>Chookie wrote: >> In article <Xns9A2EAEA9C9A46enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>, >> enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote:
>>>> That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people >>>> did not think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be >>>> the world's largest company by sales. >>> no, people are (in general) lazy & ill-informed. they don't >>> realize that they are spending *more* money by constantly >>> replacing shoddy goods.
>>Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For example, if >>I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 irons. >>That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, but I >> just don't *have* $50.
>Yet you have the option of saving an additional $30. There are things >called savings accounts. Instead of wasting money (e.g., instead of >buying two 1/2 gallons carton of milk twice a week, buy one one gallon >cartoon of milk), you spend wisely, save the money, and when you know >you're going to need a new iron, get a good one on sale (or in my case, >a cheap one, because I don't use the iron much). And because you saved, >you had the money when you needed the iron. Or buy it on a credit card >and get 1% back. In addition, if you shop around on the internet, you >can find some pretty ok irons for $20.
Sure. Furthermore, while in the case of the iron, where one buys only once, and might need it right away, clothes are a different case. In order to 'save' to obtain a quality piece of clothing, one only needs to abstain from buying crap clothing for awhile, or buy fewer clothes. (And please no one nit about more frequent washes for a few months, etc.) Buying crap clothing really is more a matter of having fallen into a habit of either buying cheep thinking one is ahead but buying more often, or chasing poorly made trendy styles season after season.
Banty wrote: > In article <QZiqj.110626$ds2.106943@trnddc05>, Jeff says... >> Chookie wrote: >>> In article <Xns9A2EAEA9C9A46enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>, >>> enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote:
>>>>> That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people >>>>> did not think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be >>>>> the world's largest company by sales. >>>> no, people are (in general) lazy & ill-informed. they don't >>>> realize that they are spending *more* money by constantly >>>> replacing shoddy goods. >>> Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For example, if >>> I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 irons. >>> That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, but I >>> just don't *have* $50. >> Yet you have the option of saving an additional $30. There are things >> called savings accounts. Instead of wasting money (e.g., instead of >> buying two 1/2 gallons carton of milk twice a week, buy one one gallon >> cartoon of milk), you spend wisely, save the money, and when you know >> you're going to need a new iron, get a good one on sale (or in my case, >> a cheap one, because I don't use the iron much). And because you saved, >> you had the money when you needed the iron. Or buy it on a credit card >> and get 1% back. In addition, if you shop around on the internet, you >> can find some pretty ok irons for $20.
> Sure. Furthermore, while in the case of the iron, where one buys only once, and > might need it right away, clothes are a different case. In order to 'save' to > obtain a quality piece of clothing, one only needs to abstain from buying crap > clothing for awhile, or buy fewer clothes. (And please no one nit about more > frequent washes for a few months, etc.) Buying crap clothing really is more a > matter of having fallen into a habit of either buying cheep thinking one is > ahead but buying more often, or chasing poorly made trendy styles season after > season.
> Banty
I am too cheap to throw stuff out. So I have tons of old t-shirts that I will wear until they fall apart. So if they were lessor quality, I wouldn't care.
I do wish people would do things to decrease our demands, though. Like, soccer programs would recycle shirts from year to year, so that people don't have to buy new ones if the kids didn't want to keep the shirts (some of the kids would keep the shirts and wear them until they got too small). They could also buy shirts that are reversible with two colors, so that you could use them from year to year and hand them down.
> I do wish people would do things to decrease our demands, > though. Like, soccer programs would recycle shirts from > year to year, so that people don't have to buy new ones if > the kids didn't want to keep the shirts (some of the kids > would keep the shirts and wear them until they got too > small). They could also buy shirts that are reversible with > two colors, so that you could use them from year to year > and hand them down.
heh. my senior year in high school, the school decided to change the girl's gym uniform from the blue bubble suit to t-shirt & shorts. these uniform items were sold at one store in town & when i went shopping for back-to-school, i looked at them. the medium blue shorts were $25 & the light blue t-shirts were $20. in 1971, this was an outrageous sum, especially since i knew i was moving in the middle of the year. perhaps if it had been my freshman year & i could wear the items for 4 years, it would have been a passable value, but in my case, i didn't think it was. i decided i would just wear shorts & a t-shirt i already owned. on the first day of gym class the teacher made it absolutely clear that i *had* to wear Chelmsford shirt & shorts. no substitutes would be acceptable. i made her clarify that the shirt & shorts had to say Chelsford and i was understanding correctly. yes, exactly. so, i went & dug out my older brother's gym shirt(grey) & shorts(maroon). both said Chelmsford. the teacher had a tizzy, but had done what she said, so there was nothing she could do about it. dragging my parents in would not have boded well for her. they were already pretty fed up with that school. i'm sure it drove her crazy to see that one grey & maroon outfit in the sea of blue... lee
-- Last night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA.
> frequent washes for a few months, etc.) Buying crap clothing really is more a > matter of having fallen into a habit of either buying cheep thinking one is > ahead but buying more often, or chasing poorly made trendy styles season after > season.
> Banty
If someone is the type to like chasing after trendy styles, then it makes much more sense to just by the cheapest clothing than to look around for well-made, more expensive stuff.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:17:48 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote: > On Feb 6, 6:15 am, Chookie <ehreben...@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote: >> In article <Xns9A2EAEA9C9A46enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>,
>> enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote: >>> > That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people >>> > did not think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be >>> > the world's largest company by sales.
>>> no, people are (in general) lazy & ill-informed. they don't >>> realize that they are spending *more* money by constantly >>> replacing shoddy goods.
>> Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For example, if >> I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 irons. >> That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, but I >> just don't *have* $50.
> Considering how easily credit is available in the U.S., I wonder how > much of a factor that is here.
I think it's ridiculous to buy on credit when one doesn't have to. Sometimes, it's necessary, like when buying a house or student loans, but just for everyday items that aren't absolutely necessary, one shouldn't live beyond one's means. Personally, I pay off my credit cards every month, and if I couldn't I'd spend less so I could. When I was a starving student (I wasn't really starving, but I gave myself a typical student budget), I spent like a starving student. Spending on credit is what gets people in trouble.
The kids on my soccer team get shirts every year. I suggest to the parents what type of shin guard to get if they don't have any. I tell them that if they have socks or shorts, don't bother getting new ones, but if they do need to get new ones, get black, because they can use them in the older divisions. I have had kids wear different color shorts and socks, and no one seemed to care. I have yet to see a coach penalize a kid for wearing the wrong color shorts or socks or other kids care (the kids I coach are in first and second grade).
Of course, if they are wearing New York Yankee cloths, they have to go home, but otherwise they can wear anything they want, as long as they aren't wearing jewelry and have shin guards.
Jeff
PS, I was joking about the Yankees stuff, but I will kid them a bit about it.
On Feb 6, 11:10 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am too cheap to throw stuff out. So I have tons of old t-shirts that I > will wear until they fall apart. So if they were lessor quality, I > wouldn't care.
> I do wish people would do things to decrease our demands, though. Like, > soccer programs would recycle shirts from year to year, so that people > don't have to buy new ones if the kids didn't want to keep the shirts > (some of the kids would keep the shirts and wear them until they got too > small). They could also buy shirts that are reversible with two colors, > so that you could use them from year to year and hand them down.
Americans probably are more "wasteful" than people in poorer countries, but I think it is often a rational response to their time being valuable and many material goods, such as T-shirts, being cheap.
To give one example, Indians have told me stories about a single pencil being a prized possession for some students when they were growing up in the 1940s and 50s -- it needed to last a school year. I don't care how many pencils and pieces of paper my kids consume, whether through writing, drawing, or scribbling, and my attitude is rational considering my circumstances.
> Banty wrote: > > In article <QZiqj.110626$ds2.106943@trnddc05>, Jeff says... > >> Chookie wrote: > >>> In article <Xns9A2EAEA9C9A46enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>, > >>> enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote:
> >>>>> That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people > >>>>> did not think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be > >>>>> the world's largest company by sales. > >>>> no, people are (in general) lazy & ill-informed. they don't > >>>> realize that they are spending *more* money by constantly > >>>> replacing shoddy goods. > >>> Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For example, if > >>> I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 irons. > >>> That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, but I > >>> just don't *have* $50. > >> Yet you have the option of saving an additional $30. There are things > >> called savings accounts. Instead of wasting money (e.g., instead of > >> buying two 1/2 gallons carton of milk twice a week, buy one one gallon > >> cartoon of milk), you spend wisely, save the money, and when you know > >> you're going to need a new iron, get a good one on sale (or in my case, > >> a cheap one, because I don't use the iron much). And because you saved, > >> you had the money when you needed the iron. Or buy it on a credit card > >> and get 1% back. In addition, if you shop around on the internet, you > >> can find some pretty ok irons for $20.
> > Sure. Furthermore, while in the case of the iron, where one buys only once, and > > might need it right away, clothes are a different case. In order to 'save' to > > obtain a quality piece of clothing, one only needs to abstain from buying crap > > clothing for awhile, or buy fewer clothes. (And please no one nit about more > > frequent washes for a few months, etc.) Buying crap clothing really is more a > > matter of having fallen into a habit of either buying cheep thinking one is > > ahead but buying more often, or chasing poorly made trendy styles season after > > season.
> > Banty
> I am too cheap to throw stuff out. So I have tons of old t-shirts that I > will wear until they fall apart. So if they were lessor quality, I > wouldn't care.
> I do wish people would do things to decrease our demands, though. Like, > soccer programs would recycle shirts from year to year, so that people > don't have to buy new ones if the kids didn't want to keep the shirts > (some of the kids would keep the shirts and wear them until they got too > small). They could also buy shirts that are reversible with two colors, > so that you could use them from year to year and hand them down.
In our baseball league, the kids are on the same team for 3 years, so they can wear the same shirt for 3 years unless they outgrow them. Not so in basketball, for example, but then the kids just put the shirts into their general circulation tees, wear them to sleep, or wear them as undershirt-tees. With all of the track, basketball, baseball (from the league before this one) and camp tees we have, One is usually pretty well set for summer.
One doesn't particularly care for soccer; is there a reason that soccer shirts are any different?
Beliavsky wrote: > On Feb 6, 11:10 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I am too cheap to throw stuff out. So I have tons of old t-shirts that I >> will wear until they fall apart. So if they were lessor quality, I >> wouldn't care.
>> I do wish people would do things to decrease our demands, though. Like, >> soccer programs would recycle shirts from year to year, so that people >> don't have to buy new ones if the kids didn't want to keep the shirts >> (some of the kids would keep the shirts and wear them until they got too >> small). They could also buy shirts that are reversible with two colors, >> so that you could use them from year to year and hand them down.
> Americans probably are more "wasteful" than people in poorer > countries, but I think it is often a rational response to their time > being valuable and many material goods, such as T-shirts, being cheap.
> To give one example, Indians have told me stories about a single > pencil being a prized possession for some students when they were > growing up in the 1940s and 50s -- it needed to last a school year. I > don't care how many pencils and pieces of paper my kids consume, > whether through writing, drawing, or scribbling, and my attitude is > rational considering my circumstances.
IMHO, a more rational is that they use whatever they want, as long as they don't waste stuff.
Jeff wrote: > The kids on my soccer team get shirts every year. I suggest to the > parents what type of shin guard to get if they don't have any. I tell > them that if they have socks or shorts, don't bother getting new ones, > but if they do need to get new ones, get black, because they can use > them in the older divisions. I have had kids wear different color shorts > and socks, and no one seemed to care. I have yet to see a coach penalize > a kid for wearing the wrong color shorts or socks or other kids care > (the kids I coach are in first and second grade).
Gosh, my son started soccer last fall, and for most of the teams, the T-shirt was the only matching item. (He wss 5 - I'm not sure what the older kids do.) This is in a city rec league, with a fair number of lower-income kids - it would be crazy to make them buy special shorts. (You get the T-shirt and socks when you pay the $30 sign-up fee.)
> Of course, if they are wearing New York Yankee cloths, they have to go > home, but otherwise they can wear anything they want, as long as they > aren't wearing jewelry and have shin guards.
> Jeff
> PS, I was joking about the Yankees stuff, but I will kid them a bit > about it.
Barbara wrote: > On Feb 6, 11:10 am, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Banty wrote: >>> In article <QZiqj.110626$ds2.106943@trnddc05>, Jeff says... >>>> Chookie wrote: >>>>> In article <Xns9A2EAEA9C9A46enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>, >>>>> enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote: >>>>>>> That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people >>>>>>> did not think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be >>>>>>> the world's largest company by sales. >>>>>> no, people are (in general) lazy & ill-informed. they don't >>>>>> realize that they are spending *more* money by constantly >>>>>> replacing shoddy goods. >>>>> Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For example, if >>>>> I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 irons. >>>>> That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, but I >>>>> just don't *have* $50. >>>> Yet you have the option of saving an additional $30. There are things >>>> called savings accounts. Instead of wasting money (e.g., instead of >>>> buying two 1/2 gallons carton of milk twice a week, buy one one gallon >>>> cartoon of milk), you spend wisely, save the money, and when you know >>>> you're going to need a new iron, get a good one on sale (or in my case, >>>> a cheap one, because I don't use the iron much). And because you saved, >>>> you had the money when you needed the iron. Or buy it on a credit card >>>> and get 1% back. In addition, if you shop around on the internet, you >>>> can find some pretty ok irons for $20. >>> Sure. Furthermore, while in the case of the iron, where one buys only once, and >>> might need it right away, clothes are a different case. In order to 'save' to >>> obtain a quality piece of clothing, one only needs to abstain from buying crap >>> clothing for awhile, or buy fewer clothes. (And please no one nit about more >>> frequent washes for a few months, etc.) Buying crap clothing really is more a >>> matter of having fallen into a habit of either buying cheep thinking one is >>> ahead but buying more often, or chasing poorly made trendy styles season after >>> season. >>> Banty >> I am too cheap to throw stuff out. So I have tons of old t-shirts that I >> will wear until they fall apart. So if they were lessor quality, I >> wouldn't care.
>> I do wish people would do things to decrease our demands, though. Like, >> soccer programs would recycle shirts from year to year, so that people >> don't have to buy new ones if the kids didn't want to keep the shirts >> (some of the kids would keep the shirts and wear them until they got too >> small). They could also buy shirts that are reversible with two colors, >> so that you could use them from year to year and hand them down.
> In our baseball league, the kids are on the same team for 3 years, so > they can wear the same shirt for 3 years unless they outgrow them. > Not so in basketball, for example, but then the kids just put the > shirts into their general circulation tees, wear them to sleep, or > wear them as undershirt-tees. With all of the track, basketball, > baseball (from the league before this one) and camp tees we have, One > is usually pretty well set for summer.
> One doesn't particularly care for soccer; is there a reason that > soccer shirts are any different?
> Barbara
The soccer shirts are soccer jerseys which are not t-shirts, but that doesn't really matter. The teams all have sponsors, so when a sponsor changes, they would have to get new shirts.
Other leagues use colored t-shirts and don't get soccer jerseys. The kids don't care, though.
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 06:17:48 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 6:15 am, Chookie <ehreben...@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote: >>> In article <Xns9A2EAEA9C9A46enigmaempire...@199.125.85.9>,
>>> enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote: >>>> > That's a pretty strong generalization. If a lot of people >>>> > did not think Wal-Mart offered good value, it would not be >>>> > the world's largest company by sales.
>>>> no, people are (in general) lazy & ill-informed. they don't >>>> realize that they are spending *more* money by constantly >>>> replacing shoddy goods.
>>> Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For >>> example, if >>> I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 >>> irons. >>> That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, >>> but I >>> just don't *have* $50.
>> Considering how easily credit is available in the U.S., I wonder how >> much of a factor that is here.
> I think it's ridiculous to buy on credit when one doesn't have to. > Sometimes, it's necessary, like when buying a house or student loans, but > just for everyday items that aren't absolutely necessary, one shouldn't > live beyond one's means. Personally, I pay off my credit cards every > month, and if I couldn't I'd spend less so I could. When I was a starving > student (I wasn't really starving, but I gave myself a typical student > budget), I spent like a starving student. Spending on credit is what gets > people in trouble.
I agree completely. As someone who just refinanced their mortgage to get out of CC debt, we now only use the cc when necessary and pay it off immediately. I'm not going to buy a $50 iron on cc and not have the money to pay it off at the end of the month (and therefore have to pay interest on it which makes it cost more than $50) if I can buy a $20 iron without the cc.
> >>> Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For > >>> example, if > >>> I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 > >>> irons. > >>> That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, > >>> but I > >>> just don't *have* $50.
> >> Considering how easily credit is available in the U.S., I wonder how > >> much of a factor that is here.
> > I think it's ridiculous to buy on credit when one doesn't have to. > > Sometimes, it's necessary, like when buying a house or student loans, but > > just for everyday items that aren't absolutely necessary, one shouldn't > > live beyond one's means. Personally, I pay off my credit cards every > > month, and if I couldn't I'd spend less so I could. When I was a starving > > student (I wasn't really starving, but I gave myself a typical student > > budget), I spent like a starving student. Spending on credit is what gets > > people in trouble.
> I agree completely. As someone who just refinanced their mortgage to get > out of CC debt, we now only use the cc when necessary and pay it off > immediately. I'm not going to buy a $50 iron on cc and not have the money > to pay it off at the end of the month (and therefore have to pay interest on > it which makes it cost more than $50) if I can buy a $20 iron without the > cc.
If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a $50 iron lasts 10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, it's better to pay interest on the $50. This is an artificial example, of course. A more realistic example would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The general principle is that the long-term cost of ownership should be considered.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote: > If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a $50 iron lasts > 10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, it's better to pay interest on > the $50. This is an artificial example, of course. A more realistic > example would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more > reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The general principle > is that the long-term cost of ownership should be considered.
Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of everyday items and eventually be in big trouble. My problem is more with people who buy quality when quality is something nicer and more expensive but not more durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take a beating. More expensive clothes often have to be dry cleaned only, which I take to mean less durable. If I pay big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw it in the wash.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:40:08 -0800, toypup wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:
>> If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a $50 iron lasts >> 10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, it's better to pay interest on >> the $50. This is an artificial example, of course. A more realistic >> example would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more >> reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The general principle >> is that the long-term cost of ownership should be considered.
> Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of everyday items and > eventually be in big trouble. My problem is more with people who buy > quality when quality is something nicer and more expensive but not more > durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take a beating. More > expensive clothes often have to be dry cleaned only, which I take to mean > less durable. If I pay big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw > it in the wash.
I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such people. It's fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but don't tell me it's more durable because it's more expensive or "higher quality."
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:40:08 -0800, toypup wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:
>>> If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a >>> $50 iron lasts 10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, >>> it's better to pay interest on the $50. This is an >>> artificial example, of course. A more realistic example >>> would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more >>> reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The >>> general principle is that the long-term cost of ownership >>> should be considered.
>> Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of >> everyday items and eventually be in big trouble. My >> problem is more with people who buy quality when quality >> is something nicer and more expensive but not more >> durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take >> a beating. More expensive clothes often have to be dry >> cleaned only, which I take to mean less durable. If I pay >> big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw it in >> the wash.
> I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such > people. It's fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but > don't tell me it's more durable because it's more expensive > or "higher quality."
higher quality is going to be more durable. price has almost nothing to do with quality or durability. certain clothing items, unfortunately, do need to be dry cleaned & it doesn't matter if you buy them at KMart or Brooks Brothers. things like suits are impossible to properly press at home, so dry cleaning is your best bet. that said, i *wash* most of my "dry clean only" clothes, because i don't buy suits (and the one i did have cleaned at the dry cleaners, they shrunk so badly i couldn't wear it again). some things need cold water & a delicate cycle. a very few are hand wash. dry clean only doesn't mean less durable, it generally means the manufacturer hasn't preshrunk all the components, or that there is shaping & padding that can't be ironed well with home equipment & they're trying to cover their backside against returns for shrinkage or dye run. lee -- Last night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA.
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 09:40:08 -0800, toypup wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:
>>>> If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a >>>> $50 iron lasts 10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, >>>> it's better to pay interest on the $50. This is an >>>> artificial example, of course. A more realistic example >>>> would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more >>>> reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The >>>> general principle is that the long-term cost of ownership >>>> should be considered.
>>> Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of >>> everyday items and eventually be in big trouble. My >>> problem is more with people who buy quality when quality >>> is something nicer and more expensive but not more >>> durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take >>> a beating. More expensive clothes often have to be dry >>> cleaned only, which I take to mean less durable. If I pay >>> big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw it in >>> the wash.
>> I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such >> people. It's fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but >> don't tell me it's more durable because it's more expensive >> or "higher quality."
> higher quality is going to be more durable. price has almost > nothing to do with quality or durability. > certain clothing items, unfortunately, do need to be dry > cleaned & it doesn't matter if you buy them at KMart or Brooks > Brothers. things like suits are impossible to properly press > at home, so dry cleaning is your best bet. > that said, i *wash* most of my "dry clean only" clothes, > because i don't buy suits (and the one i did have cleaned at > the dry cleaners, they shrunk so badly i couldn't wear it > again). some things need cold water & a delicate cycle. a very > few are hand wash. > dry clean only doesn't mean less durable, it generally means > the manufacturer hasn't preshrunk all the components, or that > there is shaping & padding that can't be ironed well with home > equipment & they're trying to cover their backside against > returns for shrinkage or dye run. > lee
In my book, if something needs cold water or a delicate cycle or hand wash, it is less durable because it cannot survive being treated like regular clothing. If it survives being dragged through the mud and muck and all sorts of scrubbing and fabric torture to get that stuff out, then it is more durable. Things that don't last unless you give them extra special treatment I don't consider durable.
toypup wrote: > I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such people. It's > fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but don't tell me it's more durable > because it's more expensive or "higher quality."
If you mean that expensive does not guarantee durability, then I agree with you. If you mean that it's bogus to say that it's worth it (for some) to pay more for something because it's more durable, I'd take issue. I'm not sure which one you meant. Some things that cost more *are* more durable than less expensive alternatives.
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:30:29 -0500, Ericka Kammerer wrote: > toypup wrote:
>> I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such people. It's >> fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but don't tell me it's more durable >> because it's more expensive or "higher quality."
> If you mean that expensive does not guarantee durability, > then I agree with you.
Yes. That's what I mean.
If you mean that it's bogus to say that
> it's worth it (for some) to pay more for something because it's > more durable, I'd take issue.
I don't mean that.
I'm not sure which one you meant.
> Some things that cost more *are* more durable than less expensive > alternatives.
Yes. I know that. There is a fallacy that all things that cost more are more durable, that "higher quality" is more durable. "Higher quality" often just means more expensive, more difficult to find or make, not more durable. "Higher quality" that requires special treatment to keep in good shape is not more durable.
toypup wrote: > Yes. I know that. There is a fallacy that all things that cost more are > more durable, that "higher quality" is more durable. "Higher quality" > often just means more expensive, more difficult to find or make, not more > durable. "Higher quality" that requires special treatment to keep in good > shape is not more durable.
Agreed. I think high quality and durability go together *within the same type of product*. For instance, if a ridiculously delicate article of clothing is high quality, it will be more durable than a lower quality version of the same thing, but not more durable than a high quality pair of jeans ;-) Sometimes durability just isn't the point ;-) I also think that "durable" means something different, depending on the product. For instance, while a high quality cashmere sweater is going to require special handling, with proper treatment it will stand up to years and years of wear and keep looking good, unlike a lesser quality version of the same sweater. A well made suit will take some special care, but again, it will last for many years where a lesser quality suit will wear out more quickly, even with the same special care. So I think durability remains a factor even with more finicky types of clothing. It's just on a different yardstick.
In article <2f46ae0c-1290-4715-bed8-856d88c0c...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Beliavsky <beliav...@aol.com> wrote: > > Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the cycle. For example, > > if I only have $20 available and want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 > > irons. That doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a lot longer, > > but I just don't *have* $50.
> Considering how easily credit is available in the U.S., I wonder how > much of a factor that is here.
Well, the reason my hypothetical family can only manage a $20 iron is because they have already got into trouble with their CC when they had to buy a fridge in a hurry. That is often the case with families in poverty -- they cope well when life is going well, but have no emergency reserves. When the fridge or car conks out, credit is the only solution, which decreases the everyday income thereafter, creating a downward spiral. That's leaving aside financial imprudence, which is near-universal.
-- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:00:07 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky wrote:
>> If the $20 iron suffices and will last, fine. But if a $50 iron lasts >> 10 years and a $20 iron lasts 2 years, it's better to pay interest on >> the $50. This is an artificial example, of course. A more realistic >> example would be whether to purchase a more expensive but more >> reliable car or a cheaper and less reliable one. The general principle >> is that the long-term cost of ownership should be considered.
> Then the person would be paying interest on a lot of everyday items and > eventually be in big trouble. My problem is more with people who buy > quality when quality is something nicer and more expensive but not more > durable. Clothes from Target can go in the wash and take a beating. More > expensive clothes often have to be dry cleaned only, which I take to mean > less durable. If I pay big money for clothes, I'd better be able to throw > it in the wash.
Exactly, Toypup. I'm glad someone else understands what I meant. I guess Beliavsky has never been in CC debt and doesn't realize how easy it is to let it happen if your not careful. NOT using the cc is the best way to stay out of cc debt.
> In my book, if something needs cold water or a delicate > cycle or hand wash, it is less durable because it cannot > survive being treated like regular clothing. If it > survives being dragged through the mud and muck and all > sorts of scrubbing and fabric torture to get that stuff > out, then it is more durable. Things that don't last > unless you give them extra special treatment I don't > consider durable.
oh, i agree. remember, ilive on a farm. sissy clothes don't last. BUT, you can't always go by the label or price to determine durability. i have several silk shirts that say 'dry clean only'. they go into the regular wash & through the dryer with the jeans & tshirts. they're all around 11 or 12 years old now & originally came from Rave (which has some pretty decent quality stuff in with the crap). the 3 clothing items i have that i would consider hand washing are beaded vests, which won't get dirty enough to need washing unless i'm way sloppier than usual, & i think they'd survive the handwash cycle on my machine just fine. all my wool sweaters do... cold water washing is better for any clothes. they fade *far* less if washed cold. i was just pointing out that for some people in the business world, some clothing items *are* impractical to wash at home. then again, i haven't tried those Dryell sheets (since i don't need to dryclean anything). those might work. i'm skeptical though. lee
-- Last night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA.
>> I should qualify this to say I don't have a beef with such >> people. It's fine to buy nice when one wants nice, but >> don't tell me it's more durable because it's more >> expensive or "higher quality."
> If you mean that expensive does not guarantee > durability, > then I agree with you. If you mean that it's bogus to say > that it's worth it (for some) to pay more for something > because it's more durable, I'd take issue. I'm not sure > which one you meant. Some things that cost more *are* more > durable than less expensive alternatives.
for example, solid wood furniture with dovetail drawers & mortise & tenon joins will last several generations longer than the MDF/pressboard stuff held together with screws from big box stores. oddly, it doesn't cost that much more than the cheap stuff. maybe people like buying new furniture every 5 years, but i'd rather not.
lee -- Last night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA.
>> > Or they may know it, but be unable to break out of the >> > cycle. For example, if I only have $20 available and >> > want to buy an iron, I am limited to $20 irons. That >> > doesn't mean I'm not aware that a $50 iron would last a >> > lot longer, but I just don't *have* $50.
>> Considering how easily credit is available in the U.S., I >> wonder how much of a factor that is here.
> Well, the reason my hypothetical family can only manage a > $20 iron is because they have already got into trouble with > their CC when they had to buy a fridge in a hurry. That is > often the case with families in poverty -- they cope well > when life is going well, but have no emergency reserves. > When the fridge or car conks out, credit is the only > solution, which decreases the everyday income thereafter, > creating a downward spiral. That's leaving aside financial > imprudence, which is near-universal.
i'm curious, does OZ have caps on the interest rates that banks/credit card companies can charge? the US used to have tighter banking regulation & credit interest was capped. that is no longer the case & the poor or those with no credit history are saddled with excessive (over 33%) interest rates, which makes credit cards an even worse downward spiral. then there are the "pay day loan" places, where you can borrow against your paycheck (you need money on Monday & don't get paid until Friday) at rates exceeding 50%. tell me these aren't designed to prey on the poor...
lee -- Last night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA.
|
