6 ms·

I will agree the value of a put-together appearance is valid, in many contexts. and i wouldn't take from that at all. However ... it's ridiculous to use this t

by lmg643 13y ago

I will agree the value of a put-together appearance is valid, in many contexts. and i wouldn't take from that at all. However ... it's ridiculous to use this to defend a $2,500 handbag purchase. the purchase was inadvisable at best. marshall's, target, JCP etc have a massive business strategy around making sophisticated looks available on a low budget. so there are plenty of ways to accomplish the objective of self respect, presentation and budget. there's an old essay by tom wolfe called "mau mauing the flak catchers" - watching the CEO of barney's defending himself, I think that fits just about perfectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_&_Mau-Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_&_Mau-Mauing_the_F...

encoderer 13y ago
Certainly true. There are very nice designer handbags for a fraction. Even if you think the $300-500 brands aren't good enough (Coach, Marc, Kate Spade, etc), there are even more in the $800-1200 range (Louis Vuitton, for one..) I know this because I have a wife with tastes for such things :)
- beambot 13y ago
  Then you should have her check out Lollipuff (YC W13): designer auctions pre-screened by experts for authenticity (ie. eBay without the fakes). It also amazes us. Why would people pay full price when the "lightly used" ones sell for 80% off? *Disclaimer: Am a founder of Lollipuff.
  - consonants 13y ago
    I'd wager it's the same reasoning people buy new cars or new consumer electronics.
    - beambot 13y ago
      And what is that reasoning? Unlike cars and electronics, many designer goods hold their value over time, and some even appreciate.
      - encoderer 13y ago
        FWIW, my wife was delighted when I sent her to Lollipuff yesterday. She thinks it's a great idea. I guess one thought is that I don't know if I would ever gift her a used bag. Even if I trusted the source (which has always been a deal breaker before). But her buying for herself, I can see her definitely purchasing something previously owned.
IanDrake 13y ago
I agree. Two different things being discussed as one. 1) Everyone should have at least one outfit that is super classy. A cheap solution is a Salvation Army or Goodwill store in a nice part of town. 2) People who live on the dole and buy things they clearly don't need or deserve. Rocking an iPhone 5 while using your food stamp debit card at the grocery store to buy junk food is the typical "Stupid" poor person move most people hate to see. There's no justification for that.
- Nate75Sanders 13y ago
  Man, the iPhone 5 really is not a very good example here. If you wear your super classy outfit to an interview AND you have the iPhone 5 instead of a prepaid Android phone (or worse -- a prepaid non-smartphone), it's going to show that you "belong" and that you're not poor. Some people really do pay attention to what kind of phone you have, particularly for these gateway-straddling jobs that the author talks about in the article.
  - MrZongle2 13y ago
    Counterpoint: after the novelty of wearing the super classy outfit and waving the iPhone 5 wears off once you have a job, what else do you now have to purchase -- outside your means -- to convince your co-workers that you "belong"? It would be cheaper to look for a job in an environment that is more interested in what you can do rather than what you tote. That is, after all, what most of us end up doing.
    - Nate75Sanders 13y ago
      That's not a counterpoint in poor-person logic. It's a counterpoint in you-the-guy-who-has-more-correct-assumptions logic. This is what I'm trying to get across with my posts on this topic. People keep using reasoning from within a higher-class group where you already know the rules and assumptions of the game. The whole point is that the people below don't.
    - mcv 13y ago
      It would be awesome if HR people only ever judged people on skill, and not on appearance or presentation. But if there's one big takeaway from this article, it's that there really are gatekeepers that filter people based on whether they "belong". Faking that belonging can be incredibly important to escape the poverty trap.
Nate75Sanders 13y ago
The problem is that when you're aiming at a group that's higher than you, you don't know exactly what they do and don't know and what they can and can't tell the difference between. Thus, you may think that you have to have something extremely nice and not just simply nice. Additionally, the huge name brand over the acceptable-looking thing may buy you status within your own group, not just the group you're trying to move into. There are countless movies having 2 well-dressed people side-by-side where the "in" person looks at the new person in the group and says "Get rid of that cheap suit." or similar. The problem is that while you and me know that you can get away with the cheaper stuff as long as it's well-pressed, clean, etc., not everybody is sure of that.
rosser 13y ago
Unfortunately, when the very thing you're trying to do is status signaling, it's not how "sophisticated" your outfit looks nearly so much as it is the brands in your outfit. High-end brands signal status by their very high-end-ness. An off-brand, but sophisticated outfit signals far less status than a perhaps less sophisticated, but visibly branded outfit, assuming the "right" brand.
- itchyouch 13y ago
  It probably depends on the circles one is attempting to break into, but my selection bias of reading/interacting with the fairly affluent really don't put much stock into brands. In general, the brand-ists I come by, typically are those yet to have "made it" that have nothing better to base their judgements on.
wonderzombie 13y ago
Do you think that people who buy expensive stuff -- the gatekeepers in the original article -- can't tell the difference? That they don't know brand names? The goal isn't to meet some objective standard of looks-close-enough. The goal is to signal in a very specific way, through brand names. You may impress other poor people who don't know about brand names and such, but you will not impress people who do know their stuff.

by lmg643 13y ago

encoderer 13y ago

Certainly true. There are very nice designer handbags for a fraction. Even if you think the $300-500 brands aren't good enough (Coach, Marc, Kate Spade, etc), there are even more in the $800-1200 range (Louis Vuitton, for one..) I know this because I have a wife with tastes for such things :)

beambot 13y ago
Then you should have her check out Lollipuff (YC W13): designer auctions pre-screened by experts for authenticity (ie. eBay without the fakes). It also amazes us. Why would people pay full price when the "lightly used" ones sell for 80% off? *Disclaimer: Am a founder of Lollipuff.
- consonants 13y ago
  I'd wager it's the same reasoning people buy new cars or new consumer electronics.
  - beambot 13y ago
    And what is that reasoning? Unlike cars and electronics, many designer goods hold their value over time, and some even appreciate.
    - encoderer 13y ago
      FWIW, my wife was delighted when I sent her to Lollipuff yesterday. She thinks it's a great idea. I guess one thought is that I don't know if I would ever gift her a used bag. Even if I trusted the source (which has always been a deal breaker before). But her buying for herself, I can see her definitely purchasing something previously owned.

IanDrake 13y ago

I agree. Two different things being discussed as one. 1) Everyone should have at least one outfit that is super classy. A cheap solution is a Salvation Army or Goodwill store in a nice part of town. 2) People who live on the dole and buy things they clearly don't need or deserve. Rocking an iPhone 5 while using your food stamp debit card at the grocery store to buy junk food is the typical "Stupid" poor person move most people hate to see. There's no justification for that.

Nate75Sanders 13y ago
Man, the iPhone 5 really is not a very good example here. If you wear your super classy outfit to an interview AND you have the iPhone 5 instead of a prepaid Android phone (or worse -- a prepaid non-smartphone), it's going to show that you "belong" and that you're not poor. Some people really do pay attention to what kind of phone you have, particularly for these gateway-straddling jobs that the author talks about in the article.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  Counterpoint: after the novelty of wearing the super classy outfit and waving the iPhone 5 wears off once you have a job, what else do you now have to purchase -- outside your means -- to convince your co-workers that you "belong"? It would be cheaper to look for a job in an environment that is more interested in what you can do rather than what you tote. That is, after all, what most of us end up doing.
  - Nate75Sanders 13y ago
    That's not a counterpoint in poor-person logic. It's a counterpoint in you-the-guy-who-has-more-correct-assumptions logic. This is what I'm trying to get across with my posts on this topic. People keep using reasoning from within a higher-class group where you already know the rules and assumptions of the game. The whole point is that the people below don't.
  - mcv 13y ago
    It would be awesome if HR people only ever judged people on skill, and not on appearance or presentation. But if there's one big takeaway from this article, it's that there really are gatekeepers that filter people based on whether they "belong". Faking that belonging can be incredibly important to escape the poverty trap.

Nate75Sanders 13y ago

The problem is that when you're aiming at a group that's higher than you, you don't know exactly what they do and don't know and what they can and can't tell the difference between. Thus, you may think that you have to have something extremely nice and not just simply nice. Additionally, the huge name brand over the acceptable-looking thing may buy you status within your own group, not just the group you're trying to move into. There are countless movies having 2 well-dressed people side-by-side where the "in" person looks at the new person in the group and says "Get rid of that cheap suit." or similar. The problem is that while you and me know that you can get away with the cheaper stuff as long as it's well-pressed, clean, etc., not everybody is sure of that.

rosser 13y ago

Unfortunately, when the very thing you're trying to do is status signaling, it's not how "sophisticated" your outfit looks nearly so much as it is the brands in your outfit. High-end brands signal status by their very high-end-ness. An off-brand, but sophisticated outfit signals far less status than a perhaps less sophisticated, but visibly branded outfit, assuming the "right" brand.

itchyouch 13y ago
It probably depends on the circles one is attempting to break into, but my selection bias of reading/interacting with the fairly affluent really don't put much stock into brands. In general, the brand-ists I come by, typically are those yet to have "made it" that have nothing better to base their judgements on.

wonderzombie 13y ago

Do you think that people who buy expensive stuff -- the gatekeepers in the original article -- can't tell the difference? That they don't know brand names? The goal isn't to meet some objective standard of looks-close-enough. The goal is to signal in a very specific way, through brand names. You may impress other poor people who don't know about brand names and such, but you will not impress people who do know their stuff.