Reply With QuoteThe poll is 94.35% consistent. I'm merely trying to help the 5.65% of people who haven't caught up yet.Originally Posted by learningtofly
Yes
No
Correct.
Some folk seem to have a problem differentiating between expense and affordable.
The poll is 94.35% consistent. I'm merely trying to help the 5.65% of people who haven't caught up yet.
A house at £13k is more likely to be ridiculously cheap.
That entirely depends on where the house is.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Exactly, maybe we're getting somewhere, so a 13k house can be both cheap or expensive depending on factors, eg location... Same with our 13k watch...
Cheers..
Jase
Thanks for treating my half-serious answer with at more dignity than it probably deserved - it was late.
The article you point to is interesting and I have some familiarity in the area of cognitive science as a Human Factors practitioner. I totally agree that individuals are capable of assessing expense as a personal judgement based on a cognitive comparison. I don't think we really differ on this point. And of course it is interesting to analyse where this capability originated as part of our evolution. But I think that this cognitive process and the inherent individual and joint understanding of expensive underpinning it is relative rather than absolute - that is that individuals following this cognitive process may have a different notion of expense in mind and come to different conclusions concerning which real world price of an object constitutes expensive and which constitutes cheap - groups of people more so. This is why I doubt that consensus can be achieved. However, as you point out, an inability to achieve consensus does not necessarily mean that the question is without logic, it just seems to point to the question being difficult.
From my perspective I think that our disagreement revolves around the question: is expensive an absolute or relative term? Just to clarify where I think our debate is (and at the risk of repetition) my contention is that 'expensive' is a relative term I believe the position you have expressed is that 'expensive' is an absolute term. From a philosophical perspective, I take absolute to mean that expensive is a property that is independent of any observer and is a value that can be reached with reference to the thing in itself and without reference to other things or observations. That is, we can know and agree what expensive is because it is a known and absolute value. If this contention is true, then we agree that a watch is 'expensive' with if its price is at least £13,000 and above (and quite possibly at some point between no pounds at all and £13,000). Following this reasoning, if the term expensive is absolute, we might be confident in thinking that the objective of the question and the subsequent poll driving this debate is to establish what the actual value of a watch is at which point all would think of it as being expensive. I used the poor abused bloke on the Clapham Omnibus to stand-in for this notion of a general universal view. I guess we can let him off the bus at this point and let him go home to enjoy and well earned cuppa.
So my view (for what its worth), is that 'expensive' is not an absolute term. That is that there is no price that all would agree coincides with a point at which a watch (or any other object for that matter) becomes expensive which is an objective and knowable property of the thing in itself. As I think the debate on this thread has shown, some people would apply a pre-defined definition of what they would consider expensive with reference to the watch in comparison to other factors e.g.: their disposable income; the value of other watches in their collection; what other things they could obtain with a similar sum of money; what proportion of their income/mortgage/disposable income etc. My contention is that this is a relative judgement differing from person to person and reflecting an individual assessment made with reference to other things. That is the ascription of the term expensive rests on a relative rather than an absolute judgement. As the judgement of expense therefore seems to me to be a relative, rather than a mutually and universally agreeable absolute activity, I fear an objective definition of the term 'expensive' is unlikely to be available no matter how hard we look for it.
Another position may be that an absolute definition of 'expensive' might be available if one were to treat watches as a set whereby all possible prices of all the objects in that set were knowable. If this was the case it might be possible to define a range of prices ranging from cheap to expensive and decide at what point a particular watch can be viewed as expensive depending upon its price. I felt that this position again was a relative one firstly in that cost itself is relative to the market values of watches that are in themselves a fluid entity and secondly that this method would also need a functioning, mutually agreeable definition of 'expensive' that we can apply. As we all know to our dismay, the prices of watches (like shares and houses) rise and fall regularly. Furthermore, as I have argued above, an absolute and objective value for 'expensive' is unavailable. Therefore, I fear that this method of determining what is expensive is also relative and therefore open to debate and opinion.
So in conclusion (and probably to the sound of collective sighs of relief) I think we both agree that £13,000 pounds for a watch is expensive. I'd also go on to say that my partner thinks that anything over £20 is a ludicrous sum of money to waste on what she views as an ephemeral object. I furthermore think that the Man on the Clapham Omnibus having finished his tea and mopped up the last of the Rich Tea crumbs with a wet forefinger is looking at an advert for latest Rolex/Omega/Breitling/(your brand name here) with a raised eyebrow too. However, I believe that this view is not an absolute one and is open to interpretation and debate. I'd furthermore claim that whichever way you look at it, with regard to what is expensive and what is not, it is not possible to achieve universal consensus. If that is true, arguing that one might be achieved and the original question answered is in my view illogical.
I dunno, where's our local logician and philosopher when he's needed.
I beg to differ - I believe that they are mutually referential elements of the same relative judgement, that is one thinks of a thing as being expensive because it is unaffordable or difficult to afford. My position is that there is no absolute value at which something becomes expensive. I believe that the debate in this thread has been about whether something can be thought of as expensive if it is a particular price (in this case a watch being £13,000). Some have argued that one can determine whether a watch is expensive with reference to the price of other watches. I believe that their contention is that this method makes the ascription of the term 'expensive' objectively verifiable. Others feel that there are many different views concerning whether a watch is expensive but that these views differ and are therefore relative (which is my current position). I'd argue that the relative assessment of affordability is part of a process which results in a decision concerning the expense of the watch. Using this formulation I would argue that there may be many different types of assessment (as I've indicated above) which culminate in a conclusion: is this watch expensive or not. Affordability is merely one of those assessments.
Yes but for the purchaser affordable and expensive are not the same. As I have already stated, Bunker Hunt - when he was one of the richest men in the world - didn't pay $2.50 to rent headphones when he flew because he thought it was expensive, not because he couldn't afford to pay.
Or on a more personal note, if I won a squillion dollars on an American Powerball lottery I would be able to afford anything at all. But I will still consider 200 quid for trainers expensive, even if they have got Prada written on them; and I will still find 100 quid just to get into a Grand Prix circuit expensive, even if I can arrive by private Helicopter.
And as for Rolex, I also have the added complication of memory. I easily remember when a Submariner was under a grand, and it is hard to keep up with the relentless onward march of Rolex price hikes. So if, with my lottery winnings, I toddle off to the local purveyor of Sino-Swiss timekeepers and he says 'here you are sir, the latest model - that will be six thousand and something pouds please', I will of course think 'blimey that's expensive, why only yesterday they were half that'.
No.
It's good value, affordable, a bargain but it's still expensive.
^It's a joy to read the posts above.
I haven't waded into this as I think much of comes down to semantics (i.e. the meaning of words).
But, if pressed... I'd say that:
1. Expensive is a relative term not an absolute one.
2. Cheap is therefore a relative term, too.
3. Value is an obscure term.
So, what is an absolute term? I don't really know but using a phrase such as significant expenditure might help.
1. £13k on a watch is significant expenditure objectively and it's expensive subjectively (for most of us), too.
2. £5 on an apple is not significant expenditure objectively but it is expensive subjectively.
At least, I think so. I might be wrong...
This is the exact opposite to my position.
I can't be bothered, because it would be a massive task, but I think you could empirically measure this based on the distribution on the prices of the goods sold. You could easily say that anything above 1 standard deviation above the average was expensive and one below was cheap. So ~70 of watches were average, 15% were cheap and 15% were expensive.
I'd wager that £13k was in the expensive part of the normal distribution graph, perhaps several standard deviations to the right.
Interestingly I too thought about what other words or phrases we have that would be an absolute term. I think expensive is as good as we have. Significant expenditure is no improvement.
Good value? Possibly - depending on the price of comparable houses
Affordable? Not to everyone I'm sure.
A bargain? Possibly - depending on the price of comparable houses
Expensive? Here we go again...........
I can see why you think expensive is an absolute term but to help me understand your position better, can you give an example of a (subjective) synonym for 'expensive' that cannot be tested using statistical analysis?
Good Lord is this thread still rumbling on? Ok, so apparently 'expensive' is kind of semi-relative, depending on context. But let's look at it another way:
"In general, £13k is cheap for a wrist watch. A bargain in fact. A mere bagatelle."
Right.
How about 'pricey'?
Dear Sir
I was concerned to note that you and I appear to agree upon this one point, as it means that on reflection I am probably wrong...............
One of my all time favourite quotes
Very good points. I think in my posts I was trying to argue that affordability is merely one of many relative judgements that I might use if I were trying to figure out whether something was expensive or not. As you have so succinctly observed I might find something expensive even if I could afford it. However, if the terms affordable and expensive are not mutually inclusive I'd also point out that they are also not mutually exclusive. There may be a relative set of values for which something might be affordable for one person but not for another. I can imagine that that might be the case even for renting headphones at $2.50. When I was a student even a small amount like that was relatively unaffordable and therefore, to me, expensive. Again I'd argue that your reasoning tends to support my contention that expense is a relative term and it will therefore be very unlikely that it will be possible to define it in absolute terms (i.e. £13,000 pounds is an expensive watch) even though I might agree that it is from a personal perspective.
I think it is this problem that is the engine for this rather fun thread.
I'm not sure I see where 'pricey' and 'expensive' differ substantially. I may be missing the point but aren't they both relative terms for which it is impossible to decide an absolute value. I think that: 'cheap'; 'reasonable'; 'economical'; 'good value for money'; 'dear';'extravagent'; <your synonym/antonym here> when used in conjunction with or referring to price are also not absolute and therefore extremely difficult to quantify from anything other than a personal perspective.
You are very kind sir. I'm just worried what will happen when Bob Frazier gets his teeth into my faulty logic...
Last edited by Harry Tuttle; 10th September 2013 at 13:54.
Again, it's difficult to disagree with much of that, and again, that's because it's well-reasoned and measured. You have however certainly identified that the only point on which we still differ is that in any and all events you believe the term "expensive" to always be a relative one. Where, I too see "expensive" as a relative term in isolation, can it not become qualified (in any valid way) to become an absolute? In our case here, I remain of the opinion that the basic syntax of the question can qualify the term enough for it to be deemed an absolute in relation to watches taken as a whole [scrutinised in terms of both common and analytical language I can see it hold, but I suppose I'm digressing into the semantics argument warned against by AlphaOmega above].
We might like to add a linguist, an etymologist, a semanticist and a lawyer to your list of helpers on this one.
It's interesting (perhaps even troubling) that you appear to suggest that in the construction of any question, we must always produce prior-consensus in all respects for it to be logically valid in respect of all possible answers. It is probable that opinions and biases will always (rightly and wrongly, and with and without reason) impinge on an individual's interpretation of what any multi-premise question is trying to ask. I think that's just human, but I'll bow to your undoubted superior knowledge in that field… :)
I think the lawyers in our list of helpers might be rubbing their hands.
Eats shoots and leaves.
I seem to recall from some years ago, a TV interview with a Law Lord who had experience presiding over formal enquiries concerning a range of unfamiliar technical and complex matters. He was asked how, beyond the assistance of technical experts, he managed to evaluate the competing evidence. He said that during his considerations he never disregarded the value of common sense and that where a notion offended his own common sense it was frequently shown to be suspect. I often find reassurance from this recollection of mine, vague and unsubstantiated as it may be.
It's pretty clear what expensive means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expensive
"Expensive is applied to whatever entails considerable expense; it suggests a price more than the average person would normally be able to pay or a price paid only for something special."
The average person would not be able to pay £13k for the watch.
Ergo, for my money, a £13k watch is expensive. QED.
Oh blimey, I forgot about Bob...
... right, that's us all running scared!
And these people
Well-written, but flawed at such a basic level that it illustrates what happens when you overthink a thing.
A beautiful palace built on a foundation of quicksand.
Expense is not the same as affordability.
Only read the last page, and enjoyed it immensely. I wonder if we can find other topics which will allow similarly well structured discussion!
While reading, I wondered if there is an impact on the definition of expensive which can be taken from the volume of goods (or services) available at particular price points. My starting assumption is that there are very few very expensive watches available, given a limited marketplace for them. This might impact the statistical analysis, where we're attempting to assign a value along the distribution curve which describes not just price, but price and number in existence. This might be implicit in the price, although some of our hosts watches sit outside of the spread of price vs. volume comparisons we often see. We could perhaps plot price and Number of watches produced and look for patterns, which would show which watches sit outside a comfortable price / exclusivity relationship. All this suggests that price has to be factored against a number of different characteristics, as a £300 watch could be deemed expensive, if its feature set renders it to be unworthy of the price; just as a £20000 watch might be a bargain with the right history / engineering / provenance / quality / diamond encrustation.
As such, there can't be an absolute answer without more information on the watch. Even Clapham Omnibus man, if faced with a price of £12000 for the original watch worn by Steve McQueen on the set of Le Mans , with full documentary evidence, might think that was not expensive - for what it is.. Even though it clearly is expensive, for a watch!
My original answer was yes, of course it's expensive...
Well then, what would the average person be able to pay for a watch?
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
It's not what they are able to pay , but what they are willing to pay that counts . A watch is not a necessity for most people .
The average person in the UK had £1,783 in savings in 2011.
So, without going into debt, I'd say £1,783 is the very top end.
It's still far less than £13k.
I don't see a link with 'necessity' in the debate of expensive.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Another perspective:-
In September National Savings & Investments (NSI) reported that the average person had £17,300 in all types of savings, including investments, bonds, and other non property-assets. NSI also also reckon that monthly savings are, on average, 6.8% of income or about £88/month.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...0-to-1783.html
I was not suggesting that - simply pointing out that there are many opinions and references that can be swung into play (including that one about what the average person has in non property assets).
Pretty much everybody I worked with last year thought £500 was a very expensive watch.
As posted earlier - perfectly OK and natural to have differing opinions on anything, I struggle to understand why this seems to be a difficult concept and why people cannot just leave it at that rather than attempting to beat the opposing viewpoint into the ground by any means possible.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Not disputing your source, just providing another reference.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Likewise.
Indeed.......
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
LOL, love that. Makes me wonder how we picked 'fights' with people the thing was invented
Sorry Harry, but you're making the mistake of suggesting the term expensive is linked to one's ability to purchase - it is not.
It is very possible to agree that an item is expensive, but one that can be afforded, but not necessarily with ease.
As I said previously, no-one of sound mind would entertain a £4.99 apple is anything other than expensive, because the criteria used to decide its scale of expense is not on one's ability to purchase it, but as a result of being outside the norm for that item.
The question posed is absolutely sound, since just like the apple, the qualifying criteria is the watch.
If you don't believe that's the case, then ask your family, etc if an Apple being sold for £4.99 is expensive or not.
There's far too much overthinking being done, and complicating what is a straightforward proposition.
I'm wading in..............
To all but a tiny minority, rich and poor, £13k is a lot of money. It is a significant proportion of the average person's annual income (and an even more significant portion of their disposable income).
Even for those who are wealthy, most will have known a time when they were significantly less wealthy and will understand what it is to be so.
As for the watch - that is entirely subjective. Some will be so wealthy as to consider £13k to be insignificant. Others will be so devoted to watches that they are prepared to spend a significant proportion of their wealth on one.
For me, 13 grand on a watch seems far more plausible after 2 or 3 years on this forum than it did before. A wider understanding of the high end watch market has dulled my shock at the prices.
What are watches "worth"? Well that is where most of us get taken for mugs.
You can buy a white gold rolex on SC at the moment for about £3,600 - because its a Cellini. A WG datejust would be 2x that or more.
You can buy an AP Chrono for about £3,600, because its a Millenary, whereas a APROO - same functions, same brand (and so presumably same "quality") and does the same thing would cost you £10k+.
Meanwhile, if I had a big chunk of cash to blow on a "boys toy" then what is expensive - a £13k watch or, for example, a £90k porsche?
Cracking thread.
Who's winning?
scooter
Me of course... :)
Has any conclusions been reached yet?
In my opinion the answer is = tomorrow.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You were talking about 'the average person' Ralphy . My comments were made in that context .
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
Originally Posted by seikopath
It's not what they are able to pay , but what they are willing to pay that counts . A watch is not a necessity for most people .
Actually, it was my question to guineain response to his comment:Well then, what would the average person be able to pay for a watch?Firstly, I don't grasp the concept of the 'average' person when it comes to defining what he or she would regard as expensive, just because they could - or could not - afford something is irrelevant as to how they perceive something as expensive. For example, I may think a particular watch is expensive even if I could easily afford it as it doesn't seem worth the asking price to me. Equally, I might think of another watch as being inexpensive, yet it would be outside of what I could - or would - pay.The average person would not be able to pay £13k for the watch. Ergo, for my money, a £13k watch is expensive. QED.
I still don't see a link with 'necessity' in the debate of an expensive/inexpensive watch though: should a time-piece be needed for a particular purpose then my example above still applies - to my way of thinking.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Are we getting somewhere guys?
Think the outcome of the poll says something, and that's a poll amongst watchlovers..., imagine when doing the same poll 'out there on the street'...
Oh no you are not..... ;)
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
There are no winners as such since the question was somewhat ambiguous without context.
What emerges tho and this should surprise no one, most think 13k is a lot of money to be spent on one watch. And 'average' person may be unwilling/ unable tp spend so much on one watch. Regardless of how people answered it.
Posting Permissions
