Interestingly, one feature they don't discuss in the article is whether or not the quality of these "basics" has declined since 1998. "Low-end clothes" such as the ones they describe make up the vast majority of my wardrobe. My first quibble is with the idea that a $46 pair of jeans is "low-end," but I'm used to the Times columnists who fear to cross the threshold of a discount department store and treat Walmart as an exotic locale for fashionistas on a value hunt.
In terms of what I've encountered in the past decade clothing-wise, I think stitching quality has declined so that items fall apart more quickly even with light wear. Dyes may or may not hold after a single washing. Sizes have become even less standardized (if such a thing is possible), meaning that two pairs of identically sized pants from the same retailer exhibit significant measurement variation. Those of you who shop at Old Navy, where I have to try on three pairs of jeans in the same size to find one that fits, will know what I'm talking about.
Still, it's refreshing to know that I can still find something to wear to work for under $50, even if I can't fill my gas tank for that anymore.
1 comment:
I totally agree with the quality issue, though I, too, am glad that I can dress for as cheaply as I can. My biggest issue is that clothes just seem to sprout holes faster and faster. Not just along seams (which I could easily fix) but in the middle of the t-shirts or whatever. And I'm sure it's not just my washing machine because I'm using a different machine now than when the problem started. I'm reasonably sure it's the cheap Target clothes. Still... $9 for a shirt is cool with me even if I have to buy extras to avoid the holes.
Post a Comment