2007-01-24 03:26:57 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
This is a nice question.
I think the trick is to realise that the definition of luxury varies over time and across cultures, and is probably also influenced by cost.
If we go by a strict definition of a luxury being anything over and above what is necessary for life, then yes, a razor blade is a luxury.
People can survive without shaving, and even if they do want to trim their hair, they can use any sharp tool like a knife.
On the other hand, in cultures where men are sort of expected to shave, then a razor blade is not a luxury but a necessity.
Another factor that complicates matters is the cost of a razor blade; most people wouldn't imagine a luxury costing so little. Add to this the impact of advertising which attempts to make a product seem different, luxurious: a mach 3 promoted by Beckham yes, but a generic disposable razor, no.
2007-01-25 14:20:07 · answer #1 · answered by ekonomix 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you consider everything that is not absolutely necessary to your survival a luxury, then yes. But, if you did, pretty much everything is a luxury.
2007-01-24 11:35:55 · answer #2 · answered by Emily 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if the government can class sanitary products as a luxury item, then yes, they should be classed as a luxury!!
2007-01-24 11:38:33 · answer #3 · answered by Mrs Chicagosgirl!! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they are. Poor people survive perfectly without shaving !
2007-01-24 11:36:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I don't think so, they r a neccessity, cos u can't shave without them.
2007-01-24 12:56:29 · answer #5 · answered by nosy old lady 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well a mach3 would be but a humble bic wouldnt
2007-01-24 11:29:54 · answer #6 · answered by crunchymonkey 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-01-24 11:30:23 · answer #7 · answered by george clo.... 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋