Status-oriented spending
8greylag
2Adam Zerner
5Rana Dexsin
3Adam Zerner
4Jiro
3nim
6Adam Zerner
1greylag
2Shankar Sivarajan
4Adam Zerner
1Shankar Sivarajan
4Brendan Long
2the gears to ascension
4Adam Zerner
2[anonymous]
2Adam Zerner
2[anonymous]
2the gears to ascension
1Rana Dexsin
New Comment
I am confused. None of these are particularly social-status-improving, or, for that matter, social-status-worsening, because none of them are conspicuous. If you buy a tailored suit or an expensive car or an expensive house, people can see that you own it, and the extravagance signals wealth (or can be interpreted as materialism or lack of prudence); none of the things on the list seem to qualify. What am I missing?
Yeah, more visible things like suits and cars are more status-signaling than something like hiring a house cleaner. The latter could be status-signaling if it comes up in conversation, but I that's a little limited, and so I don't think they were great examples for me to focus on in the post. They're just what came to my mind.
The first somewhat contrary thing that comes to mind here is whether visible spending that looks like a status grab or is class-dissonant would also impact your social capital in terms of being able to source (loaned or gifted) money from your networks in case of a crunch or shock. If your friends will feel “well I sure would've liked to have X, but I was the ‘responsible’ one and you weren't, so now I'm not going to put money in when you're down” and that's what you rely on as a safety net, then maybe you do need to pay attention to that kind of self-policing. If you're reliant on less personal sources of credit, insurance, etc. or if your financially relevant social groups are themselves receptive to your ideas on not caring as much about class policing, then the self-policing can be mainly self-sabotage like you say.
That makes sense as a consideration for some people. I suspect that it's usually a pretty small one though.
It seems to me that hiring a cleaner or organizer would have a lot of overhead, to make sure everything is legal, to communicate your quirks so they don't clean/organize things in ways you don't intend, to make sure they are not doing things like dragging out the process to get more billable hours, and to make sure they're not actually going to harm you. Much of this overhead would require a lot of expensive-in-time personal attention from you, and a lot of unknown unknowns.
A lot of it is also much less of a problem for a rich person.
Good post on the whole, but I downvoted for the "affiliate link" rickroll. I was genuinely curious, and if it was a real product that seemed good enough to buy I figured I'd make sure they'd tracked my click to get you a payout as a favor to show appreciation for the recommendation. Is that really the kind of behavior you'd like to punish for a laugh?
Or, more to the point, what if they don't compensate at all and just have the money to afford it? Who cares!
We as social animals care if someone else is getting more, because we're wired to want to do what they're doing. In a flock of chickens, when one of them finds something delicious, all the others immediately want some too. Imagine how this impacts the group's survival in the wild, vs if each individual ignored the others' discoveries.
Money decouples earning behavior from spending behavior in a way that those ancient survival-relevant artifacts of behavior habits don't follow well, of course. Just saying it makes sense to me that we have a "that member of my group has what I want so I am going to try to do what they do" reaction wired in at a pretty fundamental level.
With the mattress topper you'd describe buying, I'd say congratulations -- amortize the amount you'd spend to climate control your whole room to the target temperatures over the expected life of the item, and it's probably a pretty efficient way to address the consideration at hand.
With the services, I think it's also worth considering framing them as education -- buying the opportunity to watch experts do a thing, so you can learn to do the thing better yourself. Ultimately I think the role of many experts -- therapists, sports trainers, home organizers, whatever -- has a large element of education/tutoring/training: offering you the opportunity to inherit the relevant portions of their skillset in a more efficient manner than going out and studying the whole skillset from scratch.
but I downvoted for the "affiliate link" rickroll. I was genuinely curious, and if it was a real product that seemed good enough to buy I figured I'd make sure they'd tracked my click to get you a payout as a favor to show appreciation for the recommendation. Is that really the kind of behavior you'd like to punish for a laugh?
I appreciate you being upfront about this. Maybe you missed it, but I included an actual link earlier on at "A nearly $3,000 mattress cover (cools/heats bed)".
I don't have an issue with affiliate links in general for the reasons you began to describe. In practice though I think they're usually kinda sketchy. An example of this is when someone writes a blog post or creates a video where it seems like they're intrinsically motivated to talk about the topic, and then midway through it you realize that they have something to sell you. I was kinda making fun of that here with the rickroll.
Not that I think it's a great joke or anything. I think it's pretty marginal. But I personally enjoy that sort of joking around, don't see a downside in general (perhaps there is one here with the possibility of the reader having missed the first link to the actual product), and am ok with whatever the consequences of the jokes are.
We as social animals care if someone else is getting more, because we're wired to want to do what they're doing. In a flock of chickens, when one of them finds something delicious, all the others immediately want some too. Imagine how this impacts the group's survival in the wild, vs if each individual ignored the others' discoveries.
I agree that in the ancestral environment there was probably a good reason for this. But in our modern environment, I'm not really seeing it. Maybe in some uncommon situations it's justified, but not frequently.
With the services, I think it's also worth considering framing them as education -- buying the opportunity to watch experts do a thing, so you can learn to do the thing better yourself. Ultimately I think the role of many experts -- therapists, sports trainers, home organizers, whatever -- has a large element of education/tutoring/training: offering you the opportunity to inherit the relevant portions of their skillset in a more efficient manner than going out and studying the whole skillset from scratch.
That's an interesting point. It sounds plausible in general and something worth keeping in mind. But for the examples I discussed:
- Even if I got to be as fast and skilled as the house cleaner, I think it'd still be worth paying the house cleaner as a way of trading my money for time.
- Massage therapy seems a little awkward to perform on oneself, even if you had the skills. I also think I remember hearing that like tickling, it doesn't have the same effect when you do it to yourself.
- I've read a lot about psychotherapy including various "be your own therapist" sort of books and I feel pretty confident that it unlikely to work for me.
- I think it is definitely worth doing with the professional organizer. But at the same time, I don't think I should hesitate to re-hire them if I'm feeling even a little bit stuck since the amount of value I get from reduced clutter is very large compared to the cost.
1downvoted for the "affiliate link" rickroll.
(Epistemic status: shitpost)
You know the rules, and so do I
4Not upper-middle class people like me. Rich people
Yeah, at some point through spending on these extravagances (I'd say probably around the "professional organizer"), you ought to just bite the bullet and accept that, yes, you're rich, and yes, it is nice.
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]
Disagreed. I think the thing is that a lot of these things aren't actually expensive and are instead just associated with being rich. For example, I think many people could come up with $210 to pay for a professional organizer.
It's not just a question of "can I buy this and still make rent and keep the light on?" If one is making luxury purchases like that, he has bigger problems than a "little voice."
That you assess these purchases (typically associated with "rich people") to provide more value to you (more comfortable sleep, the comfort of having an uncluttered apartment, whatever you imagine therapy gets you) than the money they cost or the time it'd take to do it yourself, that's usually what being rich means.
I question the premise of trying to justify them any more than you'd justify, say, buying the nicer brand of bread at the grocery. (Unless you've criticized people richer than you for spending on things you'd consider extravagant, in which case you're rightly feeling guilty of hypocrisy.)
If your point is just that "some expensive things aren't just status symbols, and worth the price even to the merely middle class," fine, I agree with that in general, though perhaps not in the specifics.
If your point is just that "some expensive things aren't just status symbols, and worth the price even to the merely middle class," fine, I agree with that in general, though perhaps not in the specifics.
This is how I read the argument: Hiring a house cleaner is actually a reasonable thing for a middle-class American to do. Note that "middle class American" is still objectively ridiculously rich.
I do think there's something weird about treating $25k+ cars and hundreds of dollars per month on restaurants and alcohol normal, but drawing the line at $100 per month for house cleaning.
1
1Is what you do as a programmer a programming task that would make the world enough-better-off if you to quit, that it would be an effective marginal donation to the world for you to simply quit, rather than earning to give? I found that I couldn't find any way to argue against being a significant marginal net negative as a programmer, and as such have been living off savings for a few years since I quit, and I expect to do so for about two more years before getting a run of the mill job if TAI hasn't hit by then.
2I believe gears is saying he feels any software product he contributes to has negative value to the world as a whole, at least with respect to gears marginal contributions. So gears to ascension has quit and intends to return to the job market in 2 years if transformative AI is not available.
2
1I see from gears' reaction that they endorse Gerald's position here.
My feelings are any software product that I am paid to pursue is probably going to have a negligible impact on the world and a pretty nice benefit to me, and so it makes sense for me to pursue them.
That said, I think there are some projects that have non-negligible negative impacts on the world, especially those that push AI forward. Other times the actual impact is negligible but is still just icky. I kinda take these things on a case-by-case basis and try to weigh the pros and cons.
Burnout isn't uncommon. I have a coworker who quit and came back to the industry after taking a bit over a year off. What gears is saying sounds like what someone burned out might say.
With that said, I kinda also feel like anyone who isn't one of the less than 5000 SWEs allowed to work at elite AI labs may not matter at all..
yeah that's fair and on point, it's possible that I irrationally overupdated about how bad of a thing it is for me to be employed as an industry SWE because it was unambiguously bad for me :p
1The first sentence here is very confusing and I think inverts a comparison—I think you mean “would make the world enough worse off”.
Curated and popular this week
