What's the acceptable limit of spending resources on luxury?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-01-01 06:12pm

Obviously, certain resources are more precious than others, but most forms of luxury or entertainment still consume resources that could perhaps be more productively used elsewhere.

The most blatant and egregious examples, of course, are the ridiculously huge pickup truck for a suburban family, or a sports car with the price of a house. Or car races in general.

Some would argue that even owning your own house is too much, that it is too inefficient and too heavy a burden on society and the world for people to spread themselves out in such a fashion.

There are likely even those that would decry the use of "gaming computers", citing unnecessarily high electricity consumption and the tremendous waste generated by discarded electronics.

Is there a line to be drawn beyond which consumption is so excessive that it becomes wrong? And if so, where is that line?

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2007-01-01 06:43pm

Being two people in a family and have five cars.

F-i-v-e cars.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-01-01 06:46pm

I would suppose the answer is when the marginal return in happiness or contentment is below a certain point, but I'm not sure what the answer to the immediate follow-up question -- what is that point? -- is.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2007-01-01 11:00pm

Well, if society needs some luxuries, I would say that you would be ok spending on luxuries such that you keep the economy going. It would be ethical to survive, and I doubt everyone coudl be placed into necessity-jobs.

You should spend on luxuries or keep up consumption such that you keep people having jobs who wouldn't be able to get jobs in "necessity" positions.

The rest I would guess could be spent on other useful causes.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2007-01-02 01:30am

Necessities come first. Luxuries are nice but if buying that big flat screen HDTV means you can't pay the rent or put food on the table then your priorities are jacked up and you're living an unhealthy lifestyle. I would say the same goes when you scale the situation up to the society level. If everyone who desires food, shelter, healthcare, and education has ready access then I don't give two shits if the millionaires buy big houses, private jets, and assorted bling bling. Obviously society, economics, the roll of government in providing social services, etc is a complex beast and there might not be a good black and white answer to the origional question, but you all at least get the drift of my opinion on the issue.

I have to add, all though off topic, that this is one of the reasons I greatly dislike hearing rich people bitching about high taxes. If you think they're being spent ineffeciently that's one thing, but when you're making six figures it's just a few less digits on your bank account balance. For someone who's making minimum wage with no health insurance it's everything.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-01-02 01:33am

How much does luxury spending affect the economy? I know many ancient civilisations have tried to enact sumptuary legislation to control high levels of luxury spending, but I don't know why or indeed if that sort of thing is relevant to a modern economy.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2007-01-02 02:10am

I see no reason why this like all things can't be mathematically determined.

Take the total cost of all the basic necessities and divide by the number of people in your society. Then take all the leftover GDP, divide by the number of people, and that is the ideal overhead.

Basic necessities will be determined by the society itself. In general, human rights such as medical care, security, a home, stuff in the UDHR. When I say basic I really mean basic. As in, not comfortable, bare bones required for a person to live. A small apartment generally, with a 2000 calorie day, medical care, a job, etc.

Good luck getting this to fly though.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2007-01-02 02:47am

In an ideal society resources would be available for luxuries once the basic necessities of life had been satisfied for everyone.

In our society I'm really not sure. I'm tempted to say it's when you've achieved a high-end comfortable lifestyle but the definition of a comfortable lifestyle varies greatly from person to person. Surlethe's definition sounds the most sensible of anything I've heard so far. The limit is when you reach the point where you can say "do you really think you'll be any happier after you've bought yet another giant mansion?" Basically where a desire for comfort and security gives way to pure avarice.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2007-01-02 02:52am

On the question of luxury spending, consider this. The US actually pays its farmers not to farm in order to keep the price of corn and wheat from collapsing. So hunger, at least, in the US is a question of distribution issues, not actual food production issues.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2007-01-02 04:01am

Ignoring ethics for the moment, the only point I can think of that it becomes morally wrong to spend more than a pittance on luxuries is when you have dependents and are living on government assistance, or otherwise lacking in funds. I can't believe how often I see something like a woman with kids in tow using government money at the checkout - while holding a cup from Starbucks.

I really wonder if the United States would have half the poverty problem it does if our schools would pound some fiscal sense into kids' brains. Are people like this elsewhere?

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-01-02 07:10am

Alan Bolte wrote: Are people like this elsewhere?

Yes.
It's even worse in societies that are not used to capitalist, free economies.
You think you have bad problems with poverty in the US? Try a society that just got out of an "economy of shortage" 10 years ago. Goods overflow the market and everyone wants some. Youths want cosmetics, computer games and clothes, adults want cars, computers, homes and expensive electronics and alcohol, but most don't have the money.

So what do they do? Take loans, get credit cards, lie and cheat to get government allowances, running up extreme debt. At worst, they sell their bodies (a big problem with young girls who can't afford expensive cosmetics) or turn to crime.

Now, we may not be as up to our ears in consumer debt as American society is, but we are surely catching up quickly.

And no, I don't understand that kind of thinking either. I mean, I like a bit of luxury as much as any other guy, but I'd never run up a credit card debt just to buy a designer jacket worth 150 dollars, or a new plasma TV...

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-01-02 07:27am

Alan Bolte wrote:Ignoring ethics for the moment, the only point I can think of that it becomes morally wrong to spend more than a pittance on luxuries is when you have dependents and are living on government assistance, or otherwise lacking in funds. I can't believe how often I see something like a woman with kids in tow using government money at the checkout - while holding a cup from Starbucks.

I really wonder if the United States would have half the poverty problem it does if our schools would pound some fiscal sense into kids' brains. Are people like this elsewhere?

Yes, this is something that is really annoying. You see, the average person living on welfare around here gets quite a lot more than the average uni student gets. Still, for some reason, most uni students manage fine with the money they have and can spend money on fun, nightlife etc. The folks on welfare on the other hand will complain a lot that it´s not enough. As soon as you see them shoping in a supermarket you know why. These dumb fucks will allways buy the most expensive stuff like stupid, unhealthy, overpriced instant food crap and shit like that.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-01-02 12:14pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Well, if society needs some luxuries, I would say that you would be ok spending on luxuries such that you keep the economy going. It would be ethical to survive, and I doubt everyone coudl be placed into necessity-jobs.

You should spend on luxuries or keep up consumption such that you keep people having jobs who wouldn't be able to get jobs in "necessity" positions.

The rest I would guess could be spent on other useful causes.

Ahem. By definition luxuries are something that you do not need to get by.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2007-01-02 03:02pm

Ahem. By definition luxuries are something that you do not need to get by.

I guess that was poorly worded. I intended to mean that in terms of people's jobs. A luxury item I was thinking of being something that you don't need to consume to survive.

The job of producing the luxury item, though, I was not sure how much would be necessary in society. Society, in order not to have the economy collapse, might need some level of luxury consumption, even if the actual goods aren't necessary.

I don't know.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-01-02 04:03pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:
Ahem. By definition luxuries are something that you do not need to get by.
I guess that was poorly worded. I intended to mean that in terms of people's jobs. A luxury item I was thinking of being something that you don't need to consume to survive.

The job of producing the luxury item, though, I was not sure how much would be necessary in society. Society, in order not to have the economy collapse, might need some level of luxury consumption, even if the actual goods aren't necessary.

I don't know.

Strictly speaking, an economy doesn't need luxuries any more than an individual does. For current industrialized first-world countries, you are right - if you suddendly made people not desire luxuries, you'd get an economic crisis. Industrialised economies have a huge production surplus that has to go somewhere, since there's only so much necessities that you actually need to consume. Again, this surplus isn't necessary - should all need for luxury simply vanish, economies would face a giant crisis and then adjust by scaling down their manufacturing capacity. Of course, you'd still get the problem of a large number of suddendly unemployed people - and a major social problem.

Naturally, such a luxury-less society could simply turn to war, space exploration or other resource-intensive pursuits to use up their excess workforce. All it takes is political will.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2007-01-02 04:15pm

On the personal level, I echo what was mentioned before. If all bills are paid for the moment (in my cause, the pay period), and enough groceries have been purchased to get me through to the next payday, whatever's left over is Luxury Money.

This payperiod, that was $90.
Next pay period, it might be $10.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-01-03 03:54am

LadyTevar wrote:On the personal level, I echo what was mentioned before. If all bills are paid for the moment (in my cause, the pay period), and enough groceries have been purchased to get me through to the next payday, whatever's left over is Luxury Money.

This payperiod, that was $90.
Next pay period, it might be $10.

What about saving?

I think it's important for people to put as much money into savings as they can, to help their retirement savings grow. Living a comfortable life in your early retirement years is worth more than a new toy or gimmick. Plus, by constantly recycling the workforce we'd help younger folks get into things and keep economies more nimble. I have trouble getting work sometimes because there's such a glut of older, qualified people who simply won't die or retire, even when they could.

Luxuries are great for an economy though, since they give people things to buy. Good food is also a form of luxury, since you really could do just fine eating boring crap, and there's lots of others. Basically, I'd say that after paying your bills, buying food, and putting away enough money into savings to keep your rate up, the rest can be considered disposable income.

Obviously, it's important to think about what that means. What may be utterly frivolous to me may not be to someone else, but just about anything other than getting by is a form of luxury. I'm all for self denial--get that nice thing about once every three times. Avoid eating out, and shop smart. Try to use public transportation when you can, and walk whenever you can find a route. Disposable income can be disposed of now, or later. Nobody is telling you that you need to spend it NOW. I have about 200 bucks in my wallet saved up from times I've saved a few bucks and recycled it back into my pile. It all adds up.

Magus · Post by **Magus** » 2007-01-03 12:08pm

Junghalli wrote:On the question of luxury spending, consider this. The US actually pays its farmers not to farm in order to keep the price of corn and wheat from collapsing. So hunger, at least, in the US is a question of distribution issues, not actual food production issues.

What I've never understood is why the government doesn't get instead have the farmers produce and hand over the grain they pay for, then ship it to third world countries? Farmers make their money, the economy is safe, and a lot of people get to eat. Sure, the US government pays some shipping costs, but how bad is that really?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-01-03 12:16pm

Covenant wrote:

What about saving?

Personally, I tack saving into the 'bills' category. I set aside a couple hundred or so each check, and after bills are covered use whatever's left on luxury stuff. If I wind up not using it until next payday, it goes into savings.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2007-01-03 03:08pm

Covenant wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:On the personal level, I echo what was mentioned before. If all bills are paid for the moment (in my cause, the pay period), and enough groceries have been purchased to get me through to the next payday, whatever's left over is Luxury Money.

This payperiod, that was $90.
Next pay period, it might be $10.
What about saving?

Saving?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
You mean like the $50 I put out of my paycheck every payperiod, that within a month gets used to pay a bill I can't cover, or to fill the gas tank because the rest of the money was spent on emergencies like Doctor Bills because one of us falls sick?

The only 'Savings' Nitram and I manage to keep where it belongs is the Christmas Club. It is very rare for us to have this much extra money at the end of a month. One reason is we finally paid off several doctor bills from earlier in the year. We still owe the hospital $160 from Nitram's emergency visit Valentine's Day 06, when they discovered his bloodclot.

There's several things that $90 could be used for. Nitram and I haven't had haircuts since June, maybe longer. I've got a bad tooth that really needs to come out, but insurance won't cover all of it (Hell, I'd need $250 to cover it!). The cats shots are due, and one of them has some kinda skin problem that needs looked at. Our bed is held together with ducttape and a prayer, because it's nearly 60yrs old and belonged to my grandmother. The matching dressing table had the mirror supports break (but not the mirror), so I'd have to find a way to repair both of them, or throw out a peice of my past.

Savings? Shit. There's too many bills and taxes for anyone making $25,000/yr or less to really save any money. Working Poor don't have the luxury of savings, we're too busy trying to make ends meet and have the occassional 'fun'.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2007-01-03 03:25pm

Man that fucking freaks me out LT. I've got almost 40k in student loans up to now.

It's still possible to save if you're poor and I think Covenant makes a good point. But, it means you have no fun at all. You can do what I did in the summer and what my mom's doing right now--working two jobs, 14 hours a day. Menial jobs like fast food. What my dad did bringing me up. But when I say no fun, I really mean no fun. This was me until 12 years old.

no toys, except what family friends give you. or one set of toys your entire childhood.
no eating out, ever
no renting videos
no buying brand name clothes ever. buy clothes once a year.
no allowance money
no electronics, or one piece of shit computer your entire childhood
no presents on holidays
no dental care
no vacations
no medical care, unless it's free
no private rooms, shared with your brother/sisters/whoever
no car. live in the inner city, close to where you work so you can take mass transit.
yes rats, cockroaches, termites, etc.
yes making sure you live somewhere which includes electricity in your rent, because that can be another 150 bucks wasted.

In other words if you have children and you're poor, you have no fun and you live for your children.

Now my dad saved for a decade, and eventually opened his own restaurant/bar. Things were good for five years, until he passed away from cancer, and if he hadn't me and my brother would be financially far more stable (probably my dad could pay for my tuition.) Now I'm facing the unenviable prospect of starting with nothing like my dad... actually less than nothing, 40k less. Hopefully the student loans get cut in half with debt relief. If I'd been more financially wise after high school I would never have gotten student loans for university and instead would've went to college for two years for a trade to make big bucks.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2007-01-03 07:33pm

Magus wrote:What I've never understood is why the government doesn't get instead have the farmers produce and hand over the grain they pay for, then ship it to third world countries? Farmers make their money, the economy is safe, and a lot of people get to eat. Sure, the US government pays some shipping costs, but how bad is that really?

It's not the government that's the problem there, it's the agri-business lobby. Big farmers in the US have what has to be the sweetest deal ever: they get paid for not working. Understandably they scream bloody murder whenever anybody talks about cutting farm subsidies, how do you think they're going to react to a proposal that they grow stuff for free? The government could pay for it but that'd mean either higher taxes or a bigger deficit, take your pick.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-01-03 07:43pm

brianeyci wrote:Man that fucking freaks me out LT. I've got almost 40k in student loans up to now.

The only good thing I can say about our financial situation right now is it's prone to improve, and we don't have anywhere like that much debt.

In fact, I think our debt is currently aroun 5-6 hundred. Period. And as much as I want to go back to school and get it right this time(Immaturity + AS + Lack of Special Ed Support = Flaming wreck of my year at WPI), that's holding until our standard of living is improved and we have money tucked away.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2007-01-03 08:37pm

SirNitram wrote:
brianeyci wrote:Man that fucking freaks me out LT. I've got almost 40k in student loans up to now.
The only good thing I can say about our financial situation right now is it's prone to improve, and we don't have anywhere like that much debt.

In fact, I think our debt is currently aroun 5-6 hundred. Period. And as much as I want to go back to school and get it right this time(Immaturity + AS + Lack of Special Ed Support = Flaming wreck of my year at WPI), that's holding until our standard of living is improved and we have money tucked away.

That's a good move. My brother's flunked out of high school, but at least he's got a positive net worth. The only good thing about my financial situation is my family's dirt poor, so I'm not stuck in the situation where I have a lot of student loans and fucked over because my parents are middle class. The loans will probably get cut by more than half when I graduate. This is not something to be proud of at all though. Don't go my route... either you're smart and get scholarships, and if you're not pay out of your own pocket. Student loans are dead weight, bankrupcy doesn't clear them. The only justification to getting student loans is if you go the professional route like an engineer/medicine/teaching/law IMO, not just a plain B.Sc. or BA.

In a way even though my brother's got the intelligence of a brick, since he's working full time, he can buy whatever he wants, and he's saving tons for later to go back to college. It'll only take a couple months for him to do distance education and get his final high school credits. He's got no expenditures at all since he's living at home. You don't go to university to make money, you go to learn, was my mistake when I was an 18 year old snot.

One more year until freedom...

Luzifer's right hand · Post by **Luzifer's right hand** » 2007-01-03 08:55pm

If I would not need money to go out or the buy books or to travel to other countries(and so on) than I would not need to work.
I was unemployed for a few months after my time in the army and the unemployment benefits were more than enough for me, I even had enough money to go out although I had to cut back on other things enjoy(I buy dozens if books every month for example).
It seems to me that people which are unemplyed and do not support a familiy(like me) get way to much money from the goverment.
I only work for luxury...and because unemployment is insanely boring,