I did a double-take at the 3.5k Euro spend per year on clothing. My own spending is probably 2-3 orders of magnitude smaller. But then I saw how many shoes they own, and the fact that they have a summer house where at least one pair resides. This person lives differently to me.
> and the fact that they have a summer house where at least one pair resides. This person lives differently to me.
He seems to live in Finland. It's a sparsely populated country covered in forests and with an abundance of lakes[0] which has led to a quite democratic summer house culture. It's completely normal even among working class to own a summer house by a lake.
There's of course variation. A large summer house close to population centers will be more expensive than a plain one, more remote, and/or not by a water body.
>It's completely normal even among working class to own a summer house by a lake.
Just want to understand, by normal do you mean less than 1/5 Finnish households? Going by the source below, I don't know if I'm missing something but it does not seem to be normal?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01692....
According to the same link you shared, enough people own second homes that 61% of the population has access to a friend or relatives home. That feels pretty normalized (compared to here in the US, where I live in a high-income area and only know one person with a second home (and it's a permanent tent))
I think the point is that it’s not just the wealthy households. Not everyone wants a cabin but most people can afford one.
Thanks, didn't know that. Still, the guy is spending wild amounts of money on clothing. Eur442 per year on shoes? I spend maybe £30-50 on an everyday pair that'll last me a couple of years. I also have a couple of pairs of dress shoes, hiking boots, running shoes, and lifting shoes, but all of those have been going for 5-10 years.
It depends how much walking / hiking / running / whatever else you do.
A typical pair of running shoes lasts somewhere around 300-500 miles. (You could probably stretch a pair further than that, but you run much higher risk of injury once the cushioning wears down.)
If you put in a modest 5 miles a day and have two pairs in rotation, then expect to replace both pairs every 6 months (if not more often). It is not uncommon for semi-serious runners to spend $100+ on each pair of shoes. From that perspective, $500/year doesn't seem that outrageous.
Yeah, I’ll use regular sneakers until the soles fall off, but I’ve realized that with running shoes you can either take the pain in your wallet or in your feet. A hundred bucks every few months is better than not being able to move.
"Feet" doesn't cover it. "Body" is more appropriate.
Running with poor quality shoes unduly stresses your knees, hips, and lower back. Over time, this is likely to develop chronic pain, or bursitis, or other problems that can lead to long-term mobility issues.
If you're going to run regularly, you should find a way to either afford the propert shoes in good repair, or learn to run barefoot
I’m more surprised by the seemingly lack of longevity of what he buys than by the costs.
442 euros is two pairs of dress shoes or one pair of good boots. I don’t think you can buy anything other than sneakers for £50.
My own dresser is not that far removed from his regarding to its content (I have far less blazers, don’t wear hoodies and have more suits) but I think I cycle each piece far less than he does because my annual closing budget is probably less than half his despite per unit costs in the same range.
But to be honest it’s not hard to blow though 3000€ of clothing if you replace a lot at the same time. An ok suit costs around 500€. You can double that easily if you want something fancy and you need at least three if you wear them daily. A coat will set you back between 200€ and 500€ depending of the material. A shirt is 70€-80€, dress shoes 250€. Throw in some accessories like belts or god forbids a watch and you are there. It adds up quite fast.
Yep, it wouldn't make sense for me to do this tracking either. It would just show me wearing one pair until it has holes in the soles. But I do acknowledge there are lots of people who are more enthusiastic about shoes than I am.
Sure. I guess it's interesting how differently people can interpret the phrase "buy what you need".
~~"buy what you need"~~
"do not go shopping until after something has a hole in it, then when you are there, replace only that"
My parents have this marvelous talent for dressing down, as casual as possible, even at church; they never go to formal events or dressy galas; my father never wears a suit or ties a tie, he lives in sweatshirts and short-sleeved polos at best. Mom surprises me sometimes at Christmas, when she dons a skirt!
They also revel in drab, shabby clothing. It's respectable, but the colors are muted, the styles are ordinary, and there are no designer labels. Mom washes everything over and over and over. The garments become threadbare, faded, but very very clean and presentable.
This belies their means and middle-class existence, and that's very Franciscan of them. Unfortunately, they raised a kid who could never settle for that.
Going to church, our pastor required a strict dress code for ministers, and so I worked tirelessly to live up to that, improve my hygiene and appearance, and cultivate some interest in men's couture, to the point of subscribing to some YouTube channels. I purchased a brand-new tuxedo in 2015. I amassed a collection of ties, some retail and some thrifty ones. I have a black 3-piece suit for funerals, if I lose weight (especially my own funeral.) Etc.
I also found that dressing appropriately for every other occasion was critical. So I doffed my shabby imprinted tee-shirts, and put some intentionality into my wardrobe.
I donated all kinds of stuff to thrift stores. I hope they were happy with very clean men's clothing in excellent condition. Once, I lost about 90 pounds and donated all the "fat clothes", which was a fatal error when I gained it 100 pounds back.
Even while donating some garments, I also destroyed some that were inappropriate or humiliating, that others had given me, that did not fit my personality. I applied intentionality to the very brands of underwear and outerwear and I went through about 3 cycles of destroying the old stuff, before I was satisfied and comfortable with the logos I was putting on. (I mostly converged on Gildan, Columbia, New Balance and Adidas, in case you're wondering.)
I've also been accessorizing with hats, gloves, bags. I really like having clean, pressed neat clothing to wear. Unfortunately, all this upscaling has gotten noticed. People on the streets and on the bus will notice rich guys in a hot minute. So now I get panhandled, and I get verbally abused, and I get disrespected at every turn, because I must be a privileged rich white cis-hetero man.
It's quite sad. I sort of want to rebuild an inventory of shabby, wrinkled, torn clothing that I can wear and go slumming. It wouldn't fool anyone, though.
I think many people here at HN can admit to spending that much on their hobbies, even the ones without summer houses. It just sounds like fashion might not be one of yours?
3.9k USD annually is a lot for a hobby. I'm not going to argue whether it's "just a bit much" or "ridiculous", but I think it's strange to imply that it's somehow not a lot.
It's more than I spend, but you're on a tech forum full of nerdy engineers -- gaming rigs and their upgrades, hot new phones and laptops, travel, collectibles, legos, shop tools and materials, music gear, sporting and camping gear, etc each burn through that kind of budget real quick.
And nobody would call out that kind of spend were it for one of those.
Yes I would, anyone spending this kind of money regularly is a rube. Most of the shit you mentioned are up front one time costs with a minimal maintenance requirement. Anyone who is paying several grand to upkeep this stuff is an idiot and deserves to be parted with their money.
I think it really depends on what the hobby is.
If you’re into an individual sport and you have private lessons, which are more common than you’d think, you’ll easily blow thousands of dollars per year just for half an hour or an hour per week. Almost anyone who is beyond a fairly recreational level in tennis, martial arts or fencing will be spending thousands per year.
On the other hand, 3.9k per year is a massive amount of money to spend on cheaper hobbies like hiking or painting.
It also depends a lot where you live, HN is very US centric and is full of people who are earning big money at tech companies there.
> 3.9k USD annually is a lot for a hobby. I'm not going to argue whether it's "just a bit much" or "ridiculous", but I think it's strange to imply that it's somehow not a lot.
It adds up fast.
Last year a single 2 week roadtrip on my motorcycle easily racked up around $5000 in total cost between needing new touring gear, new set of tyres, motels, etc. I have worn the touring gear once or twice since then but haven’t had a chance for any more big trips. The tyres I keep using of course.
This year a single maintenance visit came out to $2k. Just parking for my bike costs $1200/year.
Until recently when I started commuting again, my bike was purely a hobby. You could argue it’s still a hobby because I could totally BART/CalTrain to work if I hated myself enough. (it’s 60% faster by bike)
I think a lot of people on HN either aren’t honest with themselves how much hobbies cost, live in low COL areas, or both.
The awkward question is how many hours would you have to work to make $325. Because at minimum wage, that's 20. For others, that's ten, and for others, that's one. For a billionaire, they're making that much, passively, in minutes. $325/month for a hobby which gives joy, and meaning, and makes life worth living, vs rent?
No. I have expensive hobbies, and this is a hilarious amount of money to spend, wow.
I Scuba and my gear (dive com, suit, tank) cost less than 3k and its meant to keep me alive, versus win instagram points and it will last me a decade.
You don’t have “expensive hobbies.” You have hobbies that you feel are expensive.
There will be people who perceive your hobbies as quaint and austere, and there will be people who think you’re being outrageously opulent.
There is no objective “my hobbies are expensive. Their hobbies are outrageous.”
This is a pretty extreme form of neutral stance. Yes, it's subjective. One man's day out is another man's salary. But it's not so utterly boundless that it's noteworthy to point out that most people probably consider thousands every year on a hobby to be an "expensive hobby".
It's pretty incredible that several grand a year per year is not considered absolutely insane amounts of spend on fucking FASHION. I guess I'm not the audience for HN since everyone here seems to be insanely rich.
He's paying $95 per shirt, $13 for a undershirt, $10 per underwear.
And only wears the underwear on 92% of days!
Interesting data tracking. I have to say for my jeans - I never put them in the dryer, always hung dry. All my jeans are now 10-20 years old now and except for some wear on the back cuff from wearing them around the house without shoes on they look and feel brand new. I can't find author mention "dryer" anywhere in the article. Hung dry clothes last a long time. it's the machine dryer that slowly destroys them IMO.
Another thing Im doing is switching to 100% cotton (or just no plastic fibers). I love the breathability and light feel of cotton shirts.
I grew up being taught that cotton was best and for decades wore it almost exclusively. But something I have realized over the years is that it is also much, much heavier than polyester or nylon blends, especially when it's wet.
If your shirt can't dry overnight then you're forced to buy more shirts just to handle the washing/drying overlap, which is wasteful. Not to mention only owning cotton makes doing anything outside in the rain require more calculus around how many days you will need to dry the clothes that got wet, so now you need own overlap clothes for still-wearably-clean clothes too. Even worse, if you're in a cold environment then you likely can't keep wearing your wet clothes as they dry, because wet cotton loses insulation, making you feel much colder, so there's more incentive to change even before the end of the day.
Wool is a better option than cotton if you want "natural" fiber that is still wearable when wet, but that comes with the moral guilt and ecological impact of animal husbandry, so I'm not sure if it's better or worse than plastic, which at least is only made from animals and plants that died millions of years ago.
Personally I have chosen to keep cotton for underwear and tank tops for comfort, and also because I anyway own 7 of those so there is enough overlap for them to dry over the weekend when they get wet and I'm in a cold and/or very humid climate. But for pants and shorts where I only own two of each (and only bring one of each when traveling) then polyester/nylon that can dry overnight in most any climate is more practical. Socks and long sleeves I've decided to go with wool despite the animal cruelty because it's the most practical. I only need a couple pairs of socks and a single long sleeve to get by in a warmer climate, and I have a polyester coat for colder climates.
It still feels a bit high impact, but as you say, most stuff lasts many years so I don't feel too bad about it when I see people buying more stuff than I have in my entire wardrobe on a single casual shopping trip.
> Another thing Im doing is switching to 100% cotton (or just no plastic fibers). I love the breathability and light feel of cotton shirts.
I've been wanting to do the same; it's kind of amazing how at some point everything started to be made with plastics, even jeans.
If I had the time, space, and equipment, I'd make my own clothes from patterns. Because I have none, I guess I'll be carefully inspecting tags while shopping (and I'm prepared for a lot of frustration). Wish there was more of a cottage industry around homemade clothing!
Ive honestly considered the same thing. Wouldnt it be nice to make a few tailored "masters" and then just make your own shirts off those. Perfect fit everytime time.
It's just the senseless waste of the modern world. Like dry laundry soap, why cant i just bring my glass jar to the grocery store, tar it, refill from a bulk bin. Why do we have to make millions of plastic containers, so pointless. Ive only been to one grocery store in my life where this was possible.
Im sick of senseless plastic everywhere. My personal theory is our biggest sources of plastic ingestion is: clothing made of plastic slowly wearing away and inhaling treadwear from car tires on the road.
100% agreed, and I've had the exact thought about soap (shampoo, in my case)! I love stores with 'bulk' sections, but they're usually just a small selection of dry cereals, beans, and nuts. Now, to work properly with your own jars, I think you'd want a shopkeeper doing the filling, so he could check the tare. A return to the general store of old, to some extent.
> Ive honestly considered the same thing. Wouldnt it be nice to make a few tailored "masters" and then just make your own shirts off those. Perfect fit everytime time.
That’s just called going to a tailor.
But honestly, if you just want coton clothes, that’s not hard to find. It’s just more expensive.
> The 90 euro Converse sneakers and the 30 euro Mywears have a similar CPW of 0.87 euros and 0.70 €, respectively. Their effective cost is roughly the same, which means that walking around in the cheap Mywears is roughly as expensive as walking around in Converses. In this case, money buys quality, at least when measured by durability.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the author spending a lot of money on clothes and replacing their clothes at a high velocity. If buying stuff makes you happy, buy stuff. I've certainly spent a lot of money on board games I don't play enough. Tracking the cost per use seems like a good way to control the habit.
But this paragraph makes it seem as if the author can't make themselves actually admit that's the reason, and need to find an excuse for it. No, sorry, cheap sneakers do not wear out after 43 uses or expensive ones after 104 uses. At that point I'd persinally be classifying them as indistinguishable from new. Like, at best the author got bored of them after that many uses.
I found the turnover rate of tee shirts surprising. I imagine that my tee shirts get 40 or 45 wears per year, and I very rarely replace them.
Underwear shirts are usually thiner than tee shirts and are made to be worn under a shirt. You can’t really compare.
The issue here is that he buys them too cheap. Cheap underwear die incredibly fast because underwear tend to go through more wash cycles.
I wear them until they have holes and then use them as shop rags, etc.
> Someone once said their goal is to have a wardrobe with nothing but favorite clothes. That makes sense not only from a value perspective, but in light of my data, that may also be the best alternative in terms of cost performance.
My clothes-buying strategy has settled on "if it doesn't look great on me in the fitting room then it doesn't come home with me". Which is pretty similar. You can still end up with things that rarely get worn for other reasons but it's a good filter.
> In some cases, buying cheap is provenly more expensive
There’s an inherent bias in being willing to throw away a cheap pair of shoes that are a bit worn and stuffed. But not being willing to toss a $500 pair of Bruno Maglis with the same level of wear. That leads to the latter being worn further and driving it down till it eventually passes the cheap stuff.
Wow. I buy one pair of jeans per year, I now have three pairs. This year I've bought exactly 2 t-shirts on vacation in Spain. I cannot imagine spending so much on clothing, that just seems.. overkill. Where do you put it all???
Maybe one thing is that price per item can vary a lot, eg a $50 coat isn’t going to take 60 times less space than a $3k coat so it’s possible to spend a lot more without using lots more space. That said, the author doesn’t seem to be buying wildly expensive items. I assume they get through with something like an ordinary sized wardrobe and chest of drawers, plus some kind of shoe storage near a door. And I guess they dispose of things that are unused or too worn.
I logged in after reading this to provide the answer to the question after reading. “Nerd”. It’s glorious, I wish I could maintain the same level of consistency as this guy did in collecting this data.
Love it.
This is such a fun way of visualising your everyday life. Of course, being data-driven may not always be the right answer for everything, but it will at least help you make more conscious decisions.
I can guarantee I have a blazer or two in my wardrobe with a much higher Cost Per Wear than the author's ones due to lack of use.
Tracking all this data is pointless. How many clothes can you buy if you put that energy into making money instead? Buy what you like and what you intuitively know is working well for you. As for the analysis, the prices are subject to random inflation, and the actual wear and tear is highly variable. Even the quality of the same product bought years apart can be different enough to mess up the analysis.
I love that the author took the time to collect and plot his own data. And this was 2020? In 3 years my washing machine should be able to do this.
Instead, in 3 years your washing machine will refuse to run if your Tide Pods subscription runs out, or if you attempt to use bootleg pods.
28 wears for an undershirt? I have many that are over a decade old. I have a feeling that the author and I live dramatically different lifestyles.