Author Topic: An Adult Should Really Know This - Silly Things You've Had to Tell People  (Read 303945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elfmama

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6137

What everyone really should know about diamonds. It's obvious when you think about it.

http://au.businessinsider.com/why-diamonds-are-a-sham-2013-3
Quote
The “keystone,” or markup, on a diamond and its setting may range from 100 to 200 per cent
The author is off by a factor of 10, methinks.  When DD#1 left her first husband, she tried to sell her engagement/wedding rings back to the jewelry store.  XH had paid something like $2400 for them; they offered her $60.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
It's true. Money can't buy happiness.  You have to turn it
into books first.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Pen^2

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107

What everyone really should know about diamonds. It's obvious when you think about it.

http://au.businessinsider.com/why-diamonds-are-a-sham-2013-3

I respectfully disagree with this article. I think the word "diamonds" could be be replaced by "brand new cars" "designer clothing" or even "canned corn" - something is worth what we are willing to pay for it - even if that came around by clever advertising. I would never pay $3,000+ for a handbag, but there are lots of people who will, even though surely they must realize there is a only a few hundred dollars worth of materials and workmanship involved. It's about the brand, or the "prestige".

The ethical concerns also extend to other industries - slave labor for making clothes, the use of leather and fur in clothing and handbags, sourcing of ingredients/destroying habitats for our favorite meals.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this way!

Diamonds are, in my opinion, generally overpriced and not particularly useful in a practical sense. But the same can be said of a thousand and one other products that people buy every day. There's nothing particularly wrong with that. The issue here isn't with diamonds themselves, it's with the industry, which is essentially the same as the industry used to produce the majority of other luxury items.

katycoo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3767

What everyone really should know about diamonds. It's obvious when you think about it.

http://au.businessinsider.com/why-diamonds-are-a-sham-2013-3

I respectfully disagree with this article. I think the word "diamonds" could be be replaced by "brand new cars" "designer clothing" or even "canned corn" - something is worth what we are willing to pay for it - even if that came around by clever advertising. I would never pay $3,000+ for a handbag, but there are lots of people who will, even though surely they must realize there is a only a few hundred dollars worth of materials and workmanship involved. It's about the brand, or the "prestige".

The ethical concerns also extend to other industries - slave labor for making clothes, the use of leather and fur in clothing and handbags, sourcing of ingredients/destroying habitats for our favorite meals.

True, but diamonds are one of the few things that are ONLY defined by their inflated value.  You can drive a new car, you can wear designer clothing, you can eat canned corn - all a diamond is good for is looking pretty and showing off how much money you can afford to blow on a (literal) rock.  People assume that because they cost a lot, they must be rare - and that really isn't true.

How is wearing a ring any different from wearing designer clothing?

blue2000

  • It is never too late to be what you might have been
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6809
  • Two kitties - No waiting. And no sleeping either.

What everyone really should know about diamonds. It's obvious when you think about it.

http://au.businessinsider.com/why-diamonds-are-a-sham-2013-3

I respectfully disagree with this article. I think the word "diamonds" could be be replaced by "brand new cars" "designer clothing" or even "canned corn" - something is worth what we are willing to pay for it - even if that came around by clever advertising. I would never pay $3,000+ for a handbag, but there are lots of people who will, even though surely they must realize there is a only a few hundred dollars worth of materials and workmanship involved. It's about the brand, or the "prestige".

The ethical concerns also extend to other industries - slave labor for making clothes, the use of leather and fur in clothing and handbags, sourcing of ingredients/destroying habitats for our favorite meals.

True, but diamonds are one of the few things that are ONLY defined by their inflated value.  You can drive a new car, you can wear designer clothing, you can eat canned corn - all a diamond is good for is looking pretty and showing off how much money you can afford to blow on a (literal) rock.  People assume that because they cost a lot, they must be rare - and that really isn't true.

How is wearing a ring any different from wearing designer clothing?

Or driving a designer car or eating designer food?

I eat gluten-free (darn stomach!) and I noticed that products in the 'organic/gluten-free' section of the store are twice the price of the same products in other aisles (they are labelled gluten-free as well). I seriously doubt that rice flour doubles or triples in value by virtue of the packaging.
You are only young once. After that you have to think up some other excuse.

Slartibartfast

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 11704
    • Nerdy Necklaces - my Etsy shop!

What everyone really should know about diamonds. It's obvious when you think about it.

http://au.businessinsider.com/why-diamonds-are-a-sham-2013-3

I respectfully disagree with this article. I think the word "diamonds" could be be replaced by "brand new cars" "designer clothing" or even "canned corn" - something is worth what we are willing to pay for it - even if that came around by clever advertising. I would never pay $3,000+ for a handbag, but there are lots of people who will, even though surely they must realize there is a only a few hundred dollars worth of materials and workmanship involved. It's about the brand, or the "prestige".

The ethical concerns also extend to other industries - slave labor for making clothes, the use of leather and fur in clothing and handbags, sourcing of ingredients/destroying habitats for our favorite meals.

True, but diamonds are one of the few things that are ONLY defined by their inflated value.  You can drive a new car, you can wear designer clothing, you can eat canned corn - all a diamond is good for is looking pretty and showing off how much money you can afford to blow on a (literal) rock.  People assume that because they cost a lot, they must be rare - and that really isn't true.

How is wearing a ring any different from wearing designer clothing?

Just that a ring serves no other purpose than being a ring.  Designer clothing at least fulfills the purpose of clothing (i.e. keeping you warm, keeping you from violating social taboos, etc.)  Yeah, it's outrageously expensive and you're paying extra for the status symbol, but you're not buying it *only* for the overpriced value - you're getting some function out of it too.  (Maybe $5 worth of function, if that's what you could have spent on something else cheap, but still.)

The point I got from the article was that demand for diamonds is *completely* based on historical advertising - they'd have no intrinsic value without it.

blue2000

  • It is never too late to be what you might have been
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6809
  • Two kitties - No waiting. And no sleeping either.

Just that a ring serves no other purpose than being a ring.  Designer clothing at least fulfills the purpose of clothing (i.e. keeping you warm, keeping you from violating social taboos, etc.)  Yeah, it's outrageously expensive and you're paying extra for the status symbol, but you're not buying it *only* for the overpriced value - you're getting some function out of it too.  (Maybe $5 worth of function, if that's what you could have spent on something else cheap, but still.)

The point I got from the article was that demand for diamonds is *completely* based on historical advertising - they'd have no intrinsic value without it.

Diamonds are also used for industrial purposes. According to this article, more often than they are used for jewelry. http://geology.com/minerals/diamond.shtml

It is fascinating to think about the fact that we wear something that is also used in machinery. If diamonds hadn't taken off as engagement rings, would we wear something else? Will silicon and fiber optics be all the rage in a few hundred years?
You are only young once. After that you have to think up some other excuse.

MommyPenguin

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4412
    • My blog!
I always sympathized with Anne of Green Gables, who said in one of the books that she'd always imagined diamonds, when she'd read of them in books, as being a beautiful purple color.  When she saw one in real life for the first time, she was horribly disappointed.  They always symbolized disappointment to her, so she wanted a pearl for her wedding ring.  Others reminded her that pearls are for tears, but she said that tears of both sadness and joy are part of life and she'd be happy enough to wear a pearl.  Personally, I prefer amethyst, but the sentiment remains.  I think diamonds are sort of boring.  I had one passed down to me from my MIL, who never wore hers, but it fell out of my ring and was lost a couple of years ago, so now I just have a wedding band.  I do think the idea of spending 2 months' salary on, well, pretty much anything impractical is not a great way to start an engagement/married life.  There are so many expenses early on, including potentially a house and children, that it just seems wasteful to me.  But then, everybody has their own priorities for their money, and if they aren't asking me for money (either directly or through needing government services/taxpayer money), it's none of my business.

scotcat60

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 456
You can ski in Australia and Tasmania.

And you have the Snowy Mountains and the Snowy River.

iridaceae

  • Boring in real life as well
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3846
My point still stands that most of Australia's population does not live in areas where they get the winters much of the US does that would make hot water heaters being outside severely impractical. I would guess a good third to a quarter of the population lives in this area. The Midwest,  Plains States, New England and the mountain States: that's a big chunk of the population. As an example Syracuse, NY (population 662,000 or so) gets an average of 128 inches of snow (330 cm) of snow a year. That's cumulative,  not snow,  then melt,  then more snow. Minneapolis Minnesota (population 3.4 million or so) has an average temperature in January of 13.1 F. (-11 C).

Moonie

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 351
My two grandsons had gone to spend the weekend with thier grandfather and his wife. It was Easter weekend.  Saturday night I get a call from the wife asking me if I had ever heard of the Easter Bunny because oldest grandson was talking about the Easter Bunny coming that night.  I had to explain the Easter Bunny to a 40 year old woman who had raised to adulthood, two children, knew about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It still makes my head hurt to think about it.

gramma dishes

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8108
My two grandsons had gone to spend the weekend with thier grandfather and his wife. It was Easter weekend.  Saturday night I get a call from the wife asking me if I had ever heard of the Easter Bunny because oldest grandson was talking about the Easter Bunny coming that night.  I had to explain the Easter Bunny to a 40 year old woman who had raised to adulthood, two children, knew about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It still makes my head hurt to think about it.

Uh oh.  It sounds like Grandpa and his wife were caught totally unprepared for the Easter Bunny's arrival!  How did that work out?

P.S.  Hadn't Grandpa ever heard of the Easter Bunny either?

Pen^2

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
My two grandsons had gone to spend the weekend with thier grandfather and his wife. It was Easter weekend.  Saturday night I get a call from the wife asking me if I had ever heard of the Easter Bunny because oldest grandson was talking about the Easter Bunny coming that night.  I had to explain the Easter Bunny to a 40 year old woman who had raised to adulthood, two children, knew about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It still makes my head hurt to think about it.

Well, if she lives in a hut in the middle of a jungle, then that's perfectly excusable.

I knew a guy who came from MagicalRainbowLand, where they don't do the tooth fairy and so on. His expression when I tried to explain it was incredible. "People make up this stuff--when they're not high--and earnestly lie to their kids about it... just so they can give them their spare change? Millions of people do this?"  :o To be fair, I had warned him quite thoroughly about drop bears the week before. Safety first!

cwm

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2427
I just had to do an anonymous edit on a wiki site. You see, when your site is trying to give valid home treatments for miliaria (heat rash), it's best not to call it malaria. Despite being similar at first glance, they're completely different things.

Moonie

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 351
My two grandsons had gone to spend the weekend with thier grandfather and his wife. It was Easter weekend.  Saturday night I get a call from the wife asking me if I had ever heard of the Easter Bunny because oldest grandson was talking about the Easter Bunny coming that night.  I had to explain the Easter Bunny to a 40 year old woman who had raised to adulthood, two children, knew about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. It still makes my head hurt to think about it.

Uh oh.  It sounds like Grandpa and his wife were caught totally unprepared for the Easter Bunny's arrival!  How did that work out?

P.S.  Hadn't Grandpa ever heard of the Easter Bunny either?

Yes, he had heard of it, as he is my ex and our daughter always got candy from the Easter Bunny. I have no idea why she had not heard of it....unless the Easter Bunny doesn't exist on her home planet (you'd have to know her).

Virg

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5880
Slartibartfast wrote:

"Just that a ring serves no other purpose than being a ring."

And a painting serves no other purpose than being a painting.  It even parallels in that most people wear rings for decoration and most people hang paintings for the same reason.

"Yeah, it's outrageously expensive and you're paying extra for the status symbol, but you're not buying it *only* for the overpriced value - you're getting some function out of it too."

It seems strangely elitist to say that a ring "serves no purpose" as though being a pretty bauble isn't enough purpose all on its own.  There are many for whom wearing jewelry or perfume or designer clothes holds value above what mundane purpose the articles could offer.

"The point I got from the article was that demand for diamonds is *completely* based on historical advertising - they'd have no intrinsic value without it."

This could be said for a Picasso as well, and for exactly the same reason.  It's true that someone who buys a diamond for financial purposes is taking a risk, but the same could be said of art or wine or a thousand other things like baseball cards or Beanie Babies.  Diamonds may be overpriced for you but you should be careful about assuming that your opinion is the only valid one as far as value is concerned.

Virg