• TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you have to ask you can’t afford it.

    People buying 30k bottles of wine are generally the kinds of people that don’t have a “credit limit” like we’re used to. They probably also have people that go get that wine for them, and likely pay by credit card or check.

    • Mak'@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh, I acknowledge that.

      However, there are two things I get hung up on. One, can’t pay by check—Costco doesn’t accept checks. And, two, the traditional no-limits cards are generally Amex, which they don’t accept—only Visa.

      So, yes, while nothing else you said was wrong per se, I’m still left to ponder just how the transaction would go down.

        • protist@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sure, but in those stats we’re talking households making $100-$150K a year, who are not going to drop $27K on a bottle of whiskey lol

          • spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            There’s a subset of drinkers that would aspire to it though - some ppl’s passion is booze, and will spend the same price as a nice car on it and sip it over a decade. Whether or not it’s sane is up to you though lol

      • Vespair@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve known some disgusting rich people (born and raised in the wealthiest county in the entire country) - for some reason they love Costco. They don’t even do their own shopping but they insist on Costco. Unless they’re aggressively right-wing.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The very wealthy do shop at warehouse clubs, Walmart, etc. You won’t see them being walking advertisements for clothing lines, either. They do buy quality clothing, but they aren’t overtly branded, unless they’re casual, work or sports clothing. They may drive nice cars, many will own a regular 90s model Pontiac or something. They also don’t plan their money for years, rather in centuries. There’s a difference in behavior and attitude between old money and nuveau riche, as well.

        • SoJB@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The very wealthy are also petulant little pigs who clad themselves in designer clothing, diamonds, and gold. Who literally clutch pearls and hiss at minorities. Who support genocides and drive drunk on public roads after their racist little evening gatherings.

          Let’s stop pretending these ghouls are valid human beings. Entire Royal families have been terminated for having less relative wealth to the workers than todays ruling class.

          • Maeve@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            They are human beings, these are human behaviors, and it’s not “no true human would…” Of course they would, and easily, too. My only point was to highlight differences in our concepts of wealth, and theirs.

            Entire Royal families have been terminated for having less relative wealth to the workers than todays ruling class.

            Indeed.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They like to push this narrative but based on the global yacht and luxury real estate I am not buying it.

          Sure there are some high netwoth individuals who live like this esp under 100m type. But people over that live lavishly and they don’t hide it really.

          And they all seem to go to diddy and Epstein parties on top of it …

          • Vespair@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think there are kind of two different groups that get conflated, actually: the wealthy, and the “professionally wealthy.” The wealthy are often discrete and not showy, but the “professional wealthy” are those whose wealth or fame itself is central to their empire, even if not as directly as the influencer wealthy. But these are the Kardashians and the socialites and tech bros, all of those who serve as sort of aspirational versions of wealth. There is no shortage of them, no doubt, and I’m sure even the quietly wealthy have a lavish indulgence or two (a yacht being very likely), but based on my experience I really think there are sort two clear and distinct communities of wealth.

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Regime whores are deff more flashy but it ain’t like “titans of the industry” don’t party with them.

              I guess there is definitely a differences there tho since celebs went to p diddy’s party’s while the owner political class went to Epstein parties. So there is clearly two camps.

              • Vespair@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Yeah to be clear, if it sounded like anything I said was meant as absolution, it was not. Regardless of which camp they fall into or how they display their wealth, it is impossible, to the best of my reasoned understanding, to acquire mass wealth ethically. I assume all of the ultra-wealthy are morally compromised in some capacity or another until proven otherwise.