Search Smart Spending:

$300 for pants instead of $50: Are they worth it?

Posted Sep 22 2008, 06:33 PM by Karen Datko
Rating:

A story about a mother bargaining with her small daughter prompted "R" at Retired at 47 to think of purchases in a new way.

It goes something like this: If you have a choice between buying $300 slacks or a pair for $50 (or even less), think about whether the more expensive slacks are six times better. Or, as she says, "Is the price ratio worth it?"

R credits The Complete Tightwad Gazette for planting the seed. In it, the author's 9-year-old daughter says she wants green L.L.Bean boots like the ones all the girls at school are wearing. The mom finds a pair in plum at a local thrift store for 25 cents. Even a 9-year-old can see this logic: "Is the green pair worth 100 times more than the plum pair?"

R applies the rule to all areas of her consumer life. Is the $5.99 dessert in the restaurant worth it if she can buy a yummy treat at the grocery store on the way home for a whole lot less? Is the $100 cable TV package really five times better than basic service?

The $300 designer slacks are something one of R's friends wants for her birthday. "A whopping $300! After gasping, my first thought was: 'I'd be afraid I'd spill something on them!'" Why not go with a $50 pair or, better yet, check out the local thrift store. "Is the designer pair six times nicer or will they last six times longer?" she asks. "Probably not."

Comments

 

Don't necessarily disagree with this post, but I'd also add (for me personally): "Do they look six times better on me?"

There are things I'll pay extra for--straight leg slacks with a medium rise are one of them :)

My verdict: Yes, the hot maple butter blondie is five times better than grocery store cupcakes.

Thank you for the mention!

I agree... to a certain degree.  This ratio does work on many things.  However, jeans for me are a problem.  I'm very tall and slim (no booty!) and it's very hard to find jeans that fit me.  I don't mind spending the $200 bucks for a really nice pair of jeans that fit me well that will last a long time.  I havent' bought jeans in two years...and my nice jeans (hand washed every two weeks, line dried) still look great and have kept their shape.  It is worth saving up the money to me to buy a nice pair of jeans.  That needs to be a factor in this ratio.  However, boots for a child that will get muddy and they will grow out of quickly?  Not worth the L.L. Bean money.

No, to me they are not simply because I can not afford to pay 300.00 for a pair of pants and especially not a pair of jeans that could not even be worn to work.  I also have size problems especially since I approached mid 40's.  Smaller waste but wide in the hip area and still no butt.  I would pay at the most 50.00 for a pair of jeans or just do without.

Increase in value is not linear - the '6 times better' conclusion therefore doesn't work. Take sports as a reference: Increasing your game by, i.e., 5% might require you to workout twice as hard.

I often look at it as far as my ratio of hours I have to work to the price of the item. $300 dollar jeans (in my opinion) are not worth the 20 or hours I would have to work to pay for them. I'd be willing to work 2 or maybe 3 for something like that.

$12 jeans from CostCo are plenty enough for me.

Those $300 jeans are made by the same 7 y/o that makes the $50 jeans.  I used to work for a retailer, the same factories that made Kenneth Cole, Liz Claiborne, Calvin Klein, made our cheap crap.

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):