The title of the blog is "people before ..." And the writer doesn't understand the social signaling of clothing? Like, at all?
First, clothing is really personal, and funding a second skin that "suits me" and "fits me" requires much wider selection than a rack of time socks can supply.
Second, anyone with a social job that depends on status, or who is in the marriage/mate market, or who works in a job that may wear on clothing but still needs to be presentable, will need more than a few hundred dollars a year for clothing budget.
"The cost disease of the service sector" is a well known economic theory (I leaned it in economics 101 in the '90s) and the real insight should probably be that, as we get better at making stuff, the scarce resource becomes educated human time, but we are still locked in a value model that mainly measures "stuff."
Once robots make all the stuff for basically free, we have to totally change how our society operates its economy. That's fairly close in time, yet nobody is really even making up the words we'll use to talk about the issue yet.
Why do you need new pairs of jeans every year? I don't think I've ever had to discard jeans except from growing out of them. They are made of tough material.
Haha. Hilarious example of how no matter how much anyone tries to one up someone on anything someone else will come along and do the same to them.
It's all a matter of degrees. When I was young and in India I could buy jeans and shirts straight from Coimbatore or Dhaka at costs you would find impossible.
Why do I need the clothes I wear now? I don't. I like them. I want them. I don't need them.
Maybe you're buying better jeans than I am. After about a year mine develop holes in the seat, particularly around the pockets. Sometimes they get torn before that, if I get wet and then get them caught on something.
Tears are easily stitched or patched. Pockets coming apart is trickier; restitching over a patch of strong material can work, but only for a while, and more of the fabric disintegrates every time they come apart again.
And, no, you needn't, and it is inarguably more efficient of time just to buy a new pair. But it can be a pleasant hobby, and I think that as much as anything proves the original article's point.
First, clothing is really personal, and funding a second skin that "suits me" and "fits me" requires much wider selection than a rack of time socks can supply.
Second, anyone with a social job that depends on status, or who is in the marriage/mate market, or who works in a job that may wear on clothing but still needs to be presentable, will need more than a few hundred dollars a year for clothing budget.
"The cost disease of the service sector" is a well known economic theory (I leaned it in economics 101 in the '90s) and the real insight should probably be that, as we get better at making stuff, the scarce resource becomes educated human time, but we are still locked in a value model that mainly measures "stuff."
Once robots make all the stuff for basically free, we have to totally change how our society operates its economy. That's fairly close in time, yet nobody is really even making up the words we'll use to talk about the issue yet.