5 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
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.
- distances 2y ago
  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.
  - n4r9 2y ago
    Sure. 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"
      - n4r9 2y ago
        I'm not sure whether you're providing a reasonable interpretation or trying to be satirical.
        medstrom 2y ago
        Your pick, I guess :)
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - AStonesThrow 2y ago
    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.
  - fat_cantor 2y ago
    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
- vitus 2y ago
  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.
  - el_benhameen 2y ago
    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.
    - 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 ago
        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.
      - 2y ago
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  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.
  - dexwiz 2y ago
    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.
- xarope 2y ago
  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!)
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  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)
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 ago
  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))
  - dexwiz 2y ago
    I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Less then 1/5 is still super normal.
- distances 2y ago
  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.

n4r9 2y ago

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.

distances 2y ago
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.
- n4r9 2y ago
  Sure. 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"
    - n4r9 2y ago
      I'm not sure whether you're providing a reasonable interpretation or trying to be satirical.
      - medstrom 2y ago
        Your pick, I guess :)
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  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.
- fat_cantor 2y ago
  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
vitus 2y ago
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.
- el_benhameen 2y ago
  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.
  - 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 ago
        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.
    - 2y ago
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
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.
- dexwiz 2y ago
  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.
xarope 2y ago
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!)
poincaredisk 2y ago
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)

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 ago
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))
- dexwiz 2y ago
  I 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 ago
I 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 ago
Less then 1/5 is still super normal.
distances 2y ago
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.