Think about money as the product of your labor. Unless you really love your job, this has a meaningful value that you can directly compare to the product you are purchasing. Assuming a middle-class income of $50,000 US/year after tax, a Porsche costs anywhere from 1 to 2 years of your labor. A Civic costs between 1/3 and 1/2 a year of labor. Both are reliable modes of transportation. The practical difference between the two products is largely inside the head of the purchaser. It is an expensive delusion.

Can anyone honestly tell me that a Porsche is worth 1.5 years of slogging it away at your job over and above the cost of a Civic? I can’t say I would be surprised if someone said yes, but surely the majority would say “no.”

Think about money as the product of your labor. Unless you really love your job, this has a meaningful value that you can directly compare to the product you are purchasing. Assuming a middle-class income of $50,000 US/year after tax, a Porsche costs anywhere from 1 to 2 years of your labor. A Civic costs between 1/3 and 1/2 a year of labor. Both are reliable modes of transportation. The practical difference between the two products is largely inside the head of the purchaser. It is an expensive delusion.

Can anyone honestly tell me that a Porsche is worth 1.5 years of slogging it away at your job over and above the cost of a Civic? I can’t say I would be surprised if someone said yes, but surely the majority would say “no.”

So, you think the “experience” of Paris is incomparable, and others think the “experience” of Porche/bigTV is comparable. You’ve elevated one over another without any principled distinction. Of course this is an old argument, e.g. Mill (I think) on the higher vs. lower virtues.

One more point: I have a Honda and a 19″ TV. I can’t argue directly on 50″ back to 19″, but here are two examples that underscore my view that it’s hard to go back:
- having experienced broadband, going back to dialup is ACTIVELY PAINFUL, even though I used dialup for many years (e.g. using 14.4 on Compuserve, and 300 baud back in the dark ages)
- having used a fast new computer, it’s ACTIVELY PAINFUL to go back to a slow one … even though that was a refreshing speed bump from the one before it

So, you think the “experience” of Paris is incomparable, and others think the “experience” of Porche/bigTV is comparable. You’ve elevated one over another without any principled distinction. Of course this is an old argument, e.g. Mill (I think) on the higher vs. lower virtues.

One more point: I have a Honda and a 19″ TV. I can’t argue directly on 50″ back to 19″, but here are two examples that underscore my view that it’s hard to go back:
- having experienced broadband, going back to dialup is ACTIVELY PAINFUL, even though I used dialup for many years (e.g. using 14.4 on Compuserve, and 300 baud back in the dark ages)
- having used a fast new computer, it’s ACTIVELY PAINFUL to go back to a slow one … even though that was a refreshing speed bump from the one before it

I do know someone whose hobby is working on and racing old porches, it costs a lot of money, and it does make him happy, but that is more because he is continually learning about repairing and racing porches and meeting people with the same interests. In part, this just means pick the right interests for your income level.

I do know someone whose hobby is working on and racing old porches, it costs a lot of money, and it does make him happy, but that is more because he is continually learning about repairing and racing porches and meeting people with the same interests. In part, this just means pick the right interests for your income level.

In terms of nutrition IHOP and the best restaurant in France are practically identical. This is another egalitarian triumph of the market. I was talking about the overall experience (including ambience, service, etc.), as opposed to just a source of calories.

Scott, If you used to have a 50″ and move back to a 19″, you’ll be briefly annoyed, but 19″ will quickly seem normal and perfectly satisfactory again. Adaptation need not be a one-way upward ratchet.

In terms of nutrition IHOP and the best restaurant in France are practically identical. This is another egalitarian triumph of the market. I was talking about the overall experience (including ambience, service, etc.), as opposed to just a source of calories.

Scott, If you used to have a 50″ and move back to a 19″, you’ll be briefly annoyed, but 19″ will quickly seem normal and perfectly satisfactory again. Adaptation need not be a one-way upward ratchet.

I also disagree that people stop benefitting from the larger TV. Sure, it becomes the new normal, but if you want to see whether they appreciate it, try to get them to trade down to the old 19″. NO WAY. (By the same token, I’ll bet those who can afford the ultra dining experience all the time lose the same novelty effect. The examples are quite interchangeable.)

I also disagree that people stop benefitting from the larger TV. Sure, it becomes the new normal, but if you want to see whether they appreciate it, try to get them to trade down to the old 19″. NO WAY. (By the same token, I’ll bet those who can afford the ultra dining experience all the time lose the same novelty effect. The examples are quite interchangeable.)

This is obviously a value judgment. Allow me to state the obvious equivalent: “A meal at the IHOP is functionally identical to an exquisite meal at the best restaurant in Paris.” Both are grotesquely wrong for my personal value system. The subjective qualifier “exquisite” certainly appears in discussions of driving fine sports cars.

To suggest that value systems which differ from your own (dining > driving) are “trivial” is naked righteousness. The entire market egalitarianism assertion is spurious because it can be inverted and applied to any source of joy.

The adaptation assertion I think is obviously dismissable both for requiring a very ambitious set of assumptions and for its broader implication.

But of course any counter-argument can be haughtily dismissed as cognitive dissonance for some big purchase which brought no happiness. “I guess you folks who paid through the nose for your trip to Paris are very proud. Fair enough.”

This is obviously a value judgment. Allow me to state the obvious equivalent: “A meal at the IHOP is functionally identical to an exquisite meal at the best restaurant in Paris.” Both are grotesquely wrong for my personal value system. The subjective qualifier “exquisite” certainly appears in discussions of driving fine sports cars.

To suggest that value systems which differ from your own (dining > driving) are “trivial” is naked righteousness. The entire market egalitarianism assertion is spurious because it can be inverted and applied to any source of joy.

The adaptation assertion I think is obviously dismissable both for requiring a very ambitious set of assumptions and for its broader implication.

But of course any counter-argument can be haughtily dismissed as cognitive dissonance for some big purchase which brought no happiness. “I guess you folks who paid through the nose for your trip to Paris are very proud. Fair enough.”