How We Used to Dress

[archetypal_yuppie]



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 need to look up the definition of "definition."

At time X, if A costs less than B, it is cheaper.

First, on a nitty-gritty level, CPI is an abstract/subjective formulation. There are many varying and competing proposals for how to implement CPI. Different versions have been adopted by different organizations. So off the bat you have to address the validity and scope of the CPI measure you are using.

More importantly, to say that A at time X is by definition cheaper than A at time Y, because when you adjust it by the compounded increase in price for a regularly and subjectively rebalanced basked of goods subject to various rules and adjustments, is a stretch. That's not a definition. It's just cheaper on a CPI adjusted basis. It's valid to say that something is "cheaper on a CPI adjusted basis," but the qualification is critical.

Anyway, I do understand what you're saying, but my point is that what you're saying doesn't mean much, as is often the case with oversimplified statistics. The examples I suggested provide much more context.

 

[unbelragazzo]

There are two standard ways to compare prices over time: real and nominal. Nominal in this case is ridiculous. I did real, in the way that every single economist would do if you asked him or her the question, "are SR suits cheaper now than they were in 1930?"

Every. Single. One. Probably even any decent Econ undergrad. The term is very well understood by the community that cares about these things.

If you were at a seminar and somebody put up a chart of CPI-adjusted oil prices over time and said, "as you can see, oil got cheaper in real terms" over such and such a period and you raised your hand and asked, "but what about the rise in income over that period, and the change in natural gas price, don't those mean that oil got less cheap?" He would look at you like you asked him whether sweet crude or sour crude oil is tastier.

If he instead said, "oil got more expensive in real terms, yet people kept buying more. I don't know what to make of this." And you suggested, "what about natural gas prices and incomes increasing?" Then you'd be on your way to having a productive discussion.

Anyway, this is now ridiculous and off-topic, and I've said all I have to say about it, so there's no point in going further.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]



There are two standard ways to compare prices over time: real and nominal. Nominal in this case is ridiculous. I did real, in the way that every single economist would do if you asked him or her the question, "are SR suits cheaper now than they were in 1930?"

Every. Single. One. Probably even any decent Econ undergrad. The term is very well understood by the community that cares about these things.

If you were at a seminar and somebody put up a chart of CPI-adjusted oil prices over time and said, "as you can see, oil got cheaper in real terms" over such and such a period and you raised your hand and asked, "but what about the rise in income over that period, and the change in natural gas price, don't those mean that oil got less cheap?" He would look at you like you asked him whether sweet crude or sour crude oil is tastier.

If he instead said, "oil got more expensive in real terms, yet people kept buying more. I don't know what to make of this." And you suggested, "what about natural gas prices and incomes increasing?" Then you'd be on your way to having a productive discussion.

Anyway, this is now ridiculous and off-topic, and I've said all I have to say about it, so there's no point in going further.

Haha.

This whole time I've been describing the limitations of CPI, not doubting the concept of it. Get real.

CPI is built around the basked of goods of an average consumer. SR suits are not bought by an average consumer. You have to match the product with the market. A CPI built around a basket of goods of a wealthy consumer would be a more appropriate measure. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that I don't think your method is very good.

I don't know if you fail to follow my logic or are willfully ignoring it. You say: "Every. Single. One. Probably even any decent Econ undergrad. The term is very well understood by the community that cares about these things." I'm certain you're not in a position to lecture me about these things.

 

[Claghorn]

I don't know if you fail to follow my logic or are willfully ignoring it. You say: "Every. Single. One. Probably even any decent Econ undergrad. The term is very well understood by the community that cares about these things." I'm certain you're not in a position to lecture me about these things.

I believe Unbel comes into frequent contact with econ grad and undergrad students.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]



I believe Unbel comes into frequent contact with econ grad and undergrad students.

I don't know what "frequent contact" is supposed to mean. But I did mean to object to his insinuation that I could not follow CPI. I have a substancial amount of both professional and academic experience at top institutions dealing directly with this topic.

 

[poorsod]

Because I believe Unbel is an Econ prof.

 

[unbelragazzo]

It was stupid of me to get involved in this discussion. We agree (I think) on the facts that SR prices, prices of luxury goods generally, and top 1% incomes have all risen much faster than the CPI since 1930, which are the only things that have any relevance to this thread. The discussion over the definition of "cheap" is off topic and boring. Sorry for the detour.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]

Unbelragazzo, are you an economics professor? If so, how do you make all these detours to clothing/shoe manufacturers? I guess teaching does afford a lot of time off.

 

[unbelragazzo]

Yes - but I try to keep my academic life somewhat separate from the clothing stuff I'm now doing. So as not to derail the thread any further, just PM me with ubr-specific questions.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]

I used to dress in abercrombie (HS), then polo/lacoste/sevens (college), then brooks brothers, then La Rukico, then crocket & jones, then edward green/G&G, then a little bespoke, then paul stuart & corneliani, then loro piana and cruciani. Thread back on track.

 

[David Copeland]

I don't know what "frequent contact" is supposed to mean. But I did mean to object to his insinuation that I could not follow CPI. I have a substancial amount of both professional and academic experience at top institutions dealing directly with this topic.

Very good.

I was wondering what you background has been - but . . .



I had a hard time getting past your photo.

(Perhaps you could experiment with another choice) LOL

 

[CrimsonSox]

Here's an interesting way to see the difference in dress today compared to years past. It's a color image from Indiana University's Cushman photography collection, taken of a London crowd watching a street performer in 1961. Thanks to bmulford for originally posting the link to the Cushman collection (click photos to enlarge):



Here's a crowd in London today:



The contrast is even more striking, looking at a photo from London in 1914:



Dress became more casual after World War 1. Think of the switch from stiff, starched collars to soft collars; fitted frock coats to draped lounge suits; tailcoats to tuxedos. It became more casual still after World War 2, and then again in the late 1960s. I often wish I could go back and browse the shops from times past.

The Cushman collection has some beautiful photos. Here's a wedding from 1942. For more, see: http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/cushman/index.jsp:

 

[JLibourel]

Getting back to the matter of pants and pantsuits on women, I can recall not too many years back when Esther Williams arrived at a charity event at the Los Angeles Country Club. The old "Million Dollar Mermaid" was barred admission to the event because she was wearing a fashionable pantsuit. The rules of the club strictly forbade women in pants, and so she was sent packing. People were furious about this, and there was quite a public outcry over it. Of course, I was totally in favor of the Country Club--"Nice to see some people maintaining traditional standards," thought I. I wonder if they still have that policy in force.

Update: Just looked into this matter more. I said above "not too many years back"--turns out it was 1991! This happens to you as you get old. She was also the Guest of Honor at the charitable event!

I also see that she just croaked in June at age 91. Seems like everyone is living into their 90s these days, a most daunting prospect!

 

[comrade]



This is heading towards middle/upper class stuff IMO. How many people in the UK have ever heard of "Bookster"? Maybe the British Royal family, a few celebs, and some members of an internet forum? I only know about them, because I'm a member of this forum and also "Ask Andy About Clothes". The rest of the population is wearing the skinny and cropped polyester **** they bought from Topman, Burton, Brooks, Debenhams, Gap, etc.

...which kind of brings me to the other threak...
http://www.styleforum.net/t/354283/what-has-been-the-worst-era-for-mens-suits/105#post_6499719

Bookster- The British Royal family? Celebs?. Not likely. Bookster was a middle market OTR and MTM operation
which catered to those in the UK and elsewhere who wanted affordable "Country Clothes" I thought the stuff looked
like a stiff and poorly cut version of a venerable style. Compare Hackett, and Pakeman Catto for similar better designed
traditional British clothing. And for the high end aficionado of that style, there is Holland & Holland and its' ilk:

http://www.hollandandholland.com/product_single.php?i=308&m=mens

 

[archetypal_yuppie]



Very good. I was wondering what you background has been - but . . . I had a hard time getting past your photo. (Perhaps you could experiment with another choice) LOL

Do people think that the photo is of me? Ha. It's someone's mugshot that I think is funny. It's better in a bigger size.