It's remarkable that they still exist as a functioning company. I would have thought that the lawsuits over the hack, the alleged fake accounts, and the general loss of customer trust would have been enough to push them into insolvency.
Its why some companies are so effective at selling Veblen goods to status seekers.
When I was growing up, I got abercrombie/american eagle because it was cool to girls. Today teens get Apple/Nike products.
Not that any of these actually change your status, but the marketers were able to sell that idea/feeling.
As an adult, you see people buying/leasing Tesla's or more expensive cars to do the same thing.
People desperate for social acceptance, which leads to girls, will pay anything. I get it, I used to spend half my time looking for girls before I got married. (other half of my time school, presumably so I could always get a gold digger if need be.)
Can you tell I was ugly growing up? (Lift weights my pals, it changed everything)
I said what I said kind of tongue-in-cheek, because I used to work in advertising.
No, I won't elaborate on it, but the difference in conversion rates between ads of a sexual nature (or even the slightest innuendo of sex) and literally anything else is a huge fucking cliff... and the places where you can even run those ads are super limited.
> Can you tell I was ugly growing up? (Lift weights my pals, it changed everything)
If all it took was working out, I promise you it was your self esteem. Though I agree that exercise definitely boosts your mood and anyone who is out of shape should try it.
I have a pet theory that all humans spend roughly 30% of their disposable income on status products. And that there's no way to escape this. No matter how hard you try.
If you escape spending at LVMH you'll spend it on cars, indie brands or ascetic holidays. Keep going and your money will go towards pseudo-educational leisure activities that make a social statement like submarine exploration or building web apps in Ocaml.
> I have a pet theory that all humans spend roughly 30% of their disposable income on status products. And that there's no way to escape this. No matter how hard you try.
Are you serious? Because wow that's off by a few megaparsecs...
A lot of people don't have enough disposable income to get them adequate amounts of food. Kids making toys out of garbage, just to have a toy. To share.
Do you feel there's any difference between "income" and "disposable" income? I would take it to mean income after paying taxes, and paying for housing, food, clothing, what definition are you using? I suspect the parent comment is using a similar definition to mine
The piece of shit car in my garage I wrench on every night as a hobby while my family is asleep is for status?
I must be doing it wrong then...but you're right about the spending on it part.
I'm no exception to your rule, but are you really so confident that all of humanity shares the same appetite for status signalling? I'm not a particularly social person, but even I can think of some counterexamples in my personal life. Obviously, we can also consider most of the extremely wealthy (Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc) as well.
My income has recently 5x'd and I already was making over 6 figs.
I'm doing the opposite of status signaling. I'm hiding my wealth. I don't need people to know I just bought an expensive computer or 3D printer. Heck, that makes me a target.
It also alienates friends who are insecure. I already ran into this when I graduated college, got a real job, and my blue collar high school friends got weird about it.
Heck, I knew I was going to be very well off. When I had my home built, I made sure the front-most peak of the house was on the first floor rather than the second floor. I didn't want my home to appear grand.
I want to object to what GP says, but whenever I think about it, I realize that I too am evidence in favor. Different methods, different groups. Some spending more of effort than money. Some substituting an idea for a group. But the need to belong somewhere - that is common to all.
I'm confident that all humans enjoy status. I suspect this is an innate characteristic of social creatures. Less than basic desires like food or reproduction but significant nevertheless.
The hypothesis about status signalling is more difficult because many individuals acquire status by rejecting conventional status objects. Many people respect Socrates, AOC and Gandhi in large part because of their modest lifestyles. It's possible to describe their behaviour as buying status via the opportunity cost of other consumption, but I worry the opportunity cost approach makes my theory too overpowered to the point of being unfalsifiable.
I wonder what social status I'm gaining by eating rice and a can of fish per day, and every so often I splurge on maybe a sandwich or instant noodles. After which I'm out of disposable income...
Your pet hypothesis, has yet to be confirmed only after that, will it be a theory.
It depends on the social context. If your friends - or people you want to be friends with - hold it in high esteem then yeah. Also true if a lego is disliked by group of people you despise.
I think it does change your status. If you go on a date a pick a girl up in a Hyundai and test her with an Android phone many will have a different opinion than if you text with apple and pick her up in a audi.
Being rejected by someone who lets brand-loyalty to billion dollar companies dictate their dating preferences isn't even 'a blessing in disguise'. It's just a plain and simple blessing.
That's secondary/high school level stuff, but sure, it happens. Many teens think like this, and they they grow out of it - that's part of the process. At least most do.
I’m not a part of app dating world, but from my understanding the way these apps work is a series of snap judgements. Android vs iPhone is but one of these. I don’t think the problem is really about Android or iPhone at all, but rather that we live in a reality where people make snap value judgements on these apps based on limited information very quickly, and it just so happens that Android/iPhone is one of those factors.
This kind of shows how out of touch we get when we make 6 figures.
Android or Iphone shows wealth? A $1000 dollar purchase for something you use daily is supposed to be expensive?
But when you are in poverty or lower-middle class, $1000 is a lot of money.
It just doesnt have the same meaning when you have money. I imagine the dating world has a bunch of things like this because you meet people of different classes.
The mystery to me is why a guy's reaction to it would be "damn I wish I had an iPhone so that girl would like me" and not "I'm glad I don't have an iPhone so I can weed out these nutjobs".
Because the dating scene is like the hiring scene. There are 100 applicants for every position and in that situation it makes sense to use very noisy low value signals that are cheap.
And just like hiring where there are great employers with silly hiring practices there are great partners with silly filtering rules. And you can cut yourself off from a large part of the market or play the game.
Unlike the potential employer or partner I'm not going to use a silly filter as my filter.
I think you're giving far too much credit to the reasoning abilities of people who filter their dates this way. They're not carefully coming up with heuristics to optimize their "application process". It's just plain ordinary shallowness.
But that aside, your entire analogy is based on the idea that you need to "win" iPhone Girl. What makes her worth winning, and why doesn't she need to win you?
You're allowed to have criteria too. One of mine is that I won't be with someone who has poor judgement. It's the reason I don't date women who are into astrology, or choose their partners based on the brand of their phone.
To use your analogy, iPhone Girl is a job that pays $30K a year while demanding 70 hours per week. That's not good enough for me, I don't care how nice her campus is.
It might changed perceived status by people who can't afford the illusion. (It wont change the way they talk, which is a dead giveaway to people within that class.)
If you can't easily afford an iphone or Audi, someone who can lease an audi and have a payment plan on an iphone looks like they have money.
Where once you make 6 figures, these seem like just another car/phone. Heck, when you buy cheap veblen goods like an Audi/iphone, it makes you look like you are compensating for your lack of income. Even 250k cars are barely impressive to a 6 fig earner because they can afford it too.
To a 6 fig earner, a hyundai and android are just the best tools for the job.
But iPhones are so common how it is something special anymore?
When I see someone with something that is not an iPhone I instantly become curious to find out what phone it is and why they didn't get an iPhone.
Exactly. I love nice things but I detest how it makes me look. That’s why I debadge my cars, never wear logos, and would prefer it if, generally, people didn’t know I exist.
The idea that people buy Tesla to be seen, is just a complete generalization. I own one because it’s the funnest car I’ve ever owned by a long shot. I keep it polished clean constantly, not so other people see it as nice, but because I prefer how a clean car looks TO ME rather than a dirty car.
I only buy Apple products because I love how they work and how they look and how they feel. TO ME. I could give a rats ass what other people think of me while I use Apple products.
Way back in the day, a friend of mine, not proud of what she did, but she needed the cash, was paid by a 'sugar daddy' web site to respond to messages on their fake profiles to keep people interested. (Long before the days of chat bots, etc.)
