
Americans are spending less on clothing - prostoalex
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-death-of-clothing/
======
randcraw
IMHO there are three clear causes for this trend:

1) US business fashion is increasingly casual. Ties, skirts, suits,
coordinated outfits, scarves, leather soled shoes -- all are passe, even in
button down East Coast Fortune 100 companies (other than for aspiring managers
or those in banking/finance).

2) Color is passe. Shades of black and grey dominate wardrobes, especially in
large cities. Thus fewer accessories are needed, since all shades of gray look
OK with all sheens of black.

3) More people are working from home several days a week, so nobody cares how
you're dressed. I'm astonished at how fast this has changed here (outside
Philly). Probably 2/3 our cubes are empty on most days. Five years ago, they
were full, because upper management insisted we be physically present and that
we follow a dress code (no jeans). But now that management is no longer
physically co-located with staff, and almost all meetings are online, nobody
cares where you are or what you wear.

~~~
freejulian
All these explanations are rather complicated. I think the simplest
explanation is the best: people don't have the free money to spend on
clothing.

This is evidenced by the following facts: 1) Wages have been stagnant 2) Cost
of living has been increasing well beyond the stated 2% rate of inflation.

~~~
rb808
That doesn't explain why people in the poorest countries dress better than
Americans. People living in the slums of India/Nigeria/Brazil are more likely
to have a collared shirt and dress pants than an American going to work in an
office.

~~~
ryanianian
This.

I see two things happening here: (1) American spending less on clothing and
(2) Americans having less self-pride in their attire and presentation.

I've spent a fair amount of time in Latin American countries, and a real sure-
fire way to identify tourists is to look for people poorly-dressed or those
who look like they just don't care about how they look.

E.g., despite much of Mexico being quite hot, you will almost never see a
local Mexican wearing shorts, even on beaches. Tee-shirts _maybe_ but almost
always a freshly-washed button-up shirt. (Or a swimsuit if they're swimming
obviously.) This is true of other Latin countries too in my travels. It's
really humbling to see.

~~~
maerF0x0
It's not "self pride" its a bucking of the trend of what "looks good" .

It's not that I cannot afford to wear suits. Its that I dont like suits. Add
in the marginal cost difference and I'd rather wear a tshirt. It's the market
punishing the inefficiency of requiring your workers (or date) to dress in a
certain manner when it adds no true value.

~~~
ryanianian
> It's not that I cannot afford to wear suits. Its that I dont like suits.

I think you prove my point (and it's not a bad thing!)

Sociology is interesting. A suit is traditionally a sign of "I invest in my
clothes and therefore I have self-pride." (It's also a sign that you don't
have to do hard/dirty labor.) It seems culturally America has decided that
this is out-dated and are choosing to focus less on clothes as a sign of
pride. This doesn't the pride isn't there, just that the ways of showing and
seeing it have changed for some or most.

Some people will always think a tee-shirt or shorts look worse than a button-
up and pants. It's a personal sentiment for sure.

~~~
potta_coffee
My view of suits has always been, "I work in a profession that requires me to
wear this symbolic clothing."

I've avoided these kinds of careers because I want to be graded on my skill,
not my ability to dress well. And suits are uncomfortable, and I like to be
comfortable.

~~~
saul_pako
As a native of Scandinavia I too have experienced the trend of people claiming
their right to be judged on skill rather than background or appearance. Here
however, it is often argued that the right to be judged on skill and
compatibility, and therefor being able to dress to ones own preferences is
earned only when you have proven to be a) greatly over-qualified and b) of a
high enough age and/or c) with an ethnicity, gender or other background
factors that conform with the existing idea of what a professional in the
specific field looks and acts like.

------
jimmies
>Apparel is being displaced by travel, eating out and activities—what’s
routinely lumped together as “experiences”—which have grown to 18 percent of
purchases. [..] That now tops all clothing and footwear expenditures.

I have a completely blunt theory on that. People learn that pictures of them
smiling in their bathing suit in the Maldives or with that exotic plate of
food attract more 'likes' than the pictures of them with that new handbag or
handmade watch in their office. So they spend more time eating and traveling
and posting pictures, instead of buying that bag. It's what sells. It is no
surprise to me that """experiences""" sell likes better than things on
Facebook.

If that was true, what determines what people spend money on depends what the
dominant social network/ source of news is. Past: magazines at checkout lines:
expensive bags and clothing. Now: Facebook: travels and food. Future: who
knows what will be the dominant one. But here are my guesses. Pinterest: Hobby
Lobby. TMZ: back to expensive clothing. /r/fi: mutual funds. Slashdot:
Thinkpads. Hacker News: Tesla cars and Juicero machines. (Let's be honest
here, I want a Tesla car and a Juicero machine, so if you have a job that
allows me to afford those, feel free to connect, ty).

~~~
jon-wood
I think you've got cause and effect the wrong way round. People who enjoy
hobbies are going to be drawn to Pintrest, people into finance read /r/fi, and
people who are into tech read Hacker News.

~~~
jimmies
It was a lame and absurd joke,... but what I meant is that the dominant one
that people without any particular interest flock in. Now, it's Facebook. In
the past, it was the taboo magazines in Walmart checkout lines and at gas
stations, so that's why it used to be clothing. If Facebook didn't make it, I
think we wouldn't have seen the shift mentioned.

The average person thinks what's popular is what makes them likable, not that
he/she has found a more meaningful life in travels and """experiences""". Btw,
I'm from Vietnam, the news there is changing rapidly but still have an
emphasis on celebrities, so I notice that Viet immigrants in the US care about
how you look & dress more than American people. Every comment on how I dress
was from my Viet friends and _our_ girls wear a lot of LV bags :)

------
dandare
European here: when visiting my company HQ I was surprised how casual
Americans dress for work. I am not saying devs should wear suit and tie,
nothing like that, but even my bosses boss* was wearing what looked like a
rumpled sweater with worn out jeans. And I don't mean like fashion statement
rumpled and worn out, more like the "great depression" crumpled and worn out.
Jules and Vincent in their new t-shirts would fit in perfectly. Another thing
I noticed was the absolute lack of color and variation in the outdoor
clothing, at least in the morning at Manhattan, almost everyone - men and
women - was wearing dark blue or black, no exceptions.

*EDIT: clarification - I am talking about a VP in a $1b company.

~~~
slowmotiony
I wish Germany was like that. I work as a IT consultant in a financial
institution and we all have to wear suits here, even though most of the people
have never seen a client in their life - they just sit behind their desks and
do their daily work on a PC. So they do so - in a suit. I really don't know
why Germans do this to themselves.

~~~
sedachv
> I really don't know why Germans do this to themselves.

Yes, wearing a well-fitting, tailored suit made out of fabric with a good hand
appropriate to the weather is a horrible (horribly comfortable) experience to
subject yourself to. Having plenty of functional jacket pockets for all of
your belongings is a special kind of hell.

~~~
bradlys
I think you need to readjust your lens. In general, people simply cannot
afford a well fitting suit as their regular clothing. Some people fit into a
cheap 2-piece suit from Macy's for $300 with some tailoring. Many don't. For
those, the cost jump is at least to $500 for a made to measure. At which
point, you're going to have to spend a lot of time trying to get the fit right
and it'll take some time. And if you really want it to fit "right" then it's
$3,000 per suit because you have to go bespoke. If you don't live near a very
popular and fashion conscious city, you probably won't find a bespoke tailor.

Compare with $25 jeans and a $10 t-shirt that people will wear everyday, it's
pretty easy to see why they go with that. Lotta sizes and fits that will
eventually fit you in that price range. You can have ~7 pairs of jeans and
t-shirts for the price of one _very_ cheap fused low end fabric suit. Enough
to have something different for every day of the week. You can have about 15
pairs of jeans and t-shirts for 1 made to measure suit. You can have about 70
pairs of jeans and t-shirts for the cost of one bespoke suit. That's enough
jeans and t-shirts to last you over a decade.

We didn't even factor in the cost that nicer dress shoes cost and the cost of
fitted dress shirts or all the accessories that can go with suits. (Belts,
pocket squares, ties, bowties, tie clips, cufflinks, etc.)

~~~
sedachv
> I think you need to readjust your lens.

Do you regularly buy suits, and have you bought one recently? You post is the
kind of unfounded delusions people have about suits (easy to spot when someone
mentions the "need" for bowties...) that keep them from buying one. Discount
suits are a thing. The last suit I bought cost $50. Polyester fabric is cheap,
far more durable than cotton, and comfortable. Alterations are $15-30.
Department stores have sales - my summer suit is a great linen I bought for
under $100 from a major department store (I think it was Nordstroms).

> That's enough jeans and t-shirts to last you over a decade.

Suits will easily last you for over a decade, as long as you don't cycle in
them (that will destroy any pair of pants quickly). My first suit turns 15
years old this year and it is still in good shape. Polyester and wool fabric
will outlast the cotton that jeans and t-shirts are made out of many times
over. Suits as work clothing work out to be less expensive than replacing the
discount $25 jeans and t-shirts that fall apart after a year.

Mail-order made-to-measure dress shirts are less expensive than off-the-rack
dress shirts in department stores. Last time I ordered I paid about $40 per
shirt (easier to buy in bulk once a decade... again these shirts last),
department store ones were $80 and up.

------
skywhopper
This is a pretty sloppy article, with a bunch of conventional-wisdom-as-
evidence and no critical analysis of potential cause and effect. H&M as a
stand-in for "cheap clothes", ignoring any number of other cheap clothing
retailers that have come and gone for decades. Using only three datapoints for
Levis 501 prices going back only to 2009 when claiming trends that go back 30
years, and when Levis 501s have been available under that name for 130 years
and have been a common fashion for almost 70 years.

I do think some of the trends they call out are contributing for sure, but I
don't think this piece really explains anything. They never really discuss
whether people actually have fewer clothes or whether it's just that the
clothes are cheaper. There's no real analysis of how fast fashion is changing.

And the whole idea that we _should_ be buying more clothes because "the
economy is growing and wages are rising" is delusion. Wages have only just
started to show signs of rising after decades of near-stasis, and the Fed
reacted with big interest rate hikes that sent the stock market plummeting. A
"growing economy" doesn't help an individual buy more clothes. Only rising
wages can do that, or cheaper clothes prices. In the absence of wage growth,
it's no wonder we've had a long-term decline in clothes spending. And because
they overlooked this, the article also fails to consider that the fact that
people feel they can't afford to spend as much on clothes is more likely a
driving factor in the increasing casualization of work and society than the
increasing casualization is a reason why we spend less on clothes.

~~~
kimdcmason
"the Fed reacted with big interest rate hikes that sent the stock market
plummeting."

Wat? We're still in of one of the longest bull runs in history. The S&P 500
jumped 80% in the last 5 years. Even incorporating the minor market correction
in the last week (2/3rds of which has already recovered), the stock market has
done the reverse of what you suggest.

~~~
macNchz
The hysteria over what amounts to a blip in a seemingly endless run-up of the
markets has kind of surprised me over the past few days. Not sure what to make
of it, but it has been interesting to watch.

------
johnpowell
Maybe I just live in a weird place. But I see a lot less branding when I walk
around town compared to 20 years ago. My sister has 17 year old twin girls and
they pretty much refuse to wear anything that makes them a "walking
billboard".

I live close to the university of Oregon and when I was in high school it was
all Nike clothes all over campus. Now I still see some but not nearly as much.
It is like "Likes" instead of logos is what makes the kids cool now.

~~~
dazc
In the UK wearing branded 'designer' clothing is a kind of status signal
people with a low status tend to gravitate towards.

People of a higher status are more likely to dress conservatively since they
don't have anything to 'prove'.

/*generally speaking

~~~
doikor
A lot of the really expensive high end designer clothes don't really have any
logos on them or if they do they are very small for this very reason. Due to
this what they wear might look conservative but could be expensive as fuck ;)

~~~
agiamas
That exactly. Which is probably the same thing that several others have
pointed out.. A 100$ shirt will have huge logos all over the place because the
market segment it targets are people who can "just" afford it and want to
signal other people who can't. A 1000$ shirt will have little to no logos and
will be distinguished only by "others" who can spend as much, because if you
wear 1000$ shirts why would you care signalling to the person who can "just"
afford 100$ shirts that you have so much more? You may care to signal this to
other 1000$ shirt owners but then maybe you just don't care about signalling
via clothing ;)

------
jmadsen
One thing the article missed but for me personally is an important point: the
rise of minimalism

I'm not the type of minimalism you write about, but clothes last for ages now
& I just don't want lots of stuff. Especially here in Japan we do laundry
every day, so I just don't need very many items. Just some comfortable layers,
enough to have a little variety, I'm all set.

(I'm leaving in the morning for 2 weeks in Florida. My wife was laughing at
how tiny my suitcase is - really just a carry on.

I informed her it was only half full.)

~~~
utellme
Oh, I'm feeling just opposite on your phrase "clothes last for ages" if you
speaking about its quality. 10 yr old jeans looks ugly but their endurance is
much better than modern ones has.

And if you wash your clothes so often, it should last few months before became
completely garbage.

~~~
FranOntanaya
That'd be survivor bias. My average jeans a decade or two ago would start
tearing off at the buttonhole or taint seam after a year or so.

~~~
timkpaine
"Taint Seam" you put hilarious words to something we all know haha. Especially
those of us prone to blowing out the crotch of our jeans.

------
bballer
With the exception of shoes and jackets I buy all my clothes at Goodwill. It's
awesome! Every couple of months I spend around $20 dollars and I always have
nice new tee shirts, button ups, pants etc. You wont believe how many nice
clothes people simply give away.

Plus it makes me feel great knowing I'm contributing to reuse and giving money
to a company that helps employee less fortunate people.

~~~
lg
you're lucky it fits you. the only sizes i see at thrift stores are L-XXL

~~~
overcast
Large is pretty standard size for tall men. Pretty much required over 5'11.

~~~
foobarandgrill
I'm 6'2" and 180lbs and large still fits baggy on me most of the time. Which
is annoying for gifts because most people think the same way and gift large or
extra-large clothes without gift receipts so I end up having to drive them
over to the salvation army.

~~~
overcast
Large, non bespoke shirts off the rack, are longer. Which is required for
taller people. I have the same issue, which is why I look for fitted shirts in
large. 6'1 175lb.

------
rossdavidh
Hypothesis I'm considering, don't know if I believe it yet: a lot of clothes
were once bought at the mall, not so much because they were wanted, but
because you were at the mall and it seemed like the thing to do. Now people
are at the mall less, and only buy clothes when they actually need them, so
fewer clothes get bought that sit in closets unused.

------
purplezooey
Article neglects to mention that healthcare spending per person doubled
between 2003 and 2010 (before decelerating after the ACA). Soon all of our
money will go to healthcare and housing.

~~~
dalbasal
This may be a relevant point, especially if the segments experiencing
increased basic cost of living costs (rent, healthcare, housing, education..)
are the same segments that spent a lot of clothes.

Remember that averages are averages, and increased rent (for example) only
affects renters, and affects new contracts faster. Some people experience
housing cost inflation more than others, more than average. For an unqualified
guess/theory, it's possible that young, single, middle class people renting in
large metros (eg NY, London) represent a major segment of the fashion
industry. They're facing the full wack of housing cost inflation. Possibly
amounts to reduced discretionary spending, which for some people means mostly
shoes.

------
Hextinium
I think a major contributor that isn't pointed out in the article is that
clothes can last forever. I haven't needed to step into a department store in
over two years not because I don't want to but because I don't need to. I wear
the same clothes year-round and they have worked for the last 3-4 years before
they even start to show wear. The only thing I need are new shoes and socks.
Heck now with microfiber underwear those last forever too.

~~~
darpa_escapee
Higher end clothes last longer. However, what is availably priced for most
people are poorly made clothes that will last a year if they don't fall apart
in the wash before then.

Take a look at what's available at Kohl's, Walmart, Old Navy etc and you will
see what I mean.

~~~
megaman22
It's all in what you buy, though. I have clothes from Walmart I've been
wearing daily for nearly a decade - they're Carhart and Dickies jeans and
sweatshirts however. That's better runs than I've gotten out of higher-end
pants that cost 5x more. But I'll admit, I've no idea how women's clothing
compares; men's clothing is blessedly simple and robust and fashions change at
glacial paces.

~~~
MandieD
Women's clothing is generally terrible - fragile, thin fabrics that snag way
too easily and pill up after a few machine washings. Oh, and random shiny
things and frills sewn on.

On top of that, we get to pay extra for the privilege.

I want simple, unornamented women's size and proportioned tops and trousers
made out of the fabrics men's clothes are.

~~~
danmaz74
My impression, as a husband and father who admittedly doesn't shop very often,
was that lots of women's clothes on sale - obviously not high-end ones - are
all the things you said, but relatively inexpensive and supposed to not be
used a lot of time, with the idea that you buy many and change them often.

~~~
bigmanwalter
Also women build outfits. So a new dress requires a new purse and jacket
sometimes.

------
B-Con
tl;dr: They buy less in quantity and value expensive brands less.

This is in line with the "spend money on experiences not stuff" trend we're
watching rise in popularity, particularly in the younger generation. People
aren't flocking as quickly to flaunt their status via possessions,
particularly in clothing. The right $20 shirt can look great and last you
forever.

I found a $8 t-shirt and $20 pair of pants that I like. I have a handful of
them. They last a while and a topic-specific t-shirt drifts in here and there.
I replace socks/underwear every couple years. I already have a suit from past
experiences in case I need one. I replace my daily shoes ~annually. I wear the
same thing to work and at home. (Disclaimer: I'm a software guy with no
interest in fashion.)

Per the stereotype: I'm pretty sure I spend more on streaming services per
year than clothes. (Even if you don't count a slice of Prime for the video
streaming).

~~~
johnpowell
About five years ago my mom offered to do my laundry. I lived in a little
studio apartment and I had to walk about 10 blocks to the laundromat. She did
my laundry all the time since she has a washer and dryer in her house.

So I had six bags of laundry I carried down to her car. I put them on the
passengers side but the doors are locked. So I go around to her in the drivers
seat and we chat of a bit. And then she comes around to the passengers side to
get some groceries for me out.

I run the groceries up to my apartment and look out my window and she is gone.
I assume she grabbed my clothes. She did not. She drove off with nearly every
article of clothing I owned on the side of her car.

It was pretty much the most devastating thing I have ever experienced. She
called me about six hours later and asked where my laundry was. I pretty much
only had what I was wearing. Tons of band t-shirts that were 20 years old and
can not be replaced.

I am poor...

But for 300 bucks I got going again. 7 pairs of Dickies in different colors.
14 white t-shirts and four different colors of hoodies. And some socks and
underwear.

Got the stuff on Amazon so shipping took a while. I was washing my only pair
of boxers in my salad spinner. Which actually worked well. The salad spinner
is still in use. Some bleach cleaned it right up.

~~~
beigeotter
Why didn't she just drive the clothes back?

~~~
gaius
She left the clothes on the sidewalk and they were immediately stolen, I
assume.

------
martinsb
I think this is very good news. Fast fashion leads to resource and people
exploitation. This is great that people use their old clothes and refrain from
buying new ones for no other reason than the old ones have become unwearable.
(edit: typo)

~~~
mozumder
> I think this is very good news. Fast fashion leads to resource and people
> exploitation.

Not a fan of fast-fashion, but what does "people exploitation" mean?

Should a Bangladeshi factory worker go back to begging in the streets instead
of working a job at a factory? They provide value in terms of making a product
that you buy.. what's the problem with that?

~~~
lev99
When foreign companies open a factory in a third world company the companies
economy benefits significantly less then if a factory owned by citizens of the
same country open up. The profits leave the country instead of stay inside,
where the money can exchange hands many more times. First world companies can
outbid foreign companies on labor, land, resources and bribes. This makes it
harder for domestic manufacturing to start.

The jury is really out on if foreign manufacturers help third world economies
or hurt them. One major benefit that is hard to quantity is that foreign
manufacturing is a sign of a stable government and can increase the stability
of the government.

~~~
mozumder
This isn't a choice between foreign-owned factory or a locally-owned factory.

This is a choice between a foreign-owned factory or no factory.

Also, why would you expect the profits to stay inside? If Nike opens a factory
in Bangladesh, wouldn't the profits go to Nike? I don't understand your "local
profits" statement?

And the jury isn't out on the benefits of neoliberal globalization. It's been
shown to clearly reduce poverty among the global poor. It's why Bangladesh
went from 41% extreme poverty to 14% extreme poverty over the last 25 years...

~~~
lev99
Just a clarifying statement.

In Bangladesh citizens own a factory then Bangladesh benefits much more then
if Nike owns a factory. By "Local profits" I meant when locally-owned
factories operate more money is kept internally then when foreign-owned
factories run.

Globalization as a whole benefits most people, and this is not up for debate.
I will agree with that statement.

~~~
selimthegrim
Those factory owners are stashing their money in Dubai, not Bangladesh

------
ubermonkey
This has definitely happened for me. In the dot-com boom I was a big clothes
horse, and enjoyed it. Since then I've worked from home, and my biz wardrobe
has dwindled to fairly crappy Jos. A Banks items I don't mind cramming into a
suitcase for my rare business trips.

I still keep a suit or two for nicer social functions, but my everyday wear is
increasingly casual. Since I lost a bunch of weight and became more active,
it's also increasingly outdoor/athletic in nature -- turns out, Prana pants
are super comfy, and cost a shitload less than Zegna.

------
sanmon3186
My job requires me to travel to US (from India) almost every six months. On
most weekends I just buy clothes for my family. It is interesting that half of
those clothes are usually made in South Asia, but are cheaper and better in
the US.

------
ksec
What? Didn't they answer the question themselves?

You cant measure clothing in terms of Dollar Value. Or Revenue, and it is less
would means people are buying less. That is I think so far from truth. People
are buying more from Uniqlo or other much Cheaper brands that offer better
value.

We all know the manufactured cost of any clothes is absolutely minimal. It is
the design, marketing, and Retails Rental that covers vast majority of the
expenses. It also enjoy very good economy of scale.

Material improvement means T-Shirt that are cheap today are likely to be much
better then cheap T-Shirt 10 - 20 years ago. It comes to a point where these
cheaper alternative are good enough.

------
kimdcmason
The suit is dead except explicitly formal occasions. The global financial
crisis killed it. Basically every person commuting securities fraud in the
oughts did so while wearing a suit. Think about who you now see wearing suits
- bankers, salesmen, and politicians. Occupations that trigger a range of
responses from general mistrust to downright loathing.

Suits have become a liar's uniform. Whenever I encounter anyone in this mode
of dress who isn't an obvious dandy, I'm immediately on the watch for tactics
to squeeze as much money out of me as possible.

This leaves business casual and casual. As the article points out, most of
those haven't seen substantial change for years. People don't get rid of
clothes these days because they're out of style. Given these trends, it would
amaze me if clothing sales weren't down substantially.

~~~
EliRivers
_The suit is dead except explicitly formal occasions._

Depends on the crowd with which you hang out, I suppose. I dress smarter on
holiday than in the office. I'll typically take a cream linen three-piece suit
on holiday to wear when the occasion presents (surprisingly versatile - minus
the jacket and with shirt sleeves folded up to the forearms, it's basically
"smart casual", yet put on the jacket and cufflinks and you're ready for a
formal event at an embassy), and the last holiday I took - a week of language
lessons in Tokyo interspersed with the usual tourist stuff - I wore a three-
piece suit minus the jacket (so the waistcoat and a bright but tasteful tie).
As you surmise, you get a different response; the response I get generally
isn't "this guy is a liar out to steal from me". Maybe you spend too much time
around liars who happen to wear suits.

------
cptskippy
I've always had difficulty finding clothing that fit because I'm tall but not
big. When online shopping started to take off in the early 2000s it made
finding clothing in my size dramatically easier and actually allowed me to
choose a style beyond "whatever you have in my size".

In the past 5 years however I've noticed my options for dress clothing
dwindling dramatically and choice being limited to only mainly what's
unpopular and trendy (e.g. ugly variants of skinny pants).

I'm in need of several dress shirts and slacks and I'm expecting to spend
somewhere close to $1000 to replenish my wardrobe but I'm not having any luck
finding anything I'm willing to spend money on.

I've noticed a lot of brands have been refocusing or clarifying who they're
catering too and apparently I'm not it.

~~~
nugi
I am not even tall, just a normal healthy build. Even slightly overweight. But
everything 'my size' fits like a tent. I get it, americans are fat. But the
other side of the coin is just as bad, if I want fitted jeans, they think I
have no calves, or huge boots, with no in between.

Clothes are now made for the new 'normal', which appears to be 245lbs and 5'8,
size 10-E.

~~~
QuackingJimbo
I have the same problem.

For pants, try Bonobos "athletic fit".

For everything else, I got nothing.

------
djrogers
I think that one of the explanations for this is that clothing purchases are
often driven by in-person retail shopping, usually at malls and department
stores - both of which are becoming barren, lifeless wastes.

When I was a kid, we'd kill time hanging out at the mall. My parents did too.
You know what would happen when we went to the mall? We'd wind up shopping,
sometimes buying stuff, often clothes.

------
bob_theslob646
I think that as large marketplaces such as Amazon push their own brands. They
really do a tremendous job on the marketing value of these clothing companies
because essentially they're saying" hey why pay more when you can get
essentially the same exact thing for this price coupled with extremely fast
shipping. Sounds like a recipe for disaster for a clothing brand.

A perfect example of this is under armor. Why pay 40 dollars fora t-shirt when
you can get 5 for that price?

Other thoughts:I wonder if the lack of size standardization has anything to do
with it, coupled with the abundance of cheap clothing.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
> _A perfect example of this is under armor. Why pay 40 dollars fora t-shirt
> when you can get 5 for that price?_

You've always been able to buy a five-pack of perfectly good
T-shirts/socks/underwear for less than one fancy name-brand item, though.
That's not new with Amazon.

------
rsynnott
I wonder if changes in washing machines are an issue, actually. America was
really keen on top-loaders for a long time, and those damage clothes far more
than front-loaders. As the US finally adopts front-loaders (and high-
efficiency top-loaders, which use a different mechanism to the old ones),
clothes will last longer.

~~~
emodendroket
Clothes are in a sense more "disposable" than ever though. Who's going to
bother darning a shirt that cost less than ten bucks?

~~~
kaybe
Me, it's less work than buying a new one.

(Unless the reason for the hole is that the fabric has aged too much - the
next hole will open in about a week, so I don't bother.)

~~~
emodendroket
Well, OK, but, in general, I think most people don't even know what darning is
anymore, let alone how to do it. I've never known anyone to not just throw out
socks with holes in them, for instance.

~~~
kaybe
Socks almost always fall into the too-old category though. And they are really
easy to buy.

------
mrarjen
I remember the thrift stores in the US are full of second hand clothing that
might as well have been all new or maybe worn once. And as a Dutch person I
was amazed how much perfectly fine clothing was disposed of. Especially since
I usually wear things till they break in some manner.

Actually there was a lot more well fitting clothing (mainly shirts) in the
thrift places than in the actual clothing stores. Not to mention pants... for
a Dutch person looking for pants in a US store is a no go apparently, it's all
far to tiny...

~~~
radicalbyte
Thrift stores sort and sell. The best stuff goes on to their stores the rest
is graded and sold. You see the same thing here in NL charity shops.

~~~
mrarjen
True, but quality wise it's far lower in the Netherlands than it is in the US
from my experience. Plus now a days it seems most people buy from the Primark,
as it's ridiculously cheap...

~~~
klipt
English does have phrases that tend to stereotype Dutch people as frugal (or
sometimes even stingy)

E.g. "Dutch treat": taking someone out for a meal but only paying for
yourself, not also for the person you invited.

~~~
mrarjen
"Going Dutch" also similar. But that's due to some dates would be offended if
the man pays for the meals. But this is kind of drifting off topic :)

------
raiyu
There are always macro trends going on in fashion and clothing tastes change
every few years, however what I found interesting is that they compared
technology spending vs clothing spending, but this isn't the right comparison.

We are spending more on technology because it is essential for modern day
life. First with the computer, then laptop, then ipod, and now the smart
phone.

From a limited budget increasing spending in one area will decrease it in
another, but the other big question is how have spending habits changed over
the past 30 years.

Technology went up, clothing went down, but I'm certain other areas of
spending also increased.

Rent as a % of income most likely went up.

Certainly debt as a % of income went up when you consider what's going on with
school tuition, and that is a fairly recent trend of dramatically increasing
rates over the past decade. Which would time well with many people who have
graduated, with tremendous debt, now in the workforce earning money, but
having greater expenses.

So when you look at all of those factors combined I think essentially what you
end up with is less disposable income.

Then you consider how we decide to dispose of our income and you realize that
the networked social world that is instantly available to you via a smartphone
allows us to lifestyle shop from other people. Where before we did window
shopping and focused more on our small community without access to global
information, we are now life style shopping on instagram and so this has led
to an increase in disposable income being spent for those other experiences.

------
didibus
What's the data for Europe and Asia like?

I'm wondering if this might be cultural.

------
psadri
Another possible cause could be drop in average price of clothing. Fast
fashion chains like h&m, uniqlo, Zara, etc have high quality, very affordable
clothing. So people are buying same or more clothing but for smaller absolute
$ amount.

~~~
dazc
Also, at the extreme end, Primark is literally cheap enough to throw away
after a couple of wears.

------
marban
To quote Scott Galloway: _" An iPhone is saying to the opposite sex, or a
potential mate, 'I have good genes. You should mate with me.'"_

Ain't gonna happen with those $800 Common Projects sneakers.

------
therealmarv
Some people from Europe say: You can see that from time to time ;)

------
usrusr
My guess: fast fashion came with very cheap prices per item, keeping overall
spending stable or rising through increased consumption. Now the novelty of
ridiculously short wardrobe replacement intervals is starting to wear off, but
the prices are here to stay.

Expect retail area dedicated to cheap (formerly known as fast) fashion to
shrink accordingly. Probably not a big loss if the continuous network of
direct sightlines between H&M stores is getting a few gaps here and there.

------
everyone
The 'Fighting for your dollars' mouse over, infographic thing is a great
example of significant effort being put in to do a good job implementing a
stupid idea.

------
drdoom
You know this is a special pet peeve of mine. I have stopped myself several
times from complaining about this very

For a period of a few years, a few years ago, I started shopping very
frequently for pants, shirts, etc. I once caught myself wondering why that was
the case. The answer surprised me: I was not happy with the stuff I was
buying. They would not fit comfortably after the initial wear.

Then I noticed what was really the problem:

1) Pants are getting shorter, mostly in the inseams - the distance from the
belt loops to bottom of the zippers. (In other words, pants now "sit below the
hip", there is no more those that "sit at the hip").

2) Shirts are getting shorter too. They don't go as far down under your belt
as they used too.

So, just these two combinations leave a good part of my lower belly exposed
quickly and easily, something I do "not" like.

3) It is quite hard to find pants with basic options, like pleats and cuffs.
Everything is flat fronted, it seems.

So, it is easy to see why no one is shopping any more unless they really have
to.

Just my 2 cents :-)

------
mc32
Maybe people are slowing down the fashion cycle and keeping their clothing
longer and not tossing them after a season.

Buy quality and keep them for years. Except of course for those items from the
2000s.... The oversized fashion, even Hollywood could be embarrassed by those
ridiculously oversized outfits.

------
gruez
>Apparel is being displaced by travel, eating out and activities—what’s
routinely lumped together as “experiences”

Am I the only one who's coming to a different conclusion from looking at the
graph? It looks like the decline in apparel is directly correlated with the
rise in tech.

------
jaclaz
Besides whatever the data is, starting the graph "Share of personal consumer
expenditures" for "technology" from 1977 seems to me a lot like graphing
railways starting on 600 BC:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_railway_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_railway_history)

If you zoom in on the last ten years, I see substantially constant expenditure
for both "technology" and "apparel", with only a slightly increase of
technology and a slight decrease of apparel.

------
bcaulfield
I'm used to this, since I went to Catholic school for 12 years. I wear jeans,
a polo shirt, a 1/4 zip pullover, and sneakers to work. Every day. Same thing,
different colors. It's work, not a party, who do I think I'm showing off to?

------
meagher
i’d rather buy a small number of high quality, versatile items i love, than
buy lots of cheap stuff i don’t really like to wear.

this plus being able to wear whatever i want to work makes my decisions
simpler so i can spend time on other things.

~~~
mieseratte
> i’d rather buy a small number of high quality

See, something I've noticed too is that "high price / high quality" brands
seem to not be so anymore. Recently I bought a handful of Carhartt pants,
pricey-but-quality, or so it used to be yet the quality seems to have been
driven downhill and all those pants quickly fell apart in various ways.

I've found the $20-$30 lesser-known brands ended up being of higher quality,
oddly. It seems the "premium" brands have taken to abusing their name's mark
of quality by removing that quality in favor or cheap materials and temporary
higher profits.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
All blue jeans for instance are made in the same factory in Korea. All of
them.

~~~
cr1895
Except for, you know, all of them that are made in the US, Japan, Italy, etc.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The tiny, tiny fraction of boutique jeans, yes.

------
baxtr
Americans are increasingly buying experiences instead of things. That’s great

------
hownottowrite
Ref: Underlying data for this article via the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[https://www.bls.gov/cex/](https://www.bls.gov/cex/)

------
knodi
Because the quality is just no longer there for the price. Why pay $60 for a
shit shirt when you pay $20 for a shit shirt.

------
PeterStuer
Don't forget that these days people aren't just dressing themselves, but also
their online avatars, yet these numbers would not be reported under 'clothing'
expenses.

[https://dotesports.com/league-of-legends/news/league-of-
lege...](https://dotesports.com/league-of-legends/news/league-of-
legends-2015-revenue-2839)

------
TomK32
European here, pullover from the thrift store for €5,50 five-pocket pants from
the sale for €29,99 same for the extra-long sleeves shirt, the socks were 30%
off but at €7 still pricey, my sailing shoes (I'll just pretend it didn't just
start snowing outside) are the most expensive thing I wear.

~~~
dnate
congratulations on supporting child labor

~~~
icebraining
Expensive brands produce their clothes in the same factories. They just make
higher profits.

~~~
Fins
Even if they are the same factories (if talking about genuinely
expensive/quality stuff, not something that just has celebrity name markup on
it) the process and quality control are quite different.

------
chaosbutters314
Maybe I'm too poor to update my clothes since Im paying all those student
loans and ridiculous rents?

