Luxury Shame - Why even the very rich are cutting back on conspicuous consumption.

[BridgeTheGap]

Multimillionaire Michael Hirtenstein used to flaunt his acquisitions of opulent real estate. "I collect homes because I enjoy it," he once told DansHamptons.com about his eight properties—which included a $27 million apartment on the 76th floor of Manhattan's Time Warner Center. In August 2007, the 45-year-old Hirtenstein, who made his fortune in telecommunications, regaled the New York Post with his plans for a $35 million, glass-enclosed duplex in Manhattan's Tribeca neighborhood, replete with suede-covered walls, three living rooms and a heated pool with built-in underwater video screen. Alas, the economy ground to a halt, and so did Hirtenstein's conspicuous consumption of real estate. He quietly reneged on the Tribeca duplex, forfeiting a hefty deposit. That isn't to say Hirtenstein is now selling pencils from a tin cup. "I could walk downstairs now and buy a Ferrari," he says from a suite at Wynn Las Vegas, which boasts a dealership. "But all of my friends are hurting. I don't feel like buying random toys."

Across America's upper strata, rich folk like Hirtenstein are experiencing an unfamiliar emotion: luxury shame. The late Coco Chanel, doyenne of 20th century fashion, long ago said that luxury is "the opposite of vulgarity," not of poverty. But in these recessionary times, it seems vulgar to flaunt one's luxurious lifestyle. And so the wealthy are going blingless and eschewing the spending sprees of the recent Gilded Age, giving new meaning to the phrase "embarrassment of riches." The trend is horrible news for the $175-billion global luxury market, which is already absorbing the blows of plummeting personal wealth. Just in time for Christmas, this new "embarrassment of riches" is cutting into sales of high-end retailers and brands like Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue, Bentley and BMW, Christie's and Sotheby's.

As hard-hit luxury advertisers scrimp, the sheen is dulling on the glossy, overcrowded, and once ad-rich collection of media that caters to the rich and famous. Ads in the December issues of major luxury magazines have plunged 22 percent from 2007, Media Industry Newsletter reports. Conde Nast—publisher of Vanity Fair, W and Vogue—is cutting issues of Men's Vogue and the new business glossy, Portfolio. Robb Report, the bible of connoisseur tastes that enjoyed years of prosperity during the era of hedge-fund billionaires, has watched its advertising freeze. At American Express Publishing, which owns Travel-Leisure and Departures magazines, among others, "ad sales just hit a wall" after years of growth, says Ed Kelly, CEO.

Unofficially, profligacy became passé on Oct. 6, when disgraced Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld appeared at a congressional hearing after the firm's historic $600-billion bankruptcy. He encountered a blizzard of scorn over his half-billion-dollar compensation and baronial lifestyle: a $21 million Park Avenue penthouse, a $25 million estate in Greenwich, Conn., and an estimated $200 million art collection. "I have a basic question for you: Is this fair?" asked Rep. Henry Waxman. Fuld only could muster sheepishness. (This month, he auctioned off $20 million of his art collection.) Not long after Fuld's public pillorying came the shameful disclosure that troubled insurer AIG had lavished top employees with a $440,000 spa retreat at a ritzy St. Regis resort—held after Uncle Sam stepped in with a bailout that is costing taxpayers $150 billion.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/171246/?gt1=43002

[snappyturtle]

1. Far be it for the pigs in our society to use their money, especially at this time,

to benefit the poor or even the economy in general. Just reigning in their outrageous spending does one thing...keeps their money safe. I picture them as a bunch of Donald Duck Scrooges counting their gold coins....daily!

[acmavm]

2. If the greedy weasels hold on to it, how is it supposed to

'trickle down' to us plebs????

[Merlot]

3. When they stop spending, they put a lot of people out of work

Those big ticket items make a lot of jobs. If he had gone forward with his (what sounds horrible) suede covered home, there would have been contractors, builders, designers, and stores all making a profit from that project.

[azmouse]

5. It would be even better if he donated the money to charities.

Let's say the same amount he might have spent on that fancy home went to shelters and food banks, things like that.
Just think how much good could be done to help the truly unfortunate right now.

[BridgeTheGap]

4. Where is the compassion here? Don't you really FEEL for these people!?!

I mean, how horrible it must be to feel so guilty about having such obscene wealth that you can't even spend it? ;->

[BobTheSubgenius]

6. My car dealer almost sobbed...

...when I told him I probably wouldn't be replacing my Tuesday Bentley after all.