Posted by Benjamin on: 08.04.2008 /
I recently ran across the name of Patek Philippe, a producer of rather expensive, and high quality, watches. For instance, this one is currently for sale on ebay at a starting bid of $1,750,000.00. Apparently, it takes 3 *years* to build this watch.
I can’t get my head around that. It doesn’t make sense to me that someone can spend nearly 2 million dollars on a watch, and someone else can die for lack of enough money being available to dig a well or buy a bag of rice.
Maybe I’m trying to compare apples and oranges.
What does it mean?
Leave a Reply
Comment by: brooke
1 08/4/08 12:00 PM | Comment Link |okay, i think i may need to turn the internet off.. i need to pound out some work and i’m too distracted by much more interesting things.. but since i’m here…
of course i agree with you. it’s just inconceivable to me that someone would spend 3 years making a watch for 1.75 million while there are people starving. what are our values? well, this watch is just one of many symbols of the true values of society. gotta gotta gotta gotta have. more more more. screw the little person. etc. but, i know that with you benjamin, i’m just preaching to the choir.
really, i think it should be a requirement of all those who have to go spend 2 weeks with people who don’t have. then they get a chance to see who they are turning their backs on when they complain about having to have have have.
*sigh*
Comment by: Chris Kirk
2 08/4/08 2:25 PM | Comment Link |I think there is something very interesting about expendable income. My parents have gone through this transition. In the last ten years they have gone from just getting by to empty nest surplus. It’s amazing the things that they will buy (although they are not quite in the 2 million dollar watch market).
Perhaps it’s time that we think about adding a maximum wage to our minimum wage. And if you need a cutoff, perhaps it should be at the point where one can afford such a watch.
Comment by: Brad
3 08/5/08 10:16 AM | Comment Link |I’m a little bothered that it would take 3 years to make a watch. Forget about how expensive it is…..3 years?
But, I guess if you have to PERSONALLY mine the gold, silver, diamonds and whatever else, it could take a while, what with all the travel and everything. And all the travel and expenses to different continents could add up quickly.
3 years?
Okay, okay, I’ve got it. It’s a “green” thing. The guy WALKS on all the continents and takes a rowboat instead of flying or taking a cruise ship. That could add to the time.
I hope you can read the dripping sarcasm.
Brad
Comment by: Staci
4 08/5/08 1:13 PM | Comment Link |I hope they put the battery in last because it would be a real bummer to pay $1.75m and have the battery die after a week and then sit in the drawer in the bathroom for another year until the person gets around to replacing it.
Comment by: Rachel
5 08/6/08 9:46 AM | Comment Link |I agree, Brooke. I love this quote from Shane Claiborne: “I truly believe that when the poor meet the rich, riches will have no meaning. And when the rich meet the poor, we will see poverty come to an end.” I certainly hope he’s right. Sometimes I wonder when I see all these jet-setting celebrities taking trips to Africa and speaking out about world poverty, but then continuing to live obscenely lavish lifestyles.
Here is a church that is practicing what it preaches and seeing member’s lives transformed through mission trips to aid the needy: http://www.nola.com/frontpage/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1214112865223710.xml
Comment by: Benjamin
6 08/6/08 4:00 PM | Comment Link |Chris
I’m totally with you on the maximum income thing. I like the idea of having a *much* smaller spread between maximum and minimum income–say … a 1 to 12 spread–as in the richest have approximately 12 times as much wealth as the poorest
Comment by: Benjamin
7 08/6/08 4:07 PM | Comment Link |Brad,
yeah I don’t get the three year thing either. But it reminds me of a similar story about pianos. When I was … 14 or 15 years old, I remember my family purchased an upright piano. We invited a friend who is a classicaly trained, extremely talented piano player to go with us to pick out the piano. We were buying a fairly cheap piano. I remember asking this friend whether it was even *possible* to tell the difference between a *really* expensive piano and an *obscenely* expensive piano.
I remember he just got this gentle little knowing smile on his face as he explained to me that … although I couldn’t hear the difference between those two categories of pianos, someone who is at the *very* top of the world in terms of playing skill–a world renowned concert pianist, could totally tell the difference when they sit down to play the two pianos.
I remember that making a lot of sense to me.
Somehow I don’t want to … even things out by bringing *down* the very very good and very very excellent, but rather by bringing *up* the very poor and very hurt. I mean if there are those who can appreciate and understand and delight in this watch, then … by all means. It’s the … dichotomy that gets to me. What if all these super excellent, super talented, super rich people were somehow able to channel all that talent and so forth in such a way that we could actually do away with poverty and war and starvation? It seems like it *should* be doable. And yet …
Comment by: steve m
8 08/15/08 12:59 AM | Comment Link |Do you think it would matter if you heard that the person buying the watch also gave 67% of his or her income away last year to build orphanages in West Africa ? or What if the person making the watch was selling it at that price with a 1.3 million dollar profit which all but 200,000 was given to aids reasearch? Could we then justify the purchase?
Comment by: benjamin
9 08/15/08 8:02 AM | Comment Link |Steve,
these are great questions. I must ponder them a while.