The Core

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44965150

Well, there goes my wardrobe.

This is interesting. I've mentioned the book Sum of Small Things here a  few times. Her thesis is that the elite of the US and Europe now engage primarily in "unconspicuous consumption" and "conspicuous production"

One of the consequences is an increasing dislike for big logos. Not long ago, people would pay extra for a purse with a huge DK on it to show that they could afford a DK purse. Now, especially among younger people, an increasing number of people say they would pay extra for clothes and accessories with *no* logo. I know that personally I avoid clothes with large logos.

Funny story about that from about 15 years ago. A friend is a Japanese sponsored athlete - North Face, Nissan (money plus new Xterra every year), Nikon and other big sponsors. We were climbing and this kid showed up with brand stickers on his helmet and clothes and Yuji looked at him and said "Whoa! So many sponsors!" Then the kid had to explain that, no, he was merely a customer and, of his own free will, he had put their stickers on his helmet because they sent them to him. I said "So you turned your head into a billboard for free?"

My Japanese friend was perplexed. He didn't understand wearing prominent logos for free.

Anyway, all that to say that I think of Tommy Hilfiger as an "elite" brand, but this strategy is anathema to the actual elite. So by creating trackable clothing, they are essentially stepping down to a non-elite market and will lose their cache as an elite brand.

But then, I know nothing about fashion, so maybe I'm just wrong about Tommy Hilfiger. Maybe they really are just a downscale brand who is downscaling some more.

>those who hide their wealth

Friend of mine was a successful investment broker back in the 1980's:  New money millionaires drove top of the line Cadillacs, BMW's Mercedes, Rolls, wore expensive suits.  Old money income millionaires drove Buicks, wore old sport coat.

I tend to hold those who hide their wealth while in public in highest regard.

Some years ago, I was invited to dinner by a scholar I had met. I splurged and bought a $20 bottle of wine, which was a lot for a starving grad student. He showed up in his older economy car and all was good.

Then we pulled into his estate. Passed the guest house. Arrived at the manor house, where the servant served us dinner and where, it turned out, he was literally Seigneur with a 300 year-old title. He politely accepted my "wonderful" bottle of wine, and set it aside and explained that when people come to their house they like to serve them the wine off the estate vinyard.

Despite many meetings and conversations (and having previously been given a ride in his old economy car), I had no clue that the modest scholar I knew had inherited all that family money and was in his spare time underwriting major philanthropic endeavours as well... including possibly my own employ somewhat later on, the source of the funds for which were always a bit of a mystery to me, though in theory coming from the university.

But as Buckworks says, I guess that modest living is how one keeps the old family money from becoming someone else's new family money.

Now, I'll admit that once you go above, say, $250 million, you are free to just blow some of the income (but not the corpus) on fun stuff..

Bah! You don't need *that* much to go buy a fancy car. Cut that by a factor of 20 perhaps. Your first few million will take you through to death in comfort even in a terrible market. The next few million are your insurance for, say, some outrageously expensive medical care. At $10,000,000 you are either untouchably rich or irrevocably stupid or exceptionally unlucky (it won't help when the asteroid hits).

Assuming you are not stupid enough to spend down below that level, you can buy whatever stupid thing you want, give to whatever noble or stupid causes, and remain rich for life by any meaningful standard.

But that's you and me and, roughly speaking, our values (because I think we match fairly closely on this).

To me, the point of money is
 - level 1: the first bit is to keep me alive
 - level 2: the next level is to make me fairly comfortable. This varies a lot from one person to another. I think you and I, for example, are not that into "comfort," but I have friends for whom the classic comforts of wealth are important.
 - level 3: the next bit is to buy freedom.
 - level 4: is to with what you would - fancy cars or saving the world.

Now, obviously, anyone who isn't in dire poverty has a mix of all four levels in their everyday spending, but I mena in the big picture

But for other people I know, they invert levels 3 and 4. In other words, they value a fancy car more than they value freedom.

This is not wrong. It's just a set of values that I don't share. But they look at my monkish existence with cash in the bank and think I'm failing to get the most joy out of life.

But even if you do *crave* luxury, $250 million is more than anyone actually needs. Ricardo Semler added up how much you need to be comfort rich rather than ego rich. In other words, how much do you need to buy everything that fits with a "rich" life, without buying extra for showing off - beach house, mountain house, decent boat, nice cars, fancy vacations, but not 140-foot yacht with helipad. I believe the number he came up with was $12,000,000 (perhaps 15?? years ago, so make it $20,000,000, not so much for inflation, but for growing uneasiness).

https://tim.blog/2017/03/19/ricardo-semler/ just after 1:06

Semler's famous quote from his TED talk
https://www.ted.com/talks/ricardo_semler_how_to_run_a_company_with_almost_no_rules/transcript?language=en

I accumulated a lot of money when I think about it. When you think and you say, now is the time to give back -- well, if you're giving back, you took too much. (Laughter) (Applause) I keep thinking of Warren Buffet waking up one day and finding out he has 30 billion dollars more than he thought he had. And he looks and he says, what am I going to do with this? And he says, I'll give it to someone who really needs this. I'll give it to Bill Gates.

My thing is, because I strive for freedom and have limited interest in goods, I would quit looong before I could afford 10 yachts.

If not for certain vagaries of the market and that most American of problems, health insurance, we would probably both quit right now and live cheap and free.

>>extremely satisfying to build something

Agreed. At a certain point, these people are not thinking about money at all.

>>Should I trade part of my life to acquire this thing? 

Definitely that. The one that I have more trouble with and that is harder to answer is this question: "Should I be trading time now, when I'm reasonably fit and healthy and can really enjoy my free time, in order to increase the odds of being comfortable and secure in my old age?"

In other words, how much freedom will you give up for security? That's the hard question for me.

It's the burden of comfort... I never worried about this when I was completely broke and could move with just a backpack or a backpack and a duffle. When I got the duffle, I should have known it was the beginning of the end

Not being broke but being able to put all your belongings into a backpack and a duffle bag sounds like an amazing life.

Exactly!

It's funny. My old roommate from college dreamed of showing up at his high school graduation in a Ferrari. I told him I dreamed of hitchiking to my high school graduation with three days stubble and everything I owned in a duffle bag. But the broke part is less fun.

>>weighed down by stuff

The last two weeks where, until today really, it looked highly likely we would lose everything to wildfire, has been an interesting time. We had various friends offer to go to our house and grab things for us as we were away when the fire started. Of course, we didn't want to impose too much on people dealing with getting their own stuff out, so we came up with a rank ordered list (if you have just 5 mins, grab this, if you have 15 mins, also grab this).

The main thing we realized is there just aren't that many things that aren't replaceable. As much as we like and use our skis and bikes and climbing gear, insurance money would get us newer skis and bikes and climbing gear.

I don't know where I'm going with that. Or perhaps I just don't know how to express that thought clearly except to say that I know what you mean there.