Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 20:23:12 GMT -5
I think what he's saying -- and I'd agree -- is that they are oblivious to cost, even though the bill is being split with less-wealthy people. I have friends like this. They'll order a $200 bottle of wine and the rack of lamb plus the white truffle pasta as a starter... Fine for them, but when you can't go out for dinner without your share of the bill always coming well into three figures whatever you ordered, you...well, you go out with those friends a lot less often. Or at least, I do.
I have a friend who cannot seem to eat even a lunch that costs less than $100. Fun little ethnic joints? She's not interested. A burger or a salad? Pfft. She wants the best, always, when she goes out, and the best in NYC is very pricey indeed. So I see her maybe once a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 24, 2017 20:32:35 GMT -5
Okay, that makes sense. They order more expensive things, of which you do not partake, and then want to go halfsies. ETA: I've never personally encountered this. Wealthy people who invite me to dinner always insist on paying. It appears they have the ability to correctly place me in the "can't afford it" category. ETAA: I have a friend who cannot seem to eat even a lunch that costs less than $100. Fun little ethnic joints? She's not interested. A burger or a salad? Pfft. She wants the best, always, when she goes out, and the best in NYC is very pricey indeed. So I see her maybe once a year. Although I have to say, about this friend... would a simple presentation of the mathematical facts of the bill be inappropriate? You spent X, I spent Y; ergo, X of the bill is yours, Y of the bill is mine. Would that ruin the friendship? And if it would, I'd personally probably ruin it intentionally. And get Angie to set fire to any remnants. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 20:51:01 GMT -5
Yes, but it can get uncomfortable when they always pay, even if they are so rich they'll never miss it.
And then there's the "well, I suppose I COULD afford to pay $300 for dinner, but I really, really, really would rather not." Especially in those cases, I find it easier to just see them less frequently, or to try to do something like a movie or a museum or something that has a fixed price attached. When I splurge, I like to plan it so I can look forward to it, and I like it to be something I really want. I hate, hate, hate, having an inadvertent splurge because someone else just can't manage to do anything moderate. And alas, I have a few such friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 24, 2017 20:55:34 GMT -5
I can't even begin to parse that post. Liberal how? Do they approve of the wealthy "paying their fair share," or are they just cool with "teh gays"? Liberal as in they have generally liberal views, from taxation to same-sex marriage to abortion to immigration. You know: liberal. What's there to parse? Lol, I'm saying that they might order with no thought to the cost. For instance, they might opt for a very expensive bottle of wine. It was just meant as a reinforcement of Cass's point about trust fund attitudes (which is not meant to be an absolute, at all). Okay. Not sure I get your point. The wealthy people I know are, again, liberal by and large. Not all, to be sure. As I said: "most." |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 24, 2017 20:56:05 GMT -5
Yes, but it can get uncomfortable when they always pay, even if they are so rich they'll never miss it. And then there's the "well, I suppose I COULD afford to pay $300 for dinner, but I really, really, really would rather not." Especially in those cases, I find it easier to just see them less frequently, or to try to do something like a movie or a museum or something that has a fixed price attached. When I splurge, I like to plan it so I can look forward to it, and I like it to be something I really want. I hate, hate, hate, having an inadvertent splurge because someone else just can't manage to do anything moderate. And alas, I have a few such friends. See my ETAA above. If you should choose to esplode them, I would approve. |
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 24, 2017 21:04:14 GMT -5
What you said: Most of the wealthy (and I mean in the 1% at the very least) people I know ARE liberal. Or at least that's how they present themselves. Not all of them, to be sure, but most of them. Course, I live in South Florida, not Bentonville, Arkansas. seemed to imply that my experience was "Bentonville, AK," which it is not. I'm just a little bit north of you, and overall, we're doing better per capita, by a lot. Sorry if I assumed the worst from your meaning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:11:32 GMT -5
I'll get Angie on it. She's better at blowing up people than I am.
I went shopping with the friend of the three-figure lunches. (Well, she shopped, I looked.) Among other things, she bought a little tub of face moisturizer for $300. Yes, that's with two zeros. As she's paying for it, she said "you have beautiful skin. What do you use?" I said "Olay Regenerist." (Cost -- about $20 for the same size tub -- and usually a good bit less, since I always stock up at BOGO sales.) She blinked, but proceeded to pay $300 for her moisturizer.
She wouldn't buy a $20 drugstore moisturizer even if Mary mother of God descended from the heavens and told her it was twice as good as her $300 moisturizer. Nothing would convince her that the drugstore brand was good enough. Me, I have a theory -- you just need a decent moisturizer at night and a decent sunscreen by day, and drugstore brands are just fine. I'm actually quite vain about my skin and I'd be willing to spend more if I thought it would be worth it. But I don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 24, 2017 21:22:21 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:24:31 GMT -5
Ravishing! If you were a handbag, you'd be très expensive indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:31:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 24, 2017 21:42:34 GMT -5
What you said: Most of the wealthy (and I mean in the 1% at the very least) people I know ARE liberal. Or at least that's how they present themselves. Not all of them, to be sure, but most of them. Course, I live in South Florida, not Bentonville, Arkansas. seemed to imply that my experience was "Bentonville, AK," which it is not. I'm just a little bit north of you, and overall, we're doing better per capita, by a lot. Sorry if I assumed the worst from your meaning. Bentonville is where Walmart is headquartered. What I was implying was that my experiences--where most wealthy people that I know are liberal--was predictable, given my location. In contrast, one might expect most wealthy people in Bentonville to be not so liberal. It had nothing to do with your experiences, whatsoever. You noted that you found it admirable that "some wealthy people are liberal." I'm suggesting--via my personal experiences--that "some" is an understatement. To be sure, the numbers will probably fluctuate, depending on where one draws the "wealthy" line. And certainly other demographic factors could matter (age, religion, location, etc.). But I don't think liberals are underrepresented in the "wealthy" column at all. That's all. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 24, 2017 21:48:27 GMT -5
Yes, but it can get uncomfortable when they always pay, even if they are so rich they'll never miss it. On this: You know, I just can't do it. We all have out habits, the ways we do things, our personal ethics, and so forth. One of mine is always paying my share on a night out. I mean, someone invited me out and makes it clear that they are treating me for one reason or another, I'll take it. But I was referring to a night out with friends, or maybe going out with another couple. In such situations, I just feel compelled to pay my share (in much the same way that I feel compelled to always return my shopping cart to the store), regardless of where I am on the wealth totem pole, comparatively speaking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:54:27 GMT -5
What you said: seemed to imply that my experience was "Bentonville, AK," which it is not. I'm just a little bit north of you, and overall, we're doing better per capita, by a lot. Sorry if I assumed the worst from your meaning. Bentonville is where Walmart is headquartered. What I was implying was that my experiences--where most wealthy people that I know are liberal--was predictable, given my location. In contrast, one might expect most wealthy people in Bentonville to be not so liberal. It had nothing to do with your experiences, whatsoever. You noted that you found it admirable that "some wealthy people are liberal." I'm suggesting--via my personal experiences--that "some" is an understatement. To be sure, the numbers will probably fluctuate, depending on where one draws the "wealthy" line. And certainly other demographic factors could matter (age, religion, location, etc.). But I don't think liberals are underrepresented in the "wealthy" column at all. That's all. Most of the wealthy folks in NYC seem to be liberal as well. Again, that's true for the city generally, but it holds true for the 1%. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 25, 2017 4:10:35 GMT -5
Okay, that makes sense. They order more expensive things, of which you do not partake, and then want to go halfsies. ETA: I've never personally encountered this. Wealthy people who invite me to dinner always insist on paying. It appears they have the ability to correctly place me in the "can't afford it" category. ETAA: I have a friend who cannot seem to eat even a lunch that costs less than $100. Fun little ethnic joints? She's not interested. A burger or a salad? Pfft. She wants the best, always, when she goes out, and the best in NYC is very pricey indeed. So I see her maybe once a year. Although I have to say, about this friend... would a simple presentation of the mathematical facts of the bill be inappropriate? You spent X, I spent Y; ergo, X of the bill is yours, Y of the bill is mine. Would that ruin the friendship? And if it would, I'd personally probably ruin it intentionally. And get Angie to set fire to any remnants. Yes, but it can get uncomfortable when they always pay, even if they are so rich they'll never miss it. And then there's the "well, I suppose I COULD afford to pay $300 for dinner, but I really, really, really would rather not." Especially in those cases, I find it easier to just see them less frequently, or to try to do something like a movie or a museum or something that has a fixed price attached. When I splurge, I like to plan it so I can look forward to it, and I like it to be something I really want. I hate, hate, hate, having an inadvertent splurge because someone else just can't manage to do anything moderate. And alas, I have a few such friends. Yes, but it can get uncomfortable when they always pay, even if they are so rich they'll never miss it. On this: You know, I just can't do it. We all have out habits, the ways we do things, our personal ethics, and so forth. One of mine is always paying my share on a night out. I mean, someone invited me out and makes it clear that they are treating me for one reason or another, I'll take it. But I was referring to a night out with friends, or maybe going out with another couple. In such situations, I just feel compelled to pay my share (in much the same way that I feel compelled to always return my shopping cart to the store), regardless of where I am on the wealth totem pole, comparatively speaking. There's a whole book about the unintended "benefits" of the socialization of costs in these posts. There's another whole book about the wisdom of putting those who can't grasp those unintended "benefits" because they were raised among the ultra-rich in charge of any sort of economic decision, whatsoever, in this thread. It's strictly non-partisan, as Trump's golfing presidency is illustrating. How petty of people to whine about Trump's massive golfing expenses when they can't afford to go to Putt-Putt, but they're paying part of his tab with every paycheck. The rich really aren't like you and me. They've managed to con the whole world into supporting them, and claim virtue for doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 25, 2017 4:40:53 GMT -5
I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value... Money is made possible only by the men who produce... When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. ... Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced. ... Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another– their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.Bolding mine. Unabridged version here. |
|
