How to Join
the Fashion Spot / Front Row / Fashion... In Depth
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Rules Links Mobile How to Join
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
27-11-2012
  1
fashion insider
 
Couture_Tribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,019
Occupy Wall Street, the 1% or 2%, and fashion being luxury
Does the title not make you think? The growing gap between the wealthy and the average, those wealthy tend to be the ones spending their money on luxury, and namely fashion.

Does the occupy movement not make you look at wealthy people buying luxury fashion goods from a different perspective?

Does it not trigger some aversion? Does it not trigger your desire to go and ruin their shopping trips whenever you seen them making their purchases?

Does it not make you want to move the occupy movement to those fashion luxury retail stores?

(I am fully aware of the fact that not everyone who buys fashion luxury are the 1% or 2%).

Go

__________________
"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers".
James Thurber
"The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it."
unknown
  Reply With Quote
 
27-11-2012
  2
front row
 
Vega Magnus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South Carolina
Gender: homme
Posts: 439
Not really. It's none of my business what other people spend their money on. It may be distasteful to me, but it is their money to do with what they wish. And really, high end fashion has generally been for the wealthy anyway. It is not as if anything has changed a great deal. People just notice it more now because they are feeling economic pressure themselves and feel upset and threatened by wealthy people spending large amounts of money on seemingly frivolous things.

__________________
Just say no to Terry Richardson.
  Reply With Quote
02-12-2012
  3
Power to the 99%
 
fashionista-ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hardly ever at Barney's
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,592
I recognize that there are a lot of unconscious people out there who live their lives almost without regard to anyone else. Some of those people are rich. My expectations of, say, Donald Trump are very low (and still he manages to disappoint me with his idiocy). If I were in contact with him, it's hard to imagine how anything I could say or do would wake him up to reality. So I accept that I must allow him to be how he is, and follow his own path.

I remember a fashion magazine interviewed 'celebrities' asking what they were doing for Earth Day. Marjorie Gubelmann said she was going to be wearing the family emeralds, and while that is reuse, and emeralds are green, I nonetheless found it quite offensive.

I subscribe to other magazines that cheer me up after reading something like this.

__________________
There's a need for more individuality today, and my job is to cater to women, not dictate to them.
--Alber Elbaz
  Reply With Quote
02-12-2012
  4
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,848
I still think that absolute obsession with surface is disgusting - but it doesn't matter if it's among the rich or the poor.

  Reply With Quote
02-12-2012
  5
V.I.P.
 
MulletProof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 24,751
In the region I come from it's hard to escape the topic of inequality, it's just something you grow up with, especially as urban planning is virtually non-existent, you basically open your right window and it's total misery, you open the left one and there's a shocking display of opulence. There's little "average". Opposite poles coexist, with all the tension that coexistence entails, and when you're in the middle, you know you're hanging from a very fine thread, what's likely to happen (and usually happens more than once in your lifetime if you're middle class) is having a taste of misery, but moving up the ladder can happen too, and when you do that and are on 'safe ground', you can neglect your way up or your surroundings.

To me, middle class is a one of the trickiest, often most dangerous, sectors of society. Because usually, it's the majority, they tend to have access to mental stimulus and awareness, but the seduction of wealth and the nightmare of poverty comes in subtle (or not so subtle) daily reminders, and that weakens its power as a majority. It keeps them fragmented. The poor unify through mutual demands (education, access to staple food, services, healthcare, you name it) and the rich unify in their right to posses several 'options' of living life as they wish to, cause it's a free world, right?. Middle class doesn't unify for much, they're not entitled to less, they're entitled to the shopping trips and luxury of the rich and if they can't have it often, something's wrong with equality. The reasoning is rarely based on looking down and asking why I do have this and why do they not?, this is actually a trait shared among middle and upper class, that the answer is often "because I worked hard" "because my parents worked hard" "because I didn't drop out of school?" "because I didn't just stay there hungry, I went out and found my opportunities", they're never conditioned by society and/or an inherited set of conditions. It's an individualistic talent they possess that has pushed them up and set them apart, from the poor, from the rich, from their own middle class..

It's too much of a complex topic to think luxury is responsible of inequality. I don't think it is. Does it thrive on inequality? yes it does, to some extent, in the majority of countries. Is occupying a high-end restaurant because only wealthy people can afford it as effective as occupying the center of transactions that sustain inequality? No way. A waste of time imo. And divisive.

Kind of all over the topic, sorry, I do think neoliberalism should've been stopped decades ago, by occupying wall street, fomenting consciousness among citizens on the repercussions this would have. We're on to the next chapter at this point (globalization), it's difficult, but the root remains on the way we've decided to interpret an economical system, that's what needs pressure in order to be regulated, never too late for regulations, and quite frankly, I do believe in capitalism, luxury business is bound to exist in a capitalist system, but it cannot emerge upon poverty, it needs a regulated structure, like the capitalist system altogether anyway.. and that's what needs diffusion and activism, not going after the furs of someone whose actions are within the legal framework but the legal framework itself, why has it not been revised after continual failure?, so yeah, I think Occupy Wall Street is (or was??) was correct in going for the jugular, and not the luxurious scarf!

__________________
Metal teeth of carousels.
  Reply With Quote
03-12-2012
  6
fashion insider
 
Couture_Tribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by fashionista-ta View Post
I recognize that there are a lot of unconscious people out there who live their lives almost without regard to anyone else. Some of those people are rich. My expectations of, say, Donald Trump are very low (and still he manages to disappoint me with his idiocy). If I were in contact with him, it's hard to imagine how anything I could say or do would wake him up to reality. So I accept that I must allow him to be how he is, and follow his own path.

I remember a fashion magazine interviewed 'celebrities' asking what they were doing for Earth Day. Marjorie Gubelmann said she was going to be wearing the family emeralds, and while that is reuse, and emeralds are green, I nonetheless found it quite offensive.

I subscribe to other magazines that cheer me up after reading something like this.
Donald Trump does not like vocations, random trivia.

What CAUSES wealthy people to be unconscious of economic inequality, in your example, wearing family emeralds for earth day, is systematic failure.

Inferring from your comments, economic system failure does affect the way you live your life. If you were wealthy enough, you would go buy yourself some diamonds to cheer yourself up, instead of some affordable magazines.


__________________
"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers".
James Thurber
"The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it."
unknown
  Reply With Quote
03-12-2012
  7
fashion insider
 
Couture_Tribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vega Magnus View Post
Not really. It's none of my business what other people spend their money on. It may be distasteful to me, but it is their money to do with what they wish. And really, high end fashion has generally been for the wealthy anyway. It is not as if anything has changed a great deal. People just notice it more now because they are feeling economic pressure themselves and feel upset and threatened by wealthy people spending large amounts of money on seemingly frivolous things.
It is more about fashion luxury being symbolic of economic inequality, it has nothing to do with wealthy people's spending habits. It is about the cause, not the effect.

__________________
"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers".
James Thurber
"The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it."
unknown
  Reply With Quote
03-12-2012
  8
fashion insider
 
Couture_Tribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvjeisa View Post
I still think that absolute obsession with surface is disgusting - but it doesn't matter if it's among the rich or the poor.
Again, it is about thinking what caused some people to have money for luxury, not the effect, that some people have money and spent them on absolute obsession with the surface.

__________________
"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers".
James Thurber
"The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it."
unknown
  Reply With Quote
03-12-2012
  9
fashion insider
 
Couture_Tribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulletProof View Post
In the region I come from it's hard to escape the topic of inequality, it's just something you grow up with, especially as urban planning is virtually non-existent, you basically open your right window and it's total misery, you open the left one and there's a shocking display of opulence. There's little "average". Opposite poles coexist, with all the tension that coexistence entails, and when you're in the middle, you know you're hanging from a very fine thread, what's likely to happen (and usually happens more than once in your lifetime if you're middle class) is having a taste of misery, but moving up the ladder can happen too, and when you do that and are on 'safe ground', you can neglect your way up or your surroundings.

To me, middle class is a one of the trickiest, often most dangerous, sectors of society. Because usually, it's the majority, they tend to have access to mental stimulus and awareness, but the seduction of wealth and the nightmare of poverty comes in subtle (or not so subtle) daily reminders, and that weakens its power as a majority. It keeps them fragmented. The poor unify through mutual demands (education, access to staple food, services, healthcare, you name it) and the rich unify in their right to posses several 'options' of living life as they wish to, cause it's a free world, right?. Middle class doesn't unify for much, they're not entitled to less, they're entitled to the shopping trips and luxury of the rich and if they can't have it often, something's wrong with equality. The reasoning is rarely based on looking down and asking why I do have this and why do they not?, this is actually a trait shared among middle and upper class, that the answer is often "because I worked hard" "because my parents worked hard" "because I didn't drop out of school?" "because I didn't just stay there hungry, I went out and found my opportunities", they're never conditioned by society and/or an inherited set of conditions. It's an individualistic talent they possess that has pushed them up and set them apart, from the poor, from the rich, from their own middle class..

It's too much of a complex topic to think luxury is responsible of inequality. I don't think it is. Does it thrive on inequality? yes it does, to some extent, in the majority of countries. Is occupying a high-end restaurant because only wealthy people can afford it as effective as occupying the center of transactions that sustain inequality? No way. A waste of time imo. And divisive.

Kind of all over the topic, sorry, I do think neoliberalism should've been stopped decades ago, by occupying wall street, fomenting consciousness among citizens on the repercussions this would have. We're on to the next chapter at this point (globalization), it's difficult, but the root remains on the way we've decided to interpret an economical system, that's what needs pressure in order to be regulated, never too late for regulations, and quite frankly, I do believe in capitalism, luxury business is bound to exist in a capitalist system, but it cannot emerge upon poverty, it needs a regulated structure, like the capitalist system altogether anyway.. and that's what needs diffusion and activism, not going after the furs of someone whose actions are within the legal framework but the legal framework itself, why has it not been revised after continual failure?, so yeah, I think Occupy Wall Street is (or was??) was correct in going for the jugular, and not the luxurious scarf!
I appreciate you sharing some details from personal life.

Occupying centre of transaction that sustains inequality must be effective. It is a way of expressing why you and how come it is you, not us. Because it is you and not us, we will make it not you and not us to the best of our abilities.

__________________
"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers".
James Thurber
"The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it."
unknown
  Reply With Quote
03-12-2012
  10
V.I.P.
 
MulletProof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 24,751
Felt like I ended up in a rally in your last paragraph.

I was talking more regional context than personal life.

Occupying is thankfully not the only effective way, it adds pressure and when executed carefully can create consciousness, but on its own, without real changes in education that pave the way for those that will be policy makers in the future, it can stay in just protest, or fade away, or be susceptible to media manipulation, like it's been happening since it started. For instance, I think that when studying economics it's imperative to have in depth knowledge of Marxism, dedicate one to two semesters just to know the other 'side' of the story.. and I think that's still a bit of a taboo in the US, and to have it in the US concerns us all because let's just say they 'administer' the rest of economies. It adds a bit of sensibility imo.

__________________
Metal teeth of carousels.
  Reply With Quote
03-12-2012
  11
Power to the 99%
 
fashionista-ta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hardly ever at Barney's
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Couture_Tribe View Post
Donald Trump does not like vocations, random trivia.

What CAUSES wealthy people to be unconscious of economic inequality, in your example, wearing family emeralds for earth day, is systematic failure.

Inferring from your comments, economic system failure does affect the way you live your life. If you were wealthy enough, you would go buy yourself some diamonds to cheer yourself up, instead of some affordable magazines.

I assume that probably Marjorie was going for a 'fabulous' quote rather than a down-to-earth one, which IMO would be much more appropriate for Earth Day. Are you using TP made of recycled paper like I am, Marjorie?? That's what I'd like to be told.

In my view, people having and wearing family emeralds is not indicative of a systemic failure, but people not having food is.

I can afford diamonds ... every mall jewelry store, even Walmart for that matter (which I also boycott), sells diamonds (the quality may be poor, but they are diamonds). I choose not to buy or wear diamonds, except for a very few vintage ones, due to the unsavory history of deBeers and the still very real problem of blood diamonds. (It also just requires scrapping a piece of diamond jewelry with the worst history in the world dating to last month, to get a 'clean diamond.')

What causes some (not all) wealthy people to be unconscious is their own lack of personal evolution. Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet are in my mind pretty good examples of very wealthy people who are in touch with reality and doing their part to make the world a better place. We could have a fully functional economic system (these do exist) and still have wealthy people who are unconscious. An excellent system could keep them from doing harm.

__________________
There's a need for more individuality today, and my job is to cater to women, not dictate to them.
--Alber Elbaz

Last edited by fashionista-ta; 03-12-2012 at 07:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote
06-12-2012
  12
trendsetter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,403
I'm not really giving an answer to your questions, but here are some inputs:

-I don't really see the need of moving OWS to fashion/luxury stores. They are part of the process but not the cause of the process itself. You can think on what it's behind the clothes people is buying (under which working conditions are made, use of animals, use of fertilizers in cotton growing, etc.), yet again, this includes with mass retailers, that ostly target middle-class (high and low middle class); making the problem a little more complex and global.

-fashion companies (like every company) also contribute to create jobs to the economy.

-To finish, I would like to point out that in the last 5-6 years (of crisis), luxury has boomed, and fashion luxury is not left behind; actually many middle-class aim to purchase some of these items/feel the fantasy of owning them (like renting handbags).

My last hyphen takes me to MulletProof reasoning... I have also lived for a while in a country/city in which you could feel those big difference among rich and poor and how the middle class hang in between; and had come to the same thoughts.

  Reply With Quote
06-12-2012
  13
fashion insider
 
Couture_Tribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto
Gender: femme
Posts: 2,019
I am going to do a quick post instead of quoting replies due to temporary time constraints.

Warren Buffet is a hero in my eyes, lol. If I remembered correctly, he is the one who said " I want to make my children feel like with all the inherited wealth, they can do anything, not that they can do nothing."

In terms of inherited family wealthy caused people to be very ignorant in the unconscious sense, from this article:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...-to-the-world/

Quote:
Is it possible,” he mused, “for this generation to be morally responsible for righting the wrongs of previous generations?”

...

But a Harvard undergraduate countered that argument based on her theory of a type of implicit consent. Freshman Keyanna Wigglesworth contended that if today’s generation “benefits from the wrongdoings” of past generations, “then they are responsible.”

__________________
"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers".
James Thurber
"The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it."
unknown

Last edited by Couture_Tribe; 06-12-2012 at 12:15 PM.
  Reply With Quote
06-12-2012
  14
trendsetter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,403
^regarding warren buffet, in the One percent documentary (made by Jamie Johnson, a very wealthy kid - it's a bad documentary, don't bother seing it), he stops talking/disinherits to one of his granddaughters (if I remember well) for participating in the film... the girl works as a nanny for another wealthy family (less wealthy than herself)... ergo, she's doing what she enjoys. So, I guess Mr. Buffet has a double standard.

EDIT: what wikipedia says: Nicole Buffett - Adopted daughter of Warren Buffett's son Peter from a previous marriage, to whom Warren denied "legal and emotional" links.

  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
1%, 2%, fashion, luxury, occupy, street, wall
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. 2014 All rights reserved.