This article shows the frivolous spending that the members of the richest class in the United States partake in specifically during the holidays. For the upper class nothing is too big, expensive, or flashy. Ginger Reeder, specifically picks out items that the general public has no or very limited access too. Ms. Reeder’s job creates more division between the classes. As mentioned in our class the upper classes are set on protecting their interests and reputations, which cause them to continually seek ways to stand apart from the lower classes, further creating a hierarchal class system. It is impossible to keep up with these wealthy people, although many companies adapt these outrageous gifts and sell them at a smaller scale to the lower classes. The Economist states that many once considered luxurious brands are now ubiquitous especially now amongst the lower classes in an attempt to blend in with the wealthy. People celebrate holidays such as Christmas differently, but holidays often show both extreme wealth and extreme poverty. Many people cannot afford even small gifts for their children during the holidays and then this article highlights how some people cannot find enough ways to spend their money.
After reading this article I find it a bit disturbing how expensive these items are. Although the members of this class have the right and the means to afford such items, it only creates a larger gap between the classes. It is also very sad and unfortunate to think that there are people in this world starving while others cannot find ways to spend their money as Alexis stated in the previous post. Even as mentioned in the article, Neiman Marcus present these items in their catalogs for the purpose of giving the members of the upper class reasons to spend a substantial amount of money.
After looking at the comments on The Economists' article I couldn't help but agree with one commentator who said "what is point of this article?". While I agree that there is not clear cut point to this article, it offers a lot of insight to the upper class in ways that many people cannot imagine. Prior to reading it, I never thought about what the wealthy did for Christmas. While "Hold The Myhrr: offers an exaggerated view of the upper class, it still offers a unique prospective. Many television shows and magazines offer a glamorized view into the lives of the rich and famous. This article offered the same view while also allowing the audience to visualize themselves in the wealthy positions. While reading it I kept thinking about how uncomfortable I would be if someone gave me one of the gifts. I wouldn't know what to do. Yet there are some people who would see this as a standard gift. There are many articles and documentary's about the lower class and how they go through life day by day. But rarely do we see how the rich spend their money in this capacity.
This article was quite disturbing because all I could think about was the poor people all across this nation who are starving and yet here we have rich people who's biggest dilemma is what item to spend millions of dollars on. Although the rich do have the right to spend their money on whatever they please, it's not fair to the rest of us. Their spending on this luxurious and fancy items make the gap between the lower and the upper class much wider. It doesn't matter how rich you are, you should always be realistic with the rest of the world. The economist states that brands that were once so treasures are now " ubiquitous" and so the rich turn other, more expensive brands. When in reality, the poor would do anything to be given these luxurious opportunities so how about the rich invest their money in more important things like helping the poor through charities or such. Then after knowing their money has gone to good causes, spend it how they please. It's simply not fair and they should be given a reality check
This catalogue is the perfect example of "conspicuous consumption." There is no real reason to purchase many of these items except to prove that an obscenely rich person can. Why else would someone outside of the wide expanse of deserts need a camel? I think that for the most part, none of us are surprised that the "haves" would spend money on what we consider to be frivolous items. If I had the opportunity to even consider flying to France for my own custom fragrance, I can't honestly say that I would deny myself that luxury. I don't really fault the people who can and do purchase these extravagant items because we are all guilty of dropping a couple of dollars on stuff that other people would consider frivolous. Those lucky ones who can afford a personal mardi gras float just purchase on a much grander scale.
As I was reading this article I could not help but think of how it just exemplifies the rich and people who have so much money they don't know what to do with it. For example, attending the Vanity Fair Oscar party of flying to Paris for someone to create a personal scent for you are only things that the extremely wealthy would do. These are people who I would consider 1% of the 1%. I'm sure some of the items in the catalog are nice and would be of some use, unlike the last one the writer talks about which is a 'his and her' mummy caskets.
I have mixed emotions about this disturbing article. On one hand, I am disgusted that Neiman Marcus has changed the idea of Christmas and the season of giving into a contest on who can “empty even the fattest wallet.” On the other hand, I am a business major and Nordstrom employee so I cannot help but notice that Neiman Marcus is targeting their consumer demographic beautifully and uniquely setting themselves apart from other stores. The gifts are certainly extravagant but they are supposed to be, Neiman Marcus clearly wanted to stand out and offer gifts that no other store offers and blows peoples’ minds. If those with fat wallets want to waste their money, who are we to judge? Maybe they are just as charitable as they are wasteful.
In reading this I wasn't too surprised in how Neiman Marcus attracts its patrons with extraordinarily extravagant luxuries, but at the same time I wondered how profitable is their Christmas Catalogue. Do the 'haves' really spend their money on stuff like this -what does anyone need with 'his and her' mummy caskets or a spitting camel?- and what does Neiman Marcus do with all of that money other than further stuff their wallets? This article just goes to show us the clear distinction within identity and class; whereas a rich person's clear interest and excitement about one or more of these luxuries is apparent to them and those of their shared class is in contrast to my shocked exasperation of the catalog that is well beyond my means or economic comprehension.
This content of this article is absolutely ridiculous. I can not believe that individuals have that much money to nonchalantly buy these items. Their spending power transcends what the "average joe" wants: a sports car or a mansion perhaps. There is nothing left to buy but they still have the need to flaunt their wealth. That's why they get to the point where they crave unique experiences and goods that no one else can possibly buy. If you get to the point where you are spending $475,000 on a scent, then you have an excess amount of money. Your life must be super boring if you decide to spend that much on a bottle filled with liquid. Maybe there is a cut off point as to how much money a person needs psychologically. If there is a part of the brain that deals with craving money, then that part has definitely been sated. Money may not be valuable to them anymore, but its still valuable to other people. They should meditate on this fact.
What I want to understand is what have they done to get to be that wealthy? I can't get over how ridiculous it is.
I experienced very mixed emotions while reading this article. I couldn't help but smile picturing myself indulging in these luxuries and experiencing having my own perfume designed just for me. However, one I saw that someone spent $35m on a Christmas present I began to feel a little disturbed. $35m could do so much for a charity or to help somebody in need and the fact that all of that money was spend simply for pleasure is kind of sick. While, it is disturbing, I do understand why the rich and famous would spend money like this for Christmas time. They want to put a smile on their loved ones faces and what better way then to give them a great time. They have the money and want to use it. Who's to say that the other 364 days of the year they dont dante their money or work towards a greater cause. While it is sick and grotesque, I do understand where they are coming from by posting a Christmas catalogue. I am vey torn about how I feel about the Neiman Marcus catalogue.
Many of these items are very frivolous and pointless but these are the kind of things that people who have more money than they know what to do with buy. When you have the kind of money that you can spend 5, 6, 7 figures on a whim, things like this seem less ridiculous to you than someone in a different socio-economic bracket. To the average reader this gifts are astonishing but to the elite rich it is not the same. Yes these items are overpriced and yes these are exorbitant amounts of money to spend on a gift, however to this demographic it sells and it is not as ridiculous from a social standpoint. It is just a matter of perspective based on social and economic divides.
As society has advanced into this day and age, we have become fed up with normal gifts. No, money, clothes, and vacations just won’t cut it anymore. We need to purchase “experiences” for our loved ones, otherwise they might not love us just as much. Beyond this sarcasm, I think this is absurd. The point is not to sell many (if any) of these experiences, but to put on display just how wealthy people can be. There are people who struggle to purchase gifts for people because they simply do not have the funds to do so. While many people may not have the funds to purchase anything out of this catalogue, it’s a bit of a spit in the face to hard-working people who despite all of their hard work, struggle to make ends meet.
After reading this article, I felt somewhat bothered by how people would think that these gifts are appropriate. The Neiman and Marcus catalogues seem to want to flaunt how expensive and exclusive they are to the rest of society who can not afford these items. I do also agree that how the wealthy spend their money is absurd. Although they do have the right to spend their money on anything they desire, it is still ridiculous to be spending money on something useless to just flaunt wealth. I completely agree with Matthew on the point that people are struggling to purchase gifts. I believe that people who are struggling to even purchase the simplest of items should not have to have these catalogues constantly in their faces as they go shopping.
I think this article was meant to be humorous so I didn't read into the underlying message as much. I find it funny that there is an article like this because it shows how ridiculous it sounds for someone to complain about having too much money to spend on Christmas. While this may be a problem for the 1% I think the rest of us are stuck in the other boat of not having enough money to spend on Christmas. The first sentence is "NOT everyone finds Christmas easy." So it was a surprise when I kept reading and saw that it was about having too much money to spend. I think that instead of trying to worry about what to spend alot of money on, these people should consider donating to those who don't have enough money to buy their kids presents. Or donating to a charity, shelter, etc.
The article The Neiman Marcus Catalogue: Hold the Myrrh, is kind of humorous but also alarming that people with money, spend it so frivolously and for the silliest of things. It is really disappointing to know that people will get so distraught over what to buy with their money because they have hoarded so much of it. I mean would it kill you to invest some that money back into your fellow people? And what would be a better Christmas gift to yourself and others than donating that money to various charities who could put it to better use? It's good to spend what you've earned but there is a fine line between that and hoarding money to the point where you don't know what to spend it on. That's absolutely absurd. And in giving the money to charity or investing in people, businesses, and in bettering the world, you allow money to circulate back into the economy and into more pockets. It is again, alarming and disgusting that people do act in such a manner.
This article is quite alarming. The things included on the list are more than most people yearly paychecks. I believe that we need to change our outlook within society. It is no problem to have money though. I think this article is useless and many people just want to know for entertainment purposes.
This article makes me think whether or not society should allow the purchase of such high luxury goods. Could the money be better used going elsewhere? In the end, the debate will not be focussed on whether society will limit the super-rich from purchasing these goods. The federal government simply cannot do that. Having said that, extraneous income can definitely go to better projects. Some example are: hiring more workers, addressing hunger and poverty issues, environmental projects, etc.
I see the magazine working in a different way such as a tool of advertisement. When the everyday shopper sees items that are far out of the reach of an average American it makes lower items seem more affordable. For an example 475,000 dollar perfume is expensive for most people’s price range, but now that you see a 130 dollar bottle of perfume it looks more affordable. It makes you think you can afford items that you really can’t. -Joshua Zidek
I find the fact that catalog exists pretty ridiculous. I suppose if one does indeed have millions of dollars then spending something like 50 thousand would be no big deal from a financial stand point. However, considering many people make that much or less in a year is fairly disturbing to use on things as ridiculous as these. It really is just a crazy way to flaunt your money to those who do not have as much. What I find really disturbing about it is the company is taking advantage of the fact that is Christmas in order to tell the rich people "come on treat yourself, it's Christmas" despite the fact that if you can actually afford any of the things in the catalog then in all likelihood you have been treating yourself all year anyway.
I think that its a lot easier to complain about the rich and overspending when the numbers are as extreme as 35 million. While I personally would choose to devout more of my money to charity if I was that rich, most of the readers of this article aren't struggling from extreme poverty. How can we criticize people for how they spend their wealth when the majority of us spend our extra money on clothes or other things that are also wants, not needs. We mock and laugh at these people for what we see as spending a "ridiculous" amount of money on things that seem trivial to us, but there could be someone struggling to put food on the table who looks at someone spending a couple hundred dollars on an Iphone, or a couple thousand on a laptop and thinks that is ridiculous. I'm not saying I fully agree with Neiman Marcus's extravagance , but I do think we are quick to attack people that we don't know when we see them as so different from us. However, maybe we should spend more energy focusing on the personal changes that we can make and the things that we value as a society that would cause people to spend their money frivolously and not on a charitable cause. - Ana Kyriakos
I find absolutely nothing wrong with having luxuries, and I do not think the Neiman Marcus catalogue has anything to do with inequality at all. It might be a by-product of inequality, but there is nothing wrong with it is except the sheer excessiveness/ornateness of it all. Some people can afford the nicer things in life, and others can't. It's a shame that we all cannot, but we do not live in a perfect world. Maybe those people who can afford those incredibly grandiose products worked hard to be able to do so. It is biased to believe that those that can afford these products were grandfathered into their money. I do not think this article has any place in this blog.
Although this Neiman Marcus catalogue may be over the top when it comes to gifts, I do not think that the magazine represents inequality. The catalogue can be seen as more of a novelty to display the fact that there are rich clientele that are willing to buy these absurdly expensive items. The buyers in these magazines are most definitely included in the 1% of the richest Americans. Although those who buy from this catalogue are unequal in wealth distribution in relation to the rest of the United States, this magazine does not cause wealth inequality. If the rich want to buy insanely expensive things, they have every right to do so. Most of the people that buy from the magazine probably worked hard to earn the money that they use to afford these goods.
I personally do not find anything wrong with this article or catalogue. If people have earned money they deserve the right to spend it however they want. For someone without a dollar to their name sees a JC Penny catalogue or one from Macy's would be just as wowed by the relative extremely high prices. The problem I do see, however, is that only about 1% of americans can afford gifts this expensive, that is the problem. Those who have money deserve to spend it however the please, the problem is not enough people do have money.
I'm really curious at what kind of profit the catalog brings to the department store. I'm sure the take away from the sale from just a few super expensive items could completely cover the cost of the catalog. What an easy way to make a profit.
This is an interesting article to me because we do live in a society where all people enjoy the finer things in life. Who wouldn’t want to walk around wearing thousand dollars handbag or designer clothing. But I do feel that it is crazy how much people are willing to send on materialist things. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with sending so much money on superficial things when you have the money, I would do the same thing. I feel that a lot of working class people think it’s absurd to spend what may be their month salary on a let’s say a pair a shades. But it only seems that way because they don’t have the same luxury or they would think otherwise. However, the article mention about a person spending a large chunk of money for a Christmas gift. I feel that when it comes to gifts it shouldn’t matter the price it is but the thought behind it that matters. But the twisted reality of it is that price does matter because it is basically another way of using it as a means of leverage to the person you’re giving the gift to.
It just blows my mind away on the things they spend on. I really wonder, how much these expensive items get used in reality. For example, the 20 million dollar submarine, how often did the person who bought this use the submarine?? It is just so disturbing! But then I think about how might the poorest people in poorer nations can look at the working class of America. For example, I have some clothes that I have bought and wore maybe once or twice. Or my stupid prom dress that cost hundreds of dollars and i wore ONCE. This article made me look at the richest class of America in disgust but it also made me reflect on myself.
This article gave me a knot in my stomach. It is hard to understand because some of the wealthiest people in our country (the people that purchase and own these items) are some of those who argue against welfare and raising the minimum wage. These people quite literally have more money than they know what to do with while others are working multiple jobs and struggle to feed their families. This also is a prime example of how decreasing taxes for the rich is not at al "job creating" or "motivating them to hire more people." Trickle down economics is a joke because when people like this get a little extra money, they spend it... on things like quad skis.
I agree that the items in this Neiman Marcus catalogue are ridiculous but I do not believe all of your assumptions. First of all, you do not know that the same people purchasing these ridiculous items are the ones arguing against welfare and raising the minimum wage. Secondly, the people working multiple jobs could very well be working at Neiman Marcus and earning a HUGE commission thanks to those crazy items that wealthy individuals are choosing to purchase! I used to work at Nordstrom and I LOVED when wealthy people wasted their money and gave me commissions, those commissions helped me pay rent! Thanks to the wealthy individuals wasting their money, Neiman Marcus employees and all of the other people involved in these crazy products (marketers, advertisers, product designers, suppliers, ect.) can feed their families. -Lindsey Stalnaker
I honestly do not think Neiman Marcus attempting to create any inequality. I simply think they know their target market. It is a retail shop for high end goods, these are the people who already shop there. For me I see it as more of relation buying, these people can afford these things. I do not think people not spending their money on what they want is the issue. There are much better factors at play than this.
I completely agree with you! I do not understand why people are making this big of a deal about a Neiman Marcus Catalogue. Yes, I believe that the catalogue has some crazy ridiculous items but if people can afford said items and want to buy them; then Neiman Marcus is doing their job and providing them with the opportunity to do so. Props to Neiman Marcus for finding their niche! -Lindsey Stalnaker
The article points out just how reckless the rich can be with their money. There’s no point in condemning them for spending money that they have earned. We should instead be looking into the outrageous bonuses and salaries that they probably receive.
It's crazy to think that some members of society can afford to spend $475,000 to go to a PARTY, while many members cannot afford to go to the GROCERY store. This article highlights how remarkably unequal the distribution of wealth is in the USA
I agree with your sentiments. The fact that certain members of our society have such a large amount of capital and cash available to them that they barely have a clue what to do with it, or they spend it on reckless abandon, while at the other societal spectrum there are countless individuals struggling every week to make ends meet, or every day to out food on their tables, highlights the grossly unequal wealth distribution in America, and also highlights how deeply ingrained the systems that provide such scale-tipping advantages is. The fact that mobility is far from easy to achieve for all groups is a testament to the systemic inequality in America.
I didn’t quite understand the point of this article other than to showcase some of the most outrageously extravagant things that money can buy in a free-market economy. Even though the author does not directly mention the absurdity of most of the items listed in the catalogue I think that it is implied in the somewhat sarcastic tone of the writing. I don’t really see the argument that this catalogue is in anyway an indication of rising income inequality. It definitely highlights existing income inequality, but this type thing has been going on forever. A small group of wealthy people have always found a way to throw away large sums of money on the most exclusive and extravagant things imaginable. The only difference with the catalogue is that they have already done everything for you and they have tried to make those experiences one of a kind and made to order. According to the article the catalogue has been around since 1971. There have always been rich people, and there have always been stupid people. They are not in any way inherently connected. I think that the majority of people that could afford the items in the catalogue would never consider buying anything from it. They would most likely read through it with the same mild curiosity that the average person would. The other thing that I would caution to keep in mind is that most of the items in the catalogue are a one-time unique experience or rare thing. The people selling the catalogue do not need a wide base of customers to turn a profit. All they need to do is find a few individuals with the money but not the brains and convince them that the items in the catalogue are worth the lofty price tags. I think it is a brilliant idea on their part. If the people that buy these items from the catalogue wish to spend their money in that way then that is their prerogative.
It's kind of sad to think that some people have so much money that they don't know what to do with it. There is so much out there that they could do with the money spent on this catalog that would benefit our, country and economy and even the world we live on. I'm not one to tell people how to spend their money, but I do think that this is absurd and one of many things that shows the problems with distribution of wealth in our world.
This article is another shining example of the result of frivolous spending and waste as the hands of the wealthy class within America. Most, if not all these items, have no practicality or purposeful function, whatsoever, if only to show the magnitude of how much of our countries money has been hemorrhaging on such frivolous purchases. Like, seriously, who the hell needs a submarine?
It is a little bit scary to me to think that some people have so much money that they do not have anything to do with it. There are so many things that people could do with money that would benefit our society and economy. The distribution of wealth in our world is one of the biggest issues we have today and this article just goes to show how much it affects our world.
This article highlights very well how the richer members of society have a different thought process as it comes to money and the value of it. Majority of the population are working with far less than these people, some get along fine, and some are struggling constantly to keep up with the cost of living. People with great fortunes definitely have a right to do as they wish with their money, but some instances just seem callous. Most of the rich come from a lineage of wealth, it should not be too alarming that at this point, a great number of them don't see the worth of what they have due to it's ever present abundance. - Maulford Smith
While it's insane that some people would be able to buy these things while others don't have food to eat, it's not fair to point blame at the wealthy or at Neiman Marcus for the catalogue. While the income gap is definitely a serious cause for concern, people should be free to spend their money as they please. It would be awesome if they would donate it to helpful causes, but they have no obligation to do so. Rather than criticizing the company we should focus on creating policies or advocating for greater equality of opportunity in society.
I could not decide if I was more disturbed by the contents of the article or by the frivolous tone (hopefully satirical) it was written. When looking at some of the prices of these "fantasy items" I could not help, but think how many of these costs could help a family of four survive for a year. While I understand much of the philanthropy in this country is given by those who are wealthy, which is a more complicated issue than I have time to write about, the utilitarian in me asks what is the point of a sarcophagus (even more disturbingly with mummy) other than to boast that you have so much money that you have no idea what to spend it on. I just cannot help, but think that many of these people are out of touch with reality. Perhaps some of these fantasy items could be "50,000 dollars to sponsor a poor family for a year" or "300,000 dollars to buy a home for a family who was just evicted". -Samantha McKnew
The Neiman Marcus catalog and other things like it are representations of what is wrong with society. While I do not blame people with the kind of money to buy these things for wanting to indulge, I do believe there are better things to be done with that money and energy. As I aspire to be able to support myself and my family financially, I've never dreamt of buying "the unnecessary", my dreams include a house and car for myself and one for my mother. I never really saw myself buying or needing "Quadskis" for $50,000. I will say I believe it has to do with the need and want phenomenon. As a poor person you only have time and money for the things you need, and there is rarely anything left for the things you may want. However, as someone with the means to provide their needs with stress, there is always excess resources for the things one may want or desire. Someone who lives paycheck to paycheck has a desire to eat every day, while someone averaging a 6 figure income, desires to attend the Vanity Fair Oscar Party.
I agree, but I guess that just goes to show how money affects decision making. It's easy to say how we would react to such a price tag, but for people who have deep pockets like that, it's not a hard decisions to blow thousands of dollars on invitation to a party.
I love the writing style of the author of this article, she definitely made me laugh. But on a serious note, it's ridiculous to think that people would actually spend their money on these things. The most practical thing on that list were the jet skis and even those were outlandish, especially considering their price tag ($50,000). Once again, I'm disappointed that all this money goes to waste on unnecessary luxuries instead of to those who really need it.
To me this just shows that wealthy people have so much money that they have no idea what to do with it. In my opinion, we might as well just reallocate it since they can't seem to figure it out.
I must admit I wasn't sure I wasn't sure what the point of this article was but I must agree with what Amirah Grady mentions that although we might find these gift to be absurd, there are certainly very rich people out there that buy them. They don't have to worry about making ends meet, therefore they have all this excess money that they wish to spend as they wish. I'll admit that if I had a lot of money I'd probably like to live a lavish lifestyle as well but definitely not to the point that I'd buy $50,000 quadskis or much less pay almost half a million to attend the Vanity Fair Oscar party. I think it's different when somebody works their way up than when they are born rich because if you know what it's like to struggle to put food on the table, then you value your money much more. I think this is why for us these things seem so ridiculous and unnecessary. We are used to living "normal lives" where we have to work hard for the things we want. Although I definitely think all that money could go to better things, people have a right to choose what to do with their money if they worked hard for it whether we approve of how they do it or not.
The interesting part of this article is that it did not have the reaction I assume the article was trying to provoke. I wasn't upset or irritated I just read it and thought to myself ’of course this catalogue exists’. What is sad, however, is that we live in a world where this is grave injustice is accepted. The global economic system allows people to have so much money that they literally don’t know what to do with it, at the same time that more than one billion live in poverty. The sad fact is that we accept this, the capitalist system is part of our culture and we don't even criticize it. - Visar Berisha
This made me think about the picture of a small boat being "parked" inside a yacht that has been circulating on social media lately, with the caption: "while the middle class blame the poor, I'm going to park my boat, in my boat". Once again, it is all about priority. I do not understand how some people can complain about benefit fraud among the lower class, and the "dangers" of raising the minimum wage, while barely batting an eye at the upper class (where some members have inherited their wealth or screwed other people over to get it) buying matching quadskis. I understand people wanting to live comfortably if they have the means, and I do think hard work should pay off, but when seeing things like this I just cannot believe that this is socially acceptable behaviour in countries well-educated enough to know that more than 2 billion people live on less than $2 a day. It just blows my mind. - Malin Niklasson
Americans waist money on anything and everything. The simple fact that these items and trips ended up in a magazine convinced someone with a lot of money that something in that catalogue should be theirs. Once some celebrity has it on a reality TV show some young teen will aspire to have it try everything in their power to make it to the top only to be disappointed by the unfortunate unrealistic goals movie stars, magazines and the media place in the hearts of Americans.
This article perfectly illustrates the economic inequality present in this country. Millions of people live check to check in this country. A very high percentage of the population would not dare to spend $50,000 on a nonessential item such as a jet ski, as they cannot afford it. However, a small percentage of the population have more money than they know what to do with. While I understand that this is a natural result of a capitalist society, the difference in income among people in this country is still alarming to me. -Damarr Gordon
I found this to be an awe-inspiring article when think about social inequality. Millions of people are homeless and sometimes criminalized for this. Criminals who are let out of jail with nearly zero resources are sent right back to prison sometimes within months of being released. For the rich, troubles stem from picking the right Christmas, trying not to be too cheap. It’s disgusting to me that there are people out there with that much money to blow, while there are some without even someplace to sleep. For me, this article illustrates the inequality for the poor and how far away they are, economically, from the rich.
This catalogue just feeds into the capitalistic society and culture that has become synonymous with America. I do not fault Neiman Marcus for making the catalogue, they are simply banking off of the greed of the rich. -Gregory Brown
This catalogue just feeds into the capitalistic society and culture that has become synonymous with America. I do not fault Neiman Marcus for making the catalogue, they are simply banking off of the greed of the rich. -Gregory Brown
This article seemed to be more focused on bashing Neiman Marcus than making an actual argument with valid evidence. Yes, Neiman Marcus may offer Christmas catalgoues with expensive, overpriced items but in society we all know that companies try to take advantage of holiday seasons because these are the times of the year when they make the most profit. For instance, Black Friday and Cyber Monday have somewhat become holidays to the average American. The concept of spending money even when you may not have an abundant amount at the time is completely ridiculous in my opinion but it is the world we live in unfortunately. Big companies like Neiman Marcus just run with the opportunities that are given to them and this is why they will continue to send out their yearly Christmas catalogues.
I think that being a millionaire would be convenient and that the items being presented in the Neiman Marcus catalogue seem cool. But the focus of the article is on the "uniqueness" of the experiences provided by these items, and there are things / experiences in this world that cannot be bought with all the money in the world. So... jokes on them?
I think this article highlights the conspicuous consumption of the wealthy. The article discusses Neiman Marcus' objective of selling unique experiences, or just a way for the wealthy to show off how much they can spend this holiday season. To me, this really demonstrates the way that our holidays have become centered on gifts and consumerism. This stresses the idea that the holiday season has become much more about the present you receive.
Hopefully, the person who came up with the catalogue idea received a huge raise for this idea. I am happy that Neiman Marcus no longer includes animals in its catalogue, but I am sad they at one time did. While I would never purchase anything from their Christmas catalogue, I do want to judge others who do.
The most interesting thing about article is that while some people can barely survive and buy basic necessities, others can afford “His and Hers” Quadskis for $50,000 each. Yay America!...
People who have more money than they know what to do with enjoy the holiday season much more so than people who live on a budget. The holiday season is a time for giving back to the ones you love, and if you are able to do so without making a serious dent in wallet, I think it's your right to do so without being criticized for it. Granted, if you are someone with so much money that you could buy everyone you loved a pony, then you are selfish if you do not give back to charity during the holidays, but as long as you find a balance, I find nothing wrong with spending money on elaborate items, if you feel that they are worth your money that you work for. While it frustrates me to read about people spending this much, as a broke college student who buys $10 Starbucks gift cards as gifts for Christmas, I do not shame these people, but rather envy their freedom to spend.
This article is mind blowing. I did not know that Neiman Marcus sold such expensive things, and I definitely would never think that people would buy them. I think that it is crazy how much rich people spend money. I know they have a lot of it but some things people buy are completely ridiculous. Why buy a sarcophagus? That's like planning your own funeral that you will never see. Everyone has a right to spend their own money, I just think that people need to think more about their purchases rather than throw their money away.
when you have money you began to lose touch with reality. some of the things they were selling i just found it ridiculous but i guess when u have money you have the option to do that.
Having previous knowledge of Neiman Marcus and the products they tend to sell, I am not suprised by this article at all. Though, I do find it interesting how Ginger Reeder determines which products work best for their catalog. The holidays tend to be a time where many are trying to save money while still providing gifts for their loved ones, but this article gave me a new perspective on holiday expenses for the upper class. It is interesting that rather than focusing on lower prices, Reeder tends to look for items that will bring publicity to the store for their prices and luxuriousness. This helped me see the different priorities and desires people can have based on their class.
I never knew that Neiman Marcus offered a catalogue of this nature. I think it is somewhat fascinating that wealthy individuals in the U.S. are able to shop and afford a 35 million dollar jet, out of a holiday gift magazine, while lower class individuals in the states suffer to put food on the table everyday. This article outlines the inequality gap in America very clearly.
....I must be the only one who initially read this article and thought, "Damn, a bike that turns into a boat is pretty bad a$$". One too many Dc and Marvel movies is probably the reason for my initial thought. Because seriously Bruce Wayne is a part of the 99% and look at all the cool toys he gets. But on a serious note it sounded like the point of this article was to point out all the ridiculous things 1%-ers are willing to spend their money on, as long as places like Neiman Marcus are willing to sell. While I try not to judge, simply because I could pick 10 items in my room that I bought, that I really didn't need but bought anyways because I could, it’s just like, seriously you have so much money that you don’t know what to do with it?? Something needs to change, obviously people work hard to have the money the make, but even the Mc Donald worker who works ridiculously long hours should be able to make enough money to not only survive but to live. My mother always said, “you can’t take that money with you to heaven” but that is just a saying I live by.
What the author tried to do with this article was to tell us how the upper class people pend their money in. how is their lifestyle and what are the ridiculous prices they pay for it. I think it was meant for us to criticize these rich people and say these is where all the money made in the country goes to. I think it has a point of view in that. I mean, rich people come from rich investors, and they come from paying little to their workers. Besides that, I think that the middle class has to envy some of these ridiculous expensive trips. The rich are the same as the middle class, they try to enjoy their free-time in way that are bellow the expectation. But at the end, they main points of holiday or free-days is to have fun, which the middle class does it too (in cheaper ways).
This article shows the frivolous spending that the members of the richest class in the United States partake in specifically during the holidays. For the upper class nothing is too big, expensive, or flashy. Ginger Reeder, specifically picks out items that the general public has no or very limited access too. Ms. Reeder’s job creates more division between the classes. As mentioned in our class the upper classes are set on protecting their interests and reputations, which cause them to continually seek ways to stand apart from the lower classes, further creating a hierarchal class system. It is impossible to keep up with these wealthy people, although many companies adapt these outrageous gifts and sell them at a smaller scale to the lower classes. The Economist states that many once considered luxurious brands are now ubiquitous especially now amongst the lower classes in an attempt to blend in with the wealthy. People celebrate holidays such as Christmas differently, but holidays often show both extreme wealth and extreme poverty. Many people cannot afford even small gifts for their children during the holidays and then this article highlights how some people cannot find enough ways to spend their money.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I find it a bit disturbing how expensive these items are. Although the members of this class have the right and the means to afford such items, it only creates a larger gap between the classes. It is also very sad and unfortunate to think that there are people in this world starving while others cannot find ways to spend their money as Alexis stated in the previous post. Even as mentioned in the article, Neiman Marcus present these items in their catalogs for the purpose of giving the members of the upper class reasons to spend a substantial amount of money.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at the comments on The Economists' article I couldn't help but agree with one commentator who said "what is point of this article?". While I agree that there is not clear cut point to this article, it offers a lot of insight to the upper class in ways that many people cannot imagine. Prior to reading it, I never thought about what the wealthy did for Christmas. While "Hold The Myhrr: offers an exaggerated view of the upper class, it still offers a unique prospective. Many television shows and magazines offer a glamorized view into the lives of the rich and famous. This article offered the same view while also allowing the audience to visualize themselves in the wealthy positions. While reading it I kept thinking about how uncomfortable I would be if someone gave me one of the gifts. I wouldn't know what to do. Yet there are some people who would see this as a standard gift. There are many articles and documentary's about the lower class and how they go through life day by day. But rarely do we see how the rich spend their money in this capacity.
ReplyDelete-Trini92
This article was quite disturbing because all I could think about was the poor people all across this nation who are starving and yet here we have rich people who's biggest dilemma is what item to spend millions of dollars on. Although the rich do have the right to spend their money on whatever they please, it's not fair to the rest of us. Their spending on this luxurious and fancy items make the gap between the lower and the upper class much wider. It doesn't matter how rich you are, you should always be realistic with the rest of the world. The economist states that brands that were once so treasures are now " ubiquitous" and so the rich turn other, more expensive brands. When in reality, the poor would do anything to be given these luxurious opportunities so how about the rich invest their money in more important things like helping the poor through charities or such. Then after knowing their money has gone to good causes, spend it how they please. It's simply not fair and they should be given a reality check
ReplyDeleteThis catalogue is the perfect example of "conspicuous consumption." There is no real reason to purchase many of these items except to prove that an obscenely rich person can. Why else would someone outside of the wide expanse of deserts need a camel? I think that for the most part, none of us are surprised that the "haves" would spend money on what we consider to be frivolous items. If I had the opportunity to even consider flying to France for my own custom fragrance, I can't honestly say that I would deny myself that luxury. I don't really fault the people who can and do purchase these extravagant items because we are all guilty of dropping a couple of dollars on stuff that other people would consider frivolous. Those lucky ones who can afford a personal mardi gras float just purchase on a much grander scale.
ReplyDeleteLindsay Bonaparte
As I was reading this article I could not help but think of how it just exemplifies the rich and people who have so much money they don't know what to do with it. For example, attending the Vanity Fair Oscar party of flying to Paris for someone to create a personal scent for you are only things that the extremely wealthy would do. These are people who I would consider 1% of the 1%. I'm sure some of the items in the catalog are nice and would be of some use, unlike the last one the writer talks about which is a 'his and her' mummy caskets.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed emotions about this disturbing article. On one hand, I am disgusted that Neiman Marcus has changed the idea of Christmas and the season of giving into a contest on who can “empty even the fattest wallet.” On the other hand, I am a business major and Nordstrom employee so I cannot help but notice that Neiman Marcus is targeting their consumer demographic beautifully and uniquely setting themselves apart from other stores. The gifts are certainly extravagant but they are supposed to be, Neiman Marcus clearly wanted to stand out and offer gifts that no other store offers and blows peoples’ minds. If those with fat wallets want to waste their money, who are we to judge? Maybe they are just as charitable as they are wasteful.
ReplyDelete-Lindsey Stalnaker
In reading this I wasn't too surprised in how Neiman Marcus attracts its patrons with extraordinarily extravagant luxuries, but at the same time I wondered how profitable is their Christmas Catalogue. Do the 'haves' really spend their money on stuff like this -what does anyone need with 'his and her' mummy caskets or a spitting camel?- and what does Neiman Marcus do with all of that money other than further stuff their wallets? This article just goes to show us the clear distinction within identity and class; whereas a rich person's clear interest and excitement about one or more of these luxuries is apparent to them and those of their shared class is in contrast to my shocked exasperation of the catalog that is well beyond my means or economic comprehension.
ReplyDeleteThis content of this article is absolutely ridiculous. I can not believe that individuals have that much money to nonchalantly buy these items. Their spending power transcends what the "average joe" wants: a sports car or a mansion perhaps. There is nothing left to buy but they still have the need to flaunt their wealth. That's why they get to the point where they crave unique experiences and goods that no one else can possibly buy. If you get to the point where you are spending $475,000 on a scent, then you have an excess amount of money. Your life must be super boring if you decide to spend that much on a bottle filled with liquid. Maybe there is a cut off point as to how much money a person needs psychologically. If there is a part of the brain that deals with craving money, then that part has definitely been sated. Money may not be valuable to them anymore, but its still valuable to other people. They should meditate on this fact.
ReplyDeleteWhat I want to understand is what have they done to get to be that wealthy? I can't get over how ridiculous it is.
-Erica Puentes
I experienced very mixed emotions while reading this article. I couldn't help but smile picturing myself indulging in these luxuries and experiencing having my own perfume designed just for me. However, one I saw that someone spent $35m on a Christmas present I began to feel a little disturbed. $35m could do so much for a charity or to help somebody in need and the fact that all of that money was spend simply for pleasure is kind of sick. While, it is disturbing, I do understand why the rich and famous would spend money like this for Christmas time. They want to put a smile on their loved ones faces and what better way then to give them a great time. They have the money and want to use it. Who's to say that the other 364 days of the year they dont dante their money or work towards a greater cause. While it is sick and grotesque, I do understand where they are coming from by posting a Christmas catalogue. I am vey torn about how I feel about the Neiman Marcus catalogue.
ReplyDeleteCaitlin Crouse
Many of these items are very frivolous and pointless but these are the kind of things that people who have more money than they know what to do with buy. When you have the kind of money that you can spend 5, 6, 7 figures on a whim, things like this seem less ridiculous to you than someone in a different socio-economic bracket. To the average reader this gifts are astonishing but to the elite rich it is not the same. Yes these items are overpriced and yes these are exorbitant amounts of money to spend on a gift, however to this demographic it sells and it is not as ridiculous from a social standpoint. It is just a matter of perspective based on social and economic divides.
ReplyDeleteAs society has advanced into this day and age, we have become fed up with normal gifts. No, money, clothes, and vacations just won’t cut it anymore. We need to purchase “experiences” for our loved ones, otherwise they might not love us just as much.
ReplyDeleteBeyond this sarcasm, I think this is absurd. The point is not to sell many (if any) of these experiences, but to put on display just how wealthy people can be. There are people who struggle to purchase gifts for people because they simply do not have the funds to do so. While many people may not have the funds to purchase anything out of this catalogue, it’s a bit of a spit in the face to hard-working people who despite all of their hard work, struggle to make ends meet.
After reading this article, I felt somewhat bothered by how people would think that these gifts are appropriate. The Neiman and Marcus catalogues seem to want to flaunt how expensive and exclusive they are to the rest of society who can not afford these items. I do also agree that how the wealthy spend their money is absurd. Although they do have the right to spend their money on anything they desire, it is still ridiculous to be spending money on something useless to just flaunt wealth. I completely agree with Matthew on the point that people are struggling to purchase gifts. I believe that people who are struggling to even purchase the simplest of items should not have to have these catalogues constantly in their faces as they go shopping.
ReplyDeleteI think this article was meant to be humorous so I didn't read into the underlying message as much. I find it funny that there is an article like this because it shows how ridiculous it sounds for someone to complain about having too much money to spend on Christmas. While this may be a problem for the 1% I think the rest of us are stuck in the other boat of not having enough money to spend on Christmas. The first sentence is "NOT everyone finds Christmas easy." So it was a surprise when I kept reading and saw that it was about having too much money to spend. I think that instead of trying to worry about what to spend alot of money on, these people should consider donating to those who don't have enough money to buy their kids presents. Or donating to a charity, shelter, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe article The Neiman Marcus Catalogue: Hold the Myrrh, is kind of humorous but also alarming that people with money, spend it so frivolously and for the silliest of things. It is really disappointing to know that people will get so distraught over what to buy with their money because they have hoarded so much of it. I mean would it kill you to invest some that money back into your fellow people? And what would be a better Christmas gift to yourself and others than donating that money to various charities who could put it to better use? It's good to spend what you've earned but there is a fine line between that and hoarding money to the point where you don't know what to spend it on. That's absolutely absurd. And in giving the money to charity or investing in people, businesses, and in bettering the world, you allow money to circulate back into the economy and into more pockets. It is again, alarming and disgusting that people do act in such a manner.
ReplyDeleteThis article is quite alarming. The things included on the list are more than most people yearly paychecks. I believe that we need to change our outlook within society. It is no problem to have money though. I think this article is useless and many people just want to know for entertainment purposes.
ReplyDeleteThis article makes me think whether or not society should allow the purchase of such high luxury goods. Could the money be better used going elsewhere? In the end, the debate will not be focussed on whether society will limit the super-rich from purchasing these goods. The federal government simply cannot do that. Having said that, extraneous income can definitely go to better projects. Some example are: hiring more workers, addressing hunger and poverty issues, environmental projects, etc.
ReplyDeleteI see the magazine working in a different way such as a tool of advertisement. When the everyday shopper sees items that are far out of the reach of an average American it makes lower items seem more affordable. For an example 475,000 dollar perfume is expensive for most people’s price range, but now that you see a 130 dollar bottle of perfume it looks more affordable. It makes you think you can afford items that you really can’t.
ReplyDelete-Joshua Zidek
I find the fact that catalog exists pretty ridiculous. I suppose if one does indeed have millions of dollars then spending something like 50 thousand would be no big deal from a financial stand point. However, considering many people make that much or less in a year is fairly disturbing to use on things as ridiculous as these. It really is just a crazy way to flaunt your money to those who do not have as much. What I find really disturbing about it is the company is taking advantage of the fact that is Christmas in order to tell the rich people "come on treat yourself, it's Christmas" despite the fact that if you can actually afford any of the things in the catalog then in all likelihood you have been treating yourself all year anyway.
ReplyDelete-Matt Fera
I think that its a lot easier to complain about the rich and overspending when the numbers are as extreme as 35 million. While I personally would choose to devout more of my money to charity if I was that rich, most of the readers of this article aren't struggling from extreme poverty. How can we criticize people for how they spend their wealth when the majority of us spend our extra money on clothes or other things that are also wants, not needs. We mock and laugh at these people for what we see as spending a "ridiculous" amount of money on things that seem trivial to us, but there could be someone struggling to put food on the table who looks at someone spending a couple hundred dollars on an Iphone, or a couple thousand on a laptop and thinks that is ridiculous. I'm not saying I fully agree with Neiman Marcus's extravagance , but I do think we are quick to attack people that we don't know when we see them as so different from us. However, maybe we should spend more energy focusing on the personal changes that we can make and the things that we value as a society that would cause people to spend their money frivolously and not on a charitable cause.
ReplyDelete- Ana Kyriakos
I find absolutely nothing wrong with having luxuries, and I do not think the Neiman Marcus catalogue has anything to do with inequality at all. It might be a by-product of inequality, but there is nothing wrong with it is except the sheer excessiveness/ornateness of it all. Some people can afford the nicer things in life, and others can't. It's a shame that we all cannot, but we do not live in a perfect world. Maybe those people who can afford those incredibly grandiose products worked hard to be able to do so. It is biased to believe that those that can afford these products were grandfathered into their money. I do not think this article has any place in this blog.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this Neiman Marcus catalogue may be over the top when it comes to gifts, I do not think that the magazine represents inequality. The catalogue can be seen as more of a novelty to display the fact that there are rich clientele that are willing to buy these absurdly expensive items. The buyers in these magazines are most definitely included in the 1% of the richest Americans. Although those who buy from this catalogue are unequal in wealth distribution in relation to the rest of the United States, this magazine does not cause wealth inequality. If the rich want to buy insanely expensive things, they have every right to do so. Most of the people that buy from the magazine probably worked hard to earn the money that they use to afford these goods.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not find anything wrong with this article or catalogue. If people have earned money they deserve the right to spend it however they want. For someone without a dollar to their name sees a JC Penny catalogue or one from Macy's would be just as wowed by the relative extremely high prices. The problem I do see, however, is that only about 1% of americans can afford gifts this expensive, that is the problem. Those who have money deserve to spend it however the please, the problem is not enough people do have money.
ReplyDeleteI'm really curious at what kind of profit the catalog brings to the department store. I'm sure the take away from the sale from just a few super expensive items could completely cover the cost of the catalog. What an easy way to make a profit.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting article to me because we do live in a society where all people enjoy the finer things in life. Who wouldn’t want to walk around wearing thousand dollars handbag or designer clothing. But I do feel that it is crazy how much people are willing to send on materialist things. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with sending so much money on superficial things when you have the money, I would do the same thing. I feel that a lot of working class people think it’s absurd to spend what may be their month salary on a let’s say a pair a shades. But it only seems that way because they don’t have the same luxury or they would think otherwise. However, the article mention about a person spending a large chunk of money for a Christmas gift. I feel that when it comes to gifts it shouldn’t matter the price it is but the thought behind it that matters. But the twisted reality of it is that price does matter because it is basically another way of using it as a means of leverage to the person you’re giving the gift to.
ReplyDeleteIt just blows my mind away on the things they spend on. I really wonder, how much these expensive items get used in reality. For example, the 20 million dollar submarine, how often did the person who bought this use the submarine?? It is just so disturbing! But then I think about how might the poorest people in poorer nations can look at the working class of America. For example, I have some clothes that I have bought and wore maybe once or twice. Or my stupid prom dress that cost hundreds of dollars and i wore ONCE. This article made me look at the richest class of America in disgust but it also made me reflect on myself.
ReplyDeleteThis article gave me a knot in my stomach. It is hard to understand because some of the wealthiest people in our country (the people that purchase and own these items) are some of those who argue against welfare and raising the minimum wage. These people quite literally have more money than they know what to do with while others are working multiple jobs and struggle to feed their families. This also is a prime example of how decreasing taxes for the rich is not at al "job creating" or "motivating them to hire more people." Trickle down economics is a joke because when people like this get a little extra money, they spend it... on things like quad skis.
ReplyDeleteJack O'Connor
I agree that the items in this Neiman Marcus catalogue are ridiculous but I do not believe all of your assumptions. First of all, you do not know that the same people purchasing these ridiculous items are the ones arguing against welfare and raising the minimum wage. Secondly, the people working multiple jobs could very well be working at Neiman Marcus and earning a HUGE commission thanks to those crazy items that wealthy individuals are choosing to purchase! I used to work at Nordstrom and I LOVED when wealthy people wasted their money and gave me commissions, those commissions helped me pay rent! Thanks to the wealthy individuals wasting their money, Neiman Marcus employees and all of the other people involved in these crazy products (marketers, advertisers, product designers, suppliers, ect.) can feed their families.
Delete-Lindsey Stalnaker
I honestly do not think Neiman Marcus attempting to create any inequality. I simply think they know their target market. It is a retail shop for high end goods, these are the people who already shop there. For me I see it as more of relation buying, these people can afford these things. I do not think people not spending their money on what they want is the issue. There are much better factors at play than this.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you! I do not understand why people are making this big of a deal about a Neiman Marcus Catalogue. Yes, I believe that the catalogue has some crazy ridiculous items but if people can afford said items and want to buy them; then Neiman Marcus is doing their job and providing them with the opportunity to do so. Props to Neiman Marcus for finding their niche!
Delete-Lindsey Stalnaker
The article points out just how reckless the rich can be with their money. There’s no point in condemning them for spending money that they have earned. We should instead be looking into the outrageous bonuses and salaries that they probably receive.
ReplyDeleteIt's crazy to think that some members of society can afford to spend $475,000 to go to a PARTY, while many members cannot afford to go to the GROCERY store. This article highlights how remarkably unequal the distribution of wealth is in the USA
ReplyDeleteI agree with your sentiments. The fact that certain members of our society have such a large amount of capital and cash available to them that they barely have a clue what to do with it, or they spend it on reckless abandon, while at the other societal spectrum there are countless individuals struggling every week to make ends meet, or every day to out food on their tables, highlights the grossly unequal wealth distribution in America, and also highlights how deeply ingrained the systems that provide such scale-tipping advantages is. The fact that mobility is far from easy to achieve for all groups is a testament to the systemic inequality in America.
DeleteI didn’t quite understand the point of this article other than to showcase some of the most outrageously extravagant things that money can buy in a free-market economy. Even though the author does not directly mention the absurdity of most of the items listed in the catalogue I think that it is implied in the somewhat sarcastic tone of the writing. I don’t really see the argument that this catalogue is in anyway an indication of rising income inequality. It definitely highlights existing income inequality, but this type thing has been going on forever. A small group of wealthy people have always found a way to throw away large sums of money on the most exclusive and extravagant things imaginable. The only difference with the catalogue is that they have already done everything for you and they have tried to make those experiences one of a kind and made to order. According to the article the catalogue has been around since 1971. There have always been rich people, and there have always been stupid people. They are not in any way inherently connected. I think that the majority of people that could afford the items in the catalogue would never consider buying anything from it. They would most likely read through it with the same mild curiosity that the average person would. The other thing that I would caution to keep in mind is that most of the items in the catalogue are a one-time unique experience or rare thing. The people selling the catalogue do not need a wide base of customers to turn a profit. All they need to do is find a few individuals with the money but not the brains and convince them that the items in the catalogue are worth the lofty price tags. I think it is a brilliant idea on their part. If the people that buy these items from the catalogue wish to spend their money in that way then that is their prerogative.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of sad to think that some people have so much money that they don't know what to do with it. There is so much out there that they could do with the money spent on this catalog that would benefit our, country and economy and even the world we live on. I'm not one to tell people how to spend their money, but I do think that this is absurd and one of many things that shows the problems with distribution of wealth in our world.
ReplyDeleteMichael Lerche
This article is another shining example of the result of frivolous spending and waste as the hands of the wealthy class within America. Most, if not all these items, have no practicality or purposeful function, whatsoever, if only to show the magnitude of how much of our countries money has been hemorrhaging on such frivolous purchases. Like, seriously, who the hell needs a submarine?
ReplyDeleteIt is a little bit scary to me to think that some people have so much money that they do not have anything to do with it. There are so many things that people could do with money that would benefit our society and economy. The distribution of wealth in our world is one of the biggest issues we have today and this article just goes to show how much it affects our world.
ReplyDeleteMolly
This article highlights very well how the richer members of society have a different thought process as it comes to money and the value of it. Majority of the population are working with far less than these people, some get along fine, and some are struggling constantly to keep up with the cost of living. People with great fortunes definitely have a right to do as they wish with their money, but some instances just seem callous. Most of the rich come from a lineage of wealth, it should not be too alarming that at this point, a great number of them don't see the worth of what they have due to it's ever present abundance. - Maulford Smith
ReplyDeleteWhile it's insane that some people would be able to buy these things while others don't have food to eat, it's not fair to point blame at the wealthy or at Neiman Marcus for the catalogue. While the income gap is definitely a serious cause for concern, people should be free to spend their money as they please. It would be awesome if they would donate it to helpful causes, but they have no obligation to do so. Rather than criticizing the company we should focus on creating policies or advocating for greater equality of opportunity in society.
ReplyDeleteI could not decide if I was more disturbed by the contents of the article or by the frivolous tone (hopefully satirical) it was written. When looking at some of the prices of these "fantasy items" I could not help, but think how many of these costs could help a family of four survive for a year. While I understand much of the philanthropy in this country is given by those who are wealthy, which is a more complicated issue than I have time to write about, the utilitarian in me asks what is the point of a sarcophagus (even more disturbingly with mummy) other than to boast that you have so much money that you have no idea what to spend it on. I just cannot help, but think that many of these people are out of touch with reality. Perhaps some of these fantasy items could be "50,000 dollars to sponsor a poor family for a year" or "300,000 dollars to buy a home for a family who was just evicted". -Samantha McKnew
ReplyDeleteI agree that the more present something becomes, the less valuable it is. Thus im not surprised by the content of the article.
ReplyDeleteThe Neiman Marcus catalog and other things like it are representations of what is wrong with society. While I do not blame people with the kind of money to buy these things for wanting to indulge, I do believe there are better things to be done with that money and energy. As I aspire to be able to support myself and my family financially, I've never dreamt of buying "the unnecessary", my dreams include a house and car for myself and one for my mother. I never really saw myself buying or needing "Quadskis" for $50,000. I will say I believe it has to do with the need and want phenomenon. As a poor person you only have time and money for the things you need, and there is rarely anything left for the things you may want. However, as someone with the means to provide their needs with stress, there is always excess resources for the things one may want or desire. Someone who lives paycheck to paycheck has a desire to eat every day, while someone averaging a 6 figure income, desires to attend the Vanity Fair Oscar Party.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but I guess that just goes to show how money affects decision making. It's easy to say how we would react to such a price tag, but for people who have deep pockets like that, it's not a hard decisions to blow thousands of dollars on invitation to a party.
DeleteI love the writing style of the author of this article, she definitely made me laugh.
ReplyDeleteBut on a serious note, it's ridiculous to think that people would actually spend their money on these things. The most practical thing on that list were the jet skis and even those were outlandish, especially considering their price tag ($50,000). Once again, I'm disappointed that all this money goes to waste on unnecessary luxuries instead of to those who really need it.
To me this just shows that wealthy people have so much money that they have no idea what to do with it. In my opinion, we might as well just reallocate it since they can't seem to figure it out.
I must admit I wasn't sure I wasn't sure what the point of this article was but I must agree with what Amirah Grady mentions that although we might find these gift to be absurd, there are certainly very rich people out there that buy them. They don't have to worry about making ends meet, therefore they have all this excess money that they wish to spend as they wish. I'll admit that if I had a lot of money I'd probably like to live a lavish lifestyle as well but definitely not to the point that I'd buy $50,000 quadskis or much less pay almost half a million to attend the Vanity Fair Oscar party. I think it's different when somebody works their way up than when they are born rich because if you know what it's like to struggle to put food on the table, then you value your money much more. I think this is why for us these things seem so ridiculous and unnecessary. We are used to living "normal lives" where we have to work hard for the things we want. Although I definitely think all that money could go to better things, people have a right to choose what to do with their money if they worked hard for it whether we approve of how they do it or not.
ReplyDeleteThe interesting part of this article is that it did not have the reaction I assume the article was trying to provoke. I wasn't upset or irritated I just read it and thought to myself ’of course this catalogue exists’. What is sad, however, is that we live in a world where this is grave injustice is accepted. The global economic system allows people to have so much money that they literally don’t know what to do with it, at the same time that more than one billion live in poverty. The sad fact is that we accept this, the capitalist system is part of our culture and we don't even criticize it. - Visar Berisha
ReplyDeleteThis made me think about the picture of a small boat being "parked" inside a yacht that has been circulating on social media lately, with the caption: "while the middle class blame the poor, I'm going to park my boat, in my boat". Once again, it is all about priority. I do not understand how some people can complain about benefit fraud among the lower class, and the "dangers" of raising the minimum wage, while barely batting an eye at the upper class (where some members have inherited their wealth or screwed other people over to get it) buying matching quadskis. I understand people wanting to live comfortably if they have the means, and I do think hard work should pay off, but when seeing things like this I just cannot believe that this is socially acceptable behaviour in countries well-educated enough to know that more than 2 billion people live on less than $2 a day. It just blows my mind. - Malin Niklasson
ReplyDeleteAmericans waist money on anything and everything. The simple fact that these items and trips ended up in a magazine convinced someone with a lot of money that something in that catalogue should be theirs. Once some celebrity has it on a reality TV show some young teen will aspire to have it try everything in their power to make it to the top only to be disappointed by the unfortunate unrealistic goals movie stars, magazines and the media place in the hearts of Americans.
ReplyDeleteRyan Rumph
DeleteThis article perfectly illustrates the economic inequality present in this country. Millions of people live check to check in this country. A very high percentage of the population would not dare to spend $50,000 on a nonessential item such as a jet ski, as they cannot afford it. However, a small percentage of the population have more money than they know what to do with. While I understand that this is a natural result of a capitalist society, the difference in income among people in this country is still alarming to me. -Damarr Gordon
ReplyDeleteI found this to be an awe-inspiring article when think about social inequality. Millions of people are homeless and sometimes criminalized for this. Criminals who are let out of jail with nearly zero resources are sent right back to prison sometimes within months of being released. For the rich, troubles stem from picking the right Christmas, trying not to be too cheap. It’s disgusting to me that there are people out there with that much money to blow, while there are some without even someplace to sleep. For me, this article illustrates the inequality for the poor and how far away they are, economically, from the rich.
ReplyDeleteThis catalogue just feeds into the capitalistic society and culture that has become synonymous with America. I do not fault Neiman Marcus for making the catalogue, they are simply banking off of the greed of the rich.
ReplyDelete-Gregory Brown
This catalogue just feeds into the capitalistic society and culture that has become synonymous with America. I do not fault Neiman Marcus for making the catalogue, they are simply banking off of the greed of the rich.
ReplyDelete-Gregory Brown
This article seemed to be more focused on bashing Neiman Marcus than making an actual argument with valid evidence. Yes, Neiman Marcus may offer Christmas catalgoues with expensive, overpriced items but in society we all know that companies try to take advantage of holiday seasons because these are the times of the year when they make the most profit. For instance, Black Friday and Cyber Monday have somewhat become holidays to the average American. The concept of spending money even when you may not have an abundant amount at the time is completely ridiculous in my opinion but it is the world we live in unfortunately. Big companies like Neiman Marcus just run with the opportunities that are given to them and this is why they will continue to send out their yearly Christmas catalogues.
ReplyDeleteI think that being a millionaire would be convenient and that the items being presented in the Neiman Marcus catalogue seem cool. But the focus of the article is on the "uniqueness" of the experiences provided by these items, and there are things / experiences in this world that cannot be bought with all the money in the world. So... jokes on them?
ReplyDeleteI think this article highlights the conspicuous consumption of the wealthy. The article discusses Neiman Marcus' objective of selling unique experiences, or just a way for the wealthy to show off how much they can spend this holiday season. To me, this really demonstrates the way that our holidays have become centered on gifts and consumerism. This stresses the idea that the holiday season has become much more about the present you receive.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, the person who came up with the catalogue idea received a huge raise for this idea. I am happy that Neiman Marcus no longer includes animals in its catalogue, but I am sad they at one time did. While I would never purchase anything from their Christmas catalogue, I do want to judge others who do.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing about article is that while some people can barely survive and buy basic necessities, others can afford “His and Hers” Quadskis for $50,000 each. Yay America!...
People who have more money than they know what to do with enjoy the holiday season much more so than people who live on a budget. The holiday season is a time for giving back to the ones you love, and if you are able to do so without making a serious dent in wallet, I think it's your right to do so without being criticized for it. Granted, if you are someone with so much money that you could buy everyone you loved a pony, then you are selfish if you do not give back to charity during the holidays, but as long as you find a balance, I find nothing wrong with spending money on elaborate items, if you feel that they are worth your money that you work for. While it frustrates me to read about people spending this much, as a broke college student who buys $10 Starbucks gift cards as gifts for Christmas, I do not shame these people, but rather envy their freedom to spend.
ReplyDeleteThis article is mind blowing. I did not know that Neiman Marcus sold such expensive things, and I definitely would never think that people would buy them. I think that it is crazy how much rich people spend money. I know they have a lot of it but some things people buy are completely ridiculous. Why buy a sarcophagus? That's like planning your own funeral that you will never see. Everyone has a right to spend their own money, I just think that people need to think more about their purchases rather than throw their money away.
ReplyDeletewhen you have money you began to lose touch with reality. some of the things they were selling i just found it ridiculous but i guess when u have money you have the option to do that.
ReplyDeleteHaving previous knowledge of Neiman Marcus and the products they tend to sell, I am not suprised by this article at all. Though, I do find it interesting how Ginger Reeder determines which products work best for their catalog. The holidays tend to be a time where many are trying to save money while still providing gifts for their loved ones, but this article gave me a new perspective on holiday expenses for the upper class. It is interesting that rather than focusing on lower prices, Reeder tends to look for items that will bring publicity to the store for their prices and luxuriousness. This helped me see the different priorities and desires people can have based on their class.
ReplyDeleteI never knew that Neiman Marcus offered a catalogue of this nature. I think it is somewhat fascinating that wealthy individuals in the U.S. are able to shop and afford a 35 million dollar jet, out of a holiday gift magazine, while lower class individuals in the states suffer to put food on the table everyday. This article outlines the inequality gap in America very clearly.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy Levin
....I must be the only one who initially read this article and thought, "Damn, a bike that turns into a boat is pretty bad a$$". One too many Dc and Marvel movies is probably the reason for my initial thought. Because seriously Bruce Wayne is a part of the 99% and look at all the cool toys he gets. But on a serious note it sounded like the point of this article was to point out all the ridiculous things 1%-ers are willing to spend their money on, as long as places like Neiman Marcus are willing to sell. While I try not to judge, simply because I could pick 10 items in my room that I bought, that I really didn't need but bought anyways because I could, it’s just like, seriously you have so much money that you don’t know what to do with it?? Something needs to change, obviously people work hard to have the money the make, but even the Mc Donald worker who works ridiculously long hours should be able to make enough money to not only survive but to live. My mother always said, “you can’t take that money with you to heaven” but that is just a saying I live by.
ReplyDeleteWhat the author tried to do with this article was to tell us how the upper class people pend their money in. how is their lifestyle and what are the ridiculous prices they pay for it. I think it was meant for us to criticize these rich people and say these is where all the money made in the country goes to. I think it has a point of view in that. I mean, rich people come from rich investors, and they come from paying little to their workers. Besides that, I think that the middle class has to envy some of these ridiculous expensive trips. The rich are the same as the middle class, they try to enjoy their free-time in way that are bellow the expectation. But at the end, they main points of holiday or free-days is to have fun, which the middle class does it too (in cheaper ways).
ReplyDelete