People can't afford $300 jeans

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't buy jeans, or wear them that often, but when it comes down to clothes, I spend rather more than less on clothes. Especially my suits, dress shirts, and shoes. So if I felt like it, I wouldn't bat an eye for a mere 300$ for a jeans.

I couldn't imagine paying that much for a set of pants, it's just cloth, there's nothing they can do to it to make it worthwhile. I've paid 300 (which is not mere to me in any way) for clothes before but that was things like a leather jacket which will last 20+ years.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Levi's are a bit more expensive here. Generally marked at about $75-95 a pair, but they're a little bit cheaper than MSRP at the department stores like Sears and the Bay (I picked up a pair marked at $75 for $55 on sale last time). I prefer to buy the Levi's because they last so long and they fit so right, but I've bought a bunch of $20 jeans at Walmart (the B.U.M. Equipment ones) for work. They don't fit right, and I don't think they're going to last very long, but it's not a big loss.

Isn't Levis a lot cheaper at the factory outlet? I know I grabbed two Levis for 50 USD once.

I do have a mixture of cheap and expensive jeans, the latter mostly for special occasions and nothing more. The most expensive being one that was 98USD from GAP. One of their premium designs. That being said, I don't personally regard jeans as particularly long lasting. After 3 years of vigorous use, holes start to appear here and there anyway.

[Surlethe]

Ah, conspicuous consumption. Those people were willing to pay $300 for a pair of jeans, so they must value the jeans more than a poor starving African values food, since the African is unwilling to pay money for his food. Look at how much value jeans add to the world!

[open_sketchbook]

I play Warhammer, so I am in absolutely no position to talk, but 300 dollar jeans? You can get SUITS for cheaper than that.

I mean, that's like, 3 baneblades!

[charlemagne]

You can easily justify spending a lot of money on jeans if you know you are getting an objective benefit in return. Someone can happily spend $100 for a pair (actually, it seems like US prices and European prices don't match up; their are less bargain brands, but a wide selection of "brand name" merchandise at the sub-$100 price point), but that's because they know they will last a good few years of daily use without starting to look shabby. In the long run, they save money.

That's my reasoning on something like jeans, too. I know that e.g. a pair of Levi's 501 or 507 will fit and last for years, so I don't mind paying €80-100,- for a pair once in a while to replace a pair that starts wearing out. I always try to own 3 - 4 pairs of good quality jeans from various brands so I can cycle through them. The most expensive clothes I own is my wedding suit which came in at about €900 (including expensive €100,- shirt and extensive tailoring), but hey, that's my wedding suit

My wife, on the other hand, is a bit of a fashion nut. When there's a new cut or style or whatever that's all en vogue, she buys that, but no brands or even designers - you can get that stuff at H&M or other el cheapo commodities. In her case, it doesn't matter if a pair wears out faster, because she probably won't wear it for more than a year or so.

[salm]

I´ve noticed that up to a certain price it really makes sense to invest more money in pants. 20€ Pants are pure crap. They often tear after a month or two. 60 to 100 €uros for pants makes sense because they at least last a couple of years. 300 bucks for pants is luxury nonsense, though esspecially because they don´t even look different from normal pants.

[Bounty]

I´ve noticed that up to a certain price it really makes sense to invest more money in pants.

I realize it's not done to quote fantasy novels in an economy thread, but Terry Pratchett expressed this idea quite nicely in Vimes' Boots Theory of Social Inequality:

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in the city on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

I can't help but notice a nugget of truth.

[Qwerty 42]

This would be true if the "designer" stuff were of much higher quality: as far as I can tell, the markup is just for the branding. If these were things that could be worn for twenty years, however, then they would be a sound investment.

[Melchior]

Sadly there will always be a market for 300 dollar jeans and 1000 dollar womens handbags. The people who buy them do so to show how rich they are. They are not seeking superior quality here. If you had some coconuts and a good branding campaign you could sell them for 500 dollar a piece too. There will always be rich people willing to waste money just to impress others.

I dress quite expensively and I do so looking for quality materials and good design (I carefully avoid clothes that make me look like a walking billboard for some designer).
I do not wear jeans that often; I almost regularly buy two pairs each year (I'm very thin and not-extremely-skinny trousers look baggy on me and feel uncomfortable, so I tend to buy again and again the few models on the market that I can wear without problems), a pair of April 77 ones (http://www.april77.fr/accueil.php) and a pair of Dior Homme ones (basically always this model, it's the most faithful to the Hedi Slimane's collections of past years and not tampered with by the current hack in charge; notice the total lack of external identification).
There is a significant premium on price, but the superior quality of textiles and craftsmanship of the Dior jeans is very noticeable by comparing them to the less expensive but still rather well-made April 77 ones (which cost about 180$ a pair).

[Melchior]

This would be true if the "designer" stuff were of much higher quality: as far as I can tell, the markup is just for the branding. If these were things that could be worn for twenty years, however, then they would be a sound investment.

It depends on the kind of garment. High quality leather shoes last for several years with minimal maintenance and can actually be a sound economical choice if you tend to wear them often. Expensive sweaters are warmer and last longer, even if, for example, in a Ballantyne (http://www.ballantyne.it/) you're mostly paying for the time consuming production techniques. Designer pants may me somewhat more durable, but if you mistreat them (I destroyed my favorite pair by leaving some keys inside, last year) they will be ruined as quickly as a less expensive pair.

[Dahak]

I wear suits all week, and if you have to wear dress shirts all week long, you will note the difference between a €20 one and a €150 sea island shirt. Same goes with shoes. The expensive leather shoes not only last longer due to better manufacture, but also does the leather look a lot better after some time wearing them compared to the cheap ones.
Jeans, I don't buy them that often. But with the few I had in my life, I noted a distinct difference in durability between cheap non-brand ones and the expensive ones.

[fgalkin]

Ah, conspicuous consumption. Those people were willing to pay $300 for a pair of jeans, so they must value the jeans more than a poor starving African values food, since the African is unwilling to pay money for his food. Look at how much value jeans add to the world!

I am sure a starving African would pay $300 for food, if he had the money.

Anyways, yes, those who buy cheap do lose out in the end, IMHO, because there is a noticeable difference in manufacturing quality between the cheap and expensive stuff, and if I pay $30 for a pair of $70 dollar jeans at Marshalls, I know they will last a few years.

However, there is no real notable difference between a $70 pair of jeans and a $300 pair of jeans, except for the name on the label.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Melchior]

However, there is no real notable difference between a $70 pair of jeans and a $300 pair of jeans, except for the name on the label.

Have you ever tried on a pair of Dior Homme or Maison Martin Margiela jeans?

[fgalkin]

However, there is no real notable difference between a $70 pair of jeans and a $300 pair of jeans, except for the name on the label.

Have you ever tried on a pair of Dior Homme or Maison Martin Margiela jeans?

I take it there is a difference with those?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Solauren]

The most I'll pay for non-dress cloths of any kind is around $50.

In the case of jeans, they'd better damn well be good, tough jeans. I used to put my clothing through hell, and I just expect that out of my cloths now.

I don't like replacing jeans more then once per year (each pair), so I better get my money's worth out of them.

If anyone wants to see in wearing cloths that cost more then that, meet me at a wedding or funeral (or similiar), or pay for them for me.

$300 for jeans is beyond stupid. It's 'George Bush Jr Presidental' stupid.

[His Divine Shadow]

This would be true if the "designer" stuff were of much higher quality: as far as I can tell, the markup is just for the branding. If these were things that could be worn for twenty years, however, then they would be a sound investment.

Yes well that is true for a lot of brands. But there some in the more sane proce-region that do last longer. But really, I don't see jeans as the kind of clothes you really invest in or use for nicer occasions to begin with.

[Melchior]

However, there is no real notable difference between a $70 pair of jeans and a $300 pair of jeans, except for the name on the label.

Have you ever tried on a pair of Dior Homme or Maison Martin Margiela jeans?

I take it there is a difference with those?

I think that it's very noticeable, but it should be noted that they probably cost more than 300$ in the United States. On the contrary, Diesel clothes are not especially well made and prices mentioned here are wholly unjustified (and no more "premium" than, for example, Levi's, at least in Italy).

[Surlethe]

Ah, conspicuous consumption. Those people were willing to pay $300 for a pair of jeans, so they must value the jeans more than a poor starving African values food, since the African is unwilling to pay money for his food. Look at how much value jeans add to the world!

I am sure a starving African would pay $300 for food, if he had the money.

Well, right. I'm poking fun at the absurd notion of consumer surplus actually measuring value.

[Dillon]

I buy my jeans for $1.50 at the Goodwill store. 'Nuff said.

Wow. I'm getting ripped off for the $5 - $9 I pay at Village Value.

On topic, idiots define a large part of their self worth on how popular the clothes they wear are. In other news, the sky is still blue.

[fgalkin]

I think that it's very noticeable, but it should be noted that they probably cost more than 300$ in the United States. On the contrary, Diesel clothes are not especially well made and prices mentioned here are wholly unjustified (and no more "premium" than, for example, Levi's, at least in Italy).

Yeah, stuff like Diesel is the same quality as Levi's or CK. That's what I was referring to, as I've never had any experience with the really high-end designer brands.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Gil Hamilton]

I think that it's very noticeable, but it should be noted that they probably cost more than 300$ in the United States. On the contrary, Diesel clothes are not especially well made and prices mentioned here are wholly unjustified (and no more "premium" than, for example, Levi's, at least in Italy).

I have tried on a pair of Dior jeans once. They feel good, but they aren't so much better in fit or material to a 40 dollar pair of jeans from Sears that the price tag is worth it. That's the point, their price tag entirely rests on the precieved value of the label, rather on a measureable quality.

[Zixinus]

I actually hate clothes shopping. If we buy stuff, we don't go to brand stuff, unless you consider "brought at the saturday market" a brand. So far, I have few jeans, paid for neither with more than 5000-8000FT and the only one that was ruined was when it got stuck on my bike's screw or something and got ripped apart. Thankfully, I was halfway home by that point.

Come to think of it, I wonder whether my household's money spending policies are old-fashioned?

I think in Europe to call water mineral water you actually have to get it from some kind of spring and there are various conditions.

I can't speak for other countries, but in Hungary, if you buy mineral water, expect bubbles. So even if its from tap water originally, there is a clearly taste-able difference to it.

[Dahak]

I think in Europe to call water mineral water you actually have to get it from some kind of spring and there are various conditions. That only makes it marginally less silly though. I only ever buy bottled water if I'm out and thirsty and forgot to bring/fill my sports water bottle.

At least in Germany, "natual mineral water" and "spring water" means that the water has to come from special sources or springs, and needs to be awarded state recognition to be sold.
And most people buy bottled water because it is bubbly and not all like to make tap water bubbly at home.

[[R_H]]

If people want to buy good quality jeans etc., why not buy workwear?

Carhartt for example

[salm]

And most people buy bottled water because it is bubbly and not all like to make tap water bubbly at home.

Eh, lots people are morons who buy bottled water "because the lime in the tap water will block your arteries".