Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by Calliers, May 20, 2012.
Why is this aimed at me, Judas?
I also own a pair of polarized Oakley's. Yes I wanted them so I would look cool but also the sun over this end of the world is extreamly harsh. I consider splashing out on a decent set of sun shades for everyday use is no different to upgrading to vari-focal lenses on a pair of perscription glasses.
I tried on many differsnt sets of shades including cheaper brands but the lenses on the Oakleys were far superior, and this is the main reason I chose them.
$30 sunglasses from costco... they work fine for my needs.
I wasn't aiming it at you.... i was mostly agreeing with what you were saying
Okay.... Cool, man.
Quick question, since I've never owned expensive sunglasses, are polarized lenses really worth the added price tag? Say another $50?
Well, if you're going to be doing any activities, be it sporting or other activities around any shiny surfaces like water, snow, metal and the like, then polarized sunglasses are for you.
Be sure to get the slightly more expensive ones with a filter in the lenses rather than the cheaper ones with a coating on them that'll wear off with multiple cleanings and wipings if you do get them.
I went from having almost no real issue with it when I lived on the west coast, to having all kinds of problems when I moved over the east coast.
There's a lot of agriculture over here, I'm betting that has a lot to do with it
sunglasses do AMAZING things in the winter..... yay no snow blindness.
Just spent the day in Roundhay Park. In the blistering heat I thought I really need some sunglasses.
Just purchased these.....
...from an American store on eBay. They're a discontinued frame I believe but I like that style and got them for £35 plus postage. Pretty good deal there. Seemingly reputable store and listed as new and genuine. Plus there is always Paypal insurance if all is not well - fingers crossed
Given the lack of any medical condition in your case, I think it's fair to say that you define "necessity" very differently to me.
But that's besides the point. While I agree that $2 sunglasses will likely be bad value because you'll have to replace them, I question whether this makes $200 sunglasses good value. As you suggest, the difference between $200 and $100 sunglasses might not be quality. I'll add that you clearly can't generalise a set quality level across all sunglasses at any given price.
At $50, for example, you will find sunglasses where you are mostly paying for build quality, and sunglasses where you mostly are paying for style. At $200, I don't think you'll find many sunglasses where you aren't paying a whopping premium for style. And like I said before, there's a certain moral abhorence to spending $150 on increasing your personal stylishness when elsewhere people starve. But that's just something that you're expected to live with or ignore if you play the capitalist game (not that I don't!).
Sure, it sounds like no sunglasses or $2 sunglasses would be bad ideas for you. But I simply fail to believe that one couldn't find comfortable, durable sunglasses at $50 that wouldn't last at least quarter as long as the average $200 ones. At any rate, please don't take this as any personal assault, it's not meant that way.
It wasn't so much spend vs. save that I was getting at. That's more to do with fiscal caution than the repugnance of lavish excess (that being what I was probably actually getting at).
Pretty much everyone ends up spending nearly every penny they come across in their lives on themselves, and their partner and their kids if they have those. It seems to me that there's something wrong with that when it means spending lots of money for a bit more happiness, when that money could buy (much, much) more happiness (for someone else) elsewhere. But that's just the system, as I said above. It seems to me that $800 sunglasses, however, are just a little too far down the "slightly nauseating waste" scale. Like I said to Neshi, though, please don't take this personally.
if i didn't need to buy prescription sunglasses.... and could just get normal ones.... i'd be wearing $25-50 sunglasses.... i'd never spend more....
This sort of "excessive spending" model could be used on every item a person purchases.
Why spend $1 on Heinz beans when you can buy a supermarket own brand for 10c
Why buy a BMW for $70,000 when you could buy a similar spec Nissan for $30,000
Why buy a $1,000,000 1 bed flat in the city when you could spend $250,000 on a 3 bed house in the burbs.
It's always a consumer choice. I would never go out and spend $70,000 on a BMW/Merc/Audi in my current financial state. Give me a Lotto win and I may change my mind.....
This thread appears to have mutated
For those of you who have sunglasses but have never tried polarized lenses, I urge you to try them.
If I sell sunglasses at work I do my absolute utmost to have them pay the little extra for polarization. The difference is unreal.
I think your missing perhaps the main point.
People spending excessive amounts of money on stuff that in the long run can't afford...... short term can.
you know the most recent finacial status of north america put us at spending a grand total of 14% of our earned income on food .... and terrible food at that.... Hell I make certain i buy quality products like heinz canned goods for example.... even quality meats.. cause that other crap doesn't taste for shit nor is really that good for you. Inferior low quality is exactly it.
Either way... meanwhile those in europe, last i checked between 40 and 60% of the income aquired is spent on food. That's HUGELY more than north america, course that would also give a good reason as to why europe isn't giagantically obese...
People here are hella deep in debt, either via credit card debt or loans for housing or whatever, most of them seem to be in debt for terrible reasons like buying a brand new car or newish car they technically can't afford. The repot rate is through the roof.
My sisters ex has a history of burying himself and just recently furthered burried himself in debt. I mean yeah it's all his choice, but his debt in a very long runabout way ends up costing us all. He has to borrow money to feed himself, top it off what he spent all his money on was a brand new vehicle, he makes a great wage, however he didn't factor in registering/insuring it so now he has a vehicle he can't drive, top it off he has no money for FOOD... and he has to make bills wait and get wacked with a bit of interest. IF he ever got fired or laid off or something where to happen to him that resulted in lack of work.... he'd be so royally screwed.
And this leads to the unemployment/wellfare issue.
People that NEED it for good reasons are getting refused due to stupidity such as i just mentioned above. The people that shouldn't be in debt like they are are getting it for reasons i can't comprehend. Why does the system work so horribly.
I know i'm not a great example of doing it right at all... nowhere near.. but at least i comprehend how this works and i'm not in debt.. I don't have a new house worth 250,000 that i don't actually own.
I also HATE utterly HATE how people make the claim "oh i bought a new house" without actually owning it, the bank does technically, you won't own it for another 40 years potentially..... hook line and sinker, SNAP.
I don't have a car newer than my current 1995 grand prix.... why? Because i personally have done the math and i can't justify coughing up a near 10 year loan to buy something that will heavily depreciate even if i purchase something 2nd hand.
People are more in debt due to purchasing things that depreciates the moment you pull it off the lot or turn the key than they are anything else. Least with a house it's "expected" to go up in value, at least it used to be in some places. lol.
I just don't know, the more i talk and discuss things with people, the more i recognize that in school and throughout growing up, more than ever we are at least in north america, TAUGHT to spend it when you have it, never save it, be purposely short sighted, don't plan for the future, etc and so forth when it comes to money and savings.
Actually, I'd chose the latter in every case. Well, I'd pick a Volkswagen over a Nissan, but you get the idea.
I don't think that's the main point. Certainly it's not what myself or others have been mainly posting about here.
[youtube*] link bit[/youtube*]
but you only use the bit of the url after the = sign
Yeah, I figured it out.
if i could f***ing type quicker i'd have been there ahead of your ninja edit :lol:
Separate names with a comma.