What Do People Spend Money on That You Think Is Stupid and Extravagant?

jellykingdom on 19/12/2018 - 11:27
Last edited 19/12/2018 - 11:41 by 1 other user

Hard one to word correctly in the title…

I have seen a few examples lately of silly and over-the-top things that people pay loads of money for, and it honestly makes me a little angry that people waste money on such nonsense.

My list includes (they're mostly vanity related I notice):
- $1000 sneakers
- $20 pairs of socks
- Butler's pantries - so now you have a 'Good' kitchen, and an 'Actual' kitchen… (mod: language)
- $2000 iphones

I'm certainly guilty of wasting money from time to time, on clothes or booze or furniture etc, and I make a decent living so this isn't a whinge about "Why do people have money and not me??". I am just absolutely gobsmacked sometimes at the stuff people spend their money on….and yes it is their money to waste obviously

What's on your list of "WTF Expenses"?

General Discussion

Comments

                • abb on 21/12/2018 - 17:13
                  +1

                  @Scrooge McDuck: That's a false statement. They exchange their Newstart money for goods and services at various businesses, thereby possibly increasing employment and definitely creating profits for the owners of the businesses. Welfare money has a much higher velocity than billionaire money and therefore is arguably more helpful to the economy.

          • pegaxs on 19/12/2018 - 17:25
            +3

            @idonotknowwhy: Can disagree all you like, but the money they receive is tax payers money, not theirs. It is more akin to giving your children money for lunch and them spending it on cigarettes. Offering to pay off a family members mortgage and they use the money to buy a very expensive car instead.

            The onus here is on the recipient to do the right thing with money that is “given” to them. If they have earned that money, then I don’t think anyone gives a rats ring bit. But when that money is “given”, there there is an expectation that it is used for its intended purpose and at the best value those funds can buy.

            If someone on welfare payments (ie: tax payer funds) has enough to blow on cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, dope, meth, hookers, etc etc, then I say that they are not using the funds “given” to them to get the best value and that if they have enough left over for “investing” then they are being offered too much.

            So, I’m sorry, while ever my tax is paying for junkies to shoot up, smoke or piss up against a wall, I think it is my business and every other tax payers business what these people are doing with what is being “given” to them.

            • idonotknowwhy on 19/12/2018 - 18:16
              +12

              @pegaxs: I'm funding them as well man, but as long as they're not breaking the law (some of the things you mentioned lol) it's their money. I literally belongs to them once they receive. Nowhere does the law state that they have to spend the money responsibly.

              Besides, humans require more than just sustenance to survive. If we remove their sense of agency, it'll do society more harm long-term than letting people buy PlayStation games or sexual services from time to time.

              I don't expect to convince you, we'll just have to agree up disagree, but did you really have to neg me just for being on the other side of the fence? lol

              • pegaxs on 19/12/2018 - 22:21
                -1

                @idonotknowwhy:

                as long as they're not breaking the law

                And that’s the crux of it. A lot of what they do is breaking the law. But now you want to have input on what they do with the money. I thought you said “it’s their money” but now even you want to put caveats on it.

                The point is, welfare is there to keep people alive and housed. Not to support gambling, alcohol, cigarette and drug habits. This is not their money. This is your money, my money. Why do they get more of a say in what they do with “our” money.

                And I don’t expect to convince you, so I’m going to leave it at that. And getting all butt hurt and accusing me of negging you is a little petty (oh, my fake internet points!!!). Sorry to say, I was all out of negs for today, well before I got to your post.

                • idonotknowwhy on 19/12/2018 - 23:04
                  +2

                  @pegaxs: Well yeah; I mean, nobody should break the law.
                  Other than that, we should mind our own business and them spend their money.

                  • pegaxs on 19/12/2018 - 23:34
                    -1

                    @idonotknowwhy:

                    their our money.

                    FTFY. :)

                    But I concur. I have to accept the things I cannot change. The government gives them our money, what they do with it after that is almost entirely out of my hands.

            • alisso on 20/12/2018 - 11:32
              +1

              @pegaxs: Welfare recipients are also taxpayers.
              Welfare is taxpayers money.
              Ergo, it's their money.

              Semantics aside, it's still their money. That's the deal. Certain people can apply for government assistance (the unemployed, students, businesses, pensioners, the disabled, parents, etc) and if they meet the criteria, they get the money/tax rebate. It's then up to them to manage what they have. If they choose to eat two meals a day so they can buy cigarettes, that's their call. If they want to live on ramen so they can buy a better computer, or an iphone, or even drugs, that's up to them and they get to deal with the consequences.

              Criminal activities are a whole different issue, and should be dealt with via the legal system, not the welfare system.

              Although it's worth noting that it costs even more to keep someone in jail, than on welfare.

        • vetopower on 20/12/2018 - 02:40
          +8

          I am a taxpayer and I am happy for welfare recipients to decide how best to spend that money.

          In a democracy, decisions about the use of public money are made by the legislature. And the legislature has decided that, on the whole, welfare recipients are in the best position to decide how to spend their money — that is, they know their needs better than the government.

          So 'we' have already decided that there are no restrictions on how people spend welfare.

          You are wrong.

      • Thaal Sinestro on 20/12/2018 - 07:57
        +2

        Good luck being able to afford drugs on Newstart or a Pension when housing is so prohibitively expensive.

    • HighAndDry on 19/12/2018 - 14:22
      +1

      My view is that people should spend their money on what they want and others should mind their own business.

      Eliminate the social welfare net for these people and I'll whole-heartedly agree.

      • idonotknowwhy on 19/12/2018 - 19:15
        +21

        If you eliminate negative gearing on investment properties and I'll eliminate social welfare :p

        • try2bhelpful on 19/12/2018 - 21:46
          +15

          Absolutely. The amount of tax dodged by the high end of town is massive compared to Centrelink dodges but you don’t see the shock jocks go after them because that is who they get their backhanders from.

          • idonotknowwhy on 19/12/2018 - 23:02
            +12

            @try2bhelpful: Yeah, it's an old trick. The rich take things from the middle class, but trick everyone into focusing on and hating the poor. As you can see, it works really well.
            A very small portion of our taxes go to help those on welfare. Yeah, some people abuse the system but most just need temporary assistance while they study (to contribute more to society in the future) or while they go though a tough time on their lives (which they'll pay back when they get back later when they recover and start contributing again).

            • pegaxs on 19/12/2018 - 23:40

              @idonotknowwhy:

              A very small portion of our taxes go to help those on welfare.

              Yeah, well, you see, now you’re wrong. Buy far the largest portion of our taxes are spent on keeping the welfare system afloat.

              ABC has a pretty good page that you can see just how the budget is broken up and what it’s spent on. The largest chunk of it is welfare. It dwarfs almost every other spending category (3x greater than defence and over 2x greater than health. And almost 6x greater than education)

              So no, it’s not “a very small percentage”. It’s actually a very large and significant percentage.

              Still think it’s “their” money?

              • D C on 20/12/2018 - 00:51
                +1

                @pegaxs:

                Still think it’s “their” money?

                Whose money?

                The poors?

                How much of that do they get?

              • [Deactivated] on 20/12/2018 - 01:50
                +9

                @pegaxs: Of the 176 Billion spent on welfare only 10 is spent on the unemployed who are the welfare group most attacked by conservatives, Which is a small percentage in my view. How often do you see Alan Jones or ACA disputing the 67 billion spent on pensioners?

              • idonotknowwhy on 20/12/2018 - 07:20
                +2

                @pegaxs: Yeah I was are of this as the ATO sends me that report ever year telling me where my money is being spent.

                I should have been more clear, I thought we were taking about those on the unemployment benefit, which is very small compared with what we're sending on the elderly.

                Do you also consider the sending habits of the elderly and those with permanent disabilities, to be our business?

              • sysonthedyson on 22/12/2018 - 18:58

                @pegaxs: It became theirs when it was given to them from the government and failed to be yours when you paid your taxes to the government for the services you receive daily and running of this country to facilitate the privileged lifestyle that we live and others around the world may not get blessed with.

                It would be detrimental to you to claim their money as being yours as that would also make you liable for what they did with it! Going back to that list of illegal activities that you were talking about earlier.

                If you ask me, you'd probably be more upset and less able to debate the point if you were in prison for a Crime committed by the spending of $50 by a random stranger on the other side of the country who happened to get your tax money

            • HighAndDry on 20/12/2018 - 08:55
              +1

              @idonotknowwhy:

              The rich take things from the middle class

              No one, other than the government, is "taking" anything. Only tax is forced, everything else is voluntary.

              • ItsMeAgro on 20/12/2018 - 09:48

                @HighAndDry: I didn't know this! Thanks man, Ima stop paying my food and rent

                • HighAndDry on 20/12/2018 - 09:49

                  @ItsMeAgro: Jail house accommodation and food are free.

                  On a more serious note, not that your comment warrants the effort:

                  The corner grocer you can buy food from isn't 'rich' by any definition of the word. Neither is the single parent with one investment property (or just a room) to rent out because they don't have time to go to work.

                  But sure. All your problems are because of rich people keeping you down. I'm sure you'd be so much more successful in life if only you had a chance!

            • Diji on 23/12/2018 - 12:21
              +1

              @idonotknowwhy: It blows my mind that people take issue with the miniscule amount used on welfare but turn a blind eye (or even support) the amount of money given to corporate interests, tax dodged by the 1%, and money spent on things directly threatening the future of our nation and planet.

          • HighAndDry on 20/12/2018 - 08:54

            @try2bhelpful: Tax is money taken by government from the people. The government isn't giving out money when people minimise their tax liability.

            • idonotknowwhy on 20/12/2018 - 09:01
              +1

              @HighAndDry:

              Tax is money taken by government from the people.

              No one, other than the government, is "taking" anything.

              By exclusion, money is effectively being taken from those without investment properties.

              It's not a special policy at all.

              It's a policy which only applies to investment properties. No equivalent exists for stock.

              I don't know why I need to keep repeating this

              I haven't seen you post it before.
              I suspect you're in the property market as I saw you post a detailed explanation about something related to strata laws in another thread, but I've never seen you discuss negative gearing before.

              • HighAndDry on 20/12/2018 - 09:31
                +1

                @idonotknowwhy:

                By exclusion, money is effectively being taken from those without investment properties.

                You can't just throw in "effectively" to turn a falsehood into a fact. No one is excluded from the property market.

                It's a policy which only applies to investment properties. No equivalent exists for stock.

                Some ongoing management fees for stocks are tax deductible.

                https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=TXD/TD9560/NA…

                As I said - the principle is a universal one: costs incurred in producing assessable income are generally deducted.

                I've never seen you discuss negative gearing before

                I definitely have because there are a large contingent of people here who love to whine about it without understanding it.

                • idonotknowwhy on 20/12/2018 - 09:53
                  +1

                  @HighAndDry: Some small costs like accounting and brokerage ($10 per trade lol) are.

                  But if I were to take it a loan to put 500k on VAS, and my dividend payments (equivalent to rental income on an IP) were less than the interest paid on the loan, I wouldn't be able to claim that cost against my dayjob income tax.

                  This is why a lot of people are choosing real estate as their investment vehicle. This is why negative gearing is a special tax.

                  I'd love to buy VAS leveraged, claim the difference between dividends and interest paid against my income tax, and then hope for capital gains as the stock prices rise over time.

                  Also, a lot of people are locked out of the property market now.

                  And I'm sure you have posted about negative gearing before. The 2 reasons why you have to repeat it are:

                  1. Not everyone saw your other posts.
                  2. People read your posts, but you didn't persuade them /change their views. Charging someone's view isn't easy.
                  • Baysew on 20/12/2018 - 10:09
                    +1

                    @idonotknowwhy: Yes you would be able to do that Investing In Shares and claim interest costs.

                    For instance ANZ would lend 75% of the value of VAS ANZ Investment Lending Approved Stocks via their Margin Lending facility. Minimum loan is $20,000 so no need for huge investments that Real Estate investing has.

                    The negative gearing argument seems to really be about housing affordability. Now the real estate markets are cooling, perhaps the arguments will too.

        • HighAndDry on 20/12/2018 - 08:53

          I don't know why I need to keep repeating this: negative gearing is just the universal tax principle of deducting expenses from revenue before levying a tax. It's not a special policy at all.

      • Thaal Sinestro on 20/12/2018 - 08:01

        How to balance the budget? Eliminate middle class welfare (capital gains discounts, FTB Part A & B), increase the upper taxation rate to 50% on amounts over $100,000 a year, makes migrant have to pay a upfront fee to settle in Australia, introduce land taxes and inheritance taxes for estates above a certain value, and so on. Punish tax evading corporations (asset seizure for CEOs and board members who practice tax evasion).

        Poor Australians struggle to pay rent while the average middle class indiviudual owns 4 properties, and often a child care centre as well.

        • DaneD on 20/12/2018 - 10:50
          +2

          50% over 100k????? What you think someone earning 100k is rich? You realise you just remove all incentive to work harder and earn more right? This encourages 'tax minimisation' which I can guarantee you are against as well.

          Let me guess the "rich" are not paying their "fair share" - discounting the fact that the "rich" already pay significantly more taxes than "Aussie battlers".

          Taxing people into oblivion never works.

          Inheritance taxes? What if a 'Poor Australian' inherits a property and can't pay the inheritance tax? They are forced to sell and can't keep the property (which has already been taxed and paid for) in the family? What nonsense is this?

        • amazonaddict on 22/12/2018 - 12:09
          +1

          Thats ridiculous. I don’t know how much you are making. But, most of the people here make $100k+ and still struggle. All those investment properties are for us to save our future, because we believe there will be no one when we stop earning and want to live a life ( just not survive). I originally am not a fan of higher income earners paying more tax. Thats utterly stupid. He makes more because he is hard working and smart. By sucking more on his blood you drive him out of his passion and patriarchy. He starts finding dodgy ways to save money and and country loses everthing. (Inheritance tax is fine. That makes complete sense. Charging more from migrants also valid.)

          Unless a person is disabled (whom we all should take care of), being poor is his problem. Because no richman made it that far being lazy. He worked hard, spent weekends on boring stuff, took risks, sacrificed a lot including relationships while the poor man spent having fun watching TV drinking beer. Everyone should have a drive to become rich. If you realise you can’t, instead of loathing the rich, find out the reason and fix it for your children so that atleast they become rich.

          Damn.. 50%? Huh

    • ozbjunkie on 20/12/2018 - 20:11
      +1

      Reminds me of Steve Hugh's joke -

      "don't give your money to the homeless, they'll just spend it on booze and drugs…"

      "Well what do you think I was gonna spend it on?"

  • AdosHouse on 19/12/2018 - 11:43
    +17

    Went to Europe twice in 2 year. 1 month each time. Cost about $10k each time (that's everything). No regrets.

    • Archi on 19/12/2018 - 11:47
      +35

      so once a year

      • AdosHouse on 19/12/2018 - 12:46
        +27

        Yes well twice in 2 years was quicker than saying, went once a year for two years.

        • Noophe on 20/12/2018 - 09:30
          +7

          not so quick when you have to explain it

    • fossilfuel on 19/12/2018 - 11:54
      +9

      Extravagant, probably. But not stupid. I think one of the best things you can do is treat yourself to experiences rather than buy a bucketload of goods that you use only once or twice.

      • AdosHouse on 19/12/2018 - 12:50
        +2

        Yeah I agree, and no regrets. We spent about 4 days in each country so we did jump around a bit , but we experienced a lot.

        And I was pretty damn good with prices. Each year it was about $6k for the month in accommodation and flights. Those were decent hotels with good accessibility and with premium airlines.

        In those 2 trips I have seen, UK, France, Italy, Switzerland, Vatican, Czech Republic, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Croatia, Spain, Russia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Dubai.

  • payton on 19/12/2018 - 11:44
    +2

    cruises, dining at expensive restaurants that are mostly $$$ due to atmosphere or "name" while their food is average
    'must have' christmas toys that are flavour of the month

    • cwongtech on 19/12/2018 - 12:10
      +2

      cruises

      Cheap holiday if you go Royal Caribbean though?

      Fine dining is a waste in most cases.

      • outlander on 19/12/2018 - 13:00
        +1

        Fine dining is a waste in most cases.

        Maybe not in European countries, where people dress up for it. But yeah, it australia where even the 'upper class' go in flip flops and yoga pants, and the 'fine dining' places have been built by the same contractor who works for Metricon? Save your money.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 19/12/2018 - 13:56
          +10

          Nothing wrong with yoga pants mate! 🍑

          • outlander on 19/12/2018 - 16:16

            @Scrooge McDuck: There is when its worn by 60 year old, overweight ladies

            • Scrooge McDuck on 19/12/2018 - 16:23
              -4

              @outlander: Yuck! The manufacture, sale and distribution of yoga pants in size 10 and above should be made unlawful and subject to harsh penalties.

              • outlander on 19/12/2018 - 16:32

                @Scrooge McDuck: I'm not going to go as far as to say what people should and should not wear. I just don't want to spend $300 to be given the opportunity of an eyeful

              • jacross on 20/12/2018 - 09:59

                @Scrooge McDuck: Size 10 isn't particularly large for an athletic woman.

      • Kenb0 on 19/12/2018 - 16:01
        +2

        Love Royal Caribbean cruises. Have been on two(Eastern and Western Caribbean) now and have loved my time on each cruise. The last cruise was even sweeter because we booked the cheapest stateroom(think inside room, no window or porthole, no balcony) and I would have been perfectly fine with it because I had the same the previous trip, but I ended up winning their big bingo prize one day into the trip, and got upgraded to their Royal Suite for the rest of the cruise. This suite was bigger than my apartment, had a private jacuzzi on a private balcony outside, and we got VIP treatment everywhere we went. Never had to line up for any shows, we just got escorted into our VIP seats anytime we wanted, and we got access to their VIP lounge where we had unlimited alcohol and food. Made an already great trip something to remember.

    • Jamiea on 19/12/2018 - 17:17
      +4

      How are cruises are expensive?
      Most of the time the entire cruise is the same as what it would cost to fly but you're also getting meals and accommodation with it.

      • kingmw on 19/12/2018 - 20:53
        +1

        It'a all the addons that make the cruise liners money (much like low cost budget airlines).

    • johnno07 on 19/12/2018 - 19:39
      +1

      Cruises are for the most part very good value though?

      • sakinah on 20/12/2018 - 06:45

        We went royal carribean and it was the cheapest and best holiday. They had some deal so our kids aged 2 and 5 were free. We loved it. Value for money. Free room service food till midnight was great. The fine dining food was amazing.

    • Save Medicare on 21/12/2018 - 06:12

      I didn't care for lumi

  • Archi on 19/12/2018 - 11:46
    +11

    I have a butler's pantry. its a single long bench about 3 meters long where it only has a sink and heaps of cabinets.

    that's where I put all the appliances that would other wise clog up and make ugly the normal kitchen like toaster and rice cooker. kettle.

    then I have lots of bench space to prepare food and cook.

    • wizzy on 19/12/2018 - 12:24
      +5

      A butler's pantry sounds awesome to me. I would love to have more storage space and more bench space.

    • slow on 19/12/2018 - 13:00

      Same here, love having a small tidy kitchen with clean benches in the open area, and the crap and appliances hidden away

    • Sigiriya on 19/12/2018 - 15:46
      +2

      We also have a walk in pantry and love it. I could not imagine living without it. All small appliances like food processor, air fryer, kettle, oil fryer, rice cooker, breville smart grill etc are permanently plugged in and don't have to bother with packing them away after use. I guess OP think it is waste of money because he/she never had one. My view is, somebody would not spend money unless they perceive the value of the services or product. Perceived value is different from person to person. Some are happy with home brand products while some are going to the top end brands. Obviously there is a different no matter what people say. Sometimes the difference is marginal. But someone might value that marginal satisfaction.

    • zqipz on 20/12/2018 - 08:48
      +1

      Feel like OP knows little about cooking & entertaining, to diss the butlers pantry.

    • BigBirdy on 20/12/2018 - 10:02
      +1

      The issue about a butlers pantry is when it becomes the kitchen, leaving the actual kitchen as just a showroom.

  • sd4f on 19/12/2018 - 11:49
    +33

    Cosmetic items in games, and more concerning is how gambling has crept into many games, where for the most part, it is completely unregulated and targets under aged gamers.

    • jellykingdom on 19/12/2018 - 11:58

      Oh my god, yes, definitely this!

    • HighAndDry on 19/12/2018 - 12:06
      +2

      where for the most part, it is completely unregulated and targets under aged gamers.

      I seem to be the only one who doesn't have an issue with this. Almost all of these require a credit card at some point in the process, so there is always an adult signing off. So it can be solved by just parenting better.

      • Baysew on 19/12/2018 - 12:34
        +1

        Visa Debit works just as well, and these are issued to 14 year olds.

        • HighAndDry on 19/12/2018 - 12:42
          +2

          You still need an adult's authority to apply for that card though (or open an account with that card). And if you're authorising your kid to get a debit card, it's incumbent on you to supervise its use (like anything else).

          I just don't believe it's anyone else's responsibility to parent your kids.

          • Jolakot on 19/12/2018 - 15:39
            +1

            @HighAndDry: Don't need anything for those prepaid Visa cards, I remember sneaking off and buying them when I was 15.

            • HighAndDry on 19/12/2018 - 23:53
              -1

              @Jolakot:

              I remember sneaking off and

              Remember that "better parenting" I mentioned?

              • Jolakot on 20/12/2018 - 15:05
                +1

                @HighAndDry: These were sold at Woolworths, unless you expect parents to affix a GoPro to the top of their kids heads, then there's nothing that can be done supervision wise.

                Granted these weren't used to pay for microtransactions, these were used to buy, err, things that my parents would have been more embarrassed or confused than angry to find.

                Point is, no adult supervision was involved here. You may as well be saying that drug dealers on school grounds are no big deal because kids should know better.

                They don't, kids are stupid, they can't drink or smoke for a reason.

          • grasstown on 19/12/2018 - 19:33
            +1

            @HighAndDry: Your logic baffles me. Addiction should not be preyed on

              • grasstown on 20/12/2018 - 07:51
                +2

                @HighAndDry: Huge difference

                • HighAndDry on 20/12/2018 - 15:27
                  +1

                  @grasstown: Eh. Not surprised at the negs. The only difference is a matter of degree. At the end of the day, the individual lacks self control - addiction is just where that's so strong it can be diagnosed. But if you can't exercise self control like a normal person, and you expect special treatment because of it, you should also not expect the same freedoms and rights like a normal person either. Balance, right?

                  • grasstown on 20/12/2018 - 18:38

                    @HighAndDry: My own view is that you and I could wake up tomorrow with all we hold today gone

              • ozbjunkie on 20/12/2018 - 20:15
                +1

                @HighAndDry: I think the experts would concur that a lack of control is a symptom of addiction, but the words are not congruent.

                Speeding drivers aren't addicted to speeding for example, not according to diagnostic criteria, or recognised lines of defence in court to my knowledge.

                • HighAndDry on 20/12/2018 - 20:44

                  @ozbjunkie: This is an "all ducks are birds, not all birds are ducks" thing. All addicts lack self control. Not all people who lack self control are addicts.

                  • ozbjunkie on 21/12/2018 - 00:29

                    @HighAndDry: Great, we agree. A bird is not just another word for duck, and neither is duck another name for bird.

        • Jugganautx on 19/12/2018 - 14:13

          does invisible money get put into these accounts as well?
          if i worked at mcdonalds as a 14-15 yr old you gonna bet id be buying whatever i want with the shit pay lol

      • outlander on 19/12/2018 - 17:01
        +8

        Yes, but I think you still see yourself as part robot, perfect in your logic and reasoning, and fully accountable to your choices.

        In reality, people are flawed machines with known exploits, and gambling is one of them. It has almost no effect on me, as I know the mechanics of how it works and playing a rigged game just doesn't excite me, but that doesn't mean I'm not equally vulnerable in other ways. I think everyone in society has a duty of care to not exploit each others vunerabilities (as lame as that sounds). Because when they forgo that, not only does it encourage laziness (Seriously, I know game designers have bills to pay, but how much better is it when games have to be played through, and you can't just pay to skip to the ending?) but also because things can get real bad without it.

        • HighAndDry on 19/12/2018 - 17:10
          +2

          Yes, but I think you still see yourself as part robot, perfect in your logic and reasoning, and fully accountable to your choices.

          Hardly. I've got flaws like everyone else. I'd like to think I own up to them, take responsibility for them, and don't push that onto others when it's my flaw.

          In reality, people are flawed machines with known exploits, and gambling is one of them.

          I don't disagree with this - I don't think people are perfect. But I think each person should be accountable and responsible for their flaws and imperfections. If you have a flaw, it's incumbent on you to address it, not anyone else. Others can help, sure, but I disagree strongly that anyone else has any obligation to help you deal with your issues.

          Seriously, I know game designers have bills to pay, but how much better is it when games have to be played through, and you can't just pay to skip to the ending

          I also don't like gambling or loot-box mechanics or pay-to-win/pay-to-play mechanics. I think they're net negatives to gameplay design. But the solution isn't to force game developers to make good games through the law, the same way that it'd be ridiculous to use the law to force Hollywood to make good movies. That's the job of consumers to pick and choose and vote with their wallet.

          And - I think this is what annoys people - if a majority of people decide to buy, use, and pay for loot-boxes or pay-to-win mechanics, or enough to make developers money, maybe the correct approach is to accept that those people can validly have their own preferences and choices and might disagree with you.

          • outlander on 19/12/2018 - 17:52

            @HighAndDry: I'm not talking so much about flaws, like charging someone 3x the price of a soft drink because they're thirsty and too lazy to cross the street to go to the supermarket, and more about the severe weaknesses. The ones that you can apply a little pressure on and the person cracks, and you can then manipulate them into doing all sorts of things they wouldn't do otherwise.

            Even the best programmers can't fully secure complex systems, and human beings are far more complex than any machine. Evolutions a pretty slopy coder, and gambling in video games wasn't a thing when most of the human genome was being written. Stands to reason there'd be a full holes in the program.

            And it's not like games have these features accidentally. I know you know that. There's tons of research done. They tweak it hundreds or thousands of times to give it maximum impact, so it gets past the targets audiences' defenses. They do market research. They consult psychologists. Its not one guy, making a game, earning a few extra pennies. Its business, and the revenue is in the billions.

            (Oh btw, just so you know while I think its evil I don't think banning it would work either. I'm idealistic, but not unrealistic. In fact, I think they should dial it up to 11, really bleed the suckers dry, and then tax the crap out of it. 99%. That way, part of the money could be used to a)keep those people alive b)help the people to recognize their flaws, and c) come up with strategies and technology that could help deal with it. For example, a credit card that was blocked from transferring money to all accounts associated with mobile games. But I'm not sure how you could trust anyone to run such a scheme without taking the money for themselves or companies creating loopholes to avoid the tax)

            • HighAndDry on 19/12/2018 - 18:01
              +1

              @outlander:

              I'm not talking so much about flaws, like charging someone 3x the price of a soft drink because they're thirsty and too lazy to cross the street to go to the supermarket, and more about the severe weaknesses.

              It seems counter-intuitive to me (and also liable to create perverse incentives) that worse flaws should be treated with more sympathy than lesser ones.

              The ones that you can apply a little pressure on and the person cracks, and you can then manipulate them into doing all sorts of things they wouldn't do otherwise.

              Unless it's coercive pressure, the fact that someone cannot resist a burger and ends up fat, or cannot resist a soft drink and ends up with diabetes, is nothing but that person's own fault. Again - I disagree that they should be entitled to turn their issues (lack of self control) into others' issues (restrictions on their freedom).

              Its business, and the revenue is in the billions.

              So is McDonalds, and I'd oppose equally strongly anything that'd restrict them from marketing burgers to fat people, despite a proven weakness to them. It's on a person to have and exercise self-control. If they can't do that, it's their freedoms that should be taken away, not those of others.

              For example, a credit card that was blocked from transferring money to all accounts associated with mobile games.

              Haha, you beat me to this. I'd agree with this completely. If someone can't control themselves, I'd be open to allowing them to escape the consequences, only if they're willing to give up their own freedoms in return.

  • bobbified on 19/12/2018 - 11:49
    +8

    Handbags! (speaking for all the guys out there with a missus…)

    • Fergy1987 on 19/12/2018 - 11:52
      +6

      or fabulous men who know how to store their stuff just right!

    • payton on 19/12/2018 - 11:55
      +2

      I totally understand women collecting handbags and shoes.
      As an ozbargainer, if a pair of running shoes was a bargain and they are very well rated I'd buy it. Same with Osprey packs and well designed laptop bags.

      • bobbified on 19/12/2018 - 12:10
        +1

        I'm not referring to your general every day handbags… I'm referring to collections of handbags that are $5000+…(EACH!).

        (Although, I don't understand it, I do know the effect it has on the receiving person and I've had to buy a few before).

        • payton on 19/12/2018 - 12:26

          I'm referring to collections of handbags that are $5000+…(EACH!).

          /mind blown

          • bobbified on 19/12/2018 - 14:26
            +3

            @payton: Chanel bags are $5000 minimum. Hermes bags.. well, $10K.

            If it's a one-off, then fair enough. But they often want to get at least 2 or 3 different ones to match outfits, etc. Becomes quite expensive!

        • Archi on 19/12/2018 - 12:29

          hermes birkin bag comes to mind.

        • Quantumcat on 19/12/2018 - 12:54
          +1

          LOL and I thought I was being extravagant paying $300 for mine after researching extensively and deciding yes I really wanted it and feeling guilty for spending so much even though I use it every day and own no other handbag

          • SimbaGirl on 19/12/2018 - 13:05

            @Quantumcat: I only have one handbag and it came from Target LOL. I'll use it until it starts coming apart, and then replace it. Have never owned more than one handbag at a time, and I resent spending more than $30 or so for one! And as for shoes … nope, don't spend money on those either :). I have about half a dozen pairs of Keen walking/hiking shoes of different types and wear them all the time, even to work. I think the last (lightweight) pair cost me $70 at a clearance store in Melbourne.

            • Quantumcat on 19/12/2018 - 13:48

              @SimbaGirl: Same as you re: shoes, I have 4 pairs - sneakers, short boots for wearing with dresses at work, doc martens boots and some sandals. I don't mind spending 1-3 hundred on something of quality that will last for 10+ years but the designer/collector thing baffles me!

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join