News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by charlesdm on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @06:56AM (#17186605)
Not everything is about money though. Want to have an extravagant wedding? Fine. Want something basic? Also fine.

Yes: diamonds, jewellery, mechanical watches etc are all bad value for money. People don't buy them because they're bad value. They buy them because they like wearing them, and women buy jewellery because it makes them feel pretty.

That's life. It's fine throwing money away sometime.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by throwawaymath on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @10:19AM (#17187821)
Yes, you're right. I don't understand the myopia on this forum when it comes to people spending money irrationally. Human beings are not hyper-efficient savings maximization engines. Every time the story about why "diamonds suck" hits the front page (maybe once a year or so?), the same rounds of patting-on-the-back are exchanged in the comments for rehashing a one-dimensional social commentary that buying diamonds is silly.

Yes of course it's silly! But that's not the point, and it never has been. Once you're at the point of buying a gift that costs far more than its intrinsic, utilitarian value, worrying about its "true scarcity" is just haggling on the details. I purchased an engagement ring for my wife that costed about $30,000. She didn't ask for anything remotely as extravagant as that, but she likes it and I enjoy it for frankly vain reasons. I take immense pleasure out of the reactions it elicits from other people. Despite being very clear-eyed about the artificial scarcity of diamonds and DeBeers marketing, I still bought it because I enjoyed being able to make a frivolous purchase. Personally I don't like spending a lot on things that aren't either experiential or somewhat long-lasting, so I'd never spend much at all on a wedding dress. But I don't begrudge people for spending money inefficiently if they can afford it.

We're all the same species. With very few exceptions, none of us is hyper-vigilant, hyper-rational or hyper-efficient. There are many, many things we idly buy which are artificially scarce or inflated in price. Buying them is not categorically different from buying expensive jewelry under a cultural zeitgeist perpetuated by a global conglomerate. I think most people really don't have much self-awareness about how high their floor of wealth and personal spending is over the ceiling of frugality and efficiency they talk about so much.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by a1369209993 on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @12:50PM (#17189296)
> Human beings are not hyper-efficient savings maximization engines.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we have to actively make the situation worse.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by theunixbeard on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @11:41AM (#17188600)
Are you an entrepreneur with a profitable business or successful exit?

If not, 30K might represent 6-12 months of personal runway to build your own business.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by charlesdm on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @12:02PM (#17188817)
He's not going to buy his wife a $30k engagement ring if he's earning $30k a year...
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by theunixbeard on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @01:17PM (#17189546)
You don’t save 100% of what you earn.

50% is considered very good, but in consumer focused America some people might save only 10% of their income (thus for a 100K income to save 30K represents 3 years of savings obliterated).

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by throwawaymath on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @12:37PM (#17189162)
Successful exit.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by koolba on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @08:00AM (#17186957)
> That's life. It's fine throwing money away sometime.

Sure if you have the money. The problem is that most people don’t and spend what would be a down payment on a house on complete bullshit. It’s a terrible way to start a marriage and likely leads to higher rates of divorce.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by throwawaymath on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @10:22AM (#17187855)
That strikes me as a problem with fiscal irresponsibility, not a problem with the object of the irresponsibility.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by koolba on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @10:52AM (#17188123)
It's by far the biggest example of fiscal irresponsibility. What's particularly egregious is when the families of the bride (_cough_ her mother _cough_) or groom push them towards spending they can't afford. The wedding industry preys on those weak emotions knowing that many couples won't push back on the non-sense.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by cf498 on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @12:38PM (#17189173)
Weddings are a good example of horrible vicious social pressure depending on where you live.

Too much of this is similar to "The child of a proper family marries at a certain age and gets a proper wedding".

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by koolba on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @01:31PM (#17189685)
> Weddings are a good example of horrible vicious social pressure depending on where you live.

Fight the power! Be the change!

> Too much of this is similar to "The child of a proper family marries at a certain age and gets a proper wedding".

Getting married "at a certain age" (i.e. young) isn't necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, I'd argue that being a parent (or grandparent!) while you're still young, active, and in good health is a wonderful thing. It's blindly succumbing to social pressure to make financially disastrous decisions that must be avoided. Go ahead an have a wedding party too, but do it on your terms.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by cf498 on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @05:39PM (#17192095)
The emphasis is on "proper", i.e. the pressure to do that at the socially required age in the expected fashion to proof your worth, which you find in different versions throughout large parts of the world.

Be it most blatantly the shaming of older unmarried women in Chinese society or more practically arranged marriages of young girls in rural middle eastern areas. Honor killings are just the crassest and most publicized method to uphold the second tradition, but if you read reports of women who went through this, the first part is always brutal social pressure by the direct family including "asking" and begging by their own mothers. Never underestimate the viciousness of parents who think they are pushing their children to do the "right" thing and are not above making this their first priority.

If I caught someone in my family pulling crap like continually pressuring spouses to spend above their means and force them into debt with that line of argument they will likely have to reevaluate whether they might be better off without me in their life. A lot of people sadly only realize this after they see family members trying to do the same thing to the next generation. Differently put, depending on how much grandma doesnt understand the word "no stop it" she wont be coming over for the holidays anymore.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by mmt on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @08:46PM (#17193137)
> continually pressuring spouses to spend above their means

(I agree with you).. but back to the original commenter's point about the behavior, versus the object of the behavior:

Do you believe that eliminating (or sufficienctly discouraging through education or contrary social pressure) diamonds and/or expensive weddings would sufficiently eliminate this spending above ones means? Or would that spending just shift to other targets, such as different jewelry (which even the article refers to in talking about spending more money on setting instead) or experiences?

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by cf498 on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @09:09PM (#17193217)
I dont think its about how much marriages or diamonds cost. Sure, diamonds are a scam, but the real problem lies with social pressure out of "tradition". Advertisement induced spending for stuff like engagement rings is a much smaller problem.

Having your fiance wanting a diamond ring is a different problem then your mother in law pushing you to spend 30k on your wedding to show off to the neighbors.

Advertisement based spending is just another set of problems when it develops without outside social pressure. Its the difference between your wife needing to show off to her mother and girlfriends, wanting to show off. or you two agreeing about how it might be spend best.

Just to point out though, while the example of diamond rings is focused on the female spouse, this isnt a issue that only happens with her. Pick another example and you could switch the roles.

The last option, of discussing how to spend the money, is simply about the state of your relationship. If you two agree that spending 30k is worth the fun of taking a few month off for vacation, all the best to you. Just do it because you want to, not because you think you have to.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by comicjk on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @09:36AM (#17187505)
Besides the fact that most people don't have any savings cushion, making this terrible advice for them, you're neglecting the social pressure aspect. Many people feel compelled to overspend on weddings by the expectations of their friends, family, and society. Discussions like this one help to ease that pressure, to allow people to make wedding decisions with less fear of what people will think.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by charlesdm on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @09:40AM (#17187533)
I'm just saying: go for what you want. You don't really have to do anything in life -- it's all up for debate.

If I had plenty of money and nothing more important to spend it on, I'd (personally) go for a crazy fun extravagant wedding. If not, then I wouldn't. If you have no savings, obviously don't spend a ton on a wedding...

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by quadyeast on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @11:43AM (#17188619)
Is it something you really want or is it expected of you?

Do you really want to enrich debeers? Buy a 2K wedding cake?

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by charlesdm on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @12:00PM (#17188801)
I would negotiate down the listing price significantly -- i.e. 20 to 35% depending on the item (I.e. $30k ring like post made above) and the price.

Alternatively I would get a custom piece designed.

[dead]
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by Frondo on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @11:26AM (#17188423)
Yes, probably most people are materialistic, low IQ, and shallow. You're probably no different, and I don't mean that as an insult -- just that you're human, too, like all of us. Welcome to the club.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by Antimachides on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @01:36PM (#17189734)
That's ridiculous. Some people absolutely stand out as not being materialistic and shallow. And some positively excel at it, to grotesque proportions. Don't pretend we are all in the same cesspool.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by charlesdm on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @09:36AM (#17187503)
You must be a catch. Depends what you're looking for in life, I guess.

There's a difference between shopping until you drop, and giving the woman you love the occasional gift to show that you love and appreciate her.

Yes, it's not required, you don't _NEED_ expensive jewellery or fancy weddings, but if you have excess money that you are not investing, why not?

On the flipside, I also like getting nice gifts. Don't you?

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by Antimachides on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @09:48AM (#17187580)
Give her a blood diamond to show my affection? No thanks. I'm not brainwashed to think love is suitably communicated through the purchase of goods and services. Excess money not being invested? By golly I better not use it for any form of good; it must obviously go to De Beers!

Just tell someone you love them and do nice things for them and be there for them. It's free.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by charlesdm on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @09:54AM (#17187635)
It's not, and it doesn't need to be a diamond -- it could be flowers, a nice dinner, a exciting getaway together to some obscure place, etc. But the way you're expressing this is you'd laugh someone away for buying something for you.

I'm into mechanical watches. Just because I find them interesting, not for show. I'm not brainwashed, but heck, getting one I really want from someone I love would be close to the ultimate gift. Do I need it? Of course not. Do I expect it? Of course not.

[dead]
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by throwawaymath on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @10:25AM (#17187890)
> I was talking about diamonds and extravagence desired purely to display wealth and social status (women are particularly vulnerable to this folly)

Now you're just being casually sexist. If you want to judge people for how they choose to celebrate their mutual affection that's fine. So diamonds aren't your thing, thanks for sharing. But let's not go down the rabbit hole of litigating one gender's susceptibility over another's.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by to_bpr on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @12:12PM (#17188925)
>Materialistic, low IQ and shallow. Though that's what most people are, I suppose.

You should look into getting a therapist to talk through whatever has soured your outlook on life to this point of bitter cynicism.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by dang on Thursday May 31, 2018 @12:57AM (#17194053)
This comment breaks the site guidelines by crossing into personal attack, and also by feeding a flamewar by replying. Please don't do that. Just flag the egregious comments instead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by to_bpr on Thursday May 31, 2018 @11:11AM (#17196875)
This wasn't a personal attack. It was an earnest suggestion.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by dang on Thursday May 31, 2018 @12:15PM (#17197485)
I believe you. But if you're going to venture into personally intimate areas like whether someone needs psychotherapy, the burden is on you to clearly disambiguate your intent, because these moves are commonly used to snark at and demean others.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by Antimachides on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @01:20PM (#17189565)
Am I wrong? Can I change what is there simply by thinking about it a different way? Is that some quantum spook trick you can teach me?
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by darkcha0s on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @07:05AM (#17186659)
>mechanical watches [...] are all bad value for money

Citation needed. Seriously, mechanical watches can be a great investment if you know what you are buying.

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by tgb on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @07:38AM (#17186834)
I think the meaning was in terms of a time keeping device not as a value store. The cheapest Walmart watch keeps time significantly better than the most expensive mechanic watch and many will last years of use.