what can you "afford" to spend?

[Nicola]

If you buy one pair of 1K shoes a year it's less then $20 a week. Most smokers spend more then that and end up with medical bills.

 

[The Louche]

Originally Posted by in fits of print

A week's pay after taxes sounds like about the most I ever spend on clothes in a given month. I'm in an entry-level position though, and there's no reason to think that my clothing budget will increase in direct relation to my salary.

The first reason is that by the time someone is making 100k a year, chances are they have a pretty decent wardrobe already, and that a person's appetite for clothing isn't (or at least shouldn't be) infinite.

The second is that past a certain point, the money you spend on a given item brings diminishing returns. A $10,000 suit is not ten times as good as a $1,000 suit. A person needs to get exponentionally, not proportionally, richer to justify that kind of extravagance.

I agree with all of this. I have been out of school, working for about 5 years now. I'll spend a week's salary on a suit or topcoat, but that's where I draw the line. And I've only done this 6-7 times in the past few years. For shoes, a day's wage will get me a pair of AEs and that's fine with me - I don't need shoes fancier than that. But then, I like suits more than shoes. Surely plenty others here like shoes more than suits. And so on.

This topic is silly, though. "Afford-ability" is all so relative. Can a dead-beat homeless crack head with a shattered life, huge debts, and zero assets afford crack? LOL. But they go ahead buying it anyhow. Somehow.

If you like something badly enough to sacrifice other things, you'll find a way to obtain it.

 

[The Louche]

Originally Posted by dhaller

I'd be willing to bet that if you surveyed people who buy $1000 shoes, they're more likely to make $60,000/year than $200,000/year.

DH

LOL. Yep. This too. VERY good point.

 

[phxlawstudent]

Well, the person making $100k a year can certainly afford one pair of $1k shoes per year, thats only 1% of his yearly gross income. You don't buy shoes every day. Nor should you buy new clothing every day. I would even go so far to say that you don't ***have to*** buy new clothing every year. Maybe every other year as clothes gets worn down, depending on the clothing item. Suits can last many years, but shirts have been known to go bad pretty quick, relative to suits and shoes. Afford to me is what your comfortable with losing. Or at least comfortable parting with in exchange for X amount of gratification with the item your purchasing.

 

[phxlawstudent]

Originally Posted by dhaller

I'd be willing to bet that if you surveyed people who buy $1000 shoes, they're more likely to make $60,000/year than $200,000/year.

DH

I'd like to see the results of that poll. You can even do one here.

 

[Brian_I]

A few years ago, "afford" equaled "want". If I wanted it bad enough, it went on credit.

Now that I'm older and wiser, if I want something bad enough, I have to save up here and there and then I'll buy it. It really has nothing to do with my income.

 

[makewayhomer]

Originally Posted by dhaller

I'd be willing to bet that if you surveyed people who buy $1000 shoes, they're more likely to make $60,000/year than $200,000/year.

DH

I understand the sentiment here, and the reasoning, but I would bet your wrong

 

[dynabro]

I can afford to buy a Lambhorgini... but do I? No, I drive my crappy toyota. Same thing with shoes and clothes. Do I need bespoke? Haven't up until now..

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

Racing cars tought me this well, spending habits have surprisingly little to do with income.

I figured that out the day I met a guy who raced Alcohol funny cars and worked as a maintainance person. He took out a mortgage on his house to do it, I dont believe he still has his house. And another who raced a heads up classed called Quick 8 and could barely pay his bills. Truck trailer and race car were nearly 500k.

I also raced with guys who were very capable of affording their hobbies and still maintained inexpensive racing classes, because they were happy and they realized it was just as much fun to do the 1/4 mile in 10 seconds as it was to do it in 8 seconds after the initial thrill wore off...but doing it in 8 seconds cost quite a bit more.

Clothing is similar, we're enthusiasts so some of us might sacrifice a little to enjoy their clothes., others are probably pretty well capable of affording it.

 

[__PG__]

I'm on a public servants salary currently supporting my family (wife isn't working as we've just had #2 child).

Therefore, I really can't afford to spend anything.

I survive by searching factory and importer/distributer stores (and sales).

 

[in fits of print]

Originally Posted by Wrigglez

i also live at home, so overheads are very little, i have no family to support. i save and i dont go out drinking very often (you'd be surprised how much you save when you dont drink!)

Originally Posted by TheWGP

That said, I think there's nothing unreasonable about what he's doing - if he's not going into debt, saving, say, his Christmas money along with whatever he can per month, and so on, it seems pretty likely he could amass that much. Lots of kids do it for cars or computers, no reason for clothing to be any different if that happens to be your particular hobby. And yes, it's amazing how much you save when you don't drink! Noticed that markedly when I went to law school and more or less cut back on drinking.

I don't question whether it's possible, only whether it's wise. Some reasons:

A reasonably resourceful college student could find a $600 pair of shoes for $300 and be better dressed in that regard than 99% of his peers. And maybe he's part of a clique of hyper-well-dressed collegiates, but it isn't likely, and I've never seen the fun in being far better dressed than the people I'm hanging out with.

A student's tastes should, hopefully, still be in the process of development, which can undermine the advantages of buying shoes that will last a lifetime. I think the extra $700 a month, to use my earlier example, could be much better spent traveling, exploring, gaining experience and culture, that sort of thing. College is about improving yourself in non-material ways, after all. I'd never argue that a student doesn't need to be well-dressed, only that he doesn't need to be extremely well-dressed, especially when it comes at the expense of things that will be more valuable in the long run.

That said, I don't really know the details here, such as his age, what type of school, etc., and I'll grant that "insane" was unwarranted. I'll back it off to "highly questionable".

 

[bowtielover]

I define afforid by being able to perchase something and pay it off at once or be able to pay it off once the bill comes in. Lik when I go clothes shopping I try and use cash, and if I use my visa I never buy more then I will be able to pay off once the bill comes around.

 

[sho'nuff]

Yeah. Affordable to me is to pick something up at a certain cost, keep it for awhile, and then change my mind and flip it at lower than cost and not really be emotionally damaged by it. Stupid though? Yes. But I have no other way to appease my curiosities other than this way.

 

[in fits of print]

Originally Posted by bowtielover

I define afforid by being able to perchase something and pay it off at once or be able to pay it off once the bill comes in. Lik when I go clothes shopping I try and use cash, and if I use my visa I never buy more then I will be able to pay off once the bill comes around.

This is literally the definition of the word "afford". I don't think that's what's under discussion here.

 

[TheWGP]

Originally Posted by in fits of print

I don't question whether it's possible, only whether it's wise. Some reasons:

A reasonably resourceful college student could find a $600 pair of shoes for $300 and be better dressed in that regard than 99% of his peers. And maybe he's part of a clique of hyper-well-dressed collegiates, but it isn't likely, and I've never seen the fun in being far better dressed than the people I'm hanging out with.

A student's tastes should, hopefully, still be in the process of development, which can undermine the advantages of buying shoes that will last a lifetime. I think the extra $700 a month, to use my earlier example, could be much better spent traveling, exploring, gaining experience and culture, that sort of thing. College is about improving yourself in non-material ways, after all. I'd never argue that a student doesn't need to be well-dressed, only that he doesn't need to be extremely well-dressed, especially when it comes at the expense of things that will be more valuable in the long run.

That said, I don't really know the details here, such as his age, what type of school, etc., and I'll grant that "insane" was unwarranted. I'll back it off to "highly questionable".

Your points are well taken, particularly with regard to his social group. I guess my infuriating response to that would be the old saw "dress for yourself, not for everyone else!"

As for "better things to spend his money on" sure, there are arguably better things he could do - but also far worse things he could be spending it on - beer, blow and bimbos?

I guess I have a hard time saying much negative about someone else's choices as long as they aren't endangering themselves or other.

That said, It IS very likely (near certain) that he'll have some expensive lessons in taste, and I personally wouldn't go to the expense he is (Aldens are my max for now, and I'm about to graduate law school so I NEED to dress well), but I'm not sure we should be so quick to judge. I know I spent money on some pretty dang stupid things, particularly as a freshman, which I guess is informing my opinion more than it should. I don't think we're disagreeing, per se - just differing in the severity of our questions for his spending. Sound fair?