« Questions about immigration | Main | Bordeaux bleg »
Luxury markets in everything
Some khaki pants are now selling for as much as $1055; $400 and $500 khaki pants are becoming common.
See The Wall Street Journal, May 13-14, p.P7. Makes you want to sign up with Peter Singer, doesn't it?
One Saks Fifth Avenue fashion director noted: "For some of these brands, that's a lot of money."
If you know of other absurd luxury markets, please mention them in the comments.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 17, 2006 at 12:01 AM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
The Vertu phone has always struck me as an absurd attempt at exclusivity.
Posted by: Bartman at May 16, 2006 11:36:05 PM
I can think of a few hotel rooms in India. My favorite may be the Kohinoor Suite at Udaivilas. Who needs 2600 square feet of space and a private pool in a hotel room?
India: the country that mastered conspicuous consumption.
Posted by: Lee at May 17, 2006 1:12:57 AM
To clarify the example: Peter Singer argued that it would be morally indefensible to not save a child from drowning in a shallow pond just to avoid ruining your pants.
The relative moral value of the pants are far less than the moral value of someone else's life. Taking this to it's logical conclusion means we should spend less of our own money on things of relative moral importance and donate it to famine relief instead.
Posted by: Macneil at May 17, 2006 1:48:39 AM
How about the whole market for high end bottled water? It seems pretty common now, but when it first came out I remember thinking that it was absurd that Fiji was able to get away with charging so much more more for the exact same product.
Posted by: robby at May 17, 2006 2:29:42 AM
There are plenty of $800-1,200 jeans available here in Moscow. In fact, other than Chinese knock-offs at the market it is just about impossible to find any jeans for less than $300
Posted by: widmerpool at May 17, 2006 4:15:37 AM
I'd say the £85 sandwich would qualify
Posted by: Frank McGahon at May 17, 2006 5:04:34 AM
My "khaki pants" are hand-tailored in Hong Kong and posted to me. Much cheaper and wonderfully comfortable.
Posted by: dearieme at May 17, 2006 6:47:25 AM
I saw that WSJ article too, nuts! ;-)
Posted by: Christopher at May 17, 2006 6:54:38 AM
Doesn't "luxury market" almost imply "absurdity" in prices? After all, if it wasn't expensive it wouldn't be luxury.
The Saleen S7 (a car) lists for $395,000 - quite absurd for a car, one might think. Of course, living in Northern VA, that car still costs less than a house.
There are baseball card packs that carry a MSRP of $100 (not vintage packs from the 1950s). I believe it was 2004 Upper Deck Ultimate Collection. And you only get 4 cards. And no gum.
I swear that I saw something about how Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt buy (or used to buy) $300 t-shirts.
Posted by: AZ at May 17, 2006 8:29:47 AM
Makes you want to sign up with Thorstein Veblen as well.
Posted by: JohnD at May 17, 2006 8:52:48 AM
There's that $1,000 sunday in NY.
But, as a young, single male who's current girlfriend is looking pretty good in ye olde marriage market, I have to say that engagement/wedding rings are an absurdly priced luxury market. My sister's attitude is that anything over $6,000 is absurd. $6,000?!?! Three entire months take-home pay (hey, some of us are recent college grads with the same entry-level job as the rest of them) for a scrap of metal with a rock in it? Even the third of that I'm willing to spend is ridiculous, ostentatious tomfoolery.
Posted by: Timothy at May 17, 2006 10:21:46 AM
I was quite taken with this watch until I learned that it cost exactly as as much as my last house.
(Be sure to watch the video. It's jaw-droppingly cool.)
Posted by: Dave at May 17, 2006 10:22:08 AM
My roommate just purchased a $300 (CAD) jacket liner to accompany his $300 (CAD) windbreaker.
Not even close to $1000 khakis, but still terrible.
Posted by: Josh at May 17, 2006 10:51:40 AM
timothy,
i agree that the price of engagement rings are pretty wild, but remember this, its not all that uncommon for the wife to later on want an "upgrade" to the lower end ring you bought years ago, then your practically buying two rings... i say its better to go higher end now than later....of course your mileage may vary
Posted by: anonymous at May 17, 2006 11:04:42 AM
For Real Babes, Denim Gets Pricey. $135 toddler jeans that are outgrown within three months? Here's
the kicker: "Jennifer Lattuca, a mom in Dixville, N.Y., was horrified when her 2-year-old
daughter drew on her $106 True Religion jeans with permanent markers. "She only wore them
a couple of times," says Mrs. Lattuca. After the incident, she vowed never to spend more
than $40 on a pair of kid's jeans."
I called my beloved spouse and asked her to fill in the following:
"I vow never to spend more than x on a pair of kid's jeans"
The answer: eight bucks
Posted by: Matt Wells at May 17, 2006 11:38:43 AM
My mom was telling me about this 500 dollar per day doggie boarding place in Houston. You get a discount for an entire week. It's only 2500.
I have no idea what they offer for so much money, but I am assuming it involves going swimming in jewels and gold coins.
Posted by: Will Franklin at May 17, 2006 3:50:59 PM
I thought Juicy Couture was overpriced, but I guess that's nothing compared to some other brands. Still, $88 for a Juicy Couture t-shirt is pretty outrageous.
Posted by: Half Sigma at May 17, 2006 4:54:09 PM
high end stereo systems that generate sounds human ears can't hear.
Posted by: auto at May 17, 2006 6:15:21 PM
Reminds me of this post from Boing Boing:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/14/worlds_most_expensiv.html
Posted by: flip at May 17, 2006 6:44:25 PM
MSRP on speaker cable: $30,750
http://www.aurant.com/signaturefeature.php
Posted by: Brian at May 17, 2006 7:11:03 PM
I have such a pair of khakis. I also sh*t gold nuggets. As a somewhat avid golfer, I'm aware of graphite shafts (yeah, just the stick part) that cost around $2000. There are also putters that cost over $10k. Crazy.
Posted by: DJMonsterMo at May 17, 2006 9:46:03 PM
I think one of the major flaws of contemporary morality is that conspicuous charity is so frowned upon. Much conspicuous consumption takes the form of purchasing status symbols that are functionally equivalent to much cheaper goods. People do not buy these goods for no reason or because they have money to blow, similarly productive money fires are not terribly common. People buy luxury goods because being wealthy suggests the presence of positive qualities and it is desirable for a person to convince others that positive qualities are obsessed. Psychologically the consumption is far subordinate to the conspicuousness. If it was equally acceptable to go out with a purse that said "I gave 500 dollars to an aids charity" as it was to go out with a purse that had little L's and V's on it for some questionable aesthetic we would see more of the former.
Posted by: Michael Foody at May 17, 2006 10:22:20 PM
Might there be a market for ultra-expensive products where 50% of the revenue goes to charity, thus giving the buyer a chance to signal his wonderfulness in two ways? Do such products exist?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 18, 2006 12:01:58 AM
I am always amazed that women's lifestyle magazines -- I'm not talking about fashion magazines, I'm talking about publications Oprah's O, Health, or More -- show $800 purses and $900 skirts. And how about face powder for $160 and lipstick for $75 from the French perfume maker, Serge Lutens, at Barneys?
Posted by: celeste w at May 18, 2006 12:12:37 AM
The obvious and economically significant luxury markets are housing in elite exurbs, luxury and exotic cars, private jets, yachts, etc. All have experienced increases in prices that have outstripped inflation significantly in recent years.
Also, the Pete Seeger ought not to be extrapolated to imply that people should not spend money on items of conspicuous consumption -- which are after all a form of income redistribution from the rich to the clever and industrious. A system that allows conspicuous consumption is better for children's mortality rates, drowning or not, than a system that doesn't.
Posted by: Patrick C at May 18, 2006 9:48:36 AM
