That’s about it. The only remaining question is *how* wrong are the other people. Some of them are tolerably wrong …

But about the “you didn’t HAVE to buy that” - I’ve found myself saying that on occasion, but not in response to “I spent $100 on a pair of jeans” but more in response to things like “I don’t know how anyone can possibly wear jeans that cost less than $100, because they’re SUCH low-quality!” So I’ll only make a remark about not needing something in response to an assertion that that thing was indeed needed.

Though I can relate on not wanting to spend time shopping for jeans. I’m kind of lucky, in that I find that my best-fitting jeans are the $5 ones from the Salvation Army. Also, I find that shopping at the Sally Ann for jeans is actually LESS of a waste of my time, because the Sally Ann organizes jeans by waist size and inseam, whereas most stores that sell women’s jeans are under the illusion that a size like “6″ or “12″ actually means something. That’s actually my time-saving principle when it comes to buying jeans: I will not try on a pair that does not list a waist size AND an inseam. Sure, not every pair that is size [my waist size]-[my inseam] fits me, as there are other variables involved; however, I have far better chances with those pairs than with the ones that just have a single size number.

(Speaking of which, the other day I was in Sears buying PJ’s. The combination of tall+boyish figure means that much of my wardrobe comes from menswear, but I hadn’t anticipated that the men’s pyjama bottoms were labelled with waist size and inseam. And they had pockets! This is how the other half lives, the lucky bastards.)

I’m really not against saving money, and I have nothing against thrift shop jeans. And yes, the “how could you buy something that cheap?” is absolutely as obnoxious as “how could you buy something that expensive?” and deserves the answer they get.

Pyjama bottoms with pockets. That would work. I have a pair of sweatpants with pockets, and I am amazed at how much crap I carry in them.

I don’t know. I guess it’s hard for me to read posts like this justifying the purchase of $80 jeans as an average when I haven’t bought my kids new jeans this year. And that’d be jeans that fit, and aren’t too short, or too tight; forget about fitting into the nomenclature of blue jeans.

Other people’s consumption is always a hot button issue. I’m consistently interested in how Dudley from the Harry Potter is excoriated for his greed, because he is fat (when he was little), but Rowling often describes the lavish feasts that Harry and his friends have at school. Dudley shouldn’t be allowed this or that, but Harry and his friends, because they have better metabolism or self-control, are entitled (I love that word) to their consumption of sugary crap. In fact, it is a part of school food…

The thing is, we want other other people to respect our choices, and we tend to like to think that we respect other peoples’ choices when, in fact, we often don’t. It’s cultural imperative to pretend as though we shouldn’t judge other people’s choices, but secretly we all think our choices are better….or else we wouldn’t make the choices we do. I may not think I am a better person than my friends who drive cars or eat meat, but I think I am making morally superior choices. Do I get to be sanctimonious about this? Well, not if I want any friends…

Lisa, yes, true. There is an interplay of our ethics and our wallets. I refuse to shop at Walmart — but I can afford to refuse to shop there. But I don’t buy organic everythings, and I don’t buy only local veggies. I wear my jeans until there are holes in inappropriate places, but do they last longer than cheaper ones? I don’t know, and I don’t care to test it. Sometimes, buying better at first does mean things will last longer — but not everyone can afford that.

The answers are certainly not simple.

You know, that point about the HP books had never caught me before. Interesting.

I admit I don’t always respect other people’s choices. I think if you can afford to avoid Walmart, you should. I think that people should use cars with lower gas consumption. I think no one should have an SUV because they blind me in my low car at night.

But there are other choices that I don’t think are quite as heavily loaded. I don’t judge people who have wine with dinner regularly, though I don’t do it.

I think the imperative is not to pretend we shouldn’t judge — that won’t ever happen — but to not share the judging to the people you are in fact judging (”Wow, you bought THAT? What a waste of money!” which goes really well with things that are either too expensive or too cheap, for any values of too), but to do it in private.

Wolfa, to be fair, they do wear uniforms to school, and since we don’t live in the tundra, it’s only been recently (oh say, the last few days after being out of school) that this conundrum about the blue jeans has arisen, so it’s sort of a coinkidink that your blue jeans cost post hit the screen at the same time that I’m going, hmm, where can I find the cheapest jeans since I don’t exactly have the money right now after recovering from unplanned expenditures and Christmas present buying?

And I live in the interminable looming shadow of my mother-in-law, who is a prime example of one who “wastes” money, as I see it. But even in that case, who am I to judge? If she wants to spend thousands of dollars whitening her teeth, hey, somebody’s pockets are getting lined by this grossness, right?

Overall, I very much agree with you. I think that it just comes down to what people can relate to and that often times, the difference in ability/choices is what determines relationships between people. It’s when one is exposed constantly to someone with a value system so quite different and/or opposed from his/her own that the clap the trap rule you mention should be invoked, simply to avoid being — you know — rude.

It’s true, there’s a lot of “can’t relate” — but it’s sad that so often the first response to that is an attack.

Anyway, I think I may have introduced a bit of a canard there. The question about consumption and how much you pay for things are separate. You can spend the same on 10 pairs of cheap shoes and 4 pairs of expensive ones, and I’ll be damned if I know the best way, other than just trying to take care of yourself as well as you can, think about the consequences of your choices the best you can, and muddle through.

My parents are immigrants, and they are fanatically thrifty. Fanatically so. Spending money is a sin, and they walk around the grocery store clucking about how much things cost and being the old people that everybody hates in the checkout line because they are disputing a 50-cent price difference. It’s their religion. Growing up around that was sheer, unudulterated hell; wearing secondhand clothing to school (they worst, most horrible 1970s plaid slacks in the 80s because “jeans were too expensive” etc etc.) However, they grew up in WWII-era Germany. It’s not hard to see where they developed this habit. The problem is that they taught no moderation. Because money was their religion, they were never capable of explaining how living within your means is a way of taking care of yourself…it always just seemed like a weird obsession–like weird immigrant food and accents.

But the internet is funny that way, because it’s hard to tell when you’re insulting people. Comment threads are clearer, though.

I’d think thrifty is further than “living within your means”, no — it’s living as cheaply as possibly. My parents never did it quite as explicitly, but when we had less money, they said so, and they often made their choices explicit (less money on home repainting, more money on vacations), which I guess worked. Or not, because I think I am somewhat more paranoid about money than they are.

Suzette

I’d say that the issue of how much you spend on your pants, however, is not one of those times when moral clarity matters that much. It hurts to feel judged, bottom line, and passing judgment on such things is, as Michelle pointed out, bad manners. As Miss Manners would probably say, even if you are appalled at somebody’s spending habits, chances are, the bad manners of commenting are a bigger deal.

I certainly hope I haven’t suggested that your pants-purchasing tendencies are wrong…good Lord with my spending habits I would not only be living in a glass house, but a glass village. I’m simply ghastly with money despite my parents’ frantic efforts. I married an accountant to keep me out of the poorhouse. I just thought the discussion was interesting, and it pertains to the stuff I write about for my research, so I got talking. Enjoy your pants in good health!!!!

I’m more interested in the gap between that and the upper middle class. There’s a lot discussed amongst people who *have* about all the *have nots* and it tends towards those at the extreme versus the people who are trying to make a freakin’ honest living and simply get by, who may be lower middle class, like me. I earn decent money, and we live in an okay house, and we’re stable and not in debt, except for medical expenditures recently incurred, but I don’t spend $80 on jeans, and I wouldn’t have it to spend on myself and I certainly wouldn’t dole it out to either of my kids, who I should point out are boys, not girls, and young, not teens, but you can bet your bottom that if they ever want $80 jeans, they can pay for it out of their own freakin’ wallet like they do their games.

And I think there’s value in that.

Lisa, you’re right — there are times when how you spend is morally relevant. And jeans, though themselves not a great example, make a small part of things.

I was not feeling attacked here. Anyways, if you want to attack my spending habits, I have better suggestions than my jeans.

My wife has a wonderful, but hard to fit, figure. For her it isn’t a matter of dropping into Target or Wal-Mart and grabbing another pair of Wranglers American Heros and getting five dollars back on a twenty (after tax).

Sometimes luxuries can be cheaper … I have cable internet and an internet phone and it runs a dollar a month less than normal phone service. But should I be using a computer at home or just going to the library?

The real question becomes how do we balance our lives and what does the balance require of us. I worry about it more as I raise my youngest child. My oldest surviving child has a good balance. She was with us through the funerals and the tough times and has a high level of innate compassion. My youngest always is curious if we will buy her things. After all, sometimes someone says yes. So she just keeps asking. Of course she just turned six, but I worry.

I don’t have answers, but I realize that the issues are more complex than many people think them to be, especially as they widen out.

Glad to visit this blog again. I’ve been dropping by randomly (it seems) for several years.

nd the problem with money is that the amount you have isn’t binary, but we act as if it is: rich, not rich. There’s a gulf between the really wealthy and the upper middle class, upper middle class and lower, lower and poor.

Stepehn, I don’t really know. I would like to think that most people turn out okay but I don’t think it really happens, unless there are financial limits set. If they can’t see you making choices — though I’m sure they can.

I don’t, obviously, think t here’s anything wrong with using a computer at home. Or with having some luxuries in general (which almost everyone does), as long as you’re mindful about it, realise you’re paying for a luxury or paying to save time. I guess that’s the issue: mindfulness. Not the only issue, but a big one.

Lisa, it’s a different world, and if it’s unfair to judge them by our standards (”what? no cable tv?”), isn’t it also unfair to judge us by theirs? I’m simplifying, of course, but on some level, I’m not. We can’t just take their culture and plop it down here wholesale. And I’m always a little wary of — and it’s not that you are doing this, I know you know more about it than I do — the noble savage culture idea. There are of course good things to be foudn there, and I think a bit *less* consumerism is a good idea, too. It seems to come back to realising what you are doing and making choices deliberately — at least overall — instead of just to make them or have things.