In a trend piece at the New York Times, Stephanie Rosenbloom explains how, in a downturn, “jewelry is turning out to be one of the easiest places to cut back—or trade down.”
In a different economy, Billy Mitchell and Nicole Drucker of San Francisco might have splurged on a $10,000 engagement ring. But Ms. Drucker is out of work and they need to save for a house. So in April, Mr. Mitchell got down on one knee on the Golden Gate Bridge and proposed with a $4,000 diamond ring he had bought on the Internet.
“We had to decide, where do we want the money?” Mr. Mitchell said. “On her finger?”
But why not go with something other than a diamond? Does it really make sense to spend four thousand dollars when you’re out of work and looking to buy a home (another investment many experts are calling into question)?
The smartest thinkers today (many of whom write books for us) keep telling us that a downturn is a perfect opportunity to make change. The tradition of spending vast sums on lumps of carbon (which, molecularly rearranged, would be graphite or coal, as we learned in Superman 3) to “seal the deal” seems ripe for retirement, but even when people don’t have jobs they’re still dropping slightly-less-vast-but-still-outrageous amounts of money on diamonds, with the cash often funding human rights atrocities in other countries.
Clearly, we all need to take a close second and third look at where we’re spending our money—the crisis represents too good an opportunity to kill wasteful traditions, clean house, cut costs, and take sensible new directions in our spending and behavioral habits. Let’s not waste it.
New York Times: In a Downturn, Jewelers Aren’t So Precious
Photo courtesy of jdickert
Book news site