8 ms·
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
by n4r9 2y ago
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.
- distances 2y ago> 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. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lakes_of_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lakes_of_Finland
- n4r9 2y agoThanks, 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.
- distances 2y agoYep, 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.
- n4r9 2y agoSure. I guess it's interesting how differently people can interpret the phrase "buy what you need".
- medstrom 2y ago~~"buy what you need"~~ "do not go shopping until after something has a hole in it, then when you are there, replace only that"
- AStonesThrow 2y agoMy 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.
- fat_cantor 2y agoThere 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
- vitus 2y agoIt 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.
- el_benhameen 2y agoYeah, 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.
- bmelton 2y ago"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
- hilux 2y ago> learn to run barefoot Finally someone with the right idea!
- el_benhameen 2y agoI 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.
- 2y ago
- RandomThoughts3 2y agoI’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.
- dexwiz 2y agoAgreed. 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.
- xarope 2y agoI 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!)
- poincaredisk 2y agoYou'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)
- xnyan 2y ago>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? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204614002217#:~:text=In%20Finland%20the%20ownership%20of,(Statistics%20Finland%2C%202013) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01692....
- jkubicek 2y agoAccording 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))
- dexwiz 2y agoI think you’ll find quite a few people have access to vacation lodging, but they don’t talk about it for one reason or another.
- tutorialmanager 2y agoI think the point is that it’s not just the wealthy households. Not everyone wants a cabin but most people can afford one.
- watwut 2y agoLess then 1/5 is still super normal.
- distances 2y agoBy "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.
- swatcoder 2y agoI 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?
- happytoexplain 2y ago3.9k 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.
- swatcoder 2y agoIt'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.
- tekla 2y agoYes 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.
- imp0cat 2y agoThe economy needs those people, though.
- 0m0xn 2y ago> Most of the shit you mentioned are up front one time costs with a minimal maintenance requirement. Are you kidding me? > gaming rigs and their upgrades Oh cool the newest NVDIA GPU is out, that'll be a $500-1500 cost! > collectibles, legos Yup - this hobby is all about upfront one-time costs > shop tools and materials, music gear Have you met anyone with a machine shop or who is into playing gigs? > sporting and camping gear lol..outdoors people love accumulating gear for each trip
- Vvector 2y agoHe's paying $95 per shirt, $13 for a undershirt, $10 per underwear.
- sdenton4 2y agoAnd only wears the underwear on 92% of days!
- grahamj 2y agoI wonder how much he saves going commando those 8% of days
- ZephyrBlu 2y ago$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.
- naming_the_user 2y agoI 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.
- eadmund 2y ago> 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!
- margalabargala 2y agoThere 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!
- literalAardvark 2y agoI doubt anyone is spending 3 bucks per year on average on clothing. Unless you're in Bangladesh or something.
- ranguna 2y agoLike 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.
- benediktwerner 2y agoThat 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.
- TheHumanist 2y agoI 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.
- hilux 2y agoHave you tried shopgoodwill.com? Phenomenal athleisure selection, if you're not in a rush. Running shoes - you know what they say: Run Barefoot Run Healthy!
- etrautmann 2y agothis is not good general advice. For anyone interested in barefoot running, please do your research on how to phase this in appropriately and safely.
- hilux 2y agoRead the book. As I wrote above.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- al_borland 2y agoI 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.
- mattmanser 2y agoI'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.
- Marsymars 2y ago> 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.
- seszett 2y ago> 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.
- LandR 2y agoI'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. I loathe clothes shopping.
- 2y ago
- sneak 2y ago25.5% 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.
- switch007 2y agoMy new European heat pump energy efficient tree hugging liberal dryer only heats to about 47c (sorry not sure what that is in futuristic values) Edit: but I do understand about clothes. I think it has a lot to do with the decline in the quality of clothes more than anything. Agitation is quite central to the cleaning process no? Top loaders agitate too? I can't imagine there is much in it
- seszett 2y agoI'm not even sure US-style hot dryers are allowed in the EU? Everyone I know that has one has a low-temperature heat pump dryer.
- switch007 2y agoCondenser dryers? Still available in UK and fairly sure most of EU
- seszett 2y agoAlright, condenser dryers are the missing link I had forgotten between dryers that vent outside like in the US and the modern heat pump dryers.
- sneak 2y agoMy 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.
- sandworm101 2y ago>> This person lives differently to me. Yup. The rich are different. They have more money.
- devnullbrain 2y agoIMO 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.
- Nashooo 2y agoWhere to find those clothes though..
- devnullbrain 2y agoIt 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.
- strken 2y agoI 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.
- ZephyrBlu 2y agoThe 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.
- bombcar 2y agoExactly 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?
- masto 2y agoIt 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.
- fat_cantor 2y agoYou 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...
- maicro 2y agoYou 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]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUklhL1cGqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUklhL1cGqY
- lizknope 2y agoSame here. I've never cared about expensive clothes. I've probably spent less than $500 on all my clothes for the last 5 years. On the other hand I've spent at least $30K on computers and camera gear the last 10 years and bought a car for $65,000 last year.