time
Storage? I am Storage!
Contemporary overview:
Exposure to luxury can alter decision making
Harvard press release:
The Devil Wears Prada? Effects of Exposure to Luxury Goods on Cognition and Decision Making
Step away from the Rolex
- Thread starter time
- Start date
Contemporary overview:
Exposure to luxury can alter decision making
Harvard press release:
The Devil Wears Prada? Effects of Exposure to Luxury Goods on Cognition and Decision Making
ddrueding
Fixture
Interesting. I knew that ignorance of something better makes you more happy, and that being more happy with your own life encourages you to act more charitably. But this seems to imply something more complex.
I take exception to the thread title, blatant trolling there.
I also don't like the bias and agenda the articles are trying to push but I don't think anyone will argue the premise that peoples surroundings and much more like upbringing etc affect the decisions they make.
I also don't like the bias and agenda the articles are trying to push but I don't think anyone will argue the premise that peoples surroundings and much more like upbringing etc affect the decisions they make.
Stereodude
Not really a
Nothing like another attack on capitalism.
ddrueding
Fixture
I suspect they were that way going in...
ddrueding
Fixture
I mean the style with mechanically rotating hands, rather than 7-segment displays.
You are correct. I would love to see a classically designed, elegant, formal, digital watch. Something with a high-res OLED or ePaper display.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
The researchers said that, in practical terms, the same business meeting could reach different decisions when held at a fancy resort as opposed to in a modest conference room.
I happen to agree with this part of the article, but more from a practical standpoint. It likely creates resentment among lower level employees to see the higher ups spending $$$$ just to sit around a table and talk, especially when those same higher ups cry poverty when the lower level employees ask for raises. So in the interests of keeping everyone happy, which in turn means the employees do their jobs more conscientiously, the execs should forego the business meetings at fancy locales. In fact, they should probably forego most of the meetings entirely. Nothing has been demonstrated to have a negative effect on productivity as much as an excessive number of meetings. For that matter, most business travel is a complete waste of money from the standpoint of the company actually coming out ahead ( the exception being when you need to be at a job site to actually do real work there, not sit around talking which can be done via teleconferencing ). It exists more for the pleasure of those who get free trips at company expense. Maybe it's time to end the tax deductible status of business travel? I still remember the salesperson at a place I worked at spending $40K a year on trips, and if he was lucky it bought in an extra $20K in business. No idea what the net profits on that $20K were, but it didn't even come close to paying for his trips. Not surprisingly, the company eventually tanked.
Perhaps limiting corporate excesses and luxuries might indeed be a step toward getting executives to behave more responsibly.
Again I agree for similar reasons as before. If a higher up wants to refurbish their office with all sorts of superfluous luxuries, I have no objection so long as they use their own money, not a company expense account. For heaven's sake, I remember one place I worked it was like pulling teeth just to get them to replace burned out fluorescent tubes over my work area, even being told several times to buy them myself if it bothered me that much. So if companies tend to treat the workers this way, I can't see why these same companies should pay for $35,000 toilets for some big shot executive. Small, somewhat practical luxuries like heating or A/C or even marble floors are fine as they save more than they cost, but come on. A toilet from Home Depot will do the same job as the other one. It's not like anyone sees a fancy toilet anyway, unless this exec was in the habit of letting others watch him take a dump. Now if the guy paid for these expensive renovations out of his own salary, I have no objections. Ditto for private jets or chaffeured limos. Heck, Mayor Bloomberg takes the subway everyday. If he can do it, so can all these others. I'd especially love requiring the MTA board to ride the subways to work. I'm sure that would result in a quick fix of any service problems.
I'm not seeing these articles as a knock on capitalism but rather as a knock on corporate excesses. From the standpoint of maximizing shareholder return, and also competition, it's in a company's best interests to not spend one dime more than necessary. Ironically, where companies seem to be skimping these days are the line workers. Pay and benefits have been eroded year after year. I can't help but think that this has resulted in a lower quality of worker, which in turn means a lower quality of final product. In the end a company rises or falls by its line workers and its customers, not by the few executives on top. It's a severe misallocation of resources to overspend at the top while underspending at the bottom. The only way things will come in line is if all companies see this, and lower executive pay scales. In fact, a study I read once actually showed that past a point, increasing compensation actually had negative returns. Capitalism seems to do just fine in places where the gap between the highest and lowest paid worker is smaller than in the US. Some places even have legislation to that effect. No limit on salaries, just the lowest paid worker has to make some percent of what the highest paid one does. If we had such laws here, you would have janitors pulling down million dollar salaries if the execs wanted multi hundred million dollar bonuses.
I happen to agree with this part of the article, but more from a practical standpoint. It likely creates resentment among lower level employees to see the higher ups spending $$$$ just to sit around a table and talk, especially when those same higher ups cry poverty when the lower level employees ask for raises. So in the interests of keeping everyone happy, which in turn means the employees do their jobs more conscientiously, the execs should forego the business meetings at fancy locales. In fact, they should probably forego most of the meetings entirely. Nothing has been demonstrated to have a negative effect on productivity as much as an excessive number of meetings. For that matter, most business travel is a complete waste of money from the standpoint of the company actually coming out ahead ( the exception being when you need to be at a job site to actually do real work there, not sit around talking which can be done via teleconferencing ). It exists more for the pleasure of those who get free trips at company expense. Maybe it's time to end the tax deductible status of business travel? I still remember the salesperson at a place I worked at spending $40K a year on trips, and if he was lucky it bought in an extra $20K in business. No idea what the net profits on that $20K were, but it didn't even come close to paying for his trips. Not surprisingly, the company eventually tanked.
Perhaps limiting corporate excesses and luxuries might indeed be a step toward getting executives to behave more responsibly.
Again I agree for similar reasons as before. If a higher up wants to refurbish their office with all sorts of superfluous luxuries, I have no objection so long as they use their own money, not a company expense account. For heaven's sake, I remember one place I worked it was like pulling teeth just to get them to replace burned out fluorescent tubes over my work area, even being told several times to buy them myself if it bothered me that much. So if companies tend to treat the workers this way, I can't see why these same companies should pay for $35,000 toilets for some big shot executive. Small, somewhat practical luxuries like heating or A/C or even marble floors are fine as they save more than they cost, but come on. A toilet from Home Depot will do the same job as the other one. It's not like anyone sees a fancy toilet anyway, unless this exec was in the habit of letting others watch him take a dump. Now if the guy paid for these expensive renovations out of his own salary, I have no objections. Ditto for private jets or chaffeured limos. Heck, Mayor Bloomberg takes the subway everyday. If he can do it, so can all these others. I'd especially love requiring the MTA board to ride the subways to work. I'm sure that would result in a quick fix of any service problems.
I'm not seeing these articles as a knock on capitalism but rather as a knock on corporate excesses. From the standpoint of maximizing shareholder return, and also competition, it's in a company's best interests to not spend one dime more than necessary. Ironically, where companies seem to be skimping these days are the line workers. Pay and benefits have been eroded year after year. I can't help but think that this has resulted in a lower quality of worker, which in turn means a lower quality of final product. In the end a company rises or falls by its line workers and its customers, not by the few executives on top. It's a severe misallocation of resources to overspend at the top while underspending at the bottom. The only way things will come in line is if all companies see this, and lower executive pay scales. In fact, a study I read once actually showed that past a point, increasing compensation actually had negative returns. Capitalism seems to do just fine in places where the gap between the highest and lowest paid worker is smaller than in the US. Some places even have legislation to that effect. No limit on salaries, just the lowest paid worker has to make some percent of what the highest paid one does. If we had such laws here, you would have janitors pulling down million dollar salaries if the execs wanted multi hundred million dollar bonuses.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
ddrueding
Fixture
JTR,
I can see your first point, but your second makes me shudder. Who exactly is going to be limiting the expenditures of a company? If the answer is anything but the shareholders, I call foul. If it is a privately held company (like mine), the boss can do whatever he wants. I (with his permission) can do whatever I want. It is his (and in my own smaller way, my) right to run the company into the ground if we like. It is also our right to cut people's hours so we can go heli-skiing outside Aspen. It would be stupid, and demoralizing for the (remaining) company, but there is no way any outside party should be setting rules about this kind of stuff.
I can see your first point, but your second makes me shudder. Who exactly is going to be limiting the expenditures of a company? If the answer is anything but the shareholders, I call foul. If it is a privately held company (like mine), the boss can do whatever he wants. I (with his permission) can do whatever I want. It is his (and in my own smaller way, my) right to run the company into the ground if we like. It is also our right to cut people's hours so we can go heli-skiing outside Aspen. It would be stupid, and demoralizing for the (remaining) company, but there is no way any outside party should be setting rules about this kind of stuff.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
I think you misread JTR's post. He wasn't advocating legislative constraint, just highlighting how far off the scale some companies would be.
I think it's something for corporations to consider as part of their strategy. What used to be the largest retail group in Australia once had such a policy, although it may have been informal (i.e. the boss enforced it by limiting his own pay). I think it was about 40:1 between lowest and highest employee - if it was higher, it was certainly less than 100:1.
In later years, the company(s) became more 'corporatized', with an infamously ostentatious head office and countless executives. Market share halved and the company's future became increasingly uncertain. In the last few years, it was partly broken up and bought out. The new management has taken drastic measures to reverse the cultural direction, selling the private jets and demolishing the opulent offices. The senior execs now sit at desks like everyone else, and the head office title has been changed to "Store Support" or something similar, as a deliberate reminder of their purpose.
Over the top in my opinion, but the new boss was desperate to destroy the old culture, and I can see his point of view. In many ways, you could see this as the owners asserting control over the company. This is capitalism at work - employees rewarding themselves with shareholders' money isn't.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
I was thinking entirely in terms of publicly-owned companies with shareholders here, which is what just about all firms who can afford these types of luxuries are.
Completely different animal. A boss in a private company can do whatever he/she wants because in essence they're using their own money, although I still think certain things, like business travel, shouldn't be tax deductible unless the business has no alternative ( i.e. traveling to a site to set up a server is reasonable, going to some tropical island for a board meeting isn't and shouldn't be partially funded by tax breaks ). If a private company tanks because of excessive spending in the wrong areas, they're mainly hurting themselves. I've actually found that privately-owned companies tend to treat workers better anyway. Maybe it's the fact that the bosses don't have to answer to shareholders. You can pay people above market rate if you feel it's justified, and not have a board of directors breathing down your neck. In a smaller company, the size of the company tends to limit how badly you can treat workers. In some cases, almost everyone is essential. Treat them badly enough so they screw up, or leave, and the boss will suffer along with the remaining staff. Not so in huge firms where no one person is that important.
Besides, I have yet to see any privately-owned company where the boss can pay themselves a salary I might consider excessive. In most cases, the bosses seem to be underpayed for the hours they put in, not overpayed.
My problem is really with the gross excesses of larger firms as time pointed out. Realistically, compensation past a couple of million dollars a year is pointless. It doesn't produce better results. It merely misallocates resources. It doesn't even really do much good for the person receiving it. These guys getting $100 million dollar bonuses, how many luxury homes or yachts or cars do you need? At some point the money just gets spent on expensive toys which serve no real purpose, or maybe paying off mistresses like Tiger Woods. A little money may buy happiness, a lot of it results in the opposite. Look at all the Hollywood types who were effectively destroyed by their wealth.
I also largely think the problems I describe are uniquely American although there seem to be spreading overseas lately. That line in the article I linked to is very telling:
"The U.S. has always been a me-first culture, as befits a nation that grew from a scattering of people on a fat saddle of continent where land was often given away. That have-it-all ethos persists today, even though the resource freebies are long since gone."
As a country I think we're finally starting to grapple with the reality that the old system of no-holds barred capitalism can no longer work given our limited resources. People have started to realize the effects that excessive luxury has on others, and on the planet as a whole. If it continues unabated, in a few generations we'll be living worse than we did in the Middle Ages. My guess is in the future there will be more and more legislative incentives to discourage people from acquiring more goods or wealth than they realistically need, along with child rearing practices which stress cooperation over competition. The idea here is to be able to sustain a reasonable level of wealth and comfort indefinitely, as opposed to this generation having more now at the expense of future generations.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
Well, I certainly take exception to your comment. I'd ask you to retract that.
Also, the newspaper's article isn't pushing any agenda. They're simply interpreting some research for the benefit of readers like myself, who couldn't be bothered trawling through obscure research papers to get some news.
I suppose the Harvard and London Business School professors might be closet lefties attempting to subvert the world of business, but I kinda suspect they were just trying to do that thing that universities are supposed to do, i.e. research. You'd need further studies to draw any firm conclusions, but at least the idea is out there that might be worth exploring.
I didn't read the paper and I have no hidden agenda. I created the thread because it looked like an interesting topic for people here to discuss; Ddrueding and Jtr1962 have made thoughtful contributions. Keep 'em coming and lighten up guys.
ddrueding
Fixture
An interesting quote you chose, as I picked out the same from the article and almost used it to demonstrate an obvious bias/slant/troll in the article. There is a reason that the words "always" and "never" aren't used in scientific papers, because pretty much nothing is always anything. I also find the phrases "me-first culture", "fat saddle", and "have-it-all ethos" to be particularly loaded.
I'll enjoy a conversation on the topic, but I won't accept that the original article was written from any sort of neutral position.
jtr1962
Storage? I am Storage!
I'm not saying the article I linked to isn't biased. It's pretty obvious that the author has mixed feelings about the subject. He really can't decide if ambition is overall good or bad in today's society, although he acknowledges that it was in the past beneficial as a survival trait. I just think it ties in neatly with the original topic here. Most people who end up with lots of luxury goods are what we would call "ambitious". So it's likely ( my guess anyway ) that perhaps it isn't being surrounded by luxury goods which affects the decision making process, but rather the person's ambition. The luxury goods are simply an end result of being ambitious, in effect a confounding factor. Sort of like the idea that because rapes and eating ice cream both increase in summer, then eating ice cream causes rapes. A more ambitious person is by definition more willing to get ahead, even at the expense of others, and make decisions to that effect. They also usually happen to surrounded by more luxury goods, but that's a direct result of the types of decisions they made, not the cause of it. At least that's my guess.
One thing the study didn't seem to account for are the reasons people might wish to acquire more, even at the expense of others. Just to buy luxury goods might be a reason, but I'd guess it's not a driving force. I'd say financial security is the main reason. I don't personally care all that much about luxury goods. I'm content to wear plain clothes, walk, bike, or take the subway, live in a modest home, etc. Yet I might literally kill if the opportunity for a few million dollars presented itself. Why? Financial security. A few million and I'm set for life given how I live. No more worries about trying to find customers, or sometimes taking work I might be less than thrilled about simply because I need the money. I could live decently, maybe make a nice HO train layout, travel as much as I'd like ( that would be mostly train trips of a few days or less ), have a house in a decent neighborhood paid for, etc. So yes, I would do highly antisocial things to get that first few million. After that, probably nothing would motivate me to make a dollar more. Just no interest in working any more once I'm comfortable. I doubt being in a roomful of luxury goods would make me change my mind if I was at that point. Maybe only certain types ( those we classify as "ambitious" with insatiable appetites ) would be affected. I'd like to see another study done where the type of personality ( type A or B ) is taken into account.
ddrueding
Fixture
That kind of ties in with a conversation I was having with a friend about "the American dream". My argument was that even though the most traditional wording says something along the lines of "if you work hard, you can get a better, richer, and happier life", I think that most people mentally add the words "...than those around you" to it. Everything is, after all, relative. Wealth, and the comforts it affords, are really just a big flight of stairs, and we start as toddlers at the bottom; with no concept of anything beyond the first step.
A. Taking time off work.
B. Actually traveling someplace interesting in that time.
C. Flying to some exotic destination.
D. Having a car and driver take you to the airport.
E. Flying first class.
F. Having a helicopter pick you up at your helipad and fly you to the airport.
G. Chartering a private plane for the entire trip.
H. Own the airplane, the airport, and the destination.
I suppose it really depends how far up this ladder you are (and your friends/colleagues are) on how many of these steps seem sane.
...to be finished later...bedtime.
A. Taking time off work.
B. Actually traveling someplace interesting in that time.
C. Flying to some exotic destination.
D. Having a car and driver take you to the airport.
E. Flying first class.
F. Having a helicopter pick you up at your helipad and fly you to the airport.
G. Chartering a private plane for the entire trip.
H. Own the airplane, the airport, and the destination.
I suppose it really depends how far up this ladder you are (and your friends/colleagues are) on how many of these steps seem sane.
...to be finished later...bedtime.
Santilli
Hairy Aussie
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2002
- Messages
- 5,278
So far, the article reads like a total logical failure:
"The students who viewed luxury goods were significantly more likely than the second group to endorse production of a new car that might pollute the environment, launch a new software with bugs, or market a video game that might induce violence, according to the study."
Perhaps the point they are trying to make is a bit biblical:
The Lord doesn't mind if you have possessions, it's when the possessions own you that the problems start.
I wonder how some of this stuff comes about.
In 2006 the San Francisco School Superintendent failed to meet any of her goals, and quit, before she was fired. She went to a teaching job at a college in the mid-west.
She was given 450 grand in severance, for doing a poor job, failing, and leaving early.
On top of that, she made another 150 grand, selling her life time medical back to SFUSD.
That's 600K for being a POS at her job.
Second:
Her protege, assistant superintendent, took the Antioch Unified SD Superintendent job. She managed to get the district up 15 million dollars in cash reserves, and, as her predecessor at SFUSD, created a long and protracted, and ugly contract negotiation with the teachers union, and quit before she got fired. Don't know how this one played out, but, she had hired a publicist to promote her position for 120 grand a year. That salary is about 40 grand above what the maximum any teacher can make in that district.
My salary was arbitrarily cut by about 50%, in a blatant breach of contract, to save money during this period.
The corruption in our government is far worse.
For my own perspective, living in situations where material things are time limited was really a freeing experience. In Hawaii, on the wet sides of the islands, EVERYTHING has a short life span, except you. When you realize anything you buy will rot, mold, or mildew, all of a sudden fancy clothes, TV's etc. loose their value. I had a Sony TV that lasted 10 years in Santa Cruz, living on the beach, in the fog belt.
That same TV lasted 6 months on the North Shore, and, the tuner was rusted. Same with my fancy car, etc.
And, that brings me to my last point. Much as the Robberbarons would destroy the very country that created the situation that allowed them to gain wealth, just like George Soros, the Santa Cruz business owners so wanted their money that they would destroy the beach that brought people to their town. They refused to pay for a decent sewage system, and, would rather have people getting sick, and watching turds wash up on the beach then pay for anything but primary sewage treatment.
I will admit to a bit of sophistry, choosing extreme, and not so extreme examples, but, that is the problem.
These situations exist, as does Nancy Pelosi's jet and liquor bill, and, one wonders when and why the wheels are falling off????
jtr1962:
Greed, and peer pressure, are HUGE forces. It's truly amazing some of the stuff I see on a daily basis.
"The students who viewed luxury goods were significantly more likely than the second group to endorse production of a new car that might pollute the environment, launch a new software with bugs, or market a video game that might induce violence, according to the study."
Perhaps the point they are trying to make is a bit biblical:
The Lord doesn't mind if you have possessions, it's when the possessions own you that the problems start.
I wonder how some of this stuff comes about.
In 2006 the San Francisco School Superintendent failed to meet any of her goals, and quit, before she was fired. She went to a teaching job at a college in the mid-west.
She was given 450 grand in severance, for doing a poor job, failing, and leaving early.
On top of that, she made another 150 grand, selling her life time medical back to SFUSD.
That's 600K for being a POS at her job.
Second:
Her protege, assistant superintendent, took the Antioch Unified SD Superintendent job. She managed to get the district up 15 million dollars in cash reserves, and, as her predecessor at SFUSD, created a long and protracted, and ugly contract negotiation with the teachers union, and quit before she got fired. Don't know how this one played out, but, she had hired a publicist to promote her position for 120 grand a year. That salary is about 40 grand above what the maximum any teacher can make in that district.
My salary was arbitrarily cut by about 50%, in a blatant breach of contract, to save money during this period.
The corruption in our government is far worse.
For my own perspective, living in situations where material things are time limited was really a freeing experience. In Hawaii, on the wet sides of the islands, EVERYTHING has a short life span, except you. When you realize anything you buy will rot, mold, or mildew, all of a sudden fancy clothes, TV's etc. loose their value. I had a Sony TV that lasted 10 years in Santa Cruz, living on the beach, in the fog belt.
That same TV lasted 6 months on the North Shore, and, the tuner was rusted. Same with my fancy car, etc.
And, that brings me to my last point. Much as the Robberbarons would destroy the very country that created the situation that allowed them to gain wealth, just like George Soros, the Santa Cruz business owners so wanted their money that they would destroy the beach that brought people to their town. They refused to pay for a decent sewage system, and, would rather have people getting sick, and watching turds wash up on the beach then pay for anything but primary sewage treatment.
I will admit to a bit of sophistry, choosing extreme, and not so extreme examples, but, that is the problem.
These situations exist, as does Nancy Pelosi's jet and liquor bill, and, one wonders when and why the wheels are falling off????
jtr1962:
Greed, and peer pressure, are HUGE forces. It's truly amazing some of the stuff I see on a daily basis.