or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › How We Used to Dress
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How We Used to Dress - Page 9

post #121 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDT View Post


Apparently there is a TM Lewin in Bristol, must be quite recent. I know it wasn't around when I was living there. So there's some sartorial hope for the place after all.... biggrin.gif without having to go to London.

There's really quite a few TM Lewin stores in the UK

 

http://www.tmlewin.co.uk/Store-Finder/Store-Finder,en_GB,pg.html

post #122 of 157

I used to get all my tweed sport coats from Harris Tweed......still have a few as a matter of fact...

post #123 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calder View Post

There's really quite a few TM Lewin stores in the UK

http://www.tmlewin.co.uk/Store-Finder/Store-Finder,en_GB,pg.html

I left the UK(Bristol) four years ago now, apart from when I went back last month for a couple of weeks, and I'd never even heard of TM Lewin until this thread. I and just thought, Topman, Burton, River Island, Gap, Debenhams, H&M, Zara, .. in other words, the usual UK high street brands. It's not any better here, a country totally obsessed with skinny, narrow and slim. And if someone is middle-aged, balding and somewhat rounded, it's not a good look IMO. That's why I often go to Hong Kong, I know a couple of tailors that are reasonably priced, that know what I like.
Edited by MikeDT - 7/31/13 at 9:01pm
post #124 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

"price" is not the same thing as % of per capita income. It's just price. My only claim is that SR suits were cheaper then than now. Other things, like computers, were more expensive.

You cannot make a meaningful argument that they were "cheaper" then or now only by using a price deflator/inflator that is driven by a basket of goods that is heavily weighted towards food and shelter. It doesn't really have any meaning.
post #125 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post

You cannot make a meaningful argument that they were "cheaper" then or now only by using a price deflator/inflator that is driven by a basket of goods that is heavily weighted towards food and shelter. It doesn't really have any meaning.

Nor your sentence, really.
post #126 of 157
No sure which you are referring to. I stepped in to more reasonably complete someone else's equation that unbelragazzo had "QED'd."

However, if I wanted to judge whether SR bespoke was cheaper or more expensive now than in 1930, I would probably do so by comparing a variety of statistics.

The ratio of the price or rent of a nice english home vs. the price of the suit.

The wage of a top tier lawyer vs. the price of the suit.

The price of a meal at a top restaurant vs. the price of the suit.

The price of a first class london to new york ticket vs. the price of the suit (post WWII).

The price of a nice car vs. the price of the suit.

Assembling this kind of information would give one a better picture of whether a suit seems cheaper or more expensive. There is nothing concrete about it.
post #127 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
No sure which you are referring to. I stepped in to more reasonably complete someone else's equation that unbelragazzo had "QED'd."

However, if I wanted to judge whether SR bespoke was cheaper or more expensive now than in 1930, I would probably do so by comparing a variety of statistics.

The ratio of the price or rent of a nice english home vs. the price of the suit.

The wage of a top tier lawyer vs. the price of the suit.

The price of a meal at a top restaurant vs. the price of the suit.

The price of a first class london to new york ticket vs. the price of the suit (post WWII).

The price of a nice car vs. the price of the suit.

Assembling this kind of information would give one a better picture of whether a suit seems cheaper or more expensive. There is nothing concrete about it.

You sound like an academic, but not a good way.
post #128 of 157
a_y: this is the normal way for economists to talk about whether something has gotten cheaper or more expensive. The price deflators do periodically adjust the basket of goods that they include. It is more art than science, but is the widely used methodology.

You are free to use whatever methodology and definitions you want, but they'll take some more explanation and justification since no one else will know what you're doing at first.
post #129 of 157
It sounds like what you want to do is make kind of a rich-person-specific CPI and include a basket more like what the top 2% would buy in each era.

If your assertion is that SR hasn't gotten more expensive relative to this luxury basket, you may be right. But when economist say something got "cheaper", they mean cheaper relative to the broader basket of goods. If you don't mean that, you have to specify "cheaper relative to other luxury goods". Wage of a top lawyer would still enter only as an item in the consumption bundle. Put another way, you sti want to focus on what the top 2% are buying, not what they're earning.
post #130 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

a_y: this is the normal way for economists to talk about whether something has gotten cheaper or more expensive. The price deflators do periodically adjust the basket of goods that they include. It is more art than science, but is the widely used methodology.

You are free to use whatever methodology and definitions you want, but they'll take some more explanation and justification since no one else will know what you're doing at first.

I am well aware of that. It is a widely used methodology, mainly because it is so simple, but it is also lazy when discussing the afforability of an item because it does not account for changes in wealth or income.

add911_11: I am not an academic. I am pretty disdainful of much of what passes for academia these days. I wish there were more people like Milton Friedman around.
post #131 of 157
The issue is that "cheaper" and "more affordable" are not the same thing. Academic economists, Milton Friedman included, use precise definitions for things so that we can all understand what each other are talking about.

The original statement was a statement about the real price of SR bespoke over time, which has a precise definition. I calculated the change in real SR prices. At that point you can either say, your data is wrong, or say, "price is not the thing most relevant to the issue we're discussing, because..."

I still don't really know what point you're trying to make and how it's relevant to what we were discussing before. If your argument is that prices of other luxury goods and average incomes within the top 2% have grown at rates closer to that of the price of SR suits rather than that of the overall CPI, I am sure you're right.
post #132 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post
 

Assembling this kind of information would give one a better picture of whether a suit seems cheaper or more expensive. There is nothing concrete about it.

Not to mention the disposable income in those days of little to no income tax or sales tax as we see today.

post #133 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

The issue is that "cheaper" and "more affordable" are not the same thing. Academic economists, Milton Friedman included, use precise definitions for things so that we can all understand what each other are talking about.

The original statement was a statement about the real price of SR bespoke over time, which has a precise definition. I calculated the change in real SR prices. At that point you can either say, your data is wrong, or say, "price is not the thing most relevant to the issue we're discussing, because..."

I still don't really know what point you're trying to make and how it's relevant to what we were discussing before. If your argument is that prices of other luxury goods and average incomes within the top 2% have grown at rates closer to that of the price of SR suits rather than that of the overall CPI, I am sure you're right.

I think I was fairly precise in describing what I was doing. I was also pointing out the weaknesses of using CPI, which is also important.
post #134 of 157
You are not being precise. You seem to want to define something like "affordability or rich people" and give hints at what you might use to define it, but don't give a precise definition of it as an abstract concept or a practical definition of how to calculate it.

You argued that you can't say something is "cheaper" just by looking at its prices and CPI. I'm telling you that is the ONLY way to say if something is "cheaper" or not. That is how cheaper is defined.

You could argue that people are still buying it because they're richer. Or because substitutes in the midlife crisis market such as Porches and divorce attorneys have also become more expensive. But you cannot argue that it has gotten "cheaper".
post #135 of 157

Is the Consumer Price Index Accurate?

 

Answer Links:

 

www.bls.gov - PDF Answer

 

http://www.bls.gov/dolfaq/bls_ques6.htm

 

Results Link:  Why CPI may have errors

 

Cost of Living Extremely Well Index

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › How We Used to Dress