People can't afford $300 jeans

[Melchior]

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.

There are obviously diminishing returns, I'm not denying that. There is a significant premium on price based on the name, small production runs and the fact that they are not made by underpaid workers (which is fine by me, I do not buy expensive clothes made in suboptimal conditions, there is no excuse). You also pay more because the person that designed the item is usually very skilled (or at least thought to be so: KVA) and can command a high price for his collaboration.

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

Carhartt for example

Because they are really, really ugly? Also, there is a difference between "rugged" and "high quality", even if to be durable they need to be at least decent, I suppose.

[Max]

I have no problem spending $275 - $300 on a pair of jeans. I'm sure people are going to give me the side-eye for that, but I find that 9 out of 10 times that the cheaper the jeans are, the less flattering they are to my body frame.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I think it really helps to know why something's expensive before you buy it. There are a few reasons and occasionally they mix-and-match depending on the product. The two main reasons I see presented in this thread at the following:

1) They are absurdly expensive because they are a popular brand name.
2) They are absurdly expensive because they are really high quality.

It's entirely possible for something to have both, but usually it's just one or the other. If you're buying something because of the former... well, that's just stupid in most cases. For the latter? It's generally a good investment if you actually intend to put said purchase through some harsh use. It's the difference between paying four-hundred for a set of designer jeans at Macy's, and paying over a hundred from a set of quality tanker boots from a military surplus store.

For myself? I do Goodwill (a second-hand store, for the non-americans here), and I see this rule coming out in the most amusing ways. Certain name brands will actually get marked up, regardless of quality. Granted, it's still a thrift store, so a CK shirt will cost five/six dollars instead of the normal two to four. On the other hand, brands/types that are exceptionally high quality to those who know about them are generally the same price as run of the mill stuff because they don't sell as well as the name brands.

For instance, whenever I go to Goodwill, I comb the aisles for Morbid Threads brand clothes and Demonia boots. As far as quality and durability goes, these are top of the line for gothic/alternative style clothes and footwear. Since they're not exactly popular (goth/punk/alternative still being a fringe subculture out here), they're just as cheap as all the generic brands, and I'm able to get both a designer wardrobe and a set of hard-wearing clothes for absurdly cheap prices.

[Melchior]

It's entirely possible for something to have both, but usually it's just one or the other. If you're buying something because of the former... well, that's just stupid in most cases. For the latter? It's generally a good investment if you actually intend to put said purchase through some harsh use.

Sometimes a item is just laborious and expensive to create, even if it's not particularly rugged. I own a pair of Ann Demelumeester low boots (this model, but it's not advisable to buy shoes online without trying them to see if they fit comfortably, so I had to track them down in physical stores). Despite the look, the leather is extremely soft, so they are comfortable, but not impervious to anything at all and require care to avoid damage. The price tag (besides the prestigious designer) comes from the very small production run and the complex details, for example the tiered leather strips sewn around the sole or the rather involved fastening mechanism.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Jeans and good/designer clothes in general tend to have a huge, huge mark up here in Israel (socialist import taxes and all).
I buy a lot of clothes when abroad (by guy standards), but my idea if extremely expensive clothes is 90-100$ (often on sale). I buy them (I have very, very few trousers/jeans for that much ) becuase they're built very well, and they look great. Really really great.
200$ for something that looks about as good, well I can't see myself spending 200$ on any one thing that doesn't require batteries

[Darth Wong]

Melchior seems to have completely missed the point here. Self-indulgent luxury items are considered self-indulgent luxury items because "self-indulgent" and "luxury" are relative terms. If you buy clothes at a price point which only a tiny percentage of the population would consider paying, then you are purchasing an unusually self-indulgent luxury item by definition.

Sure, you can point out that it's higher quality; so what? A 24K gold-plated dog food bowl is unquestionably higher quality too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an unusually self-indulgent luxury item. An outrageously expensive automobile is higher quality too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an unusually self-indulgent luxury item. A giant mansion is higher quality too, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an unusually self-indulgent luxury item.

It is a completely worthless rebuttal to say that the item is not completely identical to lower-priced products in the same market. The point is that you're buying something at the extreme end of the diminishing-returns curve, and only a tiny percentage of the population of the world's most consumeristic society would actually consider paying those prices, ergo you are an extraordinarily self-indulgent person. If you're proud of that, fine, but don't squirm around trying to pretend you're being something other than that.

[Melchior]

It is a completely worthless rebuttal to say that the item is not completely identical to lower-priced products in the same market. The point is that you're buying something at the extreme end of the diminishing-returns curve, and only a tiny percentage of the population of the world's most consumeristic society would actually consider paying those prices, ergo you are an extraordinarily self-indulgent person. If you're proud of that, fine, but don't squirm around trying to pretend you're being something other than that.

I recall mentioning diminishing returns, above. I do not deny having self-indulgent tastes in clothes (while, for example, I don't give a damn about cars and use the public transport system whenever possible), I took exception to some of the perceived motives that were stated as universal in this thread (social conformity in taste, desire to be seen as affluent and being incapable of judging the quality of what you're buying, if I remember correctly).

[Aaron]

I have no problem spending $275 - $300 on a pair of jeans. I'm sure people are going to give me the side-eye for that, but I find that 9 out of 10 times that the cheaper the jeans are, the less flattering they are to my body frame.

Well I certainly consider it odd but your talking to a guy who wears 40$ combat pants 90% of the time. Ultimately it's your cash, you can do what you want with it.

[Jade Falcon]

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".

The funny thing about people buying bottled water where I live was that in large parts of Scotland the water was so good you didn't need any additives. Sure, places like London had water that tasted like crap, the saying "This water has been passed by the management" did ring true there.

Also, regarding clothing, one argument that gets used a lot is the outsourcing. Scotland for instance used to have a lot of textiles factories of varying sizes. One was Pringles (not the potato chip, the golfing wear ), and their sweaters were meant to be damned expensive but hard wearing and good quality. The factories in the UK were closed down and instead it was opened in somewhere like Bangladesh, India or Pakistan. Now this is nothing against the people there, but it was so they could produce the sweaters for far less, due to being able to pay the staff peanuts, but the quality while still decent wasn't meant to be quite as good. Of course, Pringles didn't bring their prices down.

I've had cheap clothing last a good while. There used to be a shop chain in the UK called C&A, and I remember getting two cheap Red Dwarf t-shirts with a print on them. A lot of the time the t-shirts that the prints are on is usually the cheapest of the cheap. These things were thick hard wearing cotton, they kept their shape which often does not happen with cheap t-shirts and the prints didn't fade after the first wash. Ditto with Primark, they were selling T-shirts at £2. The only peculiarity was that in that particular range there was a variety of colours like black, red, biege, etc, and sometimes one was smaller slightly than the other.

I would never consider paying silly money for clothes. Electronics or parts for the car I might consider. For example, tyres, if theres only a small difference between economy new tyres and mid range or high end I would maybe go for the dearer ones, I wouldn't touch remoulds. It's the same with computer components or home electrics, I would rather save a while longer and get a better brand, but I do try to do some research into it before hand.

[Pulp Hero]

About water: At home I use a filter thing because the tap water is very gross in my area. At work though, I buy tap water because the water sources are either A) equally as bad. There is sometimes rust/dirt mixed in B) Filtered to the point where it is milky white. I know that it is perfectly safe to drink, but it tastes awful. Also, I am somewhat of a compulsive spender, and I figure that buying a bottled water is at least healthier than giving in to the urge to buy a soda.

[Darth Wong]

It is a completely worthless rebuttal to say that the item is not completely identical to lower-priced products in the same market. The point is that you're buying something at the extreme end of the diminishing-returns curve, and only a tiny percentage of the population of the world's most consumeristic society would actually consider paying those prices, ergo you are an extraordinarily self-indulgent person. If you're proud of that, fine, but don't squirm around trying to pretend you're being something other than that.

I recall mentioning diminishing returns, above. I do not deny having self-indulgent tastes in clothes (while, for example, I don't give a damn about cars and use the public transport system whenever possible), I took exception to some of the perceived motives that were stated as universal in this thread (social conformity in taste, desire to be seen as affluent and being incapable of judging the quality of what you're buying, if I remember correctly).

Because you are capable of completely detached rational analysis of own psychological motivations for doing things as personal as clothing choices, right?

[Broomstick]

The way I see it, there are necessities and wants.

Necessities are... well, necessary. You need to wear something on your lower body in most societies, at least in public, unless you want to be arrested. There's a price/quality range with the price on the low end. You can get pretty decent pants for under $50 USD that will do for most situations and wear a reasonably long period of time.

Wants are above and beyond necessity, and based largely on emotions and social training. If you WANT $300 jeans that's fine as long as you can afford to spend the money on a non-essential. If you an adult you set your own priorities. For some people spending outrageous sums on designer clothes makes them happy. As long as they can afford it, good for them. I, personally, might think they're foolish but it's not my money (and I've met such people who thought I was foolish for spending money on airplanes - different strokes for different folks). But don't justify it as the idea that clothes costing one or two orders of magnitude more than essentials are of overwhelming quality or whatever, just admit that you like the stuff (for whatever reason) and it makes you happy to buy it. In other words, be honest about it.

[Melchior]

Because you are capable of completely detached rational analysis of own psychological motivations for doing things as personal as clothing choices, right?

Completely detached, no, but those allegations can be refuted, to a certain degree, externally:
-The price of what I wear is not usually apparent to someone without extensive knowledge of the sector, since the clothes are externally unmarked, often from comparatively little-known niche designers, and it's not easy, for example, to tell cheap wool from cashmere at a distance. This kinda rules out the "wants to show off" motive, since it isn't actually visible.
-I am subject to no particular peer pressure in dressing expensively; if anything, it's the opposite. My friends are generally very left-wing and tend to frown on my choices in the matter (historical annotation: here the Italian Communist Party usually took in about 65% of the vote).
It follows that I probably do it for some other reason, like legitimate and individual, if indulgent, aesthetic preference.

[Darth Wong]

I like the way you try to pretend that your "aesthetic preference" in clothing has nothing to do with social factors. Either you're dishonest or you're mentally retarded and honestly have no idea that your choice of clothing affects your perceptions in society, particularly by the opposite sex.

[Sarevok]

Melchior here is a question. You mention that your clothes look same as cheaper ones and the price can not be deduced by anyone but an expert in the textile sector. If an expensive piece of clothing looks same as cheaper one why would you still buy the expensive one ?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well there's some buzz words that will get me to pay more.

About six months ago I spent Twice what I would pay for Target/Walmart slacks and shoes buying union made products through the company uniform supply (longer lasting, more pockets, etc then the no charge stuff). However There is no reasonable reason why I or anyone I know would pay more then two digits for shoes or jeans/slacks. (though my work boots are currently an exception being non-steel hard toes, waterproof and not made by slave labour.)

[Melchior]

I like the way you try to pretend that your "aesthetic preference" in clothing has nothing to do with social factors. Either you're dishonest or you're mentally retarded and honestly have no idea that your choice of clothing affects your perceptions in society, particularly by the opposite sex.

That would be disingenuous, yes, but I only said that I don't do it as conformism, not that I don't think that it sends any kind of message, even unintended ones (like "this persons spends wholly too much time thinking about clothes", which isn't actually true). About the opposite sex: if I wanted to impress girls that are impressed by that sort of thing, I would wear Gucci and Prada clothes (while feeling like a clown), not mostly postmodern designers that most people never heard about. I suppose that wearing clothes that I really like is an aid in feeling more at ease in some social contexts, though.

Melchior here is a question. You mention that your clothes look same as cheaper ones and the price can not be deduced by anyone but an expert in the textile sector. If an expensive piece of clothing looks same as cheaper one why would you still buy the expensive one ?

Two reasons: the more expensive one could feel better because of better construction and materials and could have a design that I like more. You cannot look at a particularly beautiful garment and automatically appraise its price, but it can be difficult (depending on tastes) to buy clothes that you find beautiful without paying a lot.

[salm]

The funny thing about people buying bottled water where I live was that in large parts of Scotland the water was so good you didn't need any additives. Sure, places like London had water that tasted like crap, the saying "This water has been passed by the management" did ring true there.

Umm.... additives? What kind of additives? I´ve seen tap water pumped full of chlorine on vacation a couple of times. It tastes awful. But many places with chlorinated tap water have these dechlorination devices installed.

Otherwise, yeah, the Scottish water is great. I toured the Highlands 12 or so years ago and remember that you guys have the softest and best tasting water i´ve ever tasted.

[Jade Falcon]

Well additives....I didn't mean like E numbers of any of that crap, but apparently there were areas where there wasn't fluoride in the water and there was a proposal to add it that was resisted in areas due to the quality of Scottish waters. As has been mentioned by yourself the water is soft and isn't as 'icky' if you want a technical term as some of the water down south due to natural water and the state of the sewage network.

Of course, its been a while since I was in London, so things might be better than they used to be, and you do have to take into account in large cities like that with a higher population density that overall its more expensive to keep the sewage and water treatment plants up to the highest spec.

[[R_H]]

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

Carhartt for example

Because they are really, really ugly? Also, there is a difference between "rugged" and "high quality", even if to be durable they need to be at least decent, I suppose.

How are they ugly compared to your 400$ Dior jeans? IMO, they look like every other pair of jeans I've seen. High quality doesn't mean they'll be durable though.

[charlemagne]

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

Carhartt for example

Because they are really, really ugly? Also, there is a difference between "rugged" and "high quality", even if to be durable they need to be at least decent, I suppose.

How are they ugly compared to your 400$ Dior jeans? IMO, they look like every other pair of jeans I've seen. High quality doesn't mean they'll be durable though.

Well, I'm not into designer jeans, but I also have to agree that those are ugly. Might be only presentation in a few cases, but overall the fabric looks boring and the cuts are way too baggy for my taste. Yeah, those are workwear, and they look like it. Nothing wrong with that by itself, but it's not something I'd like to wear when trying to look good