(As an aside, I swear by pants from the Issey Miyake Homme Plissé collection. Since investing in some pairs about 10 years ago, I have hardly worn anything else—no other pants match their comfort. The iPhone Pocket is of course ridiculous anyway.)
The pants cost around 500 bucks? I don't necessarily believe that a priori spending $500 on a pair of pants is irrational, but I really struggle to imagine any pair of pants being worth that much money unless they are lined with gold or something.
I usually buy cheap clothes and mend them and ten years for a pair of pants isn't unusual for me. I probably haven't spent $500 dollars on clothes in a year ever in my entire life (except maybe the year I bought a suit for getting married).
I guess I'm just genuinely curious how you found yourself in the position of even contemplating $500 for pants.
> but I really struggle to imagine any pair of pants being worth that much money unless they are lined with gold or something.
It depends on how much you earn. I don’t mind spending tens of thousands on Loro Piana cashmere because it’s really nice, but at my income level the price difference between that and Zara is pretty much immaterial.
Keep in mind that HN is packed with people with salaries above $1M/yr and entrepreneurs with way higher income levels.
A few years ago I too would’ve considered $500 for pants to be absurd, at this point I just go to a tailor and pay slightly more than that but save tons of time in the long term and always have perfect fitting pants. The time savings alone are tremendous, after getting a pair fitted properly I can just order new ones whenever I need without having to spend hours going through shops looking for the right pair of pants.
> Keep in mind that HN is packed with people with salaries above $1M/yr and entrepreneurs with way higher income levels.
Is it really packed with those people? I know there's some, but I imagined that the average user here is probably some senior engineer in his 40s making six figures - not an executive or some industry-leading employee, and not the top <1% entrepreneur who manages to walk away with multimillion dollar profits. If that really is the common audience here, then I'm living in a whole different universe from what the average would work out to.
Not that those people aren't here, but I don't think they are the average. I think the average person here is an un/under-employed tech enthusiast who dreams of startups but spends his time here instead of actually working to make it happen. I'm not in that group by the way, I stopped dreaming about startups 10 years ago.
Bored developers are probably another large fraction.
You don’t have to be “industry leading” to reach that kind of comp working for big tech.
I could be totally wrong, but in a world where plumbers and the likes can walk away with multimillion dollar profits you probably don’t have to be top <1% to pull that off either. Not taking shots at plumbers, but the point is that even something boring can and will pay off if you work hard at it.
My own work couldn’t be more boring, I’m not particularly smart or talented. I just grind out many little varyingly useful websites with card payment forms.
> My own work couldn’t be more boring, I’m not particularly smart or talented. I just grind out many little varyingly useful websites with card payment forms.
Are you talking like one-off niche utilities/services that another busy person would happily pay a small amount to solve an immediate problem with and don't necessarily require a ton of backend scaling/maintenance, or subscription type stuff? When you say "many", is that >100?
So far the most profitable category has been sites which simplify some government processes, e.g. helping you fill a form or even just basically selling a PDF version of a form that a government only provides on paper (with a nice web UI to help you easily fill it).
Little scaling or maintenance, I can host everything on a single dedicated server but have a few so I don’t have to worry about things breaking.
Most of the work is just locating these niches, but honestly it’s easy to find at least one a week even if I’m being lazy. If I was really trying very hard I’d probably be at 1000+ sites right now.
One simple example would be helping people change their name in the UK with a deed poll, which basically amounts to a pdf saying “hey my name is now [enter name here]”. I didn’t do this particular one even though I probably should, I found out about it pretty early on and I was (wrongly!) dissuaded by the competition.
Edit: I specifically should not have been dissuaded by the competition because it’d take an hour or two to build a decent website with the necessary information, and despite the competition there’s a decent chance my page would start ranking pretty well within a couple of years. I’ll probably do this one tomorrow.
Heh, this is a nearly identical idea to what I've been considering trying in the past week, since I have some experience with the PDF spec and Acroforms from my time working on a commercial PDF SDK, and I personally have both struggled and watched people struggle with certain forms. Also seems like a straightforward value prop.
It's nice to hear that it's a viable niche and you're doing well with it! Thanks for sharing
Do it! The best part here is that the work you do will be super reusable and you can easily crank out a new website every day if you feel like it.
It’s important to be patient though, I’ve had websites not earn a cent for the first year and grow to tens of thousands a year with zero intervention from me.
In this job market, in this political environment, with Luigi Mangione a Bonnie-and-Clyde-tier folk hero, the bit you quoted was perhaps a clue to the lack of wisdom in humblebragging that you spend a family's annual food budget on 5 pounds of spun sheep keratin.
I imagine that I will be the bad guy for pointing this out. (Perhaps even to myself, considering that there's certainly utility in rich people yapping incautiously about the reasons others might want to turn on an Enes Yilmazer video and figure out where the panic room is.)
I don’t make nearly that kind of money, but I don’t think people who do should keep it a secret like you’re trying to enforce some norm of secrecy on him
Luigi wouldn't have been famous if he offed a guy for wearing tailored pants and a rolex, he's famous because the CEO was a scapegoat of everything wrong with health insurance.
>> there's certainly utility in rich people yapping incautiously about the reasons others might want to turn on an Enes Yilmazer video and figure out where the panic room is.
Can you explain what you mean by this? I hope I'm misunderstanding it.
Let me remind you that this is a forum operated by a VC fund looking for people to give lots of money to so they can build billion dollar businesses. Those who succeed are routinely celebrated here, but actually discussing that money being spent rapidly becomes judgmental.
Hard to reconcile it being super cool to build an unicorn (a cute term we’ve come up with to describe billion dollar startups which have made their founders tremendously wealthy), but somewhat disgusting to actually have or spend that money.
News.ycombinator.com seems like the wrong place to complain about capitalism.
FWIW I don’t even get a Silicon Valley salary, am not in any way extraordinary, but have spent 10+ years building 100+ small online businesses out of which none have been particularly successful (but in total the little streams add up)
Sorry for jumping on this off-topic but I'm a junior engineer hoping to build out some of those small online businesses but I've been a bit unsure of how to go about it. When you say small online businesses do you mean like micro-SaaS kind of things? Or like tangible items? Sorry, just curious :)
Micro-SaaS and digital products. Just figure out a good stack to work with for billing and try to crank out one little thing a week that will be useful to someone.
One of my best projects just sells some pdf files you can submit to the government to achieve a thing you would usually unnecessarily hire a lawyer for.
Another in a similar vein simply offers an easy-to-fill PDF version of a government form that does not exist online, and a nice HTML interface that will help you mostly automatically fill it.
Most of these took less than a day to build and take next to no maintenance. Both of the above earn more than $100k annually.
Just make sure your customers can get in touch with you very easily so you don’t end up with broken websites running on autopilot charging customers for broken stuff, I made that mistake once and ended up having to call a bunch of people to apologise when I discovered what had been happening.
It's not reddit leaking, it's normal people leaking into your weird millionaire world. I say weird because 99.9% of people in the world would consider it on a range of weird all the way to unethical that you spend tens of thousands on pants. I'm not going to sit here and preach and make you bored, but consider what good you could do with that money, if only your ass and thighs were slightly more uncomfortable than they are today. Especially now when people around the world are dealing with 2x the food costs of a year or a few ago.
Also, HN is a fine place to complain about capitalism, maybe a few of you capitalists will have it click in your brains that other people are struggling and you can do something about it other than sitting on a cloud.
I donate approximately 47.5% of everything I earn to the French government, is that not enough? (And yes, taxes are a voluntary donation in my case. I could move less than a mile across the border to Monaco and incorporate elsewhere if I wanted to pay ~0%)
Of course, when I spend 10000 euros in the Loro Piana boutique or anywhere really, 20% of that goes to the government too.
Could I afford give more? Sure! To whom? How much? Figuring that out seems like another full time job, and the track record of the effective altruism folks doesn’t seem all that great.
>the track record of the effective altruism folks doesn’t seem all that great.
I've been donating 5-10% of my income to GiveWell[1] and their top charities like GiveDirectly[2] and the Against Malaria Foundation[3] for nearly a decade at this point and I think their track record has been fantastic. Effect altruism only gets shady when longtermists get involved and start speculating on the moral worth of lives in some distant future. If you focus on human beings alive today, effective altruists (and development economists) have done a great job identifying how to make your charitable donations go the farthest in reducing suffering.
> I donate approximately 47.5% of everything I earn to the French government, is that not enough?
It's better to think of pretax money as just not existing. The effect of /everyone/ paying taxes is different from the effect of only you paying taxes, since your buying power is somewhat determined by how much you have relative to everyone else.
Well not really, I do my grocery shopping a few minutes away in Monaco where nobody pays taxes. I could move less than a kilometre and save loads of money, despite the outrageous real estate costs.
I just kind of like where I am now so don’t care enough to do that, and at least try to assume that the government does a relatively good job of directing my donation to good causes.
Everybody seems to have an opinion on what someone more wealthy than they are should spend their money on.
Unfortunately we don't get to look at what the commenter earns or spend...
A normal car weekly payment in the US is ridiculously wasteful. If you live in the US its almost a given that you are ridiculously wealthy in comparison to many in the world.
A normal overseas trip is ridiculously wasteful.
It's hard to consider what an average person in the world would think is wasteful, because with our common developed country expenses we don't feel like millionaires.
We couldn't even ask a person with an average world income to comment, since do they even have the free time to waste? (edits)
Whataboutism isn’t going to solve the problem of inequality. Compare me to many others and you can say the same things as I said to GP, however there’s a clear difference that isn’t very subtle between me buying a compact car and GP buying a few pairs of those pants for the same cost.
There’s this argument that people make that goes something like, “the wealthy give their fair share why sour they pay more than a lot income person and get called out for not giving more?” I don’t believe that’s their fair share, is why I ask them to give way more. Do you think a person who starts 100 businesses is working harder than a single mom with a few kids? Why did they deserve the lions share of the profits over their employees? These are some of the questions I have they could be relevant.
Like I said, I don’t want to bore anyone, it’s not like the wealthy have ever been in touch with the common man, for millennia. I’m certainly not going to convince anyone, I’m no good at arguing and my arguments tend to be rough and full of holes, but at least I’m not a millionaire claiming I couldn’t or shouldn’t do more because I’m a special hard worker who deserves every penny.
I’m definitely not working particularly hard, but for what it’s worth my work has saved and will continue to save vast amounts of time for ordinary people. I’m not sure that how hard a person works is the right metric to use.
> it’s not like the wealthy have ever been in touch with the common man, for millennia
A few years ago I used to live in hostels, sometimes hoping that my (then few) websites would get one or two payments to cover my expenses for the next day so I wouldn’t have to go without food. I’d like to think that I’m not suddenly particularly out of touch.
>my work has saved and will continue to save vast amounts of time for ordinary people.
I have my doubts.
>A few years ago I used to live in hostels, sometimes hoping that my (then few) websites would get one or two payments to cover my expenses for the next day so I wouldn’t have to go without food. I’d like to think that I’m not suddenly particularly out of touch.
Consider that living in hostels and going hungry while maintaining multiple web services is maybe outside of the common man's experience. The priorities of someone stuck in the former situation, and the resources generally available to someone in the latter, usually don't overlap. Grocery shopping in Monaco and calling your taxes "donations" doesn't help matters.
I say this as someone who is, by many measures, out-of-touch himself: weird know weird. A measure of self-consciousness is healthy.
Finally, for efficiency's sake:
>Hard to reconcile it being super cool to build an unicorn (a cute term we’ve come up with to describe billion dollar startups which have made their founders tremendously wealthy), but somewhat disgusting to actually have or spend that money.
You probably misunderstand my perspective on the matter.
>Could I afford give more? Sure! To whom? How much?
Oh, the possibilities are endless (even if the ability to vet is not; so, don't).
Talk to people, find out their pain points, make their day.
OR
Your employees (or the people who automation has saved from being your employee).
OR
Invest in that neighborhood people tell you not to go to.
Just starter suggestions. Note that they're not merely aimed at making you feel good for being a good little philanthropist; in the long run, they make it safer to run your mouth off however you like.
gifting sums of money to someone to solve their problems can significantly complicate relationships, have you tried it? Unless theyre a close intimate that is genuinely able to accept a gift you'll end up with someone who feels indebted to you or the opposite, sees you as a bank account or a fallback for next time they're in need. I've seen it between parents and children, between friends, between strangers, debt complicates things. That's what I like about money, it's used to settle debt so you don't owe anything to anyone.
And people hate it when somebody buys a run down building in a poor neighborhood and "invests" in it because now you're making it unaffordable
Edit: I'll give you "pay your employees more", that's a fairly uncomplicated way to distribute windfall wealth, but now you've just passed the buck to them! ;)
>gifting sums of money to someone to solve their problems can significantly complicate relationships
Maybe. If you have a relationship. I was thinking more along the lines of listening to someone's story and them finding a check from a mysterious benefactor in the mail sometime later.
>And people hate it when somebody buys a run down building in a poor neighborhood and "invests" in it because now you're making it unaffordable
So don't do that. There are other ways to invest in communities. "Upgrading" housing is couched as the primary way to do so really only because it's a good way to make money (and influence what some people would view as desirable demographic changes).
Most people react poorly to the word hypocrite so ChatGPT found[1] some other choice phrases for people that are well off that complain about the better off.
> Why did they deserve the lions share of the profits over their employees?
You appear to live in the US. Ask yourself why those in the US deserve the lions share of world wealth? You seem to be complaining about others while not looking at yourself.
Disclosure: I'm well off for a New Zealander but I'm earning less than the median wage my cohort receives in NYC. Taxes total around 45% of my income.
Edit: 1/3 of US households earn over $150k. https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2025/09/17/one-third-of... - It isn't that uncommon in the US but that amount is rather uncommon in most of the rest of the world. I've just been to New Orleans so I saw one poorer part of the US recently so I have some point of comparison.
Do something about it then. Start by learning to make arguments that aren't so poor you yourself think they're rough and full of holes. Get involved in politics, activism, or campaigning. Vote. Convince others to vote in the same manner you do.
This is such a broken take. Jealousy is so ugly. It's like you expect those doing better than you to Harrison Bergeron themselves for your sake.
I'm sorry you're unhappy with your lot in life. Maybe work hard and do better, rather than expecting others to pretend like they're not doing well to appease your feelings.
I’m doing fine, others aren’t doing as well, I guess you see it as jealousy and in fact I’m just disgusted by my fellow man that they can hoard while others starve.
> I’m just disgusted by my fellow man that they can hoard while others starve.
Despite popular belief the economy is not a zero sum game where every dollar someone makes comes at anothers expense. In reality, every dollar a wealthy person spends becomes some other person's livelihood.
It is only unproductive idle capital that should be considered "hoarding", and that IS a bit of a sin in my book. As is wealth invested in rent seeking rather than productive activity.
> I say weird because 99.9% of people in the world would consider it on a range of weird all the way to unethical that you spend tens of thousands on pants.
TIL it's unethical to spend a lot of money on clothes. It's not like the sub-thread's OP was spending $10k on a pair of <Insert crazy designer brand name> pants that actually have more form than function. It's a $500 pair of pants. God forbid people spend money on their own preference for their own comfort.
Pragmatically, capitalism brought in more good than bad. Are we arguing that we would've been better off if the world had gone the way of the soviet/pre-80s China way of life?
The irony is the majority of people on here are the ones screaming "tax the rich" at Mamdani's acceptance speech, but then are the same ones upvoting this guy, his 10M net worth and defending him being rich.
To make it even more confusing I’m a rich guy cheering for people like Mamdani.
I pay lots of taxes, probably in top 0.1% of the world on a % basis. I don’t have to, I’m not a US or French citizen so I could easily just choose to relocate a couple of minutes away and pay essentially no taxes.
If I did choose to stop paying taxes, I’d do so in order to donate a similar amount of my income to some charity. I’m just not sold on that being so much more efficient to be worth the hassle. OTOH, it’d definitely greatly improve my philanthropy credentials which would very much be worth it to some for purely selfish personal reasons.
> at my income level the price difference between that and Zara is pretty much immaterial
this is probably just regular bragging, right?
now, discussing how donating $100 versus $10k to a cause or community being negligible to their economic security would at least front-load some humility, but capitalists gon' capitalist. oops!
thank god this is Hacker News though, and not some safe-haven for boring rich people!
"I buy more $10,000 cardigans than you buy Hanes undershirts" is kinda the definition of bragging. What a weird ass corner of the internet where it's just assumed everybody earns $millions. Like, lol, no outside SV, London, and NYC, that's truly exceptional. Like, the average CEO in the US doesn't even clear $1 million (according to Google's AI search results).
You can construct a philosophical argument that value is all relative without having to casually drop anecdata demonstrating that you personally spend many hundreds of times more on an everyday object than is typical without consideration.
Can you describe a way of communicating that same point without it being bragging in your eyes? I guess I could’ve engaged in the gymnastics of saying SWIM like they used to do on some drug forums :)
"I have spent more than $500 dollars on pants before, because I'm lucky to be in a position where for me these things are a matter of taste and whim, rather than budget, and don't really affect my finances too much whether I do or don't buy them."
I don't think I have to explain to you how the gap between what you said, and what I wrote above, is what is causing offense here. You likely deserve 100% of your success, but its just common sense to obscure the specifics of it if you are way out of band in relative terms.
Its like saying: "You know, I never really get ill" at the cancer ward. Sure, its true, but read the room.
Well, after all it’s HN and this is the kind of content that attracts much of the users. I’d certainly be more careful with that wording on a website that caters to a very different audience, but it’s not long ago when indiehackers posts of people “bragging” about their successes were consistently at the top of the front page.
Not convinced I misread the room, especially considering the upvotes.
> don't really affect my finances too much whether I do or don't buy them
Isn't this the same brag as before?
I can't tell how this is different than throwing some numbers in the mix, the person relating their personal experience expresses they have fuck-it-bucks either way
Not naming numbers is precisely the point, because you obfuscate the reality of the size of the gap, which in the end is what everything is about. The gap creates the offense. Everybody knows there's rich people, but being confronted by exactly how rich, to the detail of a number, is the offensive part (if done by that rich person without any clear reason).
I'm not sure why people keep piling up to pretend this is such a normal thing, this is literally why people don't discuss salaries despite it technically being in their own interest: specifics ground the fuzzy notion of inequality into reality like nothing else.
The offensive post inflates the perceived inequality from "500$ pants is too much for pants" to "10k means nothing to me" while my version leaves the specifics outside of the conversation. In my version, the person could put the level of "too expensive for pants" at 1k, still an order of magnitude lower than the offensive post.
Finally, I acknowledge that this is a privileged position to be in explicitly, because that signals that you are aware that this is an exceptional situation to be in (which I'm not sure the offensive post author is aware of, even now).
You could have omitted "but at my income level the price difference between that and Zara is pretty much immaterial." and come across more matter-of-fact than brag. IMO.
No it doesn't. He's establishing the fact that he can afford very expensive clothes and why, from personal experience, he believes them to be worth it if you can afford it. If you omit the entire sentence the whole meaning of the post changes. I think you may just be upset because he's wealthier than you.
Also later tried to briefly establish the fact that had I been offered such products a couple of years ago, I too would’ve found the pricing completely ridiculous.
I've had a similar journey to yours, albeit on a smaller scale. I used to think that buying jeans that cost over $40 was outrageous, but more recently I learned the value of buying nice raw denim jeans that can cost upwards of $300-400. They last way longer and look so cool after years of wear. With a little maintenance they can be permanent additions to your wardrobe.
> I think you may just be upset because he's wealthier than you.
Aw, Mark; that's not it, pal. His last paragraph about tailored clothing captures the thought well without throwing around dollar amounts or brand names. But thanks for trying to defend your capitalist masters like a good little right-winger!
In the UK for intance there's only about 20,000 people who earn over a million yearly, and I'd bet a decent amount of those are C-suite or purely through capital gains...
There's some weird online effect where people assume everyone they talk to on the internet makes essentially the same exact amount of money they do.
I've noticed this most in a forum for a country I used to live in where foreigners would come in and post "What's an affordable hotel/restaurant/bar/travel experience".
Uh, I have no idea what "affordable" means to you!?
Occasionally I read the local subreddit /r/monaco, and see posts like “how much should my weekly food budget be?” with no further information included.
In a place where “normal” genuinely ranges between a couple of euros at McDonald’s and 500+ euros a day in fancy restaurants (easily 1000+ if you drink wine) it always feels like a particularly outrageous question.
There are many places in the world where that’s not a very unreasonable question, but this certainly isn’t it.
Less than $10M with the mortgage, my income will hit $5M this year pre-tax for the first time (almost half of that goes to the government)
Valuing my vast and eclectic empire of small websites earning between $1k and $300k per year is tricky because it’d presumably be tremendously hard to sell them all at once. Of course some reasonable multiple would arrive at some much higher number than my bank account+physical assets.
I never knew what a difference good pants can make. I usually just bought my pants from H&M/other retailers or Amazon. I usually bought what I considered good value pants for like $30-80. I then, out of curiosity, bought pants that were 2-4 times as expensive (~$150) and it really made a difference. I never really liked the pants I had… they never fit right… they felt very uncomfortable. The new pants I got about 2 years ago (the more expensive ones) were very very different. Very comfy. They also had a lot of nice features that I never knew I needed but that I now want by default…
- A button that just "clicks". Most pants I usually owned had a traditional pants button. Those more expensive ones had buttons that just "clicked". Away goes the worry about a button falling off while you are on the go.
- Pockets with hidden zippers: My pants have pockets and in those pockets are smaller pockets with a zipper. Perfect to store things that are small and easily lost.
There are more "features" but those are the important ones. The most important feature is just the material that is used. I barely feel it. Also the company that makes those pants makes other things as well. I ordered a lot of cloths by now and the amazing thing is that everything they make fits me perfectly. I don't know how they do it… When I usually buy pants I have to try on like 10 pants to find one that fits. Even if I pick the "correct" size.
Never heard of them. I'm always interested in a good value. I rarely buy the cheapest or the most expensive item, so if Rhone is decent then I may give them a try. Thanks for the tip!
> I never really liked the pants I had… they never fit right… they felt very uncomfortable. The new pants I got about 2 years ago (the more expensive ones) were very very different. Very comfy. They also had a lot of nice features that I never knew I needed but that I now want by default…
I managed to get the same experience for free by losing weight.
I lost around ~9-11 kilos over the last year and a half and went two sizes down in pants (went from european size 50 to size 46, with a few more kilos to lose until i can wear 44).
It's incredibly nice to be able to pick pretty much any pair of pants/jeans my size and have it fit pretty much perfectly.
> My pants have pockets and in those pockets are smaller pockets with a zipper. Perfect to store things that are small and easily lost.
I had one with these as well, although probably not of the same quality, and I always feared the zip scratching the screen of my phone when putting it in my pocket.
Different strokes for different folks. I'm a fashion lover but a fan of cheap cars, and I could equally say something similar about people who drive new luxury cars when there's plenty of reliable functionality to be had under $10k. There's a lot of craftsmanship that goes into nice clothes, and you can get way more expensive than $500. And fashion is a form of art in a way. What makes a painting worth thousands of dollars?
For clothes as a rule of thumb if you're not interested in doing a lot of research, items made in Portugal or Japan are more often than not priced fine enough, yes you'll pay some markup for a designer, but on average should last if you look after them.
$500 for something you might wear for a decade straight? A brand-new pair of Levis at JC Penny is gonna run you like $90 anyways. It's not that much more expensive.
But also, quality has diminishing returns in basically every category. At the low end, it's extremely efficient to improve the quality of your product and charge a bit more. At the high end, you can't make any more inexpensive moves to set yourself apart, so you use higher end materials, fabrication methods, and workers.
> $500 for something [...] run you like $90 anyways. It's not that much more expensive.
To be honest, I did abandoned school as quickly as I could and my math skills aren't that of my peers, but 5x times as much is pretty "much more expensive" for most people out there, not sure how someone can say else with a straight face. $100 vs $500 would easily be a "Can I eat properly the entire month?" decision for a lot of the population.
When I go into the store four years ago, Levi jeans are $100. Yet even Macy's website shows them for $60 now?
Maybe there was some significant quality degradation. They recently added elastic fibers to like their entire khaki shorts line, which makes them dramatically less durable. I bet they did the same here.
There are cheaper and more expensive skus for Levi's.
If you're seeing 501s that are $30 and 501s that are $100 I can promise you there's $70 of difference between them, having shopped at WalMart and at flagship stores on 5th Ave - basically every "trusted" brand in a big box store is cutting every corner possible to be there and either the product suffers for it or the people are exploited in making it. Fast, cheap or good: pick 1 and a half.
Lenovo also strictly follows this strategy. All new laptops are marked up 200% on release date, but don't worry, code THINK_${CURRENT_MONTH} will reduce it down to market price. I think their goal is to make the user feel scarity/time pressure via the coupons.
It's a few hundred bucks. If you're in the category of buying luxury pants, this is not much money. I really do not care how affordable it is for people making minimum wage, and am obviously not talking about their perspective.
I can wear a $40 pair of jeans that I really like and keep buying for its style and durability and invest the $460 remaining dollars and in 10 years I would have about $1200
I don't necessarily believe that a priori spending $500 on a pair of pants is irrational, but I really struggle to imagine any pair of pants being worth that much money unless they are lined with gold or something.
I don't think Steve Jobs went shopping for pants. Nor do many of the people who buy this sort of garment. They either have an assistant who buys things for them, whose goal is to keep them happy and not blow a predetermined budget, or they go to a store and sit in a nice suite where a personal shopper suggests things to them. In either scenario the price of individual items probably don't even get a mention.
Steve was a notoriously picky shopper and obsessed with details. In the biography it says they went without a dishwasher or something in his house for half a year because he could never be satisfied with the geometry or finishing. So his billionaire wife washed dishes by hand.
I don't doubt it, but I don't think Steve was out there browsing at Lowe's either. You can be very picky and still not shop the way the rest of us shop.
Palo Alto has its own reality distortion field that makes billionaires pretend they're 1950s middle class families, so he probably did shop at Ace Hardware.
They save you from buying 10 pairs at $100. They not only are durable, including not fraying, etc., but keep their form and color, and they have a beautiful form and color to begin with. You get what you pay for (if you buy the right $500 pants).
Someone outside IT might say, why pay for a Macbook when you can buy a $100 Chromebook? Why use Vim or Emacs when you can use Notepad/TextEdit (though those all cost the same!).
Someone in IT will probably say "why pay for a Macbook, which is a toy, without even real MS Office, when you can buy a chinese configuralble laptop for same price that will have 256gb of RAM and a 5090"
I once paid $1000 for some sneakers. I’m still regularly wearing them 7 years later. I’ve bought $50/$100 and they never last that long. It was an insane purchase at the time, done in a moment of jet lagged madness when my shoes fell apart in an airport. But over time it’s turned out to be a great investment. Smart, comfortable, well made.
Do you wear them like $50 shoes or like $1000 dollar shoes? I run around 18 miles a week on trails and I doubt your $1000 dollar sneakers would last ten years with that usage pattern.
When you run 18 miles a week you should measure the lifetime of your shoes by mileage rather than time. I think 600 miles is about right for a pair of running shoes. It's just that some people run 600 miles in a year, others run that in ten years.
I'm sure that if you got super high quality durable running shoes, and only used them for running, you'd get some good milage out of them before the shoes either wore out or wore through.
I play tennis regularly and only go through a pair of shoes maybe once a year or every 18 months. I always pay extra for a higher quality and more durable pair because they last. I only use the shoes for tennis - I put them on when I enter the court and take them off when I end my session. The shoes probably run me $180-200 but totally worth it if they can last me 100+ hours.
The maximum durability running shoes are $150-$200. No amount more than that will give you more durability and assuredly almost all $1000 shoes won’t last as long as $200 Asics Superblasts
One sad thing is that I am allergic to plastics and leathers and so my choice of shoes is drastically limited. The shoes I can wear aren't great for running and wear out in about 3-6 months, but I usually just keep running on them for about a year, until my toes start sticking out.
I do have a pair of $250 leather riding boots that have lasted me many years so far and I'm pretty sure will last that long, but they also require cleaning and polishing a few times a year....
I'm happy to pay $$$$ for something that lasts but my exerience is some of the most expensive things I've bought, well known luxury brand names, had the lowest quality.
In my younger years, I really did believe that cost correlated with longevity, but as I've gotten older, I'm finding that most of the very affordable things I've purchased, including shoes and pants and jackets, have lasted 15+ years. So I no longer believe that paying a thousand dollars for an item of clothing is going to yield a material benefit in terms of longevity -- I think some of it is just marketing, but there are also other elements of comfort and fit. I'm just not very discerning.
You're often much better off buying 10x of the thing than a thing that is 10x the cost; if it's a wear item, not wearing it all the time will greatly extend its lifespan.
Almost all clothes is destroyed by the washer and the dryer, not by wearing.
My understanding with Common Projects, is that if you are looking to spend $400 on a blank sneaker, they set the standard and have the most brand awareness, but now there are plenty of smaller brands making virtually identical sneakers with better materials and/or construction for the same price or less.
Like with anything else, buying Common Projects you are paying for the brand (the subtle gold lettering on the side of their shoes).
I got a pair of Common Projects Chelsea boots maybe 10 years ago now. I still have them, they're good shoes. I wore them all the time for the first year I got them. They don't make it into my rotation much now these days though. My most worn shoes now are: Guidi PL2, 11 by BBSxSalomon Bamba 2 high, Rick Owens "Vans", Rick Owens "Dunks", CCP Prosthetic Tornados, and Visvim Christo slides. Everything except the Bamba 2 highs is a replica and cost under $400.
I don't necessarily believe that a priori spending $500 on a pair of pants is irrational, but I really struggle to imagine any pair of pants being worth that much money
Maybe he's amortizing them.
He says they've lasted ten years, so that's $50/year.
Don't rule out until you've tried it. High end clothing (not just brand name, but real advanced stuff) is pretty amazing in how it makes you feel. I'm inclined to spend on anything I interact with, and clothes is pretty big interaction.
I wonder if there's an "ignorance is bliss" effect here that makes trying it not worth it for the average person. Think about it - to my knowledge, almost everyone spends ~0 seconds per day thinking about the comfort of their pants. But once you try something that feels as (allegedly?) supreme and heavenly as what you describe, you can't go back - you'll always feel that difference from now on, and now wearing something that you previously never paid any thought to would feel distinctly less comfortable. Kind of similar to how audiophiles train themselves to perceive the tiniest of flaws in the music they listen to and spend thousands of dollars to rectify those flaws, while everyone else keep ignorantly enjoying the flawed sound, not even being aware of the difference.
Sure, but you need to have a certain level of wealth before even considering it. $500 is a ridiculous sum for a pair of trousers. I've had €80 or €120 Levi's at one point when I had a bit more expendable income but they only lasted me two years. I'm back on affordable jeans now (when outside, when inside it's pajama pants all the way lmao), I think they're €30 or so.
I'm sure the branded ones are "better" but is it to scale with the price? Are Levi's 4x as good as cheap ones? Are these Steve Jobs ones 16x as good?
This is kind of getting into the weeds a little bit but for me and a lot of others luxury items can be fun to own. You can get an affinity for certain designers style, whether it's Gucci, Louis Vuitton or Balenciaga. The items are ridiculously expensive sometimes but it's kind of a tough line to balance because the fact that they cost so much make them more special. So how cheap should they be before they don't feel as special anymore? Is it all a bit irrational? I guess. There isn't a clear definitive defense for luxury items I think other than the feeling they can give. Some people can spend all their income on luxury items rather than other discretionary items because it's the most fun to them.
> There isn't a clear definitive defense for luxury items I think other than the feeling they can give.
Counterpoint: that is exactly what someone who charges $500 for a $5 pair of pants would want you to think. If you boil it down far enough, the principles you are describing are just inequality and luxury marketing.
While that is definitely at play there is a deep rooted instinct in humanity to show status and to have something that is worth a lot. It goes beyond just marketing, which is why it "works" economically. I think the luxury market serves a certain type of mindset that has been there since ancient egypt even. It would be nice to have a society where status didn't pay a role but there hasn't been a social movement that has crystallized what that would look like.
I also think as a sidenote there is a difference between luxury and fashion. Fashion is about creativity and self expression, and for a long time, the luxury market was sort of the defacto place for creeativity rather than the cheaper labels that had more 'standard' clothing, at least where I live. That has changed a bit in the past decade though. I like both fashion and luxury, but I am conflicted about it too. For example in the luxury fashion world there is a thing called 'grails', which are essentially items that are difficult to get but are considered very cool looking in some way and so they become grails. A lot of people like the feeling of chasing and finally acquiring grails, so that's one aspect of it.
I got excited until I saw they cost $600? Once in a while I'm reminded we exist in very different universes. Still trying to justify splurging on common projects 2 years later.
in my experience as a tech guy who got into fashion and then after several years went back to not caring: Sneakers are the product category with the least differentiation in value-for-money between the high end (especially designer, but also not-designer-but-still-expensive like common projects) both in terms of aesthetics and quality/durability. You're paying $300 more for a 10% better product. Jeans, outerwear, knits, boots, you can more easily justify that cost
As a tech guy who found an interest in design and ancillary fields recently, I am curious to know more. I assume leather, merino wool, cashmere do provide extra value. But other than that I have no knowledge. Eg why would 500 pants be better?
Material is not just about quality, but rarity or uniqueness. For example, japanese denim can get very expensive in part because it's very low volume. For dress pants, it might be a particularly interesting fabric.
A lot of more expensive pants also have interesting designs or proportions that are very unique or hard to find elsewhere. There is a lot of cool stuff you can get for under $500 USD though, that is still pretty expensive.
I have 2 pairs of pants that cost over $500. Both of them use technical fabrics (Schoeller Dryskin and Stotz EtaProof), have complex patterns (asymmetrical, articulated, etc.), lots of hardware (Riri zippers, magnetic pocket closures, Cobrax snaps), and can be ordered in custom sizing. They also have no text / logos anywhere on the pants. One pair is garment dyed as a complete unit after sewing to give a unique effect that's more interesting and has more "depth" compared to a flat, consistent color.
I am wondering what you call consumption that feeds $499 designer margins on polyester like that, while so many people can barely afford to scrape by day to day.
Income inequality is a phrase that pathologizes what appears to be a universal truth. In all types of economic and political systems (after we left the forest, and probably while we were still in the forest), some people have been desperately poor while other people are not. What would be interesting is a single counterexample of sustained "income equality."
That said, our current degree of inequality and the particular way it is distributed seems to be unusual and remarkable. But pointing to someone having a hard time is, IMO, not a critique of that.
>Income inequality is a phrase that pathologizes what appears to be a universal truth. In all types of economic and political systems (after we left the forest, and probably while we were still in the forest), some people have been desperately poor while other people are not. What would be interesting is a single counterexample of sustained "income equality."
There's actually tons of data. Almost every western country has a much better "Gini Coefficient" than the US.
> The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 100, where 0 represents perfect equality (everyone has the same income). Meanwhile, an index of 100 implies perfect inequality (one person has all the income, and everyone else has no income).
What country has the lowest Gini coeffecient value? Slovakia consistently tops the list.
Who is the richest person in Slovakia? A reclusive billionaire named Ivan Chrenko.
> In Slovakia, 980 000 people were at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion in 2024
In Slovakia, more than 980 000 people, i.e. approximately every sixth resident, faced poverty or social exclusion in 2024. Both the share and the number of people at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion increased year-on-year. Poverty indicators in Slovakia have been gradually deteriorating since 2020. On the positive side, the situation improved in 2 out of the 8 SR regions in 2024 and remained unchanged in one. At the same time, more than 20% of the population continued to face poverty in 3 SR regions.
Of course the US is terrible and getting worse by this measure. My point is that nobody is great (the universal truth) - but I grant you that some are worse than others.
In my view, inequality of all kinds is not an enemy to be defeated, it's a disease to be treated, knowing that it can never go fully away. It seems that most would rather treat it as a fact of life and do nothing while it runs out of control, or a heinous evil that must be eliminated. Neither seem like a practical approach.
> In all types of economic and political systems (after we left the forest, and probably while we were still in the forest), some people have been desperately poor while other people are not.
citation needed. inequality was very low for thousands of years. not just "in the forest" but even with pretty large settlements.
Yes, yes ... It's the same as it ever was, only so much more so!
Beyond just critiquing the disparity here, I feel like the psychology that treats capital in such a frivolous way, shifting it about already privileged pockets of society, rather than apply it to any sort of material good is rather abhorrent. That's just my take.
I had a coworker who lost a lot of weight and showed up at work one day wearing new clothes and looking sharp. The pants were from Costco. I have since gone and bought a few pairs of pants from them. They feel fairly high quality, made of sturdy and comfortable materials, and are wife-approved. And of course they are very inexpensive.
I'm sure expensive pants have their benefits but no matter how much money I have, I will always baby expensive things, and it's very inconvenient to baby clothes (e.g. must be dry cleaned, can't use a washer or dryer, can't risk getting stains on it). There are good reasons why dads gets their clothes from Costco.
This sort of pricing isn’t unusual even for no-name brands.
Yes, you can get arguably nicer tailored cotton trousers at this price point. You will probably end up paying significantly more getting similar pleated trousers made by a decent tailor though.
Better off the peg? I don’t know, these are a fairly unique product, With a quick look Google isn’t finding any particularly similar products at any price point.
I have some friends in this space, even with margins like this it’s not an easy business to survive in. Those that do are generally doing something special, unless they’re really big names which Issey Miyake isn’t.
I'm pretty confident the answer on both counts would be "no".
(This teminds me of a show I once saw where various design students were given the task to design things. Philippe Starck was the judge. One of the students made a iPhone cover and Starck almost blew a gasket. I don't remember exactly what he said when he saw it. But he pointed out that the iPhone itself was a beautiful design so defacing it with an ugly piece of plastic was just a horrific waste of resources.
He also said something about objects having to deserve to exist -- though that was probably in a talk he gave at some point. Where he pointed out that his famous Alessi sitrus press was a good example of a pointless object that shouldn't exist. At least it looked good, but it was a pretty poor sitrus press).
Since Steve's famous turtle neck was from Issey Miyake and he wanted everyone at Apple to wear an Issey Miyake vest as a uniform [1], I think he might have been into this. This is also the man who launched the iPod sock.
The collaboration is with Issey Miyake. Steve Jobs black turtlenecks was Issey Miyakes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2022/08/10/heres-...
(As an aside, I swear by pants from the Issey Miyake Homme Plissé collection. Since investing in some pairs about 10 years ago, I have hardly worn anything else—no other pants match their comfort. The iPhone Pocket is of course ridiculous anyway.)