Why buy branded clothing and not save? Because the need to save isn't there at all. As youngsters, basic needs are often managed by parents. So if basic needs are satisfied, for whatever money youngsters have, it will go to the next need. Different people will place a different value on needs, which explains why one feels the need to save while the other does not. I believe that it works with us adults too, the difference is that we have a far bigger earning power to satisfy a larger and wider set of needs.
I guess if youngsters need to spend, let them be. As a Singaporean, while it is important to learn to save, like anybody else anywhere in the world, it is also important to learn how to manage debts. Most of us have to take up loans for education, housing and cars at some point in time, it's unavoidable, and at the same time we have to satisfy our other needs. Learning the follies of not saving when young is way better than learning it at when we become burdened with responsibilities.
"Photography is an austere and blazing poetry of the real" -Ansel Adams
can needs and wants be really divided up into such nice, neat piles?
you could certainly argue for many ways in which youngsters are entitled to spend. i mean, we've probably heard it all from the horse's mouth as well. but what doesn't change, for the most part is that for those without any income, they are actually living beyond their means, especially when they start working. or do you think it is correct for one to live on his elders for the most part of his life?
yes, maybe one's basic needs are met so he has to move on to the "next level" - this also loosely explains why singaporeans like to complain about freedom of speech (ironic in itself, since they are complaining freely).. whereas the people of africa are too busy ekeing out their survival - but whether this "next level" is really something we should be pursuing, is another thing altogether.
I totally understood what you meant. You are merely saying that whatever mattlock meant (ie you dont' care what he said, hence "WHATEVER" me meant), your response is still the same. This means that you are more or less having a monologue with yourself since you do not take into account what people are trying to say, when making your own point.
Do review your own words again, especially the part about "whatever he means, the reply is the same". Even when I try to explain what mattlock meant, you refused to see and still insist on your point of view (which is incongruent with and does not respond to what I think he meant).
Sure, feel free to repeat yourself if you wish. Repeated allegations without substantiations is useless At least I bother to substantiate.
a: i ate lunch today
b: you did not eat breakfast! because xxx yyy
a: i ate lunch today!
b: oh, but i know you meant breakfast xxx yyy
a: you don't get my point
b: but xxx yyy! i am vindicated and i substantiate what i mean!
Nice try, still failed
Invest your cash n put ur money to work so that when u get those sweet returns can go n buy watever u want.
If going thru bad patch then slow spending, and if you are financially savvy, can even leverage up.
That way , can buy all those branded goodies.
dun be like me, bought 1 hp, 2 laptops, 3 cameras within a yr
now i got so many gadgets
Sometimes it is better to conserve your opinions, and state a well thought out opinion on something that really matters to you rather than just wanting to have an opinion about everything
I like people with opinions. I find people who have poorly thought out opinions amusing, that's all.
That is why you typed out a whole long monologue that has nothing to do with what I was saying. satisfied?
Just to put forward a point that people love to harp on "young people" and their actions for some reason.
It's great to have savings. If you don't have savings then having people who can be your safety net is equally ok.
It's too simplistic to count every purchase in dollars and cents.
A friend just told me about an acquaintance who landed up in London with 500 bucks in his pocket. So he rented a limo, wore fancy clothing, hired a beautiful girl or two to be seen with, and then went around to parties and schmoozed around, and in the process got jobs and made money.
Material things matter, they give you a sense of identity, you don't buy a ferrari just because it's fast (there are faster cars out there)
You buy it in a big part for what it says about you (you made it, you can afford to be excessive, you're cool and dangerous, etc)
If you think these things don't matter then you're obviously not in the business field
Welcome to the real world, appearances matter a lot.
I find it hypocritical to criticise other people for the way they spend money, different people value money differently depending on their needs.
By criticising them you are basically saying that what they are doing is wrong and your way of thinking is right.
So how do you think a poor Indonesian feels when he sees you buying a McSpicy meal from Macdonalds when the amount of money you spent on that single meal is enough to feed his family for 3 days?
Well so what if I have to eat grass after spending on flashy stuff that I like, the satisfaction is good enough and I pity the rest. I can get a D3, rest my mind rather than those who kept thinking about it whole day long. Think here save there, thinking it is wasteful and boom, accidents happens and you left without pampering yourself.
so which part of "satisfaction to be gained from luxury goods" did you not get?
you bring up the point for spending for an impression - your example in london is one whereby the guy stands to gain for all his reckless ways. you also fail to realise that i spend my time studying in the city of london - you would have to be blind to stay there and not realise that appearances matter, not just in business, but in many aspects of life. it is signalling - if i am a lawyer, and i wear an expensive armani suit, it hints that i am a good lawyer, because i can afford such items and luxury goods. of course in reality it might not be so. i fully comprehend your point.
but i disagree with you in the sense that you seem to advocate that that all spending choices can be explained away as having some value to the person who spends all the time. if the person in your london example, had instead sat on the streets and bought perhaps a few bottles of expensive liquor and drank himself to death that day, are you also going to say that some good came out of his consumer choice?
yes, there are cases like you have mentioned, where spending has some positive value, i stress once again, that i do not deny you that. neither should you deny that there are cases which are clearcut wastages, driven by something warped, and having nothing to do with any advantage in mind, spending for the sake of spending. i am no conservative; i would not ask everybody to dress in the simplest clothing and grow their own vegetables - but neither could you really blame me for formulating opinions of the seemingly overwhelming examples in my generation that i have seen.
so how does a poor indonesian feel when he sees me buy a mcspicy? why, if he is me, he will feel the same way i feel when i see some of my friends who are well able to afford it buying branded goods in london that i cannot afford - he will understand that different people have different strokes.
but how should a poor indonesian feel, if he is an acquitance, he has a rough grasp of my background and how much money runs in my family, and he sees me partying all day long, and even telling my parents that school fees have increased when i have actually surpassed their budget for me? surely, he isn't going to be able to understand what is running through my mind, neither would i expect him to.
and then again, EVEN if the poor indonesian feels angry that life is unfair to him, that i can eat a mcspicy when he has to eat grass.. you tell me - is it wrong for him to be angry? your example probably provides the best context for refutation - you say that we should expect every human being to be a demigod, to view things with entire neutrality. then i will say that no such human being exists.
i hope you get my point. judgement for the sake of judgement is very very different from judging when there is something to judge. there are grey areas, perhaps; but that does not go to say that there are no black and white areas. life is black, grey AND white, and it will do well to remember that.
on another note, does everybody not have a preformulated view of things? this is the very substance that shapes a human. by saying that i claim that my way of thinking is right is statement of something natural. "i think, therefore i am." if a person has doubts about the way he thinks, then he would most certainly be schizoprenic. once again, note that this is vastly different from saying that the person is not amendable to trying to emphatise with others, or walk around in their shoes. i would think it a very sad person, who tries to be the messiah and sees things from everybody's perspective and can even understand it when he innately disagrees. no one is that open-minded; and to profess to be so, is the true hypocriscy, i feel.
Last edited by night86mare; 14th April 2008 at 03:32 AM.