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

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

dym — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:19:53 GMT

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.

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

Me — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:36:32 GMT

$12 jeans from CostCo are plenty enough for me.

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

curly q — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:43:34 GMT

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.

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

Jan — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:50:35 GMT

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.

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

budget minded — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:17:40 GMT

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.

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

dz — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:02:15 GMT

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.

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

RetiredAt47 — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:50:30 GMT

Thank you for the mention!

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

Nicole — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:49:38 GMT

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

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

MCH — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:48:40 GMT

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 :)