With a Billion People Living on Less Than $1 a Day, Is Buying Luxury Shoes Ethical?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/141834/with_a_billion_people_living_on_less_than_%241_a_day%2C_is_buying_luxury_shoes_ethical/

With a Billion People Living on Less Than $1 a Day, Is Buying Luxury Shoes Ethical?
By Astra Taylor, The New Press. Posted August 13, 2009.

<edit>

So obviously that raises an ethical issue. I mean, there are people who have the money to buy from these stores and who don't seem to see any moral problem about doing that. But what I want to ask is: Shouldn't they see some sort of moral problem about that? Isn't there a question about what we should be spending our money on?

And that's why the existence of stores like these raises a lot of serious ethical issues that I hope people will think about a little bit. All of us, even if we are not the type to shop at Gucci or Louis Vuitton, have some spare cash. All of us in the developed countries, in the affluent world, spend money on luxuries and frivolities that are really not things that we need. So the question is one that affects you as much as it affects someone who shops in these types of stores. What should I be spending my money on and what does that say about me, about my priorities, and about what I might take to be important?

Singer notices some exorbitantly pricey shoes in a nearby window. It seems like a good place to pause for a moment.

So we are outside Bergdorf Goodman, where they have got a display of Dolce & Gabbana shoes. It's kind of amusing to me because about thirty years ago I wrote an article called "Famine, Affluence and Morality" in which I ask you to imagine you are walking by a shallow pond, and as you walk past it, you notice there is a small child who has fallen into the pond and is in danger of drowning. You look around to see where the parents are, and there is no one in sight. And you realize, unless you wade into this pond and you pull the child out, the child is likely to drown. There is no danger to you because you know the pond is just a shallow one, but you are wearing a nice pair of shoes and they are probably going to get ruined if you wade into that shallow pond.

So of course when I ask people this, they say, well, of course forget about the shoes, you just have to save the child, that's clear. And then I stop and I say, OK, well, I agree with you about that, but for the price of a pair of shoes, if you were to give that money to Oxfam or UNICEF or one of those organizations, they could probably save the life of a child, maybe more than one child in a poor country where they can't get basic medical care to treat very basic diseases like diarrhea or whatever it might be.

So just looking at the shoes here at Dolce & Gabbana, they are probably going to be worth quite a bit more than just your basic kind of shoes, and it made me think, if you are wearing these kinds of shoes and you still want to wade into the pond, that's probably a large number of children's lives they could save.

And that's one of the reasons it's interesting to be here on Fifth Avenue talking about ethics, because ethics is about the basic choices that we all make in our lives. And one of those choices is how we spend our money, and as you walk past stores like Bergdorf Goodman and Gucci and Louis Vuitton, they are all around, they are calling to you -- spend your money here, buy these pricey designer items.

It is obscene that people are spending thousands of dollars on a handbag or a pair of shoes when there are a billion people in the world who are living on less than a dollar a day. As UNICEF tell us, there are 27,000 children who die every day from avoidable, poverty-related diseases and malnutrition. And clearly there is something we could be doing about that; there is something we could be doing to help them.

lots more...

[shanti]

1. or designer handbags

same deal, imo.

[Bonobo]

2. What about a 1 dollar candy bar? Chewing gun? Dental floss? Lip balm? nt

[redqueen]

4. That is always where it goes.

From truly expensive, luxury items... to small things like that.

Why?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

7. because luxury is a concept that we really don't get here

due to the relative nature of the word.

sP

[Bonobo]

9. What's your point, Redqueen?

I listed small things because they are not necessary items either and that 1 dollar lip balm is the cost of food for a day for lots of people.

[redqueen]

15. My point is it's not a good analogy.

Yes, they aren't necessities... but to compare that to truly expensive luxury items? Really?

Why do that?

[ZombieHorde]

14. Many of those things are made in poor countries. Without these businesses

the people would either be out of work or be working as prostitutes.

[redqueen]

3. Cars?

Cruises?

Where does it end?

Just wondering...

[Obamanaut]

13. In the opinion of the author as well -

"...thousands of dollars on a handbag or a pair of shoes..."

[cali]

97. I just bought one of the top of the line coach handbags

for one dollar at a yardsale.

[End Of The Road]

5. Isn't the read question "Is Capitalism Ethical?" nt

[Deja Q]

39. After a certain point, no.

[Dr. Strange]

48. Or maybe the real question is, "Is Freedom Ethical?"

[abumbyanyothername]

87. Hear, hear! nt

[SteppingRazor]

6. Maybe we should all wear sackcloth and wallow in ashes.

I'm sympathetic to the underlying problem here, but I don't see how luxury shoes has anything to do with it. You could say the same thing about just about any luxury item -- cars, movie tickets, jewelry, cable TV, microwave ovens, and on and on.

[redqueen]

16. Movie tickets? Come on!

I agree about some jewelry... diamonds for sure... but ovens? Cable TV?

This is why this conversation never goes anywhere.

[SteppingRazor]

20. I understand. You don't want to give up your movie tickets to save starving children.

Bastard. :P

[anigbrowl]

50. It's a luxury, same as the shoes.

I don't get hung up on questions like this because there is nothing preventing someone from both buying a pair of luxury shoes and making a donation to a charity devoted to alleviating poverty. The author of the article in the OP is mistaken in framing it as a zero-sum question. You can see how ridiculous it is when applied to small affordable luxuries; the original question just implies a false choice between buying luxury shoes or giving to charity. People with the money to buy $1000 shoes aren't necessarily opting for one over the other.

[redqueen]

53. The ridiculous part is comparing $1000 shoes to movie tickets. (nt)

[anigbrowl]

62. Not in the least. They may represent a similar fraction of disposable income for different buyers

The only difference is that you (and I) can afford the movie tickets but the shoes would be absurdly uneconomical given my income level (I assume this is also true for you). But if you were, say, an experienced doctor (most of whom earn a healthy 6 figures mid-career), then those shoes would be quite affordable, and you would still have money for charitable giving. It's not accident that you see a lot of medical professionals on the sponsor lists for expensive social luxuries like opera, ballet or symphony, which are even more similar to movie tickets but vastly more expensive.

[redqueen]

65. It's not the percentage of income that matters. (nt)

[anigbrowl]

96. Sez you. I can't help but note you supply no argument to back up this assertion.

You seem to be saying that people who are wealthy (even if they become wealthy through quite reasonable means like being expert at something difficult) shouldn't buy expensive things even if they can afford to do so, and regardless of whether or not they also donate to charity.

Personally, I'm not wealthy, and nor do I have a particular hankering for luxury goods...on the other hand I have no problem with the existence of such things, and the people who make and sell them are entitled to make a living at that too.

[redqueen]

103. People get so hyperbolic about this subject... it's really interesting.

I have no problem with the existence of such things either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6293668&mesg_id=6295015

[angstlessk]

18. Your comments remind me of Bobby Kennedy's famous quote

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.

Here you ask where will it stop? I ask when do we begin?

For all I know the difference between those $5,000 shoes and a pair that costs $20.00 may end world hunger, or if you just add in all EXTREME designer price differences, we would get to keep our microwave ovens..or would you fear that if you put down your microwave oven to save that drowning boy, there was a chance someone could steal it from you?

[SteppingRazor]

21. It's a fine point, and I do agree that shoes are overpriced and that starving children need help.

I just don't get the attempt at correlation.

[angstlessk]

32. I think the point is...purchase the $20.00 shoes and give the difference of

$4,980 to Oxfam or some such place that assists those dying from hunger and preventable disease? Hell, do it in the name of the designer whom you passed up and see which one comes out on top? that would be a great contest!

[guitar man]

8. of course it is

who do you think makes the shoes? How could their meager existence continue if nobody bought luxury shoes?

:sarcasm:

[Lorien]

25. Supposidly most of these luxury items are made in Italy

though there was an expose of one luxury line earlier this year where it was discovered that, though the bags SAID Italy, they were actually made in China.

At any rate, you shouldn't assume that third world residents depend on luxury products for their existence.

[imdjh]

35. That's the real killer. We pay for luxury items only to find out they are made in India. Vuitton

just like the crappy items.

Louis Vuitton Paris made in India
Louis Vuitton plans Asia plant in Pondy

BOBY KURIAN & AMANPREET SINGH

TIMES NEWS NETWORK< TUESDAY, JANUARY 09, 2007 03:43:24 AM>

BANGALORE/NEW DELHI: Didn’t we say India rocks the world? The venerable French luxury goods giant Louis Vuitton, part of the $17-billion Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH) group, is setting up its first manufacturing plant in Asia at Pondicherry through a joint venture, sources said.

LV — best known for its expensive and edgy bags — has identified the Dilip Kapur-owned Hidesign, the domestic high-end leather goods brand, as its JV partner. The greenfield venture, likely to be a 50:50 JV, is expected to come up in a 30-acre plot in the Union territory.

Following the visit of the senior board members late last year, LV decided on Pondicherry as the location for its manufacturing base in Asia (mostly for leather products). Sources said the toss-up for the plant location was either India or Vietnam. Unlike Prada or Gucci, LV has opted for India. It is learnt that LV is working towards putting the plant on stream within this year.

“We are looking at possibilities. Nothing is confirmed yet,” said Tikka Shatrujit Singh, brand advisor, LV, when contacted by ET. Sources at Hidesign also confirmed that parleys were on with LV.

The French brand’s arrival would significantly bolster Pondicherry’s profile as a manufacturing hub in the South-East Asian context. In fact, the LV plant is expected to come up near a Rs 2,700-crore Fashion City project, which is an integrated township offering manufacturing, design, education and warehousing for the fashion business.

Air Deccan and Paramount are already looking at connecting Pondicherry, and real estate prices are beginning to pick up as the news trickles in.

Sources said LV’s move was part of a global supply chain overhaul to keep pace with market growth. Last year, LV roped in McKinsey & Co to make its manufacturing operations more flexible in responding to the needs of the expanding store network.

The move to set up a production base in India is crucial. The company largely relied on Europe, and France in particular, as customers put top dollar on the brown and gold logo bags on account of the old-fashioned craftsmanship, besides the brand power built through high-profile advertising, fashion shows and star designer Marc Jacobs.

Hidesign also has placed a similar emphasis on artisan-driven, soft, supple leather designs in building a brand that is slowly expanding outside India.

LV, founded in 1854, accounts for a significant part of LVMH’s revenues and profits. Besides its clothing line, the brand mops up a bulk of its revenues from leather accessories like handbags, wallets and suitcases.

[guitar man]

63. no I wouldn't assume that

my post was intended as a slap at the right-wing pro disaster capitalist notion that we're doing third world countries a big favor by exploiting the most desperate to make things for us.

[Juche]

10. Luxury fever

http://www.amazon.com/Luxury-Fever-Robert-H-Frank/dp/0691070113

Decent book, it details the attempts to one up each other with conspicious consumption and how it is a treadmill that will never truly ends. He endorses raising taxes on luxury items (since it isn't the item itself, it is comparisons between the item and your neighbor's items) and using the funds for various public works programs.

[Greyhound]

11. Living "the American lifestyle" in all it's forms is unethical and counter-productive.

All of the options and products we are offered are purposely designed to be used briefly and disposed of.

The corporatocracy was invented in Europe but America "perfected" it.

[Deja Q]

41. So when are you giving up everything you own since you're against it so vehemently?

[NeedleCast]

90. No No No, You Don't Get it Q

That sort of thing only applies to other people.

[Greyhound]

101. No, it applies to all of us, including the ignorant and the offensive. n/t

[Greyhound]

100. Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit..

Ignoring that for the moment, do you deny that the products available for you to purchase are explicitly designed to fail and be disposed of? Do you deny that over-packaging is both unnecessary and harmful?

[Solly Mack]

12. K&R

[reflection]

17. The answer is that you can buy nice shoes

*and* also give money/resources to those who are needy. Otherwise you have to take the argument to its logical conclusion and divest yourself of all material excess as long as there are starving people somewhere.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

24. +1

[glitch]

26. Nothing wrong with refusing excess. Not necessary to wear sack cloth,

we all know what conspicuous consumption is, and we can refuse to go there.

We have a zero sum economy, the more we have the less someone else has. There is a equitable balance, we can at least attempt to find it.

[reflection]

28. 'Excess' is a completely relative term.

There is a balance, yes. But defining that balance is impossible. It's easy to point at a $20,000 handbag and call it excess. As the bar is lowered it becomes less obvious. Microwaves, cell phones, wedding rings, a nice watch, are examples of things that people would be hard-pressed to give up, and it would be dangerous to call such people unfeeling or uncaring. (Not that I am saying you are doing that. Not at all. Just saying it's not as black and white as some would have us believe.)

(edit for punctuation)

[redqueen]

33. Isn't bringing up those comparisons trying to make it black and white?

Trying to find some hard and fast rule?

Wedding rings and cell phones are kind of a stretch, aren't they, when compared to thousand-dollar shoes?

[reflection]

37. I've thought about this,

I am honestly trying to figure out if I misunderstand the question. I am sometimes not the sharpest knife in the drawer...

I don't think it's that much of a stretch. Especially the wedding ring. It's tiny and expensive and is completely symbolic. In other words, if you lose your wedding ring, you haven't lost your marriage. (You may have gained a spot on the couch, though.) It can definitely be argued that wedding rings are a very prevalent form of excess.

But for the sake of finding common ground, let's think of something between the three items I mentioned and the ubiquitous fancy handbag that keeps cropping up. How about a high-end vehicle with GPS, DVD players, and such? Are those ok? What about adding a sunroom to your house? Season tickets to your favorite team?

The point is, if you draw a line from "free" to "incredibly expensive", there are a number of unnecessary items priced all along that line. And the point where you draw an X and say "everything past here is excess" is subjective.

I always like your posts and respect you, redqueen. So if I have misunderstood the question, please take that at face value, accept this post in the non-snarky spirit it is given, and feel free to correct me. :)

[redqueen]

47. Aw thanks... I like your posts and respect you too...

but I don't mind snark at all... so feel free! :D

As for the misunderstanding, I don't think there is one... I think we might just be seeing the 'black and white' thing differently here is all. I was on the same track as you upthread when I asked where do we draw the line... cars? Cruises?

All those 'maybe' things... they're for the individual to decide... but the $1000 shoes makes a good example, because nearly everyone considers that total bullshit.

And despite the fact that there is no hard and fast rule, I think those with lots of disposable income would do well to be reminded of this kind of thought exercise regularly. Just MHO. :)

[reflection]

61. Completely agree. Especially the last sentence. n/t

[Johonny]

31. The Bible is pretty clear

You're suppose to divest yourself of all material excess as long as there are starving people somewhere. Most people pick a middle ground. They are inclined to give money to the needy, but not to the point that they themselves become the needy as well.

[reflection]

43. I don't think most people at DU

are going to use the Bible as the benchmark as to how to handle social policy. I have studied the Bible though. I disagree that is it 'clear'. In fact it is one of the most maddeningly inconsistent tomes I have ever read.

[Johonny]

49. pretty sure

my post says most DUers won't agree with this view and take a more middle ground approach.

It is however the view apparently of Jesus and his close followers at least the one expressed in the GOSPELS. I thought it was interesting that the original commenter made a claim about divesting oneself of goods that surprising is exactly what the Canonical GOSPEL's tell you to do.

I don't think the bible is maddeningly inconsistent. It's a collection of different religion theologies. When viewed in that manner it is not nearly as maddening as you suggest. That all the authors don't agree on subjects is to be expected. Not sure exactly what your post is about besides that.

[NashVegas]

59. Agreed

IIRC, those oils anointing JC's feet were pretty costly. He didn't turn that down.

[krabigirl]

64. Actually, buying one pair of expensive shoes that are classic and last (ro)

are better than buying a bunch of cheap shoes, anyway. I don't do this enough, but I should. Well-made shoes are more comfortable and last longer. Men have an easier time of this, since the shoe fashions aren't as trendy.

[mamaleah]

79. Yeah that's lost on the all or nothing types.

You are either a saint for living bare bones or an evil capitalist pig for buying nice things.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. You gotta pay for quality.

If my $30 pair of shoes lasts me a year before they have to be tossed (because they are made in such a way these days that they CANNOT be re-soled), then I would expect a $300 pair of shoes to last me 10 years. And a $3000 pair of shoes to last me a hundred years. If I was to pay $30,000 for a pair of shoes, I better be guaranteed they're going to last a thousand years.

[Karenina]

45. How much, to whom, and how many middlemen $ale$per$on$

are involved in the tran$action, $craping off a markup? ;-)
And WHAT, pray tell, is "luxury?" A "brand" name one considers to confer status? Quality and longevity due to craftsmanship? The "latest" whatever?

[cbdo2007]

22. Is it ethical to buy cars when we could just walk?

[glitch]

27. Any logic can be reduced to the absurd. Doesn't make the absurd reduction correct. nt

[cbdo2007]

51. You can't have it both ways...

Either you have to give up everything you have that's more than a billion other people have or you get to decide what you want to do with your own money.

The "absurd reduction" gets down to the heart of the issue. Everyone who agrees with this article, including the author I'm sure, has splurged on some luxury at some point and certainly buys things other people think are a waste of money but I guess it's easier to point out others than to point the finger at yourself.

[redqueen]

57. The absurd reduction attempts to make a vague situation black and white.

It's a stupid distraction, nothing more. IMO.

[cbdo2007]

70. If you don't make the situation black and white, all you are doing is pointing out...

once person's lifestyle and how you don't agree with it when you are probably doing something just as bad.

When you make it black and white, it turns the tables back on you to see if you will judge yourself the same way you judge others.

I don't care if someone spends however much money on luxury whatever, cause I certainly don't *need* the vacations, wii games, 2009 auto, etc that I spend my money on.

[redqueen]

71. No... all you are doing is asking those who blow tons of money

to stop and think for a moment.

But I can see why that would make many middle class types get defensive, for sure.

[cbdo2007]

72. You think lower class people don't "blow tons of money" on stupid stuff?

You don't get out much do ya?

[redqueen]

73. LOL

Okay... :hi:

[Toucano]

23. I couldn't do it.

But I am reluctant to judge others because I don't know what they may have done to help the poor before they bought their shoes.

edit typo

[reflection]

29. k/r because I think this is a valuable discussion.

[amborin]

30. thorny philosophical/political issue that is way too complicated for

simple analogies

your not buying the shoes will not necessarily help someone living on $1 a day, unless you donate that shoe money to that person (and are assured he/she is receiving it, not some administrator).

nor is buying or making those shoes necessarily causing that person's poverty; aren't those brands you chose as an example made in italy?

i agree: people should be philanthropic and donate money to good causes, such as saving the environment, etc.....

but a possible cause of that person's poverty is corrupt government in their country; national resoureces are sold on world markets but only the wealthy elite receive the proceeds....

at bottom: i think you are a good communist, and i mean that as a compliment; from each according to their ability, to each according to their need....no gucci shoes if some others are starving....

communist union organizers launched industrial unions in this country; without their great
leadership, there would not have been any uaw, ue, etc.....

[proteus_lives]

34. Not sure it matters.

I don't care what someone else does with their money and I don't see why people would care what I do with mine.

"It is obscene that people are spending thousands of dollars on a handbag or a pair of shoes when there are a billion people in the world who are living on less than a dollar a day."

How is people not buying luxury items supposed to fix this? Isn't that the work of governments and the UN?

[Warpy]

36. Well, there's another way to look at things

Those shoes, designer or not, are made overseas in the third world. While the pig who owns the company and the pigs he's hired to run it for him rake in most of your money, the people making those shoes also get some of it. They spend it at local markets and feed their kids. The people at the local markets buy more stock from the farmers and feed their kids. The farmers pay the peasants a buck a day to work in their fields growing the food and the peasants try to feed their kids.

Now the whole thing would work a lot better if the peasants were paid more and were able to provide the market locally for shoes and ships and sealing wax instead of shipping the stuff around the planet to people who go into debt to buy them, but the pigs all along the food chain still haven't managed to figure that out.

However, as far as designer stuff goes, save your money. Brand X looks as good and will serve you just as well with fewer Sultans to support along the way.

[bettyellen]

84. wrong. Brand X generally has more "sultans" or "pigs" as you call them, so shopping at Target is

no more ethical for the reasons you give. People who manufacture clothing arr pigs? Does that go for people who make and sell food and shelter alos? WTF was THAT ignorant tirade about anyway?

[Warpy]

91. Learn. To. Read.

Thank you.

[bettyellen]

93. oh i can read just fine. and it's...... still. moronic. and pointless.

[KittyWampus]

38. The answer is making sure those countries we do trade with pay workers a living wage.

Fair Trade, not Free Trade.

Not some bullshit attempt by a small number of "liberals" to lay a guilt-trip on working Americans.

As for the uber-wealthy in the top 5 percent- I am surrounded by the obscenely wealthy. Many here are really liberal and give a lot to charity. And then some don't give a rip about those struggling.

Oh, and paying a fair wage would be nice in America as well.

[Deja Q]

42. +2

Fair trade... and making things properly so it's not such a wretched waste when a cheaply made product fails and one has to re-purchase...

[lukasahero]

40. As would be buying a sports car, season tickets and a host of other luxuries

Why single out shoes and handbags?

[bettyellen]

85. +1

[pipi_k]

44. I can't say whether it's ethical or not, but I do think that

people buying outrageously priced items should think about donating at least half of what they pay to charity.

For example, someone can afford to buy $3000 pair of shoes donates another $1500 to a charity, and so on.


Nearly everyone can donate something


Years ago I read a book titled, "In One Era And Out The Other" by Sam Levenson...about the experience of growing up in a relatively poor Jewish family in NYC.

It's mostly a humor book, but there are many very poignant parts...one of them being that, as poor as they were, his mom always kept a jar with whatever extra coins (pennies, I think) they could spare in it "for the poor people".


Which leads me to another thing...donating to charity...and then claiming the donations for tax purposes.

I seriously don't get that concept. Isn't charity supposed to be given willingly and from the heart? Why is it boiled down to a financial transaction? Where the hell is the joy of giving to those less fortunate purely for the satisfaction of doing it?

I dunno...maybe it's just me... :shrug:

[spooky3]

46. They should buy TOMS shoes

http://www.tomsshoes.com/

For every pair bought, a poor child in Argentina or Africa gets a pair of shoes. One for one.

[Shell Beau]

54. Tom is doing a great thing.

I wish the shoes were cuter though. I would buy a pair though. Just to support the cause.

[Ignis]

52. Well, it's awfully nice to see good things about Singer on DU.

...For a change.

Normally it's just the same "baby-killer" or "dolphin-fucker" idiocy you see at Dim Wing sites.

So yay for progress! :woohoo:

[Pharlo]

55. It's not if you're the Pope.

Or, the head of any religious organization. (The reason I specify the Pope is that I'm Catholic, and his expensive shoes just annoy me.) The man should practice what he preaches.

As for the average, run of the mill person - get what you want and can afford. My 'luxury' footwear is my workboot. I pay at least $200.00 per pair. The pair will last two to three years. I don't throw them out, they're still good for around the house stuff, but not as comfortable at work. And, when you're on cement for 8 to 12 hours a day, foot comfort is CRUCIAL. So, while I could buy cheaper, less comfortable boots, I do not.

[Stevenmarc]

56. Total nonsense, I can shop Gucci and Prada and also give to Heifer International and Kiva and

not have the slightest ethical dilemma.

[NashVegas]

58. Choice vs Emotional Manipulation For Your Cause

When you can afford to throw out $800 on a pair of shoes, you understand how easily replaceable they are compared to the drowning kid's life.

When you say to someone, "hey, why don't you forget about that replacement pair and just give me $800 for Oxfam," you're 1) trying to make that choice for them, and 2) you're being manipulative which, frankly, is abusive. It may be abusive for a good cause, but you're still trying to control another person.

[ZombieHorde]

80. Does that mean all governments, religions, and family units are abusive? nt

[LanternWaste]

60. Conspicuous consumption v. common sense purchases...

It's not difficult at all for one to see the obvious and relevant differences between conspicuous consumption (lavish spending on goods and services acquired mainly for the purpose of displaying income or wealth) and simply common sense purchases designed to maintain a modest lifestyle.

However, I suppose one could always be purposefully obtuse and create blurred distinctions were none previously existed for the sake of defending a point of view or attempting to look vaguely clever.

[redqueen]

66. I love your posts.

:)

[LanternWaste]

82. Me too-- yours.

Me too-- yours I mean. You have the gumption to say things I'd never have the courage to, despite how much I want to in many cases.

(And I still haven't forgotten the Star trek uniform picture...)

[MajorChode]

95. So what's relevant about the differences?

People who have wealth, sometimes spend it. There's really no surprise there. The question is whether they should be made to feel guilty about it because someone, somewhere is suffering.

The entire point makes about as much sense as my mom telling me I should eat all my food because kids in China are starving.

[progressivebydesign]

67. welcome to capitalism. Destroying lives since.. well.. for a very long time. n/t

[BOG PERSON]

75. But, as with all things under capitalism, that destructiveness is not

distributed equally. Some lives you can exhaust and readily destroy without anybody blinking, and some lives are "precious" and off-limits, every attack on them is an unspeakable atrocity that changes the world forever.

[Romulox]

68. The idea that there can be an "ethical" system of social darwinism ("capitalism") is ridiculous

:hi:

[pampango]

69. The luxuries of the super-rich (yachts, jets, mansions) are easy to ridicule.

The super-rich have 1,000 times more wealth that I have. I am all in favor of redistributing their wealth in favor of the less fortunate in the world.

The problem comes when my "luxuries" (nice house, movie tickets, two cars) are ridiculed by those who have 1,000 times less than I have. I am not nearly as enthusiastic about efforts to redistribute my wealth to the less fortunate of the world. :)

I understand that a really poor person in the Third World or elsewhere may view my position as just a little hypocritical. ;)

[cbdo2007]

74. Another point - let's say someone donates $1,000,000 to UNICEF...

then is it ok for them to buy a $5,000 purse or expensive pair of shoes?

[FatDave]

76. Ethics aside...

...if you pay $10,000 for a handbag you should have your assets seized and given to the poor just to punish you for your own stupidity.

[Shireling]

77. I have never understood why the extremely wealthy

in a community don't organize to help the homeless. Or why doctors, dentists, etc. don't offer to treat their uninsured, economically challenged patients for free? Why don't they set aside one day a month for this? There is so much that could be done to uplift those who at the bottom. When will we learn compassion and express it in actions? O8)

[Zorra]

78. Just got a brand spankin' new pair of $300 shoes at a thrift store for $6.99!

I love recycling.

Otherwise, people that pay ridiculous prices for designer stuff just so because think it makes them look "special" need to get a life.

[mamaleah]

81. This is a lot like the hot air about the First Lady's shoes a few months back.

Because heaven forbid she have nice things.

[AuntPatsy]

83. Honestly, this issue is hard to debate, one could allow that it is more than true

that even those on government assistance at this very moment are walking the streets with high dollar shoes, handbags and lest we forget, designer labels....then you see them at the grocery store using food cards and with cash buying high dollar makeup and shampoos and such...and of course..sorry to say beer...

Now my point is...who am I to say to them..how dare you buy that stuff when your obviously getting free food from the government....


I don't care honestly...

For myself...I find what your saying to be accurate in that it is obscene to know people are starving and children and adults world wide are dying from lack of proper health care and or the necessary tools to maintain good health....


But in america, I think the problem is we are swamped with shows and commercials about what we are told se should have and or need...like it or not, much of it seeps into our sub conscience and before one knows it, you have to have it regardless of the cost...I watch some shows and I think I can honestly say that Americans in general both rich and poor are pretty materialistic in that many of us never seem to have enough where other countries have no problem with less, not as much as we do..we are used to it..far too many of us..

Do I have designer shoes? No, I am simply not the type of person to care one way or the other about the labels..I personally think such is silly but I DO like quality because as one poster said...if you buy cheap you get cheap and it does not last...I have possessions that I have had forever and are in good condition still...but sometimes I have paid more for some items...

Its a no win situation in this country of ours...it just isnt...not with advertising and the millions of shows that show people with abundance of just about everything...


Now my sisters will only buy designer but shop at retail stores or second hand ones in new york...I don't know....I do believe the very wealthy could do way more than they do and yet they blow on frivolous items more times than naught..but it is not for me to say...they have to live with themselves not I...

Now I have also seen on this site that people making over 200 are wealthy..sorry, not so...I think whether people realize it or not here in this country...jealousy plays a role in how we perceive others shopping habits...simply because like I have stated earlier...you can't ignore the wealth that this country likes to have constantly on display..I am not being rude by any means but I do think sometimes that when people are horrified when they see someone obviously able to just blow money without thought..one wishes they at least had that luxury even if they would not spend in the same way..

JMO, not intending to offend anyone at this time anyway....

[TexasObserver]

86. Recommend

[JackDragna]

88. Here's what makes it tough for me..

Sometimes, something expensive is a piece of frivolous, status-symbol fluff. Other times, when you buy something expensive, you're paying for quality, or spending more to get something made in the States. I've bought plenty of goods, intentionally, from companies I know pay a good wage. I still donate to charitable causes, when I can.

[NeedleCast]

89. I don't have a problem with it. I don't think its unethical

[KamaAina]

92. Couldn't you just kick off the shoes before you wade into the pond?

:shrug:

[Contrary1]

94. It would be for me...but it's not for me to judge those that do purchase such things. n/t

[Odin2005]

98. False dilemma. The sentiment is authoritarian, too.

[Uzybone]

99. How about $1.7 million apartments?

[dysfunctional press]

102. what about buying a computer and internet service...?

i'll spend my money how i see fit- and they can spend their $1/day the way they see fit...win-win for everybody.