How Americans Spend Their Money on Clothes

[Thurston]

A few random thoughts.

I was heavily into watches before that passion suddenly and unexpectedly left me. Buying shoes and clothing of comparable quality to the watches I was buying (Sutor, C&J, Barbera) is actually a less expensive pursuit. Of course watches have much higher resale value....

I'm amazed at the activity in Neiman's shoe department. The Lobbs, Sutors, Barker Blacks and Ferragamos go relatively unnoticed while the Gucci, Prada, et cie, especially their sneakers, are being tried on and purchased every time I'm there.

I grew up in Philadelphia but was educated at Main Line schools (I assume most American posters are familiar with the term - old money, WASPish, similar to old Greenwich). As an outsider I can tell you that the norm was to buy very good clothing and then wear it until it was threadbare. That thrifty mentality has a few holdouts but many, many people have migrated to the disposable clothing mentality, especially regarding shoes. Joseph Bank (where I happily shop myself) is now considered high-end by many.

Where is the spending going? With the people I know it goes toward country club memberships, second homes, vacations and boats. I know quite a few people who had the benefit (IMO) of quality private education who are unwilling to provide that for their children so that they can afford a vacation home. Lasting quality has been sacrificed for current gratification. I believe that it is closely related to the 'the world owes me' mentality: I should be able to wear what I want, when I want, where I want; my comfort comes first; why should I save for tomorrow, I want to live today; etc.

Just my opinion, and probably worth what you paid for it.

 

[lithium180]

To get back to the original post, I bet that a deeper breakdown of spending on apparel in households earning over 150k (also, keep in mind that this is total HOUSEHOLD earnings) might reveal greater disparities in spending behaviors across the upper class range as would a breakdown of spending behaviors of the upper class in urban v rural or suburban communities.

I'm not sure if this single statistic is enough to really draw inferences about overall social dress behaviors from, particularly among the affluent. Just saying, some here have used this rather nebulous original figure as a springboard to sound off on our own preexisting notions, notions which are of course expected from a sub group of clothes enthusiasts.

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by trajan

Third, culturally it's considered unmanly to care too much about clothes.

This is really a phenomenon of the last few decades. At my prep school, which was really a very rugged, brutal, hyper-masculine environment back in those days (the 1950s), there was a lot of attention paid to clothing and shoes. Even in the '70s, although the prevailing fashions were egregious by classic standards of good taste, a lot of attention was paid to dress--consider John Travolta's white suit in "Saturday Night Fever."

Certainly past icons of American masculinity had no aversion to dressing well. John Wayne bought Brioni bespoke. Buffalo Bill (who was a lot more than just a showman--he had won the Congressional Medal of Honor for a feat during the Indian Wars) was a customer of Henry Poole.

 

[Sator]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

This is really a phenomenon of the last few decades.

Is it little coincidence that it in precisely those decades that women's "designers" have started to encroach into menswear? In the past, the Coco Chanels of the world designed for women and kept put. Now the women's designers (Armani, Versace, Prada etc) all want to dictate how men should dress. Nor is it any surprise that these same "designers" are the ones we all love to hate here? Generally speaking, if you buy from a women's maker you will end up dressed like one.

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by Sator

Is it little coincidence that it in precisely those decades that women's "designers" have started to encroach into menswear? In the past, the Coco Chanels of the world designed for women and kept put. Now the women's designers (Armani, Versace, Prada etc) all want to dictate how men should dress. Nor is it any surprise that these same "designers" are the ones we all love to hate here? Generally speaking, if you buy from a women's maker you will end up dressed like one.

An interesting point. A trend I was perhaps oblivious to, not owning so much as a single pocket square from any of the aforementioned designers.

I am rather of the opinion that a gentleman (in collaboration with his tailor) should be his own "designer."

 

[FidelCashflow]

Originally Posted by Sator

You get these sob stories from the same BMW owners etc complaining they can't afford it because the children's school tuition fees are too high, interest rates are too high blah blah.
Tuition? Mortgages? Jackasses. Can't they see their lives are not complete without a pair of John Lobb shoes!

Some people don't care about clothes. You make it sound as if it makes them dumber than everyone here. It's pretty easy to make the argument the average person will get much more enjoyment out of a plasma TV or BMW than a pair of bespoke shoes.

 

[Dewey]

nm

 

[FidelCashflow]

Originally Posted by Dewey

Now c'mon, I did not say or imply any such thing. It's like you aren't reading what I write. Rather than see this degenerate into a tit-for-tat, let's agree to disagree: you think I'm a jackass, and I'm cool with that though I don't think it's fair.
OK, I can believe that you didn't intend it to come off that way. I looked at the OP again, and it was just those few lines I originally quoted that jumped out at me. Maybe I misread it, but on first read that's how it looked to me. In the spirit of understanding, I will remove my remark.

 

[J'aimelescravates]

Most markets and households have been hit rather hard the past couple years as oil prices continue to inflate. Except for a select core of consumers, that has greatly impacted average household's discretionary income. While that in no way explains those graph figures completely, I do think it is an important point to take in to account.

 

[Dewey]

I would outline the OP this way: (1) the average man in this country spends what most of us would consider very little on his "apparel & services," according to that data. i was pretty stunned to dig that information about of that graph. i quickly came to two realizations, which may or may not have been strange leaps of logic, (2) this helps to explain why people dress so poorly at work, even in well-paying professional workplaces, and (3) this helps to explain why people so often report being uncomfortable and the butt of jokes when they outdress (and significantly outspend) their colleagues.

Maybe it is nuts to assume that people mock the well-dressed because they do want to think about the expense involved in improving their own attire. Or maybe not.

I've always wondered why it is that now - like JLibourel I don't think this has always been the case - there is such downward pressure on American men to dress to the level of the slovenly. Isn't it a contribution to the workplace, to take care with your appearance? Why is this not universally approved? Of course some are appreciated, but all the time it seems I read stories about guys who feel otherwise--who sense that they are somehow posing a threat to their co-workers if they don't come to work looking like a slob.

 

[FidelCashflow]

Originally Posted by Dewey

(3) this helps to explain why people so often report being uncomfortable and the butt of jokes when they outdress (and significantly outspend) their colleagues.

Maybe it is nuts to assume that people mock the well-dressed because they do want to think about the expense involved in improving their own attire. Or maybe not.

I've always wondered why it is that now - like JLibourel I don't think this has always been the case - there is such downward pressure on American men to dress to the level of the slovenly. Isn't it a contribution to the workplace, to take care with your appearance? Why is this not universally approved? Of course some are appreciated, but all the time it seems I read stories about guys who feel otherwise--who sense that they are somehow posing a threat to their co-workers if they don't come to work looking like a slob.

Sometimes they come off looking sharp, sometimes they come off looking like they're desperate for attention and trying too hard to be conspicuously different. I will readily admit I have veered into the latter category a few times in the past. Most of the posts I've read about people feeling put down for their clothes started with the person dressing up expecting people to heap praises on them because they wore a suit. If someone thinks that wearing a suit is doing a public service or making them a better worker, they need to re-examine their priorities.

Part of being well-dressed is being dressed according to the context of the environment around you (including the people around you.) You're only as well-dressed as people perceive you to be, so their perceptions count even if you think they're slobs.

I don't see why this conflation of spending more money on clothes and being more stylish comes from. the most stylish person I know buys his clothes at Zara, and looks sharper than anyone I've seen here (including me.)

I think its just as shallow to expect people to notice and admire your new bespoke shoes as it is to wear a t-shirt with a giant VERSACE logo across the front for attention. But at least the person who does the latter is more straight-forward about it, and that's why they typically get better results.

I don't think many co-workers are "threatened" by the guy who comes to the office overdressed. I think that's a self-serving interpretation by the overdressed guy to shelter a precious ego that needs to be propped up by compliments from co-workers on their clothes.

I like wearing nice clothes because I like wearing them even if no one else notices, which 98% of the time they don't. 1% of the time I might be a remark here or there which may be interpreted as a slight. 1% of the time it's a compliment, which is a nice bonus.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

This is really a phenomenon of the last few decades. At my prep school, which was really a very rugged, brutal, hyper-masculine environment back in those days (the 1950s), there was a lot of attention paid to clothing and shoes. Even in the '70s, although the prevailing fashions were egregious by classic standards of good taste, a lot of attention was paid to dress--consider John Travolta's white suit in "Saturday Night Fever."

Certainly past icons of American masculinity had no aversion to dressing well. John Wayne bought Brioni bespoke. Buffalo Bill (who was a lot more than just a showman--he had won the Congressional Medal of Honor for a feat during the Indian Wars) was a customer of Henry Poole.

And then consider that General MacArthur traveled with a makeup artist as part of his wartime retinue. While one can attribute that to personal standards, it does shed an interesting aspect to male vanity in the older days.

 

[JLibourel]

I'll have to say that I dress far, far better than any of the men I work with, including the president of the company. However, I haven't experienced any resentment or hostility, except possibly from one fellow, now long gone, who was almost universally hated for his sullen churlishness.

 

[Dewey]

Fidel, your scenario is so exaggerated. I was under the impression that people were getting razzed for merely wearing a sportcoat with no tie -- or for not wearing jeans to work -- and that this was pretty commonplace. Perhaps this is not true. I am fortunate enough to have a job where I can wear whatever I want, so this is something I have read about more than I have experienced.

And while I admire your readiness to defend the average person, I don't think a defense is necessary. I'm not attacking anyone. As I said before, I'm not one to make political arguments about such things, and I do not believe that there is anything we could do to elevate the general style. We are coming along for the ride.

I keep close tabs on my money, recording every purchase in a spreadsheet, and I've long been interested in the history of family budgeting and general benchmarks or rules of thumb for matters such as how much house you should buy, how much you should set aside for car repairs, etc., and to me it's stunning that the average man, the guy who lives with a household income of $45K, apparently spends no more than $60 per month on "apparel and services." That's truly not a lot of money.

That's about a 1/3 of what it was, 100 years ago, and people can get more for their money these days with all the imported clothing from countries with very low labor costs. Yet if you were to say 4% or 5%, this does not have the impact for me as more tangible numbers like $60 per month or $120 per month.

No one expects "bespoke shoes" on anyone, but even a lesser level -- wool pants, nice sweaters, dress shirts, good shoes -- would be out of reach for someone who spends $60 a month and spends that money first on sneakers, blue jeans, and sports-themed athletic wear.

We could be disapproving of people's spending choices. Most spend far more on a car, for example, than I think wise. And deluxe cable TV packages, enormous outdoor grills, enormous televisions -- while I would not purchase these things before a basic Lands Ends-ish business casual wardrobe -- people do and that's just the way it is.

So for me it's easy enough to imagine how someone in the habit of spending $60 per month on clothes would revolt at the thought of spending $400 on a suit or $100 on a pair of good wool pants.

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by Sator

Is it little coincidence that it in precisely those decades that women's "designers" have started to encroach into menswear? In the past, the Coco Chanels of the world designed for women and kept put. Now the women's designers (Armani, Versace, Prada etc) all want to dictate how men should dress. Nor is it any surprise that these same "designers" are the ones we all love to hate here? Generally speaking, if you buy from a women's maker you will end up dressed like one.

Armani is regarded as a menswear designer before women's.