If you're basically rich and you choose to do things associated with being poor it's not really that negative because you aren't poor.

Like I mend clothes and something I do the visible mending stitch patterns. I'm sure people judge us and think we're poor, but I don't really care because I'm not. Alternatively, doing high effort things like mending clothes can seem kind of cute and novel if you aren't poor.

>Is it because we have more leisure time and can afford to filter the media we consume?

More or less. Cash, wealth, and access to credit afford you a number of avenues to avoid trouble, or else get out of it when you realize that you're in it. Time infused with money also usually returns more than bare time, as anyone who can hire a personal trainer vs spending hours trying to put together an effective training regimen can attest to.

That's what I find strange too; I can afford to get the new iPhone every year or two if I wanted (most software engineers probably can), and yet I plan on keeping mine until it's dead, broken, or stolen. I don't own a car, but if I did it would probably the cheapest car in reasonably good shape that gets reasonably good gas mileage.

There's a part of me that wonders if a lot of it boils down to education. My brother-in-law is relatively smart and able to learn new stuff fairly quickly, but he doesn't really have any education past high-school. Being better trained at math and compsci would probably help him realize the value for his purchases a bit better.

>I can afford to get the new iPhone every year or two if I wanted

Maybe that's what the difference is. Being able to afford these things means you might not feel a similar need to posture that you can afford a certain lifestyle that you really can't. I'm guessing that at minimum wage most would struggle financially especially in a large city like NYC, so being able to pull the newest iPhone out of their pocket might be their way of assuring themselves and people around them that they are doing alright financially.

My wife has had more contact with poorer communities. And she believes it's partly to maintain the appearance of wealth and status. I suspect it's also a luxury within reach versus those which seem impossible: homeownership, choosing ones employer, world travel, etc.

When I was very young and didn't make much money, there didn't seem to be any point in saving it. It could have been just immaturity on my part, but short-term thinking and the availability of unsecured debt made it too easy to spend. It was a defeatist mindset. In my mind, the amount of work involved in scrimping didn't justify the very small payout.

Now that I make more, I spend even less than I did before. The reward finally justifies the work. It doesn't bear out mathematically, only emotionally.

These stories are so common, when I read it, I was thinking it was a precise description of my own brother. My brother who earns 6 times less than I purchases a 1000$ Samsung phone whereas I don't buy any phone at all and just use the handme-down from my wife, for 0$. It's a 5 year old iphone6 but still works Great. His other expenses are much lower though: for example, he has subsidized housing which means he pays almost nothing for rent. and he has no car, since he can bike to work.

Advertisment almost never works on me, so it's hard for me to imagine it's so effective on everyone else.

No one thinks advertising works on them.

That's why it works on them.

There's clearly a range of influence though, and it's not crazy to think that some people fall further on one side than others.

What's frightening is that advertising does work on all of us, even when we find it offensive.

I buy warehouse store house-brand laundry detergent, but if you put me on Family Feud and asked me to name a detergent brand, it'd be Tide.

Name/brand recognition doesn't mean it "worked". In order for it to have worked, you need to actually spend money on the product or cause someone else to spend money on the product.

I'm reasonably certain that advertising works on most people, even if they don't realize it. Being told a modified and heavily-biased narrative of the world repeatedly, for literal hours a day is likely to have an effect, even if it's subtle.

Maybe you're one of the lucky people that advertising truly does not work on, and fair enough, but I seriously doubt that these big megacorporations would spend billions of dollars on ads if there weren't some measurable effect on a majority of people.

I call everything by the name brand, but only buy the store brand.

I make FAANG salary and I bought my car used for $6k. My previous car I bought used for $7k and drove for 8 years.

Not sure if I’m filtering out ads more (haven’t had a TV for over a decade), or the tech crowd tend to be more logical. But for me personally I just don’t care about what other people think, I tend to focus on utility. But then again I don’t think twice about spending $200 on a really nice meal, so maybe just difference judgement of value.

I think it is a tech social circle thing and a tendency to go within their own constraints and less likely to be swayed into "keeping up with the Joneses" - I recall some rankings that had engineers as one of the least likely occupations to go bankrupt - and that included doctors, lawyers, and accountants.

Another possibility is that people on HN are wealthier, in part, because they are better than average at delaying gratification.

I think any doctor would tell you that the amount of fast food I eat demonstrates that I am absolutely terrible at delaying gratification :)

I'm not a huge fan of the "rich people are more naturally inclined to be rich, which is why they're rich" arguments. There are plenty of examples about how the system is somewhat rigged to keep people poor.

Thanks for saying this. I think the mindset of the comment you're replying to can be dangerous.