or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Esquire's Salary Based Suit Buying Guide
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Esquire's Salary Based Suit Buying Guide - Page 6

post #76 of 108
They don't spend enough on suits considering the salaries.
post #77 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balfour View Post


Not sure how sensible this is, though?  Will judges you need to buy about three to four bits of tailored clothing a year to cover wear and tear (I think that's slightly on the generous side, but perhaps right if your still in an expansionist phase and / or use lots of fine, delicate supers or summer fabrics).  That means closer to 6 to 8% of pre-tax salary, which seems a lot to me given other clothing and shoes spending not to say living prudently, within your means and saving for retirement.

Retirement?rotflmao.gif
post #78 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post


Yup. People used to have considerably different consumer values. fwiw, Italian men still spend 14%+ of their gross income on clothing and accessories (national aggregate average), which is why there are more and better mens clothing stores in a smaller Italian city than there are in 1MM+ American cities like Denver and Minneapolis/St. Paul.
On the other hand, try looking for a home improvement store anywhere else in the world, save Canada, which shares many cultural values with the USA. People try to justify huge expenditures on all sorts of stuff that in any other country, only a professional homebuilder or general contractor would have, a lot of it being that they believe that they are increasing the value of their main asset, their house, even when assessed house values are nearly always much more dependent on location and floor area.
Recently, Home Depot closed seven (massive) doors in China. They found that the "Do it yourself" mentality, which is nearly uniquely American (and, from what I understand, stems a lot from the consequences of the Homestead Act and the continuation of the pioneering ideals), did not translate into China, which has been a settled and specialized society for thousands of years. There, they apparently much prefer the "Do it for me" model.

Thousands of years? The Chinese were primitive by European standards 3k years ago. Confucius is only from 500bc and that's like the beginning of their culture. The Iliad by Homer is older. And the Caucasians living in ANCIENT  Egypt built the pyramids earlier.

post #79 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post

For what it's worth, I believe in the pre-war period of America, men used to spend about 12% of their annual income on clothes (I believe I have the figure right). Just because they've now decided to take on other expensive purchases, rather than spend the money on clothes, doesn't mean that someone making $50k a year can't afford a $1k suit (should they decide to forgo the mortgages, cars, and whatever else, of course).

The average family in the US spends $1500 on clothes which I guess is like 3% of their income for everyone. Another thing,men who wear suits are going to need at least 5 if they wear them to work. Not to mention a lot of other clothing items.I doubt if some kid making $30k even needs to wear a suit.

And no, 12% would be extremely high to spend on clothes. 2-3% would be normal so if your income is $300k then about $6k on clothes.

post #80 of 108

When 'interesting' ideas of race and history start coming out of he woodwork, you know a thread has run its course...

post #81 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBluto View Post

Thousands of years? The Chinese were primitive by European standards 3k years ago. Confucius is only from 500bc and that's like the beginning of their culture. The Iliad by Homer is older. And the Caucasians living in ANCIENT  Egypt built the pyramids earlier.

Dumb, racist statement is dumb and racist.
post #82 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaghettimatt View Post


Dumb, racist statement is dumb and racist.

How is a recitation of history racist?

 

PC is going to kill this country.

post #83 of 108
Because while Asian culture is "only" 3,000 years old, western culture was reset during the dark ages. We had to start again nearly from scratch while they learned and advanced continuously all the time.
post #84 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layered Player View Post

How is a recitation of history racist?

PC is going to kill this country.

"Recitations" of history are not unladen with value judgments and "primitive" by Western European (read: white) standards is one of them.

Also, there is now broad scholarly consensus that the "caucasian race" hypothesis of ancient Egypt is false. Actually, I'm pretty sure that's eugenics era nonsense.
post #85 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaghettimatt View Post


"Recitations" of history are not unladen with value judgments and "primitive" by Western European (read: white) standards is one of them.
Also, there is now broad scholarly consensus that the "caucasian race" hypothesis of ancient Egypt is false. Actually, I'm pretty sure that's eugenics era nonsense.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaghettimatt View Post


"Recitations" of history are not unladen with value judgments and "primitive" by Western European (read: white) standards is one of them.
Also, there is now broad scholarly consensus that the "caucasian race" hypothesis of ancient Egypt is false. Actually, I'm pretty sure that's eugenics era nonsense.

Would you consider Greeks to be Caucasian?  I thought that the ruling classes in Egypt were Greek, granted it's been awhile since I cracked a history tome.

post #86 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBluto View Post

The average family in the US spends $1500 on clothes which I guess is like 3% of their income for everyone. Another thing,men who wear suits are going to need at least 5 if they wear them to work. Not to mention a lot of other clothing items.I doubt if some kid making $30k even needs to wear a suit.
And no, 12% would be extremely high to spend on clothes. 2-3% would be normal so if your income is $300k then about $6k on clothes.

This is a lot of implied value judgements here. Compared to every other country in the developed world, expenditure on clothing and accessories is extremely low in this country. As I stated before, Italian men spend 15% of gross on clothing and accessories. This is high, but compare that to the 7% spent on average, including men and women, in the USA. Your ball park of 3% of gross for American men is probably fairly accurate. This means, given a $50K income, that that man will spend $1500 in clothing, a year. That's just over $100 a month. That is nothing, even at mass market prices. You simply cannot dress yourself well at that budget unless you are a sports shopper, and I'm willing to bet $100 that people who spend 2-3% of their gross on clothing are probably not sport shoppers.
post #87 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBluto View Post

Thousands of years? The Chinese were primitive by European standards 3k years ago. Confucius is only from 500bc and that's like the beginning of their culture. The Iliad by Homer is older. And the Caucasians living in ANCIENT  Egypt built the pyramids earlier.

You missed the point completely. The point is that accidents of history led to different consumer values, and that their should be no moral value attached to consumer values, in general.
post #88 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layered Player View Post


Would you consider Greeks to be Caucasian?  I thought that the ruling classes in Egypt were Greek, granted it's been awhile since I cracked a history tome.

I would consider the people of Caucasus to be Caucasian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_of_the_Caucasus

The popular (mis)use of the word Caucasian arose from 18th century racist nonsense, though it has managed to stick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race#Origin_of_the_concept

Some of the notions expressed here about the history of civilizations are shockingly devoid of factual basis. If only there were a networked array of computers on which one could search for information before opening one's mouth...
post #89 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

This is a lot of implied value judgements here. Compared to every other country in the developed world, expenditure on clothing and accessories is extremely low in this country. As I stated before, Italian men spend 15% of gross on clothing and accessories. This is high, but compare that to the 7% spent on average, including men and women, in the USA. Your ball park of 3% of gross for American men is probably fairly accurate. This means, given a $50K income, that that man will spend $1500 in clothing, a year. That's just over $100 a month. That is nothing, even at mass market prices. You simply cannot dress yourself well at that budget unless you are a sports shopper, and I'm willing to bet $100 that people who spend 2-3% of their gross on clothing are probably not sport shoppers.

Not to blow your mind, but you can look at the BLS statistics in this pdf: http://www.bls.gov/cex/2011/Standard/age.pdf.

American men 16 or older spend an average of $324 annually on apparel, of a household average of $1,740. If you consider that some of that will be 16- and 17-year-old children, the true average must be under $300.
post #90 of 108
There's other interesting facts in the Consumer Expenditure Survey charts. The average apparel spending for 16+ men in households with more than $150,000 in income is $742 (this doesn't count footwear and "other apparel products services, which includes material for making clothes, shoe repair, alterations and repairs, sewing patterns and notions, clothing rental, clothing storage, dry cleaning and sent-out laundry, watches, jewelry, and repairs to watches and jewelry.")

Keep in mind, this chart includes voxsartoria and RSS.

Source: http://www.bls.gov/cex/2011/Standard/higherincome.pdf
Edited by The Thin Man - 9/29/12 at 1:03pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Esquire's Salary Based Suit Buying Guide