[Dave_Rosenthal]

Sure, let's take a rug as an example. I don't think there is one breakpoint. I think there are a set of axis of quality you invest into, roughly sequentially, as you go up the price scale of objects:

- $50 - Something rug-shaped exists

- $100 - Durability

- $200 - Materials

- $500 - Comfort and design

- $1000 - Basic craftsmanship

- $2000 - Refinement of craft

- $5000 - Artistry & identity

- $10000 - Tradition

- $20000 - Mastery

- $50000 - Rarity/historical importance

- $100000+ - ?

Because most people don't cross-shop $20k rugs and $200 rugs, most people are focused on one or two aspects around their personal budget. The essayist mentioned being amazing by the craftsmanship and artistry (see scale above). A broke college student might just want something that holds up in their dorm room and see what materials it's made out of and comfort as meaningless and abstract. And a billionaire shopping for a rug for their office might take everything other than rarity/historical importance as a given and just be thinking about that.

I think there is a large cognitive bias to consider everything you can easily afford "tangible and important improvements" and everything you can't as "abstract"!

[pcrh]

You might need to add a category for rugs that tie the room together. They're worth quite a lot.

[IAmBroom]

Dude, really?