Is coffee-shop coffee too expensive?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DrSpike
And yet you manage all three stone cold sober.

Ba-doom-tish!

[Elok]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Actually, you missed the point.

What one person calls frivolous, another calls important.

What one person calls overpriced, another calls a bargain.

You think lots of bathrooms are a necessity, others do not.

I think my $900 watch was a great bargain (got it for half retail price), you would probably say it is overpriced.

The value of something is always determined by an individual.

As for positive utility, again it is subjective. If someone drinking bottle water feels better, even though the water is tap water, there is still a positive utility for that person.

And that person is still a moron for deriving his/her self-esteem from a consumer product. It had better taste ten times better and be ten times purer if it costs ten times as much. Buying based on image is for imbeciles with too much money.

$900 is way too ****ing much for a watch. It's a hunk of metal that tells time. Your $900 model does not tell time more accurately than my $50 model (or are you carrying the NIST atomic clock on your wrist?), and I'm assuming it does not have enough added features to justify the added cost--for that price, it had better have a James Bond-style laser. The only thing it has over my watch is...what? Some gold plating? Congratulations, your watch is slightly heavier and attracts muggers. Or is it one of those things you see advertised in magazines, manufactured by the Finest Swiss Horologists using twenty-three diamonds, fifteen ounces of pure platinum and some $100 bills they wiped their butts with? It's still a watch. It tells time. And possibly the date.

Spending extra makes sense if the quality is discernable in proportion to the money spent. This can entail a certain degree of subjectivity, as with "good" coffee. But if it boils down to pure aesthetics there's a substantial risk of The Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome. If you don't set a limit you'll find yourself buying empty air.

[Provost Harrison]

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by reds4ever
When I see someone in Starbucks window drinking coffee and reading I automatically think 'w@nker'.

QFT

They get a "complete w@nker" for sitting at a laptop pretending to type their great novel.

[Jon Miller]

I sometimes work at starbucks or other coffee shops. The change of scenery can be nice.

JM

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Maquiladora

They get a "complete w@nker" for sitting at a laptop pretending to type their great novel.

I feel sure that's a Candid Camera stunt or some kind of university study involving people being driven to throw wastebins through shopfronts.

I confess to feeling the same way about people putting on makeup on the Tube, or listening to tinny reproductions of crappy music on their all-important mobile 'phone.

Laptop usage on the Tube also drives my rage.


I think I urgently need to defenestrate something at a Starbucks now.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Elok
And that person is still a moron for deriving his/her self-esteem from a consumer product. It had better taste ten times better and be ten times purer if it costs ten times as much. Buying based on image is for imbeciles with too much money.

$900 is way too ****ing much for a watch. It's a hunk of metal that tells time. Your $900 model does not tell time more accurately than my $50 model

Moron? So people who have different tastes than you are idiots? Why does it matter to you what someone else does with their money?

And would you agree that we own things not just for their physical utility, but also for the emotional response the item creates? Do you not own something that you enjoy having and that you value above and beyond its price?

You see, I didn't spend $900 just for a device that tells time, what I bought was, from my perspective, a piece of art, I see a thing of beauty. I haven't seen any $50 watch that comes close to my watch. At the same time I see $10,000 watches that I think are butt ugly, and there are other luxury watches that I would like to own, but can't afford, not that I lose sleep over it.

I also own artwork, and when I see the art, I feel better. It is a natural human response. It is why artists exist. For me, it has nothing to do with impressing the neighbors.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You buy expensive watches because they demonstrate to other people you have money. People drink bottled water because it demonstrates to others (and themselves) that they have money.

Do you really think that people only buy things to impress you. Do you not accept that people buy things for their own personal pleasure?

And my watch doesn't have a price tag, so has does it demonstrate to you that I have money, particularly when it is not expensive compared to, say, a Patek Philippe. How exactly is my watch conspicuous consumption when there is nothing conspicuous about it to the average person?

And if you keep the books you have read then why? Wouldn't you be better off to sell them? And why books at all when you can get them from a library? Wouldn't you agree that you get some pleasure from keeping the book?

[Metaliturtle]

I wrote an article on how Starbucks people can save hundreds here http://www.financingyourfamily.com/2...eds/trackback/

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DrSpike
And yet you manage all three stone cold sober.

Well played, sir.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
My dad would never spend $900 on a watch. He wouldn't spend half that on a suit and he's a lawyer (who makes far more than any poster on this board).

Is this what they call a conspicous consumption post?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Moron? So people who have different tastes than you are idiots? Why does it matter to you what someone else does with their money?

It doesn't "matter" as such. But I reserve the right to tell you it's stupid to throw away money on that scale. And those people are idiots for having tastes that run to prodigality.

And would you agree that we own things not just for their physical utility, but also for the emotional response the item creates? Do you not own something that you enjoy having and that you value above and beyond its price?

Yes, I own several such things. I got them mostly as gifts, and they have value for me because of personal associations. I don't have strong emotional responses towards physical commodities for their own sake. I love them for the memories they give me of the places I got them, or of the people who gave them to me.

You see, I didn't spend $900 just for a device that tells time, what I bought was, from my perspective, a piece of art, I see a thing of beauty. I haven't seen any $50 watch that comes close to my watch. At the same time I see $10,000 watches that I think are butt ugly, and there are other luxury watches that I would like to own, but can't afford, not that I lose sleep over it.

I also own artwork, and when I see the art, I feel better. It is a natural human response. It is why artists exist. For me, it has nothing to do with impressing the neighbors.

Impressing the neighbors was Kuci's argument, not mine. My argument was that it's shameful to spend such a staggering amount of money without regard to utility. You want art, go to the museum. Or buy a print of a great painting. Go to a concert. Whatever. Art's just as pretty no matter who owns it. There's no reason to buy art (for yourself, as opposed to a gallery or other exhibition) but vanity. A little vanity purchase isn't too bad. $900 is just getting carried away.

And it ain't art if it's produced in bulk and has a MSRP. It's just a manufactured good supplied to fill a demand invented by a marketing campaign, and you're a sucker for buying into it. This time next year they'll be selling you a refined, elegant, gold-plated toenail clipper or something.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Is this what they call a conspicous consumption post?

Yes. Luckily, the marginal cost was approximately zero, so it didn't simply annihilate resources like most conspicuous consumption

[Cort Haus]

Bling Bling innit!

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Is this what they call a conspicous consumption post?

He's really not doing anything to dispell the fact that everyone believes he is a rich brat subsidised by his family.