I did a double-take at the 3.5k Euro spend per year on clothing. My own spending is probably 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller. But then I saw how many shoes they own, and the fact that they have a summer house where at least one pair resides. This person lives differently to me.
> and the fact that they have a summer house where at least one pair resides. This person lives differently to me.
He seems to live in Finland. It's a sparsely populated country covered in forests and with an abundance of lakes[0] which has led to a quite democratic summer house culture. It's completely normal even among working class to own a summer house by a lake.
There's of course variation. A large summer house close to population centers will be more expensive than a plain one, more remote, and/or not by a water body.
>It's completely normal even among working class to own a summer house by a lake.
Just want to understand, by normal do you mean less than 1/5 Finnish households? Going by the source below, I don't know if I'm missing something but it does not seem to be normal?
According to the same link you shared, enough people own second homes that 61% of the population has access to a friend or relatives home. That feels pretty normalized (compared to here in the US, where I live in a high-income area and only know one person with a second home (and it's a permanent tent))
By "normal" I mean that it's .. normal, not exceptional. Nobody will bat an eyelid if you tell about your summer cottage. It's not some rare privilege.
Many summer houses have shared ownership with a wider family. Say, your parents got one and now you own it with your siblings, each getting their own time there or agreeing when to visit together.
Even when you don't own one, you will very likely have participated in the summer house culture. It's very much part of the mainstream culture like sauna is. Maybe you visit your relatives' place, or you may opt to rent a place for a week.
Personally I feel renting is the best option as you can visit different places each year and avoid the maintenance burden -- and they obviously need active maintenance. But some do prefer a familiar place where they can spend all their holidays, and in some cases all weekends too on top.
Thanks, didn't know that. Still, the guy is spending wild amounts of money on clothing. Eur442 per year on shoes? I spend maybe £30-50 on an everyday pair that'll last me a couple of years. I also have a couple of pairs of dress shoes, hiking boots, running shoes, and lifting shoes, but all of those have been going for 5-10 years.
I’m more surprised by the seemingly lack of longevity of what he buys than by the costs.
442 euros is two pairs of dress shoes or one pair of good boots. I don’t think you can buy anything other than sneakers for £50.
My own dresser is not that far removed from his regarding to its content (I have far less blazers, don’t wear hoodies and have more suits) but I think I cycle each piece far less than he does because my annual closing budget is probably less than half his despite per unit costs in the same range.
But to be honest it’s not hard to blow though 3000€ of clothing if you replace a lot at the same time. An ok suit costs around 500€. You can double that easily if you want something fancy and you need at least three if you wear them daily. A coat will set you back between 200€ and 500€ depending of the material. A shirt is 70€-80€, dress shoes 250€. Throw in some accessories like belts or god forbids a watch and you are there. It adds up quite fast.
Agreed. High quality dress shoes and boots are very repairable. And men’s shoe fashion changes very slowly. A good pair can easily last a decade with good care. Modern sneakers are another story though.
It depends how much walking / hiking / running / whatever else you do.
A typical pair of running shoes lasts somewhere around 300-500 miles. (You could probably stretch a pair further than that, but you run much higher risk of injury once the cushioning wears down.)
If you put in a modest 5 miles a day and have two pairs in rotation, then expect to replace both pairs every 6 months (if not more often). It is not uncommon for semi-serious runners to spend $100+ on each pair of shoes. From that perspective, $500/year doesn't seem that outrageous.
Yeah, I’ll use regular sneakers until the soles fall off, but I’ve realized that with running shoes you can either take the pain in your wallet or in your feet. A hundred bucks every few months is better than not being able to move.
"Feet" doesn't cover it. "Body" is more appropriate.
Running with poor quality shoes unduly stresses your knees, hips, and lower back. Over time, this is likely to develop chronic pain, or bursitis, or other problems that can lead to long-term mobility issues.
If you're going to run regularly, you should find a way to either afford the propert shoes in good repair, or learn to run barefoot
Indeed. “Feet” was just a more pithy way of putting it. I started buying my favorite shoes no matter the sale price when my lower-quality shoes started affecting my knees, shins, and back.
I did this when I lived within 20 minutes of a long stretch of sandy beach. Would also work in an area with grass or soft soil. But now that my runs are all either poorly-maintained pavement or rocky, gravely trails, barefoot is simply not feasible.
Counterpoint: I've run 7 marathons in 7 consecutive days, whilst wearing some low-profile altras, and after the mid-way, I was switching to more cushier ones.
I'm not disputing that cushioning "feels" comfortable. So does Vicodin.
But if cushioned shoes work well for you, I wouldn't expect you to change anything. Invest in HOKA.
My audience is all the runners who have problems, and keep turning up the dial on cushioning, orthotics, etc. ... before finally giving up on running by their forties. Or they run on NSAIDs and trash their kidneys.
I understand your fascination with barefoot training, but it is a bit extremist. I too have tried VFFs and other barefoot shoes (I competed in a deadlift competition once, wearing merrell minumus), and do a lot of gym stuff without shoes, and there are pros and cons to the approach.
If there's one thing barefoot running does emphasis though, is improvements in foot strike. If you can carry that over to more cushioned shoes I believe that to be a win-win, versus a dogmatic view of barefoot or nothing.
I wear boat shoes daily, they're essentially a flat piece of rubber. Gives me the sensation of being "half barefoot" (things don't hurt but I feel every little piece of gravel and crevasse I walk on.
I'm also 78kg so I don't know if anything I wear or don't wear on my feet really matters, but it feels good and they last for ages since it's just suede/leather stitched down into rubber.
In regular training shoes I can barely run a mile without getting some pretty bad pains in the side of my knee. With good cushioned running shoes I can easily do 10-12 miles pain free.
I'm assuming it's a form thing, and that the running shoes just somehow naturally give me a better form, so I could maybe fix by learning how to run in normal non-running shoes, but I'm lazy and would rather just pay a few hundred every few months.
If it is a form thing, it might be that the running shoes naturally encourage a poor form (a form that only works with them, vs a presumably more 'natural' form of running closer to barefoot).
Doesn't matter. The main thing is you are out and running. And if that "costs" a few hundred every few months, and if you can afford it, why not?
I could be biased, but I like the book Run Barefoot Run Healthy. Also Barefoot Ken Bob's book and website.
There isn't much to learn - it's mainly a question of unlearning bad habits picked up through a lifetime of wearing unnatural built-up shoes, plus allowing the feet to slowly strengthen. If an able-bodied person spent a lifetime using crutches, the adaption to walking freely would take some time.
For inspiration, google: barefoot romero caltech saxton
There isn't much to learn if you have proper (or at least bilaterally symmetric) range of motion in your muscles and joints. If, instead, you have long-term injuries, tissue damage, etc., that have led to patterns of movement that are causing degeneration and inefficient patterns of movement, then you basically need to learn how to fix those problems, then relearn to walk. There are complex sequences of neuromuscular cues that healthy people possess but don't think about consciously, just like the ability to recognize objects. I needed to learn a LOT about walking and running in every sense of the word, in addition to slowly gaining foot strength. It would not have happened if I had taken a passive approach. It was more like programming a computer to recognize objects from scratch in R or C (whichever you believe to be the pirate's favorite programming language...).
Honestly, it's not hard. Just buy a pair of wider toe box shoes, nothing too extreme or minimalist, and start wearing them for normal everyday tasks like going to the grocery store, then build from there. I recommend Lems (I like the Primal Zen) or Altras (I like the Lone Peak style).
After a little while you'll have more foot strength and can start working out in them and/or transition to wearing barefoot shoes 100% of the time. It takes some time to build the foot strength so I wouldn't go too minimalist to start.
Honestly, I don't remember it being a problem when I was younger, but after taking a few years off and getting back to it, it's been an issue.
I wasn't having much luck finding the cause until a coworker recommended new shoes. Since then I haven't had a problem. I know it doesn't make sense, people ran barefoot for millenium, but for me it's been worth it.
I thought this, but even with efforts into my running technique I wasn't able to get rid of my knee pain until I tried Hokas. I've done all the "normie" stuff a casual would come across on youtube, do you have other tips on what I might be doing wrong or could do to get off the "cushion crutch"?
Do you use a zero drop shoe, barefoot style shoe, or run truly barefoot? I have noticed that I have been cranking up the cushioning as I have increased my mileage, but I also have found that my favorite sandals are zero drop Bedrocks.
Another vote for Bedrocks, I had put maybe 1000 walking/hiking miles on mine before I had to glue the soles back together last week. They're the only shoes I've bought retail in the last decade, the others are all thrift store purchases. I suspect that I would want some cushioning if I were a distance runner.
Yep, it wouldn't make sense for me to do this tracking either. It would just show me wearing one pair until it has holes in the soles. But I do acknowledge there are lots of people who are more enthusiastic about shoes than I am.
There are also plenty of people who avoid wearing the same pair two days in a row, because bacteria build up, cause foot odor, and degrade the lining of the shoe
My parents have this marvelous talent for dressing down, as casual as possible, even at church; they never go to formal events or dressy galas; my father never wears a suit or ties a tie, he lives in sweatshirts and short-sleeved polos at best. Mom surprises me sometimes at Christmas, when she dons a skirt!
They also revel in drab, shabby clothing. It's respectable, but the colors are muted, the styles are ordinary, and there are no designer labels. Mom washes everything over and over and over. The garments become threadbare, faded, but very very clean and presentable.
This belies their means and middle-class existence, and that's very Franciscan of them. Unfortunately, they raised a kid who could never settle for that.
Going to church, our pastor required a strict dress code for ministers, and so I worked tirelessly to live up to that, improve my hygiene and appearance, and cultivate some interest in men's couture, to the point of subscribing to some YouTube channels. I purchased a brand-new tuxedo in 2015. I amassed a collection of ties, some retail and some thrifty ones. I have a black 3-piece suit for funerals, if I lose weight (especially my own funeral.) Etc.
I also found that dressing appropriately for every other occasion was critical. So I doffed my shabby imprinted tee-shirts, and put some intentionality into my wardrobe.
I donated all kinds of stuff to thrift stores. I hope they were happy with very clean men's clothing in excellent condition. Once, I lost about 90 pounds and donated all the "fat clothes", which was a fatal error when I gained it 100 pounds back.
Even while donating some garments, I also destroyed some that were inappropriate or humiliating, that others had given me, that did not fit my personality. I applied intentionality to the very brands of underwear and outerwear and I went through about 3 cycles of destroying the old stuff, before I was satisfied and comfortable with the logos I was putting on. (I mostly converged on Gildan, Columbia, New Balance and Adidas, in case you're wondering.)
I've also been accessorizing with hats, gloves, bags. I really like having clean, pressed neat clothing to wear. Unfortunately, all this upscaling has gotten noticed. People on the streets and on the bus will notice rich guys in a hot minute. So now I get panhandled, and I get verbally abused, and I get disrespected at every turn, because I must be a privileged rich white cis-hetero man.
It's quite sad. I sort of want to rebuild an inventory of shabby, wrinkled, torn clothing that I can wear and go slumming. It wouldn't fool anyone, though.
You're lucky, I only own one pair of regular shoes (i.e. not my hiking shoes), but since I walk a lot and I think I walk "incorrectly" I have to buy a new pair every few months because the previous pair is ruined (as in full of holes, soles falling out)
I guess it depends on the usage. A pair of La Sportiva G2 SMs is about $1000, and over a 3 week expedition, let's say I wear those 10 of the days (I wouldn't wear double boots all the time), so that's $10/toe ($1000/10 days/10 toes).
I think $10/toe/year is worth more than whatever I can buy for $30 for a pair of somethings, that can keep my feet warm, allow me to wear crampons, and kick steps.
(ok ok, some of you will say if I lose all my toes, I wouldn't have to worry anymore, but hey, I like my toes!)
It is good to have different people in the world. The article starts with "Have you ever wondered whether expensive clothes are worth their price?" I have never wondered that, no. I'm 49 years old and I'm not sure I have ever purchased an expensive clothe.
I have, however, wondered whether an expensive screwdriver is worth its price, but I have not collected the data to support my Wiha habit.
You would know if you had purchased expensive clothes before. Due to autoimmune issues and a change of diet, I lost a lot of weight and could not afford retail clothes. I found a $300-retail shirt for ~$5 at a thrift in LA, and because my skin had become more sensitive, I noticed a huge difference compared to the cheap dress shirts that I had worn before. It's even more dramatic with nice wool. Perhaps an equivalent question is whether air conditioning is worth the price. Yes, if you can afford it, and it's not even close. And don't even get me started on knives...
You may be interested in the youtube channel Project Farm then - I don't know if he's specifically tested Wiha screwdrivers, but Wiha performed well in his recent pliers test video[0].
> I did a double-take at the 3.5k Euro spend per year on clothing. My own spending is probably 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller.
One order of magnitude would be €350; two orders of magnitude would be €35; three orders of magnitude would be €3.50 I sincerely doubt that you spend €3.50–35/year on clothing!
There have certainly been years when I bought almost or actually no clothing.
For people who buy clothing frequently, this might be unimaginable, but I assure you that there are people who are happy with the clothing they own and do not buy more except to replace things that wear out or develop holes. And I do this by choice!
> I assure you that there are people who are happy with the clothing they own and do not buy more except to replace things that wear out or develop holes.
This is mostly my style. Actually, I can keep using things well after they develop holes. The shirt I'm wearing right now has four different holes developing around one of the wrist cuffs. I'd believe $60 / year for replacement-level clothing. $3.50 / year isn't enough to replace things that develop holes.
I'm similar. If a hole is not glaringly obvious, ugly, and undarnable, why bother replacing the garment? I have several jumpers with holes in the armpits, t-shirts with small holes in various places, boxers with holes, shorts with slightly ripped pockets, etc... . Most of these I tell myself I'll eventually get around to repairing, but I'm in no rush. I'm not bothered what anyone else thinks of me for this. The only exception is socks, because the feeling of the bare sole of my foot touching the floor in just one bit of my foot is distracting.
Like the parent comment that you've replied to said:
> For people who buy clothing frequently, this might be unimaginable
I too have not bought any clothes in the last 3 or 4 years. I have no need to. My current clothes fit me perfectly fine and my shoes are not in a bad state.
That still doesn't mean you spend zero on average. I assume pretty much all your clothes are less than ten years old. To have a 3.5€/year average, all the clothes you own would need to have costed at most 35€ total, which is clearly unrealistic.
Though 35€/year maybe is achievable, especially if you get/wear shirts, hoodies, maybe even shoes from conferences or company events.
You probably at least still need a decent pair of shoes, one set of nice clothes, a jacket, pants, and underwear. 350€ to get that stuff for ten years still sounds very tight but maybe possible.
Exactly, it's very difficult to keep the average so low.
Not impossible, I'm sure I've done it in some of my broke Eastern European years, but most people probably spend more than that on socks and underpants.
Unrelated to GP, but right now I don't own any t-shirt that I've bought myself. All tshirts I have are from conferences, competitions, gifts, work swag...
Similarly, I didn't pay for any hodie that I wear (except one I use for hiking), and I'm building a gifted/given socks collection. Now I just need to convince some conferences to start giving out pants and shoes...
I spend maybe $300 in a year on clothing. I ship at Goodwill and other thrift shops. I cannot imagine spending that much annually just on clothing. Would feel like such a chump.
I will buy new running shoes... And hiking boots if needed but even then I wait until I can get 40%-50% off. My last Keen boots were 55% off. My last Brooks running shoes 40% off.
I think many people here at HN can admit to spending that much on their hobbies, even the ones without summer houses. It just sounds like fashion might not be one of yours?
3.9k USD annually is a lot for a hobby. I'm not going to argue whether it's "just a bit much" or "ridiculous", but I think it's strange to imply that it's somehow not a lot.
It's more than I spend, but you're on a tech forum full of nerdy engineers -- gaming rigs and their upgrades, hot new phones and laptops, travel, collectibles, legos, shop tools and materials, music gear, sporting and camping gear, etc each burn through that kind of budget real quick.
And nobody would call out that kind of spend were it for one of those.
Yes I would, anyone spending this kind of money regularly is a rube. Most of the shit you mentioned are up front one time costs with a minimal maintenance requirement. Anyone who is paying several grand to upkeep this stuff is an idiot and deserves to be parted with their money.
It would me more of someone gaming a lot, traveling a lot, building legos a lot at the same time, crafting by weekends too, playing music to the extend they need to buy gear regularly, doing multiple sports on to of it all and also going camping.
On itself, neither of these hobbies cost that much money yearly unless you consciously decided you want to spend a lot of money.
Is it? Lots of big-city gyms have memberships of $200/month or more. That's $2400 right there before you get into equipment, clothing, 1:1 coaching, sports massage, perhaps competitions, potentially travel.
(And I'm not even talking about big-ticket sports like golf, horse-riding, racing cars, etc.)
BJJ is a notoriously expensive martial art, and Gracie franchises especially so. For something like Taekwondo, Judo, or Karate you're looking at more like £80-100 per month for 2-3x weekly classes. And for a lot of team sports it'll be considerably less. I competed both in Taekwondo sparring and ultimate frisbee as a student, and both were easy to do on the cheap.
Also I think OP was confused by what you meant by "gym". In the UK that normally refers just to a place with weights and cardio machines. One of the most popular chains is Pure Gym which is typically around £30 per month: https://www.puregym.com/city/central-london/
We've just signed up to a more expensive gym with a pool, spa, sauna, etc..., but it's still around £160 per month for us as a family in South-West London.
> 3.9k USD annually is a lot for a hobby. I'm not going to argue whether it's "just a bit much" or "ridiculous", but I think it's strange to imply that it's somehow not a lot.
It adds up fast.
Last year a single 2 week roadtrip on my motorcycle easily racked up around $5000 in total cost between needing new touring gear, new set of tyres, motels, etc. I have worn the touring gear once or twice since then but haven’t had a chance for any more big trips. The tyres I keep using of course.
This year a single maintenance visit came out to $2k. Just parking for my bike costs $1200/year.
Until recently when I started commuting again, my bike was purely a hobby. You could argue it’s still a hobby because I could totally BART/CalTrain to work if I hated myself enough. (it’s 60% faster by bike)
I think a lot of people on HN either aren’t honest with themselves how much hobbies cost, live in low COL areas, or both.
If you’re into an individual sport and you have private lessons, which are more common than you’d think, you’ll easily blow thousands of dollars per year just for half an hour or an hour per week. Almost anyone who is beyond a fairly recreational level in tennis, martial arts or fencing will be spending thousands per year.
On the other hand, 3.9k per year is a massive amount of money to spend on cheaper hobbies like hiking or painting.
It also depends a lot where you live, HN is very US centric and is full of people who are earning big money at tech companies there.
Painting can be quite an expensive hobby. Maybe not 3.9k per year expensive, but still, I'm sure I've spent more than $1k in the last 12 months. It starts cheap, but the cheap materials tend to be shite. There's always savings to be made, but they often cost time over money.
The awkward question is how many hours would you have to work to make $325. Because at minimum wage, that's 20. For others, that's ten, and for others, that's one. For a billionaire, they're making that much, passively, in minutes. $325/month for a hobby which gives joy, and meaning, and makes life worth living, vs rent?
I pretty much only have shorts and tshirts that could all be replaced on amazon for $100
1 pair of jeans and 1 nice shirt, neither that I have worn yet this year. I do have a nice suite but even to a wedding or funeral I would probably just wear the jacket, shirt and jeans.
Beyond that I just don't care. There is such freedom that comes with being able to replace my entire wardrobe that I actually wear on amazon in the next 5 minutes for $150.
In the same regard, I don't notice people's clothes either. Not only do I not notice if someone is wearing something expensive vs cheap but the thought wouldn't even cross my mind to try to do some kind of wardrobe valuation.
I would suspect people really into fashion highly overestimate the degree the average person is into fashion.
This is a pretty extreme form of neutral stance. Yes, it's subjective. One man's day out is another man's salary. But it's not so utterly boundless that it's noteworthy to point out that most people probably consider thousands every year on a hobby to be an "expensive hobby".
It's pretty incredible that several grand a year per year is not considered absolutely insane amounts of spend on fucking FASHION. I guess I'm not the audience for HN since everyone here seems to be insanely rich.
You hardly have to be rich to spend $300 a month on fashion, you just have to be not poor, and have it as a priority. Just because fashion isn't a priority to you doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. The same people that spend $500 a month on clothes might think buying a TV for more than $300 is unthinkable. Priorities differ.
25.5% of that is Finland's VAT. Europeans include tax in prices.
Also, for whatever reason, European clothes cleaning systems are insanely harsh, and your clothes don't last nearly as long when washed there. I think it's related to the energy efficiency requirements; the dryers are much much hotter (if they are available at all) and the washers have to use miniscule amounts of water so they use a lot more agitating instead, I suppose.
I've never had to buy so many clothes as after I moved to Europe, and they're never soft and fluffy anymore. It's like going back in time if you're used to North America.
My gas powered venting dryer in the US, while massively less efficient than my recirculating condenser electric dryer in Europe, seems to get way less hot and damages my clothing less.
I think there is just much less airflow in the efficient ones? Not sure. I’ve washed the identical make/model clothes many many times in both places, as I split my time between the two.
Do you have a reference for cleaning systems being harsh? Having moved countries I noticed many difference in: water hardness (will make your cloths stiffer), materials used (when you buy stuff), usage (car versus biking vs public transport), weather (some places is more rainy), washing habits (not everybody washes as often).
Overall my impression is that the quality of the clothes affects more their lasting chances than all the other aspects.
I wear the exact same outfit every day, and I have many identical copies of it, so I have a ton of experience with how it functions when cleaned differently.
> Also, for whatever reason, European clothes cleaning systems are insanely harsh, and your clothes don't last nearly as long when washed there.
Hmm. The blouse that's older than my 23 year old daughter would like a word with you. And I do wear it a lot in below 15 C weather. And I don't remember it having been particularly expensive.
Your mileage wrt to clothes just ... may vary if you ask me.
Hrm, every benchmark of top-loader machines vs modern front-loader machines I've ever seen has front-loaders doing far better in terms of limiting damage to clothes. I suppose it's possible that old-fashioned high-water-use _front-loaders_ are easier on clothes (are those still a thing in the US?)
> Also, for whatever reason, European clothes cleaning systems are insanely harsh, and your clothes don't last nearly as long when washed there. I think it's related to the energy efficiency requirements; the dryers are much much hotter (if they are available at all) and the washers have to use miniscule amounts of water so they use a lot more agitating instead, I suppose.
Wait, what? The one time I visited the US and had to use laundromats I could basically thrown away everything I’d worn on that trip because hose washing machines were so harsh.
Back home in Europe, my clothes last years and sometimes even decades.
I'm not sure whether you really spend so little on clothes, or have misunderstood the term 'order of magnitude'. If it were 3 orders of magnitude less you would be spending €3.50 on clothes per year. Even 2 orders less is €35, which I find doubtful a grown person can do (in America/Europe at least).
Did you actually mean that? As I'm surprised your socks/underwear don't cost at least €35 per year, eventually they get holes in them. Are you darning?
1 order of magnitude less means dividing a figure by 10. 3 orders of magnitude is diving it by 1,000.
> As I'm surprised your socks/underwear don't cost at least €35 per year, eventually they get holes in them. Are you darning?
I don't know if there's so much difference between countries in Europe but this year I spent about 6€ on socks at Decathlon and one pair of trousers on sale at JBC for about 10€. That's in Belgium, which is not the least expensive country of Europe. I'm not planning on buying anything else this year.
> As I'm surprised your socks/underwear don't cost at least €35 per year, eventually they get holes in them.
I figure holes in socks are heavily dependent on slipper use. I wear slippers 95% of the time indoors, and my regular-rotation socks that I wear every couple weeks seem to be lasting 15-20 years (so, say, 200-250 days/washes since I wear different socks seasonally) before their elastics fail.
The average is a bit of a weird number... e.g. I buy a couple weeks' worth of underwear at a time, and they last a decade or so. So 9 out of 10 years my cost is $0, but my yearly cost is in the $30 range.
edit: And as noted by another comenter, I hang dry my socks/underwear, which presumably contributes to longevity.
I've had years where I definitely spend less than £100 on clothing, and many years where I've spent almost £0 (I'm not counting running shoes here, or climbing shoes), those are kinda specialist, but day to day clothing definitely very very little.
The cues you’re picking up on here are completely incorrect. This doesn’t require you to be rich.
In fact, I would consider his wardrobe to only be small/medium sized for someone into fashion.
I’ve spent >35k USD on my wardrobe in the last ~3 years and it feels medium/large sized:
- 2 suits
- ~10 pairs of pants
- ~30 dress shirts
- ~10 knitwear pieces
- ~8 jackets
- 2 pairs of jeans
- ~15 pairs of shoes
- 2 pairs of shorts
- ~10 ties
- Plus a bunch of casual t-shirts (Mostly long-sleeve)
This is only my current wardrobe, not everything I’ve bought.
Why have I spent so much money on these things? Because I had disposable income, I like fashion and I care very much about the quality of my clothes.
Per year spend also feels misleading. I have a big enough wardrobe now that I don’t really feel like I need more. It also means I can rotate stuff very frequently, so nothing will wear out quickly.
My spending is definitely down this year, and will be down even more next year.
Good outwear is super expensive but also the most durable items. Knitwear is also expensive, but can last a long time if you take care of it.
Exactly this if it’s something you enjoy, you can easily spend magnitudes more money than you “need to” - for example I know a number of people who have spent more on power tools than many professional contractors will spend in their lives. They enjoy collecting tools they enjoy having them and they enjoy being ready for anything even if they never really use them. If you have the money and you can afford it and it’s something you enjoy who is it really hurting?
IMO most HN users, regardless of country, earn enough that they should be able to clothe themselves without relying on dubious labour or uncomfortable, stinky synthetics that will outlast them by centuries. I've started turning down 'free' conference t-shirts: I already have enough to wear for gardening or to use as rags.
Not that OP is actually doing this. They're spending a lot of money because they're buying a lot of mass produced crap. The 'luxury' of those low cost-per-wear Converse is a flat insole that will put a podiatrist's children through school and a glued outsole that fails early and predictably. And then they have 5 other white sneakers doing the same job in their wardrobe. They could have spent less overall and got even better CPW from resolable, calf leather white sneakers.
I know this isn't the point of your comment and that a pair of Converse aren't an ergonomic marvel, but I do a lot of bushwalking and I prefer not to have prominent arch support in shoes and boots. I've found that it tends to interfere with the plantar fascia.
A lot of cheaper boots have these huge foam wedges that ram into your arch. I've got a pair of Keen boots that cause crippling pain after about 5km that I should throw out, and a pair of Merrell walking shoes that are only comfortable because I swapped the insole. Meanwhile, more expensive boots have limited arch support that's less intrusive.
While it depends on foot shape, I'd rather walk longer distances in a shitty pair of Converse than an equally shitty pair of shoes which advertise arch support.
It does mean doing your own research and asking yourself what you value in clothing. The sneakers I had in mind while writing this were Thursday Boots' Premier. I haven't worn them - I don't really like white shoes - but I know about them from a(n independent) Youtube channel called Rose Anvil, who review shoes and boots from a construction and material POV. This type of simple white sneaker is available from a lot of suppliers. Thursday are at the cheaper end and most HN users will be able to find a domestic or customs-free manufacturer if they value that.
There are other Youtubers who take a similar approach to basics like jeans and t-shirts, or outerwear. Reddit is particularly good for jeans and leather footwear. Social media and fashion doesn't have to mean peer pressure and trend chasing: the values I'm advocating for aren't rare. An understandable distate for the fashion industry doesn't mean we should disengage and settle for clothes that feel bad and opt for false economy.
$95 USD for a nice dress shirt is cheap. $120-150 is normal, $170+ is expensive. I can't find dress shirts I like for $95 USD unless they're on sale for 30-40% off, and that's very rare.
Cheap shirts have terrible collars with no shape, poor cloth that doesn't drape properly or feel nice on your skin, shit buttons (Not MOP or even horn), paper thin plackets, usually boring or gauche fabrics/patterns, etc. The list goes on.
I understand this sounds insane to people who don't care about clothes, but these things matter to me. A shirt that lacks these things looks terrible to me.
I thought I didn't spend much either, but if I count shoes the scales tip a lot. I don't even wear 90% of them, I was mostly hunting for the "right" pair and it took a lot of trial and error.
I can never really work out the point of posts like this. It's like some form of personal normativity, I guess?
There are 7 billion people in the world. Some of them are in severe poverty, some of them are US decamillionaires and above, if you choose say, five of them at random then the likelihood that they all have "about as much as you" is really quite low.
Even locally, I can walk down my street and easily tell that some families have 5 million net worth and others near to zero.
To some people it's ridiculous to spend more than 30 quid on a backpack, to others it's ridiculous to buy a cheap one when you're going to be putting a 2 grand laptop into it.
