Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's utterly absurd conjecture by the article's writer and not asserted at all by the study's author.
Unfortunately, I seem to have overestimated some city-data members' knowledge base, so I'll explain the terms...
In economic terms, a luxury good is one where our spending on such item goes up as a portion of our income as our income increases. For example, ultra-speed fiber optic broadband instead of landline dial-up modem internet, organic luxury coffee shop cappuccino instead of a cup of coffee from the drip coffee maker at home, a $200,000 Hermès Birkin handbag instead of a cheap $20 imitation look-a-like from the discount store. Etc.
A necessity good is something needed for basic human existence. Think: basic food, non-designer clothing, basic shelter.
More info on the respective terms analyzed in the study:
Examples of different types of goods
Luxury good – Superfast broadband, organic luxury coffee, Netflix TV Streaming, Porsche, a foreign holiday to Bali
Necessity good – something needed for basic human existence, e.g. food, water, housing, electricity.
Normal good – ordinary broadband, ordinary tv license, Ford Focus car, holiday to somewhere close to where you live
Inferior good – Supermarket own brand coffee, bus travel, a day out at theme park.
That's not the definition used for the study or the article that you linked to.
The terms are defined in the article and study themselves. No need for you to redefine them to make yourself look better. There's a reason they took explicit steps to define luxuries and necessities for their study. So that people would not assume or pull up other definitions in which their study did not measure. Like you are doing now.
The utterly absurd conjecture is the one you have in the OP. The study does not assert that at all.
The problem is that you're supporting the idea that smoking and lottery tickets are necessities while McDonalds is a luxury for the basis of you claim in the OP.
Not at all. My mistake was in thinking posters in this thread would be able to comprehend the difference between when the article's author was expressing his/her own opinion instead of actual facts. Believe me, I've learned my lesson. Too many are too stupid to be able to comprehend the difference. Mea culpa for that.
Dial back the ignorance and read what the actual Economics terms actually mean in this post,
Note that they do NOT include cigarettes and lottery tickets in the Necessity Good category.
That link in your post is not to the study cited in the article. You have provided a link to an alternate definition not used by the study. You might want to read the actual study.
Not at all. My mistake was in thinking posters in this thread would be able to comprehend the difference between when the article's author was expressing his/her own opinion instead of actual facts. Believe me, I've learned my lesson. Too many are too stupid to be able to comprehend the difference. Mea culpa for that.
It seems like you fell into that inability to comprehend yourself. The title of this thread is not even part of the study... but you were unable to comprehend the difference between the article and the study (as was pointed out by a previous poster). Let's hope that you learn from your mistake.
The study doesn't state that. It's only the article author's ridiculous opinion.
That's just not true. The study defines "luxury goods" thusly: "goods or services consumed in greater proportions as a person’s income increase". A weekly lottery ticket consumes a smaller proportion of one's income as the income rises. Making it, by the study author's definition, not a luxury.
Then MarketWatch put the worst possible spin on it, because who wants a story about boring spending pattern changes linked to income? Make with the outrage, we need clicks!
Dial back the ignorance and read what the actual Economics terms actually mean in this post,
Note that they do NOT include cigarettes and lottery tickets in the Necessity Good category.
I saw your post. You're wrong. You need to look at the definition used in the study. I've pointed you to the Forbes write-up - which actually addresses the study - already.
That's just not true. The study defines "luxury goods" thusly: "goods or services consumed in greater proportions as a person’s income increase". A weekly lottery ticket consumes a smaller proportion of one's income as the income rises. Making it, by the study author's definition, not a luxury.
Then MarketWatch put the worst possible spin on it, because who wants a story about boring spending pattern changes linked to income? Make with the outrage, we need clicks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I saw your post. You're wrong. You need to look at the definition used in the study. I've pointed you to the Forbes write-up - which actually addresses the study - already.
Blows my mind that the OP didn't read the study they were citing. At least she admitted to her mistake about city data members not being able to comprehend the study... and she was one of them.
Layaway and clipping coupons aren’t money saving practices.
But I’m glad luck was on your side, and made your financial discipline pay off in the end. You didn’t have a house fire, hopefully no serious injuries or illnesses, hopefully didn’t have a string of bad luck with car maintenance problems, weren’t burglarized, etc.
Because those are the situations that a lot of people desperately trying to escape poverty often find themselves in through no fault of their own. Bad luck and no financial cushion to right the ship.
Both layaway and coupon clipping are money saving practices.
Insurance covers fires and burglaries. Renter’s insurance is cheap, far cheaper that cigarettes, tattoos or regular lottery tickets. But you have prioritize and actually choose to purchase it. Car maintenance, I’ve had lots of that. It’s what emergency funds are for. But can’t build much emergency savings is you’ve made tattoos, cigarettes, eating out and the latest iPhone or fancy sneakers your priority. Sure, some folks are truly victims of bad luck but more have simply made poor choices and created their own bad luck.
Public funds should be reserved for those who are truly mentally or physically disabled and can’t help themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
