I’m wondering if you are aware that such alternative symbols already exists in a way? It’s just not numerical, it’s not one number you can show off.
Many people achieve a lot of recognition, fame, power and influence without showing off wealth with things like jewelry, sport cars, yachts, or designer clothes.
For example, from what I’m aware, here in EA circles, almost no one cares about such wealth related signals. I think the people in circles like this would be famous and influential regardless of what kind of clothes they wear or how expensive their watch or car is. They are recognized for their ideas and for their contributions.
Also, stuff like titles, degrees, etc… this already exists. Academia has its own honors and hierarchy, so is the case for clergy, so is the case in politics, so is the case in sport, music, literature, and pretty much any other endeavor...
Now I see where the luxury might play a role: if you want to show that you’re successful, but you’re NOT actually famous or influential. You just made a lot of money and want this to be known. In this case luxury does play a role.
But, for a lot of people some desire for luxury is not to explicitly show off their wealth or success, but because they genuinely believe (which might be a mistaken belief) that more expensive stuff looks better on them or is higher quality, and they can afford it. Probably it’s true up to a certain point. But very soon you hit diminishing returns. The problem is in finding sweet spot.
There is a saying (which I don’t endorse, nor agree with, but maybe there is a grain of truth in it): “I’m not rich enough to buy cheap things”. The logic is if you buy the cheapest things, they will likely be low quality, and will break so often, that you’ll eventually spend more money buying such cheap things again and again, than if you bought an expensive thing once.
In general I disagree with this logic. I think if you buy standard, non-luxury items, you’re getting a very decent product. You don’t need to buy luxury to get quality. Maybe only if you bought cheapest, clearly inferior product, the logic could apply to some extent.
In general, I don’t know what to think about this.
Your idea, if it worked, and if people accepted it, would save a lot of money that’s wastefully spent on luxury. And that would be awesome.
But I have 3 fears:
That it would introduce another kind of race and psychological pressure, where people are chasing a high score.
That it could fail to eradicate luxury spending because some people, when they earn certain amount of money, simply want a yacht, a Ferrari, a Rolex, or whatever, regardless of status signaling.
It could send a message that “status matters” which could exacerbate the whole thing. I mean, we already know status matters to some extent, but existence of such system could give some sort of official endorsement to the idea that “status matters”.
So I’m afraid that in the end we could end up with 2 parallel races: chasing the number, and still chasing standard luxury. What do you think why celebrities buy luxury stuff? They don’t need to prove their success or fame or wealth to anyone. If you’re Taylor Swift whole world knows you and how successful you are. And they still spend on luxury nevertheless.
1. “Alternative symbols already exist—fame, influence, titles” Absolutely right. Titles, academic degress, awards, profesional reputation—these are exactly the beginnigns, manifestations, signs of society moving towards a logical solution: creating a digital expresion of social status. These mechanisms already work (each in its own niche) and only require globalisation or unification Academy, politics, sports, art, tech—each sphere has its own hierarchy based on verifiable achievements. The project offers to generalise and scale this principle.
2. “Luxury is for those with no real fame—only money” This is a precise hit on the projects target audience. For this category—”rich but not famous; sucessful but not influential”—luxury remains the only accesible way to signal. The project offers an alternative: convert capital not into a yacht, but into a verifiable digital index.
But youre right about Taylor Swift. Even the super-rich are subject to the pressure of accepted status standards. Theres an unwritten level of “required” consumption. Only highly intellectually independent people can ignore these rules. The project gives the majority a legit alternative: meet status expectations without burning resources.
3. “Part of purchases is belief in quality” Agreed, this motivation exists. But you partly answered this question yourself in the comment: “Probably its true up to a certain point. But very soon you hit diminishing returns”. Exactly. The project isnt against quality. Its against the status markup—the part of the price not related to function.
Three fears
Fear 1: psychological pressure of the race for a number We experience psychological pressure anyway—regardless of the prize: money, gold, titles, degrees, medals. Pressure is formed not by the prize, but by the principle of life based on struggle. Alas, we are doomed to this pressure. My idea pursues another goal: saving civilization from irrational use of life resources (primarily labor costs—this is the most valuable resource, materials are a thousand times less valuable). Let it convert into digital indexes, not materials and man-hours wasted on an empty symbol.
Fear 2: Wont eradicate luxury You are absolutely right. Especialy at the first stage, a large number of people will do exactly this. There will be a double race. But over time everything will change. Luxury will disappear as a relic of the past. Even today, some people ignore luxury items. Imagine what will happen if we provide people with a legitimate alternative.
Fear 3: legitimizes the idea that “status matters” Status is already legit. The project doesnt create the race, it makes the existing race less wasteful.
Conclusion Your comment is one of the most thoughtful I have received. The main problem of a status symbol is its high price in resources, specifically in man-hours (materials are a thousand times less valuable). My proposal reduces this price to zero.
They have been trying to solve this problem unsuccessfuly for a long time. Traditional measures dont work. The luxury market is only growing: according to Bain & Company, in 2023 it reached €1.5 trillion, and in the long term a growth of 4-6% annually is forcasted. This means the market doubles aproximatly every 12--15 years.
A digital status marker is not just an improvement. This is a fundamentally new solution to an old problem.
Who knows maybe you’re right. I’m not yet convinced it would work or be without side effects, but if people don’t like it, they will probably just ignore it, so probably there isn’t too much risk in trying. For my sensibilities it sounds a bit dystopian honestly, and kind of entrenches fundamental inequality between people in a very explicit way, tied to money.
Having more money doesn’t make someone a better person automatically. I think it’s better to have multiple different types of status, rather than just one generalized score that can ultimately be measured through money.
As I said, there is popularity, credentials, reputation, number of followers, influence, titles, all sorts of status. And I think it makes sense to be this way, because different types of status are not commensurable. They are apples and oranges.
If you have just one generalized number, then a drug lord can have high status due to money and rank higher than a scientist who gets a Nobel prize.
So here’s where it’s going: either you get a system where money can measure your value as human being, or if you avoid it, you get some sort of moral policing or social credit system, where you also take other things into account… which while dystopian, has some merits.
But it is dystopian for a reason, for a big reason: who gets to decide how much certain acts contribute to status? People have fundamentally different moral worldviews. Something that would count a lot in one system of values, might count very little in a different system (or even be considered negative).
IMO, a better way to reduce the consumption of luxury goods is not to validate that they are needed for status signaling and try to replace them with some digital score, but instead to raise the awareness of how wasteful they are and to convince people that they are stupid.
For example a French singer ZAZ has made a song with this message:
Now of course, this is just a song. But some sort of larger anti-luxury campaign might bring some more concrete results. The campaign need not just to be moralizing (while this can be a part of it—Peter Singer did well with moralizing and influenced a lot of people), but in addition to that, it can be plain and simple education. Teaching people that you can buy high quality goods without going bankrupt. Teaching people about diminishing returns once you are above certain price range. (but this could also backfire if companies decide to make products that used to be “standard” inferior—in that case you would also need to boycott companies who do it)
But, in the end, I’m also wondering if eliminating spending on luxury would really be good for the world? I mean, it certainly would, if people donated such money to effective charities instead. But there’s no guarantee they would do it. And then, you also need to consider effects on welfare, economy and environment.
After some discussion with AIs about this, my conclusion is that stopping spending money on luxury could have:
Positive effects on welfare - more utils. (Money redirected to where it can produce more utility)
Probably positive effect on economy—more jobs, more growth, more productivity, but certain industries would suffer. Another thing worthy of considering is that certain luxury industries are on cutting edge of technology, which can spill into mainstream products eventually.
Maybe negative effects on environment and resources. $10,000 spent on a Rolex buys you 100-200 g of stuff, $10,000 spent on something else could buy you hundreds of kilos of stuff.
I was really upset by two phrases in your comment: ”...kind of entrenches fundamental inequality between people in a very explicit way, tied to money” and “Having more money doesn’t make someone a better person automatically...” My idea solves absolutely diffrent problem—this is clearly stated in the article. What does inequality have to do with it? We are talking about rational use of civilizations labor resources. You mentioned you use AI to form your arguments I dont condemn you at all, but I want to note: AI often makes serious mistakes in logical thinking, so its very important to carefully check its responses You write: “If you have just one generalized number then a drug lord can have high status due to money and rank higher than a scientist who gets a Nobel prize.”
My idea doesnt deprive anyone of the ability to have high social status. I don’t fight drug lords I don’t fight inequality, I rationalize the costs of civilization. — let me repeat: my idea aimed at rational use of labor/material resources. If a drug lord instead of buying diamonds directs money to an investment bank (to get digital status) — is that bad? The capital remains his, he gets the income, but resources aren’t burned for an empty symbol. To fight drug lords and inequality, completely different methods are needed. My idea is not aimed at improving bridge construction, post-operative rehabilitation, or pie baking, or anything else. I specifically emphasized this in the article. My idea is an engineering solution to the luxury market and nothing more. Redirecting funds spent on diamonds and yachts into useful channels. That’s all. All other problems must have a different solution.
The paragraph about “either you get a system where money can measure your value as a human being, or if you avoid it, you get some sort of moral policing or social credit system, where you also take other things into account...… which while dystopian, has some merits” shows that my idea was completely misunderstood.The project is voluntary doesnt impose a unified scale of human value, doesnt ban luxury. It simply offers an alternative.
And again, a call for education… This has been done for decades, but the luxury market grows every year (1.5 trillion annually, doubles every 12- 15 years). Do you want to keep doing this? Education doesn’t work!! We need an engineering mechanism, not moral appeals.
This argument seems incredibly odd: ”Maybe negative effects on environment and resources. $10,000 spent on a Rolex buys you 100-200 g of stuff, $10,000 spent on something else could buy you hundreds of kilos of stuff.” Wait—that’s exactly what I’m saying! Luxury = burning up enormous resources for tiny physical objects. If people spent the same money on things with greater material value (food, housing, infrastructure), those resources would be spent more rationally. You want to save the environment by using human labor irrationally? In other words, spending money (burning money) on useless things saves the environment? sorry but this is very strange concern and argument.
I’m wondering if you are aware that such alternative symbols already exists in a way? It’s just not numerical, it’s not one number you can show off.
Many people achieve a lot of recognition, fame, power and influence without showing off wealth with things like jewelry, sport cars, yachts, or designer clothes.
For example, from what I’m aware, here in EA circles, almost no one cares about such wealth related signals. I think the people in circles like this would be famous and influential regardless of what kind of clothes they wear or how expensive their watch or car is. They are recognized for their ideas and for their contributions.
Also, stuff like titles, degrees, etc… this already exists. Academia has its own honors and hierarchy, so is the case for clergy, so is the case in politics, so is the case in sport, music, literature, and pretty much any other endeavor...
Now I see where the luxury might play a role: if you want to show that you’re successful, but you’re NOT actually famous or influential. You just made a lot of money and want this to be known. In this case luxury does play a role.
But, for a lot of people some desire for luxury is not to explicitly show off their wealth or success, but because they genuinely believe (which might be a mistaken belief) that more expensive stuff looks better on them or is higher quality, and they can afford it. Probably it’s true up to a certain point. But very soon you hit diminishing returns. The problem is in finding sweet spot.
There is a saying (which I don’t endorse, nor agree with, but maybe there is a grain of truth in it): “I’m not rich enough to buy cheap things”. The logic is if you buy the cheapest things, they will likely be low quality, and will break so often, that you’ll eventually spend more money buying such cheap things again and again, than if you bought an expensive thing once.
In general I disagree with this logic. I think if you buy standard, non-luxury items, you’re getting a very decent product. You don’t need to buy luxury to get quality. Maybe only if you bought cheapest, clearly inferior product, the logic could apply to some extent.
In general, I don’t know what to think about this.
Your idea, if it worked, and if people accepted it, would save a lot of money that’s wastefully spent on luxury. And that would be awesome.
But I have 3 fears:
That it would introduce another kind of race and psychological pressure, where people are chasing a high score.
That it could fail to eradicate luxury spending because some people, when they earn certain amount of money, simply want a yacht, a Ferrari, a Rolex, or whatever, regardless of status signaling.
It could send a message that “status matters” which could exacerbate the whole thing. I mean, we already know status matters to some extent, but existence of such system could give some sort of official endorsement to the idea that “status matters”.
So I’m afraid that in the end we could end up with 2 parallel races: chasing the number, and still chasing standard luxury. What do you think why celebrities buy luxury stuff? They don’t need to prove their success or fame or wealth to anyone. If you’re Taylor Swift whole world knows you and how successful you are. And they still spend on luxury nevertheless.
1. “Alternative symbols already exist—fame, influence, titles” Absolutely right. Titles, academic degress, awards, profesional reputation—these are exactly the beginnigns, manifestations, signs of society moving towards a logical solution: creating a digital expresion of social status. These mechanisms already work (each in its own niche) and only require globalisation or unification Academy, politics, sports, art, tech—each sphere has its own hierarchy based on verifiable achievements. The project offers to generalise and scale this principle.
2. “Luxury is for those with no real fame—only money” This is a precise hit on the projects target audience. For this category—”rich but not famous; sucessful but not influential”—luxury remains the only accesible way to signal. The project offers an alternative: convert capital not into a yacht, but into a verifiable digital index.
But youre right about Taylor Swift. Even the super-rich are subject to the pressure of accepted status standards. Theres an unwritten level of “required” consumption. Only highly intellectually independent people can ignore these rules. The project gives the majority a legit alternative: meet status expectations without burning resources.
3. “Part of purchases is belief in quality” Agreed, this motivation exists. But you partly answered this question yourself in the comment: “Probably its true up to a certain point. But very soon you hit diminishing returns”. Exactly. The project isnt against quality. Its against the status markup—the part of the price not related to function.
Three fears
Fear 1: psychological pressure of the race for a number We experience psychological pressure anyway—regardless of the prize: money, gold, titles, degrees, medals. Pressure is formed not by the prize, but by the principle of life based on struggle. Alas, we are doomed to this pressure. My idea pursues another goal: saving civilization from irrational use of life resources (primarily labor costs—this is the most valuable resource, materials are a thousand times less valuable). Let it convert into digital indexes, not materials and man-hours wasted on an empty symbol.
Fear 2: Wont eradicate luxury You are absolutely right. Especialy at the first stage, a large number of people will do exactly this. There will be a double race. But over time everything will change. Luxury will disappear as a relic of the past. Even today, some people ignore luxury items. Imagine what will happen if we provide people with a legitimate alternative.
Fear 3: legitimizes the idea that “status matters” Status is already legit. The project doesnt create the race, it makes the existing race less wasteful.
Conclusion Your comment is one of the most thoughtful I have received. The main problem of a status symbol is its high price in resources, specifically in man-hours (materials are a thousand times less valuable). My proposal reduces this price to zero.
They have been trying to solve this problem unsuccessfuly for a long time. Traditional measures dont work. The luxury market is only growing: according to Bain & Company, in 2023 it reached €1.5 trillion, and in the long term a growth of 4-6% annually is forcasted. This means the market doubles aproximatly every 12--15 years.
A digital status marker is not just an improvement. This is a fundamentally new solution to an old problem.
Who knows maybe you’re right. I’m not yet convinced it would work or be without side effects, but if people don’t like it, they will probably just ignore it, so probably there isn’t too much risk in trying. For my sensibilities it sounds a bit dystopian honestly, and kind of entrenches fundamental inequality between people in a very explicit way, tied to money.
Having more money doesn’t make someone a better person automatically. I think it’s better to have multiple different types of status, rather than just one generalized score that can ultimately be measured through money.
As I said, there is popularity, credentials, reputation, number of followers, influence, titles, all sorts of status. And I think it makes sense to be this way, because different types of status are not commensurable. They are apples and oranges.
If you have just one generalized number, then a drug lord can have high status due to money and rank higher than a scientist who gets a Nobel prize.
So here’s where it’s going: either you get a system where money can measure your value as human being, or if you avoid it, you get some sort of moral policing or social credit system, where you also take other things into account… which while dystopian, has some merits.
But it is dystopian for a reason, for a big reason: who gets to decide how much certain acts contribute to status? People have fundamentally different moral worldviews. Something that would count a lot in one system of values, might count very little in a different system (or even be considered negative).
IMO, a better way to reduce the consumption of luxury goods is not to validate that they are needed for status signaling and try to replace them with some digital score, but instead to raise the awareness of how wasteful they are and to convince people that they are stupid.
For example a French singer ZAZ has made a song with this message:
https://genius.com/Genius-english-translations-zaz-je-veux-english-translation-lyrics
Now of course, this is just a song. But some sort of larger anti-luxury campaign might bring some more concrete results. The campaign need not just to be moralizing (while this can be a part of it—Peter Singer did well with moralizing and influenced a lot of people), but in addition to that, it can be plain and simple education. Teaching people that you can buy high quality goods without going bankrupt. Teaching people about diminishing returns once you are above certain price range. (but this could also backfire if companies decide to make products that used to be “standard” inferior—in that case you would also need to boycott companies who do it)
But, in the end, I’m also wondering if eliminating spending on luxury would really be good for the world? I mean, it certainly would, if people donated such money to effective charities instead. But there’s no guarantee they would do it. And then, you also need to consider effects on welfare, economy and environment.
After some discussion with AIs about this, my conclusion is that stopping spending money on luxury could have:
Positive effects on welfare - more utils. (Money redirected to where it can produce more utility)
Probably positive effect on economy—more jobs, more growth, more productivity, but certain industries would suffer. Another thing worthy of considering is that certain luxury industries are on cutting edge of technology, which can spill into mainstream products eventually.
Maybe negative effects on environment and resources. $10,000 spent on a Rolex buys you 100-200 g of stuff, $10,000 spent on something else could buy you hundreds of kilos of stuff.
I was really upset by two phrases in your comment:
”...kind of entrenches fundamental inequality between people in a very explicit way, tied to money” and “Having more money doesn’t make someone a better person automatically...”
My idea solves absolutely diffrent problem—this is clearly stated in the article. What does inequality have to do with it? We are talking about rational use of civilizations labor resources.
You mentioned you use AI to form your arguments I dont condemn you at all, but I want to note: AI often makes serious mistakes in logical thinking, so its very important to carefully check its responses
You write: “If you have just one generalized number then a drug lord can have high status due to money and rank higher than a scientist who gets a Nobel prize.”
My idea doesnt deprive anyone of the ability to have high social status. I don’t fight drug lords I don’t fight inequality, I rationalize the costs of civilization. — let me repeat: my idea aimed at rational use of labor/material resources. If a drug lord instead of buying diamonds directs money to an investment bank (to get digital status) — is that bad? The capital remains his, he gets the income, but resources aren’t burned for an empty symbol. To fight drug lords and inequality, completely different methods are needed. My idea is not aimed at improving bridge construction, post-operative rehabilitation, or pie baking, or anything else. I specifically emphasized this in the article. My idea is an engineering solution to the luxury market and nothing more. Redirecting funds spent on diamonds and yachts into useful channels. That’s all. All other problems must have a different solution.
The paragraph about “either you get a system where money can measure your value as a human being, or if you avoid it, you get some sort of moral policing or social credit system, where you also take other things into account...… which while dystopian, has some merits” shows that my idea was completely misunderstood.The project is voluntary doesnt impose a unified scale of human value, doesnt ban luxury. It simply offers an alternative.
And again, a call for education… This has been done for decades, but the luxury market grows every year (1.5 trillion annually, doubles every 12- 15 years). Do you want to keep doing this?
Education doesn’t work!! We need an engineering mechanism, not moral appeals.
This argument seems incredibly odd:
”Maybe negative effects on environment and resources. $10,000 spent on a Rolex buys you 100-200 g of stuff, $10,000 spent on something else could buy you hundreds of kilos of stuff.”
Wait—that’s exactly what I’m saying! Luxury = burning up enormous resources for tiny physical objects. If people spent the same money on things with greater material value (food, housing, infrastructure), those resources would be spent more rationally.
You want to save the environment by using human labor irrationally? In other words, spending money (burning money) on useless things saves the environment? sorry but this is very strange concern and argument.