The World's Richest Man Sells Overpriced Designer Fashion Goods

bobolo on 17/04/2023 - 21:11

Bernard Arnault CEO of LVMH is now the richest man in the world. LVMH owns brands such as LV, Dior, Hennessy, Tiffany & Co and a host of other designer labels.

Full disclaimer - Myself and my wife are both victims of senseless material spending owning items across many of his brands and consuming their liquor at times. Despite the hype and vapious enjoyment, we both realise how silly some of these items are for example, $4000 for a Dior bag knowing very well the materials, labour and "craftsmanship" equate to probably little over $100 in real value terms - no wonder this bloke is rich

I do find it interesting that in todays world, the most (financially) successful human is no longer one who provides oil for transportion so that humans and human necessities can move around, or a property magnate who provides shelter, or a chain of supermarkets where people can get their food and water, or even the tech guy who provides easier ways for people to talk to each other

Its the guy who sells extremely overpriced clothing, jewellery and alcohol - possibly the furthest thing humans actually need to survive, especially in a world where people are suffering at an all time high

Quite telling where our priorities have always been. Our desire to show other humans that we are better than one other trumps all else

Financial

Comments

  • brendanm on 17/04/2023 - 21:20
    +53

    People are easily tricked into buying this overpriced garbage out of vanity and wanting to impress others. Makes it easy to spot those who have more money than sense at least.

    • pegaxs on 17/04/2023 - 22:23
      +101

      We buy shit we don’t need, with money we don’t have, to impress people who don’t care…

      • Nalar on 17/04/2023 - 22:59
        +18

        You should put that in a book, or a underground movement of some kind.

        • SBOB on 18/04/2023 - 07:11
          +19

          But don't talk about it.

          • Kangal on 18/04/2023 - 22:14
            +2

            @SBOB: Maybe we should make some rules about it?

        • opt on 18/04/2023 - 11:16
          +14

          Its a variation of a famous old quote
          Original:

          Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people that they don't like

        • htc on 20/04/2023 - 07:42
          +1

          Someone could summarise lots of stuff on ozbargain and turn it into a book, it will be a best seller. I may start with the title, JV's adventure on Ozbargain.

          • Munki on 20/04/2023 - 11:45
            +3

            @htc: And we'd all wait for it to be free on Amazon.

            • htc on 21/04/2023 - 04:45

              @Munki: That's the ozbargain spirit

      • cashless on 18/04/2023 - 11:37
        +9

        We buy shit we don’t need, with money we don’t have

        Sounds like OzBargain

    • SF3 on 18/04/2023 - 09:30
      +16

      Myself and my wife are both victims

      Appears to be OP’s personal choice and willing participant. Seems far-fetched from the victim claim

    • cwangv on 19/04/2023 - 13:26

      I don't think people buying bargain stuff are necessary better people either.

    • Nillionaire on 13/11/2023 - 22:39

      We're not tricked into buying them. We know what we're getting. We probably have more sense than your judgemental ass does. Sure, some want to impress. Others don't care about impressing others.

      • brendanm on 14/11/2023 - 00:09

        Lol, 7 month old thread. Yes, you are tricked, as the quality is no better than something many fractions of the cost, you are simply paying for the brand name. You are only buying it so that others will see you have it.

  • Nalar on 17/04/2023 - 21:21
    +6

    My guess, Millennials and onwards will (prob)never own a home so there's free cash for 'luxury' good.

    • brendanm on 17/04/2023 - 21:40
      +7

      Millennials are up to 42 years old at this point.

      • bargain huntress on 17/04/2023 - 22:14
        +1

        So? How does that disprove Nalar's arguement?

        • brendanm on 17/04/2023 - 22:15
          +2

          42 year olds have had quite a while to buy a house.

          • bargain huntress on 17/04/2023 - 22:23
            +13

            @brendanm: Doesnt mean they have been able to. That's the point?

              • bargain huntress on 17/04/2023 - 22:34
                +12

                @brendanm:

                "Over half (55 per cent) of Millennials, 25–39 year olds, are homeowners compared with 62 per cent of Generation X and two thirds (66 per cent) of Baby Boomers when they were the same age."

                Australian Beurea of Statistics - 20 Oct 2022 - https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/owning-ho…

                • brendanm on 17/04/2023 - 22:46
                  +1

                  @bargain huntress: Thanks, that completely disproves the statement above that millennials will never own a house.

                  • Nalar on 17/04/2023 - 22:51
                    +14

                    @brendanm: Well it disproves 55% of my statement I guess. How you think Gen Z will do? 35% 40%?

                    p.s thank you for quibbling on a detail and not addressing the overall point. Internet points for you sir/madam/xur

                    • brendanm on 18/04/2023 - 06:55
                      -3

                      @Nalar: Perhaps the inverse of your point is why they aren't buying houses? Wasting too much money on stuff like this?

                      • boirganz on 19/04/2023 - 13:33
                        +3

                        @brendanm: Simple maths. the value of a mortgage required now for a home as a multiple of the average or median wage is very significantly higher than gen x and boomers - and its trending worse.

                        Wouldn't be a huge issue if the rental situation was better.

                • EightImmortals on 18/04/2023 - 07:09
                  +15

                  @bargain huntress: Don't you mean 'mortgage owners'?
                  What percentage of people actually own their homes as opposed to renting them from the banksters?

                • Millikano on 18/04/2023 - 20:43
                  +1

                  @bargain huntress: I think an interesting study would be the type of housing. Freestanding homes have inherent land value, where apartments don’t. The long term wealth is in the land, and that was largely the housing supply available to Gen X (greatest creator of wealth is property).

                  • Kangal on 18/04/2023 - 22:19
                    +4

                    @Millikano: Not just that, but also the quantity of homes. What if 55% of Millenials have a home ownership of 1.05 on average, contrast to Boomers with 2.80 properties.

                    A better metric would be "property value". Owning a small home in the middle of Sydney would probably valued more than owning a dozen homes somewhere in the outback/woop woop.

                    I'm not trying to start a war/ageism between different groups, but I believe it is important to get the facts right before doing anything. Otherwise we're open to be tricked by any charlatan, trickster, or disinformation.

      • drfuzzy on 19/04/2023 - 12:35
        -3

        I know Millennials, single income, with 3 or more homes.
        It's getting harder but not impossible.
        Just not realistic for most.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 18/04/2023 - 09:17
      +5

      Yep. Boomers will love to say "stop buying luxury goods and eating out and you can afford a home" but fail to realise that home ownership is SO FAR out of reach for so many that if you resign yourself to not getting one, you have some extra money laying around.

      Facts don't lie.

      • brendanm on 18/04/2023 - 10:23
        +1

        Yet 55% of millennials have a house?

        • coffeeinmyveins on 18/04/2023 - 10:49
          +6

          home ownership is SO FAR out of reach for so many

          by your own admission, that leaves 45%? almost 70% of boomers were home owners at the same age for comparison.

          The original post was also referencing millenials and "onward". I'm guessing the rate of ownership with younger generations is less.

          • brendanm on 18/04/2023 - 11:32
            -7

            @coffeeinmyveins:

            by your own admission, that leaves 45%?

            Yep, a minority technically. I was more pointing out that some of this may be due to choices they've made.

            • greatlamp on 20/04/2023 - 08:15
              +2

              @brendanm: ABS stats that cover the entire population confirm that home ownership is decreasing and you still believe the BS that it's due to avocado toast eating millennials choosing not to save or work hard?

              What would change your mind?

              Let's not beat around the bush, LV sells to rich Chinese, and the number of rich Chinese is increasing rapidly. That's not why home ownership is down in Australia

              • brendanm on 20/04/2023 - 08:35
                -4

                @greatlamp:

                What would change your mind?

                Nothing while I see people buying new cars on finance, iPhones etc on afterpay, and then whining that they can't afford a house.

                I'm addition, they want a mansion in the middle of the CBD for $50, which isn't going to happen.

                • greatlamp on 20/04/2023 - 09:19
                  +1

                  @brendanm: The problem is the assumption that they are the same people in both groups. Yes some people buy a new phone every year, and think that a car needs to be replaced when the warranty runs out. The number of people who struggle to afford a home is much larger.

      • StingyBritches on 18/04/2023 - 11:16
        -5

        Are you a Boomer?
        If so, or not, don’t speak for me.

      • kaleidoscope on 19/04/2023 - 08:08
        +2

        I aint a boomer. If you want to live in your own home it just starts with a mindset of going for whats practical with your budget and not be in one of the posh suburbs

      • drfuzzy on 19/04/2023 - 12:37

        Yet your statement is devoid of facts and is an anecdote.

  • 3atc3 on 17/04/2023 - 21:23
    +3

    Good point. I guess that's a sign of the huge advances in social mobility / poverty reduction that have taken place in the last 100 years. But if people are prepared to buy the stuff then good luck to them. It's not like they have a monopoly on liquor or hand bags. On the other hand Luxottica really annoys me as they have a near monopoly on the (quality) fashion sunglasses trade.

    • DASHCAM NOW DUDE on 17/04/2023 - 21:35
      +3

      Interesting perspective.

      Makes sense. Who should be the richest person in the world? One that controls basic human necessities or the complete opposite? I would agree with you.

    • Meconium on 20/04/2023 - 08:13
      +1

      On the other hand Luxottica really annoys me as they have a near monopoly on the (quality) fashion sunglasses trade.

      Not only that, but they churn out cheap crap that doesn't hold a candle to the quality brands like Ray-Ban used to be renowned for. I bought some Maui Jims from Costco in a deal last summer and they're far superior. I triple-checked that Luxottica doesn't own them before buying, haven't been disappointed. The Ray-Bans that replaced my decade-old pairs might as well be Chinese knockoffs, Cancer Council sunnies are way better than current Luxottica high price low quality shades.

      • 3atc3 on 20/04/2023 - 20:40

        Huh, I thought all Sunglasses Hut sunnies were Luxottica owned. Good to know there is some competition.

  • MeesusEff on 17/04/2023 - 21:33
    +25

    We are living in a world where influencers/only fans who post videos on social media make more than teachers, doctors and nurses. Bit sad really

    • Stopback on 17/04/2023 - 21:54
      +7

      Do they really. Teachers get jobs for lifem

      Most influencers are top 1000 out of a global completion

      • MeesusEff on 17/04/2023 - 22:00
        +1

        I am referring to the more popular influencers who spread out on a variety of platforms. One of the influencers I can think of who disclosed their earnings is tiffycooks who makes $40-50k USD per month. That was a few months ago and that figure has probably risen by now. But that figure doesn't count the outgoings. While their earnings might stagnate at a figure, I would say they would still be miles ahead of a teacher working for life.

        • bargain huntress on 17/04/2023 - 22:20
          +1

          Even if thats true someone who provides a human necessity like a doctor, nurse or a teacher - or a baker, mechanic etc - has a guaranteed source of income during recessions, depressions and worse.

          And they have the sense of satisfaction and purpose that comes with doing something useful and important which is priceless.

          And they are not easily replaceable by AI or robotics.

          Entertainers on the other hand only make money during good times and the lead up to really bad times. During bad times they are f&@%!.
          And they are one of the jobs nost threatened by AI.

          • EightImmortals on 18/04/2023 - 07:10
            +1

            @bargain huntress: Probably true, but they make SO much money that they can set themselves sup for the hard times. Or, you know, buy lambos and stuff. :)

          • parisienne on 18/04/2023 - 19:37

            @bargain huntress: Well, according to you, the perfect solution for everyone who worries how they will cope next pandemic is to get skilled up in one of those (because, you know,soooo many people were soooo jealous of myself and my colleagues having a job 3 years ago and were desperate to put themselves out there with little to no PPE ),and of course, people are desperate to earn little more than the bloke doing night fill at ALDI ( 'cause that "sense of satisfaction and purpose" is great currency….I am buying LV by the truckload and am about to purchase my 4th home in Vaucluse on it,as my bank sees it as legal tender).Yep,all so true that those professions are seeing mass exodus by the 1000's ( I am one ).

      • ram4ram on 18/04/2023 - 23:02
        +1

        Teachers get jobs for life

        It's hardly a 'life job' anymore for teachers.

        Low wages, no support (seriously, my brother (a teacher) has to pay out of pocket for whiteboard markers and photocopying. Public school), parents expecting teachers to 'fix' their children's bad behaviour, LONG hours ('holidays' are not holidays), no respect…

        Makes no sense to stay in this profession. Sorry James, just my honest opinion.

        • greatlamp on 20/04/2023 - 08:18

          Parents don't raise their children anymore. It doesn't matter how much you pay teachers it won't fix it, class sizes need to be cut significantly

    • pharkurnell on 18/04/2023 - 09:39
      +4

      What is sad is people need influencers to live their life. very sad really,,

    • skillet on 18/04/2023 - 13:21
      +2

      How many successful influencers VS regular teacher doctors and nurses out there?

    • ripesashimi on 18/04/2023 - 14:53

      This seems wildly inaccurate.

    • GandalfTheCheap on 19/04/2023 - 20:30

      We also live in a world where the previous "richest man" (besides all the dictators and oligarchs that hide their money) gets about ten times as much criticism as the current guy, for the crime of forcing the auto industry to transition away from fossil fuels decades earlier and creating reusable rockets.

      This guy makes the world objectively worse with his awful business, the last guy is doing more to help steer earth away from climate disaster than any other human.

      Which one gets the most anger online?

      • greatlamp on 20/04/2023 - 08:20

        He brings it upon himself. Most people in his position stick to the occasional media interview.

        • derrida derider on 20/04/2023 - 21:16
          +1

          Bernard Arnault doesn't do media interviews. He is smarter than Elon - it is very very easy for "rich and famous" to turn into "rich and infamous"; what the media can make the media will break.

          It's much better to be rich and unknown. Either way, though, as Billy Connolly said "I've been rich and I've been poor. Rich is better".

  • ozbargainsam on 17/04/2023 - 21:51
    +4

    This just in: successful business man is the most successful man in business.

  • Tee Rex Arms on 17/04/2023 - 21:51
    -1

    No you don’t

  • Stopback on 17/04/2023 - 21:54
    +4

    4k is peasant fashion prices.

    Need to hit 50k

  • dstar012 on 17/04/2023 - 22:10
    +2

    Just buy knock offs. A fraction of the price and still all the mad drip to show off to the Jones or the people you catch the train with

    • JafferMoney on 18/04/2023 - 10:25

      And support the underworld/child exploitation/sex trafficking etc etc…good on ya cheapo!

      • nigel deborah on 18/04/2023 - 18:41
        +3

        Most knock offs are perfectly ethical (from a human rights point of view) Vietnamese, Thai, Cambodian etc manufacturers who just don't respect copyright.

        Yes, there's probably some bad ones. But you'll find that in almost any industry and across all kinds of products.

        • greatlamp on 20/04/2023 - 08:25
          +1

          The most common source of knock-offs is the contract manufacturer producing extra goods above the contract and selling on the black market.

          In manufacturing they attempt to control this by controlling the supply of raw materials (rather than let the factory source them, give the factory only enough to fill the contract), however when things are outsourced to a foreign country it's much more difficult to keep control.

          • nigel deborah on 01/05/2023 - 11:53

            @greatlamp: Not sure if I'd even consider those knock offs really. That plus seconds which are meant to be destroyed but are actually smuggled out of the factory.

            I don't know if that's the most common source though, there is an immense volume of generic clothes with luxury branding, especially throughout asia.

      • GandalfTheCheap on 19/04/2023 - 19:48
        +4

        You think the real thing doesn't?

        Boy have they conned you

      • bakemon0 on 20/04/2023 - 02:33
        +1

        and i'm sure the CEO of LVMH is using his profits to support great causes :)

      • Meconium on 20/04/2023 - 08:14

        lol one of these things is not like the other

  • AustriaBargain on 17/04/2023 - 22:14
    +5

    I would have thought the bags would cost a lot more than $100 to make, like make $250 when you factor in packing, materials, craftsmanship, etc. They use real leather don't they?

    This article suggests the leather alone costs 60 USD and that it makes up 30% of the material costs in designer bags in general https://blog.italic.com/why-are-designer-handbags-so-expensi…
    That article is actually quoting a New York Times article I can't be bothered finding. And it points out these costs are about the same whether it's a $600 bag or a $8,000 bag.

    Pretty good thing Dior and all those labels have going on.

    • Nalar on 17/04/2023 - 23:01
      +2

      Leather/Fashion (in euro)
      $38.6B Revenue
      $15.7B Profit

      https://www.lvmh.com/investors/profile/financial-indicators/

      • AustriaBargain on 17/04/2023 - 23:07
        +6

        Mmm, but how much of that is marketing? Then again how much of any bag sold all over the world is marketing. But yeah you're right, more than doubling your input money is a very good thing going on.

        • greatlamp on 20/04/2023 - 08:28

          I can tell you from experience a $5000 suit costs less than $50 in labour to produce. Materials would not be much more. It's all marketing, those empty stores in the most expensive street of every big city cost a fortune in rent, and they still make this much profit

  • plmko on 17/04/2023 - 23:02

    It is up to you to enlighten, discover and learn about what you're buying and consuming. I do not believe everyone should be free of temptation of these hideous brands or saved from buying overpriced stuff when there are cheaper and simply better (close) alternatives. Otherwise there won't be enough of the good stuff for you to buy cheap now before they appreciate from the clout chasers.

    We need these people to feed our economies and society otherwise money just gets stale and becomes old money.

    • GandalfTheCheap on 19/04/2023 - 20:12
      +1

      Nah, economic activity mostly comes from the poorest 90% of people making small purchases which go to other normal people's wages/small-business-revenue, who spend it similarly, and so on.

      Two-thousand-dollar handbag/fashion scam "products" don't tend to feed into small business or workers pockets like this, it mostly goes back to this rich dude and his marketing budget, since there are so few workers involved and no real expenses in manufacturing them.

      So these are actually a drain on economic activity, that get the most naive consumers to forego many purchases to buy them, then not do much with the money.

  • DingoBilly on 17/04/2023 - 23:33
    +2

    Brands and marketing really do hold a lot of sway. And when you can mark up the price substantially and people will still pay well why wouldn't you?

    This isn't news though - most of the richest are rich because they can sell you a brand. And this happens at all levels of money as well - look at Tesla or Apple which are happy to sell you overpriced goods because of their brand, and how many people are willing to defend them because they become part of people's identity. Or people who shop at Woolworths/Coles because Aldi is too cheap.

    • thrillhouse on 18/04/2023 - 08:56
      +1

      Tesla and Apple are terrible analogies here. Both are differentiators, primarily due to their software (but also hardware in Apple's case).
      Designer bags on the other hand don't do anything different than another bag of similar quality and style, they just have a logo on them.

      • bargain huntress on 18/04/2023 - 18:09
        +2

        The genius of tesla and apples marketing is that you and people like you believe they are different.

        • thrillhouse on 19/04/2023 - 10:44

          Can you explain to me how I can run iOS and macOS on non-Apple hardware?
          And no, the answer isn't "don't use it" - they are my preferred operating systems for many reasons.

          PS: I am well-aware "Hackintosh" exists, but that doesn't support the argument that Apple doesn't create software that is desirable to many.

          Just because you don't like their products, it doesn't mean those that do are wrong. Sheesh, this argument is so tired.

      • DingoBilly on 20/04/2023 - 20:08

        No, they're both brands. You can get the same or better features for cheaper elsewhere but people are sucked in to the marketing and that they're different or special. As the other commenter mentioned - the fact you don't see that shows how successful they are.

        I didn't say they were in the same league of uselessness, but they are all just brands at end of day and you are paying a premium for both brands for nothing.

  • tonka on 18/04/2023 - 00:48
    +1

    This is a result of the wealth divide more than vanity.
    One person that can afford to spend more money on a pair of shoes balanced by 50 families expenditure on groceries. And of course much great profit margin in the shoes.

  • lostgoat on 18/04/2023 - 06:57

    Some people have so much $$$$$$ they don't care what amount they spend .
    It doesn't seem to be you OP !
    If he is the world richest man he must have huge demand for his products hehe .
    Even the counterfeits can't stop him .

  • payless69 on 18/04/2023 - 07:08
    +2

    My bro in law used to say: We all suffer so much from stupid people we just have to punish them to get even!

  • Sinnerator on 18/04/2023 - 08:05
    +2

    So its cheaper to fly to china to buy a genuine knockoff (made at same factory and is exactly the same including serial numbers) and have a holiday than it is to buy the 'genuine' product.

    • payless69 on 18/04/2023 - 11:28
      +1

      Bernard is very good on making customs looking out for fakes.
      Guess a surfboard with a bodybag?

    • no not me on 18/04/2023 - 22:38

      LV and Dior allegedly don’t manufacture anything in China.

    • magic8ballgag on 19/04/2023 - 13:18

      Is that a statement or a question?

    • cauilfield on 20/04/2023 - 10:46

      Ever been to China ? There is 0 chance of you going to the same factory and buying the same Knockoff product.

      It will be same same but different.

      Same as buying $20 AirPods Pro that look the same

  • tomleonhart on 18/04/2023 - 08:32
    +2

    Quite telling where our priorities have always been. Our desire to show other humans that we are better than one other trumps all else.

    Each to their own so I don't like conclusion like this. I wear a K mart shirt and jean with a pair of RM from LVMH to save people lives on the weekend as a volunteer. I have no desire to show any human that I am better than them.

    • seraphy on 18/04/2023 - 10:28

      Just for clarity, RM is no longer under LVMH

    • bargain huntress on 18/04/2023 - 18:12

      So genuine question: why do you wear them then?

      • tomleonhart on 18/04/2023 - 19:08

        Because rm is comfy and Kmart clothes are comfy. Plus rm boot lasts a very long time.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join