My wife and I once had the privilege of sorting through no less than 25 Hefty bags of clothes that had been owned by a girl of about seven years of age--her parents were "done having children," and graciously let us take a look to see what we might want, as they had been given many of these clothes, and wanted to pass the blessing on to us.
Or was it a blessing? We ended up taking about half a bag, and suggesting that they would do well to take the rest to Goodwill. The vast majority of the clothing was, charitably speaking, junk. Yes, our benefactors had gotten things cheaply, but was it thrifty?
Probably not. Consider for starters the fact that this pile of clothes took up most of their (admittedly small) living room--those clothes without ever being paid for had cost that family about $10,000 worth of their home. It's also probable that from time to time, all those clothes had harbored some kind of critter or other that had sickened some member of the family. And the way those clothes fit just might have hampered their play as well--let's say "hi" to obesity and high medical bills.
Pretty expensive free clothes, don't you think? No, wait; it gets worse. What does it teach your child when you dress him, or her, in clothes that are too tight in some areas, too loose in others, and expose too much leg, one's belly, and so on?
You train them to be immodest, of course, and in doing so, you also train them to interact with those who use immodesty as an excuse to take other liberties that our grandparents were warned about. Thankfully we're not talking about a one to one correlation of poor clothing with teen pregnancy or something like that, but I have to wonder....is there yet another cost that dwarfs the others?
Cheap clothes, but possibly very, very expensive. Well-made but "expensive" clothes are seeming more and more thrifty.
Know Your Lifts: The Romanian Deadlift (RDL)
-
In the Know Your Lifts series, we’ve covered the high-bar back squat, the
low-bar squat, the power jerk and split jerk, and the overhead press. It’s
been...
11 hours ago
9 comments:
inexpensive clothes for a kid to play in are just fine, and can be found at walmart.
pay little.
wear them out.
toss.
my work clothes all come from walmart. jeans for $12. t-shirts, 3-pack for $6. when 'done', toss 'em.
i work all year for under $100.
not counting boots, of course.
boots generally are about 150-175, twice a yr.
I appreciate you bringing attention to the idea of thriftiness as opposed to cheapness.
Another thought, houses have been getting larger and larger in America. Is this the case so that we will have room for all of the junk? Or are we vulnerable to the temptation of buying junk because we have houses that are so large?
The problem with well made but expensive clothes for children is that they get outgrown just as fast, they get stained just as deeply, or torn almost as badly.
Then there's the issue of upfront capital. If you can't afford to shell out $200 per season (season defined as half a year in this case) per kid to outfit them via Lands' End, you just can't. If you can buy four shirts at Walmart for the same price, and they last half as long, you're way ahead.
I have more thoughts on this, for later, which will probably be more agreeable. :-)
If only the stuff I see at Wal-Mart or Target was going to last even a fourth as long as the quality stuff we buy or make....and if only the stuff from the discount stores actually fit. Little issues like pants coming to the waist, dresses coming past mid-thigh, and so on.
And to be honest, I'm more a fan of Singer, Viking, and Pfaff in terms of child attire than I am of Land's End, if you catch my drift. Plus Australian Smocking....
Yeah, I used to be a big White fan for children's attire, then I had three children of compulsory school attendance age and was homeschooling them. Australian Smocking has never been within my reach. And I can't seem to find a way to make a decent pair of pants cheaper than I could buy them even at a slightly better-quality store -- especially since I can't make pants that fit properly and look decent at all!
My experience with Walmart, K-mart, and Target's children's clothing hasn't been as bad as all that. The clothing does mostly last until the child grows out of it, and you can find plenty of serviceable clothing that "fits properly." It doesn't all, but a lot of it does. You have to be selective and not simply buy whatever Walmart has on the rack -- but that's no reason not to buy a decent t-shirt or pair of jeans at Walmart. It's true that it doesn't work as well for hand-me-downs, but again, since it costs a fraction of better made clothing, I can afford to buy a few new things for each child.
Thankfully, hand-me-downs from people who do shop at better-quality places help a lot. And that leads me back around to how I spent my Saturday -- cleaning out the walk-in closet where I'd thrown the many bags of clothing not 25 large garbage bags!) that one of my friends blessed me with, sorting them, and re-packing them into my box-filing system. It wasn't anywhere near like the situation you describe, but she definitely overshops. She'll see a really good sale where you can get Children's Place type clothing at Target prices, and go crazy -- even if her girls' closets are already reasonably stocked. The last few seasons I've gone through and determined what should come out of the boxes and go into my own girls' closets, I've given away a good portion of that year's size. As far as the square footage it takes up in my house -- if it were more than a portion of a large closet, that would be one thing, but nobody was going to be renting closet space from me anyway, so it's hard to see that as an actual loss.
So anyway, the situation you describe is so extreme (in excess, in lack of discernment about what kind of clothing is suitable for wearing, and so forth) that it makes all your points. But I don't think it's quite as clear that cheap, carefully chosen clothing doesn't have a respectable place in the lives of young children whose parents don't have a lot of cash to throw around every March and August.
show me a pair of $25 jeans that will last twice as long as the $12 pair i abuse daily at work.
Gino, men's jeans are one of just a few exceptions to the rule here. Interestingly, they're also one of the few kinds of workman's garments where couture methods are used to make them. The seam on the inside of the leg of your Wranglers (or whatever) is a "flat felled seam" that you'll also see on nicer men's shirts.
That said, even in jeans I see differences that are worth paying for. For example, going from $15 or whatever Wranglers to $10 jeans often lightens the fabric and reduces the stich count/inch significantly. There are also issues of "fit" and "does the zipper work." (never buy Bugle Boy!)
I have found in recent years that I'd rather have one pair of well-fitting pants from Anne Taylor than three pairs of ill-fitting ones that were a bargain. We have a small home with small, or no, closets. So, we have to be very judicious about the clothes that come in.
I am not the most frugal kid in the candy store, but with the size of our home and trying to live on only 60% of our income, I think we do well.
A good friend taught me a great lesson about accepting "clothing gifts" outgrown by others. She sorts through the bags on the spot. They never enter her home. This saves in so many ways.
1. She never stores the bags.
2. She doesn't need to return the bags or drive them to the thrift store.
3. Her children are not part of the process.
4. She takes only what she really wants and knows her children need.
This saves her unnecessary frustrations.
Just one more note: Always determine if the "giver" wants the clothes back. Most don't, but I learned the hard way that one friend's gift was meant as a loan. The clothes were not in condition to return after our hard use.
Post a Comment