so...what is a fair price? - YouLookFab Forum

Category

General

About: Nordstrom, Remember Your Roots

Welcome! Read about what to wear and how to wear it on the YLF Blog. Join the YLF Forum to ask specific questions or just chat about fashion and personal style. Or check out the curated list of things we love in YLF Finds.

Outfits Ensembles Trends Advice

so...what is a fair price?

kkards

Veteran

I started a separate post because i didn't want to get to off topic/ monopolize Runclara's "who gets it right" post. something nemosmom said "It seems so hard to find great quality at an affordable price" as well as general comments about quality/price relationships got me thinking.....
have our quality/price expectations become unrealistic?
a quick google search and i found the retail prices for Liz Claiborne 1986...fair to say that this was middle of the road, professional wear, designed for middle but not senior, level women. another quick google search, and i had a calculator that took 1986 prices to their equivalent today (sorry for those not in the US, all of this was based on US pricing, but i think principle would be the same)

Blouses
1986 $40-$60
2019 $93.64-$140.46

Skirts
1986 $50-$100
2019 $117-$234.10

Dresses
1986 $80-$180
2019 $187.28-$421.38

how may of us are looking at the 2019 prices and saying, yes that's what i'd we willing to pay? or are we looking at the 1986 prices and saying yes that's what i'd be willing to pay?

i don't mean to pick on anyone or to be negative, i have been thinking on this a lot lately, and am interested in your thoughts and opinions.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/0.....mpire.html

(and just as an FYI, even in 1986 to get these retails they were already manufacturing most of the goods in Asia)

General

30 replies

Latest reply was from cindysmith

Gennifyr

I'm not willing to pay any of those prices. I'd have no clothes if that was my budget. This is why I thrift. The most I'll pay new is $30. I have plenty of cheap new items that I've bought over the last decade that hold up fine but thrifting has the extra benefit of being less harmful.

JAileen

Veteran

I use this website a fair amount. When I read of costs in different times, I’m curious to know the modern equivalent:

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

For example, in 1971 I went with my parents to Europe. Just before we went I got a pair of Clarks Wallabees. (They were having a fashion moment, and they were the most comfortable shoes I had ever worn.) I think they were $22 then. Per the BLS website, the same price, adjusted for inflation is $138. They are now $140 on Zappos website, or virtually the same cost.

This post has 2 photos. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.

Janet

(website)

Veteran

Interesting perspective.

Taking my own biases out of it (I rarely paid full price for items on that level in 1986, since I was a college student then, but I was also starting to work in a professional environment, so I DID require professional looking clothing)... I don't think it's too out of line for a balance of reasonable quality for a mid-level line.

However, I expect many people would say the translation to today's pricing makes the items too high. The proliferation of fast fashion and even more cheap options, plus the ability to source items online, has (I think) nudged perceptions of "affordable" downward.

Plus, on a broader level of consumer behavior and perception, the earning power of the middle class has not kept pace with prices. Not for clothing, and especially not for housing or health care. Median rent for an apartment in 1980 was $308, vs. $1492 in 2017. https://www.statista.com/stati.....ince-1980/ When you look at the numbers for housing, clothing costs have approximately doubled (which is roughly in line with general rates of inflation), but rents have gone up many times over.

Gretchen

Veteran

Great point KKards!

I think there’s a resetting of expected price point for value that needs to happen. Looking at the cost trends over time is a great way to do that.

As a question, would you compare Liz Claiborne more to a Nordstrom house brand (like Classiques) or more like an Ann Taylor?

I remember swallowing hard when I bought my Classiques suit 5 years ago. But I’m still wearing it, and have definitely earned out the price. Most of my AT suits have not made it past the 3 year mark before needing replacement.

rachylou

Veteran

I think one has to consider the prices in terms of the real value of wages. Prices have gone up. Wages have gone up. But real wages have gone down. In the 80s you could still own a home, have a family of four, two cars and a yearly vacation on $12/hr. That would be ending soon, but you could still do it then. 25% of your take-home was what home economists told you to budget for housing. That’s laughable now. So where is all the money from these raised prices going? It’s not to the people who do the work.

Runcarla

Veteran

@kkards - prices look fair

@racheylou - really low clothing prices scare me - when cost of materials and labour just don't add up.

my red linen dress is Liz Claibourne (thrifted!)

Janet

(website)

Veteran

Rachy, exactly.

Becky

It is fair if the items in that price range have the quality to make them worth it. I don't think they do. Most of the items I see at that price range is not of significantly better quality than what is at Banana Republic or Loft. Sometimes they have inferior quality.

bj1111

Veteran

It’s not just change in price expectation but also downward pressure on “value”. If longevity if a valued commodity in clothing, fast fashion would be a harder sell. But it’s not...novelty seems to drive many purchasing decisions.

Perhaps not just novelty, but also consumers being trained in the expected obsolescence of an item. If it won’t last, then a fair price would be less than something I can wear for the next 10 years (maybe with some updating and /or alteration) like angie’s hero theory suit.

Another consideration is the pace of “current fashion” even in the “you do you” phase we are in now. Won’t pay more if I expect to replace soon.

rachylou

Veteran

Carla, when prices are lower than what materials and labour should be, that tells me someone is not only not paying taxes, someone is getting money from the government (which means the little man is paying) as well as from goods sold. The little man is paying twice.

Jaime

(website)

Veteran

Very interesting! My perspective is very warped as I buy almost everything second hand. If that was not possible I would be a minimalist with a few high end pieces. Maybe. Actually I have no idea.

Sal

Veteran

In NZ so we expect to pay more....

What I pay currently.....

Blouses - somewhere from $60-$180
Skirts - last new one was $220, one before that was $160
Dresses $120-$350 outside special occasion

I do pay less on final sale or thrifting and expect to get a few bargains every year for between $10 and $30.

I think the fact we can pay less means we expect to pay less. And I agree that quality at higher price points can be disappointing....

And we have more. I suspect my Mum never had 18 pairs of shoes - she would have had more like 5-6 across all seasons.

Brooklyn

Veteran

I agree with BJ111.

I think part of the issue with middle range brands is that they often skew classic. So I buy a nice, good quality, fairly classic jacket from a mid range brand. It lasts and doesn’t date. I don’t need to buy another (similar) one next year. But retailers want to sell you another one. If they opt for trendier styles that are different from last years offerings, consumers will buy more because of the novelty but expect to pay less because it’s disposable. If they stick with a more classic style they will sell fewer items because there is not a lot of variation on offer. It’s also harder to generate some excitement around the brand.

We have brands Cue and Veronika Maine that are mid range pricing and ethically made AND quite fashion forward in their offerings while still being fairly conservative/office appropriate. VM is definitely made for a mature woman too. I wish we had more like that but I suspect it’s a hard balance to get right.

Anonymous

Those prices seem fair to me - and is still pretty much the range in which I spend . I need to be convinced to spend more - I want superior design, fabric and construction . I’ll spend right across the entire range though but I’m always very clear about what I’m getting for that $$. I really wish second hand stores were better here - or maybe I’m the one that needs to me better at shopping them .

Gigi

Veteran

Very interesting indeed. The adjusted prices for today's clothing do strike me as high, which is your point. I am generally willing to pay $60-100 for a top (that's not a t-shirt), $80-100 for a skirt, and $100-160 for a dress. I expect these to be decent quality.

People have good points above. I agree that the middle class is really crunched and doesn't have as much disposable income as in years past, hence the focus on cheaper items. I also agree that the quality of the garments we get nowadays is usually not on par with years past; they are produced more cheaply (cheaper materials and cheaper seams), so they can be sold for less than the modern dollar equivalent.

I also wonder whether disconnect with the sewing industry leads people to assume costs should be lower. With fewer people around who can actually sew garments in the U.S., there is little understanding of the amount of labor required to sew a garment, or the amount of planning that goes into designing one. People assume it must be easy, and so they don't want to pay top dollar. They don't necessarily look at an item and say, "Wow, look at all those pleats. That was really labor intensive" or "This is really slippery fabric and was probably difficult to sew" or "Look how nicely these seams were finished." They just see a top with a $100 price tag and say, "No way! Why should I pay that when I can get a $6 shirt at Old Navy?"

There is also a loss of the desire for quality. People are used to wearing crap and seeing crap. I think some people have never felt high-quality fabric on their bodies or have worn an outfit that actually fits properly.

rachylou

Veteran

On the one hand, I think people ARE disconnected from what it takes to make something and how hard it is to make payroll. On the other hand, I also know that, esp in manufacturing, people are not paid a living wage and there are a lot of schemes deployed to get around paying people. No one says ‘let’s exploit people’. What they say is ‘labour is costly, let’s minimize it.’ The disconnect is not only on the customer side as to what it takes: employees pay to play and the cost is hidden from employers (or employers hide from those costs). As an enlightened customer, you may want to pay a higher price so the workers who make a shirt get a fair wage... but I guarantee that the extra money you shell out will NOT go to them.

Stagiaire Fash

Veteran

My first thought was “I’m old, stuck in the last!” But you are probably correct that many people would say the lower prices are the “right” ones. Looking at the different directions that worker pay vs c-suite salaries and stockholder “earnings” have taken makes it even harder to discern a “fair” price.

Jenni NZ

Veteran

It’s so difficult to compare across decades I feel when my life has changed so much? I bought second-hand or the occasional small boutique that had perhaps a good sale- I think- as a university student, but I think I had quite a small wardrobe at the time. And then newly qualified and single I bought some different moderately priced things on a trip to Australia and about 3 very expensive items here in NZ, one of which I still wear 33 years later! Two of those were a $75 shirt and the most expensive a $300 jumper, in 1985/6. They compare or are higher than your 1986 article prices. But isn’t that when you might expect to spend a lot on clothing, as a new young professional with very few responsibilities and looking maybe cuter than I’ve ever looked before or since? I wasn’t looking at the middle aged middle range. And then I sort of missed the trends in the 1990s as a young Mum, then by the time I was coming out of that we had 3 children and a mortgage, so I couldn’t by necessity pay as much as I might have a decade or more earlier? It’s a perception of the value you will get from the purchase, as well.
Sorry not sure where I’m going with this!

kkards

Veteran

such interesting responses...i don't have a lot of time to comment this morning, but will try to get back at lunch time with a more detail response...Runclara's and Gigi's comments re the lack of understanding of what it takes to actually make a garment are very interesting and probably play a larger role in the the price/value ratio than i considered, food for thought....

Tammyb

I often struggle with how much is appropriate for clothing. Y parents both had jobs - not careers- that required uniforms. So clothing had little use for them since they worked many, many hours. Sunday clothes and occasion clothes were important. I have many siblings so I wore handmedowns until I could buy my own clothes.

On many things in life I could look to my parents as models for how to do something or NOT do something. On this one I don’t have them. I am so interested in your opinions because this is a bit of a taboo subject sometimes and I guess I am looking for that role model.

Kathie

Veteran

I thoroughly enjoyed the NYT article about Liz Claiborne. The points about starting the line specifically for women in the workforce reminded me of MMLaFleur, and their marketing- and, in fact, MM clothes are similarly priced to the 2019 prices. I happily pay their prices for classic designs, nice seam finishing, and items that last. Some of the clothes are made in New York, and many are washable, and I’m also happy to pay higher prices to support manufacturing closer to home, and decrease my dry-cleaning costs. What I’m willing to pay does vary quite a bit, depending on how long I think I’ll have an item. For a good wool coat or classic trench, that I’ll have for 10+ years, I’d be willing to spend quite a bit. For summer clothes, I’m much more price sensitive, since the clothes are subject to quite a bit more washing. When I was on a tighter budget, I thrifted, since that was really the only way to get the quality I wanted, for a price I could afford.

nemosmom

Veteran

It's interesting to see the numbers. The quality of garments hasn't kept up IMO; I would feel much more comfortable paying $100 for a blouse if it held up as well as a $40 one. There are certainly exceptions (per Runcarla's thread), but you have to be willing to hunt for them.

Ginger

Veteran

This is a good point, and I'm very glad you brought it up. Another factor to consider is our changing expectations of wardrobe size and variety. It makes sense to spend proportionally more on a few items of clothing if those are truly the backbone of your wardrobe and being worn on a daily basis.

I have several textbooks from the 1930s and 1940s on wardrobe planning and sewing, focused on high schoolers. They all suggest a core wardrobe, basically consisting of a good quality coat, skirt suit, shoes, and a hat in the same neutral, then a print or colored dress and blouse. The original mix-and-match wardrobe. Of course this was the ideal, and formed from frugality, but it was how people thought.

I read a book from the 1910s about a girl working in an office in New York City. She had ONE office dress. She changed when she got home each night, brushed it carefully, spot-cleaned if necessary, mended any damage, and wore it again the next day. She was not a wealthy girl, but by no means was she impoverished.

It's a complex issue, and I know I'm adding another factor.

anchie

Veteran

I have a hard time paying full price for anything because I am so used to all the sales, discounts and promotions. It is also something of a game to me - getting the best possible item for the least amount of money.

kkards

Veteran

ginger--very interesting...and that led me to this very interesting article about how much and % of your incomes we spend on clothing thru the decades..

https://www.kqed.org/lowdown/7939/madeinamerica

so, yes, we are spending less (both real dollars and % of income), but buying more....

rachylou

Veteran

For sure we spend less for more. Also super interesting is how people clothed themselves in Victorian times - all those people slaving in the textile mills, but wearing rags for shoes. And so is how people clothed themselves in medieval times, when you know, you’d have to inherit a sewing needle from your mother. I took some weaving classes in school, where we also learned how to dye yarn and use a drop spindle. It was the fields in the day and spinning at night. Years to make a woven garment. I still don’t understand because there were, until synthetics, basically just four fibers, right? Wool, linen, silk, cotton. Linen and silk were costly. Cotton a late comer I do believe. So... that’s a lot of sheep.

ETA: but maybe there were 5, and hemp should be included. Cloth doesn’t survive time. Hard to know.

Irina

Veteran

I’m with Anchie on this. I buy only a few full priced items a year. This year I bought a black linen shirt, I’ve been looking for one for long time and a pair of shoes from the same store. I wasn’t sure these items would go on sale and I was right. As for the rest of my shopping - I have some clothes in mind and I wait until there is a sale. My shopping at Winners or Nordstrom Rack is similar to someone ‘s shopping at the second hand stores - searching for well known brands and keeping open mind. Without sales my wardrobe would be much smaller and I wouldn’t terribly mind it. But I do mind when I pay a full price for something just to see it at 50% off a couple months later. So, there is that.

Suz

(website)

Veteran

This is so very interesting and on point. Thank you for raising the question.

As New Zealanders and Aussies have also said, we tend to expect to pay more in Canada for our clothes, and prices are especially high now because our dollar is (again) low in relation to the US dollar.

I remember Liz Claiborne seeming like an "expensive but almost possible" line back in the day...my mother had a few pieces she delighted in.

I do tend to scour the sales, since, as Anchie says, there are so many of them and it almost seems silly to pay full price unless you know it is going to sell out in your size.

This means I spend roughly between $30 and $150 CAD on blouses/ shirts/ tops. (On the lower end for summer items because they wear out quicker due to laundering and besides, they involve less fabric!).

My skirts all cost considerably less than the 2019 numbers you calculated. But the full price items are typically in that range. Meanwhile, my jeans (by far the majority of my bottoms) almost all fall into that range.

Dresses for me tend to run between $60 and $150 but I buy dresses almost exclusively on sale and most of my dresses are summer wear.

Jackets, footwear, and coats are the big ticket items in my closet. And knits, which need a lot of replacement, more's the pity.

Jenn

(website)

Veteran

I just looked at my spreadsheet. I think I'm pretty willing to pay more for sustainable manufacture and sourcing, especially recently, but it's pretty telling how vast the spread between the high and low ends are, and all of my medians are below the inflation-adjusted 1986 figure.

Blouses, I've paid $12-215, median is $86
1986 $40-$60
2019 $93.64-$140.46

Skirts, I've paid $20-178, median is $25
1986 $50-$100
2019 $117-$234.10

Dresses, I've paid $20-265, median is $120
1986 $80-$180
2019 $187.28-$421.38

12