This article made me laugh because I've been to that H&M. Since I'm an Asian male who looks like he's 15 and tries to dress sharply, I guess it's the perfect place for me?

It really does make economic sense to spend more up front if you have it in many cases -- renting vs. buying a house is a great example (in many markets -- though Gwen, depending on when you were being urged to buy a house, you may have gotten the last laugh at not buying in, say, 2006 or '07). It's just another example of how having money helps you keep money -- and, by contrast, how being poor makes it easy to stay poor.

Funny you should mention seeing this blurb in a magazine sent out by your local public radio station. I actually had the same thing happen to me a few years ago in San Francisco. I made a donation and they started sending me a magazine about high-end lifestyles in SF (http://www.sanfranmag.com/).

I was not a part of that demographic, and did not want to read about their leisure activities while eating ramen in my crapshack. I ended up writing them what in retrospect was a ranty nasty letter asking to be removed from the magazine's mailing list, which they very kindly did.

Either many others did the same, or it became economically unfeasible to offer the magazine as a pledge gift, because on the next pledge drive they stopped sending the magazine to donors.

I think it says something about the radio station's perception of who donates to public radio, that they'd think it would be a gift that would satisfy the majority of their donors. Maybe I'm overthinking it; maybe the magazine simply offered free subscriptions to members and KQED said, "okay, great."

I would love to own a pair of $400+ shoes that I maintain and have for a very very long time.... getting repaired -- heals, soles, etc. But I don't have that kid of cash to spend. Instead I spend faaaar more in the long-run on a series of $60-80 shoes that I beat to hell and discard.

This is exactly what jfruh is talking about above.

I assume this is the January 2011 issue and not 2010.

I do tend to buy more-expensive shoes because they are usually better made and last longer.

Surprised to find this not yet thrown out here, so here it is:

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 a 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 socio-economic unfairness.

"Men At Arms" (Terry Pratchett)

This stuff pops up in NY Times articles all the time, especially the Style section. Who knew that my wedding was inadequate because i didn't spent $50k, or that i'm abusing my kids by not spending $20k on private school.

What's silly about that, is that yes, good quality shoes tend to be pricier, but you can get Birkenstocks (which can be re-soled and repaired indefinitely) and Chacos (resoled, at least) for less than $140, last I heard. There *are* good quality shoes that cost even less, but you have to really hunt.

Not to mention, you can always buy well-made stuff secondhand. A friend of mine found a pair of beat-to-hell boots for $20, took them to a cobbler and had them repaired for $60, and they looked almost new. Considering that brand is several hundred dollars new, so she won out, I think.

Eh, I'm one to talk. I'm dying for a pair of Fluevogs, and those are usually over $200 new. They definitely fall into the "high quality, repairable forever" category though. I may just stalk ebay until I find the pair(s) I want.

I buy my shoes for $20. They last around 4 years or so... And that's me wearing them almost everyday, in all weather.

Oh, and, consumerist babbling in my last comment aside:

I've definitely been in the situation of having to buy cheap-ass uncomfortable shoes that wear out fast because I just didn't have the money for nicer ones.

And it's only possible to buy nicer secondhand shoes if you live in a place where people are likely to wear those shoes to start with, and be able to afford to get rid of them. So, no everywhere.

It's like I tell people: all things being equal, it is more expensive to be poor.

Shoes are, in fact, one of the places where you get more by paying more. A well-made pair of shoes -- the major ingredients, good leather, careful stitching, and the welt (the bit that connects the sole and the heel to the rest of the shoe) all cost more than cheap leather, machine stitching, and a glued welt.

A well-made pair of shoes, worn no more often than every other day, polished regularly and re-heeled sporadically, will last you for life. That's not hyperbole; take care of your shoes and they will serve you for life. A friend of mine decided to spend a little bit more than five hundred dollars on two pairs of Red Wing boots in brown and black. Aside from the negligible costs of polish and the extremely manageable cost of reheeling (once a year, give or take) he hasn't spent a dime on footwear in three years.

It happens very often that fashion inflates pricetags to absurd levels, especially when some fancy buzz-name is in the mix. Shoes-- especially men's shoes, the prevailing styles of which have not changed very much in a hundred and fifty years-- are not one of them.

Buying a $20 pair of shoes every three or four years is *still* cheaper than reheeling a good pair every year or so. Admittedly I have never owned dress shoes and hope I'll never need to, but for practical shoes I see no advantage in spending more. Shoes are mostly needed indoors -- when you're doing any strenuous walking and the ground is above freezing, you may as well take them off, save wear and tear, and be much more comfortable too.

Maybe it's just me, but did anyone else wonder at the reference to espadrilles? Granted the writer was looking for a colorful, recognizable example of inexpensive shoes, but ... espadrilles in my mind connect with leisure goods bought cheaply from a poorer country's market. Am I looking too hard for condescending tourism?

I agree.

The last time I went to the food-e-o-doctor, he told me that I shouldn't have waited more then a year (it had been 4 years) before renewing my prescription and buying new $400 orthodic inserts. While I was there, a woman got her new prescription plus a few extra pairs for her other shoes. It occurred to me that many people would never be able to afford these inserts. I can't go 20 feet without them before my feet hurt... Yet when I'm no longer covered by my mothers government health insurance, I probably won't be able to buy new prescriptions.

I guess poor peoples feet just hurt.

Then again, anyone who wears Ugg boots probably has sore feet too. Half the people on this blog are university students so don't take offense when I tell you this: Ugg boots are moronic, and you should rethink the way dress yourself.

... On second thought that was intended to be slightly offensive. Seriously, they are "winter" boots designed in Australia. They take about 2 seconds before they're covered in salt stains, and another 2 seconds before they're nearly in tatters. you spent the obligatory $200+ on your shoes - do you feel forsaken to have watched your pediatric investment go wrong so quickly?

While I definitely subscribe to the "expensive shoes are made to last" theory, I know that in part, it isn't true. Most shoemakers aren't really interested in having you keep and wear a pair of their shoes for years and years. They want you to ride the "trend", get sick of them and then pitch them into a landfill in a few years (or at the very least, stick them in the back of your closet) and go out and buy newer, equally trendy and disposeable ones. At some point, cost is irrelevant.

That being said, there are companies that are looking to outfit people with "investment" quality footwear, but yes, usually these kinds of shoes will run well in excess of 200$ (I actually find that price low, especially if you want something that was made by hand in America or Europe). For years I could never hope to afford shoes in that category, and so I never even really had them on my radar. Now that I make a good salary, I do buy shoes (boots actually) that are really top quality, and the first pair I bought has lasted for close to ten years. I'm sure that before that I probably went through a new pair of boots every two years due to cracking and leaking.

So what am I trying to say? Yes, I agree with the commenters above. It is expensive to be poor, it literally "drains" you. The fact that the greater proportion of working-class Americans can't afford good quality shoes is a shameful comment on current economic policy. Really, how is it any different than workers in Honduras or Nicaragua who can only afford "chancletas" (flipflops)? I know we rarely make these kinds of comparisons for good reason, but here I think the comparison isn't that far off. We have become a society of working-class poor. That's exactly how some people want it too. After all, how else are you going to find "servants" to pump your gas and brew your coffee?

Should a magazine be indirectly rubbing our faces in it? No, probably not. That being said, I am not surprised. Being cruel to the poor is one thing a lot of North Americans seem to secretly enjoy.

Gwen said...
"Combined with the invisibility of people who can’t afford to spend that much money, accepting these class assumptions allows us to gaze disdainfully at people in “cheap” shoes, confident that they, too, are simply “cheap.”

Yup. That's the whole point. Holier than thou (or in this case, just richer and more privileged). Sad? Yes. Common? Absolutely. And I only think it's going to get worse.

I also agree with the idea of the poor staying poor. It's exactly the idea of income vs. wealth. The wealthy families stay wealthy not just by passing down money, but also passing on information and knowledge about earning and keeping money.

I also think the idea of hand-me-downs can be applied outside of clothing. I lucked out when I moved into my apartment in that I had some family members getting rid of furniture for whatever reason, so I didn't have to purchase much furniture for myself. It wouldn't be as likely for a poorer family to be able to part with things. Or there's also the passing down of material goods, such as inheriting your grandmother's china.

This reminds me of a couple of my friends who have told me that I should have a Mac rather than a PC, without seeming to realise that while I can buy a decent new laptop for £400-500 (the most expensive thing I own by a long way - I'm on my second in four years, but only because my first was stolen), a MacBook would cost me twice that much. They frame it as a question of taste and quality, assuming that the price isn't an issue. This is one of the things that bothered me so much about the Mac/PC ads - they totally gloss over the price difference, assuming that PC ownership is an uncool choice rather than a financial necessity.

Please understand that I am in no way imagining myself as poor, and consider myself lucky to have a good first-hand computer, this was just what I was reminded of.

I must say, the only shoes I've spent that much on are my hiking boots, because they're the only pair that fit me 100% correctly and comfortably. I was really hoping the ones half that price would be fine, but no dice. I do spend more than I think I should on work shoes, but even Danskos do not hit the $200 price point for the most part, and they last for YEARS.

While I do agree with the fact that more money can lead to higher quality, it's not always better to buy a house and the price tag of your shoes is not the only indicator of quality. I think this writer is doing the "pretentious fashionista" well, and that typically is their demographic, good for them.

It might be interesting to drop them a line to see if in fact they have data backing up their assumption, or if they just assume that a magazine with articles about fashion must be in the style of moneyed and too good for most consumers.

Thanks times a hundred for this post. Classism described as "smarts" or personal empowerment is endemic.

Fizzygood has brought up the unspoken value proposition with the Mac vs PC situation. Macs only seem more expensive because there is no low-end version. When you compare the two based on specifications you end up at the same price point in PC land too.

Bottom line is if you can afford to buy value, do it. If you can't afford it, don't fret. But don't blame advertisers for trying to sell to those who can afford to buy.

This reminds me if the bonus mags that the trashuest newspapers offer over here Every sunday. They are meant for all adult women, though the ideal reader is probably somewhere around 40-50. Evert single fashion piece contains jackets or dresses that are either above the €100 mark or sold by obscure brands that would be found in either large cities or online. Now, keep in mind the targets here, and most people here live in small towns of three or four well known brand chains, hours (if not days) fr.o.m. The nearest city. Oh, and every other issue always have an inspiring story about a "normal" family that abandons everything to set up shop in Tuscany or Thailand...

I almost wonder if that was a typo, and it was supposed to read '$20 plus minimum'. I'm pretty sure shoes at H&M frequently go for $19.95 or less.

Also, I thought the advice was actually really good. There are some items where the lower quality isn't a problem, and some where it is really apparent (like the shoes). Even if you don't have a lot of money to spend, certain items are better to find elsewhere on clearance, or even used, than to purchase very poor quality.

For those of you who have never been to an H&M, the footwear quality is really, really bad, like, made of paper bad. This is not the difference between 'investment quality bespoke footwear' and 'run of the mill commodity stuff'. This is the difference between whether or not the sole will fall off before you finish walking home.

It's funny, when I think "$200 shoes", high-quality, long-lasting footware is not the first thing that comes to mind: it's the trendy Choos and Blahniks and so forth, which you're "meant" to have many pairs of, all coordinating with your outfits (so they may, indeed, last a long time because how often do you wear any one pair?). But who can afford that? I think -- and then I see friends in the same income rung putting them on credit cards and blowing most of their disposable budget on them, because this is what you're "supposed" to do, if you're a young, professonial woman. ("Let's get some shoes!")

wow what a bunch of bullshit.

The best way to preserve shoes is to buy multiple pairs of the same shoes and rotate them. it is an old cobblers trick. The sweat gets a chance to evaporate for awhile and it prolongs the life of the shoe.

ANYWAY, anyone who has worked at a thrift store knows how many perfectly good pairs of shoes just get thrown out. If shoes are there to protect your feet then you don't need to spend 200+ dollars on them. If they are there to look a certain way on your feet maybe they are right. Fuck people who care about that. People throw out shoes that have easily repairable problems too, things that only require sewing. Its maddening. Shoe factories are fucking horrible places.

Equating poor with dumb is the prerogative of the rich and lucky.

Expensive shoes are made to last -- yes, if you consider $50 for a pair of shoes expensive (and yes, that is expensive for some people). I don't think you need to spend $200 and above to get shoes that last and can be repaired.

I wear hikers almost exclusively outside of work (have a low pair for summer, regular for winter), bought them on sale, and am going on year 7 for both. I've had to replace shoe laces, but that's it.

I also have a pair of athletic shoes which I replace every few years as the soles wear out, and one pair of dress shoes which I keep in my desk and wear only at work (not to and from).

That's it, unless you count the flip flops I wear in the shower at the gym and the houseshoes I wear when getting up on cold mornings.

If you wear fashionable shoes, you should buy them cheap; they are outdated pretty darn fast, and theb (as Skeptifem says) they go right to the thrift store...where for good foot health, you should probably NOT buy shoes unless you must. And never, ever give away shoes that you have worn while having a foot fungus.

Gwen:

Hi there. I'm Andrew Kiraly, editor of Desert Companion. This is a lively and interesting discussion, and I'm glad that our piece sparked it. There are valid points all around.

I'm dismayed, however, that you might be letting our up-front coverage of retail and style -- done with complete editorial integrity and, I hope, a bit of panache -- eclipse other compelling stories in the magazine that might interest you as a public radio supporter, Southern Nevadan and sociologist.

The January issue alone features other stories on culture (Nevada Ballet Theater's new coach, renowned ballerina Cynthia Gregory), urban planning (the unlikely social nodes that strip malls become), accessibility (the vital importance of adaptable housing for Southern Nevada's aging population) and history (the Mesquite Club, a women's group that helped establish Southern Nevada's library system, as well as other valley cultural institutions.) That's just a sampling.

Our aim is to create a vibrant city magazine that is as diverse and interesting as Southern Nevada itself. And yes, while our extensive surveys do show that our readers are affluent and well-educated, they're also deeply invested in the community and committed to making it a better place to live. And -- what can I say? -- they loooove a good pair of shoes.

So, please, give us a chance -- and keep reading.

Also, consider this response an invitation to join the Desert Companion Steering Committee. It comprises smart and engaged Southern Nevadans like yourself who advise on all aspects of the magazine. No boring meetings -- just a fun but substantive monthly survey and an annual cocktail bash. Feel free to e-mail me at andrew@desertcompanion.com and we can get the initiation rite started.

Thanks.

Andrew Kiraly
Editor, Desert Companion

Dear Gwen Sharp,

I enjoyed reading your response to my Desert Companion H&M piece, and was struck -- in the best of ways -- by your insights on the implicit class and economic assumptions embedded in the article. You're right. The article does assume a reader with disposable income to be disposed of, which squares with what you're saying, and with what is genuinely worrying about my piece and with the world at large: that such a viewpoint regards the world, Gwyneth-Paltrow-like, as the exclusive province of the upper middle class, and that it normalizes that upper-middle-class experience and ignores that of that the poor and the working class.

But here's the thing: style and fashion have long been used (and abused) as means to telegraph privilege and class distinctions, and the information embedded in clothing and footwear is often an initial gauge in all sorts of social interactions. I'm not saying this is a good thing. However, this often unspoken and unarticulated information is used -- often reflexively -- to bulwark assumptions people make of us. Providing access to the information can be seen as a way of privileging upper-middle-class experience; however, it is also a way to make these assumptions known, and to help those of us negotiating class strata to understand a seemingly closed language and a disposition. These distinctions, these signifiers of taste, as Bourdieu points out, are social constructs. And they are most often used to privilege certain groups over others when they're unspoken, so that (for example) someone with "good taste" (emphasis on those quotes and on the idea that we're talking about socially constructed Bourdieunian notions of taste) should know that a proper dress shoe has a leather heel and a leather welt (and costs way more than those that don't, but then again they can be resoled and kept in good working order indefinitely). It helps to know that these assumptions are out there. And it helps to know the language. I'm not saying that style, fashion, and fashion advice function as a great leveler, but I am saying that the cultural capital embedded in the suggestion that someone invest in quality footwear does not translate neatly into a disregard for those who cannot afford to do so.

You wrote, in the last paragraph: "Combined with the invisibility of people who can’t afford to spend that much money, accepting these class assumptions allows us to gaze disdainfully at people in 'cheap' shoes, confident that they, too, are simply 'cheap.'" Accepting these class assumptions can certainly lead to that sort of behavior and for that kind of callous disregard for others, but more dangerous still is internalizing class bias without regard for its constituent elements -- in other words, it is far more dangerous to judge people by what they're wearing without realizing that we're doing so. Consider that these class assumptions -- and the knowledge that they're artificially constructed and passed along partly as a means to maintain class distinctions -- can also lead to a greater awareness of their artificiality and their triviality -- that the people most familiar with the cost of a particular item are the very same people who may in fact place the least weight on their importance and on how they reflect on the person wearing it. They know, after all, that what they're looking at ultimately just some nicely stitched leather and fabric. And that the person probably got the thing on sale.

Best,

Juan

Spending $200 on shoes is a complete waste of money. I could find perfect shoes that cost way less than that and they last a long time. I dont care if I don't need that money, i could find something better to spend it on.

I'm having total shoe envy--where are people finding shoes under $100 that last more than a month or two? I never have. I walk about five miles a day, and I don't know if I've got a weird gait or what, but almost any type of shoe falls apart on me in no time. I once wore through a pair of (not cheap) hiking boots in a single month--and we're talking giant gaping holes and a detached sole, not minor scuffage. So, yes, I did spend way more on shoes when I was poor and couldn't save up.

Now that I am more affluent, I love the Fluevogs... and I haven't worn out any of them yet. Resoling them once a year is still cheaper than getting PayLess shoes once every few months. It kind of makes me want to set up a charity to get people started with a pair of decent shoes that will keep them going for a long time. Anyone know of such a thing?