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

271–280 of 344 posts

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#271

Post by alva »

dazc wrote: post #68
johnpowell wrote: post #7

Maybe I just live in a weird place. But I see a lot less branding when I walk around town compared to 20 years ago. My sister has 17 year old twin girls and they pretty much refuse to wear anything that makes them a "walking billboard". I live close to the university of Oregon and when I was in high school it was all Nike clothes all over campus. Now I still see some but not nearly as much. It is like "Likes" instead…

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

Funnily enough, proper serious money can be spotted in Mayfair/South Ken etc by how tatty and casual their clothes are. For the British it is usually an aristocratic type. Middle eastern princes and billionaires are often in the most expensive restaurants and clubs wearing tracksuits among the suited crowd.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#272

Post by selimthegrim »

lev99 wrote: post #184
mozumder wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a choice between foreign-owned factory or a locally-owned factory. This is a choice between a foreign-owned factory or no factory. Also, why would you expect the profits to stay inside? If Nike opens a factory in Bangladesh, wouldn't the profits go to Nike? I don't understand your "local profits" statement? And the jury isn't out on the benefits of neoliberal globalization. It's been shown to clearly reduc…

Just a clarifying statement. In Bangladesh citizens own a factory then Bangladesh benefits much more then if Nike owns a factory. By "Local profits" I meant when locally-owned factories operate more money is kept internally then when foreign-owned factories run. Globalization as a whole benefits most people, and this is not up for debate. I will agree with that statement.

Those factory owners are stashing their money in Dubai, not Bangladesh

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#273

Post by dragonwriter »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #221
nugi wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even reducing the heat 1 step on a dryer helps immensely. Between that and washing your stuff inside out, you can double the life of most garmets.

Could you please elaborate on why washing your stuff inside out helps? I would think what's inside rubs against the other side of the inside, and wears out just the same.

Assuming a heterogenous mix of clothes where some of them have external features that are more damaging to other clothes in a washer, and some have external features more prone to damage, inside-out helps even with front-loaders.

Of course, much of this can be addressed by separating different types of garments, but that can be a lot less resource and time efficient to do really well.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#275

Post by eitally »

ryanianian wrote: post #232
rb808 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

This definitely isn't true in Brazil. Brazil is at least as casual as the US.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#276

Post by drdeadringer »

johnpowell wrote: post #7

Maybe I just live in a weird place. But I see a lot less branding when I walk around town compared to 20 years ago. My sister has 17 year old twin girls and they pretty much refuse to wear anything that makes them a "walking billboard". I live close to the university of Oregon and when I was in high school it was all Nike clothes all over campus. Now I still see some but not nearly as much. It is like "Likes" instead…

> My sister has 17 year old twin girls and they pretty much refuse to wear anything that makes them a "walking billboard".

I'm about twice as old as these twins and I made a similar decision back then. If I wanted to be a billboard, at least let me be one I think is worth while.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#277

Post by xapata »

freejulian wrote: post #164
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…

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.

Inflation includes a measure of wages. If wages don't change, inflation won't move much.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#278

Post by ghaff »

curun1r wrote: post #192
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.

Sounds more likely, and the causality of the effects GP observed may also be transitive through tightened finances. For example, more businesses could be encouraging/allowing more casual dress, in part, because they know they're not paying enough to expect their employees to wear more formal attire. So rather than spending habits being driven by workplace norms, workplace norms are likely driven by workers' ability t…

If anything, there are a lot of people in fairly low-paid customer-facing jobs who are still some of the ones dressing up most consistently.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#279

Post by deegles »

freejulian wrote: post #164
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…

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.

Isn't the simplest explanation that clothing simply costs less than it did before?

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#280

Post by freejulian »

xapata wrote: post #277
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.

Inflation includes a measure of wages. If wages don't change, inflation won't move much.

CPI does not include wages.
Post reply on HN