Status Spending - 25-50% of Our Economy?

[Seamster]

This is a new concept to me, but as an investor it's very important.  And since I'm frugal, I feel I've mistakenly overlooked it.  I've only recently started trying to study it, so I'd like to hear what you all think.  In my early studies here, I'm thinking that a large % of what we spend our money on is for STATUS, or, if you will, being cool.  Obviously we're all paying for rent, electricity, food, medicine, etc.  So, I guess since those are all necessities my thought of status spending being 50% of our economy is probably quite high.  Perhaps it's 25%.  I'll look at some categories:

• Automobiles: the average car price has climbed to $47k per a Google search.  Not many NEED these cool off-road SUVs, etc., that cost so much.  Not many people use pickup trucks for anything more than a single driver commuting to work.  That said, yes, some people do use pickup trucks for work, so that does raise the average price of what people NEED.  But most drivers could get along with a $25k Honda Civic.  Since the average is nearly double that, factoring in those who "need" trucks, for example, off the top of my head I'd say that up to 40% of car purchase price is status.  For a simple comparison, look how many Cadillac, GMC, and Buick you see vs Chevy.  (I have the actual sales numbers here but I'm too lazy to calculate it all out).  Yes, there are more of the cheaper cars produced, but I for one am shocked at how many people spend nearly double for a $25k Camry with leather and a sunroof with a Lexus symbol attached to it.
• Houses: 1000 sq feet is plenty yet so many people live in $500k 5000 sq ft homes. 
• Clothing: this is an easy one.  It's probably 90%.  All of us could wear our clothes 10 years.  I spend nearly $0 on cloth
• Cell phones: $1200 vs the nice $200 Pixel 3 I got. 

[NorthernIkigai]

Sure, I agree with you on the general idea, but not that it’s necessarily important from an investing point of view. Broad index funds capture all this crap, and any other fashions that are not consumer driven, too. (Such as which software solutions are the next Microsoft Office or which particular X is needed in all the Y machines within industry.)

After all, times change, and which particular gadget or brand of cars or clothes is hot changes over time. But index funds will always mirror that, and I don’t have to follow the latest news on it or pay taxes because one stock falls out of fashion and another becomes hot.

[clarkfan1979]

This is a new concept to me, but as an investor it's very important.  And since I'm frugal, I feel I've mistakenly overlooked it.  I've only recently started trying to study it, so I'd like to hear what you all think.  In my early studies here, I'm thinking that a large % of what we spend our money on is for STATUS, or, if you will, being cool.  Obviously we're all paying for rent, electricity, food, medicine, etc.  So, I guess since those are all necessities my thought of status spending being 50% of our economy is probably quite high.  Perhaps it's 25%.  I'll look at some categories:

• Automobiles: the average car price has climbed to $47k per a Google search.  Not many NEED these cool off-road SUVs, etc., that cost so much.  Not many people use pickup trucks for anything more than a single driver commuting to work.  That said, yes, some people do use pickup trucks for work, so that does raise the average price of what people NEED.  But most drivers could get along with a $25k Honda Civic.  Since the average is nearly double that, factoring in those who "need" trucks, for example, off the top of my head I'd say that up to 40% of car purchase price is status.  For a simple comparison, look how many Cadillac, GMC, and Buick you see vs Chevy.  (I have the actual sales numbers here but I'm too lazy to calculate it all out).  Yes, there are more of the cheaper cars produced, but I for one am shocked at how many people spend nearly double for a $25k Camry with leather and a sunroof with a Lexus symbol attached to it.
• Houses: 1000 sq feet is plenty yet so many people live in $500k 5000 sq ft homes. 
• Clothing: this is an easy one.  It's probably 90%.  All of us could wear our clothes 10 years.  I spend nearly $0 on cloth
• Cell phones: $1200 vs the nice $200 Pixel 3 I got. 

Seeking social status is a huge expense on the consumer side. If you don't engage in it, it's pretty easy to be frugal and spend 30% less than your neighbors. You then invest 40% instead of 10% and save 20 years off your working career.

I don't see the application on the investing side.

I have a Ph.D. in Applied Social Psychology and teach college. Most Psychology textbooks will have at least 1/2 page on seeking social status through conspicious consumption (buying things to raise your social status). It's an evolutionary trait that hard wired into our brains. Those with higher social status are more likely to survive.

Some employers will offer you a lower salary for the privilege of working at a company with high social status. Many people take it. You can't buy index funds with social status but you can tell a cool story at a cocktail party. 

[SwordGuy]

Yep.  Ignoring expensive social status purchases is powerful.

The price difference between my lightly used sedan and the typical fancypants pickup truck in the parking lot where I worked covered the purchase cost AND renovation costs of our first rental house.

Ditto for my wife's used car on our 2nd rental house.

Ditto for the difference between the purchase price of our own home and the average price my coworkers chose to pay for theirs.   Well, actually, double-ditto.   Triple-ditto if you include interest costs.

Prices had risen by the time we got to rental property #4, so that triple-ditto came in mighty handy.   Plus we had lots of extra stocks and bonds in our 401Ks too.

[BlueMR2]

The price difference between my lightly used sedan and the typical fancypants pickup truck in the parking lot where I worked covered the purchase cost AND renovation costs of our first rental house.

Was thinking about this the other day.  People really have no clue what they are spending for their status symbols either.  I was talking about replacing my 30+ year old car that it's getting real hard to find parts for with a $59k sports car.  Guys there are all like "whoa, that's way too much money for a vehicle" (which I actually agree with), but they are all driving $65k+ pickups...  Somehow they are totally oblivious to the fact that their "family pickup" costs more than a fun sports car.

[Dicey]

Hmm, houses where I live have climbed to $1000/sf. Where exactly are those 5000sf homes being offered for $500k? Asking for a status conscious friend...

[VanillaGorilla]

• Houses: 1000 sq feet is plenty yet so many people live in $500k 5000 sq ft homes. 

I would like a 5000 sqft home for $500k. My 1000 sqft house is worth $800k. Where is this mystical land?

[wageslave23]

• Houses: 1000 sq feet is plenty yet so many people live in $500k 5000 sq ft homes. 

I would like a 5000 sqft home for $500k. My 1000 sqft house is worth $800k. Where is this mystical land?

Midwest. There's tons by me

[lukebuz]

I can buy a virtually new 4200 sq ft house and 90 acres for 440K...  There are other places to live than the coast... 

[markbike528CBX]

I'm fond of saying that 50% of the economy is driven by women's insecurities, the other 50% is driven by men's insecurities.

That is an exaggeration, but I think the original post estimate is probably close to the facts.

As NorthernIkigai pointed out, it is not actionable intelligence for investors. 

Counter examples:

I was doing a "monkey with darts" stock strategy, but I asked the teens in the house what they thought about HotTopic (a goth clothes store) before I bought shares.  I was bought out, made 50%.

I bought a single share of BRK.B, just to get a shareholder's badge for geek investor status.  I'm up 300% so far.

[Psychstache]

The price difference between my lightly used sedan and the typical fancypants pickup truck in the parking lot where I worked covered the purchase cost AND renovation costs of our first rental house.

Was thinking about this the other day.  People really have no clue what they are spending for their status symbols either.  I was talking about replacing my 30+ year old car that it's getting real hard to find parts for with a $59k sports car.  Guys there are all like "whoa, that's way too much money for a vehicle" (which I actually agree with), but they are all driving $65k+ pickups...  Somehow they are totally oblivious to the fact that their "family pickup" costs more than a fun sports car.

I am driving the used sedan I purchased when I was an intern. I am now the person that supervises the person that supports the person that supervises interns. Every promotion I have gotten there is always at least one person who says "Hey Congrats! So are you gonna go get a new car now?"

[partgypsy]

Hmm. I do think Americans spend more than they need to, but saying it's for status is an over simplification, how to separate out status, convenience, social homeogenity, as well as perceptions of schools and safety. Like others said a 1000K square foot house can be 800K, while a mansion in the midwest could be half that.
Eating fast food and shopping at walmart is very popular too, but not because of status.
rightly or wrongly, a big part of where parents or to be parents buy houses is due to public school reputation as well as perceptions of safety/crime. Unfortunately it appears to be a runaway affect in that the better the reputation the school, the wealthier parents will go there and contribute via pta and volunteering, while less high reputation schools get parents who may not be as involved.

Also, looking at the sticker prices of new cars, is a distorted view. Maybe look at it within the context of percent of cars on the road. Many people drive older cars and when they buy their next vehicle buy used. And what is for sale may not completely reflect what people want. I actually wanted a car that had manually roll down windows, but recent makes don't offer that.

I learned something interesting too, and I don't know how prevalent this is. But it seems at least some of the buy and sale of designer bags might be a form of money laundering, in that "sugar babies" get paid with gifts, and then those young women sell the bags for cash. It's all very weird.

 

[bacchi]

Also, looking at the sticker prices of new cars, is a distorted view. Maybe look at it within the context of percent of cars on the road. Many people drive older cars and when they buy their next vehicle buy used. And what is for sale may not completely reflect what people want. I actually wanted a car that had manually roll down windows, but recent makes don't offer that.

To the OP's point about pickups, pickup trucks are the most sold vehicle (#1-3 being the Fx50, the Ram, and the Silverardo) in the US. This wasn't always the case. Have we had an explosion of framers and other contractors in the last 30 years? Why is the parking lot at BigOffice Inc filled with pickups? Then we can look at how many auto manufacturers are no longer making smaller cars and, finally, look at the commercials for said pickups. The commercials appeal to masculinity, which a lot of men feel they don't get pushing paper. Never mind that they'll never go no farther from a paved road than a gravel parking lot or that the bed will see a stick of lumber once a year, if that. They're in the club just by driving the truck.

[Dicey]

I can buy a virtually new 4200 sq ft house and 90 acres for 440K...  There are other places to live than the coast...

Hmmm, according to Zillow, this is the cheapest house over 4000sf in Bowling Green. It's on 1.25 acres and priced at $599,900:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1228-Lakemere-Ave-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/110878215_zpid/

This one is 5500sf and sits on 2.8 acres for $799,900:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/9811-Nashville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/97246409_zpid/

Opening up the search a bit produces this 4380sf house on 20 acres for $574,900:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2530-Jock-Rd-Bee-Spring-KY-42207/105808621_zpid/

[Dicey]

Also, looking at the sticker prices of new cars, is a distorted view. Maybe look at it within the context of percent of cars on the road. Many people drive older cars and when they buy their next vehicle buy used. And what is for sale may not completely reflect what people want. I actually wanted a car that had manually roll down windows, but recent makes don't offer that.

To the OP's point about pickups, pickup trucks are the most sold vehicle (#1-3 being the Fx50, the Ram, and the Silverardo) in the US. This wasn't always the case. Have we had an explosion of framers and other contractors in the last 30 years? Why is the parking lot at BigOffice Inc filled with pickups? Then we can look at how many auto manufacturers are no longer making smaller cars and, finally, look at the commercials for said pickups. The commercials appeal to masculinity, which a lot of men feel they don't get pushing paper. Never mind that they'll never go no farther from a paved road than a gravel parking lot or that the bed will see a stick of lumber once a year, if that. They're in the club just by driving the truck.

Bacchi, this made me laugh. DH, who is a painting contractor by trade, drives a 2002 F150. Well, when he needs to drive. He walks to work until he retires next month. It has 101k miles on it. He bought it brand new for about $21k and paid cash. When I drive it to the paint, tile, or hardware store, I always feel like I'm part of the White Truck Club, which cracks me up. Yeah, white trucks seem to be a thing for painters. Thing is, they actually use them.

We drove it last week to pick up a new wall stove for one of our rentals that he got a screaming deal on. Alas, that also means we'll have to take the truck next time we make the trip to install it. Still, having the truck saves us money. Hard to believe, but true. Oh, and it has a shell on it which DH found on CL for $250. It was a burnt-out red, so of course he painted it to match the truck. Yeah, it still looks great.

[Seamster]

Hey, nice replies, guys.  Thank you.  A few people have mentioned how know what % of the economy is status spending.  For an example, I personally think electric cars will NOT take off because they're expensive and still use fossil fuels for energy.  So, don't invest in these, right?  Well, no, I was wrong.  Tesla fans have more loyalty than Apple fans.  Tesla isn't going anywhere because of its status, so it's a good investment (but not at these stock prices...but I've been wrong before!).   

Soon to come: I made a list of cars.  It's hard to say if a car is premium or not, so I just used by best judgement and will modify later.  So far I did 33% of F-150s and RAM trucks as premium (but 0% of Chevy Silverados because the GMC Seirra has that segment covered).  I also said that the Bronco (not Bronco Sport), Grand Cherokee, Grand Cherokee L, Wagoneer, Mustang, E-Mustang, Camaro and Corvette, and Toyota Avalon and Land Cruiser are premium.  I did NOT put any Mazda, Subaru, Dodge Chargers in the premium category, although I could have (and I forgot about the Dodge Challenger). 

I'll post what I have so far.  It's a 3 month rolling average.  Right now, miraculously, it's almost exactly 2:1, regular vs premium.  But I need to do prices next, and that's going to be a b*tch, but I'll be working on it next time the boss is out.  If the average premium car costs on average double what non-premium costs, then there we have it: over 50% of the money spent in auto industry is spent on status.  I think it will be close!  Status sells!

I really think the best thing to do is to look at the MSRP of a normal car of a certain type ($23,000 Corolla).  Then, if the sedan happens to be more than that, say, $47,000 for the Lexus, then we'd have to remove $23,000 from that price, because that's the standard price.  Then it will let us know how much is being spent on status and how much on necessity. 

[ChpBstrd]

Sure, I agree with you on the general idea, but not that it’s necessarily important from an investing point of view. Broad index funds capture all this crap, and any other fashions that are not consumer driven, too. (Such as which software solutions are the next Microsoft Office or which particular X is needed in all the Y machines within industry.)

After all, times change, and which particular gadget or brand of cars or clothes is hot changes over time. But index funds will always mirror that, and I don’t have to follow the latest news on it or pay taxes because one stock falls out of fashion and another becomes hot.

I'm more reluctant to dismiss this observation as being priced in.

If, let's say, 40% of the average household's spending is status-related crap, that means 40% of the S&P500's or NASDAQ indices' earnings are from things that consumers might easily cut back on if they actually experienced some hardship. In a severe recession, where unemployment reaches 20% or 25%, you'd see the vast majority of households cutting their status symbol spending. E.g. during the 2nd quarter of 2020, the personal savings rate shot up above 33%, all all-time high. That money not spent was reflected as revenues not earned for companies in the indices. Grocery stores and landlords did fine, but the restaurant, vacation, car, and manufacturing industries got whalloped.

This is a much different world than what you might find in more frugal or less-status-obsessed places in the world, where a much larger percentage of spending is for necessities rather than things like fashion, automotive fanciness, jewelry, high end cell phones, restaurant meals, lawn care, houses with extra square footage, $400 ice chests, etc. Aggregate demand in the U.S. might be getting more and more volatile as the population gets more and more anti-Mustachian and status-conscious. That could mean stocks are more volatile / risky than their historical performance implies.

TL;DR: If spending on status symbols is high, then a larger percentage of spending could easily get cut in a recession. It's like getting a beverage from the drive-thru and finding out it's mostly froth.

[YttriumNitrate]

I can buy a virtually new 4200 sq ft house and 90 acres for 440K...  There are other places to live than the coast...

Hmmm, according to Zillow, this is the cheapest house over 4000sf in Bowling Green. It's on 1.25 acres and priced at $599,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1228-Lakemere-Ave-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/110878215_zpid/
This one is 5500sf and sits on 2.8 acres for $799,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/9811-Nashville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/97246409_zpid/
Opening up the search a bit produces this 4380sf house on 20 acres for $574,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2530-Jock-Rd-Bee-Spring-KY-42207/105808621_zpid/

Look at the past sales.

4,531 sqft on 2.7 acres for $382k earlier this month.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/646-Old-Scottsville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/97267768_zpid/

Here's something right in line with what Luke was mentioning. Listed in October of last year, 4200 square feet, 85 acres for $420k.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1313-William-Simmons-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/114391952_zpid/

[Morning Glory]

What about other reasons besides status for buying a bigger car than needed? Fear, for one. I've heard plenty of SUV drivers say they "feel safer higher up" or similar nonsense. There's also comfort reasons for bigger people to have bigger cars

[VanillaGorilla]

Strictly speaking we could all live in yurts or teepees or single bedroom apartments and walk everywhere for roughly nothing. Does that mean that 95%+ of all spending is for status?

Of course not. All of us have some hierarchy of needs, wants, and superfluity.

For 99% of all people for whom living off assets is either impossible, impractical, or unknown, buying in accordance with your personal hierarchy of needs is the only reasonable behavior. Your needs are roughly food, shelter, clothing, transportation. You start with the basics: rice and beans, an apartment, cheap clothes, a bus pass. Then you layer in wants: organic food, a house, nice clothing, a car. Then you continue.

None of that needs to be, or intrinsically is, status-based.

My current theory is that most people are trying to impress themselves, not others. Of course that's a losing battle.

The local status quo of zealously acquiring assets not to spend, but to hold, could reasonably be considered sociologically aberrant. I'm still doing it, though.

[ChpBstrd]

Strictly speaking we could all live in yurts or teepees or single bedroom apartments and walk everywhere for roughly nothing. Does that mean that 95%+ of all spending is for status?

Of course not. All of us have some hierarchy of needs, wants, and superfluity.

For 99% of all people for whom living off assets is either impossible, impractical, or unknown, buying in accordance with your personal hierarchy of needs is the only reasonable behavior. Your needs are roughly food, shelter, clothing, transportation. You start with the basics: rice and beans, an apartment, cheap clothes, a bus pass. Then you layer in wants: organic food, a house, nice clothing, a car. Then you continue.

None of that needs to be, or intrinsically is, status-based.

My current theory is that most people are trying to impress themselves, not others. Of course that's a losing battle.

The local status quo of zealously acquiring assets not to spend, but to hold, could reasonably be considered sociologically aberrant. I'm still doing it, though.

On the other hand, there are lots of examples of the status symbol thing being less luxurious/enjoyable than the frugal thing.

I once lived in a 2700sf house with three bathrooms to keep clean. Turns out bathrooms need cleaning even if they aren't used. There were about 15 things like this - constant work. It sucked, so I downsized to 1300sf.

Similarly, I drive a subcompact which is easy to park anywhere, easy to clean, and quick to fuel up. I drove a friend's Ram crew cab luxury truck and it was a PITA. It took actual work to make it fit places and not hit curbs.

The last several times I've eaten at restaurants (which hasn't been often lately) my companions and I have had to shout at each other to be heard and the bill took so long to arrive that we were late for the next thing.

I'm not big on fashion, but I've had some name-brand jeans rip across the crotch at inopportune times, and I've had Wal-Mart jeans last a decade. Softer fabric = easier to rip.

Having experienced all these things, it's hard for me to understand why other people are impressed by the things they are impressed about. It's really a symbolic thing to go to a fancy restaurant, complain about the chef's cooking, leave 2/3rds of the food on your plate, and pay $100 for the privilege. You're signalling to people that you have so many resources that you can waste them. Supposedly, they are then attracted to you because... well... that's the part I don't get.

[Abe]

Having experienced all these things, it's hard for me to understand why other people are impressed by the things they are impressed about. It's really a symbolic thing to go to a fancy restaurant, complain about the chef's cooking, leave 2/3rds of the food on your plate, and pay $100 for the privilege. You're signalling to people that you have so many resources that you can waste them. Supposedly, they are then attracted to you because... well... that's the part I don't get.

I think it’s because they think the fancy pants person will give them nice stuff for free. I also think for self esteem gains (someone this successful likes me, so I must be _____ insert adjective here). But what do I know, none of my friends nor I are fancy enough to do any of that.

[moof]

…
On the other hand, there are lots of examples of the status symbol thing being less luxurious/enjoyable than the frugal thing.

I once lived in a 2700sf house with three bathrooms to keep clean. Turns out bathrooms need cleaning even if they aren't used. There were about 15 things like this - constant work. It sucked, so I downsized to 1300sf.

Similarly, I drive a subcompact which is easy to park anywhere, easy to clean, and quick to fuel up. I drove a friend's Ram crew cab luxury truck and it was a PITA. It took actual work to make it fit places and not hit curbs.

The last several times I've eaten at restaurants (which hasn't been often lately) my companions and I have had to shout at each other to be heard and the bill took so long to arrive that we were late for the next thing.

I'm not big on fashion, but I've had some name-brand jeans rip across the crotch at inopportune times, and I've had Wal-Mart jeans last a decade. Softer fabric = easier to rip.

Having experienced all these things, it's hard for me to understand why other people are impressed by the things they are impressed about. It's really a symbolic thing to go to a fancy restaurant, complain about the chef's cooking, leave 2/3rds of the food on your plate, and pay $100 for the privilege. You're signalling to people that you have so many resources that you can waste them. Supposedly, they are then attracted to you because... well... that's the part I don't get.

2700 sqft house with fancy angles all over the roof costs a ton to replace the roof on, costs more to paint, etc.  Lots of people forget to factor in ongoing maintenance and taxes into major purchases.
I’ve made similar conclusions as you on most restaurants, by time you factor in driving, waiting to be seated, etc. it is just easier to cook myself, and I don’t feel scammed if the food is mediocre.

[Dicey]

I can buy a virtually new 4200 sq ft house and 90 acres for 440K...  There are other places to live than the coast...

Hmmm, according to Zillow, this is the cheapest house over 4000sf in Bowling Green. It's on 1.25 acres and priced at $599,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1228-Lakemere-Ave-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/110878215_zpid/
This one is 5500sf and sits on 2.8 acres for $799,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/9811-Nashville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/97246409_zpid/
Opening up the search a bit produces this 4380sf house on 20 acres for $574,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2530-Jock-Rd-Bee-Spring-KY-42207/105808621_zpid/

Look at the past sales.

4,531 sqft on 2.7 acres for $382k earlier this month.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/646-Old-Scottsville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/97267768_zpid/

Here's something right in line with what Luke was mentioning. Listed in October of last year, 4200 square feet, 85 acres for $420k.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1313-William-Simmons-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/114391952_zpid/

"I can buy" is not the same as "I coulda bought..." but I'm a total Real Estate Geek, so I'll play. Let's see those past sales...

Example #1 is only on 2.37 acres and was built in 1979. Not new, not on 90 acres.

Example #2 is even more interesting. Listing says "only 13 years old", so not exactly "virtually new". I'm not sure what to make of the sales history. It's been listed since at least 2018. The asking price on 6/16/20 was $549K. It finally sold on 2/25/21 for $485k.

Then it was listed again after only seven months for $419k. How did it lose $66k in value? Why was the listing removed four days later? It's a mystery!

10/4/2021       Listing removed         $419,000

9/30/2021       Listed for sale            $419,000 (-13.6%)

2/25/2021       Sold                          $485,000 (-2.8%)

1/8/2021         Pending sale              $499,000
...

6/16/2020       Price change               $549,000 (+22.3%)
...

4/3/2018         Listed for sale             $419,000


Free, frugal fun. Thanks!

[wageslave23]

I can buy a virtually new 4200 sq ft house and 90 acres for 440K...  There are other places to live than the coast...

Hmmm, according to Zillow, this is the cheapest house over 4000sf in Bowling Green. It's on 1.25 acres and priced at $599,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1228-Lakemere-Ave-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/110878215_zpid/
This one is 5500sf and sits on 2.8 acres for $799,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/9811-Nashville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/97246409_zpid/
Opening up the search a bit produces this 4380sf house on 20 acres for $574,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2530-Jock-Rd-Bee-Spring-KY-42207/105808621_zpid/

Look at the past sales.

4,531 sqft on 2.7 acres for $382k earlier this month.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/646-Old-Scottsville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/97267768_zpid/

Here's something right in line with what Luke was mentioning. Listed in October of last year, 4200 square feet, 85 acres for $420k.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1313-William-Simmons-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/114391952_zpid/

"I can buy" is not the same as "I coulda bought..." but I'm a total Real Estate Geek, so I'll play. Let's see those past sales...

Example #1 is only on 2.37 acres and was built in 1979. Not new, not on 90 acres.

Example #2 is even more interesting. Listing says "only 13 years old", so not exactly "virtually new". I'm not sure what to make of the sales history. It's been listed since at least 2018. The asking price on 6/16/20 was $549K. It finally sold on 2/25/21 for $485k.

Then it was listed again after only seven months for $419k. How did it lose $66k in value? Why was the listing removed four days later? It's a mystery!

10/4/2021       Listing removed         $419,000

9/30/2021       Listed for sale            $419,000 (-13.6%)

2/25/2021       Sold                          $485,000 (-2.8%)

1/8/2021         Pending sale              $499,000
...

6/16/2020       Price change               $549,000 (+22.3%)
...

4/3/2018         Listed for sale             $419,000


Free, frugal fun. Thanks!

I think you are being pedantic.

[ixtap]

I can buy a virtually new 4200 sq ft house and 90 acres for 440K...  There are other places to live than the coast...

Hmmm, according to Zillow, this is the cheapest house over 4000sf in Bowling Green. It's on 1.25 acres and priced at $599,900:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1228-Lakemere-Ave-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/110878215_zpid/

This one is 5500sf and sits on 2.8 acres for $799,900:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/9811-Nashville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/97246409_zpid/

Opening up the search a bit produces this 4380sf house on 20 acres for $574,900:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2530-Jock-Rd-Bee-Spring-KY-42207/105808621_zpid/

For that size house, you need to find suburbs, not out and out rural, where. Ug houses come with so much acreage. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/904-Rainsong-Ct-Braselton-GA-30517/212665909_zpid/

[NorthernIkigai]

Sure, I agree with you on the general idea, but not that it’s necessarily important from an investing point of view. Broad index funds capture all this crap, and any other fashions that are not consumer driven, too. (Such as which software solutions are the next Microsoft Office or which particular X is needed in all the Y machines within industry.)

After all, times change, and which particular gadget or brand of cars or clothes is hot changes over time. But index funds will always mirror that, and I don’t have to follow the latest news on it or pay taxes because one stock falls out of fashion and another becomes hot.

I'm more reluctant to dismiss this observation as being priced in.

If, let's say, 40% of the average household's spending is status-related crap, that means 40% of the S&P500's or NASDAQ indices' earnings are from things that consumers might easily cut back on if they actually experienced some hardship. In a severe recession, where unemployment reaches 20% or 25%, you'd see the vast majority of households cutting their status symbol spending. E.g. during the 2nd quarter of 2020, the personal savings rate shot up above 33%, all all-time high. That money not spent was reflected as revenues not earned for companies in the indices. Grocery stores and landlords did fine, but the restaurant, vacation, car, and manufacturing industries got whalloped.

This is a much different world than what you might find in more frugal or less-status-obsessed places in the world, where a much larger percentage of spending is for necessities rather than things like fashion, automotive fanciness, jewelry, high end cell phones, restaurant meals, lawn care, houses with extra square footage, $400 ice chests, etc. Aggregate demand in the U.S. might be getting more and more volatile as the population gets more and more anti-Mustachian and status-conscious. That could mean stocks are more volatile / risky than their historical performance implies.

TL;DR: If spending on status symbols is high, then a larger percentage of spending could easily get cut in a recession. It's like getting a beverage from the drive-thru and finding out it's mostly froth.

You're saying consumers might easily cut back on these things ... but I think we've all seen plenty of anecdata in our surroundings and in the media that they often don't. Even if/when they actually experience hardship.

People will prioritize whatever they decide to prioritize, even if a bunch of Mustachians on a discussion board have concluded that those particular things are status spending a.k.a. crap.

The pandemic didn't whallop the restaurant and vacation sectors because people suddenly decided these things were luxuries and they could easily cut them, but because of actual legal restrictions stopping people offering and using these services or at least making this very hard. The car and manufacturing industries are suffering from the lack of material and staff, not a lack of customers (which is why the prices of existing products, be it new or used cars, have shot up -- there's plenty of buyers around, and they are prepared to pay).

Here in Europe I think many people are moderately less into status than in the US. Still I don't exactly see Mustachianism around me -- people might shun automotive fanciness and air travel because they feel environmentally (self-)conscious, but then they turn around and blow that money on some other equally stupid status symbol like "health food" or expensive pets treated like children. It's just trading one cultural status symbol for the status symbol of another subculture. Still, it's all encompassed in the stock markets (well, except for unlisted companies, but the general trend is there).

[Just Joe]

For that size house, you need to find suburbs, not out and out rural, where. Ug houses come with so much acreage. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/904-Rainsong-Ct-Braselton-GA-30517/212665909_zpid/

No, no - you misunderstand. Acreage is good. Who wants to be crammed in next to neighbors that may or may not be good people? So what if I have to roam my antique electric mower around the yard once a week to keep the woods in check i.e. nature taking over again? That's what podcasts and audio books are for. Some chores are great for unwinding from the work week.

[ixtap]

For that size house, you need to find suburbs, not out and out rural, where. Ug houses come with so much acreage. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/904-Rainsong-Ct-Braselton-GA-30517/212665909_zpid/

No, no - you misunderstand. Acreage is good. Who wants to be crammed in next to neighbors that may or may not be good people? So what if I have to roam my antique electric mower around the yard once a week to keep the woods in check i.e. nature taking over again? That's what podcasts and audio books are for. Some chores are great for unwinding from the work week.

.
OK, but we were talking about how to get a 5000sq ft house cheap ...

[Morning Glory]

For that size house, you need to find suburbs, not out and out rural, where. Ug houses come with so much acreage. https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/904-Rainsong-Ct-Braselton-GA-30517/212665909_zpid/

No, no - you misunderstand. Acreage is good. Who wants to be crammed in next to neighbors that may or may not be good people? So what if I have to roam my antique electric mower around the yard once a week to keep the woods in check i.e. nature taking over again? That's what podcasts and audio books are for. Some chores are great for unwinding from the work week.

.
OK, but we were talking about how to get a 5000sq ft house cheap ...

https://www.wickbuildings.com/buildings/shouse/

[jnw]

I could so care less what anyone thinks about my personal possesions or style lol.  So glad I don't have that problem. Although I am driving a Lexus which originally went for $65K :)  Got for $5k and it is indestructible, garaged, and will probably last me another 20 years lol.  A/C still works despite being 24 years old.

[AMandM]

What about other reasons besides status for buying a bigger car than needed? Fear, for one. I've heard plenty of SUV drivers say they "feel safer higher up" or similar nonsense. There's also comfort reasons for bigger people to have bigger cars

I know a nurse who drives a bigger car than needed because she thinks she needs it to be able to get to work in a snowstorm.

[jnw]

Bigger cars can take bigger hits.  I drive a large Lexus four door sedan myself :)  It's a gas hog but I rarely drive it so I am not worried about it.  The extra space is nice for passengers and my dog loves the big back seat.

[Dicey]

I can buy a virtually new 4200 sq ft house and 90 acres for 440K...  There are other places to live than the coast...

Hmmm, according to Zillow, this is the cheapest house over 4000sf in Bowling Green. It's on 1.25 acres and priced at $599,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1228-Lakemere-Ave-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/110878215_zpid/
This one is 5500sf and sits on 2.8 acres for $799,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/9811-Nashville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/97246409_zpid/
Opening up the search a bit produces this 4380sf house on 20 acres for $574,900:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2530-Jock-Rd-Bee-Spring-KY-42207/105808621_zpid/

Look at the past sales.

4,531 sqft on 2.7 acres for $382k earlier this month.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/646-Old-Scottsville-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42103/97267768_zpid/

Here's something right in line with what Luke was mentioning. Listed in October of last year, 4200 square feet, 85 acres for $420k.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1313-William-Simmons-Rd-Bowling-Green-KY-42101/114391952_zpid/

"I can buy" is not the same as "I coulda bought..." but I'm a total Real Estate Geek, so I'll play. Let's see those past sales...

Example #1 is only on 2.37 acres and was built in 1979. Not new, not on 90 acres.

Example #2 is even more interesting. Listing says "only 13 years old", so not exactly "virtually new". I'm not sure what to make of the sales history. It's been listed since at least 2018. The asking price on 6/16/20 was $549K. It finally sold on 2/25/21 for $485k.

Then it was listed again after only seven months for $419k. How did it lose $66k in value? Why was the listing removed four days later? It's a mystery!

10/4/2021       Listing removed         $419,000

9/30/2021       Listed for sale            $419,000 (-13.6%)

2/25/2021       Sold                          $485,000 (-2.8%)

1/8/2021         Pending sale              $499,000
...

6/16/2020       Price change               $549,000 (+22.3%)
...

4/3/2018         Listed for sale             $419,000


Free, frugal fun. Thanks!

I think you are being pedantic.

I think other people made claims in this thread that are not readily supported by the available facts. Per Merriam-Webster, your use of this term borders on a Rule #1 violation.

"Pedantic is an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter."

The error was not small, and real estate is an endlessly fascinating subject on this forum. The ability to do a basic google search is hardly demonstration of expertise.

I was genuinely curious about what a $500k, 5000sf house on a large amount of acreage would look like. Turns out, they're not as readily available as the OP suggests.

Who the hell wants the burden of a 5000sf house anyway?

[Morning Glory]

What about other reasons besides status for buying a bigger car than needed? Fear, for one. I've heard plenty of SUV drivers say they "feel safer higher up" or similar nonsense. There's also comfort reasons for bigger people to have bigger cars

I know a nurse who drives a bigger car than needed because she thinks she needs it to be able to get to work in a snowstorm.

I lived close enough that I could cross-country ski if the roads weren't plowed yet, and I actually did it a couple times.

[ChpBstrd]

Several 5,000+sf houses for sale today at less than $500k asking price, in multiple states, some near big cities and some rural, none of which are "project houses":

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6125-Highway-242-W-Lexa-AR-72355/90899064_zpid/

This one has an indoor pool!
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/940-Huntington-Cir-Heber-Springs-AR-72543/90754951_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2290-Shadow-Ridge-Dr-Gering-NE-69341/108967910_zpid/

SIX-car garage near Houston:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/7425-Sweetgum-Rd-Beaumont-TX-77713/50413785_zpid/

Another one close to a big city:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1025-George-St-Alton-IL-62002/4994270_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/6131-Monticello-Dr-Montgomery-AL-36117/72832428_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4648-E-State-Road-61-Vincennes-IN-47591/124323775_zpid/

6300sf!
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/509-Beauty-Spot-Rd-W-Bennettsville-SC-29512/234413352_zpid/

What a friggin waste. Just imagine how much these houses depreciated from their construction cost, how much wealth could have been generated had that money been put into stocks, and how there are more such massive houses being built every day because the shine has worn off the existing ones, or because some arrogant a-hole wants to "design" it themselves*.

*which means it will look cookie cutter anyway...

[YttriumNitrate]

Several 5,000+sf houses for sale today at less than $500k asking price, in multiple states, some near big cities and some rural, none of which are "project houses":
...
Another one close to a big city:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1025-George-St-Alton-IL-62002/4994270_zpid/

So the ones in Alton, IL* and Bennettsville, SC do actually look kind of neat. Built in 1860 and 1810, respectively.

*Currently under contract so there will likely be some hair-splitting over whether this one qualifies as "available"

[Dicey]

I loves me some real estate porn! Thanks, @ChpBstrd. Can't wait to fall down this rabbit hole.

[ChpBstrd]

I loves me some real estate porn! Thanks, @ChpBstrd. Can't wait to fall down this rabbit hole.

When you're ready for hardcore, there's mcmansionhell.com .

[thesis]

Status is interesting, and much of it is based on one's community and/or normative cues. To some people, having an older car that's "still running" is a status symbol, but in other communities, having a new luxury vehicle is a status symbol. I used to be a real self-righteous jerk about spending, since I grew up lower-middle class, and didn't spend money on expensive things. But then I was smacked by the self-awareness stick when I realized that, in an effort to uphold my own self-esteem, I had prioritized frugality as a status over spending, which was technically no better than the other way around, at least from a character perspective. I think that's what I appreciate about Mustachianism, in that spending itself is not criticized as much as wasted spending is. (Mind you, I'm still more impressed when people keep older cars running than when they just go out and buy new, and moreover, I find electric vehicle snobbery to be about as annoying as Apple snobbery, though I don't begrudge either technology in itself)

That being said, not every flavor of status is created equal. If I'm going to be biased, I want to be biased in the direction that leaves me truly better off in the end.

In reading about other cultures, I'm amazed how so many indigenous groups who can be described as "egalitarian" employ various methods of social control to enforce this egalitarianism, which seems to lend credence to just how universal the inequality of status is, but I'm not an expert at this stuff.

[Morning Glory]

I loves me some real estate porn! Thanks, @ChpBstrd. Can't wait to fall down this rabbit hole.

When you're ready for hardcore, there's mcmansionhell.com .

+1
 I can't pass a new development without pointing out the bumps a d car holes.

[Ron Scott]

I know quite a few wealthy people. Some will certainly buy bling for status. Many give more than they spend on status stuff to charity and their grown kids. Most—retirees and others—spend a FAR lower % of their income or SWRs than others. I wouldn’t be surprised if many wealthy retirees spent less than they earn in after-tax interest + dividends.

Once someone is recognized by their extended clan as being wealthy, they often don’t have a need to “prove” anything and develop a who-gives-a-shit attitude about status spending. They’re the best…

It’s all relative.

[Laura33]

I think the concept of necessary vs. luxury is a critical one, both because of the concerns @ChpBstrd raises, and because redefining our own definition of "necessary" is the most effective way to manage our own expenses and make choices that increase our own happiness. 

But I think it's short-sighted to characterize every spending that you deem to be "excess" as "status spending."  Partly because that term implies a moral judgment that is off-putting to those it's directed at.  But also because it's inaccurate, and if you create your investing view by assuming that all excessive spending is status-driven, you will reach incorrect conclusions in many cases.

I will give you a couple of examples from my own spendypants life.  I am in the happy situation @Ron Scott mentioned of being completely FI -- wealthy, even -- and thus really don't give even a minute fraction of a shit about what anyone else things.  I actually adore living in a neighborhood that is well below what society says we can "afford," because I can fly beneath the radar.  And yet I spend a metric shit-ton of money on stuff that in no way qualifies as a "need," because I wanted to:

Example 1:  My DD's car.  First, giving a kid a car in HS is complete and utterly unnecessary luxury.  But, damn, it made my life way easier once she could get herself to her own activities, and we could afford it, so I gave her my old car and upgraded myself to my StupidCar.  But then I went even further into the depths of excessive spending and traded that car in for a lightly-used Subaru.  Why?  Because it had active crash-avoidance features, and DD has ADHD, and it was worth it to me to pay maybe another $8K to improve the chance that she would either be able to avoid hurting herself or someone else as a result of a moment of stupidity, or at a minimum decrease the severity of the accident. 

Example 2:  I own several Coach purses.  Totally don't need them; I mean, really, who needs a purse anyway if you buy clothes with pockets in them, right?  So why?  I mean it's a total status brand, right?*  Well, they're really pretty and well-made and last for-freaking-ever,* and the company will repair any problems that come up.  In fact, I actually hate that they're such a well-known status brand, and I refuse to buy the ones with all the logos all over them.

Example 3:  Eating out.  When Covid hit, our takeout/delivery spending went way up.  Not because we're lazy or can't cook or want to impress people with our fine dining.  But because we knew a lot of local places were really, really hurting, whereas we both maintained our jobs and were largely unaffected, so we figured if we wanted them to stay in business, then we should use some of our good fortune to support the places we cared about.

I could go on practically forever, because really, everything is excess once you have a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food on your table.  But the drivers for each decision are different, and so will respond differently in different economic circumstances.  Option 2 is pure luxury and would disappear in a heartbeat if needed; I already have purses and could easily just not buy any more (and in fact I haven't for a couple of years).  Option 3 is more on the lines of charity, so while it would be cut back if I needed to, it would rank higher than the purses.  And option 1 is driven by concerns for my family's safety and so is going to remain a high priority for spending under any circumstances -- I might defer buying a new car, but when I did, it would have those features.


*It's actually a very bougie status brand; truly wealthy show-offs would never be caught dead in something so mass-market.

*My mom has had a satchel she uses for work for probably 40 years, and I've had a similar one that I've used every day (when I was still commuting) for at least 20. 

[bryan995]

Several 5,000+sf houses for sale today at less than $500k asking price, in multiple states, some near big cities and some rural, none of which are "project houses":
...
Another one close to a big city:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1025-George-St-Alton-IL-62002/4994270_zpid/

So the ones in Alton, IL* and Bennettsville, SC do actually look kind of neat. Built in 1860 and 1810, respectively.

*Currently under contract so there will likely be some hair-splitting over whether this one qualifies as "available"

Not sure I would consider any of those homes to be homes labeled as 'status spending'.  Most are horribly outdated and located in the middle of nowhere.  Likely will never significantly appreciate due to age & location. 

Perhaps us coastal folk are a bit skewed in our thinking, but this is what I would consider a 'status spending home'.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Rancho-Santa-Fe/6089-Avenida-Alteras-92067/home/4192143?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=recommendations_update&riftinfo=ZXY9ZW1haWwmbD0xMDU0MzIyMSZwPWxpc3RpbmdfdXBkYXRlc19yZWNvbW1lbmRhdGlvbnMmYT1jbGljayZzPXJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9ucyZ0PWltYWdlJmVtYWlsX2lkPTEwNTQzMjIxXzE2NDYzNTE5NDZfNiZ1cGRhdGVfdHlwZT0xJmxpbHJfc2NvcmU9MC44ODYyJmxpc3RpbmdfaWQ9MTQ1NzE0MzYwJnByb3BlcnR5X2lkPTQxOTIxNDMmcG9zaXRpb25fbnVtYmVyPTA=

A mere $1.2M down-payment + $30k/month mortgage. Ample room to stretch your legs. 

99% chance this home is worth >10M in 5 years time.

[ChpBstrd]

Not sure I would consider any of those homes to be homes labeled as 'status spending'.  Most are horribly outdated and located in the middle of nowhere.  Likely will never significantly appreciate due to age & location. 

Perhaps us coastal folk are a bit skewed in our thinking, but this is what I would consider a 'status spending home'.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Rancho-Santa-Fe/6089-Avenida-Alteras-92067/home/4192143?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=recommendations_update&riftinfo=ZXY9ZW1haWwmbD0xMDU0MzIyMSZwPWxpc3RpbmdfdXBkYXRlc19yZWNvbW1lbmRhdGlvbnMmYT1jbGljayZzPXJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9ucyZ0PWltYWdlJmVtYWlsX2lkPTEwNTQzMjIxXzE2NDYzNTE5NDZfNiZ1cGRhdGVfdHlwZT0xJmxpbHJfc2NvcmU9MC44ODYyJmxpc3RpbmdfaWQ9MTQ1NzE0MzYwJnByb3BlcnR5X2lkPTQxOTIxNDMmcG9zaXRpb25fbnVtYmVyPTA=

A mere $1.2M down-payment + $30k/month mortgage. Ample room to stretch your legs.

99% chance this home is worth >10M in 5 years time.

LOL, those <$100 per square foot mansions on my list were a lot less outdated 10 years ago too.  Maybe the whole white-on-beige look will be out of style 10y from now, along with having >30 roof lines.

More likely, the concept of paying $650 per square foot for housing might seem quaint when mortgage rates are again in the 7% range. I don't think the odds are 99% that the future looks exactly like the past.

[clarkfan1979]

Status is interesting, and much of it is based on one's community and/or normative cues. To some people, having an older car that's "still running" is a status symbol, but in other communities, having a new luxury vehicle is a status symbol. I used to be a real self-righteous jerk about spending, since I grew up lower-middle class, and didn't spend money on expensive things. But then I was smacked by the self-awareness stick when I realized that, in an effort to uphold my own self-esteem, I had prioritized frugality as a status over spending, which was technically no better than the other way around, at least from a character perspective. I think that's what I appreciate about Mustachianism, in that spending itself is not criticized as much as wasted spending is. (Mind you, I'm still more impressed when people keep older cars running than when they just go out and buy new, and moreover, I find electric vehicle snobbery to be about as annoying as Apple snobbery, though I don't begrudge either technology in itself)

That being said, not every flavor of status is created equal. If I'm going to be biased, I want to be biased in the direction that leaves me truly better off in the end.

In reading about other cultures, I'm amazed how so many indigenous groups who can be described as "egalitarian" employ various methods of social control to enforce this egalitarianism, which seems to lend credence to just how universal the inequality of status is, but I'm not an expert at this stuff.

As a landlord, I have noticed some electric vehicle snobbery among potential renters in the last few years. They go out of their way to let you know that they have an electric car and need accommodations for such. I just reply and say that I don't know anything about electric cars but they are welcome to view the electrical outlets in the garage.

[Morning Glory]

Status is interesting, and much of it is based on one's community and/or normative cues. To some people, having an older car that's "still running" is a status symbol, but in other communities, having a new luxury vehicle is a status symbol. I used to be a real self-righteous jerk about spending, since I grew up lower-middle class, and didn't spend money on expensive things. But then I was smacked by the self-awareness stick when I realized that, in an effort to uphold my own self-esteem, I had prioritized frugality as a status over spending, which was technically no better than the other way around, at least from a character perspective. I think that's what I appreciate about Mustachianism, in that spending itself is not criticized as much as wasted spending is. (Mind you, I'm still more impressed when people keep older cars running than when they just go out and buy new, and moreover, I find electric vehicle snobbery to be about as annoying as Apple snobbery, though I don't begrudge either technology in itself)

That being said, not every flavor of status is created equal. If I'm going to be biased, I want to be biased in the direction that leaves me truly better off in the end.

In reading about other cultures, I'm amazed how so many indigenous groups who can be described as "egalitarian" employ various methods of social control to enforce this egalitarianism, which seems to lend credence to just how universal the inequality of status is, but I'm not an expert at this stuff.

As a landlord, I have noticed some electric vehicle snobbery among potential renters in the last few years. They go out of their way to let you know that they have an electric car and need accommodations for such. I just reply and say that I don't know anything about electric cars but they are welcome to view the electrical outlets in the garage.

Lol.

Seems like 90% of the people I've met lately have gluten intolerance.  Is it that common,  a coincidence,  or a status thing?

[wageslave23]

Status is interesting, and much of it is based on one's community and/or normative cues. To some people, having an older car that's "still running" is a status symbol, but in other communities, having a new luxury vehicle is a status symbol. I used to be a real self-righteous jerk about spending, since I grew up lower-middle class, and didn't spend money on expensive things. But then I was smacked by the self-awareness stick when I realized that, in an effort to uphold my own self-esteem, I had prioritized frugality as a status over spending, which was technically no better than the other way around, at least from a character perspective. I think that's what I appreciate about Mustachianism, in that spending itself is not criticized as much as wasted spending is. (Mind you, I'm still more impressed when people keep older cars running than when they just go out and buy new, and moreover, I find electric vehicle snobbery to be about as annoying as Apple snobbery, though I don't begrudge either technology in itself)

That being said, not every flavor of status is created equal. If I'm going to be biased, I want to be biased in the direction that leaves me truly better off in the end.

In reading about other cultures, I'm amazed how so many indigenous groups who can be described as "egalitarian" employ various methods of social control to enforce this egalitarianism, which seems to lend credence to just how universal the inequality of status is, but I'm not an expert at this stuff.

As a landlord, I have noticed some electric vehicle snobbery among potential renters in the last few years. They go out of their way to let you know that they have an electric car and need accommodations for such. I just reply and say that I don't know anything about electric cars but they are welcome to view the electrical outlets in the garage.

Renters with electric vehicles lol. Like you are going to install a level 3 charging station just for them. It's funny when it's not your tenants.

[Dicey]

I loves me some real estate porn! Thanks, @ChpBstrd. Can't wait to fall down this rabbit hole.

When you're ready for hardcore, there's mcmansionhell.com .

I'm familiar with MMH, but it primarily mocks bad architecture building styles. Larger houses=more to make fun of. It's very amusing, in limited doses.

Hmmm, not sure if it qualifies as hardcore, but occasionally DH and I play a little game. We select a city, search the available listing and choose which house we would buy if we had to move there. The place that blew us away was Detroit. Amazingly lovely old homes built with exquisite materials, style and craftsmanship. Another memorable bit of armchair desktop travel yielded a crazy underground house built by an eccentric, rich, doomsdayer. It was a complete time capsule, complete with faux foliage outside the windows to nowhere.

https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/underground-house-las-vegas/

We found this listing when it was first for sale in 2015. Interestingly, the article google produced has a link to a house in...Detroit.

I'll wait to explore this rabbit hole until DH and I can do it together. Free entertainment for the win. Thanks!

[NorthernIkigai]

None of the examples of luxury or status spending in this thread support the original premise, that any of this is relevant for us as investors.

(Well, maybe real estate investors might want to consider electric vehicle charging possibilities in the future. I don’t think that’s snobbery as such, just a practical question. I mean we hope electrical vehicles will become more common, right? I sure do,, and I’m a non-driving landlord.)