"In this economic climate"

[flatandy]

OK. This phrase is really beginning to annoy me. Horrible hairshirtism. Dwad just used it to complain about footballers salaries. They stick in the craw in "this economic climate".

That's just bollocks. They stick in the craw, whatever the economic climate, frankly.

I heard there was some nonsense from the Golden Globe awards that actresses didn't want to wear expensive jewellery because of the message it sends out during a recession. Again, what utter nonsense. You're actresses, glamour pusses, the only reason people watch awards ceremonies is to get some of your glamour vicariously. There's no point to what you do unless you're over the top. "Wrong message"? My hairy gonads.

An article in last month's Vanity Fair about hedge fund managers suffering in the recession was similar, about how they were trying to appear all hair-shirty despite still being obscenely rich.

I hate it. I really do. If you've got money, bloody well enjoy it. Spend it on fun stuff. Don't go all shit and British and pretend to be all "I prefer living in my squalid, dark, crappy, damp house; it's more real".

[dwad]

Okay, fair enough on football salaries - they are absolutely obscene in any financial climate. But I do think it's made more obscene when juxtaposed with news articles about redundancy. It just is. "Hi guys, you could all lose your jobs but don't worry, the transfer fee alone on this guy would save you and 1,300 of your colleagues. Go football!"

[flatandy]

I think particularly in any entertainment business, salaries and money and glamour and spending should happen irrespective of economic climate. I think of all I've heard of the thirties, and really peoples' only escape from the dreariness of it all was in looking at Hollywood and the starlets. There's a reason for celebrity culture, and I think these days football is probably part of that, too.

I don't begrudge the silly money. It is silly, and it is meaningless to the rest of us, but I mostly think "so what?"

And I really think that if people earn (however you define the term) lots and lots of money, they should be allowed to have fun with it rather than be made to feel guilty because some merchant bankers have lost their jobs with Bear Stearns.

[dwad]

Jan 19, 2009 12:12:33 GMT flatandy said:

I don't begrudge the silly money. It is silly, and it is meaningless to the rest of us, but I mostly think "so what?"

And I really think that if people earn (however you define the term) lots and lots of money, they should be allowed to have fun with it rather than be made to feel guilty because some merchant bankers have lost their jobs with Bear Stearns.

I used to think this. I remember an interview with Tony B in which Paxman asked about the rich and poor pay gap and he replied that it wasn't his job to tell Man utd what to pay David Beckham it was his job to make sure the cleaner got a decent wage as well.

I used to agree with this and I still do in the sense that it is not the government's job but I do think employers need to be a bit more sensitive about it and realise if Ronaldo is paid millions a year and blows it on hookers and champagne, people tend to find it repulsive or attractive.

[flatandy]

I think the government needs to tax the rich more. That's obvious. But it doesn't mean the rich shouldn't be obscenely rich.

And really, people shouldn't find others enjoying their good fortune offensive. Not unless it directly impacts negatively on them. Ronaldo's hookers might find his wealth offensive (although they probably wouldn't), but if he wants to spend his money on champagne and hookers then that's up to him and nothing to do with me.

Anyone who's offended, who finds it repulsive, really needs to get a grip.

[dwad]

Jan 19, 2009 12:22:44 GMT flatandy said:

And really, people shouldn't find others enjoying their good fortune offensive. Not unless it directly impacts negatively on them.... Anyone who's offended, who finds it repulsive, really needs to get a grip.

Anyone who goes to football matches or buys sky is aiding this though. I don't find it "offensive" as such but it does fuel my total repulsion with football.

[VikingHumpingWitch]

Meh. Some jobs pay more than others, being a top flight footballer happens to be one that pays a huge amount. And? At least a footballer does have to work at what they do, it's less offensive than people running around with inherited money.

[lala]

Jan 19, 2009 12:01:49 GMT flatandy said:

I prefer living in my squalid, dark, poopy, damp house; it's more real".

Do I detect a hint of regret concerning your recent property purchases?

[flatandy]

Not at all Lala. The new flat remains fantastic, and I also have no intention of moving. But too much of this god-forsaken country lives, still, in horrible conditions because they refuse to accept change even though they could afford it. And because society in Britain derides anyone who lives somewhere nice, they feel peer pressure to not improve their houses, either, and we have more of this hairshirt nonsense.

[VikingHumpingWitch]

Jan 19, 2009 22:54:36 GMT flatandy said:

And because society in Britain derides anyone who lives somewhere nice, they feel peer pressure to not improve their houses, either, and we have more of this hairshirt nonsense.

Is this really true? I seem to recall that I couldn't turn on the TV without being gloated at in the face by some home improvement show.

[radge]

nah its not true, it just depends on the person.

[flatandy]

Yes, it's true. TV might be ostentatious, but at the same time we are encouraged by societal norms to be cynical and rude and unpleasant about anyone who is actually spending money enjoying themselves. Mostly it's on TV so it can be mocked, particularly by the middle classes and intelligensia. It's never understood as something to be aspired to.

Admittedly most British ostentation is money spent trying to recreate the past, some glamorous, halcyon past that never really existed, trying to reinforce the whole same depressing ethos.

[ricklinc]

Admittedly most British ostentation is money spent trying to recreate the past, some glamorous, halcyon past that never really existed, trying to reinforce the whole same depressing ethos.


Fcuking Hell. Miserable git. Cheer the fcuk up.

[Libby]

Well there's certainly a glut of Home Improvement programmes on tv this morning! I don't think a day passes without seeing someone's home ripped to pieces and revamped!

I must admit i do find the sum that footballers earn a bit OTT, i have no problem with them earning vast sums of money, but surely millions is a ridiculous sum for kicking a ball. Yes they are talented, yes they work and train hard, but when i think of the hours i work (sometimes 15hrs on a long shift) and the pittance i get, it's hard not to feel sick! lol! I have no problem with what they spend it on as a large amount of footballers and their WAGS give a lot to charity. I just think perhaps their salaries could be curtailed just a bit lol!

I'm not sure society derides people living somewhere nice, surely it's the opposite isn't it?!

[radge]

Cutlery; its not my man, some people are very happy to live where they live, have a big house a fancy car and happy to flash it. Its all about the person and their up bringing. I for one if speaking with someone who you might say is "working class" i wouldnt be flashy, but if asked im not gonna deny that im doing better than they are (financially speaking) Some people i agree shrik away from their wealth, where as some people absolutely revel in it. It just depends on that person.

[VikingHumpingWitch]

I would say Brits are much more ostentatiously wealthy than Swedes, who really do think wealth is something vaguely embarrassing. They are much more happy to discuss the length of time they had to wait down the clap clinic than the cost of a new purchase. Americans are the most flashy, of course, and see nothing tasteless in telling you how much they earn or such a thing cost.

That's the only three nationalities I can compare.

[ricklinc]

Nobody EARNS that kind of money for kicking a ball around. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. I don't understand how people enjoy watching it. Where's the fun in watching?

[flatandy]

Jan 20, 2009 11:18:18 GMT ricklinc said:

Fcuking Hell. Miserable git. Cheer the fcuk up.

I fucking hate this miserable, depressed, grim, cold, wet, sulky, pathetic shithole of a country. I was wrong, though, all along, about the lack of a national identity.

There is a national identity. It's an identity of talking as though you're the greatest country on earth and acting as though you've been beaten in a million wars, a downtrodden depressed subservient mob whose sole desire is to live in a fantasy world of the past. A past of bad plumbing, bad teeth, pallid, wan, thin skin. A past of dim darkness in the house and no natural light, of gaps in the windows to let wind blow through and pitifully dreadful showers, but a past where everything is obscenely expensive for horribly bad quality.

Christ, it's a shit country.

[ricklinc]

Well, which is it? Prozac or a razor across your wrists?

[flatandy]

Jan 20, 2009 11:28:50 GMT VikingHumpingWitch said:

I would say Brits are much more ostentatiously wealthy than Swedes, who really do think wealth is something vaguely embarrassing. They are much more happy to discuss the length of time they had to wait down the clap clinic than the cost of a new purchase. Americans are the most flashy, of course, and see nothing tasteless in telling you how much they earn or such a thing cost.

That's the only three nationalities I can compare.

The Swedes might not tell you how much they spent on a nice house, but they'd still spend the money on a nice house and enjoy living there, rather than live somewhere crappy and tell people how much they spent on their crappy place and pretend that it has character because the carpet has the stains of 7 generations of parkinsons ridden tea-drinkers.