The richer a society or peer group, the less important visible spending becomes.

<p><pre><code> As for goods, forget showing off. “If you want to live like a billionaire, buy a $12,000 bed,” says a financial-planner friend of mine. </code></pre> Ever since I read PG discuss the smallness of the actual differences between the lives of tech millionaires and Joe Average, I've wondered how much money it would take to live with principally the same standard of living as someone who can buy whatever they want. Obviously, most of the wealth of a typical billionaire is never used for any material purpose.<p>In the spirit of the quoted financial planner, therefore, I propose to discuss and uncover the areas where a lot of money is still able to buy more comfort and capability than a mere paycheck. If we could shrink these gaps, standard-of-living per dollar would increase, which would be very nice.<p>+ The quality of living quarters is basically as good as it can be, even for smallish sums. Fifty million dollars won't improve the quality of our hot water, good beds, good insulation and home entertainment by much. Rich people can still buy huge properties, but the utility of a private forest is small. Perhaps the biggest change that could happen here would be if people decided to not to skimp too much on the parts that matter.<p>+ Free time and attention. It is a pain in the ass to have to work for a living, usually at a somewhat painful job. Not quite sure how to tackle this problem. Robotics and artificial intelligence, maybe. It won't be solved in the forseeable future.<p>+ Efficient personal transportation still requires a lot of money. Think private jets: being able to travel to any location on earth as quickly and painlessly as anyone. This will probably remain a hurdle in the forseeable future, although the cost has come down a lot quite recently. It remains a matter of cheap airframes and cheap energy. Believe what you may, but being able to move ten of fifteen times faster than a car is a great boon. Get a private pilot's license, and you'll get the idea.<p>+ Personal attention. Money can buy all sorts of servants, therapists, coaches and mentors. I question how much of a boon many of these services actually are, but some of them would be very comfy. For example massage therapists, housemaids or chaffeurs. Also, learning new skills comes easier if you have world-class teaching talent available: the kind of teaching talent which would be bored to death and vastly underpaid teaching in public schools. Ironically, the most useful of these services (housemaids or nannies, for example, or prostitutes if we want to step into darker territory) can already be rented on the open market quite cheaply. Not to the same level of availability or quality as a billionaire could, but still vastly better than nothing.<p>+ Personalized health care. Even in Scandinavia, getting an appointment with the doctor and then an appointment with the required specialist is annoying enough to make you wish for something better. Health care is expensive enough as it is, but having a specialist watching you closely for a long time is much more so.<p>Can anyone think of any areas I missed? Perhaps some of these points could be separated into more sub-points..a list like this compiled 100 years ago would probably lump a lot of the luxuries we have today (washing machines, hot water, automobiles) into the same categories...

Pamela Paul's new book Parenting Inc has an interesting take on this:<p>"Child enrichment has replaced the yuppie trends of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it was important to own a BMW and Rolex watch. Today, the children of this same generation have become the vital signs of success... Messages that speak to mothers about bettering the lives of their children, enriching their experiences, and creating more intelligent students can be seen in print and electronic ads." (p. 75)<p>"In the 1990s yuppies shifted from spending on BMWs and Rolexes to their children. Children became their status symbol. Discretionary dollars switched from diamond bracelets to private violin instructors and university sports camps located seven states away." (p. 82)<p>"A baby is not an accessory, exactly, but when you go outside with a baby, all eyes go to the baby. All of the sudden, it's not so important to spend as much money on yourself-- you spend on the baby." (p. 201)

I find that richer people still flash their wealth, just in a different way. For instance, I know a lot of very wealthy people who wear Patek Phillipe watches that cost in the 6 figure range. This would not appear to be showing off to an average American, who couldn't spot or guess the price of an uber-expensive watch, but in wealthy circles everyone notices.<p>I do agree that there's a shift in spending patterns among the wealthy (and Bobos in Paradise is a good book and explains it well) but I don't think that it's due to a desire to be less conspicuous, nor does it have that effect within their social circles. (They're sure to show off their $20,000 slate shower stall.) I think people are just shifting toward buying stuff they like rather than stuff they think other people will be impressed by.

This is common sense. If people make negative assumptions about your peer group, you end up with something to prove.

"A household with income under $13,000 spends, on average, $645 a year on lottery tickets, about 9 percent of all income." via Jason Kottke

I think the higher income bracket you belong to the less acceptable it is to spend your money on things that are considered "conspicuous". My feeling is that Patek Philippe watch and Italian marble counter tops express the same basic thing to world:<p>I'm important and successful.<p>It's just more covert than a diamond studded grill. In fact, it makes the message much more powerful because now only the people you care about, rich people and aspiring rich people, know how important and successful you are.

Unless you are signaling quality to potential mates I see no reason for showing status to anyone. Same sex signaling (among heterosexuals) has always confounded me, as well as old people (beyond reproductive years), and people with a ton of kids.<p>Beyond gene propagation why care?

I have a 13 year old Mercedes Diesel fueled entirely on Biodiesel and a $3000 car stereo with J&#38;L subwoofer and subwoofer amp installed.<p>The Biodiesel is proclaimed proudly with bumper stickers, but the car stereo is completely hidden behind the stock Mercedes grilles, and when it is parked, the faceplate is detached and the unit hidden with the circa 1990's cassette stereo faceplate.<p>I want my lower carbon footprint recognized, but the stereo I just want for the better sound.

Interesting, but it ignores the other half of the phenomenon: richer peer groups generally tend to frown upon ostentatious displays of wealth.

it seems that one important benefit of beeing rich is that, if you are a male,it attracts females(the opposite doesn't seem to be true, maybe this could account for lower female salaries?).so, if you are a rich man, of course you will want to make it show.if you are the king everyone knows you are the king, if not you have to do what you have to do...

I haven't finished reading the article yet, but this strikes me as a classic example of innapropriate generalization. The hip-hop culture example seems to reinforce the argument, but many other subcultures fail: think of the french aristocracy in the 18th century as a classic example of conspicuous consumption. Or the roaring 20's. Or various calvinist groups of the 17th century as examples of the austere poor. Or...<p>The point being that the variation in visible consumption between groups is vast, and this article picked just two groups two compare. It's junk science. And IMHO, it's borderline racist.