This piece hinges on the premise that "not filthy rich" is the same as "poor", and goes on a tirade from there. Is it really that controversial to state that you shouldn't buy what you can't afford?
But these people can't really afford these clothes.
Note that buying $2500 clothes does not necessarily mean that one has $2500 in the bank: they can be bought using credit or as part of a set of large expenditures thanks to a paycheck. The system of credit in the US does allow people to live above their means -- for a while.
In communities where status symbols like this are really important, people often put themselves in significant financial jeopardy to buy such items, even when they cannot really afford them.
I've skimmed through it after the blatant straw man in the first paragraph, which prompted me to post. I might read it later if the resulting discussion on HN is interesting :-)
edit: downvote away, but I doubt I'm alone in feeling turned off by this kind of clickbaity behavior
The article had nothing to do with what you're claiming it "hinges" on. It was a meditation on status symbols, and an interesting one. Why not just read it and comment, or don't and don't?
[premise] society loves to hate on poor people and considers them stupid for buying luxury
[tweet that states nothing of the sort, not even remotely]
[thesis]
so, given that I've never heard of this trope myself (perhaps it's a bit of a US thing?) I felt turned off and commented on that, nothing less, nothing more.
I read this article years ago, and it's worth re-reading... ergo, not clickbait.
The author talks about how it __appears__ wasteful to buy expensive clothes when you're poor, but it's all about __signalling__ to others that you're someone that should not be ignored. It profoundly changed the way I thought about the "people buying expensive things they can't afford" idea when I read it.
At the risk of quoting too much, this is the part that really was memorable for me, and is worth reading more than once in the original article:
I remember my mother taking a next door neighbor down to the
social service agency. The elderly woman had been denied benefits ....
The woman had been denied in the genteel bureaucratic way — lots
of waiting, forms, and deadlines she could not quite navigate.
I watched my mother put on her best ... outfit.
It took half a day but ... my mother’s performance ... got done
what the elderly lady next door had not been able to get done
in over a year. I learned, watching my mother, that ...
we had to pay to signal to gatekeepers that we were worthy of engaging.
It meant dressing well and speaking well. It might not work.
It likely wouldn't work but on the off chance that it would, you had to try.
Sure, there are stupid people that buy things they don't need. However, sometimes the things we think of as "luxury" are necessary for Getting Things Done. Hell, this is the reason I have a suit in my closet that I've worn rarely (job interviews). Expensive accessories and a Nice Outfit can help people ensure that they aren't discriminated against for being "low-class".
I totally agree: if you can't afford it, don't buy it. But I also understand the argument in the article that unnecessary luxury items CAN be unlock certain doors in life. However, i have the feeling that most people do these irrational purchases only for the purpose of showing off.