Are Rolex Owners Foolish and Immoral?

[Andad]

I will say to dori now.

As for the insidehook article that I didn’t bother opening.

[Johny]

Originally Posted by dori

Why this chicken waste money at the barber’s instead of giving it for a better cause? He finna stay looking like that anyways


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have a blue/green J J Oliver top which is similar to the top he is wearing. I had the collar removed.

[Brew]

Interesting, thought provoking article. I'm sorry so many here are threatened by the author's perspective. I wonder, though, how he feels about wedding rings?

[jaySL350]

I hazard a guess that what he spends at his stylist for looking after that tache,
would buy an explorer in a short time,,,

[Gary Busey]

mostly pricks, from what ive seen.
like new millionaires buying lambos....not everyone, but alot

[avalvo]

First, someone should get the author a cry closet and be done with it.

Articles like this point out how poorly informed some folks are and the internet gives them a platform to spew their ignorance. Free speech, like all good things, is often a double edge sword.

Yes, a luxury watch costs $6k, but that does not mean it's wasteful. That watch will hold its value over time, so the purchaser is making a prudent decision. It will run for many, many years - let's say 25 years with no need for a battery and no further cost to the environment. Some would argue its much better than replacing an Apple watch every few years and far less costly over the long haul and, again, better for the environment. That watch will be made once and serviced 2x over its life, with little to no raw material needed, waste or energy used in manufacturing. And, let's not forget that this luxury purchase and subsequent service intervals will help to make some skilled folks a decent to very good living. Folks who have worked hard to learn a craft. Last, it supports a company that has a philanthropic tilt, and sets an example for other Corp players, many of which are coming to value social good and governance.

Finally, who is this person to opine on my motivation, questions my dignity, or past judgement on my life or purpose because of a single purchase?

I leave that for you to decide.



Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

[FATO]

The guy almost makes me want to just be lazy and not work hard....wait a minute....not work at all. I can sit on my behind and extend my hands out for free handouts, free college education, free healthcare. I won’t need a watch because I am not going to work so no need to be on time.......oh wait, I need the time to know when my favorite shows are on so I can sit on my free recliner and watch my free flat screen TV. If I am hungry I can go buy steak and lobsters with my food stamps. This is all going to be funded by all you Rolex owners on this forum. Sounds like a fair deal?

[SS Oyster]

Actually, according to this crazy new world order, money is bad. So, offloading $$$ for something that lasts and won’t ever be put into a landfill is as good as it gets. Therefore, Rolex owners are saints, bound to pass effortlessly through the pearly gates.

See how I used their logic against them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HappyFamilyVan]

Originally Posted by TimeToWatch

Given that Rolex is a non-profit owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation, your money is going directly to charity.

I forgot about the charitable aspect of Rolex...great reminder...

Given the the cost of a Sub is $8,550 and the real value is about $550...I will list the delta of $8000 as a charitable donation. Thanks for the tip.

So the real point of the OPs post...Buy a Rolex as your charitable contribution for the year and then deduct it.
I thought his original intent was just to be a pretentious troll... but in reality he was say feel good about yourself and the good you do when you self indulge with a Rolex.
Thanks Man!!!

[schoolboy]

Dang. Gotta sell my watch now, he’s right!

Now I hope this dude doesn’t own any home bigger than a “tiny home” because all that we really need.

And he better not drive anywhere, because a bike is sufficient.

Also, he best be vegan, because consuming animals is not necessary and is destroying the planet.

If all the above are true, then I might listen to a talk by him. Seriously.

If not, then we just have different hobbies.

[Macnavara]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Well, here's a guy who thinks that the very act of buying a Rolex, or I guess, any watch that costs more than $200, makes one both foolish and immoral.

Oh, the ignominy!

The Earth is dying and we Rolex owners are to blame!

Why I Want but Will Never Own the Best Watch Rolex Makes

Novelist Nicholas Mancusi goes to sleep and dreams of having an Explorer 1 on his wrist

...[I]f I had an Explorer, then that would mean that I was the kind of man who could spend $6,550 on a frivolous bauble, an act so foolish that it’s essentially immoral. The kind of man who didn’t waste time considering the amount of real good that could be done with that money, the wiser purchases, the mutual fund, the people who could be made happy, the gifts he could give, the lives he could change, or of the degradations on the planet that this exact desire for conspicuous consumption has wrought. The kind of man who could admit to himself that he was at base not that great of a guy, little more than a captive to his desires, and that if he wanted the shiny thing, then he could have it.

https://www.insidehook.com/article/w...h-rolex-offers

Thats it im selling everything i own

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Actually, according to this crazy new world order, money is bad. So, offloading $$$ for something that lasts and won’t ever be put into a landfill is as good as it gets. Therefore, Rolex owners are saints, bound to pass effortlessly through the pearly gates.

See how I used their logic against them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have a point.

Instead of buying the new iPhone every year or so, buy one sub and you already did better than the techy people


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mystro]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Actually, according to this crazy new world order, money is bad. So, offloading $$$ for something that lasts and won’t ever be put into a landfill is as good as it gets. Therefore, Rolex owners are saints, bound to pass effortlessly through the pearly gates.

See how I used their logic against them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We think alike.

[GONZO2LR]

i started to read it....but i can't read nonsense..my brain won't let me...i couldn't get past 20 words...total trash....

[ganagati]

Originally Posted by Macnavara

Thats it im selling everything i own

Sounds awfully capitalistic and profit-motivated of you. Have you learned nothing?

You’ll need to tap into your altruistic side. For practice, why don’t you try donating your watches. As a true friend, I will help you out by taking your BLNR.

[Gold Crown]

Foolish maybe. But if you have more money than a God then why not?

[Brny11]

Spending money is relative. Some people will never understand that. If I was worth 100 million and donated 1+ mill to charity along with time and effort, owned a nice watch and car combined worth 200k, am I immoral?

I get what he is saying. That 7000 can change a life and we wear it on our wrists. However, that doesn’t account for the rest of what we do.

He has a point. However, it is incomplete, narrow sighted and incredibly biased. I am also perfectly confident we can dig a bit and find hypocracy in his own lifestyle choices.

[vicsdca]

Then I guess it's just as immoral to leave money in a savings account if you think about "the gifts you could give, the lives you could change" with that money. Also, you could at any point sell your Rolex and transform it into usable money. His argument makes little sense unless he considers that having money as a whole is immoral.

[Macnavara]

Originally Posted by ganagati

Sounds awfully capitalistic and profit-motivated of you. Have you learned nothing?

You’ll need to tap into your altruistic side. For practice, why don’t you try donating your watches. As a true friend, I will help you out by taking your BLNR.

Lol...thanks for the kind offer....its in the mail for delivery tomorrow....enjoy

[CalSRQ1]

Wow- trying to appear edgy by attacking perceived excess. Retread. Yawn.

Move on nothing to see here.

[Montremoi]

This "philosopher" currently wears a <200€ Seiko, fine, that's in line with his statement.

But what I really want to know, and what actually matters, is what he does with his disposable income. Because that's not enough to avoid spending it on a luxury watch, you also need to spend it wisely.

To whom does he redistribute his income ? Which charities did he pick and how impactful are they?

As it happens, just a few minutes ago, I gave money to a research project over at Lifespan.io which aims to help cure ageing - and the many horrible diseases associated with it (cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc). This has the potential to reduce the suffering of billions of people.

If you restrict yourself from buying a luxury item so that you can pour that money into a project as meaningful as the one I mentionned above, then you deserve respect. But if you use that money for comparatively inconsequential stuff, you have no business judging our spending behaviour.

[Ksporty]

Who cares

[locutus49]

The author should move to North Korea or some other communist country where you cannot own a Rolex. Let's see how long he would last before begging to come back to a capitalist country.