Historical Spending on Clothing - Interesting stats

[cookie]

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/

 

[brspiritus]

The graph has slipped way down the bottom of the page so here's a repost:

Americans spent almost $338.1 billion on clothing and footwear in 2010 (data here), which as a share of disposable personal income (data here), was the lowest ever in U.S. history, at only 2.97%. Spending on clothing as a share of income has fallen in 21 out of the last 23 years, from 4.78% in 1988 to less than 3% in both 2009 and 2010. Compared to 1950 when spending on clothing was 9% of income, spending last year was less than one-third that amount, and compared to spending on clothing of 6% of income in 1970, spending last year was half of that share.


In other words, clothing is now cheaper than at any time in history, when measured as a share of disposable income. And there's a better selection of clothing now, at higher quality, and with options available today like no-iron fabrics and washable silk that have become increasingly available in recent years. And when it comes to footwear, I don't think anybody would argue that the selection and quality today are far ahead of past decades - just think of the athletic footwear options today vs. Chuck Taylor Converse All-Stars, which were at one time "state-of-the-art" and were only available in two colors (black and white) until 1966.

Bottom Line: As a direct result of increased global competition, advances in technology, and increased worker productivity, clothing is cheaper today both in inflation-adjusted prices and as a share of disposable income. We have more clothing today per person than any previous generation (think of the number and size of closets in a typical 1930s, 1940s or 1950s era home), and the clothing and footwear are cheaper and better than ever, contributing to an ever-increasing rising standard of living for the average American.

 

[Shangas]

Either clothing has become cheaper...or people aren't buying as many nice clothes.

I think it's the latter.

 

[brspiritus]

It's an interesting article but cheaper doesn't neccessarily mean it's better. Also why is it that "standard of living" is always calculated to mean "how much 'stuff' we can accumulate?"

 

[Pompidou]

It's an interesting article but cheaper doesn't neccessarily mean it's better. Also why is it that "standard of living" is always calculated to mean "how much 'stuff' we can accumulate?"

Probably because happiness doesn't translate to a number in any way that would hold up under scrutiny. How much money people make has to be adjusted for inflation and such. How many things a person can accumulate works great on a graph.

 

[Widebrim]

Either clothing has become cheaper...or people aren't buying as many nice clothes.

I think it's the latter.

It's likely both, Shangas. After 1945, clothing prices went down, so even though people kept on buying dress clothing, their expenditures still went down. Interesting how it leveled out for a while in the 1980s.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I think a lot of the cost has to do with what people wear now. Years ago, there was lots of suits, hats, ties, dresses, etc, etc. Everything these days seems to be jeans/t-shirt combo of some sort. Much cheaper.

 

[Cobden]

I'd also suggest a rise in disposable income is probably another source - for a working class man, a new suit would be a significant chunk of such, whereas even something of an equivalent cost (factoring in inflation) would not be

 

[AtomicEraTom]

If I went out and got a good suit, and I mean a good suit, I would expect to pay likely well over a week's pay for it.

I'd also suggest a rise in disposable income is probably another source - for a working class man, a new suit would be a significant chunk of such, whereas even something of an equivalent cost (factoring in inflation) would not be

 

[Cobden]

Yes, but the average working man wouldn't be buying what would now be equivalent in cost to something similar - or if they did, they would have to spend well over several weeks wages.

The new clothes an average person would buy would be a new shirt if you were lucky. Most men would have had two suits (one for everyday, one for best - at least in the UK) only

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Very true. I was just using that as an example of the fact that though less of a chunk of change, it's still a chunk of change. Thrift stores and the internet have really helped to drive prices down on things and make things much more available to a mass market.

 

[Widebrim]

^^In the States, at least before the late-'40s, the "average" man would likely of had only one suit. As far as cost is concerned, you could buy a suit for a week's wages; it just depended on what kind it was and where you purchased it. (Right after the war, my father bought a suit for $20, which was about his weekly salary at the time.) I've read that a bespoke suit in Britain cost about 3 pounds. Is that accurate, Cobden?

 

[Cobden]

Sounds about plausible for an average man's suit. Spike Milligan mentions a pair of cheap flannels being 10/- in 1938, and a service dress uniform from a high end tailor in 1914 was about £8 (jacket and britches). £3 in 1930 corresponds to about £140 nowadays, factoring in inflation.

In the UK, there was a definite two-suit culture, though it's worth bearing in mind that we didn't really have workwear like in America (work in a coal mine? A suit. A factory? A suit. Later on, you may worn overalls. Over your suit)

 

[HoundstoothLuke]

^^In the States, at least before the late-'40s, the "average" man would likely of had only one suit. As far as cost is concerned, you could buy a suit for a week's wages; it just depended on what kind it was and where you purchased it. (Right after the war, my father bought a suit for $20, which was about his weekly salary at the time.) I've read that a bespoke suit in Britain cost about 3 pounds. Is that accurate, Cobden?

My grandfather got a bespoke suit in the mid 1950s for £21, which was about 3 weeks wages for him on an average salary.

 

[Matt_the_chap]

Shirts and collars mostly - my gran' remembered her father's suits getting worn down before he'd even consider purchasing a new one as a factory worker. They'd be relegated to descending levels of wearability until her mother converted them into rags in the end. She also remembered that all of them were made for him bespoke. Clothes had to last more than anything else - I wouldn't be surprised if the increased amount of spending meant less clothes overall.