[throwaway287391]

> After all, [engagement rings] only need to last a few months, or maybe 1-2 years, until the wedding.

I think this is the cultural distinction you're missing -- married American women typically wear both their engagement and wedding ring their entire lives, and the engagement ring is usually the more ornate/expensive one (which might be due to the De Beers marketing throughout the 20th century this article discusses).

[AndyJames]

The thing is it's not the culture or tradition of the US. It's just a brilliant ad campaign that lasted way longer than it should.

[thih9]

Perhaps people genuinely enjoy having a lasting memory of an important happy moment.

And obviously this works without diamonds too.

[pilchard123]

At what point does something become part of a tradition or culture? Why does "it started as an ad campaign" preclude something from becoming part of culture?

[dbrgn]

Ah, thanks, that is indeed an aspect I was not aware of. From my point of view, it doesn't change much about the cost-value-ratio though.

[iteratethis]

Yes, and culture is made up and therefore not above criticism.

It's not even culture that somehow organically came from the needs or habits of people. It's literally just a marketing scheme.

[mrweasel]

So the "girl-math" is a $10,000 ring, is actually only 50 cent per day, if you wear it every day for 50 years, hence it's practically free?