Sense of Entitlement to Dolls?

Quoted for emphasis; beautifully stated.

...and the rest, the questions: 1) Do you feel that some people have a "sense of entitlement" to certain dolls, such as limiteds or very popular dolls?

I have seen a lot of this.

There's a whole thread dedicated to the idea of 'scalping' limited items, in which 'scalping' is frequently defined as 'selling for anything more than you paid for it'. That thread, one would think, would not just be a dead horse by this point, but the pretty little flowers growing over the dirt and dust of the beaten-to-powder bones of said dead horse, but it persists regardless because this attitude continues to exist. (More amusing are the people who, in that thread, feel they're entitled to both sides of the benefit -- that they should only buy at retail or beneath it and anyone daring to sell for those prices should expire from shame, but they should be allowed to sell for whatever price they like, regardless of the state of the item, without anyone griping at them.)

It also occurs to me that we wouldn't have a rule here about not asking to buy -- or worse, demand they be given! -- items from people unless the item is listed in the MP in a sales thread if there had not been problems of some kind in the past.

2) If you believe that this "sense of entitlement" exists, do you think it is always wrong to feel "more entitled" than other doll owners?

Yes, I do.

Or can such a feeling ever be justified by factors such as:
The great love of the person wanting the doll for that particular doll?

Dolls are a commodity, regardless of whatever else they are. They have monetary value. "Love" tends not to outside of the world's oldest profession. If the price of someone's truest devotion is a hunk of resin, well, pardon me for saying, but it seems their truest devotion comes a little cheaply, no matter how high the price tag is on said resin.

I see a number of posts that have an undercurrent of hopeful desperation to them, in which the poster seems to expect the whole of the world to change once they receive their doll, and their problems will dissolve away. This trend isn't one I'm particularly comfortable seeing, to be frank, because in the end, a doll can be a help, but it isn't going to be the solution to all of someone's problems in life no matter how wonderful the doll is. If this 'great love' takes this form, and I suspect it often does when someone has reached the point of overwhelming obsession, I definitely do not think it is particularly healthy.

The role the person plays in the doll community - for instance, their popularity with other members; their willingness to share the doll with the group by posting pictures or bringing the doll to meets if they get it; their leadership role as a moderator of a group or list, organizer of meets, etc.; their helpfulness in terms of selling items, doing faceups, arranging group orders, etc.?

For one thing, generosity isn't actually all that generous if one is only doing something with the expectation of a reward. I would think that someone who does these things may be more likely to be the recipient of someone else's generosity, but I don't think it is reason to expect or demand others to be generous in return. That said, I'll gladly admit that I'm happy to hear about it when someone like this -- generous for generosity's sake -- actually does get recognition or catches a break or has good luck in a lottery, etc., but that isn't the same as thinking they are owed more than proper gratitude and respect for the contributions they've made.

The person's financial status - such as the fact that they are unlikely to ever have a large sum of money to pay the secondary market price of the doll? or that they have worked very hard to save up money for a doll?

I will never have the money to buy a big enough house to contain all my random stuff, but this is not justification to demand that I be given one. The same logic applies.

 

I would like to hear other people's opinions on this topic.

1) Do you feel that some people have a "sense of entitlement" to certain dolls, such as limiteds or very popular dolls?
In a capitalistic society, there is something called "The Entitlement Theory" by Robert Nozick. He believed that people, who earn their money honestly/without fraud are entitled to spend it on whatever they want and that they are not entitled to give any of their earnings away to the poor. This theory stirs up controversy. As an opponent to him, John Rawls has come up with "Theory of Justice" in which, your money simply isn't your money and you can't do whatever you want with it. That is because in a hypothetical situation, you are lucky that you've been born into a well to do family without need based worries. However, you could have easily been born into a impoverished family living in a 3rd world country and if everyone were to have this entitlement view, it would harm the charity flow that has given help to many disadvantaged people. It is up to the individual to come up with a good reason as to why they are entitled to a certain thing whether it be a want like a doll or a basic need as water.

2) If you believe that this "sense of entitlement" exists, do you think it is always wrong to feel "more entitled" than other doll owners? I don't believe I'm entitled to any doll just because I have more capital or yearn for it. A doll isn't a necessity to me. It's not something that i need to survive on.

 

There are a great many assumptions in both of those theories that make them fairly sterile and unrealistic. Being well-to-do does not necessarily mean one has no need-based worries, for one thing. Also, there's no definition of well-to-do -- does this mean one has money pouring out of their ears and need never make sacrifices to make a purchase? If that's the case, I sincerely doubt you would find many people to whom that applies around here. Does it mean 'can afford anything beyond the most basic of needs'? OK, define 'the most basic of needs'. You'd be amazed at how varied that list would be when coming from different sources, and that is fair in part because the basic needs -- even at a reasonably rudimentary level -- are going to vary widely based on a person's health, education* or lack thereof, etc.

Let's go with 'well-to-do' being defined as 'has money left over for fun after basic food, shelter, and health needs are met', since it sounds like that's the way it is being defined under the 'Theory of Justice'.

Now, let's look at the idea of 'luck'. I am lucky I work my rump off constantly to earn what I do -- which is not as much as many would likely assume -- compared to someone who can't, under this theory. OK, I don't entirely agree with that, but I will admit I'm lucky that I have the talent and the resources that others do not that allows me to do that. This is still something of a stretch, since I had to work very hard to get those resources and develop those skills also. Let's stretch it even further and say that the environment I was born into that even permitted me to work for years to develop those skills constitutes luck -- which is where we are on this. "You have the good fortune to be able to work your tailfeathers off and get somewhere with it," is where we are now.

I don't see that as being the same as 'being born into a well-to-do family', which is the 'Justice' claim there and implies a complete lack of effort and everything simply being handed to you on a silver platter; I see 'works oneself half to death' (which is actually what my doctor keeps insisting I'm doing, go figure). There is also no assurance whatsoever that someone in this position will not encounter need-based worries. One's health can turn rapidly, accidents happen, natural disasters can strike, jobs can evaporate, and all of these things can affect the current 'have' as easily as anyone else even with incredibly careful planning.

When it comes down to it, these theories are each arguing such extremes that they don't even communicate with each other, let alone the reality for many. People can have the 'Entitlement' view all they want -- they're still paying taxes, at least in the US, and they're likely paying higher taxes than the US in many parts of the world -- which go to support more than just themselves. So they can have that 'Entitlement' view all they like -- it isn't their reality -- and this is something the 'Justice' position seems to casually overlook in its entirety.

Regardless, dolls are not a need and never have been -- they aren't a 'basic necessity' being denied to anyone. So I actually agree with point #2 there. It's worth noting that designing, making, and selling the dolls is at least in part providing the basic necessities to others, though, as it is their profession -- which is one of the reasons that bootlegging is so grossly unethical. By taking away luxury items or any legitimate reason to have them, you take away the industry that produces them -- and leaves more people in that 'unlucky' category, unable to support themselves.

* Note I am using 'education' in the broadest possible sense, not simply 'what was a person taught at school'. Knowing how to till a field counts, just like a medical degree, how to sew, or how to read.

 

Surreality, please don't mind me. I should have thrown in a disclaimer that I'm not a philosophy major. I'm not that great at explaining philosophy. Just quick or perhaps even mistakes I've made trying to explain the complexity of their ideas. You have to really read up on what they mean. Please go ahead and read John Rawls, Theory of Justice and Robert Nozick, Theory of Entitlement. Perhaps even read up on Singer's on why he believes that people should donate. These are just suggestions. If one wants to completely learn different types of philosophy, one should consult a accredited school in doing so. They define and explain things meticulously.

These Western philosophical ideas are of course, with faults. There have been many arguments back and forth as to which idea is better.

I really do not want to tarnish their views because perhaps I made some quick adjustments here or there. in reality, it's really really complicated and I have not fully explained or I've jumped right ahead to the basic idea. In fact, I've skipped a whole portion of Rawl's idea because it is tedious to explain completely when this is a doll forum. I think what I was trying to get at is "well to do" family is a family here better than someone who is in Africa, dying of AIDS or whatever. I'm comparing people across the world.

As to the argument, there are many arguments on what is the poverty-line or what actually constitutes poverty in America. In addition, there is an argument over what constitutes basic needs are and whether the government should provide it or not. I don't think I'm going to go into what I'm learned in public policy.

 

I think the main point is, none of this really translates to an 'economy of dolls', which is more what is being described here. As a side note, no one here knows who does or doesn't do anything in regards to charitable aims in the broader world. When there's a 'dolls for desperate teens who can't convince their parents to buy them a $600 doll' charity, we'll see who does or doesn't pony up. Otherwise, by this logic, none of us should be here -- we should be giving all this spare money to charity and there would be no reason for this board to exist in the first place. (And we all disappear in a puff of logic, thank you Douglas Adams.) This isn't the place to discuss the broader issues beyond how they directly pertain to dolls, to the best of my understanding, and, to be honest, I am entirely too busy working to spend a ton of time reading up on things I don't find remotely interesting. (No offense intended by that, it's just the truth. Both of those theories, to put it mildly, cheese me off immensely from what I do know of them. I meander through threads here on my downtime while the computer is processing stuff and I don't have more image editing to be doing.)

No one is entitled to a doll just because they want it; it isn't a need. There really is no amount of philosophy that would justify, to me, someone walking in to my house and saying, "I deserve your doll more than you do, regardless of how hard, long, or honestly you worked for it, so I am taking it, and it is my right to do so." That's what we're really talking about here, not the broader scope of social dynamics. I mean, can you really find any circumstance in which it is acceptable for someone to do that? Not to sell it to pay for Little Timmy's life-saving surgery, not to sell it off to feed their family, but because they "want it more", or can't afford one as easily as someone who has one, or "the community owes it to them". That, from what I understand, is the issue.

What I can say, from experience as someone who sells artwork in the form of luxury goods (jewelry) and hobby creative goods (3d art content), is that it is never going to be as simple as anyone's abstract theory. First off, hobbies and luxuries are the first things to go -- for everybody -- under the latter principle, no? I'm hardly the only person who makes their living by providing things for that market; it's the same general 'people with expendable income' market the doll companies sell to. That market vanishes if people are guilted to death over every penny they spend on themselves or their own enjoyment, and puts a whole bunch of people out of work as a result. Not so helpful, either.

In all seriousness, for every one copy of a digital product I sell, ten are pirated -- and when asked, these people claim they are entitled to take it free for any of a dozen reasons, ranging from "I don't have the money to buy it" to "I could so why not?" to "I want it". It, like dolls, is not in any way a need. Are these people entitled to do this? Is it different when the 'source' that must provide is the creator of a thing, or the fellow consumers of a thing? In other words, would demanding free dolls or favors from the doll companies for people with less money be the right way to go -- because that's the parallel there.

 

I don't have much to add to this conversation. Just that in my own part, when ever I can scratch together the money for a new doll and time the money part with a change to buy one I love I feel incredibly lucky, not entitled. But I have came across people with feelings of entitlement in doll community, but elsewhere more than here at DoA.

 

A lot of the entitlement I see has to do with people who think that they should beg beg beg beg beg for a doll, and that if they beg hard enough, their parents should cave and get it for them. But then there's the, "But it's myyyyyyyy dollllllllllllll!!!" attitude. The "I can run it over with a car if I want to!" thing is just another form of entitlement. It used to be way more common back in the days you couldn't get a doll for under $500. There was this air of, "But I deservvvvve a doll for cheap!"

Both of those attitudes are born of an obvious lack of maturity, as well as a "me me me" attitude. And I see this a LOT in the marketplace too. People who want something that is cheap, but they ALSO want it to be the best and most perfectestest quality. Like, they want a dress for $20 and then throw a snitfit if the seams aren't serged (even though this doesn't necessarily affect quality). Or they make ridiculous offers for dolls and bits for way less than they're worth just because, hey, they deserve it.

I wish it could just be blamed on young people, but I see so many people in this hobby and other hobbies who are in their 30s or 40s or 50s and still have the mentality of a spoiled 12-year-old.

 

Yes, I feel some people feel entitled to dolls. Some people may feel dolls should be available in their price range. Others may feel they should have an opportunity to buy a particular doll. And sometimes people feel they should be able to have any doll they want.

But look at all the posts in this thread alone at people who feel entitled to express their viewpoints and judge behaviors around them. Myself included. Everyone is looking at the world through a different pair of eyes and from a different perspective. Sure, it may not be what I myself would do or what is commendable or what is polite, but hey, everyone has their moments - both positive and negative. I'm certainly not going to point my fingers at people and say "You're wrong." I can't control how other people behave. I can only control how I myself respond to others.

But, the difference between me and those who are left feeling they should be able to buy a doll is that I have the dolls I want. I sacrificed, but people don't see that. I waited, but people don't see that either. They only see that I have them. They don't see the time or the money or the ways I obtained each one.

The whole argument that the dolls are luxuries, well, that is true for many. But, in some countries, having a home is a luxury. Having running water is a luxury. Having electricity is a luxury. Everything is relative. It's easy for me to say that dolls are a luxury when I have one or two or three or more. It's not so easy when they are out of reach or unobtainable in a way where no amount of hard work can possibly result in the purchase a doll. Sure, limited editions may contribute to this, but I don't think that can solve the entire issue.

Everyone deserves to be happy and unfortunately some people measure happiness with material wealth.

 

my answers is no to all, no one is entitled to anything, unless they earned it thru means of work or presents

and this is a hobby, not a goverment funded project :P

and so what if u are someone well known u do not have a discounted rate, the owner sell it at what price they seem reasonable

 

Surreality, the problem is, as I explained that my explanation might not have been correctly representations of what these philosophers believe, in order to make your argument valid as to these theories, you have to fully understand them and that's by reading them. Frankly if you don't want to waste your time reading them, why even begin arguing with something that's not fully there. I've admit that it was a mistake on my part to simplify everything to layman's terms to my best ability, which could have misconstrue their intentions to some.

If I misread or misinterpret anything that you've said or what I think you're saying, I'd like to apologize.

Charity is a different issue of course. However, it's really closely related to what person thinks he or she is entitled or not entitled to in this world. No one is asking anyone to sell their dolls/give up a hobby/use their money towards something else. I'm just trying to give two different views, perhaps extreme to some. Alls that I'm saying is: Whether one thinks he or she are entitled to something or not, it's best to give not any reason but a good reason because one's reasoning can translate into actions. These actions that one takes can affect others. This is just my personal opinion. I don't want to impose this on anyone.

 

Were this forum focused on philosophical debate and not dolls, I might concede to some of these points, but it simply isn't the case. The question of the thread pertains to dolls -- not a tangent of philosophical theories wholly removed from the doll community. You presented something, for better or worse. Telling someone who finds potential failings in both theories as presented to go read two philosophy books and do what likely amounts to semester's worth of philosophy study in supporting research before being permitted to hold a valid opinion about your comment is, well, not terribly conducive to discussion, and I strongly doubt anyone many people would take you up on that one. While I am genuinely not trying to be offensive here, "I brought it up, you disagreed, you're not allowed to have any opinion at all until you jump through all my hoops," is... well, I think pointing it out alone should make what it is clear enough without further comment required.

I don't believe in the cheap wiki readthrough method of education, but here goes nothing ...and it's pretty much exactly what I expected it to be, what friends have presented and argued with each other over years in my presence, and so on. (Ah, the joy of being the middle ground independent around a lot of friends who are stringently one side or the other politically... nnngh. *eyetwitch* *twitch* By 'joy' I must mean 'enjoys hiding under the table when the arguing starts', but that's neither here nor there. *snicker-cough*)

I still think both theories are grossly flawed and reality is best served with something between the two. From the wiki article, there is a wonderful little notation in regard to the Theory of Justice: "It is important to keep in mind that the agreement that stems from the original position is both hypothetical and ahistorical. It is hypothetical in the sense that the principles to be derived are what the parties would, under certain legitimating conditions, agree to, not what they have agreed to. In other words, Rawls seeks to persuade us through argument that the principles of justice that he derives are in fact what we would agree upon if we were in the hypothetical situation of the original position and that those principles have moral weight as a result of that. It is ahistorical in the sense that it is not supposed that the agreement has ever, or indeed could actually be entered into as a matter of fact." In other words, even the author knows this is food for thought and not feasible in reality, and both authors seem cognizant of the fact that their theories are far from perfect. In fact, the author of Theory of Justice has written an entire work, 'Justice as Fairness' in recognition of this fact to address the flaws in the original. So while, yes, if someone adheres to one or the other of these views religiously, it will likely shape their opinions about life and what they are and are not owed by society and what they do or do not need to do to have what they want, it doesn't make the viewpoints in their undiluted form any less fundamentally unsuited to reality as it currently exists.

In case it wasn't clear enough before, in the back and forth about which of these is better, my answer remains: neither -- to the point at which the argument over which is better is, to me, wasteful in itself.

I also doubt there's going to be a lot of support for a theory that includes this: "Rawls is also keying on an intuition that we do not deserve inborn talents, thus we are not entitled to all the benefits we could possibly receive from them, meaning that at least one of the criteria which could provide an alternative to equality in assessing the justice of distributions is eliminated," in a community with so many artists in it, especially so many that pay their bills in whole or in part based on said talents, unless it's the people that think the doll companies, who are using their talents to create products to sell to support themselves, should forego supporting themselves with their work in favor of giving them the doll they want so very much.

Way too long story short: I consider it to be far more reasonable that someone must have a good reason to take something from you that you have fairly earned than it is for you to require a good reason to keep it. "Good reason" will vary. Money may be taken from me to pay for health care or other needs for those less fortunate than myself that prevents me from buying a doll I would have otherwise bought with this money; I find this reasonable as a member of society. If someone walks into my house and takes one of my dolls because they want it and cannot afford one, I do not consider this at all reasonable -- it's called theft.

 

I agree that people should not feel like they are more entitled to something than someone else is, but I also think it's a part of human nature.

I have to admit I have felt like I was more entitled to a BJD at one point. (I felt that way because one of my friends was talking about getting one, despite having very little knowledge about the dolls, but I was not allowed to buy one, despite doing lots of research on them. I don't feel that way anymore.)

 

How is that entitlement? That's pretty cut and dry -- they already own the doll, so it's their choice. As far as I know people aren't really running expensive dolls over with their cars. The real issue when that pops up is whether or not someone should mod a particular doll, and if so, how much -- it's just a way of saying that it's completely entirely up to the individual owner no matter what the results might be. They are also correct. To get huffy over what other people do with their dolls could also be construed as a form of entitlement where your opinion is more important than the actual owner's -- it's forcefully sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong. However, there are already several topics about this elsewhere in this subforum.

Your going to get some 'me' attitude period, because the hobby is pretty individualistic -- people play with their dolls in different ways, like different dolls, have different interests, etc. If I'm going to shell out hundreds of dollars on a doll, I'm not going to check with the rest of the community as to what I should do with it. I am in the hobby to enjoy myself first and foremost -- that's the point.

The people who pull an attitude about deserving a particular doll more than someone else or who harass members to sell them their dolls, or lower prices unrealistically do have a sense of entitlement that's going beyond following their own personal interests. They're making demands of other people so they can fulfill their unrealistic wishes. That's a very different situation from someone deciding what they're going to do with a doll they already own, even if the result maybe unpopular. Once a person owns a doll, it should be about them and their doll, not them, their doll and rest of the community. It's not selfish to want to be the person that makes the decision about the items that you purchased yourself.

 

Yes, Taco, I don't at all understand how "customizing one's own dolls" equates to "immaturity" or "overinflated sense of entitlement", either. I am not sure, but I think the reason people get upset when they hear the phrase "It's my doll, so I will do as I wish with it" is because they may think the person actually IS going to run the doll over with a truck, or otherwise destroy it. Actually no, OK, no, I really have no idea how that thought-process works. But I tried. You just heard me, I tried to understand it.

Everyone may be entitled to their own opinion about what you should be doing with your own doll, but you are also entitled to tell them where to get off. That's about as much entitlement as I think is necessary in this community.

 

These words should be engraved over the entrance to the BJD heaven.

 

I certainly feel like some people think they have a sense of entitlement. I feel almost like I was slapped in the face when I see someone that has 12 or so dolls and they're all extremely expensive.

But personally, I don't know if they actually feel that way. I haven't actually spoken to someone who has a doll that was expensive. In fact, I've only spoken to a few people who own dolls... ever.

 

I feel it really cones down to how people view customization.

It's one thing to customize a doll, but it's quite another to "experiment" with drilling holes through resin, using sharpies and doing other permanent customizations that are a bit iffy. I love seeing individualized dolls by people who know their objective and exactly how to get there. But sometimes my mind drfts back to a Volks Carol limited head someone tried to add a third eye to and I shake my head. That was a doll that if kept in original condition or had non-permanent changes that could have been a treasured doll rather than a rescue head in the marketplace transformed into a unicorn. It's heartbreaking seeing beautiful dolls, regardless of pricetag, ruined beyond repair.

But the key point is that not all customizers have the same skill or go to the same extremes.

I am all for individualizing dolls. I live seeing them. But, when experiments fail it can appear to be a sense of prideful entitlement which created the situation that achieved a ruined doll. Sometimes, people do appear to do things which are similar to running them over with a car. But, I think this is a small minority. It's not right to lump all customizers together.

 

And here is the interesting thing. Those who don't have dolls want them. People may see this desire as a sense of entitlement depending on how it's expressed. Those who have dolls are seen as possessing a sense of entitlement because they bought them in the first place.

The truth is that if no one had a sense of entitlement no one would have dolls. No one would own property. No one would want anything no matter how hard they worked.

Take away the sense of entitlement and then people would stop desiring things like luxury items including dolls. Everything could be shared because no matter what one saw that person would feel he/she was undeserving.

The question isn't whether people feel entitled to things. It's hiw people choose to express that entitlement that is the issue.

 

The whole subject is pretty vaporous, whether I, or other members, feel there are some with a sense of entitlement or not doesn't mean it exists. I have sometimes seen people express a brattish resentment over what others have and they don't... I'm not sure that is entitlement or just jealousy. We live in a consumer society and dolls are a commodity, they are sold under certain conditions and at a price that means we all can't have them, so suck it up!

The fact you can't have the hankered after piece of Limited Edition plastic is not the end of the world. Or the fact that you could afford 3 of said piece of LE plastic and then spam the hell out of the Gallery with photos of them, well, that's your prerogative, just don't expect to be popular with everyone. The fact you have the money and can afford the item is entitlement in itself surely? Whether you bought 3 LEs because you absolutely love the doll or because you just wanted everyone to know that you could, only you can say.

I saw a sentiment displayed a while ago on a thread about bootlegging dolls, someone boldly put forward their view that bootleggers are doing everyone a favour because "overpriced" dolls would now be available for her to buy, she likened it to her collection of Prada/Gucci/whoever rip off handbags... Huh??? I doubt this person was alone in that feeling either, not necessarily among DOA members, but in general society. No-one stops to think WHY they want a Prada/Gucci/whoever handbag, they just want the imagined cachet that comes from owning one, but they think the prices too steep and buy a cheap copy. They will also buy a bootlegged or stolen doll because they want to look like they can afford the real thing without ever understanding what the value of the doll was in the first place. I guess that is entitlement too. It's also deluded , because there is no actual desire or appreciation for the sought after object, neither the bag or the doll, just what this person imagines owning them will signal to others about her. The same as if you bought 3 LE dolls just to show you could afford them.

I guess my point is that in the end only the people involved KNOW why they do the things they do and say the things they say, onlookers are just speculating. The girl with the rip off Gucci may have loved the kosher LE doll way more than the person who bought 3, she may have just said what she did about Bootlegging because she was angry or jealous. Anything we throw at her OR the "Collector" with 3 (since when was it a crime to be a Collector btw?) is just speculation, and pretty much irrelevant.

These are expensive items and however you got the money together and what ever you do with the doll once you get it, it's up to you. I sometimes wonder why on earth anyone would spend so much if they weren't going to do their own face-ups and make their own clothes, I roll my eyes with momentary superiority, but, once I get off my high horse, I think each to their own. Isn't there room enough in this hobby, and on DOA, for all the old school customizers, the Collectors, the sharpie addicts, the good, the bad and the entitled?

 

True "customizers" learn how to do it right. Sharpies be gone, lol! But, yes, I almost agree with everything you said. How one buys dolls, why one buys dolls and all that jazz is just as individual as the dolls he/she collects.

But, I don't think the handbag example that you referenced was taken completely in context. I don't think it's fair to assume that individual was jealous. She wanted a handbag. She couldn't afford the original ($3000? $4000? $20,000?), so she bought the copy. But, one needs to consider the economics perspective. A person whose annual salary is $40,000can't spend $20,000 on a single handbag. The desire for a handbag - copy or not - is personal like in the doll situation, but the handbag prices can eb incredibly high and not accessible to everyday people a lot of the time. I still remember falling for a bag in a magazine and finding out it retailed at $20,000. At that point on I stopped buying the magazine and gave up on the idea of having a designer handbag. But, what if I reeeeeeeally wanted it? I would have found a way to have it. But, no way would I have been able to obtain the original. It would have been impossible. Buying that bag on layaway would have been like getting a car loan.

The same is true of dolls notsomuch in more wealthy areas, but in developing areas where salaries are not as high as in other countries. In a few years, if the economy doesn't continue to recover, more people could lose jobs and it could just as easily be anyone on this forum looking at pictures going "Why is that so high? Why is that doll double my salary?" It's one thing to say that doll is expensive so one needs to buy it on layaway. It's quite another to not even be able to consider buying one because the doll is SO expensive it is twice, three times or quadruple the monthly salary.

People who buy copies don't necessarily buy "cheap" dolls only because they are cheap. People who buy copies sometimes buy the dolls that are copies because that is the only doll they can consider buying even with credit or layaway. Luckily, this is changing and dolls are available in lower price ranges reducing the economic profitability on copies.

It's also important to realize people in poorer regions can work 80 hour weeks and make a fraction of what someone in a richer region earns for half the work. I don't blame someone in that 80-hour work week situation feeling "entitled" to a doll or some kind of luxury item.