Is bad quality OK...?

[fashionista-ta]

Yeah that's a good comparison actually ...food. Nowadays it's alot of fast food, 'bad quality', little substance, quick to make and dispose of, just like alot of clothes on the high street, and thats what people look for because it's convenient and cheap, although when you consider all of it, it's creating alot of waste, environmental damage, and in the long run it'll still cost you a fair bit regardless of the fact that you hadn't chose the better option.

At least bad clothes can't kill you

 

[faust]

no I totally I agree with you softgrey - its is so wasteful. But most people don't think (about it on those terms) because most people in the 'west' (for want of a more appropriate term) are wealthy, well, compared to people in the developing world (india, africa, parts of s. america). that is poor. Faust - it might be helpful if you did elaborate on what you mean....do you mean the same as I mean?

Yes, but also poor in the West as well. There is an incredible number of poor people in the United States - poor as in, "I have money barely for rent and food." People that work minimum wage jobs or get public assistance - they can't buy ANYTHING.

 

[softgrey]

but faust...

if they can't buy ANYTHING..
then they are NOT part of the equation...
as the question would only apply to people who are actually purchasing products...
no?...

i mean..we all know that there are poor people, right?..
isn't that a given?..

 

[helena]

yes agreed faust. But thats the point I was trying to make above, in the past the working class (sorry to use this expression but it conveys well the category of people you mean) did buy quality. My grandparents and their parents were poorly paid but they bought the best quality they could afford because it would last them well (under the reasoning softgrey used). But nowadays this seems less important. In this country there is a 'catergory' of people described by the boadsheets as the underclass - maybe thats who you mean faust. Many of these people are the ones who embrace chav culture, who despite being on benefits etc still want to consume with the rest of us.

 

[faust]

but faust...

if they can't buy ANYTHING..
then they are NOT part of the equation...
as the question would only apply to people who are actually purchasing products...
no?...

i mean..we all know that there are poor people, right?..
isn't that a given?..

Ok, let me rephrase it again, then That category of people can only afford to shop in Walmart and Kohls, where they sell jeans for $10. Now they are part of equation.

 

[softgrey]

well...i still think those people deserve quality...

my dad shops at kohl's...
and if something doesn't wear well, you better believe he takes it back...


fyi-i am about to take some stuff back to h&m because i decided the fabric and the construction was too crap...

 

[pointup]

as a person with limited funds I would say I'm still in interested in quality.

granted, my wardrobe is pretty small.. but the stuff I buy now is made to last. If a thread comes out, buttons keep falling off, things shrink/stretch ... anything is cut on the bias it is going BACK..!!

 

[helena]

^^^ there is a difference in definition as to 'quality' here - what does quality mean? does it mean simply 'fit for purpose' or is there something higher? I think EVERYTHING should be fit for its purpose. But if i buy a £10 top in H&m I, whilst I don't expect it to fall apart the day I buy it, I'd be surprsied if it is still operational in 12 months time. But, if I buy a top from Reiss or (going up) Mui Mui I'd expect there to be something inherently better about its quality.

 

[faust]

yes agreed faust. But thats the point I was trying to make above, in the past the working class (sorry to use this expression but it conveys well the category of people you mean) did buy quality. My grandparents and their parents were poorly paid but they bought the best quality they could afford because it would last them well (under the reasoning softgrey used). But nowadays this seems less important. In this country there is a 'catergory' of people described by the boadsheets as the underclass - maybe thats who you mean faust. Many of these people are the ones who embrace chav culture, who despite being on benefits etc still want to consume with the rest of us.

Well, in the past a lot of things were of better quality, before rampant mass production. For example, bread used to always be fresh, because you couldn't flash-freeze it or pump it with enzymes and preservatives. Now we have crap, not bread. And quality stuff used to be cheaper back in the days. This is no longer the case. Today, if you want quality, you usually pay through the nose. The entire dynamics of the economics has changed. If back in the days 70% of population were farmers, you could get good fresh bread anywhere. Now, 2% of the population (in the US) are farmers. The society can only afford this by increasing their production, while lowering their quality. The artisanal craftmanship went from the mainstream mode of production to an exotic niche. Same goes for the clothes. You want cheap as hell, you go to Walmart. It's 2x as cheap as H&M, think about that. And there is still a HUGE % of the population that has to settle for this. An average US family income for 4 person family is around $44.6K, and about 13% of the US population live below official poverty level < That's RIDICULOUS.

 

[softgrey]

An average US family income for 4 person family is around $44.6K, and about 13% of the US population live below official poverty level < That's RIDICULOUS.

true dat...

but i guess i am just 'old-fashioned'...
i refuse to lower my standards...
*which is why you see me bitching and complaining so much that things aren't good enough......

i just want things to be better for everyone...



**yeah yeah...too idealistic...i know...and i'm a romantic too...
so sue me....

 

[helena]

^^^faust - sounds like you need to find yourself a good bakers!!! LOL. There's one I think you'd like in Paris called Poilane (and another called the Rose Bakery).

You are right though...bread these days is not bread, just crap. I love that line. Too funny faust.

 

[faust]

^^^faust - sounds like you need to find yourself a good bakers!!! LOL. There's one I think you'd like in Paris called Poilane (and another called the Rose Bakery).

You are right though...bread these days is not bread, just crap. I love that line. Too funny faust.

Don't get me started. I can't eat anything after I get back from the Paris/Antwerp/Amsterdam triangle (as well as most other European places).

Softie, I am so with you

 

[nqth]

Thanks Helena and Fashionista:-)

It is a good point that we ahould talk about sth "in the middle" rather than the extreme. I think that most of people do seek for a compromise in price/quality/fashionable term. 'The best possible" is a good word. It's the most vivid "examples" that break that rule, young girls buy all the trendy stuffs to be seen and rich people buy without hesitating.

I think most people with small budget that I know, like me:-) think twice before buying and "we" in general want to have basic clothes for several seasons. If sth has poor quality I just won't go back and buy the second time.

I always return the clothes not just "for the principles":-) if they are out of order after short wearing. But the men clothes are more "solid" than women indeed, without all the "glitz" and transparencies:-P so they seems to last longer than women clothes:-)

 

[impossibleprincess]

true dat...

I love that you are using those terms in (in an ironic way?) A post always pops out when you don't expect to read something coming from its author, e.g. "true dat" or "word". Too funny....Rather like Meowmix saying that she went into Wal-Mart or something like that.

 

[impossibleprincess]

I think it is acceptable. A lot of it is how you treat clothing, really. I've had my H&M shirt for years, and at $13, I say it was a pretty good buy. I think there should be clothing at all price levels. My problem with cheap clothes is that too often it's just plain ugly, but this is mostly limited to the US, where dressing is still not a prerogative for a majority. You guys don't know how good you have it in Europe. Walk into a mass market store here, you'll be horrified.

So true...whenever I go to America, I realise how good the British high-street is. Across the Atlantic, it seems to be two extremes.

Back on topic, for me it's all about timing. If a top from H&M fell apart in a week, I would take it back. In 6 months-no way I would complain. Because I would probably expect it. But having said that, I bought a pair of Dior Glossy sunglasses that broke 5 days in, and I hadn't worn them once. I bought a pair of oversized sunglasses from H&M for £5 that I've been throwing around my handbag, my room, etc, and they are perfectly fine. That is what annoys me.

 

[shadow]

I wholeheartedly agree with Softgray's approach to quality. A few years ago both me and my husband became unemployed and with a young child. For one whole year I could not afford anything new (except underwear). Not even C&A. But I did not look the "worse for wear", since I had quite a good wardrobe of basic pieces which looked infinitely better that anything at H&M. My Maxmara coat, my Delvaux bag and Hermés scarf are still in my wardrobe.

My mother went through the long long years of the Spanish post-war and her attitude to quality was the same. "Lo barato es caro".

 

[tott]

^ I so agree that good quality is worth a little bit of extra money, or some extra effort when it comes to shopping smart. Good quality doesn't have to expensive if you have an eye for it, and a talent for finding bargains!

 

[Curious]

^ I so agree that good quality is worth a little bit of extra money, or some extra effort when it comes to shopping smart. Good quality doesn't have to expensive if you have an eye for it, and a talent for finding bargains!

Good point & great topic!! Nice responses and discussion by everyone

I agree, Tott. I in no way succomb to the idea that expensive equals high quality and inexpensive equals low. It's about being a smart shopper just as you said and getting the most value for your dollar as has been mentioned several times...

So, the short answer to the original question in my book is NO

 

[shadow]

I would also say that (unfortunately) a famous label does not guarantee good quality. And this makes me furious! I am still thinking of the two bathing trunks from RL which I bought in mid-june and were bleached beyond recognition three weeks later.

 

[Melisande]

We also should be asking what do we mean by quality?

A beaded silk-crepe dress by Zara would not last as long as one by Galliano, which would not last as long as a tailored wool suit by the same designer at the same price. Does that mean that the suit has the best value-for-money?
Would this mean that sturdy utilitarian clothing--cowboy boots, fishermen's clothing, military gear, etc.-- the best for the buck?
Or does design play a big role in what we call quality?