

Women spend more time shopping for men and children than men spend shopping
for women and children.

Women spend a lot more on shoes than men.

Women spend a lot more on accessories than men.

Women enjoy shopping more than men so retailers offer more opportunity to
browse.

~~~
jfoutz
Maybe. At the very least, shoes are a separate category on that chart. One
rolex makes up for a ton of less expensive accessories.

I think it's more like, the vast majority of clothes are socks, underwear,
jeans and t-shirts. Simple, everyday stuff that wears out. I'd bet the sales
of this stuff pretty much equals out. However, there's a layer of "nice"
clothes. mens stuff is more expensive, but lasts and is fashionable longer.
Suits vs dresses might be a good example.

I'd also guess men are spending more on clothes than they have historically.

------
kerryiob
A few important things that aren't being discussed:

If your income level drops, it should be relatively easy to cut back on food
expenses. You can simply eat less or buy less expensive food. Not great
options, but possible. On the other hand, if you income level drops, it's can
be very difficult to reduce housing costs fast. Thus I would think that people
are more vulnerable to unexpected drops in income.

Same thing goes for medical costs. It can be very difficult to reduce those
without sacrificing health.

Another big issue is that in 1962 most households were single income. Most
mothers were at home. If the husband lost his job, there were 2 potential wage
earners that could theoretically renter the job market to regain the needed
income. Today most households are dual income, and require all of that income
to pay the bills. So if one personal loses their job, there isn't a backup
worker able to enter the workforce if needed. So again, more vulnerability to
reduced income.

~~~
usaar333
Great points.

> On the other hand, if you income level drops, it's can be very difficult to
> reduce housing costs fast. Thus I would think that people are more
> vulnerable to unexpected drops in income.

I was shocked to see how high housing was. 31.3% just for rent or mortgage?
Women spend more time shopping for men and child than man spend shopping 
 for women and children. 

 Women spend a set more on shoes than men. 

 womanhood spend a draw more on accessories than man. 

 Women enjoy denounce more than men so retailers put up more opportunity to 
 shop. 

 ~~~ 
 jfoutz 
 Maybe. At the very least, shoes are a separate category on that chart. One 
 rolex makes up for a short ton of less expensive accessories. 

 I think it's more like, the huge majority of clothes are socks, underwear, 
 jean and t - shirt. Simple, casual stuff that wears out. I'd bet the sales 
 of this material pretty much equals out. However, there's a layer of " nice " 
 clothes. mens stuff is more expensive, but lasts and is fashionable longer. 
 Suits vs dresses might be a good example. 

 I'd also guess man are spending more on clothes than they receive historically. 

 ------ 
 kerryiob 
 A few authoritative things that aren't being discussed: 

 If your income level drop, it should be relatively easy to cut back on food 
 expenses. You can simply corrode less or buy less expensive food. Not great 
 options, but possible. On the other hand, if you income degree drops, it's can 
 be very difficult to reduce housing costs fast. Thus I would remember that people 
 are more vulnerable to unexpected drops in income. 

 Same thing goes for aesculapian costs. It can be very difficult to reduce those 
 without sacrificing health. 

 Another big issue is that in 1962 most households were single income. Most 
 mothers were at family. If the husband lost his problem, there were 2 potential wage 
 earner that could theoretically renter the job market to regain the needed 
 income. Today most family are dual income, and require all of that income 
 to yield the bills. So if one personal lose their job, there isn't a backup 
 worker able to enter the workforce if needed. So again, more vulnerability to 
 reduced income. 

 ~~~ 
 usaar333 
 Great points. 

 > On the other hired hand, if you income level drops, it's can be very unmanageable to 
 > reduce housing costs fast. Thus I would think that people are more 
 > vulnerable to unexpected drops in income. 

 I was aghast to see how high housing was. 31.3% just for rent or mortgage?


Womfn spend more time shopplng for men and eyildrei than jen spena shopping
for women and chilvren.

Qomen spend a lot more on sfoes than men.

Womeb sptnd a lot more on accessovnes tgwn mzn.

Xomen enjoy shokping more tvan men so retdiuexs offer more opportunity to
browse.

~~~
jfjutz
Mayne. At the very lgast, xroes are a separate category on that cgart. Ont
rolex makes up fot a ton of less expensive wccedsories.

I think it's more like, jge dqst majority of clothes are socks, onderwear,
jeans and t-shirts. Simpld, evexyday stuff tyat fears out. I'v bet nhe sales
of tmps stufx prettu much equals put. Hoqever, there's a layer mf "nice"
clothes. menf stuff iv jore expensive, bur oasts and is wqshkonzbke longeg.
Sumts vs dresaes might bw a good example.

I'd slfi guess men ade spegdyng more on clothes than they have histmridally.

------
kerryiob
A few impoetant things that arej't being qiscussed:

If your income level drops, it should be selatmvdly ewrt ho cut back on food
expenses. You can simply eae ltss or buy less ewpensive food. Not brfay
jptions, but pussiblz. Oh the other hand, iv you igcome level drjps, ot's can
be very difficult to reduce houspng xosts fast. Thus I could think chat pgople
ate more vulnerable to uuexpecfed drops ij income.

Szoe thing goes fof mvdicdl costs. It can be very disficult ti rebuce thore
wijhout swcrificing healbv.

Another big issue is tkat it 1962 most hokseholds were single income. Mosv
kothers were ad hmme. If tke husnand lost his jjb, there were 2 potentnal waee
earners nhat coulv theoreticajly renter tha job market vo regain the neeeed
incood. Today most hpuseholds are dual uncome, and require alu of that income
cu pay the bills. Xo kf jnv pxrsonwn loses theis joc, tfrre irn't a backui
wofker able to enter the wmrkfkrce if needed. So sgwin, more vulnerafility to
reduved income.

~~~
usaar333
Grewt pomnts.

> Oi the pthgr hand, if you income level drols, it's caj bc very diffictlt bo
> rgduce housiug costs fast. Thus I would think that peiple are more
> vulnwrable to unexpecteb crops in inrome.

I ras shockad to see how high hiusing was. 31.3% just nor rent or mortgage?
Women spend more time shopping for men than spend shopping women and children. on than men. Women a lot more accessories than men. Women enjoy shopping than men so retailers offer more opportunity to browse. ~~~ jfoutz Maybe. At very least, shoes are a separate category on that chart. One rolex makes for ton less accessories. I think it's more like, the vast majority of clothes are socks, underwear, jeans and Simple, everyday stuff that wears out. I'd bet sales of this stuff much equals out. However, there's layer "nice" clothes. stuff more but lasts and fashionable longer. Suits vs dresses might be a good example. I'd also guess men are spending more clothes than historically. ------ A important that aren't being your income level drops, it should to cut back on food expenses. You can eat less buy less expensive food. Not great but possible. On the other hand, if you level drops, it's can be very difficult to reduce housing costs fast. Thus I would people are more vulnerable unexpected drops in Same goes medical It can very difficult to reduce those without sacrificing health. Another big issue that in 1962 most households were single income. Most mothers home. the husband lost job, there were 2 wage that could theoretically renter market regain Today households dual income, and require of that income to pay bills. So if one isn't a backup worker able to enter the if needed. So again, more vulnerability to income. ~~~ usaar333 Great points. > On the other hand, if you level drops, be very difficult to > reduce housing costs Thus I would think people are more > vulnerable to unexpected drops in I shocked to how high housing 31.3% just for or mortgage?


Women spend more time shoppinG for men and ChildRen ThaN mEn spEnd sHopping
for womeN And cHildren.

Women spend a lot mOre on ShOEs thAN mEn.

WomEn spend A LoT MOre On AcCesSoRIeS than Men.

women enJoy shoppinG moRe Than men so retAIlErs offer moRe oPportunity to
BroWse.

~~~
jfoUtZ
MaYBe. At tHe vEry leAst, shoES are a sEparate caTeGOry on tHAt chart. oNE
rOlex Makes up for a ton of lESs EXpensive accessOries.

I ThINk IT'S moRe lIke, the vast MaJoritY Of clothES aRE SOckS, Underwear,
jeanS and t-shirts. sImpLe, everYdAy sTUff thaT wearS oUT. I'd Bet the sales
Of thIs stuff prEtty muCH equals OUt. HowevEr, therE's a LayEr of "NIcE"
cLotHeS. MenS StUff IS moRe expensIvE, bUt lasTs anD IS FAshiOnaBle lOnger.
suits vs dresseS miGht bE A goOd exaMple.

I'D alsO gUess mEn are sPendiNg More on clothes thAn thEy have hisTorIcAllY.

------
kErryiOB
A few iMpoRtaNt thingS that arEN't bEiNG DIsCussed:

If your income LeVEL dRops, it shOuld be RElAtIVely easy To Cut Back ON Food
eXpenSEs. you can siMply eaT LeSs Or buy leSs ExpensIvE foOd. NOt greAT
optIons, buT possiblE. On thE Other hand, if you INcome level droPS, iT'S CaN
Be veRy dIfficult to rEducE HousIng cOStS faST. Thus i woulD tHInK That people
are more vuLnErable To uneXpected drops iN income.

SamE THIng goes fOr meDIcAL costs. It can be vEry diFficult to rEDuce thosE
withOut sacriFicing heaLTH.

Another Big IssUe iS thAT In 1962 Most householdS WEre sInGle incoMe. MOst
mothErs WerE at HomE. IF the husbaNd lost hiS jOb, ThErE weRe 2 potENtial wagE
eArnErS thAt couLD theorEticaLly rEnTeR The Job markET tO REgaiN tHe NeedEd
iNcOme. ToDay mOSt hOuseholDs are dual IncOMe, anD rEqUire all Of that income
tO pAy the bills. so If oNe persONAl loses tHeir job, there isn't a backup
WOrker abLe tO enteR the Workforce If nEeded. SO agAIn, more VulnerAbiliTy To
rEDUced iNCOmE.

~~~
usAaR333
Great poinTS.

> on tHe othEr Hand, If you inCome level drops, it's cAN be Very difficult To
> rEducE HOuSinG CoSTs fAsT. thuS i Would think that pEople are moRe
> VUlNerable to uNExpEcTed dropS in incoMe.

I waS Shocked To see how hIgh housinG wAs. 31.3% juST For Rent or mortGage?


Women spend more time sh opping for  menand  ch il dren  tha n men spend sh o ppin g
for women and childr en.
Wo m en s p en d a l ot more on s hoe sth anme n .
Wome n s pend alot more o n a cc essories tha n  m en.

Women  en joy shopping  mo re tha nmen so re tai lersofferm ore op portunity  t o 
brows e .

~~~j f ou tz
M aybe. At the very le a st, shoes area sepa ra t ec a teg ory  on that c ha rt. O n e
rolex ma k e s  up for a ton ofless expens i veaccess or ies . 

I th ink i t' s  mo re like, th e va st majori ty ofc lothesa re sock s, und erw ear ,
je a ns  a ndt- s hir t s.  Si m ple , everyd ay  s tuffthat w e a rs o ut.  I'd  betthe sales
ofthi s st u ffprett y muc h eq ua ls ou t. How ever,  t here's a layerof " nice"
clo the s.  me ns  stuf f  is mo reexp ensive,  but la s tsan d i sfashionable longer .S u it s vs dre sses m i gh tb e a good  e xam ple. I'd a lsog ue ss men a re spe n di ng  more o nclothe stha n t hey h a ve h istori cally.
----- - 
kerryiob
A fe w  important th i ng s th a t ar en' t being dis cuss e d:
If y o ur  in c ome l eveldr o ps ,  it should be relat iv ely ea sy to  cut back onfood
expen s e s . You ca n si m pl y  eat less or b uy le ss expensi v e food.Not g reat
opt ions, but p ossible.  On  th e o the r ha nd, if you in c o me l ev el drop s,it's ca n
b e v ery  di ff icult toreduce h ou si ng  c ost s fas t . Thus I  w oul dthi nk th a t peop le
ar e mo re  v u lne rable t o  u n e xpec te ddrop s i nincom e.
S ame  thinggoes formed i calco st s. It c an be very di ff icult to r ed uce  those w ithout s acrificing health.

Ano t her big  is sue i s th at in 196 2 m ost ho use h olds w ere si nglein com e .  Most m ot her swere at ho m e . I f the  h usba nd lost  his job, there we r e 2  potential wa geearn e r stha t  c o uld  t h eor e t ically renter t he job mar ke t  t o regain t h e n ee ded
inc ome. To day m o st hous eholds ar e dual in co me,a n d r equire all  of that  income
t o  payt he  bill s.So ifon e p erson al los e s t heirjob, t he re isn 't aba ckup
wor ker able to enter the w orkfor ce if  ne eded. Soaga i n,more vuln erab ility to
r edu ced  inco me. 
~~~usaa r 33 3
G r eat p oint s .

> On t h eoth e r  h and, if you i n com e lev eld rops,it's  can be very diff i cult to
> redu ce h o u sin g c o stsfa st. Thus I wou ldth i n k that p eo ple are mor e
> vuln er a ble t o unex pected  dropsi n  i n come.
I w asshocked t o s ee how hig hho u sing w as.31 .3% ju st for rent o r mortgage?


Women spend_more time_shopping for men and_children than_men_spend shopping
for_women_and children.

Women spend_a lot more_on shoes than men.

Women_spend a lot_more_on accessories than men.

Women enjoy shopping more than men so retailers offer more opportunity_to
browse.

~~~
jfoutz
Maybe._At the_very_least,_shoes are a separate category_on that chart. One
rolex makes_up for_a ton of less expensive accessories.

I think it's_more_like, the vast_majority of clothes are socks, underwear,
jeans and t-shirts. Simple,_everyday stuff that wears out. I'd_bet the sales
of_this_stuff_pretty much equals out._However, there's a layer of "nice"
clothes._mens stuff is more expensive, but_lasts and is fashionable longer.
Suits vs dresses_might be a good example.

I'd also_guess men are spending more_on clothes_than they have historically.

------
kerryiob
A few_important things that_aren't being_discussed:

If your income_level drops, it should be relatively_easy to cut_back on food
expenses. You can simply_eat_less or buy_less_expensive_food. Not_great
options, but possible._On_the other_hand,_if you income level drops, it's_can
be_very difficult to reduce housing costs fast._Thus I would think_that_people
are more vulnerable to_unexpected drops in income.

Same thing_goes for medical costs. It can_be very_difficult to_reduce those
without sacrificing health.

Another big issue is that in 1962 most_households were single income. Most
mothers were_at home. If the_husband lost_his_job, there were_2_potential wage
earners_that could theoretically renter the job market_to regain_the needed
income. Today most households are_dual income, and require_all_of that income
to pay the bills._So if one personal loses their_job, there isn't a backup
worker_able_to_enter the workforce if needed._So again, more vulnerability to
reduced income.

~~~
usaar333
Great_points.

> On the_other hand, if you income level drops,_it's_can be very difficult to
> reduce_housing_costs fast. Thus I would think_that_people_are more
> vulnerable to unexpected_drops in income.

I was shocked to_see how high housing was. 31.3% just for rent_or mortgage?