Hacker News Reader

Comment by causi | Hacker News Reader

The problem isn't spending $40 on a shirt. The problem is spending $10 on a shirt every two weeks. My shirts might average $25-$35 each but most of them are well over five years old and I'm going to keep wearing them until they're visibly damaged. I spend a fraction of what fast-fashion addicts spend on clothes and they last me a long damn time. Fast fashion encourages a culture that makes people spend more money for shitty clothes because they want something new every few days. Vendors like Shein don't exist to clothe economically disadvantaged people; they exist to let people push the dopamine button with retail therapy.

View on HN

I suspect the people making the "classist" argument are doing so because they like consuming fast fashion and don't like someone implying that they're part of the problem.

Thats usually the case with these types of articles. A lot of times they arent written out of good will, but to pose something the author does not like as a bigger problem than it actually is. In this case, like you said, the author feels like they are not part of the problem and shouldn't "count."

Yes, people conflate fashion with clothing, the necessity, and they believe they should be able to enjoy fashion affordably as though it’s a necessity.

There are other things like this. People expect to be able to access the things they like without friction, and luxuries become necessities. Meat is a similar example in North America, where it’s terrible for the environment and extremely resource and labour intensive, yet people get upset when they can’t get a pound for pennies.

Both industries benefit greatly from people thinking of the product as a necessity or close to it.

I tried to spend $60+ on t-shirts and guess what, the same crap that turns “shoddy” after a short while. Part of a problem is that bad fashion mimics the normal one and if you aren’t into brand tracking or what they call it, you can’t make good guesses.

I decided to not worry much about my clothing cause my look-matters phase is long gone anyway. When it’s official, I wear a decent official look. When not, I look like a basic dude and let it hurt their fashion/status feelings.

My experience is that there is a difference in quality between ~10 € and ~40 € T-Shirts, where the 40 € shirts look a lot nicer after about a year of wear. (But it obviously depends on the brand.)

Why not shop at thrift stores instead? Why not continue to wear clothes that are visibly damaged?

Because they don't cause that dopamine hit that something nice and fancy does give. I think that's a good point that the gp made.

Thrift shops are selling used goods for prices similar to fast fashion. Many don't enjoy this experience as it no longer feels satisfying to get a bargain.

When I lived in Toronto, my favorite place to find clothes was the thrift shop. Especially when my first child was born. Often I was able to get like-new looking brand-name clothes for a fifth of the price, which was especially great for children's clothing that are only worn a handful of times before the baby no longer fits.

Why not shop at thrift stores instead?

An adverse ROI with regards to time and effort invested.

Why not continue to wear clothes that are visibly damaged?

I do keep them for dirty work at home, but eventually they get to the point they're more useful cut up for shop rags than as clothing.

Because even when you find nice clothes the sizing is often difficult. Thrift shops are often like a gold mine (I do recognize that normal shops often have similar problems depending on one's taste). Not everyone wants to mine.

Visibly damaged clothes are not good for every occasion and may just look bad on almost every occasion. Otherwise why not to wear a potato sack or rags tied with a bit of string?

> Why not shop at thrift stores instead?

Because they don't offer the same style in multiple sizes, so if the size doesn't fit, you are out of luck. For me, it's just too much work / time investment. Also, I like to just buy the same pair of trousers again, if the last one broke.

> Why not continue to wear clothes that are visibly damaged?

Social conventions.

Finding the right clothes for you in thrift stores can be tedious or difficult. Some enjoy the challenge and the surprise, but it’s not for everyone.

Wearing clothes that are visibly damaged incurs social judgment.

> Wearing clothes that are visibly damaged incurs social judgment.

So does wearing clothes that are out of fashion. Draw the line where you want to but don't judge others for choosing differently.

I saw a video claiming that clothes in America are only worn six times, in average. That horrified me

Six times? that sounds horrible

That sounds incorrect to me. I'd like to know how they arrived at that number.

Apps for selling clothes second hand often have for the “condition” field a variant of: new with tag; new without tag; worn once; used.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a large percentage of clothes bought in rich countries are worn once or never.

Playing the Devil’s advocate, it could also be people who’ve worn it, and found out it’s uncomfortable or doesn’t look as expected.

But I say that as someone who gets told by his wife that he needs to throw clothes that fall apart away, so it’s just a guess ;)

Depends on if they factor in kids clothing.

It doesn't really say anything about the behavior of the majority of people. A small portion can drive this number down.

As an example, say 8 out of 10 people have 7 sets of clothes, one for each day of the week, and use the same sets for a whole year. The remaining 2 out of 10 use a new set of clothes every day, so they go through 365 sets of clothes in a year. That comes to clothes being used an average of 4.64 times:

  $ python -c 'print(
    # average used times in a year
    (
      (
        8 # people
        * 7 # sets of clothes
        * (365 / 7) # used times in a year
      ) + (
        2 # people    
        * 365 # sets of clothes
        * 1 # used times in a year
      )
    ) / (                                                        
      8 # people                                       
      * 7 # sets of clothes                           
      +                                                
      2 # people 
      * 365 # sets of clothes 
    )  
  )'                        
  4.643765903307888

Fair enough, but how many people do you know who wear a new set of clothes every day? I know zero!

Knowing people like that would depend on your social circle.

Anyway, it's just an example to show how that number can be easily influenced by a small minority. The real numbers are going to be different.

There’s a small minority of people who do that -- not 20% of the population, but large enough to influence statistics. I wouldn't be surprised if that was 20% of women between 15 and 45-year-old. They also buy clothes that they never wear (other than trying). I’ve seen estimates as high as for some people, they never wear 40% of the clothes that they buy before disposing of them.

On the other end, I’m also surprised by the “one-year” thing: most of my clothes are more than five-year-old and they are fine. For underwear and t-shirts, I typically wear them once a week.

> On the other end, I’m also surprised by the “one-year” thing: most of my clothes are more than five-year-old and they are fine.

Because these are the minority of clothes despite being used by the majority of people in the example I gave, changing the timeframe doesn't really change the average. Changing the example to use a 5 year timeframe, for instance, only changes the average to 4.92.

> not 20% of the population

Right, and it also ought to be less than 80% that buys clothes no more often than once per year or per 5 years. Both extremes are exaggerated to not have to insert more tiers than needed into the example.

They don't. They cycle through the same 3-7 sets of clothes until they go threadbare, and ignore everything else in their closet unless they need something for a special occasion.

That’s the average. Many pieces of clothes are worn hundreds of times. Which means the median is probably lower than 6. Many pieces of clothes are probably only worn once or twice.

Looking at the number of conference t-shirts I have, that number is plausible.

Oh I wish people would stop deciding every event/fundraiser/ employer needs a hideous screen printed t-shirt advertisement no one will wear outside the event and maybe painting a room. That and the stream of useless junk gifts - the low powered USB charging sticks, plastic water bottles and tumblers. Last year my employer gave every employee a

Enough. Nobody actually wants these. It's direct to landfill for 99% of the things you're giving away.

I start saying no, not that it impacts items already ordered. Figure if they start ending up with thousands of t-shirts after an event they'll stop ordering them.

Right. Don't forget tote bags. I have enough tote bags to last the rest of my life, and probably well beyond.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com