I think there are multiple sides to this. Some people legitimately do not care whether or not they wear branding or at least prefer to be assured of reliability

I think there are multiple sides to this. Some people legitimately do not care whether or not they wear branding or at least prefer to be assured of reliability of the clothing fit and quality. This approach isn't necessarily more expensive either. Something from Nike, Adias, UnderArmor sold at a discount, say at Nordstrom Rack, is superior in quality to the destined-for-landfill clothing of H&M and Primark. I don't like branding either. For normal cotton wear, it's largely Uniqlo peppered with more unique pieces from minimally branded designers. For sportswear I tend to purchase from Lululemon because it's high quality and minimally branded. However, I understand it would be much cheaper to buy a bunch of discount Nike, Adias, or New Balance clothing. So I don't necessarily associate overt branding with disposable wealth per-se and I would say it depends on the brand and the context the clothing is being worn (but maybe that's only because of my understanding of brand differences). I would assume someone wearing all Lululemon to be more wealthy than someone wearing all Adidas even though it's less branding. That said, certain designer brands serve only to be a status symbol like Gucci, LV, Supreme, Kenzo, Bathing Ape, Off-White, Balenziaga..the list goes on. Hell, at least if someone is driving a Mercedes or BMW they're getting a well built car, there's almost no excuse to pay more than $50 for a T-shirt just because it's from Fendi or Maison Kitsune. As we pointed out in other comments, sneakers are an exception and it's almost impossible to find decent sneakers without branding and this probably has to do with the economies of scale.