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

301–310 of 344 posts

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#301

Post by bradlys »

sedachv wrote: post #291
slowmotiony wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Germany was like that. I work as a IT consultant in a financial institution and we all have to wear suits here, even though most of the people have never seen a client in their life - they just sit behind their desks and do their daily work on a PC. So they do so - in a suit. I really don't know why Germans do this to themselves.

> I really don't know why Germans do this to themselves. Yes, wearing a well-fitting, tailored suit made out of fabric with a good hand appropriate to the weather is a horrible (horribly comfortable) experience to subject yourself to. Having plenty of functional jacket pockets for all of your belongings is a special kind of hell.

I think you need to readjust your lens. In general, people simply cannot afford a well fitting suit as their regular clothing. Some people fit into a cheap 2-piece suit from Macy's for $300 with some tailoring. Many don't. For those, the cost jump is at least to $500 for a made to measure. At which point, you're going to have to spend a lot of time trying to get the fit right and it'll take some time. And if you really want it to fit "right" then it's $3,000 per suit because you have to go bespoke. If you don't live near a very popular and fashion conscious city, you probably won't find a bespoke tailor.

Compare with $25 jeans and a $10 t-shirt that people will wear everyday, it's pretty easy to see why they go with that. Lotta sizes and fits that will eventually fit you in that price range. You can have ~7 pairs of jeans and t-shirts for the price of one very cheap fused low end fabric suit. Enough to have something different for every day of the week. You can have about 15 pairs of jeans and t-shirts for 1 made to measure suit. You can have about 70 pairs of jeans and t-shirts for the cost of one bespoke suit. That's enough jeans and t-shirts to last you over a decade.

We didn't even factor in the cost that nicer dress shoes cost and the cost of fitted dress shirts or all the accessories that can go with suits. (Belts, pocket squares, ties, bowties, tie clips, cufflinks, etc.)

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#302

Post by dajohnson89 »

ryanianian wrote: post #257
maerF0x0 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FWIW I see a necktie as a fancy leash and collar (and it's just as comfortable to wear one). I'm nearly 30 and the only time I've worn my dumb suit is when going to a funeral.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#303

Post by xeromal »

ryanianian wrote: post #286
cortesoft wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm probably bringing my own US biases in, but I think objectively that more comfortable => less pride in appearance . Not less pride overall just pride in appearance. (You're not a bad person because you only wear cargo shorts! You just don't value your appearance as much as somebody who always wears suits.) I'd love to learn of (and maybe live in) a culture that thinks elastic-waist sweatpants show a sense of pride…

People are almost avoiding your point on purpose. Are they really that obtuse? Haha.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#304

Post by xeromal »

toxik wrote: post #244
mc32 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article mentions that despite prices going down, not up, people are still buying fewer clothes. Not sure if they are counting skus or expenditure, my guess is expenditure, so if prices per article are going down (H&M vs Levi's), then of course total spending on clothing will go down, even while consumption remains the same. In any case, to me it means less waste.

It seems to me that this inexpensive clothing is of very poor quality, and that quality has been declining over time.

The problem is if I can go to H&M and buy 15 T-shirts for around $100, why would I buy 2 or 3 nicer T-shirts that will last about the same amount of time if I cycle the cheapo 15 shirts properly?

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#305

Post by dragonwriter »

sedachv wrote: post #291
slowmotiony wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Germany was like that. I work as a IT consultant in a financial institution and we all have to wear suits here, even though most of the people have never seen a client in their life - they just sit behind their desks and do their daily work on a PC. So they do so - in a suit. I really don't know why Germans do this to themselves.

> I really don't know why Germans do this to themselves. Yes, wearing a well-fitting, tailored suit made out of fabric with a good hand appropriate to the weather is a horrible (horribly comfortable) experience to subject yourself to. Having plenty of functional jacket pockets for all of your belongings is a special kind of hell.

I've yet to see a suit with anything approximating “plenty of functional jacket pockets for all of your belongings”; suit pockets tend to be between decorative and merely very low capacity, to avoid breaking up lines. “plenty of functional jacket pockets for all of your belongings” is something I'd only use to describe a jacket with military-style cargo pockets.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#306

Post by agiamas »

doikor wrote: post #80
dazc wrote: post #68

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 ;)

That exactly. Which is probably the same thing that several others have pointed out.. A 100$ shirt will have huge logos all over the place because the market segment it targets are people who can "just" afford it and want to signal other people who can't. A 1000$ shirt will have little to no logos and will be distinguished only by "others" who can spend as much, because if you wear 1000$ shirts why would you care signalling to the person who can "just" afford 100$ shirts that you have so much more? You may care to signal this to other 1000$ shirt owners but then maybe you just don't care about signalling via clothing ;)

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#307

Post by jmadsen »

alphonsegaston wrote: post #176
EliRivers wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let me tell you a secret - it’s the drier. Clothes last far longer when you hang dry them. 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.

had never thought about that - I've lived in Japan for 14 years where we hang dry, and yes, I have some pretty old stuff that is still in fine condition

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#308

Post by beokop »

potta_coffee wrote: post #290
ryanianian wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

My view of suits has always been, "I work in a profession that requires me to wear this symbolic clothing." I've avoided these kinds of careers because I want to be graded on my skill, not my ability to dress well. And suits are uncomfortable, and I like to be comfortable.

Yeah but when you think about it, you’re probably still working in an industry that frowns upon pajamas in the workplace. Just because it’s OK to not wear a suit doesn’t mean that people aren’t judging you.

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#309

Post by akgerber »

walshemj wrote: post #222
petroseskinder wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, they are and have been trending up for a few years now. The fashion calls it Athleisure.

which Is not cheap

There's plenty of cheap athleisure stuff: https://www.target.com/c/activewear-women-s-clothing/c9-cham...

Re: Americans are spending less on clothing

#310

Post by lotsofpulp »

ghaff wrote: post #285
lotsofpulp wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Travel is far more of a status symbol than tech. $600 iPhones and jackets don't compare to $5k safaris and hiking trips, not to mention even being able to have the time off to do it. Easiest way to stratify a group by wealth is start talking about where and how often they go on vacation.

Are you suggesting that people only go on vacation for the status? Or for that matter buy smartphones for that reason?

No, I'm not writing in absolutes. But it can and does serve the purpose of signaling to others that you have achieved a level of "success". It's not necessarily explicit, and it might not be at the forefront of the mind of travelers, but it is kind of like achievements in video games.

Imagine scrolling through dating profiles and seeing someone with pictures of them self globe trotting versus someone who doesn't have exotic photos. It's not new, showing off for potential mates is of course natural. I'm just pointing out that travel is a very easy and accurate way (can't be faked) to show off than having the newest iPhone.

Post reply on HN