Comment by jimmies | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmies | Hacker News Reader

>Apparel is being displaced by travel, eating out and activities—what’s routinely lumped together as “experiences”—which have grown to 18 percent of purchases. [..] That now tops all clothing and footwear expenditures.

I have a completely blunt theory on that. People learn that pictures of them smiling in their bathing suit in the Maldives or with that exotic plate of food attract more 'likes' than the pictures of them with that new handbag or handmade watch in their office. So they spend more time eating and traveling and posting pictures, instead of buying that bag. It's what sells. It is no surprise to me that """experiences""" sell likes better than things on Facebook.

If that was true, what determines what people spend money on depends what the dominant social network/ source of news is. Past: magazines at checkout lines: expensive bags and clothing. Now: Facebook: travels and food. Future: who knows what will be the dominant one. But here are my guesses. Pinterest: Hobby Lobby. TMZ: back to expensive clothing. /r/fi: mutual funds. Slashdot: Thinkpads. Hacker News: Tesla cars and Juicero machines. (Let's be honest here, I want a Tesla car and a Juicero machine, so if you have a job that allows me to afford those, feel free to connect, ty).

I think you've got cause and effect the wrong way round. People who enjoy hobbies are going to be drawn to Pintrest, people into finance read /r/fi, and people who are into tech read Hacker News.

It was a lame and absurd joke,... but what I meant is that the dominant one that people without any particular interest flock in. Now, it's Facebook. In the past, it was the taboo magazines in Walmart checkout lines and at gas stations, so that's why it used to be clothing. If Facebook didn't make it, I think we wouldn't have seen the shift mentioned.

The average person thinks what's popular is what makes them likable, not that he/she has found a more meaningful life in travels and """experiences""". Btw, I'm from Vietnam, the news there is changing rapidly but still have an emphasis on celebrities, so I notice that Viet immigrants in the US care about how you look & dress more than American people. Every comment on how I dress was from my Viet friends and our girls wear a lot of LV bags :)

But then again, one is more likely to try hobbies people he knows/likes do. And occasionally I get interested in things someone posted on my social network I would not even care about otherwise.

The influence goes two ways.

I actually think he/she's got it the right way. I don't think most people post pictures of food because they're dedicated 'foodies', I think they do it for the likes.

People into finance read the FT or the WSJ

>> Apparel is being displaced by travel, eating out and activities

The apparel and technology spending lines basically mirror each other. Why is travel mentioned?

Tech is the new status symbol for the masses. $600 phone instead of a $600 watch, leather jacket, etc

You might be right. However be careful, the graph doesn't suggest that all the decrease in clothing spending is siphoned into tech spending - it might be a coincident. If they draw more lines, you might see a similar increase in, say, books and education. Now what goes where? We don't know. All the graph says is that people spend more money on tech and experiences, and less money on clothing.

Travel is far more of a status symbol than tech. $600 iPhones and jackets don't compare to $5k safaris and hiking trips, not to mention even being able to have the time off to do it.

Easiest way to stratify a group by wealth is start talking about where and how often they go on vacation.

plus it provides lots of 'jumping in the air on the beach', 'hiking machu picchu' and 'meditating on the mountaintop' photos for ones social media/online dating profile..

Are you suggesting that people only go on vacation for the status? Or for that matter buy smartphones for that reason?

No, I'm not writing in absolutes. But it can and does serve the purpose of signaling to others that you have achieved a level of "success". It's not necessarily explicit, and it might not be at the forefront of the mind of travelers, but it is kind of like achievements in video games.

Imagine scrolling through dating profiles and seeing someone with pictures of them self globe trotting versus someone who doesn't have exotic photos. It's not new, showing off for potential mates is of course natural. I'm just pointing out that travel is a very easy and accurate way (can't be faked) to show off than having the newest iPhone.

I diagree. Phones only go up to about $900. But watches go up to the tens of thousands.

Laptops only go up to about what, $5k or so? But jackets go up way more.

Tech is more of a "as a bare minimum, I need to have the top of the line." Additionally, increased expenditure on tech does actually give increased utility in the form of performance. (even though it's reduced bang for buck).

However, a $50,000 watch doesn't tell time any better than a simple Casio. An $8,000 jacket doesn't keep you any warmer than a $200 one.

The whole point of demonstrating wealth is to spend money on impractical things. You're demonstrating that you have money to literally waste.

I bet my >$700 Barbour works better than a cheap one from Walmart - and as a bonus it will out live me :-)

You're just illustrating the point of the post you replied to: What do you need it to outlive you for?

Plus, you can't compare something to the cheap one from Walmart, because the Walmart one sets an extremely low bar to pass in terms of quality or even quality/price.

What about a decent Carhartt jacket? Much cheaper than $700 and will still outlive you...assuming you don't sling concrete or frame houses in it.

>/r/fi: mutual funds

*low cost ETFs

Thanks for the correction. What I really meant to say was index funds including ETFs. I totally messed up on that one.

Rene Girard comes to mind

Reply on news.ycombinator.com