what can you "afford" to spend?

[archetypal_yuppie]

Originally Posted by in fits of print

It's not much, but $225 a month, spent well, can get you pretty far over the course of 2 or three years. Hell, this guy manages to come up with amazing $5-$15 dollar finds on a weekly basis. But then, I have an image of Boston as some sort of thrifter's paradise.

If you have to wear suits to work, $225/month gets you nowhere unless you have infinity hours to blow going through leftover crap at sales, or are OK with buying low quality. No thanks.

It might satisfy a yearly suit purchase, but what about shoes, socks, shirts, undershirts/wear, ties, overcoat, belt/links? And oh yeah, everything else you wear on weekends/athletic/nighttime?

Forget building up a wardrobe, $225/mo won't maintain an already complete wardrobe unless you're one of the thrifter types (creepy!).

As far as the affordability argument, any spending that allows you to save income at your desired rate, debt free, should be called affordable in my book. Let people weigh their preferences themselves... I know people making less than $100K that own boats!

 

[RSS]

If you can buy something and still have sufficient money left for everything you need (as opposed to want) ... then you can afford it. However, if buying something means that you must do without something you need ... then you can't afford it.

I'm happiest when 30% or more of my income goes into investments ... then after buying everything I need ... what is left affords me the opportunity to buy those things I want.

I'm sure there is an easier way to say that ... but I'm short on time.

 

[in fits of print]

Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie

If you have to wear suits to work, $225/month gets you nowhere unless you have infinity hours to blow going through leftover crap at sales, or are OK with buying low quality. No thanks. It might satisfy a yearly suit purchase, but what about shoes, socks, shirts, undershirts/wear, ties, overcoat, belt/links? And oh yeah, everything else you wear on weekends/athletic/nighttime? Forget building up a wardrobe, $225/mo won't maintain an already complete wardrobe unless you're one of the thrifter types (creepy!).
I'm guessing that a job which results in $225 a month being the "vast majority" of a person's disposable income isn't one that requires him to wear a suit every day. And checking out a sale or two every week does not require "infinity hours", it just takes the patience to wait for good ones and get there early, and the foresight to buy out of season. Personally I don't see the problem with wearing high-quality, good-condition secondhand clothes, but a person with some neurosis designating them unkosher can forgo the practice if they put more work into spotting bargains. If you consider paying full retail prices for top-quality brands the only acceptable way of acquiring clothing, then yes, you are going to have to spend a lot of money. Being well-dressed doesn't cost fortune. Being a snob, on the other hand, does.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]

I'd guess that the majority of people are not of the thrifter variety, and thus not being a thrifter does not necessarily make one a snob.

I don't think a distaste for used items or wasting hours that I consider more productively spent on other things than finding bargains is snobby either. Used is a potential can of worms I prefer to avoid (hygene? wear and tear?), and I choose to use my time on other things than sale-hunting - like most men.

The only point I'm trying to make is that most people cannot practically achieve well-dressedness on $225/mo. And that is borne out by what I see in day-to-day life; that is, poorly dressed people.

 

[cross22]

Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH

I've never paid a penny in interest in my life and I have a practically perfect credit rating. I just charge everything I possibly can and then pay it off when I get the bill. Builds credit sans interest. Simple.
If you have great credit you can do better than that, you can easily get 2-5% cash back on all your purchases.

 

[Blackhood]

I define "afford" as more of an outcome than a starting point.

If my cost per wear for any garment goes over about £3, or my ware ratio is less than 3:30 days I consider it too expensive for impulse buying. For long term purchases I would say I need to wear a garment more than 6in 365 days (Such as dinner jacket) to be worth it.

I'm a uni student at the moment, and live off a part time salary of about £150 per week. I'd say that about £70 a week goes on clothes!

My only issue with my system is that spending £300 on denim is still acceptable, which seems to be hurting my plans for becoming a millionaire!

 

[in fits of print]

Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie

I'd guess that the majority of people are not of the thrifter variety, and thus not being a thrifter does not necessarily make one a snob. I don't think a distaste for used items or wasting hours that I consider more productively spent on other things than finding bargains is snobby either. Used is a potential can of worms I prefer to avoid (hygene? wear and tear?), and I choose to use my time on other things than sale-hunting - like most men. The only point I'm trying to make is that most people cannot practically achieve well-dressedness on $225/mo. And that is borne out by what I see in day-to-day life; that is, poorly dressed people.
Buying a jacket that is on sale doesn't necessarily consume more hours than buying one that isn't. But regardless of that, the majority of people are poorly dressed because they don't care to be, not because they don't have time--the average American watches, what, 7 hours of TV a day?--or can't afford it, as evidenced by all the people who do manage to look good on a tight budget. This is presumably a forum for people who are not part of that majority, and do care about clothing and style--if you consider those things unworthy a little extra time and effort, then why have you bothered to make 350 posts here instead of doing something more productive? And isn't it important to make the best use of your money, as well as your time? You can get a lot more done in your free hours if you've got something to spend during them.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]

^ This isn't personal....

Buying a jacket on sale is great. Wanting a jacket and then waiting 'til it goes on sale is an entirely different matter.

At no point did I imply that anyone here was 'typical,' including myself.

As far as my posts/time, do you think I'm posting against my will? Of course not. Do you think I'm not thrifting, even though I want to? Of course not. What I prefer to do with my time is for me to decide, not you. And it does not include thrifting. Relax...

 

[Politely]

Cost of living can make a big difference, eg, $60k in Brooklyn is about $39k in Portland, according to this calculator. However, I don't think that's necessarily tied to what you're willing to spend on clothes or shoes since everyone has a different economic situation and different priorities. That said, I think I'd draw the line at borrowing money, and paying interest, to buy luxury items that begin depreciating as soon as you touch them. I understand the temptation, but that's one thing I haven't been able to rationalize.

 

[binge]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

You can read it online, but that seems to be paradoxical.

 

[glenjay]

I'm not sure how a conversation on affordability can be had without factoring in value. To me value is defined by quality (of materials and craftmanship), longevity, and intended purpose.

Even the wealthy consider value when purchasing. The rich became rich because they know the value of a dollar (unless you are a parvenu [new word in my lexicon]).

I rarely pay full retail for any of my clothes, or shoes for that matter. I never buy used, and I would not consider myself a thrifter. I have purchased new items from eBay and from this forum's B&S section, but not because I was looking for a cheap price, but rather, I saw something I really liked AND it was well below retail. I also tend to buy my clothes on off-season sales, and through STP now and then if I see something really nice.

My job requires 12+ hours a day of my time so I don't have time to do a lot of sales research, but my wardrobe is robust enough that I don't "need" to buy clothes (or shoes) very often. So I only buy things that I really like, and usually when they are on sale.

I'm not cheap however. I am buying bespoke shoes, but I have the benifit of living within 20 miles of a skilled craftsman, that can personally measure all aspects of my feet, and even allow me a second sitting to assure the quality of the fit. If I had to fly to Northampton for the same service I probably wouldn't have.

I would also have to admit that there is no way I could keep my wardrobe in the condition I like for $225 a month, but mostly because I buy $1200 shoes for $700, and $2000 suits for $900.

 

[team3d]

Originally Posted by makewayhomer

from another thread:



I've always wondered how people define "afford" in the context of a statement like "only buy what you can afford".

off the cuff, 1 week of salary after taxes, seems like a lot for a purchase of shoes (that was the context of the above)

that means somebody making $100k a year can afford $1,000 shoes. in a strict sense that is probably true, but my guess is that the average salary of someone spending $1k on shoes is more likely to be making $200k+

of course other variables play in to this. some people like food, others cars, others random expensive hobby X, and all of this needs to be budgeted in to total annual spend.

but if you could generalize, how do you define "afford". what % of your salary do you think is about right to spend on shoes, shirts, suits, watches, etc?

(it's not my intent at all to figure out what people make, and I don't want this thread to become that)

10%

 

[in fits of print]

Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie

^ This isn't personal....

Buying a jacket on sale is great. Wanting a jacket and then waiting 'til it goes on sale is an entirely different matter.

At no point did I imply that anyone here was 'typical,' including myself.

As far as my posts/time, do you think I'm posting against my will? Of course not. Do you think I'm not thrifting, even though I want to? Of course not. What I prefer to do with my time is for me to decide, not you. And it does not include thrifting. Relax...

Really, my only point is I disagree with the idea that if someone like cheyrou over there can only spend a couple hundred dollars a month on clothes then it's impossible for him to dress well and he needn't try.

 

[DWFII]

As GlenJay suggested, value is a critical factor in determining if something is affordable. But value has to be indexed to something more than brand name or opportunity. I think it has to be indexed to quality. A person can surround himself with rooms and rooms full of things bought at bargain prices but which are objectively poor quality. One step removed from the landfill. For instance, Walmart markets shirts...some are, ostensibly, dress shirts. And these shirts are styled after shirts that are flagship products for leading manufacturers of men's clothing. Superficially, they are not significantly different than, say, a Brooks Brothers shirt. This is a phenomenon...strategy...that pervades every level of manufacturing and marketing in western cultures. Even high end products...shoes, for example...are often emulating some other product or standard (aesthetic or less often, technical), often without really achieving an objectively comparable level of quality or value. Is a Walmart shirt affordable? Is there "value" there? One is tempted to say "it's all relative" or "it's all personal perception."And that's fine as far as it goes. But I think that quality...and thereby "value"...is an objective attribute. Perhaps there are some gradations of quality especially in the most mundane sense of the word--"good, better, best." But no one can see, much less evaluate, those distinctions without some sense of what quality is and what it encompasses...historically, technically and aesthetically...as applied to any given product. Quality creates value. And value is at the heart of affordability, simply because surrounding yourself with cheap goods...valueless goods...is nearly the definition of throwing your money down the toilet. Buying cheap and getting less than what you need...or, more to the point, expect...makes everything you buy overpriced. Un-affordable, finally. A couple of weeks ago, I posted a little study comparing some common (perhaps even mundane) products with products that might be considered high end. Each of the "affordable" products attempts to beguile the senses, and the consumer, into thinking that they are getting something similar to the higher end, higher priced, product. But of course any side by side comparison immediately reveals that nothing could be further from the truth. Yet if sales and ubiquity are any indication most people think that the high end goods are overpriced. For me, the lesson is that any focus on price ultimately reduces everything to the lowest common denominator...if not absurdity (just as it does in the factory). At some level experiencing the best...even if only on an occasional basis...is a far better course and, in the final analysis, more affordable than surrounding ourselves with piles (and closets) of middling.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

Do you make any sacrifices in your life?

How do you acheive those decisions?

high end goods are geared toward niche markets, and while they do go on sale, not all of them do. I rarely see staples on sale, even those far out of my price range.

I dont like to make the good the enemy of the great, so I spend depending on a couple things. Staple items I'll spend more because I plan to own them for a longer period of time, while seasonal clothing I'll spend less by waiting for sales or finding a quality level that makes me happy but allows me to afford some variety. Most of it will be worn alot so it needs to be made of good quality, but not soo much so that I cant afford a full rotation.