Buying nice clothes is smart-- says study
- Thread starter marketsurfer
- Start date
Is it? In my mind, the point of wearing something nice is wearing something nice. Something nice is not necessarily equal to something expensive or something luxury. Something nice hopefully looks good, is quality made yet does not break the bank. There is no rule that nice can not be bought on sale at a 75% discount
PS. Brand recognition is a tricky business. I, for one, don't have a clue and would not be able to distinguish brand A from brand B (barely recognize different brands of cars).
That's very true. And expensive doesn't mean good or even quality. The opposite is also true.
I am not an expert, but I don't think this trend applies to the brands that surfer is referring to. This said, there is no real reason why Walmart shouldn't sell something nice (albeit, I am pretty certain it never does).
For simplicity, let's include niceness and good looks into a single metric of "quality". Quality vs price is a logarithmic curve. Initially, it's very steep as your gains per dollar are very clear, but then at a certain point it's so flat that it's impossible to figure out what you actually getting for the increase in price.
Let's take an example that you probably can relate to - 4x4 vehicles. You can go out and buy a 20-year old clunker for a few grand - it will require some serious dedication and costly repairs. Chances are you will have to be shopping for a new car rather soon, too. Alternatively, you can also go and buy a kitted out expedition-grade Toyota Land Cruiser (or whatever brand tickles your fancy) for a 90k. It will be reliable and can take you to the end of the world. However, if you are a sane consumer, both choices are extreme and should be avoided, even if you have the money. Instead, a smart buyer would position himself somewhere where the trade-off quality/price is optimal for his utility curve.
Same goes for clothing or almost anything you buy. At the low end of the curve, the savings are phantom because you are giving up quality. It's not gonna last, or maybe it will be mighty uncomfortable, or maybe it will look horrible. Thus, it should be avoided. At the high end of the curve, you gradually start paying more for features you don't really need or for the brand name. Thus, it also should be avoided.
The final result is that you have to wear something, it's not a choice to be perpetually naked. So you might as well make an optimal selection rather then position yourself on either extreme end of the curve for some emotional reasons (extreme frugality is just as silly as extreme flashiness).
Like this? I wear shorts 8 days a week at the surf beach shack. -- its not the prettiest sight, but it works for me.
Today is almost like glass out there, evrn my fat a** can paddleboard on days like this!
Today is almost like glass out there, evrn my fat a** can paddleboard on days like this!
Last edited:
Expensive/fancy/so-called nice things are way overrated, in my opinion;
You expect those things to magically transform you to everlasting Happiness and success overnight in a supernatural advantageous way.
But of course, it never does...or the allure fades away rather quickly.
I use to buy virtually all my stuff used, on eBay. -- But now, I just pickup whatever I need at Walmart w/o putting too much thought or planning/time into it
(kind of like getting an instant market fill, in a highly liquid thing)
Cheap things fill my need just as much as any 'quality' thing does.
A $3,000 Rolex watch, and $500 name brand leather dress shoes...doesn't make me any happier than buying stuff that costs a small fraction of that.
I believe most people buy stuff for wrong reasons...either due to marketing making you believe you need it, or trying to impress people you hate.
Fruit of the loom 5/15$ shirts and 35$ levis
You are conflating quality with price. A $3,000 Rolex will tell time worse then a $25 Timex. My 2009 Honda Fit is undoubtedly more reliable then a 120-grand Porsche that my neighbor bought a year ago (except for picking up women, maybe).
However, a $350 pair of Allen Edmonds dress shoes has lasted me over 8 years of daily wear and is still going strong (3 re-soles by now, 25-30 dollars at a local cobbler). Empirically, before that I was paying a $100 per pair (+/- 20) and they lasted about a year to two a pop. I see a definite improvement in IRR there
The experience made me decide that quality trumps quantity. At the moment I own 4 items of general purpose footwear - a pair of dress shoes, a pair of running shoes, a pair of hiking shoes and a pair of winter hiking boots (both by Arc'teryx, virtually indestructible and yet comfortable).
So really you've gone through 3 pairs of shoes. Nothing wrong w/resoling shoes, but you could do the same to a 80$ pair.
Nope. The leather upper started falling apart way before they needed a resolve. More importantly they start looking like shit very quickly (again, the quality of the leather is to blame).
it is a choice if you trade from home.
Limmer boots.
Smartwool/DarnTough socks.
SportHill Terrain pants.
Western Mountaineering.... anything.
Merlin speakers.
(or Green Mountain Audio)
Vacuum Tube Logic electronics.
M.I.T. cabling.
Michelin "tyres"
platinum plugs
synthetic oil
(Hey. No magic here.)
And a microbrew IPA.
I don't ask for much. Worsted wool; Johnston&Murphy; fitted shirt.
Anything else? Nah.
Ramen noodles, generic peanut butter, and I'm good to go.
Smartwool/DarnTough socks.
SportHill Terrain pants.
Western Mountaineering.... anything.
Merlin speakers.
(or Green Mountain Audio)
Vacuum Tube Logic electronics.
M.I.T. cabling.
Michelin "tyres"
platinum plugs
synthetic oil
(Hey. No magic here.)
And a microbrew IPA.
I don't ask for much. Worsted wool; Johnston&Murphy; fitted shirt.
Anything else? Nah.
Ramen noodles, generic peanut butter, and I'm good to go.