Fashion Faux Pas? Plus Accidental Rant

Well, I like the bit about the history of clothes in the US, but as for the mini-jeremiad about how immoral current purchasing trends are ... Look at this:

In 1930, the average American woman owned an average of nine outfits. Today, we each buy more than 60 pieces of new clothing on average per year. Our closets are larger and more stuffed than ever, as we've traded quality and style for low prices and trend-chasing. 

Dude, I don't think know ANYBODY who averages buying more 60 pieces of clothing a year, unless you count undies and socks.  Or count a pair of shoes as 2 separate things.  At least, I don't know any impoverished nerds who buy more than 60 pieces.

Another thing: I'm not liking the whiff of snobbery in this little write-up, or the whiff of embedded eco-piety disguised as a morally superior cry against consumerism.  Besides, moaning about cheap clothes is one thing, but doing it in the middle of a massive recession when people are more and more financially strapped is something else, and it seems -- to me, anyway -- insensitive.  It's like food fanatics who say that we should all spend $5 on one organic, locally grown, morally triumphant tomato when that $5 could go farther buying "conventional" food.  

(OK, here we go ... Seriously, I was at the grocery store yesterday.  A "conventional" and therefore "evil" chicken would cost me about $5-6.  A fancypants, free-range, cage-less, blahblahblah one would cost me about $15-18!  Are you kidding?  I am POOR.  With $15-18, I could get the "evil" chicken plus "evil" veggies and make a dinner for an entire family plus leftovers and maybe even a bit of dessert.  Oh, don't even argue about taste.  I'm an awesome cook.  One of my chicken recipes has even acquired the hilarious nickname "God-like Chicken" from some friends of mine.  As for the whole expense issue ... In fact, I'm going to argue that the unspoken but obvious attempt to buy moral superiority is itself immoral, not to mention petty and stupid and lame ... but that's another rant.  Also we can talk about how this entire theme of behavior is an outlet of some affluent people finding a new and morally acceptable way to be snobs and prigs toward people of lesser means and different tastes, but that's still another rant. UPDATE: I just got back from a fancypants upscale frou-frou organic market because I needed one specialty item (a little fresh mozzarella, for those of you who care).  They wanted $22 for a morally superior chicken!  $22???  You cannot be serious!)

Anyway, back to the fashion. If you personally want to reject "fast fashion," that favorite of the unwashed masses, then go for it and revel in your small but superior closet or whatever.  The rest of  us, even if we're not buying 60 new pieces of clothing a year, pretty much need shops that don't cost a fortune, and we've learned to bargain-hunt -- especially if we have kids, as some of my friends now do.  Besides, you make it sound as if having lots more readily available clothing options at affordable prices is a bad thing!  Fine, so you don't want to shop at inexpensive shops like Old Navy or H&M or Kohls or Payless or Target or whatever.  So DON'T.  You DON'T HAVE TO.  Some of us do.