Net worth before you can "afford" $500 shoes?

Originally Posted by Loathing

Click to expand...

^^^ Those words are unfortunately undermined by the grammatically incorrect full stop.
Well I did say "some degree". I am a shoemaker not an English professor. I am not even all that well read...I've never read Jane Austen, for instance. So please detail my mistake so that I may avoid repeating it.

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

Click to expand...

Delighted by the new sweet chili McNugget sauce.
[Smack, Smack] That sounds like dinner.

Originally Posted by Loathing

Click to expand...

^^^ Those words are unfortunately undermined by the grammatically incorrect full stop.
Oh! I get it...the period after the "aforethought". I have never gotten that straight in my head...until now. Thanks.

People who have these kind of standards for inanimate objects are merely trying to stroke their own ego.

It's just shoes man. If you like it and can afford it, you buy it. It's pretty damn simple.

To guys, $500 for shoes might appear to be a lot of money but for a chick, that's a ****** handbag.

It's not that much for a pair of shoes, let's be reasonable we're on the styleforum here not the hardware forum or something ridiculous like that.

I think income is a better indicator of whether or not you can "afford" $500 shoes than the OP makes it out to be. Income reflects somewhat whether or not $500 shoes will pay you back some as an asset, since a 40K job isn't likely to be one where a $500 loafer would fit well while anything even over $80K I'd say it's a good deal and not something that should affect you financially.

If affording a $500 shoe is even a question, then you're probably not managing your finances correctly tbh.

Originally Posted by DWFII

Click to expand...

Oh! I get it...the period after the "aforethought". I have never gotten that straight in my head...until now.

Thanks.

Haha, I'm sorry for having been so petty. It is really an insignificant detail. But, at the age of 12 I was beaten up rather badly by an older boy at school for making that very same error whilst doing his homework. British boarding schools . I can thank him though, because I'll never make a grammatical mistake again.

Originally Posted by SirGrotius

Click to expand...

It's not that much for a pair of shoes, let's be reasonable we're on the styleforum here not the hardware forum or something ridiculous like that.

I think income is a better indicator of whether or not you can "afford" $500 shoes than the OP makes it out to be. Income reflects somewhat whether or not $500 shoes will pay you back some as an asset, since a 40K job isn't likely to be one where a $500 loafer would fit well while anything even over $80K I'd say it's a good deal and not something that should affect you financially.

If affording a $500 shoe is even a question, then you're probably not managing your finances correctly tbh.

Honestly, if a guy working a 40K job wears a $500 pair of shoes, it's not neccessarily a bad thing since he's abiding by the "dress for the position you want to have" rule.

The guy might be interfacing with a lot of 80K folks so if he does wear the $500 shoes, I think it's a positive thing since he's representing the company in a better light.

Originally Posted by Loathing

Click to expand...

Haha, I'm sorry for having been so petty. It is really an insignificant detail. But, at the age of 12 I was beaten up rather badly by an older boy at school for making that very same error whilst doing his homework. British boarding schools

. I can thank him though, because I'll never make a grammatical mistake again.

Really...no problem. My thanks were sincere.

Assuming you have no children:

Yearly income of $150K.

Net worth would vary by age. Just out of college, not much. At retirement (and/or time of inheritance), $3M+.

For each child, add .5 of the numbers posted.

Until this point, I suggest AE seconds.

Originally Posted by viator

Click to expand...

When you can wear them without fear of ruining them.
This is indeed the answer for being able to afford anything. If one worries about ruining something, one can't afford it.

Dumb question. It would be less dumb if reevolving didn't try throw financy terms around to make it sound smart, but since he did he is expected to know marketing 101 and the concept of 'value'. And this 'value' is why a broad on minimum wage bust her own ass and go knee deep in debt getting a $2000 handbag. This value is also why some people would pay $2000 for a suit but wouldn't pay more than $100 for a pair of jeans.

I'm planning to purchase a pair of $500 shoes next year from Reevolving, and would presumably finance the acquisition through some combination of cash, debt, and equity sale or transfer.

Reevolving's cash on hand is approximately $500, and let's assume mine is $100. I'm uncertain about the future, and particularly, about how the Fed's actions might affect my borrowing costs in the coming year. Furthermore, I've got a coming B&S sale in three months, and I am trying to sell $200 worth of merchandise in said sale; I'm estimating that I have about a 50% chance of achieving 100% sell-through of all inventory. Inventory unsold at this sale will be held in storage at a cost to me of $25 per month for the full lot (so we can consider this a fixed $25 monthly fee, with no marginal cost associated with n+1 items versus n items in storage). All inventory was stolen in the first place (from SpooPoker), and as such, there is no COGS to worry about.

Please advise.

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

I'm planning to purchase a pair of $500 shoes next year from Reevolving, and would presumably finance the acquisition through some combination of cash, debt, and equity sale or transfer.

Reevolving's cash on hand is approximately $500, and let's assume mine is $100. I'm uncertain about the future, and particularly, about how the Fed's actions might affect my borrowing costs in the coming year. Furthermore, I've got a coming B&S sale in three months, and I am trying to sell $200 worth of merchandise in said sale; I'm estimating that I have about a 50% chance of achieving 100% sell-through of all inventory. Inventory unsold at this sale will be held in storage at a cost to me of $25 per month for the full lot (so we can consider this a fixed $25 monthly fee, with no marginal cost associated with n+1 items verus n items in storage).

Please advise.

You should use your $100 to buy a 20% equity stake in Reevolving's $500 shoes immediately, to get your foot in the door, so to speak. If your B&S sale goes well, you should gradually buy additional 5-10% lumps of equity in said shoes. Once you reach a point where you own close to a 50% steak in these shoes, you should consider a leveraged buyout. You can then use the income generated by the shoes (see above for more on 'leather goods in prostitution') to pay the interest payments.

Originally Posted by Loathing

Click to expand...

You should use your $100 to buy a 20% equity stake in Reevolving's $500 shoes immediately, to get your foot in the door, so to speak. If your B&S sale goes well, you should gradually buy additional 5-10% lumps of equity in said shoes. Once you reach a point where you own close to a 50% steak in these shoes, you should consider a leveraged buyout. You can then use the income generated by the shoes (see above for more on 'leather goods in prostitution') to pay the interest payments.
Will you help me line up the debt financing and a secondary buyer for the shoes once I own them and want to dump? Also, can you help me set up derivatives of the shoes to sell off in some fashion? Maybe based on the risk that Reevolving actually wears them and ruins their pristine soles?

Take a peek into MC and see this, shake head, confirms B&S is the really the only reason to visit SF anymore.