It can be satisfying, if unnerving, to see one’s own personal experiences vindicated in serious research. In Pacific Standard, Tom Jacobs discusses two studies showing a relationship between high levels of income inequality and an interest in luxury goods, offering insight into—as he puts it—“the appeal of bling to the left-behind.”

The first study “found a link between lower household income, relative to one’s neighbors, and the purchase of ‘high-status cars,’ along with riskier portfolios and higher levels of debt.” The second, a psychology study, was a bit more complicated. It found that in states with higher levels of income inequality, more people Google luxurious brands—Ralph Lauren, David Yurman—and items such as furniture and shoes. In states with lower levels of income inequality, search terms like "chicken bake," "lemon bars recipe" and "chick flick movies" were more common.

Jacobs points out that the study doesn’t show that rich people aren’t among those Googling designer goods, but also that searching doesn’t mean buying:

“While the researchers have no way of knowing how many of these fur vests and designer rain boots were actually purchased, their results suggest a larger rich-poor gap prompts people to spend ‘cognitive resources and time’ searching for ways to keep up the appearance of affluence.”

According to the study, this effort to appear affluent is "at the likely expense of alternatives that may be more conducive to the health and well-being of self and society." In other words, a sense that others can afford things that you can’t has a way of imbuing the things in question with a power they wouldn’t otherwise have. Even if you don’t purchase any of the items, the mere act of looking has a cost.