Meanwhile Rolls Royce increased their sales volume by roughly 60% between 2020 and 2022, from 3,756 to 6,021.
In 2023, Rolls Royce saw the sale of 6,032 vehicles.
This sounds like a Bentley problem, not a rich people epiphany.
This is a similar story with Jaguar and Land Rover as well. Since the increase in cost of living, whilst most common folk have been finding it harder to make ends meet, the luxury market has been absolutely booming. As a result Land Rover, isn’t just focusing on selling more Range Rovers but doubling down on making them more exclusive because of how much more money the 1% are willing to spend on luxury goods. This is definitely a Bentley problem.
I've cut back on packaged Weiners from purchasing a 12 pack to purchasing a smaller package of 6 in order to not flaunt my wealth. You have to be sensitive during these difficult times.
yeah i think Bentley's brand is just diluted at this point. When I see a Bentley now I don't think "Wow that person is rich", I think "That person wants everyone to think they're rich"
I worked on the launch of bentayga. I make car configurators. Saw it before launch. Could have been a much nicer looking car but the CEO wanted 'the fastest suv in the world' but then styled it and advertised like it was the slowest. It was a strange project.
It also has lots of VW parts so if you turn on the wipers, it's cheap plastic next to a chrome metal gear changer. Also why bentayga AND urus have those awful massive door handles. Standard VW parts.
>This sounds like a Bentley problem, not a rich people epiphany.
It's a sports/luxury car problem. Unless you're Porsche, all McLaren, Aston Martin, Jaguar, Maserati, etc., are struggling.
I think the difference is that Porsches can be excellent daily drivers beyond their status symbol.
I tried a few luxury brands and all of them looked cool but felt more or less like a regular car when driving in normal conditions except for the Porsche.
They’re also on the cheaper end of luxury while arguably being more aesthetic
I heard Intel is working on a new sub 3nm fab plant.
Edit: I’m really mad all these responses don’t run with how stupid a Stradivarius on Chip infrastructure would be.
Reminds me of a New Yorker article where this rich lady in NY who shopped at an upscale boutique would take the price tags off the bread because she didn’t want to offend the nanny and the cleaners.
Also that article where a lady handed over a shoebox full of money to a scammer, and “if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone”
https://www.thecut.com/article/amazon-scam-call-ftc-arrest-warrants.html
Oh my God that was the dumbest shit. I think I remember she tried to be like "anyone could fall for this". How much of an idiot do you have to be as a person of sound mind to hand someone a shoebox of cash in any circumstance ever?
I was reading it and was like okayyyy….she was getting a little dumber once
She started talking to Amazon…but as soon as she was like “Amazon connected me to the ftc” I was like omg what a colossal idiot
Also happened in the [presidents scam](https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-a-french-israeli-grifter-became-a-money-laundering-pioneer-in-china/). A guy convinced a high level bank worker that he was a government ambassador in need of cash - she took out 400K from the bank and put it a shoebox, and handed it over to a random in a toilet stall. Boggles the mind how someone could consider this a feasible thing that happens in the world
[Here's the article you mentioned!](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html)
I remember reading this article when it first came out. It has stuck with me all these years! I have used the line "taking the price off the bread when company arrives" in reference to the "silently" wealthy.
I have to break this up over a few comments, but here you go!
>What the Rich Won’t Tell You
By Rachel Sherman
Sept. 8, 2017
>Over lunch in a downtown restaurant, Beatrice, a New Yorker in her late 30s, told me about two decisions she and her husband were considering. They were thinking about where to buy a second home and whether their young children should go to private school. Then she made a confession: She took the price tags off her clothes so that her nanny would not see them. “I take the label off our six-dollar bread,” she said.
>She did this, she explained, because she was uncomfortable with the inequality between herself and her nanny, a Latina immigrant. She had a household income of $250,000 and inherited wealth of several million dollars. Relative to the nanny, she told me, “The choices that I have are obscene. Six-dollar bread is obscene.”
>An interior designer I spoke with told me his wealthy clients also hid prices, saying that expensive furniture and other items arrive at their houses “with big price tags on them” that “have to be removed, or Sharpied over, so the housekeepers and staff don’t see them.”
>These people agreed to meet with me as part of research I conducted on affluent and wealthy people’s consumption. I interviewed 50 parents with children at home, including 18 stay-at-home mothers. Highly educated, they worked or had worked in finance and related industries, or had inherited assets in the millions of dollars. Nearly all were in the top 1 percent or 2 percent in terms of income or wealth or both. They came from a variety of economic backgrounds, and about 80 percent were white. Reflecting their concern with anonymity and my research protocol, I am using pseudonyms throughout this article.
>We often imagine that the wealthy are unconflicted about their advantages and in fact eager to display them. Since Thorstein Veblen coined the term “conspicuous consumption” more than a century ago, the rich have typically been represented as competing for status by showing off their wealth. Our current president is the conspicuous consumer in chief, the epitome of the rich person who displays his wealth in the glitziest way possible.
>Yet we believe that wealthy people seek visibility because those we see are, by definition, visible. In contrast, the people I spoke with expressed a deep ambivalence about identifying as affluent. Rather than brag about their money or show it off, they kept quiet about their advantages. They described themselves as “normal” people who worked hard and spent prudently, distancing themselves from common stereotypes of the wealthy as ostentatious, selfish, snobby and entitled. Ultimately, their accounts illuminate a moral stigma of privilege.
>The ways these wealthy New Yorkers identify and avoid stigma matter not because we should feel sorry for uncomfortable rich people, but because they tell us something about how economic inequality is hidden, justified and maintained in American life.
>Keeping silent about social class, a norm that goes far beyond the affluent, can make Americans feel that class doesn’t, or shouldn’t, matter. And judging wealthy people on the basis of their individual behaviors — do they work hard enough, do they consume reasonably enough, do they give back enough — distracts us from other kinds of questions about the morality of vastly unequal distributions of wealth.
>To hide the price tags is not to hide the privilege; the nanny is no doubt aware of the class gap whether or not she knows the price of her employer’s bread. Instead, such moves help wealthy people manage their discomfort with inequality, which in turn makes that inequality impossible to talk honestly about — or to change.
>The stigma of wealth showed up in my interviews first in literal silences about money. When I asked one very wealthy stay-at-home mother what her family’s assets were, she was taken aback. “No one’s ever asked me that, honestly,” she said. “No one asks that question. It’s up there with, like, ‘Do you masturbate?’ ”
>Another woman, speaking of her wealth of over $50 million, which she and her husband generated through work in finance, and her home value of over $10 million, told me: “There’s nobody who knows how much we spend. You’re the only person I ever said those numbers to out loud.” She was so uncomfortable with having shared this information that she contacted me later the same day to confirm exactly how I was going to maintain her anonymity. Several women I talked with mentioned that they would not tell their husbands that they had spoken to me at all, saying, “He would kill me,” or “He’s more private.”
>These conflicts often extended to a deep discomfort with displaying wealth. Scott, who had inherited wealth of more than $50 million, told me he and his wife were ambivalent about the Manhattan apartment they had recently bought for over $4 million. Asked why, he responded: “Do we want to live in such a fancy place? Do we want to deal with the person coming in and being like, ‘Wow!’ That wears on you. We’re just not the type of people who wear it on our sleeve. We don’t want that ‘Wow.’ ” His wife, whom I interviewed separately, was so uneasy with the fact that they lived in a penthouse that she had asked the post office to change their mailing address so that it would include the floor number instead of “PH,” a term she found “elite and snobby.”
>My interviewees never talked about themselves as “rich” or “upper class,” often preferring terms like “comfortable” or “fortunate.” Some even identified as “middle class” or “in the middle,” typically comparing themselves with the super-wealthy, who are especially prominent in New York City, rather than to those with less.
>When I used the word “affluent” in an email to a stay-at-home mom with a $2.5 million household income, a house in the Hamptons and a child in private school, she almost canceled the interview, she told me later. Real affluence, she said, belonged to her friends who traveled on a private plane.
>Others said that affluence meant never having to worry about money, which many of them, especially those in single-earner families dependent on work in finance, said they did, because earnings fluctuate and jobs are impermanent.
>American culture has long been marked by questions about the moral caliber of wealthy people. Capitalist entrepreneurs are often celebrated, but they are also represented as greedy and ruthless. Inheritors of fortunes, especially women, are portrayed as glamorous, but also as self-indulgent.
>The negative side of this portrayal may be more prominent in times of high inequality (think of the robber barons of the Gilded Age or the Gordon Gekko figures of the 1980s). In recent years, the Great Recession and Occupy Wall Street, which were in the background when I conducted these interviews, brought extreme income inequality onto the national stage again. The top 10 percent of earners now garner over 50 percent of income nationally, and the top 1 percent over 20 percent.
>It is not surprising, then, that the people I talked with wanted to distance themselves from the increasingly vilified category of the 1 percent. But their unease with acknowledging their privilege also grows out of a decades-long shift in the composition of the wealthy. During most of the 20th century, the upper class was a homogeneous community. Nearly all white and Protestant, the top families belonged to the same exclusive clubs, were listed in the Social Register, educated their children at the same elite institutions.
>This class has diversified, thanks largely to the opening of elite education to people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds starting after World War II, and to the more recent rise of astronomical compensation in finance. At the same time, the rise of finance and related fields means that many of the wealthiest are the “working rich,” not the “leisure class” Veblen described. The quasi-aristocracy of the WASP upper class has been replaced by a “meritocracy” of a more varied elite. Wealthy people must appear to be worthy of their privilege for that privilege to be seen as legitimate.
>Being worthy means working hard, as we might expect. But being worthy also means spending money wisely. In both these ways, my interviewees strove to be “normal.”
>Talia was a stay-at-home mom whose husband worked in finance and earned about $500,000 per year. They were combining two apartments in a renovation, and they rented a country home. “We have a pretty normal existence,” she told me. When I asked what that meant, she responded: “I don’t know. Like, dinners at home with the family. The kids eat, we give them their bath, we read stories.” It wasn’t as if she was dining out at four-star restaurants every night, she said. “We walk to school every morning. And, you know, it’s fun. It’s a real neighborhood existence.”
>Scott and his wife had spent $600,000 in the year before our conversation. “We just can’t understand how we spent that much money,” he told me. “That’s kind of a little spousal joke. You know, like: ‘Hey. Do you feel like this is the $600,000 lifestyle? Whooo!’ ” Rather than living the high life that he imagined would carry such a price tag, he described himself as “frenetic,” asserting, “I’m running around, I’m making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.” Having money does not mean, in his view, that he is not ordinary.
>The people I talked with never bragged about the price of something because it was high; instead, they enthusiastically recounted snagging bargains on baby strollers, buying clothes at Target and driving old cars. They critiqued other wealthy people’s expenditures, especially ostentatious ones such as giant McMansions or pricey resort vacations where workers, in one man’s sarcastic words, “massage your toes.”
>They worried about how to raise children who would themselves be “good people” rather than entitled brats. The context of New York City, especially its private schools, heightened their fear that their kids would never encounter the “real world,” or have “fluency outside the bubble,” in the words of one inheritor. Another woman told me about a child she knew of whose father had taken the family on a $10,000 vacation; afterward the child had said, “It was great, but next time we fly private like everyone else.”
>To be sure, these are New Yorkers with elite educations, and most are socially liberal. Wealthy people in other places or with other histories may feel more comfortable talking about their money and spending it in more obvious ways. And even the people I spoke with may be less reticent among their wealthy peers than they are in a formal interview.
>Nonetheless, their ambivalence about recognizing privilege suggests a deep tension at the heart of the idea of American dream. While pursuing wealth is unequivocally desirable, having wealth is not simple and straightforward. Our ideas about egalitarianism make even the beneficiaries of inequality uncomfortable with it. And it is hard to know what they, as individuals, can do to change things.
>In response to these tensions, silence allows for a kind of “see no evil, hear no evil” stance. By not mentioning money, my interviewees follow a seemingly neutral social norm that frowns on such talk. But this norm is one of the ways in which privileged people can obscure both their advantages and their conflicts about these advantages.
>And, as they try to be “normal,” these wealthy and affluent people deflect the stigma of wealth. If they can see themselves as hard workers and reasonable consumers, they can belong symbolically to the broad and legitimate American “middle,” while remaining materially at the top.
>These efforts respond to widespread judgments of the individual behaviors of wealthy people as morally meritorious or not. Yet what’s crucial to see is that such judgments distract us from any possibility of thinking about redistribution. When we evaluate people’s moral worth on the basis of where and how they live and work, we reinforce the idea that what matters is what people do, not what they have. With every such judgment, we reproduce a system in which being astronomically wealthy is acceptable as long as wealthy people are morally good.
>Calls from liberal and left social critics for advantaged people to recognize their privilege also underscore this emphasis on individual identities. For individual people to admit that they are privileged is not necessarily going to change an unequal system of accumulation and distribution of resources.
>Instead, we should talk not about the moral worth of individuals but about the moral worth of particular social arrangements. Is the society we want one in which it is acceptable for some people to have tens of millions or billions of dollars as long as they are hardworking, generous, not materialistic and down to earth? Or should there be some other moral rubric, that would strive for a society in which such high levels of inequality were morally unacceptable, regardless of how nice or moderate its beneficiaries are?
The end.
Wow. These people all seem like real fuckfaces.
I wonder if they've ever considered, they don't *have* to do all this freaky indulgent shit if they're allegedly so embarassed by it, they could always actually walk the walk. Maybe pay their staff better. Idk man, I always assume rich people are actually having fun but these people seem both miserable and truly brainless.
There’s a difference between people who still need to work to survive and those who don’t, and you can be quite wealthy without being in the second category Eg. If you’re a doctor or lawyer. The article reads like a lot of people who grew up middle class and ended up in high earning careers and are somewhat uncomfortable with how much they make rather than like people who became rich by being the heir to a company or something
The original article or the New Yorker piece?
But anyway, agree with you on that first idea for sure. The New Yorker piece sounds like a bunch of airheads who have no idea how they sound, yet are desperately trying to craft what other people think of them.
I'd rather just have someone who's ostentatious and proud of it, rather than these weirdoes who *choose* their lifestyle (not the wealth itself, but the lifestyle) and then act embarassed about it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html?unlocked_article_code=1.e00.85r6.-OrDY8BW8-9L&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=m
Gift link (not paywalled)
Money screams, but wealth whispers as the saying goes. I work primarily around multimillionaires and I e found this to certainly be true. “Rich” people buy and wear really extravagant shit to flex like flashy jewelry and whatnot, but truly wealthy people buy and wear stuff that is expensive without being flashy. Like they wear jeans that cost $4k-$8k and have to be dry cleaned, but that basically look like any other pair of jeans that cost $40.
Things marketed to the rich flexers are always highly branded so you know it was expensive from a mile away, but those hyper-luxury goods targeting the wealthy are rarely branded in any noticeable way. Its all about looking like the average joe basically, but in impeccably tailored and high quality clothing
Its kind of ironic how the richest people are virtually ashamed of having so much money to the point where they want to look like everyone else, but also simultaneously want to be treated like gods everywhere they go
Haha, caught me taking the tag off the bread! No, I actually don't have a paid or free sub to NYT but it limits me to like one article per day without an account? I'm not sure how that works. I copy/pasted it for another Redditor. Now I can't revisit this same article without making an account. *angry squints*
I just bought a bag too. The reject bags are such a steal. ~10 bucks for a bigger bag than any you can get in a store and they taste exactly the same, just a little messed up lookin.
Bentley CEO announces plans to start making budget cars that have supercar price tags so the rich feel less self conscious about their spending while still driving an overpriced disaster of British engineering.
The funny thing is that the day after he made these comments he left Bentley to become the new CEO of Aston Martin. Maybe THOSE customers won't be so emotionally sensitive that they'll mind driving luxury cars in front of poor people.
I believe Aston Martins still come with a "guinea box" which should be kept filled with "coin of the realm" - for tossing out at stoplights and the such.
That's not what he said though, lol. If he said "We aren't growing because we've sold Bentleys to everybody who can afford them", that would be weird but it would be whatever. What he said here, is not that.
Blaming your customers is failing business management 101. But this guy is smart enough to not say that out loud so instead he frames it as a compliment.
> Blaming your customers is failing business management 10
Yeah imagine if the Costco CEO said “y’all ain’t buying hotdogs anymore! So we’re jacking the price!”
Dude would be out of the C suite in a hot minute lmao
I wouldn't commit to that assessment. Based on my experience, very wealthy people drive overpriced pickup trucks and SUVs *almost* exactly because of the sentiment expressed in this headline. It's less about appearing less wealthy than you are than it is about appearing that you still work for a living. "I paid $100k for this truck, but it can fit a full sheet of plywood in the bed and pull a six-horse trailer and I need that. For work. ^^That ^^other ^^people ^^do. "
Yeahhhhh unless you’re upper middle class or higher, good fucking luck with that 100k, 72 month loan at 9.5% interest.
Oh but do tell me how it’s a good idea because the monthly payment is *only* 1,100 a month.
Bunch of unnecessary pavement princesses out on the road. Fucking hate America car culture…
Nevermind the optics of owning a $350,000 car, I have a different, cheaper car because I want something practical that won't cost a *second* Bentley to keep running at the 200k miles mark. Luxury cars are fun, but also bottomless money pits.
Then again, I fully submit that considering the maintenance costs may indicate I'm not wealthy enough to be the target audience.
His words aren’t entirely untrue. I’m in catering/events and The mega rich are certainly toning down the garishness of their extravagant high end weddings and I’ve had clients say similar things to me about “appearances”
You actually want the rich to spend lavishly though. While egregious, luxury goods and catering creates many jobs and recirculates the money into the economy. Without it, the rich will just stack up their hoards of money and pass it on to their descendent with non of the benefit going back into the economy.
Reminds of of that Top Gear episode just after the banking crisis in 2008 where James May read out a letter from some "bankers" who wanted to know what car to spend their bonuses on which wouldn't look too ostentatious.
Basically, I read the CEOs statement as, *the bottom of our market is sensitive to interest rate changes bc they can barely afford our cars.*.
Honestly, it makes sense to me.
Translation: they don’t want it to be smashed to pieces by nearly-starving, nearly-homeless people that are working fifty-hour weeks because they were lied to by society about what their future could hold; who have two generations behind them nervously watching, waiting and panicking at the future.
They unironically prefer it that way, because anyone they want as a customer knows about them. And obscuring from the poors makes their customers feel better and adds mystery.
It's kinda parallel to countless rich bitch brands that do zero advertising, who we have never heard of. Because they want to keep things as word of mouth between those rich people they want buying their shit. You not knowing they exist is part of the plan, not a failure.
They do status.
Looking better than others right now, just isn't a great look. Plus in all reality, who gives a shit what kind of car you have.
It's no longer, I'm here cause I worked hard. It's, I'm old and bought a house that rose in value due to nothing I did or my parents were rich.
Bentleys are for the wanna be rich who still drive themselves to work. The real rich are buying Rolls and getting chauffeured between where the middle class & poor can't go. all while sipping on chilled champagne.
There's a wide range between "rich" and billionaire. Many professionals like doctors and lawyers become multi-millionaires and are completely fine people.
*”I can’t buy the luxurious items I want to buy because the poor people might think less of me if I buy them”* - Said absolutely no rich people ever in the history of mankind
Bentley could lobby the government for more affordable housing, and a higher minimum wage. Don't know how it works in the UK but I'm sure Bentley with all their money could figure something out.
I used to think that life is only about competition and challenge, but the problem is that world is not fair at all. Everyone wants to be at the top, but in practice it's nearly impossible to get to top 1% or 0.1%. Global top 1% controls about 50% of global wealth.
Everyone in the world should be in relatively good situation. In practice it might be impossible, but that doesn't change the fact that we can focus on top 20% or top 50%, instead of leaving majority to top 1%. Not everyone has to the best and not everyone has opportunity to become best, but being just good should also mean good life.
The powers that be would have you convinced (and have convinced many) your options are either this or genocidal communism with no room for nuance in between, despite the fact that socialist policies are largely what keeps the entire ship from sinking to begin with. Whatever outcome we’re headed towards is not going to be a fun one and the republic will not actually be at the wheel.
The real reason is not that they are worried about the poors- just that the current bentleys are simply inferior to electric luxury cars like Tesla, Lucid, Porsche, BMW and even Rolls Royce.
Funny though a brand new fugy bentley suv monstrosity nearly sideswiped me in my shitbox a week ago going like 100mph near Palo Alto. He was in such a rush that right after he sat in the left lane going 65mph. I caught up and did the same to him because idgaf if my $600 car explodes.
Bentley lost their touch and the newer cars break down too often. The tech is like early 2000s compared to other manufacturers. It’s not rich people are poor, it’s that their cars are very poorly manufactured and service is horrible to boot.
Meanwhile Rolls Royce increased their sales volume by roughly 60% between 2020 and 2022, from 3,756 to 6,021. In 2023, Rolls Royce saw the sale of 6,032 vehicles. This sounds like a Bentley problem, not a rich people epiphany.
This is a similar story with Jaguar and Land Rover as well. Since the increase in cost of living, whilst most common folk have been finding it harder to make ends meet, the luxury market has been absolutely booming. As a result Land Rover, isn’t just focusing on selling more Range Rovers but doubling down on making them more exclusive because of how much more money the 1% are willing to spend on luxury goods. This is definitely a Bentley problem.
I've cut back on packaged Weiners from purchasing a 12 pack to purchasing a smaller package of 6 in order to not flaunt my wealth. You have to be sensitive during these difficult times.
yeah i think Bentley's brand is just diluted at this point. When I see a Bentley now I don't think "Wow that person is rich", I think "That person wants everyone to think they're rich"
Yea it doesn’t help that from further than 10 ft away a 2003 Bentley looks like a 2023 Bentley.
just checked their HP, and i'm greeted by a Bentayga, one of the ugliest cars I laid my eyes on. What the hell are those cars?
I worked on the launch of bentayga. I make car configurators. Saw it before launch. Could have been a much nicer looking car but the CEO wanted 'the fastest suv in the world' but then styled it and advertised like it was the slowest. It was a strange project. It also has lots of VW parts so if you turn on the wipers, it's cheap plastic next to a chrome metal gear changer. Also why bentayga AND urus have those awful massive door handles. Standard VW parts.
And if anyone asks what you drive, you have to say "Bentayga", which is one of the stupidest names I've ever heard.
damn, you're not wrong. And only $230k too, what a steal
> just checked their HP You checked their hit points?
Gotta capitalize on the SUV craze!
when you're so rich/in debt "RangeRovers are for the poors"
Remember a 2000 Bentley looked like a 1980 Bentley. That’s about the normal pace of styling for them .
But how else can they blame the poor?
Most of the poor people are telling the rich to get Bent. Maybe they should shorten their name as a marketing device.
IIUC Rolls Royce deliberately cap phantom production and there is a long waiting list. So they probably just raised the cap.
Telling that RR effectively have customers in reserve while Bentley are struggling to maintain though.
A ridiculous amount of them go to the gulf and china anyway.... Rolls Royce is not bothered about western embarrassment of wealth
So the problem must be that stupid ad they had.
Lamborghini smashed the ceiling of 10K units delivered for the first time in its history in 2023...
>This sounds like a Bentley problem, not a rich people epiphany. It's a sports/luxury car problem. Unless you're Porsche, all McLaren, Aston Martin, Jaguar, Maserati, etc., are struggling.
I think the difference is that Porsches can be excellent daily drivers beyond their status symbol. I tried a few luxury brands and all of them looked cool but felt more or less like a regular car when driving in normal conditions except for the Porsche. They’re also on the cheaper end of luxury while arguably being more aesthetic
Damn, I don’t think we have a violin small enough for this
They’re working on it but it turns out making a violin out of quarks is……pretty tough.
And probably really expensive, which just makes matters worse.
Flaunting your quarks again?
Well, now, that’s some people’s entire personality.
Haha, touché
*rich person holds out empty hand* Yes this is my Stradivarius made of quarks.
The Violin Miniaturization Paradox
[удалено]
Oh boy, expensive wood because expensive
But… aren’t all violins made of quarks..?
I heard Intel is working on a new sub 3nm fab plant. Edit: I’m really mad all these responses don’t run with how stupid a Stradivarius on Chip infrastructure would be.
Finally moving past 14nm
Don't forget the +++++++++
They're calling it sub 3, but it's really the same 4nm tech TSMC has had for years
Meh, not quite. It is more nuanced.
It better be a Stradivarius
At that size? More like stradivirus.
I found one, but then I lost it.
[удалено]
A sub-atomic sized violin maybe, but even that wouldn't be small enough.
Reminds me of a New Yorker article where this rich lady in NY who shopped at an upscale boutique would take the price tags off the bread because she didn’t want to offend the nanny and the cleaners.
Also that article where a lady handed over a shoebox full of money to a scammer, and “if it could happen to her, it could happen to anyone” https://www.thecut.com/article/amazon-scam-call-ftc-arrest-warrants.html
>Cut’s financial-advice columnist. Not just "a lady" but literally the publications expert on finance
Oh my God that was the dumbest shit. I think I remember she tried to be like "anyone could fall for this". How much of an idiot do you have to be as a person of sound mind to hand someone a shoebox of cash in any circumstance ever?
I was reading it and was like okayyyy….she was getting a little dumber once She started talking to Amazon…but as soon as she was like “Amazon connected me to the ftc” I was like omg what a colossal idiot
Also happened in the [presidents scam](https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-a-french-israeli-grifter-became-a-money-laundering-pioneer-in-china/). A guy convinced a high level bank worker that he was a government ambassador in need of cash - she took out 400K from the bank and put it a shoebox, and handed it over to a random in a toilet stall. Boggles the mind how someone could consider this a feasible thing that happens in the world
It could happen to me but I don't have a shoebox.
[Here's the article you mentioned!](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html) I remember reading this article when it first came out. It has stuck with me all these years! I have used the line "taking the price off the bread when company arrives" in reference to the "silently" wealthy.
Six dollar bread? Sounds like a bargain now!
I feel like even in 2017 a $6 loaf of bread isn't ludicrous for NY.
No brand sliced bread was $5 today at my local run of the mill grocery store today. Fucking kill me. At what point do we wheel out the guillotine?
can you copy paste the article? I cant read it.
I have to break this up over a few comments, but here you go! >What the Rich Won’t Tell You By Rachel Sherman Sept. 8, 2017 >Over lunch in a downtown restaurant, Beatrice, a New Yorker in her late 30s, told me about two decisions she and her husband were considering. They were thinking about where to buy a second home and whether their young children should go to private school. Then she made a confession: She took the price tags off her clothes so that her nanny would not see them. “I take the label off our six-dollar bread,” she said. >She did this, she explained, because she was uncomfortable with the inequality between herself and her nanny, a Latina immigrant. She had a household income of $250,000 and inherited wealth of several million dollars. Relative to the nanny, she told me, “The choices that I have are obscene. Six-dollar bread is obscene.” >An interior designer I spoke with told me his wealthy clients also hid prices, saying that expensive furniture and other items arrive at their houses “with big price tags on them” that “have to be removed, or Sharpied over, so the housekeepers and staff don’t see them.” >These people agreed to meet with me as part of research I conducted on affluent and wealthy people’s consumption. I interviewed 50 parents with children at home, including 18 stay-at-home mothers. Highly educated, they worked or had worked in finance and related industries, or had inherited assets in the millions of dollars. Nearly all were in the top 1 percent or 2 percent in terms of income or wealth or both. They came from a variety of economic backgrounds, and about 80 percent were white. Reflecting their concern with anonymity and my research protocol, I am using pseudonyms throughout this article. >We often imagine that the wealthy are unconflicted about their advantages and in fact eager to display them. Since Thorstein Veblen coined the term “conspicuous consumption” more than a century ago, the rich have typically been represented as competing for status by showing off their wealth. Our current president is the conspicuous consumer in chief, the epitome of the rich person who displays his wealth in the glitziest way possible. >Yet we believe that wealthy people seek visibility because those we see are, by definition, visible. In contrast, the people I spoke with expressed a deep ambivalence about identifying as affluent. Rather than brag about their money or show it off, they kept quiet about their advantages. They described themselves as “normal” people who worked hard and spent prudently, distancing themselves from common stereotypes of the wealthy as ostentatious, selfish, snobby and entitled. Ultimately, their accounts illuminate a moral stigma of privilege. >The ways these wealthy New Yorkers identify and avoid stigma matter not because we should feel sorry for uncomfortable rich people, but because they tell us something about how economic inequality is hidden, justified and maintained in American life. >Keeping silent about social class, a norm that goes far beyond the affluent, can make Americans feel that class doesn’t, or shouldn’t, matter. And judging wealthy people on the basis of their individual behaviors — do they work hard enough, do they consume reasonably enough, do they give back enough — distracts us from other kinds of questions about the morality of vastly unequal distributions of wealth. >To hide the price tags is not to hide the privilege; the nanny is no doubt aware of the class gap whether or not she knows the price of her employer’s bread. Instead, such moves help wealthy people manage their discomfort with inequality, which in turn makes that inequality impossible to talk honestly about — or to change. >The stigma of wealth showed up in my interviews first in literal silences about money. When I asked one very wealthy stay-at-home mother what her family’s assets were, she was taken aback. “No one’s ever asked me that, honestly,” she said. “No one asks that question. It’s up there with, like, ‘Do you masturbate?’ ”
>Another woman, speaking of her wealth of over $50 million, which she and her husband generated through work in finance, and her home value of over $10 million, told me: “There’s nobody who knows how much we spend. You’re the only person I ever said those numbers to out loud.” She was so uncomfortable with having shared this information that she contacted me later the same day to confirm exactly how I was going to maintain her anonymity. Several women I talked with mentioned that they would not tell their husbands that they had spoken to me at all, saying, “He would kill me,” or “He’s more private.” >These conflicts often extended to a deep discomfort with displaying wealth. Scott, who had inherited wealth of more than $50 million, told me he and his wife were ambivalent about the Manhattan apartment they had recently bought for over $4 million. Asked why, he responded: “Do we want to live in such a fancy place? Do we want to deal with the person coming in and being like, ‘Wow!’ That wears on you. We’re just not the type of people who wear it on our sleeve. We don’t want that ‘Wow.’ ” His wife, whom I interviewed separately, was so uneasy with the fact that they lived in a penthouse that she had asked the post office to change their mailing address so that it would include the floor number instead of “PH,” a term she found “elite and snobby.” >My interviewees never talked about themselves as “rich” or “upper class,” often preferring terms like “comfortable” or “fortunate.” Some even identified as “middle class” or “in the middle,” typically comparing themselves with the super-wealthy, who are especially prominent in New York City, rather than to those with less. >When I used the word “affluent” in an email to a stay-at-home mom with a $2.5 million household income, a house in the Hamptons and a child in private school, she almost canceled the interview, she told me later. Real affluence, she said, belonged to her friends who traveled on a private plane. >Others said that affluence meant never having to worry about money, which many of them, especially those in single-earner families dependent on work in finance, said they did, because earnings fluctuate and jobs are impermanent. >American culture has long been marked by questions about the moral caliber of wealthy people. Capitalist entrepreneurs are often celebrated, but they are also represented as greedy and ruthless. Inheritors of fortunes, especially women, are portrayed as glamorous, but also as self-indulgent. >The negative side of this portrayal may be more prominent in times of high inequality (think of the robber barons of the Gilded Age or the Gordon Gekko figures of the 1980s). In recent years, the Great Recession and Occupy Wall Street, which were in the background when I conducted these interviews, brought extreme income inequality onto the national stage again. The top 10 percent of earners now garner over 50 percent of income nationally, and the top 1 percent over 20 percent. >It is not surprising, then, that the people I talked with wanted to distance themselves from the increasingly vilified category of the 1 percent. But their unease with acknowledging their privilege also grows out of a decades-long shift in the composition of the wealthy. During most of the 20th century, the upper class was a homogeneous community. Nearly all white and Protestant, the top families belonged to the same exclusive clubs, were listed in the Social Register, educated their children at the same elite institutions. >This class has diversified, thanks largely to the opening of elite education to people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds starting after World War II, and to the more recent rise of astronomical compensation in finance. At the same time, the rise of finance and related fields means that many of the wealthiest are the “working rich,” not the “leisure class” Veblen described. The quasi-aristocracy of the WASP upper class has been replaced by a “meritocracy” of a more varied elite. Wealthy people must appear to be worthy of their privilege for that privilege to be seen as legitimate. >Being worthy means working hard, as we might expect. But being worthy also means spending money wisely. In both these ways, my interviewees strove to be “normal.”
>Talia was a stay-at-home mom whose husband worked in finance and earned about $500,000 per year. They were combining two apartments in a renovation, and they rented a country home. “We have a pretty normal existence,” she told me. When I asked what that meant, she responded: “I don’t know. Like, dinners at home with the family. The kids eat, we give them their bath, we read stories.” It wasn’t as if she was dining out at four-star restaurants every night, she said. “We walk to school every morning. And, you know, it’s fun. It’s a real neighborhood existence.” >Scott and his wife had spent $600,000 in the year before our conversation. “We just can’t understand how we spent that much money,” he told me. “That’s kind of a little spousal joke. You know, like: ‘Hey. Do you feel like this is the $600,000 lifestyle? Whooo!’ ” Rather than living the high life that he imagined would carry such a price tag, he described himself as “frenetic,” asserting, “I’m running around, I’m making peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.” Having money does not mean, in his view, that he is not ordinary. >The people I talked with never bragged about the price of something because it was high; instead, they enthusiastically recounted snagging bargains on baby strollers, buying clothes at Target and driving old cars. They critiqued other wealthy people’s expenditures, especially ostentatious ones such as giant McMansions or pricey resort vacations where workers, in one man’s sarcastic words, “massage your toes.” >They worried about how to raise children who would themselves be “good people” rather than entitled brats. The context of New York City, especially its private schools, heightened their fear that their kids would never encounter the “real world,” or have “fluency outside the bubble,” in the words of one inheritor. Another woman told me about a child she knew of whose father had taken the family on a $10,000 vacation; afterward the child had said, “It was great, but next time we fly private like everyone else.” >To be sure, these are New Yorkers with elite educations, and most are socially liberal. Wealthy people in other places or with other histories may feel more comfortable talking about their money and spending it in more obvious ways. And even the people I spoke with may be less reticent among their wealthy peers than they are in a formal interview. >Nonetheless, their ambivalence about recognizing privilege suggests a deep tension at the heart of the idea of American dream. While pursuing wealth is unequivocally desirable, having wealth is not simple and straightforward. Our ideas about egalitarianism make even the beneficiaries of inequality uncomfortable with it. And it is hard to know what they, as individuals, can do to change things. >In response to these tensions, silence allows for a kind of “see no evil, hear no evil” stance. By not mentioning money, my interviewees follow a seemingly neutral social norm that frowns on such talk. But this norm is one of the ways in which privileged people can obscure both their advantages and their conflicts about these advantages. >And, as they try to be “normal,” these wealthy and affluent people deflect the stigma of wealth. If they can see themselves as hard workers and reasonable consumers, they can belong symbolically to the broad and legitimate American “middle,” while remaining materially at the top. >These efforts respond to widespread judgments of the individual behaviors of wealthy people as morally meritorious or not. Yet what’s crucial to see is that such judgments distract us from any possibility of thinking about redistribution. When we evaluate people’s moral worth on the basis of where and how they live and work, we reinforce the idea that what matters is what people do, not what they have. With every such judgment, we reproduce a system in which being astronomically wealthy is acceptable as long as wealthy people are morally good. >Calls from liberal and left social critics for advantaged people to recognize their privilege also underscore this emphasis on individual identities. For individual people to admit that they are privileged is not necessarily going to change an unequal system of accumulation and distribution of resources. >Instead, we should talk not about the moral worth of individuals but about the moral worth of particular social arrangements. Is the society we want one in which it is acceptable for some people to have tens of millions or billions of dollars as long as they are hardworking, generous, not materialistic and down to earth? Or should there be some other moral rubric, that would strive for a society in which such high levels of inequality were morally unacceptable, regardless of how nice or moderate its beneficiaries are? The end.
Wow. These people all seem like real fuckfaces. I wonder if they've ever considered, they don't *have* to do all this freaky indulgent shit if they're allegedly so embarassed by it, they could always actually walk the walk. Maybe pay their staff better. Idk man, I always assume rich people are actually having fun but these people seem both miserable and truly brainless.
There’s a difference between people who still need to work to survive and those who don’t, and you can be quite wealthy without being in the second category Eg. If you’re a doctor or lawyer. The article reads like a lot of people who grew up middle class and ended up in high earning careers and are somewhat uncomfortable with how much they make rather than like people who became rich by being the heir to a company or something
The original article or the New Yorker piece? But anyway, agree with you on that first idea for sure. The New Yorker piece sounds like a bunch of airheads who have no idea how they sound, yet are desperately trying to craft what other people think of them. I'd rather just have someone who's ostentatious and proud of it, rather than these weirdoes who *choose* their lifestyle (not the wealth itself, but the lifestyle) and then act embarassed about it.
That was a good piece. Journalism is cool. Thanks for pasting it here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/sunday/what-the-rich-wont-tell-you.html?unlocked_article_code=1.e00.85r6.-OrDY8BW8-9L&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=m Gift link (not paywalled)
Money screams, but wealth whispers as the saying goes. I work primarily around multimillionaires and I e found this to certainly be true. “Rich” people buy and wear really extravagant shit to flex like flashy jewelry and whatnot, but truly wealthy people buy and wear stuff that is expensive without being flashy. Like they wear jeans that cost $4k-$8k and have to be dry cleaned, but that basically look like any other pair of jeans that cost $40. Things marketed to the rich flexers are always highly branded so you know it was expensive from a mile away, but those hyper-luxury goods targeting the wealthy are rarely branded in any noticeable way. Its all about looking like the average joe basically, but in impeccably tailored and high quality clothing Its kind of ironic how the richest people are virtually ashamed of having so much money to the point where they want to look like everyone else, but also simultaneously want to be treated like gods everywhere they go
Paywalled. Flaunting your fancy NYT sub I see…
Haha, caught me taking the tag off the bread! No, I actually don't have a paid or free sub to NYT but it limits me to like one article per day without an account? I'm not sure how that works. I copy/pasted it for another Redditor. Now I can't revisit this same article without making an account. *angry squints*
Off the bread?
You don’t buy bespoke custom-designed bread?
Presumably made with yeast from Goop...or something
Mmmm… a Goop infection.
Bagels by Balenciaga.
might have been $30 bread?
fuck, i was thinking $7 was a lot for bread.
Suck my entire asshole
This made me choke on my gummies worms
Ooohhhh, look who can afford whole gummy worms.
Gummy worms CEO says sales are down because the poor are choking on them from hilarious Reddit comments...
I got them at the Albanese factory, they're the rejects
I just bought a bag too. The reject bags are such a steal. ~10 bucks for a bigger bag than any you can get in a store and they taste exactly the same, just a little messed up lookin.
I honestly am not even sure they are all that messed up. A few are stuck together but hey, that's free worm
Yeah the bag I have has like clusters of 6-8 of em that are fused together but I just pry em apart haha
This is a hilarious visual. Also explains why they’re choking on them. Can these only be found at the factory? If so, can I order some from you? 🪱
🤨 This one may pass, but keep an eye on him.
Dude, Albanese are the best!
Reject candy is the best. I’m just going to smash it in my face anyway, don’t need it to be perfect.
And I'm stuck here with my gelatin grubs
Gotta flaunt that wealth. /s
I snorted into my cereal for dinner
Entire asshole > Gummy worms 🐛
Gummie asshole ⭕️
Where can I buy some Gummy Assholes? Asking for a friend.
They are in the cheap candy section, red and orange with a little sugar on them. I heard from a friend.
Bitch, you leave those peach rings alone. Those are my edible booty holes.
Lol i read that wrongly as my Gummy’s worms. Whelp a new nightmare for me tonight DX.
Don’t threaten me with a good time
Your username makes this comment so much better.
I don't mind making a buck off stupidly rich people. Someone has to extract wealth from them.
I became a jeweler…
They may prefer the whole ass, they can afford it. If they want to flaunt it that is...lmao Also, 2022 was Bentley's best year ever. lol
This is the correct comment for this. Bravo good person.
Does that cost extra compared to just tongue-punching your fart-box?
Like the whole thing?
Suck it
Translation: Bentley CEO is shit at his job, blames poor people for company's downturn.
Bentley CEO announces plans to start making budget cars that have supercar price tags so the rich feel less self conscious about their spending while still driving an overpriced disaster of British engineering.
The funny thing is that the day after he made these comments he left Bentley to become the new CEO of Aston Martin. Maybe THOSE customers won't be so emotionally sensitive that they'll mind driving luxury cars in front of poor people.
At the rate the British secret service goes through Aaron Martin's I think he'll be fine.
Aaron Martins? "We have Aston Martins at home"
I believe Aston Martins still come with a "guinea box" which should be kept filled with "coin of the realm" - for tossing out at stoplights and the such.
His words have merit. The market size for Bentley is really only for the rich and there’s not excactly infinite growth possible in any industry.
That's not what he said though, lol. If he said "We aren't growing because we've sold Bentleys to everybody who can afford them", that would be weird but it would be whatever. What he said here, is not that.
I agree -- he's projecting this level of awareness and empathy upon the wealthy that, in my 50 years on the planet, I've never seen them merit.
Just seems like a poor excuse to me. I doubt empathy comes into it at all.
Blaming your customers is failing business management 101. But this guy is smart enough to not say that out loud so instead he frames it as a compliment.
> Blaming your customers is failing business management 10 Yeah imagine if the Costco CEO said “y’all ain’t buying hotdogs anymore! So we’re jacking the price!” Dude would be out of the C suite in a hot minute lmao
It literally is a poor excuse.
I wouldn't commit to that assessment. Based on my experience, very wealthy people drive overpriced pickup trucks and SUVs *almost* exactly because of the sentiment expressed in this headline. It's less about appearing less wealthy than you are than it is about appearing that you still work for a living. "I paid $100k for this truck, but it can fit a full sheet of plywood in the bed and pull a six-horse trailer and I need that. For work. ^^That ^^other ^^people ^^do. "
Yeahhhhh unless you’re upper middle class or higher, good fucking luck with that 100k, 72 month loan at 9.5% interest. Oh but do tell me how it’s a good idea because the monthly payment is *only* 1,100 a month. Bunch of unnecessary pavement princesses out on the road. Fucking hate America car culture…
Nevermind the optics of owning a $350,000 car, I have a different, cheaper car because I want something practical that won't cost a *second* Bentley to keep running at the 200k miles mark. Luxury cars are fun, but also bottomless money pits. Then again, I fully submit that considering the maintenance costs may indicate I'm not wealthy enough to be the target audience.
The market for these cars new is generally people who don't even need to look at the bill for maintenance costs.
His words aren’t entirely untrue. I’m in catering/events and The mega rich are certainly toning down the garishness of their extravagant high end weddings and I’ve had clients say similar things to me about “appearances”
Let’s keep pushing this and culturally shame extravagant displays of wealth. The less it is celebrated and tolerated the better.
You actually want the rich to spend lavishly though. While egregious, luxury goods and catering creates many jobs and recirculates the money into the economy. Without it, the rich will just stack up their hoards of money and pass it on to their descendent with non of the benefit going back into the economy.
You mean like Germany? Most rich and super rich don't show their wealth. But it is more like a : I don't feel the need to show my wealth.
I'm amazed the CEO of Bentley is in touch with the common rich person who is in the market for a Bentley /s
I dunno, I work with a lot of CEOs and have heard similar sentiment about turning things down so the workers don’t get outraged
You can literally see the rage right here in this thread, which is practically proving the point.
They could pivot to making guillotines
Think of how smooth they would be. The cushions, ice buckets, nice high quality wood with engraved accents or something
A guillotine with a pop-out umbrella for protection against splatter during use!
I prefer dragging them out onto the street while ignoring any attempts to bargain.
Bentleys are notorious for their poor craftsmanship
Didn't really behead so much as... scrape it all off, slowly with a loud grinding sound.
I’d rather get a Lexus Guillotine, I know it will work forever with minimal maintenance.
Meh, my Toyota guillotine is the same thing with less trim. Decapitates head A from body B
They have the most headroom
Yep just gotta change the oil and it’ll chop off heads damn near forever
Gotta make those heads co-roll-a
And more can afford
Oh no! Anyways…
Reminds of of that Top Gear episode just after the banking crisis in 2008 where James May read out a letter from some "bankers" who wanted to know what car to spend their bonuses on which wouldn't look too ostentatious.
Basically, I read the CEOs statement as, *the bottom of our market is sensitive to interest rate changes bc they can barely afford our cars.*. Honestly, it makes sense to me.
Poor people really get blamed for everything because they just exist
If the poors could just exist more quietly, and further away, that'd be great.
So other rich people have to work their pampering service jobs now? That will never happen.
Yesterday I was too scared to drive my Lamborrari from my garage to my mailbox because of judgmental poors :(
Translation: they don’t want it to be smashed to pieces by nearly-starving, nearly-homeless people that are working fifty-hour weeks because they were lied to by society about what their future could hold; who have two generations behind them nervously watching, waiting and panicking at the future.
Here's the whole stupid thing, in Click-Bait Title form: Rich People Realize Wealth Gap Is Obscene! Their Reactions Will Shock You!
> I really would like to buy a Bentley. But those poor people would see it! Can't you make them go away?
Just don’t want to get eaten
Let's eat em
[удалено]
This is probably it. Rich people better run, the class war is going to be bloody as fuck and they are not going to survive it.
And neither will many of us. But there is more of us.
Damn this comment made me realize how much like cockroaches we really are.
We truly are what we eat
Can't believe how many of them think that bunkers in New Zealand are gonna help them. We'll find them and throw their asses out.
😭 Think of the billionaires!!!!!!
There might be a new bill slashing social security in order to help the people like this
I forgot Bentleys existed.
You sound like a poor
I am indeed one of the poors
New poor or old poor, though?
Old poor. I was born in it. Molded by it.
Just like A Knight’s Tale, I have patents of peasantry establishing my poverty back more than 20 generations.
Rolls Royce owner: Bentley owner? Be quiet, poor.
They unironically prefer it that way, because anyone they want as a customer knows about them. And obscuring from the poors makes their customers feel better and adds mystery. It's kinda parallel to countless rich bitch brands that do zero advertising, who we have never heard of. Because they want to keep things as word of mouth between those rich people they want buying their shit. You not knowing they exist is part of the plan, not a failure.
I don't know if I've ever heard someone say, "One day, I'm gonna own a Bentley"
I have. Typically, it's either a younger person trying to live large. The time it was someone thinking of upgrading from their S Class.
I've known quite a few rich people. They don't do sensitivity or empathy. Maybe Bentleys are out of style this year.
They do status. Looking better than others right now, just isn't a great look. Plus in all reality, who gives a shit what kind of car you have. It's no longer, I'm here cause I worked hard. It's, I'm old and bought a house that rose in value due to nothing I did or my parents were rich.
Yeah, I've heard Billionaires wouldn't be caught dead in a Bentley these days. ^(They prefer Tesla for that.)
Bentleys are for the wanna be rich who still drive themselves to work. The real rich are buying Rolls and getting chauffeured between where the middle class & poor can't go. all while sipping on chilled champagne.
There's a wide range between "rich" and billionaire. Many professionals like doctors and lawyers become multi-millionaires and are completely fine people.
*”I can’t buy the luxurious items I want to buy because the poor people might think less of me if I buy them”* - Said absolutely no rich people ever in the history of mankind
"I can’t buy the luxurious items I want to buy because the poor people might ~~think less of me~~ *gang up against me* if I buy them."
Translation: We can’t make a car as good as Rolls can
Aren’t they the same company? Edit: it was 1973-1998
BMW owns Rolls and VW owns Bentley.
Article is blocked by pay wall. How fitting.
Must be a new strain of “the rich”.
Oh my god it's almost like they care! Too bad they don't care enough to change the system.
Nope, they are ashamed of being selfish but not moral or courageous enough to do anything about it.
yea, the sounds of guillotines sharpening will do that to your nerves.
VW Stooge: Hold the line you peasants!
Or, he continued, “it’s our shit cars.”
This is corpo speak for massive layoffs incoming
Bentley could lobby the government for more affordable housing, and a higher minimum wage. Don't know how it works in the UK but I'm sure Bentley with all their money could figure something out.
I never thought I would see the words "rich" and "emotional sensitivity" in the same sentence.
Peak dystopian capitalism. When you’re so outlandishly rich it becomes embarrassing lmao
I used to think that life is only about competition and challenge, but the problem is that world is not fair at all. Everyone wants to be at the top, but in practice it's nearly impossible to get to top 1% or 0.1%. Global top 1% controls about 50% of global wealth. Everyone in the world should be in relatively good situation. In practice it might be impossible, but that doesn't change the fact that we can focus on top 20% or top 50%, instead of leaving majority to top 1%. Not everyone has to the best and not everyone has opportunity to become best, but being just good should also mean good life.
The powers that be would have you convinced (and have convinced many) your options are either this or genocidal communism with no room for nuance in between, despite the fact that socialist policies are largely what keeps the entire ship from sinking to begin with. Whatever outcome we’re headed towards is not going to be a fun one and the republic will not actually be at the wheel.
This is a textbook definition for first world problems.
The real reason is not that they are worried about the poors- just that the current bentleys are simply inferior to electric luxury cars like Tesla, Lucid, Porsche, BMW and even Rolls Royce. Funny though a brand new fugy bentley suv monstrosity nearly sideswiped me in my shitbox a week ago going like 100mph near Palo Alto. He was in such a rush that right after he sat in the left lane going 65mph. I caught up and did the same to him because idgaf if my $600 car explodes.
Im sure they make armored models
OR they just don’t like your fucking cars. Which seems more probable, cope lord.
Or maybe it's because they make shitty, unreliable cars.
Bentley lost their touch and the newer cars break down too often. The tech is like early 2000s compared to other manufacturers. It’s not rich people are poor, it’s that their cars are very poorly manufactured and service is horrible to boot.
So, hear me out… maybe, MAYBE amassing wealth for the sake of amassing wealth will leave you shallow and empty?
Yeah because the rich are so often burdened with emotional sensitivity. It’s kinda their thing that they’re known for.