Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Americans are spending less on clothing

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 344 posts

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#251

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

PeterisP wrote: post #231
freejulian wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As always, depends on how this data is being measured. Unemployment is low, but the labor force participation rate is also low. Are the jobs good quality? Wages are rebounding? I haven’t seen any evidence of this. There’s many people asking if the Phillips curve even works any more. If there had been any uptick in wages it’s a very recent uptick and hardly a trend yet.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect that you (or most other people) would not personally see any evidence of wage growth if it's happening. In essence, if there's a 2% growth in average real wages (which would be a major change), then it generally would happen with, say, 80% of people experiencing no change or even a decrease (i.e. nominal growth slower than inflation), and a 20% minority, usually disproportionally c…

If wage growth is constrained to such a small portion of the economy, then how could it lead to runaway inflation like they fear? Couldn't they just push those jobs to areas of the country that haven't been experiencing the growth?

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#252

Post by ryanianian »

mbrameld wrote: post #242
ryanianian wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I see two things happening here: (1) American spending less on clothing and (2) Americans having less self-pride in their attire and presentation. I've spent a fair amount of time in Latin American countries, and a real sure-fire way to identify tourists is to look for people poorly-dressed or those who look like they just don't care about how they look. E.g., despite much of Mexico being quite hot, you will al…

Is a vertical row of buttons the dividing line between caring about appearance and not caring about appearance? Or can we say that as a society we decide what is acceptable to wear in public? If it's socially acceptable to wear shorts and a t shirt, and I wear nice, clean shorts and a t shirt, your conclusion is that I don't care about how I look? That's some serious mental gymnastics. You could reasonably say that I…

Downvoting because I think you took my comment in poor-faith. I didn't say wearing shorts means you don't care how you look - imho shorts look fine when it's customary. I said that wearing pants despite shorts being a possibility does show how much you care.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#253

Post by sangnoir »

rb808 wrote: post #199
freejulian wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That doesn't explain why people in the poorest countries dress better than Americans. People living in the slums of India/Nigeria/Brazil are more likely to have a collared shirt and dress pants than an American going to work in an office.

> That doesn't explain why people in the poorest countries dress better than Americans.

This is a non-sequitur: all of gp's points apply to people in the US. Cost of living, rate of change of income, fashion/dressing culture and price of clothes (absolute, and relative to income) are very different between countries - so I do not see the point of comparing at all.

"Dress better" is also subjective.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#254

Post by twothamendment »

mieseratte wrote: post #83
meagher wrote: post #74

i’d rather buy a small number of high quality, versatile items i love, than buy lots of cheap stuff i don’t really like to wear. this plus being able to wear whatever i want to work makes my decisions simpler so i can spend time on other things.

> i’d rather buy a small number of high quality See, something I've noticed too is that "high price / high quality" brands seem to not be so anymore. Recently I bought a handful of Carhartt pants, pricey-but-quality, or so it used to be yet the quality seems to have been driven downhill and all those pants quickly fell apart in various ways. I've found the $20-$30 lesser-known brands ended up being of higher quality,…

Some things are worth the money, the hard part is finding out which ones.

My Zamberlan boots were nearly $300 are 5 years old. Other than some scuffs they are in great shape. I'll have these for many more years.

Carhartt let me down. I'll never touch them again. It only took a month or so for a hole to form in the pants, the cargo pocket is tearing a hole in the leg. My wallet isn't that heavy. So much for tough pants than can stand up to real work. I've since tried some from 5.11 and they are holding up to abuse the Carhartts didn't live long enough to see.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#255

Post by yardie »

schnevets wrote: post #197
freejulian wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This economic shift also affects the insulated, higher-class Americans by making noticeable changes on culture. In most roles, a nice suit at the office now suggests arrogance or even distrust. Instead, we venerate the "hoodie and t-shirt" CEO.

In the US we venerate our working class and, well, the business class kind of earned their reputation.

Labor in working overalls is salt of the earth type. Senior exec in a suit is an empty suit. When labor makes a bad decision it only affects that person. When an exec makes a bad decision they are usually the ones not affected.

The hoodie CEO is GenX/Millenials attempt to get not appear as the empty suit. To announce that they are from working class even if they are not.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#256

Post by amyjess »

randcraw wrote: post #88

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…

I'm going to add another:

4) We have more money sinks now. Just think what entertainment purchases looked like back in the '60s and '70s. You had no video games, no home video. A/V technology progressed so slowly that your TV set and your stereo system wouldn't become obsolete. The only upgrade people made was going up to a color TV (and B&W sets were much less common by the end of the '70s). So, the average person would buy one TV set and one stereo system, and they'd have a bookshelf and a record collection. Nowadays in the 21st century, there's a dizzying array of stuff you can buy for your own entertainment. As such, people are diverting their funds away from traditional lifestyle purchases (clothes, furniture, etc.) and towards modern forms of entertainment (video games, Blu-rays, Netflix and Hulu subscriptions, etc.) and upgrading our basic hardware (new computers and phones every couple of years, going from old-school TVs to HDTV to 3DTV to 4K, new video game consoles every generation, etc.).

(Also, I'll say that your point #2 applies more to men than women. Women's clothing is still very colorful.)

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#257

Post by ryanianian »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #249
ryanianian wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I see two things happening here: (1) American spending less on clothing and (2) Americans having less self-pride in their attire and presentation. I've spent a fair amount of time in Latin American countries, and a real sure-fire way to identify tourists is to look for people poorly-dressed or those who look like they just don't care about how they look. E.g., despite much of Mexico being quite hot, you will al…

It's not "self pride" its a bucking of the trend of what "looks good" . It's not that I cannot afford to wear suits. Its that I dont like suits. Add in the marginal cost difference and I'd rather wear a tshirt. It's the market punishing the inefficiency of requiring your workers (or date) to dress in a certain manner when it adds no true value.

> It's not that I cannot afford to wear suits. Its that I dont like suits.

I think you prove my point (and it's not a bad thing!)

Sociology is interesting. A suit is traditionally a sign of "I invest in my clothes and therefore I have self-pride." (It's also a sign that you don't have to do hard/dirty labor.) It seems culturally America has decided that this is out-dated and are choosing to focus less on clothes as a sign of pride. This doesn't the pride isn't there, just that the ways of showing and seeing it have changed for some or most.

Some people will always think a tee-shirt or shorts look worse than a button-up and pants. It's a personal sentiment for sure.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#258

Post by PeterisP »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #251
PeterisP wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect that you (or most other people) would not personally see any evidence of wage growth if it's happening. In essence, if there's a 2% growth in average real wages (which would be a major change), then it generally would happen with, say, 80% of people experiencing no change or even a decrease (i.e. nominal growth slower than inflation), and a 20% minority, usually disproportionally c…

If wage growth is constrained to such a small portion of the economy, then how could it lead to runaway inflation like they fear? Couldn't they just push those jobs to areas of the country that haven't been experiencing the growth?

In short term wage growth, only a minority notices it. In long term wage growth, it's not the same minority every year, so a much larger part (though not all) experience it.

In essence, if the aggregate growth looks like "Yay 2%! Yay 2%! Ugh -2%! Yay 2%! Yay 2%! Yay 2%! Yay 2%!" as having growth almost every year, then the median individual would see the exact same environment as "Nothing :( Yay 10%! Nothing :( Ugh -10% :( Nothing :( Nothing :( Yay 10%!" as having growth very rarely - and connected (and attributed!) to something meaningful they did, not the overall growth.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#259

Post by cortesoft »

ryanianian wrote: post #252
mbrameld wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a vertical row of buttons the dividing line between caring about appearance and not caring about appearance? Or can we say that as a society we decide what is acceptable to wear in public? If it's socially acceptable to wear shorts and a t shirt, and I wear nice, clean shorts and a t shirt, your conclusion is that I don't care about how I look? That's some serious mental gymnastics. You could reasonably say that I…

Downvoting because I think you took my comment in poor-faith. I didn't say wearing shorts means you don't care how you look - imho shorts look fine when it's customary. I said that wearing pants despite shorts being a possibility does show how much you care.

So, as you said, shorts are customary in the US but not in Mexico.... how does that translate into less self-pride in the US? That is just a different custom of dress. Are you arguing that 'self-pride' is measured by how uncomfortable you make yourself?

I don't follow the logic.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#260

Post by darpa_escapee »

timkpaine wrote: post #247
darpa_escapee wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher end clothes last longer. However, what is availably priced for most people are poorly made clothes that will last a year if they don't fall apart in the wash before then. Take a look at what's available at Kohl's, Walmart, Old Navy etc and you will see what I mean.

There's a sweet spot between expensive and designer though. The best quality often comes from rather obscure brands.

I agree. However, a $5 shirt from Walmart certainly isn't in that sweet spot.
Post reply on HN