171–180 of 344 posts
I wonder if changes in washing machines are an issue, actually. America was really keen on top-loaders for a long time, and those damage clothes far more than front-loaders. As the US finally adopts front-loaders (and high-efficiency top-loaders, which use a different mechanism to the old ones), clothes will last longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"More people" implies increasing amount, not entire workforce.
Fine, I’ll be that guy: CITATION NEEDED. “More people” in your office says nothing except that more people in YOUR OFFICE are remote. I don’t understand how people who bill themselves as so smart can continue to fall for these basic errors in reasoning. > More people are working from home several days a week, so nobody cares how you're dressed. Says who? Where is this data? Is it from a survey? A study? Or something…
You already was that guy by using an offending tone to the parent ("dear", etc).
>“More people” in your office says nothing except that more people in YOUR OFFICE are remote.
Parent said more people are working from home (a general observation), and gave an example of the situation in his office/town to illustrate it -- that wasn't meant as proof his general point, just illustration. He wrote:
"More people are working from home several days a week, so nobody cares how you're dressed. I'm astonished at how fast this has changed here (outside Philly). Probably 2/3 our cubes are empty on most days."
The case in Philly/his office is given as an aside/illustration. The general point (that working from home is on the rise) was communicated as taken for granted (obviously based on common understanding, prior observations, etc).
In other words: if he had wrote something to the effect of "increasingly more people in the USA are working for home judging from my office" you'd be right (but still condescending), but he didn't.
>I don’t understand how people who bill themselves as so smart can continue to fall for these basic errors in reasoning.
Probably for the same reason people who bill themselves as so smart can make one faux pas after the other and offend those they talk to.
>Apparel is being displaced by travel, eating out and activities—what’s routinely lumped together as “experiences”—which have grown to 18 percent of purchases. [..] That now tops all clothing and footwear expenditures. I have a completely blunt theory on that. People learn that pictures of them smiling in their bathing suit in the Maldives or with that exotic plate of food attract more 'likes' than the pictures of th…
>> Apparel is being displaced by travel, eating out and activities The apparel and technology spending lines basically mirror each other. Why is travel mentioned? Tech is the new status symbol for the masses. $600 phone instead of a $600 watch, leather jacket, etc
Easiest way to stratify a group by wealth is start talking about where and how often they go on vacation.
IMHO there are three clear causes for this trend: 1) US business fashion is increasingly casual. Ties, skirts, suits, coordinated outfits, scarves, leather soled shoes -- all are passe, even in button down East Coast Fortune 100 companies (other than for aspiring managers or those in banking/finance). 2) Color is passe. Shades of black and grey dominate wardrobes, especially in large cities. Thus fewer accessories ar…
All these explanations are rather complicated. I think the simplest explanation is the best: people don't have the free money to spend on clothing. This is evidenced by the following facts: 1) Wages have been stagnant 2) Cost of living has been increasing well beyond the stated 2% rate of inflation.
I don't disagree with your assertion that wages have been stagnant and that cost of living is increasing (which should be obvious as more people == fewer resources) but even from my own anecdotal experience as somebody who is paid very well I buy fewer clothes than I used to. I buy nice clothes, but the clothes I have are clothes that don't go out of style, or even if they do I just don't care. Maybe more Americans feel this way as well?
And as others have mentioned, the work place is fortunately becoming more casual with respect to dress. I work in finance and even here we wear t-shirts and jeans. There's no reason for me to buy 10 shirts from Brooks Brothers, 3 suits, ties, dress shoes, sweaters to go with the shirts, etc. as my casual clothes are also what I wear to work.
Maybe more people are spending less on "brands" like Burberry and more on H&M or lifestyle brands (Arcteryx/Patagonia/NF) or basic colors/styles that don't require you to repurchase?
IMHO there are three clear causes for this trend: 1) US business fashion is increasingly casual. Ties, skirts, suits, coordinated outfits, scarves, leather soled shoes -- all are passe, even in button down East Coast Fortune 100 companies (other than for aspiring managers or those in banking/finance). 2) Color is passe. Shades of black and grey dominate wardrobes, especially in large cities. Thus fewer accessories ar…
All these explanations are rather complicated. I think the simplest explanation is the best: people don't have the free money to spend on clothing. This is evidenced by the following facts: 1) Wages have been stagnant 2) Cost of living has been increasing well beyond the stated 2% rate of inflation.
Consumer prices have been declining since 1979 and non-wage benefits have been increasing. Suggesting clothes purchases are declining because wages are stagnant is logically flawed because we would expect declines in similarly elastic goods as well. But we aren’t seeing that. Consumer purchasing is growing, consumer confidence is up — pretty much the opposite of what you’re implying.
The workplace however, as the parent comment suggests, is changing.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/19/cost-of-living-vs-wage...
One thing the article missed but for me personally is an important point: the rise of minimalism I'm not the type of minimalism you write about, but clothes last for ages now & I just don't want lots of stuff. Especially here in Japan we do laundry every day, so I just don't need very many items. Just some comfortable layers, enough to have a little variety, I'm all set. (I'm leaving in the morning for 2 weeks in Flo…
clothes last for ages now They can do (as indeed they always could) if you pay for it, although in my experience the majority of clothes bought don't last ages; modern materials (from the sixties onwards, I would say - polyester and related), manufacturing techniques and the easy attitude of consumers in buying clothing that doesn't last have all contributed. Certainly anything you buy in a high-street chain, be it t…
You’re right that fast fashion has reduced overall quality, but you can still get more wear out if them if you avoid the drier.
IMHO there are three clear causes for this trend: 1) US business fashion is increasingly casual. Ties, skirts, suits, coordinated outfits, scarves, leather soled shoes -- all are passe, even in button down East Coast Fortune 100 companies (other than for aspiring managers or those in banking/finance). 2) Color is passe. Shades of black and grey dominate wardrobes, especially in large cities. Thus fewer accessories ar…
> Ties, skirts, suits, coordinated outfits, scarves, leather soled shoes -- all are passe, even in button down East Coast Fortune 100 companies (other than for aspiring managers or those in banking/finance). I dunno about that. When I see someone who's wearing decent clothes, I still think, 'wow, that's someone who wants to look good .' But I think that I'm a bit weird — I actually enjoy dressing differently for diff…
I think you might have sparked a business idea! Clothes for Coders. Couldn’t be any more ridiculous than when Tiesto released a shoe for DJing!
Another possible cause could be drop in average price of clothing. Fast fashion chains like h&m, uniqlo, Zara, etc have high quality, very affordable clothing. So people are buying same or more clothing but for smaller absolute $ amount.
IMHO there are three clear causes for this trend: 1) US business fashion is increasingly casual. Ties, skirts, suits, coordinated outfits, scarves, leather soled shoes -- all are passe, even in button down East Coast Fortune 100 companies (other than for aspiring managers or those in banking/finance). 2) Color is passe. Shades of black and grey dominate wardrobes, especially in large cities. Thus fewer accessories ar…
All these explanations are rather complicated. I think the simplest explanation is the best: people don't have the free money to spend on clothing. This is evidenced by the following facts: 1) Wages have been stagnant 2) Cost of living has been increasing well beyond the stated 2% rate of inflation.
Not only wages are stagnant, but the population is under high increases in housing and health care costs, which are not accounted in official inflation. Add this to the reduced welfare state, and you have the perfect recipe for this situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the UK wearing branded 'designer' clothing is a kind of status signal people with a low status tend to gravitate towards. People of a higher status are more likely to dress conservatively since they don't have anything to 'prove'. /*generally speaking
A lot of the really expensive high end designer clothes don't really have any logos on them or if they do they are very small for this very reason. Due to this what they wear might look conservative but could be expensive as fuck ;)