The Yahoo! Finance article Act Like the Rich, Be Frugal claims that rich people, those with high net worth as opposed to high income, typically do not act rich. They're frugal creatures who do not feel the need to show off the bling-bling, buy expensive European cars or huge houses. Consequently, "the rich" people we see in our everyday lives are phonies: ...the largest consumer segment for pricey cars, vodkas and homes is not the millionaire population, it is the aspirationals. These are people who think they are acting rich via their adoption of prestige brands, but in most cases they are only acting like each other. Why do these people act this way? In large part, they are trying to imitate economically successful people. They take their cues from Hollywood and the advertising industry. The problem is that most aspirationals know few, if any, really wealthy to emulate. Reading this article, automatically and undoubtedly, made me think of the girls that stroll around campus with their Blackberries, Louis Vuitton bags with matching wallets, Burberry scarves, Northface coats, Uggs and Juicy Couture sweatsuits. The ones who only shop at Urban Outfitters, American Apparel and Zara. They wouldn't dare be caught in Payless or at TJ Maxx. They only wear makeup from Sephora and M.A.C. and jeans from True Religion and Seven. They need a Venti Mocha Caramel Frappucino everyday and grace the sidewalks of Newbury St. every weekend. The name-brand culture is almost sickening. Yes, I own a Mac laptop and a pair of Uggs. Yes, I like Starbucks. But the level in which these girls take the brand game is mind-boggling. What in the world do their parents do that they can just blindly dispose money on labels. But this article shed some light: they're fakes. They're just trying really hard to be the Kim Kardashians of Boston.
Filthy Phony Rich
12.12.2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i commented on this yesterday.
im sad it didnt save.
:[
but i feel you on the name brand culture
I've always felt that its stupid to pay thousands of dollars to a company to be a walking billboard for them. I'm not going to say that I don't enjoy designers/name brands...but to be exclusive to expensive things is ridiculous. People limit their possibilities and overextend their wallets when it comes to designer items. How can you be a trendsetter when you wear a variation of the outfit every other girl is wearing on the street?
This season is different from others in the past few years because the IT bag has died(THANK GOD). furthermore..head to toe designer with apparent labels everywhere (the louis/gucci/coach/chanel prints..BLEH) is just tacky.
Finding unique items and making them your own is what its all about. There's nothing wrong with mixing pucci with payless.
ok
im done lol
damn straight. i was talking someone about designer handbags once. she said, "you're kidding yourself if you buy a thousand dollar handbag and not want the world to know. that's why when i buy a handbag like that, i'll get logos on it".
personally, i'm not against high fashion and expensive brands entirely. the way high fashion influences people, is innovative, artistic and beautiful lends it the respect it deserves and has. it's fascinating to me. but i almost loathe branding. i hate advertising logos. if you have the mentality of buying something blatantly branded for the sole sake of advertising it - you're just advertising your wealth. people like that just want the world to know they have money, in my opinion.
i'm not against expensive, quality designers, but if you are that ugg louis vuitton juicy sevens ed hardy person with overt brandvertizing... it's tasteless. the article is right.
Post a Comment