so your jealous/prejudice. You should try not to judge people until you get to know them. Rich people can be down to earth and good if you take the time to get to know them.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I'm inclined to agree.

Wanting to feel special in that way really is a perfectly normal, human desire. It isn't, perhaps, the nicest thing about us but it is entirely natural. And we all do it, to some extent.

I'm in the process of shopping for a new Prius -- At last! -- and, hard-headed materialist though I am, I find some of the little bells and whistles very enticing. I don't want my Prius to look just like every other Prius on the road. I want some of the luxury options too, gawdamnit!
Click to expand...

LOL. Cool Ornot. I love those cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top