The emergence of the ‘throw-away wardrobe’ and the plague of the ‘lunch-time buy’

A lot of my money-saving, life de-cluttering focus lately has been on my more than abundant wardrobe. I have concentrated on this, not because I am that shallow a person that I think fashion is the be-all and end-all but because I see it as one of my major weaknesses. In the past few months I have whittled down the piles of tops, skirts, dresses, shoes, you name it, to a skeleton of their former selves. I have also been loath to add anything new without first considering whether it:

1. Will fill a gap in my closet, or
2. Should replace an existing item because it is more versatile/of superior quality/more flattering etc.

I still have a running list of things I need to create my perfect wardrobe but despite having less clothes I am, overall, a lot happier with my selections. I find it easier to get dressed because I have less to choose from. I by no means am wearing the same clothes all the time either. Instead, because I have thought things through I have a small selection of clothes that mix and match easily. With the addition of a few select accessories I think I am doing very well. What has amazed me the most is how much happier I am spending less money on fashion. Admittedly, I still spend more than the average person (well I think so anyway), and I am trying to curb this, but now I spend on pieces I know will last me and I know I won’t get sick of and this, in the long run, will save me money.

The emergence of the ‘throw-away wardrobe’

In an age of environmental concern and increased awareness of human rights the thought of buying an item of clothing for $5 or $10 repulses me. These ‘throw-away’ clothes, although temporarily easier on the pocket will, in the long run cost me more. They will cost me more because they will be poorly constructed and fall apart soon, they will ocst me more because they are mass-produced and everyone will be wearing them, they will cost me more because they will be synthetic and make me itch or sweat or not handle themselves in the wash, they will cost me more because they are made in sweatshops in South East Asia that pay no heed to human or environmental rights, they will cost me more because they need to be imported in polluting bulk carriers or by airfreight and they will cost me more because they are more likely to end-up in landfill. In more ways than just the financial, cheap clothes are a lot more expensive.

I was really thrilled a few months back when I stumbled across an article in UK Elle. It talked about the changing attitudes towards sustainable fashion – not just manufacturers who are going organic or designers who opt out of animal-derived materials – but regular people who are reverting back to the old ways and buying fewer but better quality clothes; select pieces that they love and won’t ever throw-away. It reminded me of mum and how when she was a child she would be given her school shoes for Christmas each year. I don’t think I will ever resort to that (though of course my grandparents did it out of necessity rather than miserliness) I do love the idea of buying pieces that are special and that we can treasure rather than the seemingly identical flimsy polyester garments that hang in the majority of fashion chain windows.

But of course, I flipped over a few more pages and there it was- the exact antithesis of sustainable purchasing; a page dedicated to the ‘lunch time buy’.

The plague of the ‘lunch time buy’

In the past two days I have been appalled by the attitude towards thought-less spending promoted by fashion magazines. Yesterday, while I sat in the local café having lunch (my boss pays for our account or otherwise I would bring my own lunch and eat it in the park) I flicked through a copy UK Elle another customer had left behind.* I was so disappointed to see that there is a regular feature entitled ‘Lunch time buys’ (or something to that effect). I’m not really sure what qualifies an item as a ‘lunch time buy’. I thought perhaps it would have to be something cheap that you wouldn’t need to give much though to but rather buy on the spur of the moment as you wandered past on your way to eat. Something like a lip gloss or a new moisturiser. Maybe even a hair accessory or some costume jewellery. Apparently, the readers of this particular mag have a bit more money than I do. Since when is a $1500 bag a ‘lunch time buy’?

I know that technically it would take less than an hour to physically purchase the bag and that, provided you worked in the CDB it would be quite likely you could walk to the store, pick up the item, walk to the counter, swipe your credit card, sign the slip and leave the store with time to spare for a Nori Roll and a Diet Coke but would anyone actually do this? Even if they could afford to? Since when did a $1500 bag become a mindless impulse purchase? Well I guess I just didn’t get the memo because lo and behold last night when I open up my considerably lower-end of the market glossy there was whole fashion spread carrying the moniker of ‘lunch time buys’ and this time it was for cocktail wear! Yes, evidently $600 frocks and $300 shoes, not to mention the jewels and bags to match can all be snapped up on your daily 60 minute break. Even a spend-a-holic like me would at least need two lunch breaks to pull together a complete evening look; one day for trying everything on, overnight to think about it and the next day to go back and buy. Come to think of it, I would then need a third day to actually sit and eat the two lunches I have missed.

Now of course, this article was also matched with an editor’s letter that praised the delights of shopping over the internet and boasted of a whole web-based shopping feature inside. Now I have nothing against shopping on the internet. I have extolled the virtues of getting your groceries online and I have been known to snap up pieces from my favourite Parisian designer (not available in Australia) from an online boutique located in Brooklyn, NY. I also have a much loved silk scarf from the UK and firmly believe that you just can’t beat the prices for Marc Jacobs when the US department stores have their sales. But ‘hard to find’ or ‘sale you won’t believe’ was not what this editor was pushing. The idea of the feature was that internet shopping made shopping in general easier and faster and yes, more thoughtless. And I think this is the saddest part of all. In an article entitled The Building Blocks of Wealth Barbara Drury explores the ways in which the modern home can save money. One of her comments is that kids these days have little concept of the finite quality of their parents' money. Why? Because when you use a credit card you always have it handed back to you. Unlike cash, where you either get less or nothing back with the plastic all you do is sign (or enter a PIN these days) and off you walk with your purchase. No harm done.

Much has been said about the fact that people who use EFTPOS or credit cards don't feel like they have spent as much as those who have had to actually hand over cash and see the amount in their purses shrink. When I use my credit card while shopping I atleast have heavy bags to give me an appreciation of how much I have spent. I can go home and look at my new purchases and feel a sense of satisfaction. With internet purchases I can have completely forgotten about them by the time they arrive. As far as I am concerned, for me, and probably for anyone with a penchant to overspend, the internet just doesn't have the same 'handbreak' mechanism of shopping with cash or physically carrying purchases. And that's the most dangerous thing of all. How are we ever going to curb our spending when we do everything possible to reduce the shopping experience and remove all those triggers that would normally tell us to stop?

*Just a side note but I think this is a great idea. I have often left barely read magazines on trains in the hopes that someone who doesn’t usually splurge on them will get a bit of joy from my leftovers. I have also recently taken to listing my old mags for free on a fashion forum and then mailing them on to someone else.