I would say that wearing a sweater knitted by one's grandmother is its own kind of status symbol. I'm more impressed by that (someone having a grandmother willing to invest that much effort in a gift for them) than someone spending $1000 on an item of clothing.

The fact that those items took a long time to make is part of what makes them status symbols though, because if you pay a lot of money for something that took no time to make at all (see most NFTs) you look like an idiot to a lot of people.

> status symbol.

This sort of thing was done at a time when everybody did it, and now that it's not done, nobody does it

No kid ever said "did you see the sweater that Timmy's grandma knitted for him? That kid is so cool! "

Mostly because they all had grams sweaters as well.

I don't know what term you were looking for, but a handmade present for someone dear is about the furthest thing from a "status symbol" that I can think of:

- it can't be bought

- it can't be transferred without losing almost all value (ie: it's only valuable to you, or at most your family, eBay doesn't want it)

- it provides no improvement whatsoever in one's social standing

What are you referring to with the phrase "status symbol"?

I can't connect it at all to your listed points. An Olympic medal is about obvious a status symbol as I can imagine but it can't (meaningfully) be bought or transferred.

The status signified with a knit sweater is membership (and good standing!) in a caring family with elders not yet fully subsumed into their phones.

People, acquaintances and strangers alike, frequently comment on the knit socks I often wear, ask after who made them, and all of a sudden we're on "how's your mom" terms.

> it can't (meaningfully) be bought or transferred.

https://www.ebay.com/b/Olympic-Medal/27291/bn_55191416?_sop=...

> People, acquaintances and strangers alike, frequently comment on the knit socks I often wear,

Ok, that explains pretty much everything about your line of thought.

Thanks.

Buying someone else’s medal is not a status symbol. That is why they included the word meaningfully.

(edited for clarity)

> https://www.ebay.com/b/Olympic-Medal/27291/bn_55191416?_sop=...

Of course you can buy an Olympic medal. You can't buy the status conferred by the medal (of Olympic champion / nth runner up).

> Ok, that explains pretty much everything about your line of thought.

I don't understand this either. Are you insulting me?

You're the kind of person that would try to buy a Nobel peace prize off a recipient, aren't you?

I don't care about the opinion of kids.

I'm also completely unimpressed by someone wearing a Rolex though, so different mileage for different people.

You should be able to understand the definition of a common term such as "status symbol" though.

Understanding words does not require being impressed by anything, nor caring about the opinion of kids.

Different mileage for different people.

If most people are thinking "whoopdedoo... you clearly have more money than sense" when they see your status symbol, is it still a status symbol?

Status symbols signal different status in different contexts. Some contexts (mostly lower middle class and below) are impressed by Rolex watches because they are expensive and the struggle for money forms a collective experience.

The old rich doesn't give a shit about Rolex watches beyond noticing the newb rich using them to tell on themselves.

And some people just don't give a shit about a fancy watch no matter how much money they have or don't have.

It depends, if someone fundamentally believes that having more money than someone else means that person is of higher status, then it is.

If people don't consider that someone with more money is of a higher status then symbols of that wealth aren't meaningful.

I think a lot of people have an ingrained belief that "more money == more status"

Very often kids are un-knowing participants in status signalling by adults.

Parents want to signal "this child is looked after and we have a lot of capacity". Clothes, lunches, a lot of things are quietly like this.

A good hand-made gift demonstrates the status of the giver and provides proof-of-work for their regard of the recipient.

To be worthy that much time is the statussymbol of love. Its a rare thing, money can't buy. Somebody gifts part of his finite time on the planet to you bundled in an artifact.

I like the sweater, and some people like you might recognize it as special, but it doesn't have the universal cachet of a Rolex or something. It's also a bit chunky and funny-looking (but I guess so are some Rolexes).

"universal" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

I feel you, I guess i succeeded in not being lost and keep reading by solving the conendrum in telling myself: it certainly should take time to grow the cows for the bags. Nonetheless I'm glad i finished reading it, it was a good essay.

The point of the essay is good. You called out exactly my reaction; we value those things because of the marketing dollars that went in to them. As a wealthy friend from Geneva said to me once, “Look around this dinner party - the Swiss here have either an Apple watch or nothing on their wrist.” Swiss watches are an export good, and Hermes is a luxury brand. Both of generally good quality. And much, much better marketing.

Not really. Some items naturally have value due to utility. Natural resources only lose their value if we somehow move on from all its utilities (like coal is, day by day).

Some are indeed via marketing, but any itema have intrinsic or at least, emotional value.

I clicked the back button exactly when I got to that line haha.

Yes, Veblen goods, and there are examples of cloning Hermès bags for example (still by hand) where they're much cheaper yet took the same amount of time to create.

https://youtu.be/02CjWIkTy-M

Reads like a feel good article to signal virtue and feel validated in the wake of the Delve scandal. But ultimately obvious, opportunistic, and mid.

Maybe the analogy was wrong but more and more, I believe that some of a value was implicitly about how many organs/industries did it touch.

I agree there, but there are plenty of examples of time cost being baked into an item, regardless of status symbols.

The sweater is with whatever value a single person values it as or would pay for it. Said another way, would you sell it to me for $10? 50? 100? If you said no to all three, it's worth at least $100.

Well, I did say "market value". Of course it has value to me.

It would be more accurate to say "we value these things highly". Most people don't give a damn about your sweater, but it's probably extremely valuable to you precisely because of the time your grandmother put into it.

Maybe their point is that the brands themselves have a lot of time embedded in them. Generally, status symbols (whatever they are) aren't things that are recently established.