[AndrewKemendo]

This argument is ridiculous. Otherwise there would be no such thing as luxury goods.

[eridius]

What does luxury goods have to do with anything? A luxury good isn't a regular good that's simply been marked up 10x.

[AndrewKemendo]

That's very nearly the definition of luxury goods, given changes to elasticity with income, with it being explicitly so for veblen goods.

[eridius]

You can't just take any product, mark it up 10x, and call it a luxury good. People would laugh at you and buy the regular one. A luxury good has to have some reason to justify its luxury status.

In this particular case, the $60 NES Classic is already a luxury good. Marking it up 10x doesn't make it more of a luxury good, it just either means people who actually want to use the damn thing can't afford to, or must pay exorbitant prices.

[jonknee]

http://www.barneys.com/product/golden-goose-distressed-super...

You would be surprised.

[andrewem]

Or to take another example, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkin_bag

Edit: here's the Planet Money podcast episode I heard about them on: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/12/25/460870534/episo...

[ctdonath]

Sometimes "luxury" is being the first to have something. Some find it worth $540 to have one of the first.

[nommm-nommm]

Um isn't that exactly what designer purses and clothes are? A $300 pair of jeans doesn't cost 100x more to make than a $30 pair of jeans.

[eridius]

A $300 pair of jeans also isn't indistinguishable from a $30 pair. And you're talking fashion here, where the value is derived from the associated brand. That's not at all the case with people buying up a $60 item and reselling it for $600. They are providing literally no value at all to the buyer.