So, the carbon footprint and global warming, while interesting problems, won't exactly supercede mating parades in humans. Possibly instead, europeans lost a lot more money in the crisis, dont want to mate anymore, or stores are closed.
I doubt, as a European myself, that fringe political consideration mattered when choosing between a Vuitton and a chinese handbag. Possibly, the Vuitton had a smaller footprint.
There is also counter signalling which you can read about. It explains why billionaires in Sillicon Valley wear H&M t-shirts and not L&V
Guess what, handcrafted goods retain far more value and last much longer on the second hand market. The luxury industry and the second market have a lot of synergy.
>Do you think reasonally educated women would prefer a guy with luxurious clothes?
They do. Women much prefer men who aren't negligent about their appearance. And it's not just about bling.
Cucinelli and Loro Piana, not H&M :)
All fairly expensive activities, but none of those include luxury fashion ;)
As with many other things, the pandemic might just have accelerated a change that was slowly happening anyway.
> Luxury spending is made to satisfy a very deep human need: show off purported wealth, possibly like animal dances before mating.
This seems more likely to me. To show off, you need to be in the presence of other people. With widespread lockdowns and bans on gatherings, there's less of an opportunity to do this.
Consider: It is rather usual to be acquainted or even a friend with a dollar millionaire in the US, and low millions "aren't even much", while just few million euro places you near the absolute top in Europe.
All my friends who got rich aren't living in EU, they are in Thailand, Dubai, China, Indonesia or US.
All of them have told me EU isn't a good place to spend your money, your money buys more in Asia and they'll only go back to Europe when they get old or run out of money because Europe is a good place to get old because of health services being offered there.
Other half friends who are in Europe don't have enough disposable income to afford more than a summer vacation to some other cheap European country.
I think we can agree that English is the lingua franca? This automatically renders any place which isn't English speaking less attractive to most people.
So out of the big cities we're left with London, New York, maybe Dubai and Hong Kong. I've lived in and arranged relocations for clients to all of these cities.
Out of these Dubai has a really unpleasant climate for half of the year, the rest are mostly okay.
Only NYC and London have reasonably available high end real estate, in HK an Dubai the quality of finishing tends to be really shit no matter how high end you go.
Schools? NYC and London are your only options if you want your kids to have the best education, London definitely edges ahead here and is reasonably close to top schools like Le Rosey.
Restaurants? Dubai is out, the rest are fairly even.
Demographics? If you're not Chinese you'll have an increasingly difficult time in HK, especially with the recent developments. The other cities are incredibly diverse.
Stability? HK is out, NYC will seem iffy to many thanks to the increasing polarization in American politics. Dubai's long term prospects remain to be seen, but despite Brexit UK seems more than okay.
Safety? Dubai and HK are incredibly safe as long as you don't upset the government. London is still much safer than NYC.
Location? Dubai and London win here. DXB and London are both extremely convenient air travel hubs. For most of the world NYC is far. HKG isn't great unless you're coming from Asia.
I think in the end for most of the ultra rich considering moving abroad it'll be a choice between NYC and London. Unless your family already holds US passports, odds are London is the better destination.
If anything, luxury spending must be promoted to reduce carbon intensity of national economies.
The carbon footprint of the luxury industry is probably insignificant compared to fast fashion dumping chemicals in South East Asian rivers.