base2 

Definitely an 1890's horse-sized baby Hitler, but only with a set of ZIPPS 'cause they are speed weaponry.

Then I'd donate the meat to a soup kitchen & ride into the sunset at 88 miles per hour on my 70x11 single speed.

livedarklions

So?
I didn't say who was bearing the expense for the racer, just that the expense extravagant if it's for a professional racer.

Machka 

Is a yacht a luxury? Is a caravan a luxury? What's the difference? Is one more or less an "extravagant luxury" than the other?


Yachts are very common around here. Here's a nice little 25' yacht going for $33,000. I'm not sure if it could be used for racing but it looks to be set up for travel.
https://yachthub.com/list/yachts-for...elex-25/229664



Here's a 24' caravan going for $33,900.
https://www.caravancampingsales.com....5794505/?Cr=19


And what about a $15,000 baby grand vs a $15,000 entertainment centre?


All of which brings up the main question ... is there anything wrong with extravagant luxuries?

Maelochs

This thread is turning out way better than I had anticipated.

livedarklions

Unless you're using them as your residence, yachts and caravans (campers) are definitely luxuries. Some are more luxurious than others, but they're certainly not necessities.

The only luxuries I object to are ones that impose disproportionate external costs on other people. I'm not a big fan of private jets and really loud motorcycles, for example.

"Extravagant" is obviously in the eye of the beholder, but I'd look at it as being a question of how much the thing costs vs. rather similar alternatives, and the inclusion of features that cost a lot that aren't really related to the functionality the user is likely to be able to exploit effectively. For someone who isn't capable of going much faster than 20 mph, slight but very expensive aero improvements aren't really going to make much difference, for example.

A $10,000 piano that I play for 30 hours a year would be extravagant, if I were even a serious amateur musician, I wouldn't see it as extravagant.

I'm trying to see where you're going with this, and all I can say is you seem to assume that the word luxury has some negative connotation. I'm just using it to mean a good or activity we have or do for enjoyment, not necessity. Travel for pleasure is a luxury, for example. I only object to that when people are doing things like killing each other to get to the top of Everest, for example.

Machka 

I get the impression that when some people in some threads on these forums say something is an extravagant luxury that they are saying it with a negative connotation ... and that impression is reinforced when the extravagant luxury is put up against helping sick puppies. Almost as if owning an extravagant luxury is bad but helping sick puppies is good.

Personally I think extravagant luxury has a positive connotation. It's a good thing. We all need at least one extravagant luxury in our lives and I don't object to whatever people choose to buy or do ... as long as it falls within the law, of course.

I also think that what one person thinks of as an extravagant luxury, another person may consider quite run-of-the mill ... "normal" if you will. Different perspectives.


It all makes a thread like this rather silly ... don't you think?

AlmostTrick

I'd drop the $10,000 piano on baby hitler. I doubt the $10,000 bike would do the job.

livedarklions

It's the umpteenth "you're a snob" vs. "you're a slob" debate
They're all stupid threads that should be closed immediately.

Jim from Boston

Trade all your bikes to help a sick puppyAnd apropos of Bike Forums, such moral / psychological discussions always start with the cost of a bicycle. BTW, myself and 19 other subscribers LIKED this post to a recent, similar now-closed thread, “Bicycles have gotten insanely expensive."

livedarklions

I find myself getting pretty annoyed with both ends of the argument because it's one where the extremists go nuts at each other. On the one hand are people who pretend that a $3k bike is entry level, and on the other who declares a class war on anyone who suggests that money can buy quality you can't get at Walmart.

As someone who takes some pride in having ridden a $400 bike 900 miles in the past 4 weeks, I have no problem with someone enjoying their $10k bike, but I will bite back if they put me down for what I like to ride.

Jim from Boston

See also my immediately preceding edit, BTW, to my post, @livedarklions, just before this post of yours.

wolfchild

$ 10 000 dollars on a bike ??...Wow what a waste.

Machka 

As a couple of us have said further up the thread, people should spread $10,000 around several bicycles.

Maelochs

Unless you make TrekMogul kind of money, in which case you should spread hundreds of thousands of dollars across many bikes.

I'd hire a trainer and spend a year getting back to the kind of health and fitness I had when I was forty. Then I'd travel around and ride the best bikes, everywhere. Why not?

Of course, I would only be doing it to stimulate the economy .... civic duty, ya know.

tkamd73 

Ahh No!
Tim

Happy Feet

Here's a neat video of a guy who travels around the world visiting the shops of Brooks, Campy, Chris King etc... building his grail bike. If you added up the travel costs, easily 10k.

FiftySix

Traveling the world while putting together your dream bike? Well that's just downright awesome. That would have much more value to me than just buying a mechanical device alone.

Maelochs

And here it is----Value is not monetary, and is purely personal.

One person spends huge dollars on a purely personal and unnecessary trek around the world visiting factories? Why? He Wants To. And people are fine with that, even thought the bike he builds will cost hundreds or thousands of times what it would have cost if he simply mail-ordered the same parts. But people are fine with that.

Some other guy spends much less, and comes home with a bike with all the same parts---but That is an "extravagance" and a "waste."

Why? Each spent the amount of cash they wanted to do what they wanted and each ended up with the bike he or she wanted. Why is it not a waste to visit the Chris King factory, to buy a headset which will eventually be put into a very expensive (total cost) bike, but it is a waste to ride the bike one bought (with a Chris King headset) an equal distance?

Because "Value" is not numerical, nor is it rational---it is purely personal and emotional. We rationalize and quantify what we value, but the initial "value"---"I like that" or "I don't like that" is pre-rational.

Then people pretend their rationalizations are "more right" than everyone else's.... "My favorite color is better than yours." They try to apply their personal values to every other human on the planet, which is obviously ridiculous ... but they come to threads like this and pretend it makes sense.

As we know ... spending more than Walmart money for bicycles is considered ridiculous by a lot of people. So .. we decide that those people are "wrong," because they just don't get it ... and then we do The Exact Same Thing, but simply set a higher limit.

What does it matter if $200 or $500 or $1000 or $10,000 is the arbitrary limit chosen by an individual for the "right amount" or "an extravagant amount" to spend on a bicycle? It is still an personal and arbitrary number, in no way rooted in the real world. It is a purely subjective number. It exists outside any universal scale or "right" and "wrong."

The right amount to spend is the amount is takes to get what the buyer wants. Everything else is just jealousy or insecurity or self-righteousness.

base2 

+1 The question was scaled to income level for this reason. I think many here are missing the concept & instead focusing on concrete dollar amount.

My dog cost me 1% of my annual income at the vet. No hesitation. "Fix my dog," I said. At 10% of my annual income in cash I'd have some serious hesitation, but would probably still say "fix my dog."

If fixing my dog were to cost me my 1% bike, I wouldn't even think. Take my bike. But if it were to cost my 5-10% income bicycle, I'm not so sure there'd be hesitation. Rationally the compromised dog is an ongoing expense and ultimately time limited. He would be money spent/wasted twice.

Valuation is personal, but in every person there is a tipping point. Where the general consensus on how we value our bicycles, I think, is a valid question.

I hate it when Social Justice Warriors (SJW's) of any stripe or creed do the whole virtue signaling thing & drive the world to conform their morality with out considering the large gray-area, ambiguity and broad spectrum of realities the rest of us live in.

At my local Co-Op there is a sign posted: I don't just like my bike. It's more like: I like-like my bike.

...And there it is.
Aaron

Phil_gretz

So when you give to the needy, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be praised by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.… [Matthew 6:2-4]

Happy Feet

Curious. Are you not doing exactly the same thing? Your "virtue" is not to discuss virtue and you are signalling it very loud and clear. You would prefer that others also conform to your morality in that way.

Not busting your chops perse, just pointing out that this current trend against talking about virtue is a virtue in itself. No one wants anyone to point out what they are doing wrong or to discuss a different way. A question might be: Does that lead to an increase in virtue or less? When you put a negative spin on "Social Justice Warrior" how does that effect people working towards social justice. People like MLK, Gandhi, Mandela and others would be seen today as shoving their opinion down our throats as well.

I worry a little about it when I see our current social climate. Although my personal philosophy has always been leading by example someone does need to point out a policy of "no discussion" is a definite discussion in itself. Only it's one sided.

As far as bikes go. It is a marketers dream if no one questions the value/cost equation. The drive is to tell us we need or should want "more" "new" and "expensive" and there is an undercurrent here of judgement against inexpensive or non consumerism. As someone who tends to DIY and rehab older bikes I often find it frustrating when so many discussions trend towards "what to buy, what's new, help me buy" instead of skills based discussions and when the most common solution to any problem is "buy a new one".

livedarklions

You led with the $10k bike, so it's your fault that the number got fixated.

Regardless, the reason that this is a stupid thread is because those percentages are as arbitrary as any price point--who the hell cares what percentage of money you're going to spend on your dog or your bike, it's none of our business. Also, that's really not how income norming works--a poor person has a lower percentage of their income that's truly disposable because there's a floor cost for necessities that really doesn't vary much. So spending 5% of their income on a bike is a bigger hardship on someone making $25,000/year than it is for a person making $250,000 because the person making $250,000 is just shifting spending on luxury items while the $25k earner is likely choosing between that and food/rent/medicine/utilities. You do understand that's the reason for progressive tax rates, right?

You let someone else's ridiculous, self-righteous posting troll you into starting a thread about nothing, and your OP was almost as ludicrous.

TimothyH

Sometimes we have to let our light shine before men.

Boasting (sounding the trumpet) is never good, but sometimes you have to quietly say, "Yeah, I wear a Rapha jersey but I also gave three bags of groceries to the St. Vincent de Paul this week. How much have you given to the poor?"

A little "Catholic guilt" never hurt anyone.


-Tim-

base2 

Point taken. I'm trying to talk about a thing with out advocating one way or the other. For a discussion to be useful it's necessary to have goal posts and lines on the field to form a common useful definition of scope & scale. The conversation can then take place in that arena. So many conversations start from: "You should do X or behave Y..."& that's a problem because the term "should" presumes an established & correct way. A moral high & low ground; An A team & a B team. When in reality there is no such clear distinction. I'm interested in finding out where that line lays, not what someone should or should not do if they find themselves on either side of it.

The meaning of the term "SJW" cuts both ways, though people don't generally associate it in that way. When applied to left-leaning people it has definite negative connotation. When applied to right leaning people it's simply owned called "righteousness" & labled as something to be proud of. I meant to use the term in the all inclusive tense.

For Gandhi, MLK, et al, they just stood proud with action & people joined in when the rightness of their cause became obvious. As it should be.

The original quote from "mystery poster X" in the other thread said just what he'd do, & I think it's the judgemental way he said it that grated people the wrong way (me included.) Nevertheless it's prompted a much broader discussion of values.
Likewise I tend to agree with:

base2 

Sorry, I overestimated reading comprehension and a broader understanding of concepts. While it is true that about 50% of Americans read/write at an 8th grade level, I figured that that number was probably higher here on a text based forum. Sorry Mr. Dark Lion. My mistake for giving too much credit. FWIW: It was "Mystery Poster X" that set the upper bound at $10k. I defined it as percentage of income to better level the field.

Yes, I understand the non-linear way things scale. But forming up table with a variety of arbitrary brackets is hardly a useful endeavor when exploring high level concepts.

At issue is: Value=bike price/effort to achieve & is hardly any different & much harder to quantify than Value=((annual income/100)*x) where x= some number between 1 & 10.

I'd call values & relationships everything. But that's just me.