The Bubble Is About to Burst
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
No, not the housing bubble, the Denim bubble. Since everybody gets on me for paying so much for my jeans I figured I would post the link. See, I'm not the only one riding the high-end denim wave.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Can I just say how amused I am that this story about people mocking you for how much you pay for your jeans following the story about you not spending money, is pretty funny. I figure that maybe denim is your gateway drug to mass consumerism.
-Mike
Yeah, its pretty ironic isn't it? People overblow how much I pay for my jeans though. I freely admit it is my one vice but in my life I've only bought 4 pairs of designer jeans, each for around $130.
I wear them at least once a week and I figure that it over the long haul its a better deal than buying something I will like less for less money. That being said, $520 for jeans over the last 2 years is nothing compared to going on vacation (which I never do) or buying that big new TV I've been dying to get.
You. Gotta. Be. Kidding. Me.
$130 for a pair of jeans?
Actually $130 is the average. I've paid over $150 for a pair of jeans.
Look, we all have things we "waste" money on. I could say to everyone else, "What! You spent how much going on vacation? Why!"
After all, I've never been on vacation and I'm perfectly happy and healthy. A vacation is temporal, you are on it for a week or two and then its gone. And it can cost several thousand dollars depending on what you are doing.
I could argue buying expensive jeans is practical. I haven't changed pant sizes in over 10 years. I literally have clothes that have lasted that long. I wear my jeans every week. Over 10 years that is over 500 times I'm using the jeans. They last longer because they are better constructed (I bought a pair of Old Navy's once and they didn't last a year) and I get compliments all the time on how great my jeans look.
you always compare buying jeans to going on vacation. that irks me. why not then buy $1000 socks?
Why does that Irk you Kat? You value something differently than I value something. That's life.
I use vacation as my comparison because most people value vacation and don't value jeans. I on the other hand don't value vacations but value jeans. It is an appropriate comparison because it puts it in the context the other party can relate too. As much as you don't care about jeans is the same as I don't care about vacations.
Why wouldn't I buy $1000 pair of socks? Because I don't value it that much. Again, its about context.
I don't doubt that a $150 pair of jeans can be worth it to you for the style and compliments (much like a vacation is worth it for some people) but I can't justify calling it "practical". I wear jeans all the time and I've spent nothing close to $520 over the last 2 years. Most $15 pairs of jeans will last far more than 1/10th of the lifespan of a $150 pair of jeans. I also think Old Navy is a bad anecdotal example. They have a unique ability to combine crappy styles and shoddy material with intensely annoying advertising. At least they don't have that weird old lady in the ads anymore. *shudder*
it irks me because purchasing an experience or a service is not the same as purchasing material goods. it's just an inherently poor analogy.
Ryan, I think it depends on your definition of practical. Looking good is a very practical thing for me. People judge you, however right or wrong it is, on how you look. It's as true in business as it is in your personal life.
As for Kat, you are nit-picking now. No analogy is perfect. I'm not trying to compare material goods and non-material goods. I'm comparing items people spend money on. What that item is is irrelevant. Money is simply a measure of value. That value is different depending on the individual in question.
If you want we can use the economist favorite unit of meausre "utility". Either way your utility of vacations is vastly different than mine and vice versa on the jeans.
i'm not nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. i'm telling you that the reason your analogy irks me is because it's a poor one.
Post a Comment