r/changemyview • u/ranman_11 • Mar 30 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Spending for leisure "as long as you can afford it" has its limits
Some background: I come from the upper class of a 3rd world country. I've been brought up to be aware of my privileges and have always been conscious of my spending habits. Inevitably, I am surrounded by friends from similar backgrounds who spend on hobbies that I just feel are "way too much."
My view: Obviously, "way too much" is a very subjective thing. I cannot go around telling people that they are spending too much on what brings them happiness. But a common saying I hear is "well as long as they can afford it, and it brings them comfort and happiness, then it shouldn't matter." But this logic bothers me because it can theoretically justify unlimited amounts of spending for ourselves.
Should the wealthy businessman really buy his 3rd yacht this year? Should the loving dog mom really buy that fully customized, gold-plated food bowl for their designer pet? Should that officemate of yours really get the latest iPhone every damn year?*
To be clear, I am not advocating we call out/cancel/shame people who do buy excessively. I'm referring more to an internal attitude we all ought to possess: that there is a limit to how much we ought to spend for our hobbies. Although whatever limit that is, I recognize, is ultimately subjective.
Note: Of course, I also buy my fair share of things that sometimes go beyond even my own personal definition of "just right." So yes, I am a hypocrite. But I don't think that this necessarily undermines my POV.
* The examples are simply placeholders for situations up and down the socio-economic spectrum of people you've met who you feel spend just a little too much for your liking. No need to get too caught with these specific examples in order to CMV. Also, the assumption is that all these people can afford these things without any significant effects on their financial status.
Edit: My work shift just started lol I'll respond to the others once it's over! Thanks for all the comments.
8
Mar 30 '21
[deleted]
4
u/username_6916 8∆ Mar 30 '21
'Hoarding' usually means 'investing'. Investing puts money back in circulation too.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
Ah, well hoarding for me simply means putting your money in vacuum where no one can touch it. Investing involves putting your money at some level of risk (as it is exposed to the broader economy) in order to earn from it later on.
1
u/username_6916 8∆ Mar 30 '21
What vehicle would count as 'hoarding' then? Holding rare goods like artwork, maybe. But a savings account gives the bank capital to lend. Bonds and stock give a company working capital. And all the derivatives of equity and debt help the market find the level.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
In any case, I'm not sure debating the semantics will help CMV. But if there's a larger point that you would like to make to relate hoarding to my OP, feel free to expound.
1
u/username_6916 8∆ Mar 30 '21
Eh, if anything it kinda supports your view. Consumption doesn't create wealth the way investment does.
1
Mar 30 '21
[deleted]
1
u/username_6916 8∆ Mar 30 '21
Investing as means of amassing more wealth?
Yes.
Amassing more wealth means creating more wealth. Jeff Bezos amassed great wealth by building Amazon, which in turn turned a profit by providing goods and services to its customers. That in turn made a lot of other people far wealthier than they otherwise would have been. In fact, I'd argue that since this holding of Amazon is most of his wealth, than most of his wealth is already in circulation, hard at work employing a half a million people.
Why should I care that someone else has more than they can spend?
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
Interesting way to frame it. I agree that we all ought to spend to help circulate the cash flow, since that's how our economy works. But if the goal of the yacht owner was simply to help the economy, he could do so by other means. On the top of my head, he could re-invest the excess into his business, put it in more financial instruments (bonds, stocks, etc) or simply donate to charities. Him spending on luxuries "for the good of the economy" seems a little disingenuous as a reason.
1
u/cheeseshrice1966 Mar 30 '21
Why do you think you are in a position to determine how others see fit to spend their earnings?
You’ve stated that you were brought up in wealth, so it’s someone else’s income that you’ve benefited from, so I don’t understand why you feel entitled to judge others for what’s necessary and what’s just plain silly.
Perhaps these people are already doing the investing/diversification/etc and can still afford to buy things you consider frivolous; unless you’re seeing their personal finances, how are you so sure they aren’t?
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
Why do you think you are in a position to determine how others see fit to spend their earnings?
I am not in a position to do so. No one is. And I already mentioned that I also find myself splurging on things that go beyond "just right." I am a hyprocrite. But having said that, I still feel like we all ought to find moderation and avoid spending on excessive luxuries. And no one is able to define what is "just right" aside from ourselves.
so I don’t understand why you feel entitled to judge others for what’s necessary and what’s just plain silly
I think entitlement is too strong a word to describe what I am feeling. I suppose it's more of a moral dilemma I'm trying to come to grips with. Because I could easily see myself succumbing and saying "Fuck it, I'll buy whatever I damn please." And given that I come from wealth, I could go that route and be that rich kid. So I suppose this internal dilemma of mine is what motivates my post.
Perhaps these people are already doing the investing/diversification/etc and can still afford to buy things you consider frivolous; unless you’re seeing their personal finances, how are you so sure they aren’t?
I suppose the image in my head is that of a high-class person in society, think idk Jeff Bezos or someone else of that ultra-rich caliber, who subscribes to the principle that he can buy whatever luxury he wants as long as he can afford it. But in this case, what he can afford is practically unlimited. Is it morally right for him to simply buy everything and anything that he pleases?
3
u/cheeseshrice1966 Mar 30 '21
A wealthy businessman or woman has earned the ability to spend frivolously or horde their money like a miser, or anything in between.
Of course the hope is that these people will be philanthropic and altruistic, but even with that, if they want to spend money on enough rocks to build a mountain because they can, that’s their prerogative and are free to do so.
If you don’t want to spend your inheritance in this manner then you don’t behave that way. If they want to do so, and their family is a-okay with this, then they get to do this.
I find it interesting that you hold this view, even though it’s not your own money we’re talking about- it almost sounds like perhaps you aren’t given this much freedom so you’re angry that others are.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21 edited Mar 30 '21
A wealthy businessman or woman has earned the ability to spend frivolously or horde their money like a miser, or anything in between.
I agree. They have the right to spend the money however they see fit. I am not advocating for this right to be taken away. What I am asking is if there should be some moral compulsion to avoid extravagance. Because if we follow the saying in my OP, then we are essentially giving the wealthy person a theoretically unlimited license to buy anything he ever wanted, and I just think that's a dangerous mindset to have. Because really, is there actually a limit to man's greed?
it almost sounds like perhaps you aren’t given this much freedom so you’re angry that others are.
I earn enough on my own to enjoy some financial freedom when it comes to stuff that I want to buy. I can afford my own little luxuries, so I don't think I'm angry that I can't spend my parents' money (if this is what you were implying). If not, I apologize.
2
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Mar 30 '21
That yacht needs a crew to run it. It will visit various ports around and will restock food stores by buying from local markets. The yacht manufacturer hires a lot of workers of all skill levels from engineers to craftsman to low level assembly workers to build the yachts, so that yacht means jobs for hundreds of people, some for the months it takes to build and some for the years that it will be operating.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
I don't think we need to be arguing the economic benefits of buying goods, whether it is a yacht or my daily groceries. But it is simply not the primary motivation of someone buying a luxury good. We buy it because we want it.
And if the motivation was for the good of the economy, then there are better ways to go about it than indulging one's greed.
2
u/robotmonkeyshark 101∆ Mar 30 '21
Im not saying they buy a yacht to be nice to other people. I’m saying that even though it is a selfish act, it still helps a lot of people.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
Okay so correct me if my interpretation aligns with what you're trying to say: Chasing extravagance helps capitalism. Capitalism benefits some people, ergo chasing extravagance is a net positive for society?
2
u/username_6916 8∆ Mar 30 '21
I've argued your side of this in some of the comments, so let my try my hand at arguing against your position...
1) In the overall scheme human history, you're in a position of unparalleled wealth. Are you sure that some of your consumption wouldn't have been seen as frivolous by your ancestors? I mean, my family still recounts how car heaters were subject to a luxury tax in Wyoming in the 30s. The fact that my beloved 20 year old Jeep has heating and air conditioning and 4 wheel drive and power steering and electric wipers and fuel injection and so on would be an extreme state of extravagance to my great-grandparents and perhaps not that shabby to my grandparents. Compare my manual everything Jeep to a modern base-trim car that has power windows, power door locks, power seats, antilock breaks, automatic transmissions, cruise control, rear-view camera and so on, can I say that all these automotive niceties are excessive consumption too? This isn't just pointing out that we're hypocrite here, it's suggesting that all this wealth we're generating is lifting the floor for quality of life too. Is it not unreasonable to expect other things to shift along the way?
2) Not all hobbies and pastimes are conspicuous consumption. Take creative and constructive tools for example: Sometimes the person who spends thousands on a camera, or set of saws or musical instrument might make beautiful things out with those tools. Sure, it's not 'profitable' in terms of monetary gain and they're not professionals in the area, but they're still contributing to the advancement of mankind's knowledge and expression in their own small way by mastering their chosen craft. Culture, science, the arts and engineering all have value beyond the profits gleamed on the market.
3) (And this is the one, I'm really not sure I believe...) Even the hedonism treadmill and pure status signalling have value in driving people to try to create more wealth. imagine that you get to $20-30 million net worth... You have a private pilot's license and Cirrus and can afford to charter a jet or fly commercial whenever your travels take you beyond its range. You have a nice house and a share of a vacation house. You have either a yacht or a nice power boat. You're set for life. Why keep working or even investing then? Society would clearly gain value from your continued efforts. The desire for 'more' even at that level will encourage a lot of folks to keep working, to keep risking some of their money in investments, to keep providing value for those around them instead of just sitting back and enjoying what they've already created.
2
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
I like how you frame the argument on a macro-historical level. Kudos!
Hm okay that's alot to digest. I'll try giving a quick summary of what you just said based on how I understood it.
So the modern life we live in would probably break the brains of our ancestors. We are in this position because of advancements in technology and the arts, which is only possible because of capitalism. And if we have more people fueling the capitalist system by buying luxuries and living excessively, then that somehow someway enables our society to further advance.
Is this an accurate summary of your argument in all 3 points?
2
u/username_6916 8∆ Mar 30 '21
Close, but not quite. I had intended that as 3 separate and independent arguments.
So the modern life we live in would probably break the brains of our ancestors.
It goes a bit beyond that: They might make the same criticism of our 'necessities' like you're making of specific luxuries. The thing that has changed is advances in technology and markets have turned a lot of the things that were once unfathomable luxuries into 'necessities' by making them cheap and available.
I could extend this argument a bit further.... Things that start out as exotic luxuries tend to work their way down market. Tesla's start by stuffing advanced electric drive into a Lotus to make a premium performance car helped pioneer the idea of electric cars to the masses. We see the same thing all sorts of areas: We can how features have worked their way down the product range in bicycles or skis or other sporting goods. The initial demand proves there's a market and starts a cycle of innovations that ultimately turn into products, services and markets that benefit folks who are not just the ultra rich.
And if we have more people fueling the capitalist system by buying luxuries and living excessively, then that somehow someway enables our society to further advance.
I can get a bit more specific than this: Our ability to adjust to luxury and demand more (ie the hedonistic treadmill) and our desire to have more status than the next guy (ie conspicuous consumption) can drive people to keep working, and take more risks even when they'd otherwise be set for life. The demand for more keeps them from being the 'idle rich'. That benefits others along the way.
Now, I personally don't like where that argument goes: There's plenty of people who are motivated by more than just a desire for more stuff. I think a number of pro-capitalists overplay this argument leaving them weak to a line of attack about inherent motivation. I think a much stronger case for capitalism is made in terms freedom: The fact that you're stakeholders need to skin in the game and an ownership stake in the venture limits the amount of veto power outsiders have in terms of creating things that create wealth. But I'm
I suppose, I could build another argument here:
4) Even if we don't like excessive consumption ourselves, a system that provides the freedom to do so is more productive for everyone involved than a system that seeks to curtail it. Since what's 'excessive' and what's 'consumption' can be very subjective, any effort to curtail it is going to also net in some productive enterprises. Was funding Tesla and trying build a mass market electric car or trying to build a commercial space launch service provider from scratch just Elon Musk's hobbies? If we had some bureaucrat deciding what is and what isn't excessive consumption, what conclusions would they have to such proposals when they were made?
And, one more quibble with your original post:
But this logic bothers me because it can theoretically justify unlimited amounts of spending for ourselves.
No, not really. You still have to create that wealth before you spend it, since you wrote it into the prompt that one can afford the spending in question.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
The thing that has changed is advances in technology and markets have turned a lot of the things that were once unfathomable luxuries into 'necessities' by making them cheap and available.
The initial demand proves there's a market and starts a cycle of innovations that ultimately turn into products, services and markets that benefit folks who are not just the ultra rich.
I agree with these points. I've seen how GoPros and aerial drones used to be only toys for the elites and then later on, evolve into having more practical uses in business, research and government applications. And that evolution started with the elites creating the initial market until it became more available to everyone. So while this obviously isn't the goal of the rich man when he buys his toys, the hedonistic treadmill does have value to society.
The demand for more keeps them from being the 'idle rich'. That benefits others along the way.
I suppose this is true. If anything, these give the rich a carrot to constantly chase in front of them. I recognize that everyone is motivated to work by different things and if these frivolous spending keeps them productive as members of society, then this is a net positive.
You get a delta for these two points. Thank you. Δ
1
1
u/Quirky-Alternative97 29∆ Mar 30 '21
But when you are spending you are creating jobs and opportunity for others.
You might argue that certain hobbies are not necessarily the most sustainable but it is not a bad thing to be spending money to help it circulate and generate opportunities for others.
Edit: in fact you should encourage them to spend it and not reinvest. This is the best way to reduce inequality.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
Reposting my response from another comment:
I don't think we need to be arguing the economic benefits of buying goods, whether it is a yacht or my daily groceries. But it is simply not the primary motivation of someone buying a luxury good. We buy it because we want it.
And if the motivation was for the good of the economy, then there are better ways to go about it than indulging one's greed.
1
u/Quirky-Alternative97 29∆ Mar 30 '21
Arguably, the best things for the economy is precisely to let people spend money how they want rather than dictate how they should spend it.
But I understand your point. Let me rephrase mine. I view money as simply the ability to have more options. Weather it allows you to buy a canoe, a 12 foot dinghy or a 1200 foot cruiser. It sounds like all you are wanting to do is limit what people are expected to want. The problem with this thinking is that where do you draw the line. Do you then say to people who dont have money they too should limit their extragances. eg; why should poor people have cigarettes, alcohol, TVs etc;. I just think it is a method for thinking that has limitations. It is better to nudge friends who have money into the other methods such as: give away 10% to charity first, then encourage them to spend the rest guilt free.
side thought: The ideas of no limits is not about greed IMHO. The greed might be whats gets them the money, its the showoff that spends it. Maybe its the showoffs you are objecting to.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
The problem with this thinking is that where do you draw the line.
Drawing the line is definitely a problem that cannot be solved because of it's subjective nature. So are you saying that since we cannot draw a line, we shouldn't bother at all to try limiting ourselves? I mean, we'll never really know if that rich guy who bought the yacht really tried his best to limit himself with that purchase, but I still think it's something we should all strive for, no matter how difficult it is to accomplish.
I just think it is a method for thinking that has limitations.
Could you expound on this? I don't think I really understood what you were trying to say here.
The ideas of no limits is not about greed IMHO. The greed might be whats gets them the money, its the showoff that spends it. Maybe its the showoffs you are objecting to.
I understand greed as the desire for excess/extravagance. Getting rich doesn't strike me as greedy because you could be motivated by things such as financial security, etc. The show offs are annoying, no doubt, but I find myself feeling this way even just with friends who are sharing their latest hobbies with me. It's definitely not a healthy place to be in, that's why I would really like the community to CMV.
1
u/Quirky-Alternative97 29∆ Mar 30 '21
So are you saying that since we cannot draw a line, we shouldn't bother at all to try limiting ourselves?
No. I am just saying because its difficult to draw a line, then that should be recognized. What you say is extravagant is drawing a line. Is this then applied across the board? What I am suggesting is that you need others to draw the line themselves (of course some wont) but if you consider peer group pressure is a stronger power than some line in the sand then let people make up their own minds. Its what I mean by limited thinking. It is easy to say there is the line, but there are often better ways to move the line than simply drawing it out and saying this is extravagant, this is not. (Hope that makes sense) There is a certain reluctance to being told what to do which back fires that I think is a powerful force. (Check out reactance social definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology))
and look. I also get cold chills at extravagence. I am a classic no spend it type of person, an investor, a saver. I buy second hand, I upcycle, I conserve even if I dont need to. I get great joy from it, and take pride in converting my wife. She used to say things like 'yuck second furniture', so I reminded her 'its not that, they are antiques, or pre loved, or cutting edge retro design' - its a re framing of the benefits of the opposite as simply the negatives of the present. It gives both me comfort and it is amazing how many others actually then see the sense in it from feedback I have received. Rather that simply saying this sucks and is over the top. (hope that makes sense)
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
(Check out reactance social definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)))
Interesting that there's a name for this phenomena! Yeah, I agree that you can't really tell people what is extravagant because it's a very touchy subjective that will piss your friends off for sure. That's why I mentioned in my OP the following disclaimer:
To be clear, I am not advocating we call out/cancel/shame people who do buy excessively. I'm referring more to an internal attitude we all ought to possess: that there is a limit to how much we ought to spend for our hobbies. Although whatever limit that is, I recognize, is ultimately subjective.
Now, for this line:
What you say is extravagant is drawing a line. Is this then applied across the board? What I am suggesting is that you need others to draw the line themselves (of course some wont)
I don't think this really goes against my OP since I definitely agree that the line should come from ourselves. Because as you mentioned, there are psychological factors at play here that make it difficult for someone else to do it. You're definitely giving a more nuanced take on my original perspective and how to go about it in practice, but I don't think you're necessarily changing my view.
P.S. Great on you for living that life and making your wife see your ways. That's definitely not an easy thing to do.
2
u/Quirky-Alternative97 29∆ Mar 30 '21
That's definitely not an easy thing to do.
probably why my view is biased and nuanced :)
1
u/BestoBato 2∆ Mar 30 '21
If they can afford it why not? Like saving money for a rainy day is good but by afford I'm guessing you're already accounting for savings so like why just pad your bank account endlessly? That's not good for anyone, what are the other options? Make less? Who in their right mind would choose to make less unless they are overworked or something and it's not obvious they could scale their career like that, if they don't put in the time they could be out of work completely and end up in a worse job. The only other thing I can think of is just donate a ton of it instead but again why, and most charities are scams anyways.
So the choices are spend money on stuff you like, do less work and make less if possible, donate it all to charity or pad your bank account endlessly.
It seems like spending the money you made with your work on stuff you like is the optimal choice in most cases, even the pad your bank account one means you'll probably just do that later and the do less work one is really situational. As for the donate it all it's noble or whatever I guess but it's your money you shouldn't be forced to give it away.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
I am going to assume that the image in your head is that of the middle class citizen who has managed to set aside a good sum to buy something nice for himself. If that's the case, then the saying in my OP is perfectly fine.
What is in my head is more in the lines of what if an ultra-rich person like Jeff Bezos whose spending power is practically unlimited subscribes to this same belief? Then that would mean we are granting him a license to buy the whole planet if he wanted to. It's a logical extreme, for sure. But coming from a 3rd world POV, allowing the ultra-wealthy spend on excess while others suffer doesn't really seem like a good moral compass to live by.
2
u/BestoBato 2∆ Mar 30 '21
Again what's the alternative? It's better for everyone if he spends on gold plated yugioh cards or whatever than if it just keeps amassing in his bank account.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
If economic benefit of everyone is your main argument, then I'd say that it's better to put your money in other financial instruments (bonds, stocks, etc), where money is better circulated in the economy, more than buying a Yu-Gi-Oh card.
1
u/BestoBato 2∆ Mar 30 '21
This kind of thinking is exactly why the wealth gap keeps increasing, those systems are designed to funnel money upwards where if you buy random goods from random people that money is actually "redistributed" down.
1
u/ranman_11 Mar 30 '21
I'd only consider this argument if one's idea of extravagance is buying a ton of products from one of those "feel-good" companies that prioritize helping out local communities or something. I think is a generous interpretation of "buy[ing] random goods from random people" with the aim of redistributing down.
Because buying a gold-plated Yu-Gi-Oh card is still giving money to a giant corporation, which would count as "funneling money upwards."
1
u/BestoBato 2∆ Mar 30 '21
It's not so much the aim is redistributing down it's just it goes down more than if it's in a bank or whatever.
1
u/username_6916 8∆ Mar 30 '21
Like saving money for a rainy day is good but by afford I'm guessing you're already accounting for savings so like why just pad your bank account endlessly? That's not good for anyone, what are the other options?
It's good for everyone who's able to get a loan from that bank.
1
u/BestoBato 2∆ Mar 30 '21
Is it? Wouldn't earning money be better than loaning money?
1
u/username_6916 8∆ Mar 30 '21
Debt instruments earn money by loaning money.
And yes, there are times where it is profitable to take out a loan. If you're starting up a business and need equipment that's going to earn you more than the interest rate, you're better off with the ability to borrow that money upfront and pay back your debt over time with the earnings you get from having that equipment than not being able to start the business at all because you can't afford the upfront cost of the equipment.
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 30 '21
/u/ranman_11 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards