But luxury buying also creates work without which the labour would have no job, thus they wouldn't buy materialistic goods or things they need!

I think most people work in areas that are not needed, take that away and you have a hell of a lot of people without an income.

Point is that that they'd have a job AND what they need if they produced what they need rather than luxury goods for others - but I think this thread is not the place to go further into it.

Sorry, as a business grad and student of economics, I can't let this one slide.

The following are needs: food, water, shelter and possibility sex; anything beyond these 4 basic needs is a want, a "luxury good".

Electricity? Luxury
Hot water? Luxury
Shoes? Luxury
Pavement? Luxury

So in the world of Alien, anything produced by man, by definition, is a luxury; for food, water, shelter can be procured with bare hands. Make bow and arrow for the hunters to catch bigger and faster prey? You are producing a luxury good my friend, instead, you should be out there catching rabbits by flushing then towards the hole you've dug or catching fish by swatting them out of the water.

PS, why isn't this not the place to go further into it. We are discussing materialism are we not? I don't believe this is veering wildly off topic.

flushing into a hole? a hole? luxury ;-)

I don't buy your definition of need and luxury, but I agree that words like 'need', 'desire', and 'want' should be defined a bit more clearly. Yeah, my use of the word 'need' is perhaps a bit vague, but these words are used in a vague sense all the time.
Let's just say that working to produce things you can't afford to buy annoys a lot of people.
I think the discussion has started off topic in that it's about materialism - consumerist-materialism, anyway - in China specifically and the discussion (that I guess I veered off into) is about the consumerist-materialist impulse in China specifically.
If you want to discuss the subject in general terms, by all means start a thread, I'll be happy to kick in my point of view.

Talking about vague, "Let's just say working to produce things you can't afford to buy annoys a lot of people" is extremely vague to the p[oint of making no sense. If you are working to produce anything and earning and a fair wage to produce it, why would one be annoyed? Craftsmen often produce goods they might not afford to buy. Who is annoyed?

If you produce a good that sells and you are fully employed and compensated fairly, why does it matter if someone who does not buy the good is annoyed?

Tonyaod attempts to define need whilst Alien prefers need to be vague and elastic so he can stretch and twist the argument (discussion).

"Let's just say" is a dismissal of economic logic. Take the word "profit." Marx defined "profit" as "exploitation" and as "exploitation" is "evil" then "profit" must be evil. What Marx did was a "Let's just say" profit is evil and end of discussion.

If you accept the "Let's just say" then the discussion is ended even though "you can't afford" makes no sense as no one knows who are the annoyed multitudes "a lot of people."

The topic is China's apparent "materialistic" behavior. It isn't about "consumerist-materialism," what ever that is. Calling a people "materialistic" is making a judgement about those people.

Why is "Luxury buying a bad idea generally because it puts labor to work creating things that laborers can't afford, rather than things that they need."? Who decides what a need is? If "need" is vague, then what is the basis of judging what is luxury or not?

The state of China, indeed the entire world, is that some people earn more, have more and can afford more than other people. Is this bad?

Lastly, seeking to end a discussion that one initiated on a vague premise after being shown the vagueness of the premise, shows a lack of conviction in what ever obtuse point one was vaguely attempting to make.

While 'need' and 'want' are subjective but they are far from vague, even in the vernacular. Need is expressing the importance of something to an individual's survival while want is expressing a desire for something but recognizing it as non-critical. In economic terms, classifying goods as a need or a want is important because it helps determine consumer behavior towards that good which would help producers come up with a sound pricing strategy. So while an statement such as "I NEED to have coffee" is a bit of an exaggeration, the statement is expressing the real perceived importance of coffee as opposed to the less critical, "I want coffee". And taken in the aggregate, one can determine if this good is indeed a need or a want.

So the point is, while you might find some item such as LV bags frivolous and luxurious, many businessmen and movie stars would feel such status symbols are an integral part of their livelihood, without which they will not be able to clinch the next deal or project and thus continue their way of life. Similarly, I'm sure many slum dwelling denizens might find the cost to provide you with running water equally frivolous and luxurious and the labor involved could be put to better using digging a well.

And finally, if you are going to vilify a whole group of hardworking individuals for producing "unnecessary" goods, at least have enough respect for their labor by clearly defining your terms instead of using labels that can be used to point fingers at anyone.

Tony: As the Controller of a cash strapped company growing at 100% plus for several consecutive years my policy, or question, for buying stuff was: Do we need this, or, is it nice to have?

"Need" gains meaning in context. Undefined "need" is a throwaway word without context. If there is a demand for labor to produce a good that has utility and value then the labor has value. Labor without demand will not be valued and will go unpaid, eventually.

The worker who produces a higher quality good will find a higher demand for his work. It matters not the perceived value to those that can't afford it or don't want it. The value is in the demand.

I have no use for LV or Gucci goods, real or fake, but that does not mean the workers making those goods are wasting their labor.

i need job. when i come home from the job i need, i will need a dump.

@ Geezer: If compensated fairly...China...like, say, in Germany, India, Ecuador, or maybe...
What was that question again?