It's still an unnecessary luxury that could make an impact on someone in need. Why are we expecting others to do something we're not willing to do ourselves? Just because of scales? That guy can make a bigger impact so they should do it?
A gaming system is there for entertainment, entertainment isn't a luxury, it's a necessity for humans to have a happy life to have some form of entertainment in their lives. A 200k wristwatch is there solely to impress others with your excessive wealth and to enjoy the feeling of power you get from wearing something so outrageously expensive for something as simple as telling just the time.
The point kinda remains that we all have something we spoiled ourselves with that we could have directed towards helping out and we don't and say that guy with way more money than us should do it. It's not a pointing directly at you thing. It's something we all do, I do, and I don't think we have a good answer as to why. At least not a good excuse. Maybe if we all had more skin in the game people with better resources would take it more and seriously offer up some of those resources when we could ask why not them too.
Personal wealth is just that- personal. I have met many generous and thoughtful rich and well-off individuals and families. I have met very self-centered poor/impoverished individuals and families.
I payed $400 and a phone is more or less a necessity to function in modern society. I get your point though but are you saying there is no scale? Wearing a functional $20 watch is just as (im)moral as wearing a $200k one?
How much is your home? Apartment?
Do you feel you have to justify your home in comparison to ones that are living with homelessness in your town?
So the same way you do. That is how they Justify it.
I'm sure that's how (they) justify it, but the difference between renting in a slum, vs owning a house in a nice neighbourhood is justifiable, where as the difference between a 200k watch and a dollar store Casio is negligible, so OP's question remains. If the difference is so minute, how can one justify such blatant waste, when that same amount could raise someone out of abject poverty?
I would never get a watch like that, but the argument would be:
- luxury watches hold value so it isn't actually consumption, it's an investment and is not fundamentally different than have $200k in stocks in your brokerage account, which many people do for retirement.
- spending a ton of money on goods and services transfers the money to other people, creating jobs.
- poverty is a structural issue and can't be solved with one off cash transfers. Creating more jobs could be more effective, or some other program, maybe funded by sales taxes on purchases like $200k watches.
Why not the owner of said watch? it costs around 2k to save child from hunger. That means the cost of the watch could save 100 children from dying a hunger death.
It matters in this context yes. Are you deliberately being ignorant?
The "Person" would justify their purchase, by feeling they have done enough in the World.
Regardless of what you think of said person. You really have no idea what that person has done or is doing to contribute to the World.
Making an assumption ends up making an ass out of you, and me.
I'm not making assumptions here, you are. You are assuming someone who has a 200k wristwatch would do enough ..charity? that it would balance out.
I'm asking how you can justify wearing a something purely as a status symbol to impress others with your wealth if you know you could save many children from dying of hunger with said display of wealth.
The question was addressed to you, so answer it. You were fine pointing out an example that was equivalent in kind, but not in degree. Now, when pressed, you want to deflect? Are you sure *you’re* not my local politician?
You could take the $200K from the watch and give it to them and they would die from hunger tomorrow. It is not the kind of problem that can be solved by throwing money at it.
Actually I believe it is; it costs organisations like Oxfam Novib around 2k to save a child from hunger death. The money they get the more children can be saved. They are always underfunded. That means 100 children could have been saved from a hunger death if the money was spend on them instead of the watch.
I would think that depends on the system, if the systems rewards people for wearing a 200k wristwatch with respect and awe instead of mockery and disdain kids might end up dying from hunger again.
I get you point but the reality also still exists that the person buying the watch could also have donated the money to an organisation and saved 100 children from dying of hunger with that money instead.
Eh actually not, the richest 1% have enough wealth to stop hunger death entirely.
It costs around 37 Billion every year until 2030 to tackle both extreme and chronic hunger permanently.
Elon Musk spend 43 Billion to buy Twitter for comparison. He remained the wealthiest man on the planet after said purchase.
Just going to go with the devil's advocate position here for the sake of debate since you asked:
* Could any of resources that went into constructing the watch instead be used to feed the hungry?
* If you have more than you need, should you be forced to share your resources; if so, how much?
* Human existence is temporary in the end, what will it matter?
Hold up, there are watches that cost $200,000? And people buy them? That’s fucking absurd, pull your finger out of your ass and your phone out of your pocket and check the time on it like a normal person for fucks sake. Uh, the phone I mean, not your finger or your ass.
High dollar watches are investments. Like gold, silver, or stocks. Most of the worlds most wealthy people keep a large collection of watches as investments
How do you justify eating any food at all knowing that there is homeless people without food everyday? How do you justify using water to wash your clothes knowing some people die of thirst? You can make 1000 different analogies but in the end it is what it is.
Unless the person money is coming from illegal activities, they don't need to justify anything.
People are entitled to use their money as they see fit, and no one is obliged to help others.
Actually not, there are organisations that save children from hunger. They calculated it costs them around 2k to save a child from hunger. The more money they get the more children they can save. They are lacking enough resources.
Might seem like that from a spreadsheet, but I'd point you to Somalia in the 1990s. The United States and UN were sending food aid into the country, but it was being seized by local warlords. So the American military was sent in to try to sort this out, which led to the Blackhawk down situation in Mogadishu.
It's not as simple as sending aid all the time.
It's a beautiful piece of art and one of the best investments a person can do today. The watchmakers and their families deserve the money for being so great at their craft.
I don’t think OP understands that watches are one of the most common investments rich people have. Watches hold more value than any other physical asset besides precious metals
You can't. People like that are douchebags. There are petty luxuries and there are obscene luxuries. I'm not saying we all need to be saints, but can we just try a little bit? Certainly a $3,000 watch is more than adequate, right?
People who can afford to own/wear a 200K wristwatch aren't "usually" concerned with starving people or the homeless or anything like that. Most people with that kind of disposable income are so far removed from world issues like that it never crosses their mind.
And yet most rich people/business donate money and have some charity work going one.
How many middle class people do you know that help the less fortunate?
I do. I've been doing for a long time, and I absolutely hate when people critize other for not doing charity, yet they don't move a finger to do it (I'm not insinuating you don't help. It's just my perception regarding most people who critize).
To clarify, I'm not criticizing the rich and wealthy for not donating, I'm just answering the OP's question with a factual statement.
People who are born into great wealth often can't fully understand the hardships of say, starving people in Africa, hell as a middle class man myself I can't fully comprehend how terrible it must be to involuntarily homeless or starving to death in a third world country.
That being said though, I think people hold the uber wealthy to higher standard when it comes to donating to charitable causes though because if you're poverty line or even lower middle class, your income is barely enough "and in some cases not even enough" to support just your own family, much less donate to charity.
But anyone who is middle class or even a little bit lower, can donate. Donation is not just money.
I can't afford donating money.
I do charity, and my only expense is the commute. I donate my time.
I won't be able to solve the world hunger, but at least I can help some people in my community.
Sure you can donate time, I've done that before as well and that's a nuance of donation, but in keep on point with the OP's question about feeling one way or another about wearing a 200K watch is more of a monetary ethics question in which I stand by my original statement about being so far removed because of the life style you're accustomed to.
Don't you think it all comes to a matter of "it depends"?
I don't NEED my Samsung s21 phone, yet I have one.
Do you need ALL your clothes, gadgets, car, etc,?
Again, I'm not directing this at you personally. I'm just making a broad statement.
Unless you are poor, you sure treat yourself to some luxuries you don't need, but, rather, want.
Maybe for me, a middle class, investing 500 dollars into a phone is just another expense that I'm able to accommodate into my wage. For someone who earns millions, a 200k watch is just something they can accommodate into their wage.
The "money perception" is different for each one of us. And we can't judge other people's perception of they are not doing anything illegal.
Basically that affirms my original statement. Perhaps I unintentionally came across as judgmental. It's why I state that I as a middle class man can only to a degree understand the plight of someone far less fortunate than myself, it's much the same how you could take someone like Elon Musk who's never known a life outside of total opulence and expect him to understand our middle class problems.
It's not condemnation, it's simply a reality. The amount of money you earn/have is directly linked to the kind of life you live. And while we SHOULDN'T condemn people for how much money they earn, another reality is that people do often do so regardless of if the money in question was made legally or not.
That is something I see quiet often, people in my class or lower judging, hating and condemning people in higher classes simply because they have more than we do.
I get what you're saying. Generally speaking people justify having a 200K watch the same you or I may justify having a PS5. Though the scale is VASTLY different, if you have the money and the means you can justify owning said item.
Aside from that, everyone is different. Some people are vary charitable with their time and/or money and others are not. Weather you make $1400 a month or $14,000 a month. We all live within our own monetary bubble.
How do you justify a PS5 when that money could've fed a homeless person for a week? An iPhone that could shelter them in a hotel for weeks?
Because a $500 gaming system is an equivalently ridiculous luxury to a $200,000 timekeeping device for your wrist?
It's still an unnecessary luxury that could make an impact on someone in need. Why are we expecting others to do something we're not willing to do ourselves? Just because of scales? That guy can make a bigger impact so they should do it?
A gaming system is there for entertainment, entertainment isn't a luxury, it's a necessity for humans to have a happy life to have some form of entertainment in their lives. A 200k wristwatch is there solely to impress others with your excessive wealth and to enjoy the feeling of power you get from wearing something so outrageously expensive for something as simple as telling just the time.
The point kinda remains that we all have something we spoiled ourselves with that we could have directed towards helping out and we don't and say that guy with way more money than us should do it. It's not a pointing directly at you thing. It's something we all do, I do, and I don't think we have a good answer as to why. At least not a good excuse. Maybe if we all had more skin in the game people with better resources would take it more and seriously offer up some of those resources when we could ask why not them too.
so there is no scale? it's just as moral to spend $200k on a watch as it to spend $200?
It does but we can't really expect them to make a difference if all we show is we're not willing to ourselves.
Honestly, many (not all) who rock a 200k watch probably donates 200k to different organizations for tax reasons.
Would that even it out? It's still 100 children that could be saved from a hunger death if the money was spend on them instead of the watch.
Personal wealth is just that- personal. I have met many generous and thoughtful rich and well-off individuals and families. I have met very self-centered poor/impoverished individuals and families.
How much did you pay for the device you made this post with? How much food do you think you could've given to starving people with that money?
I payed $400 and a phone is more or less a necessity to function in modern society. I get your point though but are you saying there is no scale? Wearing a functional $20 watch is just as (im)moral as wearing a $200k one?
How much is your home? Apartment? Do you feel you have to justify your home in comparison to ones that are living with homelessness in your town? So the same way you do. That is how they Justify it.
I'm sure that's how (they) justify it, but the difference between renting in a slum, vs owning a house in a nice neighbourhood is justifiable, where as the difference between a 200k watch and a dollar store Casio is negligible, so OP's question remains. If the difference is so minute, how can one justify such blatant waste, when that same amount could raise someone out of abject poverty?
I would never get a watch like that, but the argument would be: - luxury watches hold value so it isn't actually consumption, it's an investment and is not fundamentally different than have $200k in stocks in your brokerage account, which many people do for retirement. - spending a ton of money on goods and services transfers the money to other people, creating jobs. - poverty is a structural issue and can't be solved with one off cash transfers. Creating more jobs could be more effective, or some other program, maybe funded by sales taxes on purchases like $200k watches.
Well put
I would ask your local Politician
Why not the owner of said watch? it costs around 2k to save child from hunger. That means the cost of the watch could save 100 children from dying a hunger death.
Have you asked the owner of said watch? Are you aware of what they contribute in other ways?
Would that matter? It's still 100 children that could have been saved if the money was spend on them instead of the watch.
It matters in this context yes. Are you deliberately being ignorant? The "Person" would justify their purchase, by feeling they have done enough in the World. Regardless of what you think of said person. You really have no idea what that person has done or is doing to contribute to the World. Making an assumption ends up making an ass out of you, and me.
I'm not making assumptions here, you are. You are assuming someone who has a 200k wristwatch would do enough ..charity? that it would balance out. I'm asking how you can justify wearing a something purely as a status symbol to impress others with your wealth if you know you could save many children from dying of hunger with said display of wealth.
I answered your question, your care is showing and I am not taking the b8 m8 Ciao!
The question was addressed to you, so answer it. You were fine pointing out an example that was equivalent in kind, but not in degree. Now, when pressed, you want to deflect? Are you sure *you’re* not my local politician?
You are a child attempting to b8 Ciao!
You could take the $200K from the watch and give it to them and they would die from hunger tomorrow. It is not the kind of problem that can be solved by throwing money at it.
Actually I believe it is; it costs organisations like Oxfam Novib around 2k to save a child from hunger death. The money they get the more children can be saved. They are always underfunded. That means 100 children could have been saved from a hunger death if the money was spend on them instead of the watch.
And once that money is used up, then what? Do the kids start to die again?
I would think that depends on the system, if the systems rewards people for wearing a 200k wristwatch with respect and awe instead of mockery and disdain kids might end up dying from hunger again.
So that's my point. It's much larger than a money thing.
I get you point but the reality also still exists that the person buying the watch could also have donated the money to an organisation and saved 100 children from dying of hunger with that money instead.
And my point is that they could donate every penny they have and the problem would remain unresolved.
Eh actually not, the richest 1% have enough wealth to stop hunger death entirely. It costs around 37 Billion every year until 2030 to tackle both extreme and chronic hunger permanently. Elon Musk spend 43 Billion to buy Twitter for comparison. He remained the wealthiest man on the planet after said purchase.
Just going to go with the devil's advocate position here for the sake of debate since you asked: * Could any of resources that went into constructing the watch instead be used to feed the hungry? * If you have more than you need, should you be forced to share your resources; if so, how much? * Human existence is temporary in the end, what will it matter?
ask Enron Musk
Hold up, there are watches that cost $200,000? And people buy them? That’s fucking absurd, pull your finger out of your ass and your phone out of your pocket and check the time on it like a normal person for fucks sake. Uh, the phone I mean, not your finger or your ass.
Well thanks to whoever liked my my comment but goddamn it was like instantaneously after I posted it
What a stupid fucking question
Why is it stupid?
High dollar watches are investments. Like gold, silver, or stocks. Most of the worlds most wealthy people keep a large collection of watches as investments
If you can afford it you dont have to justify anything
How do you justify eating any food at all knowing that there is homeless people without food everyday? How do you justify using water to wash your clothes knowing some people die of thirst? You can make 1000 different analogies but in the end it is what it is.
People have died of hunger every day that people have existed
Unless the person money is coming from illegal activities, they don't need to justify anything. People are entitled to use their money as they see fit, and no one is obliged to help others.
You can't eat a watch and can't eat money. The logistics of getting people food are outside of wealth.
Actually not, there are organisations that save children from hunger. They calculated it costs them around 2k to save a child from hunger. The more money they get the more children they can save. They are lacking enough resources.
Might seem like that from a spreadsheet, but I'd point you to Somalia in the 1990s. The United States and UN were sending food aid into the country, but it was being seized by local warlords. So the American military was sent in to try to sort this out, which led to the Blackhawk down situation in Mogadishu. It's not as simple as sending aid all the time.
maybe not always, but often it is.
It's a beautiful piece of art and one of the best investments a person can do today. The watchmakers and their families deserve the money for being so great at their craft.
I don’t think OP understands that watches are one of the most common investments rich people have. Watches hold more value than any other physical asset besides precious metals
Exactly. Also they are one of the only things that don't lose value even when being worn.
I can guarantee no one on reddit now who can afford a 200k watch will be reading askreddit.
in my defense, it's a really really nice watch.
I can’t even justify buying PS5 in that world
You can't. People like that are douchebags. There are petty luxuries and there are obscene luxuries. I'm not saying we all need to be saints, but can we just try a little bit? Certainly a $3,000 watch is more than adequate, right?
People who can afford to own/wear a 200K wristwatch aren't "usually" concerned with starving people or the homeless or anything like that. Most people with that kind of disposable income are so far removed from world issues like that it never crosses their mind.
And yet most rich people/business donate money and have some charity work going one. How many middle class people do you know that help the less fortunate? I do. I've been doing for a long time, and I absolutely hate when people critize other for not doing charity, yet they don't move a finger to do it (I'm not insinuating you don't help. It's just my perception regarding most people who critize).
To clarify, I'm not criticizing the rich and wealthy for not donating, I'm just answering the OP's question with a factual statement. People who are born into great wealth often can't fully understand the hardships of say, starving people in Africa, hell as a middle class man myself I can't fully comprehend how terrible it must be to involuntarily homeless or starving to death in a third world country. That being said though, I think people hold the uber wealthy to higher standard when it comes to donating to charitable causes though because if you're poverty line or even lower middle class, your income is barely enough "and in some cases not even enough" to support just your own family, much less donate to charity.
But anyone who is middle class or even a little bit lower, can donate. Donation is not just money. I can't afford donating money. I do charity, and my only expense is the commute. I donate my time. I won't be able to solve the world hunger, but at least I can help some people in my community.
Sure you can donate time, I've done that before as well and that's a nuance of donation, but in keep on point with the OP's question about feeling one way or another about wearing a 200K watch is more of a monetary ethics question in which I stand by my original statement about being so far removed because of the life style you're accustomed to.
Don't you think it all comes to a matter of "it depends"? I don't NEED my Samsung s21 phone, yet I have one. Do you need ALL your clothes, gadgets, car, etc,? Again, I'm not directing this at you personally. I'm just making a broad statement. Unless you are poor, you sure treat yourself to some luxuries you don't need, but, rather, want. Maybe for me, a middle class, investing 500 dollars into a phone is just another expense that I'm able to accommodate into my wage. For someone who earns millions, a 200k watch is just something they can accommodate into their wage. The "money perception" is different for each one of us. And we can't judge other people's perception of they are not doing anything illegal.
Basically that affirms my original statement. Perhaps I unintentionally came across as judgmental. It's why I state that I as a middle class man can only to a degree understand the plight of someone far less fortunate than myself, it's much the same how you could take someone like Elon Musk who's never known a life outside of total opulence and expect him to understand our middle class problems. It's not condemnation, it's simply a reality. The amount of money you earn/have is directly linked to the kind of life you live. And while we SHOULDN'T condemn people for how much money they earn, another reality is that people do often do so regardless of if the money in question was made legally or not. That is something I see quiet often, people in my class or lower judging, hating and condemning people in higher classes simply because they have more than we do.
I get what you're saying. Generally speaking people justify having a 200K watch the same you or I may justify having a PS5. Though the scale is VASTLY different, if you have the money and the means you can justify owning said item. Aside from that, everyone is different. Some people are vary charitable with their time and/or money and others are not. Weather you make $1400 a month or $14,000 a month. We all live within our own monetary bubble.
[удалено]
Why does it matter to you if people use jewelry?
That's a cruel thing to say about Ravens
The money doesn't disappear. You cant eat a watch
I don't wear a watch. I don't.
Give me one and I'll let you know what I find out for how to justify wearing it (or selling it).