Your opinion on a behavior I have notice in people

[wdiaz03]

Hello,

 

I would like your opinion and a recurring pattern of behavior that I have noticed in people, I'm sure you have as well.

 

I call it "running to the extreme" for lack of a better name, where someone is interested in something and they have to get the absolutely best they can afford. For example, Someone getting into mountain biking would not just get a $150 bike but has to get the $2500 Gary Fisher carbon fiber frame. It is not a matter of needing that type of equipment, My cheap bike has done fine over the years with some minor upgrades to keep it running. Not many mountains in South Florida

 

Or if they get into photography, they have to buy the $1000 cannon with a bunch of lenses. Of if the Galaxy 10x comes out they have to trade their Galaxy 9s for it etc.

 

It puzzles me, I get a lot of satisfaction from getting away with the cheapest device for the job. Like a challenge.

 

I don't know people who think like me but plenty from the other camp.

 

 

Thanks

[Gaurav251]

I still have this motive that if I dont get that premium optical cable, that headset case, the astro scout backpack, and the audio warranty for a a50 headset then there will be no point purchasing it with out these things. Of course I just use my old sennheiser headset and when ever it breaks I just use tape to fix the wirings inside and it works perfectly ok, saves money and time.

[ThomasDoubts]

      It all depends.  If I'm Lance Armstrong, dropping a couple thousand dollars on a bicycle and some red blood cells, it's a great investment.  If I'm just an amateur intent on an exersice regiment, it seems like overkill.  Perhaps materialistic.  If you can afford it, more power to you.  Ultimately the money spent becomes capital for someone creating value, rather than being idle. 

 

 

To me, such an attitude reflects a materialistic society, but one reached voluntarily.  The consequences of malinvestment are unavoidable, so I take comfort in the economic justice. 

[wdiaz03]

...  Ultimately the money spent becomes capital for someone creating value, rather than being idle. 

 

...

 

All good points,

 

One minor correction, consuming reduces the economic pie. Idle money is lent (to the highest bidder i.e to fund the greatest needs))or decreases the money supply, increasing everyone's purchasing power.

 

In other words, the economy will shift towards high end gadgets to satisfy the "Lance Armstrongs"  wannabes. The spending would be neutral or negative, but Don't see it as a positive point in this case.

 ...If I'm just an amateur intent on an exersice regiment, it seems like overkill.  Perhaps materialistic.  If you can afford it, more power to you. ...

 

Right, The whole point of the biking is exercise, no one is competing here, Why would I want the most efficient machine known to man? It seems to make sense to have the 50lb steel bike, as inefficient as possible, and burn the calories in half the time and distance.   

[Duderio]

goodbye

[ThomasDoubts]

    It is true that idle money, or savings increases purchasing power, all else equal.  Although, I would argue money isn't lent to the highest bidder (willing to accept the highest rate of interest, or requesting the largest loan).  Every lender's risk profile is different but the highest bidder presents the greatest risk to the lender.  A prudent lender doesn't seek the greatest risk for want of the greatest return; but rather attempts to capitalize on the mispricing of risk.  The "greatest needs", like all other needs will be serviced in accordance with the risk of default, among other things.  Price, via interest rates, is the mechanism determining who gets capital, and who doesn't, not the degree of need.  Perhaps I misunderstand so forgive my rambling if that's the case.    

 

    An Armstrong wannabe makes a poor investment when he buys a $2,500 bike.  I would hope he spends all his money on as many bikes as he can buy.  His money will go to capital investors creating value, and the bikes he bought will be sold on the secondary markets at a discount.  He incurs a loss, and learns a lesson; while the buyer on the secondary market is rewarded for making a more prudent purchase.  Of course more "wannabes" put upward pressure on prices and profit seeking businesses have no reason to disincentivize the suckers.  Successful businesses are more rational, on average, than consumers.  The more rational consumers become, the more efficient resources will be allocated.  In the meantime, I think it best to capitalize on the difference between the retail price a wannabe pays, and what he's willing to accept on the secondary market when he realizes his mistake.  To me, it all seems a reflection of what people value, and how they determine the price they're willing to pay for that which they value.  It doesn't say anything good about the consumer driven society, but at least the money is going from the irrational to the less irrational. 

[NotDarkYet]

Man,

 

I see this ALL THE TIME in music and songwriting.

 

 

Usually when I see someone with a HUGE number of guitar pedals and an obsession with equipment, they aren't a good writer.

 

 

I interpret this behavior as avoidance of what they really need to do.

 

 

The big spender gets the FEELING of making big progress, without confronting the behavior that prevents them from achieving their goals of actually writing good music, or actually getting in good shape.

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I LOVE being the contrarian popping the bubbles of the fancy-food, fancy-phone, fancy-beer, fancy-car....people.

 

 

I will purposely order normal food and normal drinks just to see the fancy people squirm.   When the discussions of taste come to fruition, and these people have to explain how a 10 dollar a glass whiskey is better.... I get to see an emperor without clothes.

 

Being the curious/clueless person is dangerous to the pompous.

[wdiaz03]

... Every lender's risk profile is different but the highest bidder presents the greatest risk to the lender.  A prudent lender doesn't seek the greatest risk for want of the greatest return; but rather attempts to capitalize on the mispricing of risk.  The "greatest needs", like all other needs will be serviced in accordance with the risk of default, among other things.  Price, via interest rates, is the mechanism determining who gets capital, and who doesn't, not the degree of need.  Perhaps I misunderstand so forgive my rambling if that's the case.    

...

 

My understanding of interest rates is that they are a way to weed out ideas with less return on investment (Less on demand), For example investors (on average) that know that their ideas will generate 10% ROI will bid up to 10% interest rates. while ideas that would generate 5% will be bided out. An investment that can potentially generate a high return is one that is in great demand by the consumers. ( its a free market way of prioritizing needs and resources)

I don't see a correlation between interest rates and risks.

 

A Fat burning diet pill or breast enlarging cream (that 100% works) will be able to bid a high interest rate on loans (Because they'll make a killing in the marked) and are as sure an investment as they come.  

 

Now I can see that as lenders analize Ideas...Those with higher risk in relation to others will have to pay a higher interest rate. But investors can only bid as high as the expected return...If my high risk "purified bottled air" idea is expected to generate 4% retun, I cannot ask for a loan with a higher interest rate because I would loose money.

 

I hope this makes sense...again not an expert.

Man,

 

I see this ALL THE TIME in music and songwriting.

 

 

Usually when I see someone with a HUGE number of guitar pedals and an obsession with equipment, they aren't a good writer.

 

 

I interpret this behavior as avoidance of what they really need to do.

...

 

Right, you make a good point.

 

It almost seem that they feel like people would like them not because of what they achived but of what they have...

A way of hearing "Nice bike" instead of "Nice 20 mile ride"?

 

Doe sit give them the illusion of control? "I'm not sure if I can stick to the exersice routine, but I can control the equipment I buy"

 

Is this related to obsesive behavior.

For example someone who reads studies the bad effects of gluten in the body. an becomes obsesive with being gluten free. etc.

 

Or not using shampoo or soap...

 

Is this a way of trying to control at least one tiny variable of the infinetly many in our enviroment?

[ThomasDoubts]

My understanding of interest rates is that they are a way to weed out ideas with less return on investment (Less on demand), For example investors (on average) that know that their ideas will generate 10% ROI will bid up to 10% interest rates. while ideas that would generate 5% will be bided out. An investment that can potentially generate a high return is one that is in great demand by the consumers. ( its a free market way of prioritizing needs and resources)

I don't see a correlation between interest rates and risks.

 

A Fat burning diet pill or breast enlarging cream (that 100% works) will be able to bid a high interest rate on loans (Because they'll make a killing in the marked) and are as sure an investment as they come.  

 

Now I can see that as lenders analize Ideas...Those with higher risk in relation to others will have to pay a higher interest rate. But investors can only bid as high as the expected return...If my high risk "purified bottled air" idea is expected to generate 4% retun, I cannot ask for a loan with a higher interest rate because I would loose money.

 

I hope this makes sense...again not an expert.

 

 

From wiki--

 

The level of risk in investments is taken into consideration. This is why very volatile investments like shares and junk bonds have higher returns than safer ones like government bonds.

The extra interest charged on a risky investment is the risk premium. The required risk premium is dependent on the risk preferences of the lender.

If an investment is 50% likely to go bankrupt, a risk-neutral lender will require their returns to double. So for an investment normally returning $100 they would require $200 back. A risk-averse lender would require more than $200 back and a risk-loving lender less than $200. Evidence suggests that most lenders are in fact risk-averse.

Generally speaking a longer-term investment carries a maturity risk premium, because long-term loans are exposed to more risk of default during their duration.

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

     Consider your breast enlargement cream, which is 100% effective.  When they go seeking a loan, the shop around looking for the lowest interest rate.  The millions of investors have to compete with each other to secure the business of the breast cream manufacturer.  The investors, realizing the gold mine of the breast cream, and assured that the business will thrive and pay back the loans, race to the bottom.  If one investor offers them a loan @ 10%, someone else will surely offer the same loan @ 9%.  The process continues until the breast cream company finds the investor offering the lowest rate of interest.  With a surefire investment, that interest rate is very low.  This is why Apple, with a gazillion dollars in cash, a powerful brand, great products, etc, can get loans at very low rates.  Short term US government bonds (treasury bills) are assumed by most, to be the safest investment in the universe(in capital markets), and have accordingly low rates of interest.  It's assumed they'll never default, and therefore have a negligable risk.

 

    On the other hand, consider the purified bottle of air.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if it's your idea, and you are looking for a loan to do business, why would you want a higher interest rate?  You can assume a 4% profit but the investor will assume a 0% profit.  In fact he would assume a 100% loss, which is why he'd never give you a loan.  He considers your risk of default so overwhelming that he wouldn't loan you money at any rate of interest. 

 

    A 0% interest rate loan would be if I let you hold my money for 5 seconds and then returned it.  There exists a concept called a risk free rate, which is essentially what the market considers due compensation for the lost opportunity cost to the lender.  If I had not lent you money, what is the minimum return I could get by lending to safest creditor in the world.  This is generally assumed to be the interest rate on US treasury bills.  Any rate of interest in excess of t-bills is calculated as a combination of risk factors; interest rate risk, default risk, exchange rate risk (when currency exchange takes place at seperate times), political risk, and many others.  The big lever is default risk, because you don't just lose a bit, you could lose you're entire investment. 

 

Interest rates are exactly a measurement of risk.  That's not to say they're perfect, but they attempt to reflect the risk of the borrower.  This helps illustrate the evilness of central bank policy.  Government dictates to society how likely government is to default on their obligations, rather than allow people to see how a free market would price their risk. 

[wdiaz03]

From wiki--

 

The level of risk in investments is taken into consideration. This is why very volatile investments like shares and junk bonds have higher returns than safer ones like government bonds.

The extra interest charged on a risky investment is the risk premium. The required risk premium is dependent on the risk preferences of the lender.

If an investment is 50% likely to go bankrupt, a risk-neutral lender will require their returns to double. So for an investment normally returning $100 they would require $200 back. A risk-averse lender would require more than $200 back and a risk-loving lender less than $200. Evidence suggests that most lenders are in fact risk-averse.

Generally speaking a longer-term investment carries a maturity risk premium, because long-term loans are exposed to more risk of default during their duration.

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

....

 

    On the other hand, consider the purified bottle of air.  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but if it's your idea, and you are looking for a loan to do business, why would you want a higher interest rate?  You can assume a 4% profit but the investor will assume a 0% profit.  In fact he would assume a 100% loss, which is why he'd never give you a loan.  He considers your risk of default so overwhelming that he wouldn't loan you money at any rate of interest. 

 

...

 

Interest rates are exactly a measurement of risk.  That's not to say they're perfect, but they attempt to reflect the risk of the borrower.  This helps illustrate the evilness of central bank policy.  Government dictates to society how likely government is to default on their obligations, rather than allow people to see how a free market would price their risk. 

 

Point taken, Interest rates will include a premium for risk as well as a premium for inflation etc. My point was the important function of interest rates in regulating economic activity by selecting higher return investments over lower. The market will determine the interest rate based on the time preference of savers. If a lot of people are saving it is a signal that they have no immediate need and are putting off consumption to the future, This lowers interest rates, allowing investments with lower return to be profitable, If there's little savings, this will push rates higher, cutting off lower return investments.

 

This is why when the government keeps rates artificially low, there is mal-investment, because businessmen will think that their low return investment is now profitable and the current low rate. 

 

I quote Mises:

"The lowering of the rate of interest stimulates economic activity. Projects which would not have been thought “profitable” if the rate of interest had not been influenced by the manipulation of the banks, and which, therefore, would not have been undertaken, are nevertheless found “profitable” and can be initiated" - The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle

 

One last point.

With my "purified bottled air" company, is not that I want a higher rate. The highest rate I can ask for is 4%. I would be happy with less if I can get it, But as you pointed out the risk premium is so high that the loan will never happen,

 

Again Sorry if I confused this point, Its been a while since I read on the subject. but I hope this last point clears it up, don't want to highjack the thread on this tangent

[Tony Crowe]

Great topic! I hear about this all the time. People are totally flabbergasted by the spending habits of others.

----------------------------

wdiaz03: "where someone is interested in something"

 

I like that. We preface this conversation with an acknowledgement that the people we're talking about have something they are into. That's much more interesting than having no interests or being interested in watching TV. lol

----------------------------

wdiaz03: "they have to get the absolutely best they can afford"

 

Get the best you can afford? Sounds good! I also want the best that I can afford!

----------------------------

Here's what I would ask you:

 

Do you spend a lot of time analyzing the purchases of other people?

 

Do you view these people as incompetent?

 

Do you want to rub it in people's faces that you are happy even while spending less money?

 

Do you wish people were more interested in virtue or developing a bond rather than worshiping gadgets?

[wdiaz03]

Great topic! I hear about this all the time. People are totally flabbergasted by the spending habits of others.

----------------------------

wdiaz03: "where someone is interested in something"

 

I like that. We preface this conversation with an acknowledgement that the people we're talking about have something they are into. That's much more interesting than having no interests or being interested in watching TV. lol

----------------------------

wdiaz03: "they have to get the absolutely best they can afford"

 

Get the best you can afford? Sounds good! I also want the best that I can afford!

----------------------------

Here's what I would ask you:

 

Do you spend a lot of time analyzing the purchases of other people?

 

Do you view these people as incompetent?

 

Do you want to rub it in people's faces that you are happy even while spending less money?

 

Do you wish people were more interested in virtue or developing a bond rather than worshiping gadgets?

 

flabbergasted? Not the word I would use... more like curious.

 

As far as affording, In most of my purchase decisions I do not buy the "Best I can Afford". You would have little money left otherwise.

 

Do you spend a lot of time analyzing the purchases of other people?

 

Not unless they complain later of how little money they have. As stated before I'm curious as why they do this. What people do with their money is their business but I like to understand behavior, the same way one would want to understand a drug addiction while recognizing that the addict can do with their body what they want.

 

Do you view these people as incompetent?

 

I don't think so.

 

Do you want to rub it in people's faces that you are happy even while spending less money?

 

Nope

 

Do you wish people were more interested in virtue or developing a bond rather than worshiping gadgets?

 

I never though about it this way. I just notice certain behavior and say to myself "Huh, we would he/she do that?" I'll give you an example: A coworker is into tennis and plays every Saturday. He has several $200 racquets, all nike gear head to toe, and they only use the balls once. Each Saturday they use a new pack of balls then throw them away. Do I loose sleep over this? not one bit. But it does make me wonder, to me this seems odd.

 

Hope that answers it.

[Gnostiphile]

I think there are a few reasons to do this.

 

1)  People want to enjoy the fruits of their labors.  Having possessions you really enjoy can mitigate areas of your job/life that you do not enjoy so much.2)  It is easy to become discouraged during the beginning phase of learning a new hobby and starting with high quality tools minimizes this possibility.  It would be a shame to quit prematurely because you think you are no good at it or it's not fun when it's actually a matter of subpar equipment.3)  Depending on what it is, buying a good quality item can save you quite a bit of money in the long run by not having to constantly replace a poorer quality version.4)  If you do decide activity X is not for you, good quality items generally keep their resale value better, so assuming you took good care of the items, you can get a lot of your money back. 

As far as affording, In most of my purchase decisions I do not buy the "Best I can Afford". You would have little money left otherwise.

 

If you have little money left, and that is a problem for you, then I would say you spent more than you can afford.

[Tony Crowe]

flabbergasted? Not the word I would use... more like curious.

 

As far as affording, In most of my purchase decisions I do not buy the "Best I can Afford". You would have little money left otherwise.

 

Do you spend a lot of time analyzing the purchases of other people?

 

Not unless they complain later of how little money they have. As stated before I'm curious as why they do this. What people do with their money is their business but I like to understand behavior, the same way one would want to understand a drug addiction while recognizing that the addict can do with their body what they want.

 

Do you view these people as incompetent?

 

I don't think so.

 

Do you want to rub it in people's faces that you are happy even while spending less money?

 

Nope

 

Do you wish people were more interested in virtue or developing a bond rather than worshiping gadgets?

 

I never though about it this way. I just notice certain behavior and say to myself "Huh, we would he/she do that?" I'll give you an example: A coworker is into tennis and plays every Saturday. He has several $200 racquets, all nike gear head to toe, and they only use the balls once. Each Saturday they use a new pack of balls then throw them away. Do I loose sleep over this? not one bit. But it does make me wonder, to me this seems odd.

 

Hope that answers it.

 

(I really wanted to use the word flabbergasted.)

 

If they have the purchasing blues afterwards that can be really annoying, eh? The word afford just means the purchaser has enough money to buy it but if they're broke afterwards that may be quite foolish. If you are purchasing items and you have enough to provide for yourself afterwards that's the responsible thing for sure!

 

Friends who buy lots of stuff often times want someone to share the experience with. Numerous times when I was younger a friend would invite me to do things and provide the equipment. I'm fine with all that. That can be pretty fun! If people are buying things and never using them that's really a shame, right? That is wasteful but is it immoral?

[wdiaz03]

... That is wasteful but is it immoral?

 

Seems subjective but to me most of the time is likely wasteful but II don't think it is immoral.

I think there are a few reasons to do this.

 

1)  People want to enjoy the fruits of their labors.  Having possessions you really enjoy can mitigate areas of your job/life that you do not enjoy so much.2)  It is easy to become discouraged during the beginning phase of learning a new hobby and starting with high quality tools minimizes this possibility.  It would be a shame to quit prematurely because you think you are no good at it or it's not fun when it's actually a matter of subpar equipment.3)  Depending on what it is, buying a good quality item can save you quite a bit of money in the long run by not having to constantly replace a poorer quality version.4)  If you do decide activity X is not for you, good quality items generally keep their resale value better, so assuming you took good care of the items, you can get a lot of your money back. 

 

If you have little money left, and that is a problem for you, then I would say you spent more than you can afford.

 

good points.... Just saw on the news how thousands are lining at the apple stores to buy the iphone 5s, some people have been in line for days. damn! to each their on.

[Wuzzums]

1) It could be they go for the most expensive object when they start a new activity as a way to get buyer's guilt. They'll invest more so they will feel the need to use that object because the loss would be too great not to.

 

2) Or it could be out of ignorance. A person starting something new, like photography let's say, has no idea what they're getting into. So they'll end up spending money on expensive equipment because they run the "an expensive object is a good object" logic.

 

3) Snobbery. It's not about the activity per se, it's about the fact that other people are watching. So in photography, in many ways the activity is not about taking pictures it's about having better stuff than another guy that takes pictures. I reckon most of Adobe Photoshop's revenue come from these people. They sell the same product over and over again, and sometimes they even bother to change the background and release it as a "feature".

 

4) Or it's the product itself. It might be more expensive not because of brand but because of worth. There are people out there that are so keen on getting their hands on every single feature they're willing to pay a disproportionate amount of money for it. It's like snobbery except the object itself seemingly makes them happy, it has to be the best regardless of what other people have or don't have.

 

5) More money than sense. People decide to get some actual intrinsic value out of the amount they accumulated and they start getting into activities that hopefully will make them happy. And/or the activity of spending is in itself pleasurable (the whole shopping shebang). I've heard of people that had money yet no clue how to spend it, so they started buying useless things like a golden door frame. 

[MrCapitalism]

I can't really comment on the behavior of "spending all your money on the highest quality stuff," but I do want to make a defense of 'buying high quality stuff."

 

The great thing about buying quality stuff is you really only have to buy it once.

 

I just sent my dad's camera in for a restoration, he bought it I think in 1969 when he was a kid. While he didn't buy the best of the best, he bought the best he could afford, and the dang thing has lasted for 44 years. If he could have afforded it, that expensive camera would probably still be partially compatible with lenses sold today in Best Buy.For the last ~10 years it's light meter has been broken (bought an external one but sucked at using it), so now that I have money I sent it in to be fixed/restored. $195 + shipping. I just got it back and it's rock solid, I have no idea how many more years it has left.I also have my dad's carbon-fiber mountain bike that was worth thousands when he got it in the early '80's.. It's sitting on my car right now ready to go. Regular maintenance is all it's needed (plus some replacement hardware). People still comment on how light it is. (his '90s aluminum bike is even lighter).

 

I bought a digital camera a couple years ago, and got some lenses for a total package price of around $1700. I expect it to make amazing photos for at least another 10-15 years.

 

So I guess my argument is that as long as one is financially responsible, top of the line stuff isn't really a waste of money in the long run.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-afford-anything.htm

[wdiaz03]

I can't really comment on the behavior of "spending all your money on the highest quality stuff," but I do want to make a defense of 'buying high quality stuff."

 

The great thing about buying quality stuff is you really only have to buy it once.

 

I just sent my dad's camera in for a restoration, he bought it I think in 1969 when he was a kid. While he didn't buy the best of the best, he bought the best he could afford, and the dang thing has lasted for 44 years. If he could have afforded it, that expensive camera would probably still be partially compatible with lenses sold today in Best Buy.For the last ~10 years it's light meter has been broken (bought an external one but sucked at using it), so now that I have money I sent it in to be fixed/restored. $195 + shipping. I just got it back and it's rock solid, I have no idea how many more years it has left.I also have my dad's carbon-fiber mountain bike that was worth thousands when he got it in the early '80's.. It's sitting on my car right now ready to go. Regular maintenance is all it's needed (plus some replacement hardware). People still comment on how light it is. (his '90s aluminum bike is even lighter).

 

I bought a digital camera a couple years ago, and got some lenses for a total package price of around $1700. I expect it to make amazing photos for at least another 10-15 years.

 

So I guess my argument is that as long as one is financially responsible, top of the line stuff isn't really a waste of money in the long run.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-afford-anything.htm

 

good points.

 

I'll give you the opposite end example. I needed a sander once, could have gone with a makita for close to $100 but instead I went for a Harbor Freight sander for $9. The thing is cheaply made, but it did the job and has worked several times after that.

The story repeats with angle grinders as well, $10 for a harbor freight 4 1/2 angle grinder that thing has taken me out of more binds that I could count.

 

As far as your bike, why do you need it to be light? I don't mind my bike being heavy, I figured the harder I have to pedal the more I exercise for a given distance.

[MrCapitalism]

I totally agree with you in regards to cheap stuff. 99 cent razors... love them. Cheap pens... love them. People who spend lots of money on nice pens are crazy to me.I spend all kinds of money on computer upgrades.. but I will buy the cheapest keyboard I can possibly find. My best find was $9.99USD which I plugged into my $1500 computer.

 

I guess that's the opposite of "you only have to buy it once,"

EDIT: I guess I think of those things as expendable...

 

I think the argument for a lightweight bike is that you can get more speed/ steeper climb for the same energy expenditure. And since it has less inertia it is easier to control and to have more direct connection with the ground.

[gwho]

you get satisfaction from the challenge of finding the cheapest.others don't, and put a greater value on the additional features and capabilities of the higher end products, and even more so than the money (i.e. alternative purchases that could have been made )."need" and "want" are a spectrum.I'd also guess that you're running into different people whith this behavior for different products, but experiencing this when they do get this way about their certain thing. one person may be really into bikes, and be that way with bikes, but not cameras. Another guy may be like that for cameras, and not bikes. You may be like that with computers ,but not bikes or cameras.It may be possible that all three people in my example get that way about their pet interests, but everything else, frugal and efficient like you are about your non-interests. But when you talk about people as a group, and describe them as "running to the extreme", you're getting an overrepresentation of this behavior. Or to think about it in another way, cherry picking (not that you're doing it intentionally, or that i'm being hostile about it). Chery picking can be unintentional, like noticing that a word you just recently learned seems to show up everywhere after learning it.

BTW, I am like you, always have been. But I noticed with certain things I like, I want some better quality stuff. Sometimes i want slightly better quality, and have a minimum standard for preference, sometimes I like it a lot that i'll go more. Rarely do i go for the super quality, to the level that most people might consider excessive and at a level of garnering remarks of, "hey, you don't need that." I think this preference for greater quality is a spectrum, and you're just noticing the extremes when they do occur more, because it is in such stark contrast with your natural mentality.just a guess.For instance, I think 100k for a house is ridiculously insanely expensive. It's just a damned house. yeah 400k ones are nice, but with that difference, i could get so much more other things that I would enjoy more. So to my tastes and preferences, anyone with an 80k home is "going to the extreme", and I think "they dont need that." Yes, i understand the low fixed interest rates, the flipping potential, and the equity line of credit utility you get out of buying a home that expensive, but still. To pay it off would mean to pay the full price, plus interest. yeah.I'm sure you guys can think of areas or things in your lives that you pay extra quality for. At least across a distribution of people, those that 100% or close to 100% always prefer the cheapest, minimum level of quality, would be quite rare in that distribution.

[wdiaz03]

you get satisfaction from the challenge of finding the cheapest.others don't, and put a greater value on the additional features and capabilities of the higher end products, and even more so than the money (i.e. alternative purchases that could have been made )."need" and "want" are a spectrum.I'd also guess that you're running into different people whith this behavior for different products, but experiencing this when they do get this way about their certain thing. one person may be really into bikes, and be that way with bikes, but not cameras. Another guy may be like that for cameras, and not bikes. You may be like that with computers ,but not bikes or cameras.It may be possible that all three people in my example get that way about their pet interests, but everything else, frugal and efficient like you are about your non-interests. But when you talk about people as a group, and describe them as "running to the extreme", you're getting an overrepresentation of this behavior. Or to think about it in another way, cherry picking (not that you're doing it intentionally, or that i'm being hostile about it). Chery picking can be unintentional, like noticing that a word you just recently learned seems to show up everywhere after learning it.

BTW, I am like you, always have been. But I noticed with certain things I like, I want some better quality stuff. Sometimes i want slightly better quality, and have a minimum standard for preference, sometimes I like it a lot that i'll go more. Rarely do i go for the super quality, to the level that most people might consider excessive and at a level of garnering remarks of, "hey, you don't need that." I think this preference for greater quality is a spectrum, and you're just noticing the extremes when they do occur more, because it is in such stark contrast with your natural mentality.just a guess.For instance, I think 100k for a house is ridiculously insanely expensive. It's just a damned house. yeah 400k ones are nice, but with that difference, i could get so much more other things that I would enjoy more. So to my tastes and preferences, anyone with an 80k home is "going to the extreme", and I think "they dont need that." Yes, i understand the low fixed interest rates, the flipping potential, and the equity line of credit utility you get out of buying a home that expensive, but still. To pay it off would mean to pay the full price, plus interest. yeah.I'm sure you guys can think of areas or things in your lives that you pay extra quality for. At least across a distribution of people, those that 100% or close to 100% always prefer the cheapest, minimum level of quality, would be quite rare in that distribution.

This makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the reply.

 

I might just be noticing the tip of the icebergs through the fog and completely missing the rest of their preferences. Because those activities they are interest in would be the ones they talk about I get skewed data.

 

Also since I don't have just "That one hobby" and do a little bit of everything I relate to what they are saying but not the same "passion" if that makes sense?

 

You are correct that I do to go up the quality/price scale for certain things, I mean some cheap stuff out there is not worth the box it comes in.

[gwho]

"Also since I don't have just "That one hobby" and do a little bit of everything I relate to what they are saying but not the same "passion" if that makes sense?"are you saying you don't have just one hobby where you go up on the quality/price scale, but various ones where you go up just a little bit?

[wdiaz03]

"Also since I don't have just "That one hobby" and do a little bit of everything I relate to what they are saying but not the same "passion" if that makes sense?"are you saying you don't have just one hobby where you go up on the quality/price scale, but various ones where you go up just a little bit?

 

Right, In those things I do enjoy doing I stay on the minimum price scale that gets the job done. "Jack of all trades, master of none"

Right, In those things I do enjoy doing I stay on the minimum price scale that gets the job done. "Jack of all trades, master of none"

 

I'll give you an example.

I enjoy shooting. (anything that can be thrown and can have an effect on a distant object really) I specially enjoy long range shooting. The longest distance the nearby range has is 100ydrs. I wanted a rifle that could hit a nickel at 100ydrs. I also needed a scope that could see the target..... I picked up a new StagArms Model6 for $900 rated at 1/2 inch groups at 100yards. Added a $40 20x scope. I'm a happy camper.

It does what I want it to do. Great accuracy.

Now I see people at the range with their $2000 rifles and $500 scopes, But they might need the higher caliber for deer hunting and the scope to survive the elements. but mine is just going to sit on a bench so I don't need the fancy stuff.

 

[ribuck]

I would like your opinion and a recurring pattern of behavior that I have noticed in people ... I call it "running to the extreme" for lack of a better name, where someone is interested in something and they have to get the absolutely best they can afford.

 

That's an interesting observation, wdiaz03, and I think there's more to it than people choosing between a cheap disposable item and an expensive long-lasting item.

 

I think the driver is insecurity. People who are not confident of their own abilities will pay a lot to buy something that gives them every possible tiny advantage.

 

I have experienced this myself with photography. Sometimes when I take a photo that's not very sharp, I think "if I had a camera with a higher ISO rating I could use a faster shutter speed and get less blur". If I take a photo that has loss of detail in highlights and shadows, I think "if I had a camera with a larger sensor, it would capture the highlights and shadows better".

 

While those thoughts are true, they miss the point. The biggest thing that limits the quality of my photos is my skill as a photographer. To see this, I only need to look at the superb work uploaded by skilled photographers when they only have a cheap compact camera with them. When I have needed to replace my camera, I had to strongly resist the urge to pay for a very expensive camera that would only give a very small improvement to my photos.

 

There's an old proverb that says "It's a poor workman who blames his tools". Obviously that's from the days before the average workman could contemplate buying upscale tools. The modern equivalent, using your terminology, would be something like "It's an insecure enthusiast who feels the need to run to the extreme".

[wdiaz03]

That's an interesting observation, wdiaz03, and I think there's more to it than people choosing between a cheap disposable item and an expensive long-lasting item.

 

I think the driver is insecurity. People who are not confident of their own abilities will pay a lot to buy something that gives them every possible tiny advantage.

 

I have experienced this myself with photography. Sometimes when I take a photo that's not very sharp, I think "if I had a camera with a higher ISO rating I could use a faster shutter speed and get less blur". If I take a photo that has loss of detail in highlights and shadows, I think "if I had a camera with a larger sensor, it would capture the highlights and shadows better".

 

While those thoughts are true, they miss the point. The biggest thing that limits the quality of my photos is my skill as a photographer. To see this, I only need to look at the superb work uploaded by skilled photographers when they only have a cheap compact camera with them. When I have needed to replace my camera, I had to strongly resist the urge to pay for a very expensive camera that would only give a very small improvement to my photos.

 

There's an old proverb that says "It's a poor workman who blames his tools". Obviously that's from the days before the average workman could contemplate buying upscale tools. The modern equivalent, using your terminology, would be something like "It's an insecure enthusiast who feels the need to run to the extreme".

 

I agree, There seems to be some of this although I cannot tell to what degree. Others have made good points as well. Either way I now have a better understanding thanks to the feedback!

[tasmlab]

Man,

 

I see this ALL THE TIME in music and songwriting.

 

 

Usually when I see someone with a HUGE number of guitar pedals and an obsession with equipment, they aren't a good writer.

 

 

I interpret this behavior as avoidance of what they really need to do.

 

 

The big spender gets the FEELING of making big progress, without confronting the behavior that prevents them from achieving their goals of actually writing good music, or actually getting in good shape.

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I LOVE being the contrarian popping the bubbles of the fancy-food, fancy-phone, fancy-beer, fancy-car....people.

 

 

I will purposely order normal food and normal drinks just to see the fancy people squirm.   When the discussions of taste come to fruition, and these people have to explain how a 10 dollar a glass whiskey is better.... I get to see an emperor without clothes.

 

Being the curious/clueless person is dangerous to the pompous.

 

The gearwhore!

 

Collecting musical equipment has clearly become a hobby unto its own, completely divorced from the act of creating music. I've seen it for thirty years.

[Guest - Josh -]

Hello,

 

I would like your opinion and a recurring pattern of behavior that I have noticed in people, I'm sure you have as well.

 

I call it "running to the extreme" for lack of a better name, where someone is interested in something and they have to get the absolutely best they can afford. For example, Someone getting into mountain biking would not just get a $150 bike but has to get the $2500 Gary Fisher carbon fiber frame. It is not a matter of needing that type of equipment, My cheap bike has done fine over the years with some minor upgrades to keep it running. Not many mountains in South Florida

 

Or if they get into photography, they have to buy the $1000 cannon with a bunch of lenses. Of if the Galaxy 10x comes out they have to trade their Galaxy 9s for it etc.

 

It puzzles me, I get a lot of satisfaction from getting away with the cheapest device for the job. Like a challenge.

 

I don't know people who think like me but plenty from the other camp.

 

 

Thanks

 

Touching on what gwho said,

 

I think that people who want a certain thing aim for the best, either the best they can get for the cheapest, or the best that money can buy (assuming the pricier the better). People don't aim for the mediocre if they really want something. I wouldn't buy an okay flavored soda for an okay price if I could get a drinkable soda for dirt cheap or a great tasting drink for a few dollars more. Why settle for mundane quality at midrange prices if you can get the best in either regard?

[ribuck]

In the 60s and 70s, lots of people were HiFi afficionados. They were always checking technical specifications, and comparing sizes of speaker cabinets etc if they visited a friend's house. Back then, the right equipment could make quite a difference.

 

But then the compact disc arrived, and good electronics got cheap enough that the difference no longer mattered to most people. Sure, there are still the nuts who pay $300 for gold-plated speaker cable, but most people nowadays just aren't that bothered about extreme HiFi.

 

So gear-whoring can sometimes fade away.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Collecting musical equipment has clearly become a hobby unto its own, completely divorced from the act of creating music. I've seen it for thirty years.

Got you beat by a few years! Cannot begin to express the frustration of watching someone thinking that their new equipment would make them sound better, rather than improving their skills and their attitude. The worst part is when the new stuff doesn't change anything! I've done what I could by trying to explain the difference. Sometimes I've made a positive impact, most times not.

 

My cure for the inclination towards materialism is to spend the day by a river, in a forest, on the side of a mountain, etc., watching the world in its natural state. (Granted, I've had the "luxury" of living 36 miles from Yosemite, and now live on the Olympic peninsula.) Not to say that gadgets aren't kewl, but, a few hours of tranquility in nature goes a long way towards some perspective.

 

When sitting quietly, and a deer comes right up to you and sniffs you, it's hard to find any way where watching a TV show competes with that (insert any modern, techno-experience here).

 

I tend to agree with the "if you want it, and can afford it" idea. As long as you're not a "dick". Anyone who thinks the price of their "gadget" makes them a better person, is a "dick", and has it ass-backwards. I've witnessed all four sides, and the middle of the road. Some people have a lot of stuff, and are still decent people; others are not. Same for the other side. Some people have next to nothing, and are worth knowing; others: not at all.

 

*** Sidenote for tasmlab (and any other "older" musicians not attempting to be part of the "scene", though I wish this had been available when I was younger): have you heard of a program called TuxGuitar. Free, open source. Not just guitar. Ability to create multi-track, multi-instrument scores with playback and export as mp3. Conceivably, it would be possible to create a full symphony on your computer and hear the playback. (Obviously, the playback won't be as good as real musicians) But, I have done some decent work with multiple guitars, bass, and drums.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Values are subjective. Otherwise, why on earth would someone spend millions of dollars on a tiny gem without intrinsic value? I am about to raise my limits for a hard-to-get item a bit but usually I go for the item that fits purpose and buget likewise.