|
Cultural Imperial posted:What's your coworker's annual income? ...not enough. Nowhere close to enough. I'm 90% sure he's trolling me at this point. He has a reputation for buying stupid poo poo but this one knocks everything else out of the park. e: in his words, he doesn't care about the status symbol. He just likes the way it looks 
Renegret fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Dec 14, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
To be fair, that's a nice looking coat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Old Fart posted:To be fair, that's a nice looking coat. What.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
It's so bland looking. Reminds me when my mother won a genuine Louis Vuitton hand bag a year ago at some raffle. It was just some bland, unremarkable bowl of undecorated leather with two leather straps bolted on to hold it by. Sure the leather felt nice, but it was so boring looking. Retail price was $300. It's currently collecting dust in the attic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Renegret posted:...not enough. There's something about Burberry and people bad with money. A coworker of mine spent over 1,400 on a some fancy special edition burberry coat and they didn't even throw in tailoring, which brought it up to 1500 a few years back. Not as big a deal now, but he did this with his first paycheck on his first job out of college. This pattern has continued. I wonder how much cc debt he has. We've been more or less making the same salary for four years and he keeps asking me how it's possible for me to buy investment properties when he can't even get 3.5% to put down on a house for himself. Maybe don't buy stupid poo poo including lunch out in the city everyday?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Look, the only reason you buy a red raincoat like that is you want to tell everyone "hey, i bought a $2000 rain coat so I'm better than you".
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Renegret posted:It's so bland looking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 21:40
|
|
i like nice words
|
One of my students knew I liked Coach bags, so for a Christmas present I got this marvel: Thank god they included a receipt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
moana posted:One of my students knew I liked Coach bags, so for a Christmas present I got this marvel: I don't know... it's the kind of thing you could hang onto for 50 years and then take to the Antique Roadshow. "Well moana, let me tell you about this item. No one bought it - those who got it as a gift either returned it to the store or got a young priest and an old priest to exorcize it back to hell. The owners eventually collected all the bags in a warehouse and burned it down for the insurance money. As this is the only bag left in existence, we've managed to find one loony Coach bag collector who needs it to finalize their collection, and will pay $1.5M for it. Congratulations!" [queue 1,500,000 scrolling across the screen with that chiming noise they have]
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
I disagree a bit here - I like clean looking, plain but elegant accessories. The only belt I could find that didn't have some sort if lovely attachment or embellishment was a Paul Smith belt that cost £100. Sometimes the plain stuff is really expensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Fashion products are by definition bad with money. My wife worked in sourcing for a major clothing retailer. Nice shirt with a neat print on it cost: $2 Retail: $20 Same nice shirt with a different, smaller print on it, but with a FASHION DESIGNER LABEL on the tag cost: $2 Retail: $75. Seriously I get wanting to wear a nice piece of clothing, and if its custom tailored for your specific event, hey great. But paying an extra premium just because a certain name is stitched on them is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
I thought that half the point of designer products was that the name brand required a tight control of the supply chain and QC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Pfffft. Not for a long time, at least with most designer brands. I always giggled when my grandmother would yell "WHY DO YOU WANT SOMEONE ELSES NAME STITCHED IN YER UNDERPANTS?!?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:I disagree a bit here - I like clean looking, plain but elegant accessories. The only belt I could find that didn't have some sort if lovely attachment or embellishment was a Paul Smith belt that cost £100. Sometimes the plain stuff is really expensive. You can't be serious. I've picked up nice plain belts for £10-20
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I thought that half the point of designer products was that the name brand required a tight control of the supply chain and QC. That doesn't mean it can't be made in a sweatshop in India along side a k-mart $10 special.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Lady Gaza posted:You can't be serious. I've picked up nice plain belts for £10-20 No seriously a plain belt, that's just not the kind of thing you can get from asos for £6
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:I thought that half the point of designer products was that the name brand required a tight control of the supply chain and QC. Some of the designer stuff IS higher quality than the K Mart stuff without a doubt. There IS a difference between Banana Republic and Wal-Mart. The difference is that it isn't a $50 difference. It may cost an extra $1.00 for a nicer pair of jeans that are identical to the mid-range stuff, yet are charged way higher. Its also true though, that a lot of the suppliers ARE the same, its just the matter of the design and materials and technique. The same factory could pump out all the same garmets, just they use an extra stitch on the crotch and with better materials so it is a higher quality and THAT one is shipped to Kohls, while the other one, made by the same machine and personnel, is shipped to Wal Mart to retail for half the price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:No seriously a plain belt, that's just not the kind of thing you can get from asos for £6 Depends on what quality of 'plain' you're looking for. Plain but not poo poo costs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:Depends on what quality of 'plain' you're looking for. Plain but not poo poo costs. Hey that ASOS belt is actually ok for £6. I've also got a nicer one from m&s, it's plain and good quality, cost me like £15
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Bloody Queef posted:There's something about Burberry and people bad with money. I used to work an entry-level back-office job at a bank several years ago. We weren't paid much, but that didn't stop one of my co-workers from buying $500 dress shirts from Harry Rosen. I only knew the price tag because he'd always talk about it. And oftentimes he'd have loud conversations with his "personal sales associate" and look at us with a  face just to make sure that we knew how much his foolish rear end spent on his shirts.I'll never even know why he spent so much on those dress shirts. We didn't even see clients. melon cat fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Dec 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
melon cat posted:Heh, that's the funny thing about luxury labels like Burberry, LV, and PRada. For every 1 wealthy person who buys it, 2 broke people do the same in a bull-headed attempt to look wealthy (made-up statistic, but you get the point). That's why they're all meaningless as status symbols now in the age of cheap credit. Anyone can buy them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:That's why they're all meaningless as status symbols now in the age of cheap credit. Anyone can buy them. Especially if you buy them second hand from someone who went broke, much like superbowl rings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:Especially if you buy them second hand from someone who went broke, much like superbowl rings. Nah man I was on that team. I was a backup. I played a few snaps. No no I was totally not at all 4 when that game was played.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:Nah man I was on that team. I was a backup. I played a few snaps. Don't you remember the year I played on both teams? I guess everyone forgets so easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
tentish klown posted:I disagree a bit here - I like clean looking, plain but elegant accessories. The only belt I could find that didn't have some sort if lovely attachment or embellishment was a Paul Smith belt that cost £100. Sometimes the plain stuff is really expensive. Compare outlet-grade Coach bags to the ones you buy at the "real" Coach stores. The non-outlet ones tend to be better made and less ostentatious. The outlet crap has more obvious logos, and more of the offerings are cheap cloth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
To be fair, Burberry trench coats looks very good. I'd never buy one, though, since the quality doesn't come anywhere near the price they're asking for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 10:40
|
|
|
Thank god my work switched to work provided polo and jeans. I don't have to worry, even at awards events, about having as nice business casual, and i save a lot on buying new dress shirts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
Duckman2008 posted:Thank god my work switched to work provided polo and jeans. I don't have to worry, even at awards events, about having as nice business casual, and i save a lot on buying new dress shirts. Work provided polo and jeans seems a little weird to me. Where do you work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
MrOnBicycle posted:To be fair, Burberry trench coats looks very good. I'd never buy one, though, since the quality doesn't come anywhere near the price they're asking for it. It's fascinating what fraction of people who can't afford expensive designer clothing turn out to be knowledgeable and discerning connoisseurs of tailoring
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
MrOnBicycle posted:To be fair, Burberry trench coats looks very good. I'd never buy one, though, since the quality doesn't come anywhere near the price they're asking for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:It's fascinating what fraction of people who can't afford expensive designer clothing turn out to be knowledgeable and discerning connoisseurs of tailoring Only rich people have taste. The plebes are just faking it. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:The Burberry trench coat linked above does not look very good. It looks like one of the designers got drunk and said "Some idiots will buy anything, let's see what happens if we sew up a plastic picnic tablecloth." Yeah that one looks horrible. Actually I should have said "pretty good", instead of very good. Don't know what I was thinking. BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:It's fascinating what fraction of people who can't afford expensive designer clothing turn out to be knowledgeable and discerning connoisseurs of tailoring The internet is the guide for plebs like me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:It's you. You are the reason designer poo poo has LV LV LV LV stamped across every square inch in neon colors. This is typically due to the fact that it's completely legal to copy the basic design of something, so every generic-maker and their mom can make a knockoff. Once you add logos, though, they can't copy those or it's trademark infringement.  Edit: though some people also just have really terrible taste
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Dr. Eldarion posted:This is typically due to the fact that it's completely legal to copy the basic design of something, so every generic-maker and their mom can make a knockoff. Once you add logos, though, they can't copy those or it's trademark infringement. Unless you manage to get a trademark on a basic design element. Louboutin 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/11/investing/dont-pay-off-your-student-loans/index.html The URL itself is enough to tell you how lovely the article is. The basic argument is that you're better off paying your minimums on your student loans and investing in the stock market instead. You could make a decent argument if you have a sub-3% rate on the loans, but he's also basing his claims on an assumption of consistent 10% market returns. No risk based analysis whatsoever. CNN Money is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/11/investing/dont-pay-off-your-student-loans/index.html quote:When I graduated from Drexel University in 2009 with a degree in engineering, I was 23 and had $200 in my bank account. Like everyone else, I was conditioned to fear the debt that we all had.  To me, it seems like the people most concerned about high levels of student debt are those who incurred it and can't find a decently paying job in their field. I think pretty much every engineering student I know came out of school with multiple job offers. I can't feel too bad for this guy. Actually, his friend in the article who is an engineer by day and waiter by night/weekend is bad with money. The guy should put those hours and effort towards being a fantastic engineer and get raises/promotions 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
please don't loving start "everyone should just be in college for a STEM/engineering degree" poo poo please. it takes a baby to realize that if everyone switched to engineering there would be no jobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
And some people don't have the capability to be an engineer I have tremendous trouble with higher math, so any math/engineering program would be impossible for me. However, I have a crazy good memory and I speak six languages so my degree ended up in Soviet history, and now I do Quality Assurance for Amazon so I'm not sure what the gently caress to say to people when they ask me advice for getting into the history field except "Run far away, there are no jobs here, teach yourself something useful in high tech"
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
I've always been confused why people compare debt repayment with stocks. The return on debt repayment is guaranteed and you can't technically default on yourself. Treasuries are the comparable investment. With the 10yr currently trading at 2.1% it's really hard to justify investing instead of paying down debt unless your risk tolerance is so high that you would have no bonds in your portfolio anyway.HonorableTB posted:And some people don't have the capability to be an engineer Calculus/DiffEq isn't higher math
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Doesn't that logic lead to treating debt repayment as the bond portion of your portfolio that he allocates by paying the minimum? If he regularly did double/triple payments that now go to stocks, isn't it something more like a 50/50 stock/bond or a 66/33 stock/bond portfolio? I'm not saying I believe any of this, but it certainly seems like you're agreeing with him on the surface.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2014 20:24
|
|
