Exactly. It's one of the biggest issues in trying to help people out of poverty. As Sam Vimes's "Boot Theory" sums it up:
>The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
>Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
>But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
>This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
It's essentially true. Poorer people have to buy the smaller quantities/cheaper materials because it's all they can afford. And because of that, they end up having to buy it more often, often spending more in the long run. I'm actively trying to change my wardrobe now that I've realized that, and buy clothes that will last longer as opposed to cheaper ones that I have to replace more often. Thankfully, I have the money to do so, but many do not.