> In article <NaSdnevf5evSsAPanZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie > says...
>>enigma wrote: >>> i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't >>> know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd >>> looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam >>> finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items >>> before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can >>> recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, >>> so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack >>> foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
>>Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I am >>definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It goes hand in >>hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows out of stuff long before >>it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER buy my kids' clothes. I get a ton >>of >>hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
> Which is GREAT!
> When did this discussion veer from whether or not true value can be gotten > in a > Wal-mart to this que-es-mas-frugal/enlightened round of chest pounding and > self-backpatting!??
I was just kind of rambling from where it started. I was not trying to pound my chest. I get an excited feeling inside when I contemplate how many times I DIDNT have to go shopping for kids' clothes.
> I think the point is a fair one, that a lot of folks who wouldn't know a > badly > constructed garment from poor materials would therefore think they're > getting > wunnerful value because there's lots of new shtuff in their basket for > relatively little $$$$.
> I made the point that good quality stuff *is* to be > found in second hand stores, when people who have bought quality in the > first > place have taken the care to recycle the stuff. Instead of landfilling > the > stretched out, stain-holding crap bought at Walmart (or going to second > hand > stores with the crap, only to have it sorted out laboriously there and > ending up > in the landfill anyway!).
> And, no, I never signed on to this idea that kinder, gentler, enlightened, > 'centered', > whatever-the-hell-else-adjective-people-like-to-self-congratulate-for > people > would be oblivious to questions of asthetics or fashion.
Huh? I think I just got slammed for not giving a hoot about fashion.
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:28:42 +0000 (UTC), enigma wrote: > if he blows his clothing budget & you simply replace his > clothes, you're teaching a very bad lesson. think about it. > where *do* kids learn instant gratification? where do they > learn responsibility? > peer pressure around clothing is pretty strong. i suspect > your SS would find himself caring about his manner of dress in > quite short order (assuming he's 9 or older).
This really depends on the kid. I didn't really care about my clothes no matter what my friends thought.
>"Banty" <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:fnlh6q0s9m@drn.newsguy.com... >> In article <NaSdnevf5evSsAPanZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie >> says...
>>>enigma wrote: >>>> i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't >>>> know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd >>>> looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam >>>> finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items >>>> before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can >>>> recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, >>>> so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack >>>> foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
>>>Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I am >>>definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It goes hand in >>>hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows out of stuff long before >>>it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER buy my kids' clothes. I get a ton >>>of >>>hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
>> Which is GREAT!
>> When did this discussion veer from whether or not true value can be gotten >> in a >> Wal-mart to this que-es-mas-frugal/enlightened round of chest pounding and >> self-backpatting!??
>I was just kind of rambling from where it started. I was not trying to pound >my chest. I get an excited feeling inside when I contemplate how many times >I DIDNT have to go shopping for kids' clothes.
That strikes me as self back-patting. I mean, I dont' wear makeup, but I don't run around getting all excited ever time I pass a drugstore and posting here whenever it comes up. Good grief. What if I said "Who CARES, Banty's too SMART to wear makeup" "Oh gimme a break" people would justifiably think.
Besides, going to a second-hand store *is* shopping. It's browsing Land's End online that isn't ;-D Even sorting through hand me downs, to me, is boredom-inducing along the lines of shopping. But I did it, too (but my sister has four - a lot of stuff was well beat up).
>> I think the point is a fair one, that a lot of folks who wouldn't know a >> badly >> constructed garment from poor materials would therefore think they're >> getting >> wunnerful value because there's lots of new shtuff in their basket for >> relatively little $$$$.
>Oh. I missed that point. They call me Mrs Smart.
Well, mebbe you are! Just mebbe a tad Mrs Smart-aleck too, though. ;)
>> I made the point that good quality stuff *is* to be >> found in second hand stores, when people who have bought quality in the >> first >> place have taken the care to recycle the stuff. Instead of landfilling >> the >> stretched out, stain-holding crap bought at Walmart (or going to second >> hand >> stores with the crap, only to have it sorted out laboriously there and >> ending up >> in the landfill anyway!).
>> And, no, I never signed on to this idea that kinder, gentler, enlightened, >> 'centered', >> whatever-the-hell-else-adjective-people-like-to-self-congratulate-for >> people >> would be oblivious to questions of asthetics or fashion.
>Huh? I think I just got slammed for not giving a hoot about fashion.
No, you did not get slammed for not giving a hoot about fashion. You got slammed for slamming people for giving a hoot about fashion! At least by implication.
> In article <2OqdnSoVYvVg1QPanZ2dnUVZ_ryqn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie > says...
>>"Banty" <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>news:fnlh6q0s9m@drn.newsguy.com... >>> In article <NaSdnevf5evSsAPanZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie >>> says...
>>>>enigma wrote: >>>>> i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't >>>>> know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd >>>>> looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam >>>>> finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items >>>>> before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can >>>>> recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, >>>>> so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack >>>>> foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
>>>>Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I am >>>>definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It goes hand >>>>in >>>>hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows out of stuff long >>>>before >>>>it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER buy my kids' clothes. I get a ton >>>>of >>>>hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
>>> Which is GREAT!
>>> When did this discussion veer from whether or not true value can be >>> gotten >>> in a >>> Wal-mart to this que-es-mas-frugal/enlightened round of chest pounding >>> and >>> self-backpatting!??
>>I was just kind of rambling from where it started. I was not trying to >>pound >>my chest. I get an excited feeling inside when I contemplate how many >>times >>I DIDNT have to go shopping for kids' clothes.
> That strikes me as self back-patting. I mean, I dont' wear makeup, but I > don't > run around getting all excited ever time I pass a drugstore and posting > here > whenever it comes up. Good grief. What if I said "Who CARES, Banty's too > SMART > to wear makeup" "Oh gimme a break" people would justifiably think.
What?!? I never made any kind of value judgement about shopping. I don't personally like to do it. And I had a rambly moment.
> Besides, going to a second-hand store *is* shopping. It's browsing Land's > End > online that isn't ;-D Even sorting through hand me downs, to me, is > boredom-inducing along the lines of shopping. But I did it, too (but my > sister > has four - a lot of stuff was well beat up).
>>> I think the point is a fair one, that a lot of folks who wouldn't know a >>> badly >>> constructed garment from poor materials would therefore think they're >>> getting >>> wunnerful value because there's lots of new shtuff in their basket for >>> relatively little $$$$.
>>Oh. I missed that point. They call me Mrs Smart.
> Well, mebbe you are! Just mebbe a tad Mrs Smart-aleck too, though. ;)
I was making fun of myself. Are you having a bad day?
>>> I made the point that good quality stuff *is* to be >>> found in second hand stores, when people who have bought quality in the >>> first >>> place have taken the care to recycle the stuff. Instead of landfilling >>> the >>> stretched out, stain-holding crap bought at Walmart (or going to second >>> hand >>> stores with the crap, only to have it sorted out laboriously there and >>> ending up >>> in the landfill anyway!).
>>> And, no, I never signed on to this idea that kinder, gentler, >>> enlightened, >>> 'centered', >>> whatever-the-hell-else-adjective-people-like-to-self-congratulate-for >>> people >>> would be oblivious to questions of asthetics or fashion.
>>Huh? I think I just got slammed for not giving a hoot about fashion.
> No, you did not get slammed for not giving a hoot about fashion. You got > slammed for slamming people for giving a hoot about fashion! At least by > implication.
I never ever had one bad thing to say about people who give a hoot about fashion. It never even crossed my mind. I said elsewhere that there is no inherent value to certain types of appearance. There is also no inherent value to ethnic food, but I DO give a hoot about that. I am sorry you thought I was criticising your interests. I was not.
> credit card, mortgage or other loan, you will have a poor > credit rating.
Well, I don't know about not carrying ANY debt because I do have a mortgage and auto loan, BUT I am certainly not penalized by the credit card company I am with for paying the card off in full each month, nor has it harmed my credit score in any way.
> Whereabouts in Michigan are you Sue? I'm a Michigander myself whose > husband thankfully was reemployed in the 13th hour of the last > governmental layoff/closure ordeal and who also found out in another > 13th hour that the service tax would not cause me to lose my business. > A very stressful couple of months she bestowed upon us for certain. > She is a moron.
> Hi Chris,
> I have picked up that you are from Michigan. Aren't you also a medical > transcriptionist? I am too, I thought I saw you on the transcription board. > Anyway, Royal Oak area is where I am from. And yes, I really don't like > Jennifer. I was much more an Engler fan myself. > -- > Sue (mom to three girls)
Okay! You are Sue! Hi over here! lol. I used to live out in Dearborn Heights and worked in Southfield, etc.
> Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record > book. I am definitly in the cant recognize a well > constructed garmet. It goes hand in hand for me with not > caring. My son usually grows out of stuff long before it is > too worn to wear. I almost NEVER buy my kids' clothes. I > get a ton of hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
thank you :) Boo's hand me downs used to go to his 2 year younger cousin, but since said cousin now outweighs Boo by 20 pounds, i've had to find new recipients. i can afford to buy quality & i'm happy to pass along what still has knees & elbows ;)
>> the point i'm making is that there is no shame in neatly >> repaired clothing, not that it's fine to wear rags. > Why it it not fine to wear shaggy clothing if you don't > care about appearance. I have holes in the knees of some of > my jeans. So does my son.
in my opinion it *is* fine. since i usually only own 2 pairs of jeans at a time, it sometimes (frequently) happens that i have holey knees & no particular time to mend. oh well. :)
>> i don't know much about kids now, but when i was in >> school, they were pretty damned *nasty* to kids who were >> dirty or dressed differently. i think the kid *would* care >> (unless they were like me & decided if i was going to be >> an outsider, i'd be as outlandish as possible) > Kids are evil.
i figured that hadn't changed much in 40 years. lee
On 24 Jan 2008 17:38:31 -0800, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>I've never been mucn for protectionism. It's getting to be too small a world >for it to work anyway
It's not protectionism if individual consumers make the choice to buy locally made goods.
I actually prefer to buy at local craft fairs when I can and locally owned small shops when I can find them. It's becoming more difficult to find such shops though.
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
> In article <2OqdnSoVYvVg1QPanZ2dnUVZ_ryqn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie says...
> >"Banty" <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >news:fnlh6q0s9m@drn.newsguy.com... > >> In article <NaSdnevf5evSsAPanZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie > >> says...
> >>>enigma wrote: > >>>> i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't > >>>> know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd > >>>> looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam > >>>> finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items > >>>> before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can > >>>> recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, > >>>> so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack > >>>> foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
> >>>Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I am > >>>definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It goes hand in > >>>hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows out of stuff long before > >>>it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER buy my kids' clothes. I get a ton > >>>of > >>>hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
> >> Which is GREAT!
> >> When did this discussion veer from whether or not true value can be gotten > >> in a > >> Wal-mart to this que-es-mas-frugal/enlightened round of chest pounding and > >> self-backpatting!??
> >I was just kind of rambling from where it started. I was not trying to pound > >my chest. I get an excited feeling inside when I contemplate how many times > >I DIDNT have to go shopping for kids' clothes.
> That strikes me as self back-patting.
She was responding to self back-patting. The OP was saying that she suspects she is among the few who can recognize a good garment, and even her child "at 7.5" can do the same. Um, congratulations? I get the distinct impression that these posts boil down to 'Look at me, I'm saving gobs of money, you people are all dopes for wasting yours.' There are ways to share frugal ideas without sounding so righteous imo.
>On Jan 28, 4:40=A0pm, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> In article <2OqdnSoVYvVg1QPanZ2dnUVZ_ryqn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie says.= >..
>> >"Banty" <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message >> >news:fnlh6q0s9m@drn.newsguy.com... >> >> In article <NaSdnevf5evSsAPanZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie >> >> says...
>> >>>enigma wrote: >> >>>> i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't >> >>>> know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd >> >>>> looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam >> >>>> finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items >> >>>> before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can >> >>>> recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, >> >>>> so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack >> >>>> foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
>> >>>Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I am >> >>>definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It goes hand= > in >> >>>hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows out of stuff long bef= >ore >> >>>it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER buy my kids' clothes. I get a to= >n >> >>>of >> >>>hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
>> >> Which is GREAT!
>> >> When did this discussion veer from whether or not true value can be got= >ten >> >> in a >> >> Wal-mart to this que-es-mas-frugal/enlightened round of chest pounding = >and >> >> self-backpatting!??
>> >I was just kind of rambling from where it started. I was not trying to po= >und >> >my chest. I get an excited feeling inside when I contemplate how many tim= >es >> >I DIDNT have to go shopping for kids' clothes.
>> That strikes me as self back-patting.
>She was responding to self back-patting. The OP was saying that she >suspects she is among the few who can recognize a good garment, and >even her child "at 7.5" can do the same. Um, congratulations? I get >the distinct impression that these posts boil down to 'Look at me, I'm >saving gobs of money, you people are all dopes for wasting yours.' >There are ways to share frugal ideas without sounding so righteous >imo.
>seaglass
Well, yeah, that's exactly the sort of one-upmanship I'm talking about.
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:27:27 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In addition, we waste lots of other resources by buying small packages >when larger packages are more cost- and resource efficient (less to >throw out),
Companies are packaging things in so much plastic packaging that you can hardly get it open as well as making more waste.
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
On 25 Jan 2008 07:43:30 -0800, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>You don't believe the prices on crude oil are a result of anything our >>govt has, or has not, done?
>Nope. Unless the govt could zap China and India out of existance.
>Now I'm all for moving *off of* oil where we can. "Where we can" is a matter of >other debates, though.
The government *could* increase the gasoline taxes (price at the pump would move up, but those taxes could then be used to fund alternative sources of energy).
>Banty
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:01:57 +0000 (UTC), enigma <eni...@evil.net> wrote:
>> You are kidding right? This is America. It's always been >> raised on consumerism. Consumerism is not a bad thing. You >> act like it is a horrible thing. It does, you know, keep >> our beloved Amercia running.
>no, it hasn't always been this way. i'm only 53 & i remember >when saving was more important than spending. the instant >gratifacation & credit card generation really ramped up in the >late 70s.
When I was growing up in the 50s, my parents did not even *have* credit cards. Debt was definitely frowned on except for mortgages and car loans. People of my parents generation paid cash and did without if they did not have cash. They were on a pay as you go basis although there were always some folks who had tabs at the local stores.
The first credit cards were invented in the 1920s, but those were store credit cards for individual stores and were not accepted at other stores.
The inventor of the first bank issued credit card was John Biggins of the Flatbush National Bank of Brooklyn in New York. In 1946, Biggins invented the "Charge-It" program between bank customers and local merchants. Merchants could deposit sales slips into the bank and the bank billed the customer who used the card.
In 1950, the Diners Club issued their credit card in the United States. The Diners Club credit card was invented by Diners' Club founder Frank McNamara and it was intended to pay restaurant bills. A customer could eat without cash at any restaurant that would accept Diners' Club credit cards. Diners' Club would pay the restaurant and the credit card holder would repay Diners' Club. The Diners Club card was at first technically a charge card rather than a credit card since the customer had to repay the entire amount when billed by Diners Club.
American Express issued their first credit card in 1958. Bank of America issued the BankAmericard (now Visa) bank credit card later in 1958.
Credit cards were first promoted to traveling salesmen (more common in that era) for use on the road. By the early 1960s, more companies offered credit cards, advertising them as a time-saving device rather than a form of credit. American Express and MasterCard became huge successes overnight.
By the mid-'70s, the U.S. Congress begin regulating the credit card industry by banning such practices as the mass mailing of active credit cards to those who had not requested them. However, not all regulations have been as consumer friendly. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court in Smiley vs. Citibank lifted restrictions on the amount of late penalty fees a credit card company could charge. Deregulation has also allowed very high interest rates to be charged.
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
In article <iuiup3dfciq501qbea80akj4o49l2f2...@4ax.com>, toto says...
>On 25 Jan 2008 07:43:30 -0800, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>You don't believe the prices on crude oil are a result of anything our >>>govt has, or has not, done?
>>Nope. Unless the govt could zap China and India out of existance.
>>Now I'm all for moving *off of* oil where we can. "Where we can" is a matter of >>other debates, though.
>The government *could* increase the gasoline taxes (price at the pump >would move up, but those taxes could then be used to fund alternative >sources of energy).
OK, so let's review:
Nan is complaining of high energy prices (including gas prices) due to 'the government'.
I say that what 'the government' can do is limited since there are large market forces outside the US driving oil prices.
You come back to say oh yessee 'the government' *can* do something about it - they can raise the gas tax.
!!?!
Um, OK.....
Not to say that that is or is not a bad idea (it would drive up just about all prices, and put a lot of my relatives outta jobs, but I think some of both those things are inevitable), but it's not a very good answer to Nan's concerns :)
On 24 Jan 2008 17:33:32 -0800, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Do you recommend Costco because it's a better store, or because you don't like >Walmart?
Costco treats its employees better. They pay more in wages and provide healthcare. They carry higher quality products, although they don't carry as many items as Sam's Club. One of the cardinal rules at Costco is no branded item can be marked up by more than 14 percent, and no private-label item by more than 15 percent. In contrast, supermarkets generally mark up merchandise by 25 percent, and department stores by 50 percent or more. Note that their CEO also does not make an excessive salary. He is paid well, but not in the millions, the way so many CEOs are. Costco has not shut out unions either.
>Banty
-- Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens ..
> She was responding to self back-patting. The OP was saying > that she suspects she is among the few who can recognize a > good garment, and even her child "at 7.5" can do the same. > Um, congratulations? I get the distinct impression that > these posts boil down to 'Look at me, I'm saving gobs of > money, you people are all dopes for wasting yours.' There > are ways to share frugal ideas without sounding so > righteous imo.
consumerism is taught in American schools, which is unfortunate. when i was in school we were taught to recognize the subliminal manipulation in commercials & how to recognise quality items. it's a pity that these lessons aren't being taught anymore. i think people, in general, really want to get good value for their money, but they don't know what to look for. if they did, less shoddy goods would sell & corporations would have to improve quality to keep sales. seriously, doesn't it bother you that a kid's shirt fades or falls apart after 4 or 5 washes? even if you only paid $4 for it, it's not a good value. i buy mostly new because i can, & because i pass on the clothes my child outgrows. it is more cost effective to buy a $15 shirt that Boo wears for 2 years, then it goes to another kid who wears it for 2 years, rather than my buying a $4 shirt that isn't worth using as a rag after 2 months. i wouldn't say *i'm* saving gobs of money (at least not on the kid's clothes) but my next-in-line for the outgrown clothes sure is ;) i'm not boasting, i'm trying to explain cost/use ratio. my kid is an only child. it would be easy to spoil him, but i think it's better to teach him value, quality over quantity & i think it's better to teach it young because when wanting to be trendy hits in the teen years at least he'll have some basis to judge his choices other than brands or labels (which are pretty meaningless). plus he knows his outgrown clothes (including the neatly patched & repaired) go to another child, so he's learning to help others. i think this summer he'll be starting to learn mending & sewing... lee
> On 25 Jan 2008 07:43:30 -0800, Banty > <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>You don't believe the prices on crude oil are a result of >>>anything our govt has, or has not, done?
>>Nope. Unless the govt could zap China and India out of >>existance.
>>Now I'm all for moving *off of* oil where we can. "Where >>we can" is a matter of other debates, though.
> The government *could* increase the gasoline taxes (price > at the pump would move up, but those taxes could then be > used to fund alternative sources of energy).
i'd love for the gub'mint to raise gas taxes *if* they used the proceeds to revive rail transport & light commuter rail. i'd also like to see road tolls raised for the same purpose. this country has failing infrastructure & we *need* rail to reduce petro fuel use. lee
seaglassru...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Jan 28, 4:40 pm, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: >> In article <2OqdnSoVYvVg1QPanZ2dnUVZ_ryqn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie >> says...
>>> "Banty" <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>> news:fnlh6q0s9m@drn.newsguy.com... >>>> In article <NaSdnevf5evSsAPanZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@comcast.com>, >>>> Stephanie says...
>>>>> enigma wrote: >>>>>> i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't >>>>>> know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd >>>>>> looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam >>>>>> finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items >>>>>> before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can >>>>>> recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, >>>>>> so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack >>>>>> foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
>>>>> Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I >>>>> am definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It >>>>> goes hand in hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows >>>>> out of stuff long before it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER >>>>> buy my kids' clothes. I get a ton of >>>>> hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
>>>> Which is GREAT!
>>>> When did this discussion veer from whether or not true value can >>>> be gotten in a >>>> Wal-mart to this que-es-mas-frugal/enlightened round of chest >>>> pounding and self-backpatting!??
>>> I was just kind of rambling from where it started. I was not trying >>> to pound my chest. I get an excited feeling inside when I >>> contemplate how many times I DIDNT have to go shopping for kids' >>> clothes.
>> That strikes me as self back-patting.
> She was responding to self back-patting.
I actually waws being *completely* silly about the best parental accomplishment comment, as I believe enigma took it.
> The OP was saying that she > suspects she is among the few who can recognize a good garment, and > even her child "at 7.5" can do the same. Um, congratulations? I get > the distinct impression that these posts boil down to 'Look at me, I'm > saving gobs of money, you people are all dopes for wasting yours.' > There are ways to share frugal ideas without sounding so righteous > imo.
>> She was responding to self back-patting. The OP was saying >> that she suspects she is among the few who can recognize a >> good garment, and even her child "at 7.5" can do the same. >> Um, congratulations? I get the distinct impression that >> these posts boil down to 'Look at me, I'm saving gobs of >> money, you people are all dopes for wasting yours.' There >> are ways to share frugal ideas without sounding so >> righteous imo.
> consumerism is taught in American schools, which is > unfortunate. when i was in school we were taught to recognize > the subliminal manipulation in commercials & how to recognise > quality items. it's a pity that these lessons aren't being > taught anymore.
We watch next to no tv. We don't have cable or whatever at home. That is a longish story that is not super important here. But last summer we were on vacation at a condominuim that my in-laws gave to us for a present. So we had tv. DS, then 6, was watching cartoons. And saw an ad for froot loops. Mom, it is part of this balanced breakfast. We observed the image. A glass of milk. Whole wheat toast. An apple. And some lonely froot loops in a bowl. And observe the spelling of fruit. Is that how you spell "froot." Why would they spell it like that? Because it has no fruit.
Now when he sees compelling advertising you hear him say to himself "The point of advertising is to separate me from my money." CRACKS me up.
> i think people, in general, really want to get > good value for their money, but they don't know what to look > for. if they did, less shoddy goods would sell & corporations > would have to improve quality to keep sales.
I am not 100% certain that is always correct. For teens, a growing market, NOW is more important than quality. And now equals cheap. And new is going to be important relatively soon also.
I don't always value quality, I confess. For clothing or shoes that are going to be outgrown long before they can get worn out, I find I don't care. Good enough is good enough. My kids play, but they don't play so hard that they are getting tears in their clothes with any regularity. Maybe the people who are the sponsors of my hand-me-downs was more interested in quality than I am, and I am oblivious. But when I buy clothes, I do often forgo quality for price.
> seriously, doesn't it bother you that a kid's shirt fades or > falls apart after 4 or 5 washes? even if you only paid $4 for > it, it's not a good value.
Falls apart would bother me. No one in the household would even notice if it faded.
> i buy mostly new because i can, & because i pass on the > clothes my child outgrows. it is more cost effective to buy a > $15 shirt that Boo wears for 2 years,
2 YEARS? The same shirt! Wow. It sounds like you and I just have different kids. You have mentioned that great activity level that has his clothes physically challenge. My son does not seem to have quite that level of vigor. But there is no way I could keep him in the same shirt, let alone pants, for 2 years.
> then it goes to another > kid who wears it for 2 years, rather than my buying a $4 shirt > that isn't worth using as a rag after 2 months. i wouldn't say > *i'm* saving gobs of money (at least not on the kid's clothes) > but my next-in-line for the outgrown clothes sure is ;) > i'm not boasting, i'm trying to explain cost/use ratio. > my kid is an only child. it would be easy to spoil him, but i > think it's better to teach him value, quality over quantity & > i think it's better to teach it young because when wanting to > be trendy hits in the teen years at least he'll have some > basis to judge his choices other than brands or labels (which > are pretty meaningless). plus he knows his outgrown clothes > (including the neatly patched & repaired) go to another child, > so he's learning to help others. > i think this summer he'll be starting to learn mending & > sewing... > lee
toto wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:27:27 GMT, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
>> In addition, we waste lots of other resources by buying small >> packages when larger packages are more cost- and resource efficient >> (less to throw out),
> Companies are packaging things in so much plastic packaging that you > can hardly get it open as well as making more waste.
They have individually wrapped slices of cheese now so you don't have to take the knife out to cut the cheese. You have to take the knife out to cut the packaging. And it costs a boat load more than a regular block of cheese.
> We watch next to no tv. We don't have cable or whatever at > home. That is a longish story that is not super important > here. But last summer we were on vacation at a condominuim > that my in-laws gave to us for a present. So we had tv. DS, > then 6, was watching cartoons. And saw an ad for froot > loops. Mom, it is part of this balanced breakfast. We > observed the image. A glass of milk. Whole wheat toast. An > apple. And some lonely froot loops in a bowl. And observe > the spelling of fruit. Is that how you spell "froot." Why > would they spell it like that? Because it has no fruit.
> Now when he sees compelling advertising you hear him say to > himself "The point of advertising is to separate me from my > money." CRACKS me up.
kids aren't stupid at that age. Boo does watch some tv (but he reads a lot now. he says "books don't have commercials") & he loves to come tell me about particularly stupid commercials. it cracks me up hearing him dissect them.
>> i think people, in general, really want to get >> good value for their money, but they don't know what to >> look for. if they did, less shoddy goods would sell & >> corporations would have to improve quality to keep sales. > I am not 100% certain that is always correct. For teens, a > growing market, NOW is more important than quality. And now > equals cheap. And new is going to be important relatively > soon also.
there's actually decent quality trendy stuff. not super high quality, but decent, even in places like Hot Topic or Rave.
> I don't always value quality, I confess. For clothing or > shoes that are going to be outgrown long before they can > get worn out, I find I don't care. Good enough is good > enough. My kids play, but they don't play so hard that they > are getting tears in their clothes with any regularity. > Maybe the people who are the sponsors of my hand-me-downs > was more interested in quality than I am, and I am > oblivious. But when I buy clothes, I do often forgo quality > for price.
i'm a hand-me-down sponsor, plus i expect a 7.5 year old to be rough on his clothes.
>> i buy mostly new because i can, & because i pass on the >> clothes my child outgrows. it is more cost effective to >> buy a $15 shirt that Boo wears for 2 years, > 2 YEARS? The same shirt! Wow. It sounds like you and I just > have different kids. You have mentioned that great activity > level that has his clothes physically challenge. My son > does not seem to have quite that level of vigor. But there > is no way I could keep him in the same shirt, let alone > pants, for 2 years.
he has at least 2 shirts from Gymboree that he's on the third winter wearing them. i bought them a bit big expecting a growth spurt. of course they're his favorite shirts & the sleeve length is getting noticably too short. i can't keep him in pants for more than 6 months because of his height (his 7s are becoming highwaters), but he can still wear size 4 or 5 shorts. he doesn't gain much weight, he just gets taller. he's got a girl cousin 6 months younger that outweighs him by 20 pounds now & she's not even chubby. lee
>>> She was responding to self back-patting. The OP was saying >>> that she suspects she is among the few who can recognize a >>> good garment, and even her child "at 7.5" can do the same. >>> Um, congratulations? I get the distinct impression that >>> these posts boil down to 'Look at me, I'm saving gobs of >>> money, you people are all dopes for wasting yours.' There >>> are ways to share frugal ideas without sounding so >>> righteous imo.
>> consumerism is taught in American schools, which is >> unfortunate. when i was in school we were taught to recognize >> the subliminal manipulation in commercials & how to recognise >> quality items. it's a pity that these lessons aren't being >> taught anymore.
> We watch next to no tv. We don't have cable or whatever at home. That is a > longish story that is not super important here. But last summer we were on > vacation at a condominuim that my in-laws gave to us for a present. So we > had tv. DS, then 6, was watching cartoons. And saw an ad for froot loops. > Mom, it is part of this balanced breakfast. We observed the image. A glass > of milk. Whole wheat toast. An apple. And some lonely froot loops in a > bowl. And observe the spelling of fruit. Is that how you spell "froot." > Why would they spell it like that? Because it has no fruit.
> Now when he sees compelling advertising you hear him say to himself "The > point of advertising is to separate me from my money." CRACKS me up.
<snip> The slogan for Mars bars used to be "a mars a day helps you work, rest and play". My mum used to sing "a mars a day helps your teeth rot away". My brother (I guess aged about 6) said one day that he was surprised they didn't say something good about it in the adverts... Debbie
>>>> She was responding to self back-patting. The OP was saying >>>> that she suspects she is among the few who can recognize a >>>> good garment, and even her child "at 7.5" can do the same. >>>> Um, congratulations? I get the distinct impression that >>>> these posts boil down to 'Look at me, I'm saving gobs of >>>> money, you people are all dopes for wasting yours.' There >>>> are ways to share frugal ideas without sounding so >>>> righteous imo.
>>> consumerism is taught in American schools, which is >>> unfortunate. when i was in school we were taught to recognize >>> the subliminal manipulation in commercials & how to recognise >>> quality items. it's a pity that these lessons aren't being >>> taught anymore.
>> We watch next to no tv. We don't have cable or whatever at home. >> That is a longish story that is not super important here. But last >> summer we were on vacation at a condominuim that my in-laws gave to >> us for a present. So we had tv. DS, then 6, was watching cartoons. >> And saw an ad for froot loops. Mom, it is part of this balanced >> breakfast. We observed the image. A glass of milk. Whole wheat >> toast. An apple. And some lonely froot loops in a bowl. And observe >> the spelling of fruit. Is that how you spell "froot." Why would >> they spell it like that? Because it has no fruit. Now when he sees >> compelling advertising you hear him say to himself >> "The point of advertising is to separate me from my money." CRACKS >> me up. > <snip> > The slogan for Mars bars used to be "a mars a day helps you work, > rest and play". > My mum used to sing "a mars a day helps your teeth rot away". > My brother (I guess aged about 6) said one day that he was surprised > they didn't say something good about it in the adverts... > Debbie
> seaglassru...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Jan 28, 4:40 pm, Banty <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote: > >> In article <2OqdnSoVYvVg1QPanZ2dnUVZ_ryqn...@comcast.com>, Stephanie > >> says...
> >>> "Banty" <Banty_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in message > >>>news:fnlh6q0s9m@drn.newsguy.com... > >>>> In article <NaSdnevf5evSsAPanZ2dnUVZ_iydn...@comcast.com>, > >>>> Stephanie says...
> >>>>> enigma wrote: > >>>>>> i suspect that there are a large number of people who don't > >>>>>> know what a well constructed garment looks like. i do get odd > >>>>>> looks as i turn everything inside out to inspect the seam > >>>>>> finish, shoulder taping, fabric grain, etc of clothing items > >>>>>> before purchase... but i now have a 7.5 year old who can > >>>>>> recognize a twisted fabric grain or a nicely finished shirt, > >>>>>> so it's a good thing (he also reads ingredient labels on snack > >>>>>> foods & rejects HFCS and red dyes).
> >>>>> Well now THAT is a parental accomplishment for the record book. I > >>>>> am definitly in the cant recognize a well constructed garmet. It > >>>>> goes hand in hand for me with not caring. My son usually grows > >>>>> out of stuff long before it is too worn to wear. I almost NEVER > >>>>> buy my kids' clothes. I get a ton of > >>>>> hand-me-downs. Which is FANTASTIC.
> >>>> Which is GREAT!
> >>>> When did this discussion veer from whether or not true value can > >>>> be gotten in a > >>>> Wal-mart to this que-es-mas-frugal/enlightened round of chest > >>>> pounding and self-backpatting!??
> >>> I was just kind of rambling from where it started. I was not trying > >>> to pound my chest. I get an excited feeling inside when I > >>> contemplate how many times I DIDNT have to go shopping for kids' > >>> clothes.
> >> That strikes me as self back-patting.
> > She was responding to self back-patting.
> I actually waws being *completely* silly about the best parental > accomplishment comment, as I believe enigma took it.
I did think you were sincere there. And I thought you naturally came back with some proud news of your own (not having to buy many clothes). Which got described as self backpatting. I just wanted to point out it wasn't done in a vacuum.
I have an 8 year old son and I do consignment shops as well as nicer stores too (only sales!). In a way I'm sorta glad he doesn't grow fast so we can make the most of clothes.
> > She was responding to self back-patting. The OP was saying > > that she suspects she is among the few who can recognize a > > good garment, and even her child "at 7.5" can do the same. > > Um, congratulations? I get the distinct impression that > > these posts boil down to 'Look at me, I'm saving gobs of > > money, you people are all dopes for wasting yours.' There > > are ways to share frugal ideas without sounding so > > righteous imo.
> consumerism is taught in American schools, which is > unfortunate. when i was in school we were taught to recognize > the subliminal manipulation in commercials & how to recognise > quality items. it's a pity that these lessons aren't being > taught anymore. i think people, in general, really want to get > good value for their money, but they don't know what to look > for. if they did, less shoddy goods would sell & corporations > would have to improve quality to keep sales. > seriously, doesn't it bother you that a kid's shirt fades or > falls apart after 4 or 5 washes? even if you only paid $4 for > it, it's not a good value.
I'm lucky to be near some great outlets...I recently paid $4-7 for items that are high quality--Carters, Oshkosh...I totally understand that Walmart stuff doesn't last but like others have said, if they aren't to be worn long, they are serving their purpose. My son's growth isn't off the charts (to say the least) so I won't go that way.
> my kid is an only child. it would be easy to spoil him, but i > think it's better to teach him value, quality over quantity
Agreed. Mine's an only too. I mostly buy quality either at a ridiculously low sale price or consignment, and he has them for a looong time. But again because of his slower growth (and it sounds like yours too from what I read, 2 years for a shirt!) I can do this. I imagine it must be harder for those with faster growing kids (plural) trying to find the balance.
> i think it's better to teach it young because when wanting to > be trendy hits in the teen years at least he'll have some > basis to judge his choices other than brands or labels (which > are pretty meaningless). plus he knows his outgrown clothes > (including the neatly patched & repaired) go to another child, > so he's learning to help others.
I'm sure it'll happen, but it's hard to believe he'll *ever* care about trends. He couldn't be bothered with what he wears. For one thing, he's colorblind, which I'm sure takes the fun out of a lot of it.
Knowing where old clothes/toys are going for good use is always great, even in instances where you aren't helping the needy. He was so proud the day we sold his entire Thomas collection to the parents of a tiny boy who answered our ad. This was a huuuge collection that was his whole life for 3 years. It was pretty cool to see him thinking how much fun that boy must be having.
|
