Posted on 07/26/2009 4:31:54 PM PDT by Drew68
Herman Joseph's eyes light up when he lists some of his favorite clothing lines: True Religion. Rock & Republic. 7 For All Mankind.
Once, he even paid $300 for a pair of black and silver Gucci dress shoes.
"I used to like to be fly," the 19-year-old said of his pricey wardrobe. "It gave me confidence in myself."
But now, sitting in the Manhattan youth center where he's working toward getting his GED, Joseph is wearing no-name jeans. He, like several of the other young people in his program, lost his job. They've been talking less about who's wearing what, and wearing less of what's in style.
For young people from low-income backgrounds, often faced with paying their own way and helping support their families, interest in designer labels is waning as the economic downturn strains wallets and helps boost the appeal of frugality.
Staffers at programs serving low-income youth in Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago and New York notice a reduced focus on top labels, whether due to dwindling resources or changing tastes. It's a shift away from decades-old stereotypes of poor kids obsessed with bling and brand labels.
While people with lower incomes have disproportionately sought out high-end brands for at least the last 18 years, they've recently been turning away from them, said Marshal Cohen, chief retail industry analyst at market researcher NPD Group.
Spending on designer wear by families earning between $15,000 and $25,000 a year fell by 29 percent in 2008 from the year before, according to NPD.
That's a significantly larger decline than for any other income group tracked by NPD. Families earning between $50,000 and $100,000 yearly, for example, spent an estimated 7 percent less on designer apparel in 2008 compared with the previous year.
The change has served some retailers well.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
rustler boot jeans.
$9.99 at kmart
on sale at walmart for $7.00
made by wrangler. old fashioned shrink to fit, stiff dark blue denim. Plain pockets, no rivets, no fancy stitching.
Once, he even paid $300 for a pair of black and silver Gucci dress shoes.
Just imagine where he would be going in life if he didn't piss away his money on clothes and planned for his future by doing something like investing in stocks... hmm, maybe he had the right idea.
Seriously, I've heard that the KKK couldn't come up with a more effective way of keeping blacks down than our current government school system. Similarly, they couldn't come up with a more effective way of keeping blacks poor than by keeping them focused on $300 shoes and spinning rims on their cars.
That's a significantly larger decline than for any other income group tracked by NPD. Families earning between $50,000 and $100,000 yearly, for example, spent an estimated 7 percent less on designer apparel in 2008 compared with the previous year.
Hmm. Mine hasn't dropped at all this year ($0 - 0% = $0). My only clothing extravagance is having to buy dress shoes at a real shoe store instead of discount stores, so that takes a chunk out of my wallet when I buy.
AWW CRY ME A G*D D*MN RIVER!
No cramping of the “style” here in Atlanta. Just about on a weekly basis they’ll smash a truck through a retailer’s window and clean out all the high priced jeans and be gone before the police arrive.
There is something terribly wrong with denying these kids their high fashion clothes.
I think we need a govt. program to provide the clothing these kids have become accustommed to.
Wow. They quote a guy in the last two paragraphs that is 20 years old with an 8 year old son. Wonder how old mom is? Geesh!
I guess the Man is still keeping them down ... Oh wait! Obama is the Man now ... Ooooops
What's amazing is that we have a reporter who is actually trying to evoke sympathy for dropouts on welfare who can no longer afford expensive clothing.
Lets not forget "zero's" abortion policies supported by jackson, sharpton and the congressional black caucus.
I doubt that I spend $100 bucks a year on clothes. Big ticket items are field boots and camo goretex.
That alone explains why they will likely never be anything in their lives BUT lower income earners... Too stupid with what money they do have to ever aquire more.
Looks like there's one in place that's at least partially funded by taxpayers:
"At A Place Called Home youth center in South Central Los Angeles, girls getting free prom dresses have stopped checking for the designer's logo before making their pick."
Free designer prom dresses are a civil right, ya' know?
I wonder where the mother is? It seems the father has his priorities right though, he’s says his son’s needs are his priority.
While people with lower incomes have disproportionately sought out high-end brands for at least the last 18 years
So it's a "stereotype" in one sentence, but a fact in the next one?
These slackers may be in luck. Rock & Republic now has “Recession Collection”... jeans for ~$125 instead of ~$225.
http://shop.rockandrepublic.com/reccession_collection.html
The sad thing is, I am afraid that this situation will eventually lead to more crime, as these folks lust for their bling, and feel entitled to it. And if they don’t have it, it is somebody else’s fault.
While people with lower incomes have disproportionately sought out high-end brands for at least the last 18 years, they've recently been turning away from them, said Marshal Cohen, chief retail industry analyst at market researcher NPD Group. . . .
Lower-income shoppers spend a higher percentage of their discretionary income on designer labels than middle-income shoppers, although they still spend smaller sums than their wealthier counterparts, according to NPD. . . .
Twenty-year-old Daryl Salter, who also is studying at The Door to get his GED, says his friends are bragging less about their wardrobes. Before, there was a common refrain: "Man, I paid $500 for these. How much are those? What you got on?'"
Several observations:
1. Stereotypes are not always false or misleading.
2. By historical standards, "poor" Americans would not be considered poor at all.
3. "Poverty" in America often results from a lifetime of extravagance and bad choices.
From what I can see, the “poor” in America have fancier cell phones and clothes than my family do. They also seem to get a lot more to eat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.