Not in itself, no - but for context that's just the subscription fee for a single app ... anyone that's idlely boasting about their lifestyle across several apps and burning N x $12K a year to do so is either rich enough to think nothing of the cost or running a long con.
If you spend $12.000/year purely for personal entertainment then you either have deeply problematic spending habits, are involved in something shady or really are filthy rich.
... What? Spending 250 a week on a less interesting version of Instagram access is wild if you aren't "filthy rich". I'd argue it's wild either way but I'm not your parent.
Criticizing that is normal, your comment is very much not. Are you filthy rich and don't realize it?
But the original post was "personal entertainment". Between eating out and having a couple of beers (both of which are unneeded), it's easy to spend at least $35 a day ($250 a week).
If it was worth it, sure. If has the same content now, definitely not.
This app sounds stupid and I can’t imagine it has better content than Instagram or TikTok.
Country Clubs aren’t worth it just because they are only full of rich people. It collects golf, dining, space, etc. Few people would pay $50k to join a “virtual country club” that solely exists to filter rich people. I mean salespeople and scammers would, but what’s the value to rich people.
Perhaps, but I would suspect a vast majority of Americans would perceive making more than they do in their lifetimes every year as living in a different caste
Yes, of course, but I think their lives are clearly "super" in comparison to the vast majority. I'm coming to understand that my perception of super appears to not be the norm!
That $400 expense thing is a myth stemming from misleading framing (as is typical of most of these catchy doomer statistics). Mostly what it says is that 37% of people prefer to use their credit cards and just pay them off at the end of the cycle. Which makes sense given the enhanced protections credit cards typically have and the cashback, both of which would be significant for a $400 transaction.
Yes, there is another stat about black people in Boston having less than $200 of net worth which the authors of the study deny. I forget the exact stat. Looks like the source I cited that you responded to could be off. But I think the point stands that an incredible majority of Americans can't imagine spending $1000/mo on something frivolous
That number is almost exactly the median amount of money Americans have left over for spending for "personal entertainment" after all ordinary expenses, per the US government. Americans have anomalously high income generally, not just tech workers.
You don't need to be rich to spend this much on something wasteful, though you may need to be American.
I'd hope and expect not but Americans do lots of inadvisable things at scale, so it would not surprise me if there is a small sub-population that would. A "small sub-population" can be a lot of people.
> In 2015, Luxy kicked out 40,000 members for being “too poor, too ugly or both.”
Interesting, it goes against my stereotype: the more wealthy are less likely to discriminate by look (which is associated with low social intelligence).
Maybe the trend reverses when it comes to super-rich? Or maybe it does not even exist?
I think that in general, richer people tend to have better education, therefore also being less likely to discriminate, but if you are super rich (born into a 100-milionare or billionaire) family, you don't need any education and therefore discriminate more.
I don't think education has anything to do with discrimination when it comes to partners, a lot of these rich people have an image to maintain so they probably look for partners who can help maintain this image, this is especially true for the rich people who didn't earn their wealth.
Maybe this is semantic…but I can’t imagine the super wealthy scrolling through James Edition the same way we search on Amazon and then scroll through a bunch of flea market crap and intentionally off-base ads to find what we want. Instead, wouldn’t a super-rich person tell her assistant, “I want a yacht,” and then the assistant would sift through the crap and contact other assistants as a result. And as a result the assistant might tell his boss “well, looks like a good yacht costs $xx million,” and the boss says “oh that’s more than I thought, and then I have to take care of a stupid yacht, forget it, hey book me a luxury cruise, my friend had a good one.”
I’m no billionaire, but the more money I make, the less I’m actually interested in buying consumer goods.
Like, I’ll spend a good chunk of money for a nice vacation or a high end restaurant. I like buying Real Estate or spending on investments. Perhaps I’ll get a boat or a really nice car in a couple years. But then what? You’ve kinda run out of stuff to spend on.
I haven't seen anyone else express this, but you're right. All my money is sitting in the bank or investments, and whenever I go to shops or browse online, I keep thinking "eh, one more thing to take up space". I barely buy anything these days, and ask people to give me cheap, thoughtful gifts instead of spending money I either don't need or think is not worth its money.
I wish I could afford to buy a nice house, though. The prices on those are crazy.
Super rich people have children and their kids don’t have executive assistants.
That and some people like doing their own shopping (at least the looking part) because it’s relaxing. Like when you see Oprah buying diamonds in a store when technically she could just ask for someone to do it for her.
Depends on which 1% we're talking about. I was thinking of the top 1% wealthiest people, which is a very small group. If you are thinking of 1% of the population then that's a bit of a different measure.
in the coastal USA and elsewhere, increasing number of "wealthy people" do not form stable relationships and do not make children. Increasing amounts of legal requirements for anyone physically near them, and 24x7 media contact with other, wealthy people far away.. seem more likely. Not everyone likes this - the "no children" part, so for example on the highway from UC Davis into Sacramento state capital, there is a large color ad for "securing your future" which is apparently, for "wealthy" women to freeze their eggs, since they have no time-partner-place to make children now.
Italy, Japan, some USA and some others are following this new pattern, of high-competition people making a lot of money, but the cost is no family, no children.
I was thinking the exclusive version of Amazon was going to be like Amazon but where you don't need to worry about being sent something counterfeit or wade through a ton of crap! James Edition is much less interesting.
> For $1,000 a month on Rich Kids, you’re guaranteed to only see photos from other wealthy patrons. Similar to the check marks that denote verified Facebook and Twitter accounts, the app’s prohibitive monthly fee ensures that everyone who uses it is certifiably wealthy.
This is such poor people logic. “Spend money on a cheap thing to prove you’re rich. Btw, that’s my business model.”
I think it’s way more likely that it will be people paying a few grand on their credit card to pretend to be rich and/or golddig.
There is a still a threshold. To even be able to spend 'a few grand' on such things means you have at least that much disposable income, which many many people do not. So you may not necessarily be 'rich', but you are most certainly not 'poor'.
People go into debt to rent houses and cars just to post instagram photos.
Id say this proves you have at least credit to charge $1,000 or $12,000 for a year.
If I was rich, I would not value such a service that has such a bullshit filter. Especially one they is so easy to scam.
I expect there are real services that have ways to vet members for actual wealth.
I also expect they have PR firms working to stay out of articles like this. But if you want fake rich or people who want to look rich, then you want this kind of PR.
Sounds like you wouldn't use this service regardless of whether you were rich or just had good credit (and neither would I) but that's not the point I was making. It's that having $12k a year (either debit or credit, it doesn't matter) that you don't need to spend on things like food and rent is still a luxury for a great many people. People who would never be able to use this app no matter how much they wanted to. This fee is therefore an effective barrier to entry for a considerable segment of the population as intended.
There is a bunch of filtered communities for rich/influential people, like yacht clubs, golf clubs, country clubs, wef, etc. Often the main filter is the fact that the communities are not known to others, but of course many have a bunch of filters on top of that. Sometimes that filter is via money, like one cup of tea costing 50€. Sometimes that filter is via something that is distasteful to a large chunk of the population, like say many types of modern art: the fact that many frown at it is often times the point. Sometimes the filter is via requiring specific universities, like various alumni organizations of the ivy league (the main purpose of the ivies is the network, not even the quality of education, as there is many non-ivy schools with similarly good education).
These clubs exist on all sorts of levels of rich people, but the filter does not have to be perfect. All the clients are looking for is a group of people that share relatable stories and problems, and maybe provide business opportunities.
Those filtered communities provide a value though- a marina for your yacht, a good golf course to play on, etc etc.
The issue with this is that they don’t provide any value beyond the filter. So it seems as useful as a yacht club that doesn’t have a marina, it’s just people who claim to have yachts to talk with each other.
56 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadAnyone who bought a new Porsche (and isn’t a professional racing driver using it for work) is probably spending over $12k a year on something for fun.
Criticizing that is normal, your comment is very much not. Are you filthy rich and don't realize it?
This app sounds stupid and I can’t imagine it has better content than Instagram or TikTok.
Country Clubs aren’t worth it just because they are only full of rich people. It collects golf, dining, space, etc. Few people would pay $50k to join a “virtual country club” that solely exists to filter rich people. I mean salespeople and scammers would, but what’s the value to rich people.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed.htm
If you make $1.2m a year, spending $12k on entertainment seems very reasonable. But making $1.2m/y alone doesn't make someone "super wealthy".
https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us/en/reports-research/g...
https://www.cato.org/blog/it-true-40-americans-cant-handle-4...
Reminds me of another similar stat that was doing the rounds recently about automobile loans which had a similar issue.
You don't need to be rich to spend this much on something wasteful, though you may need to be American.
Interesting, it goes against my stereotype: the more wealthy are less likely to discriminate by look (which is associated with low social intelligence).
Maybe the trend reverses when it comes to super-rich? Or maybe it does not even exist?
Like, I’ll spend a good chunk of money for a nice vacation or a high end restaurant. I like buying Real Estate or spending on investments. Perhaps I’ll get a boat or a really nice car in a couple years. But then what? You’ve kinda run out of stuff to spend on.
I wish I could afford to buy a nice house, though. The prices on those are crazy.
That and some people like doing their own shopping (at least the looking part) because it’s relaxing. Like when you see Oprah buying diamonds in a store when technically she could just ask for someone to do it for her.
no, wait, that’s not rich… that’s something else.
Top 5% income is 343k. Which likely in areas they are living don't leave that much room to hire full time personal assistant.
And really in discussion difference between top 1% and top 5% isn't significant.
Italy, Japan, some USA and some others are following this new pattern, of high-competition people making a lot of money, but the cost is no family, no children.
This is such poor people logic. “Spend money on a cheap thing to prove you’re rich. Btw, that’s my business model.”
I think it’s way more likely that it will be people paying a few grand on their credit card to pretend to be rich and/or golddig.
People go into debt to rent houses and cars just to post instagram photos.
Id say this proves you have at least credit to charge $1,000 or $12,000 for a year.
If I was rich, I would not value such a service that has such a bullshit filter. Especially one they is so easy to scam.
I expect there are real services that have ways to vet members for actual wealth.
I also expect they have PR firms working to stay out of articles like this. But if you want fake rich or people who want to look rich, then you want this kind of PR.
I’m not against spending $12k/year on luxury items. But I’m against spending $12k/year on pointless things.
These clubs exist on all sorts of levels of rich people, but the filter does not have to be perfect. All the clients are looking for is a group of people that share relatable stories and problems, and maybe provide business opportunities.
The issue with this is that they don’t provide any value beyond the filter. So it seems as useful as a yacht club that doesn’t have a marina, it’s just people who claim to have yachts to talk with each other.