Last time on Enrichmentality, we examined the equation ethical = expensive, and found that, in most cases, we can’t trust this assumption. Sometimes, clothing is cheap and nasty. But it can be expensive and nasty, too. In fact, some of the most expensive brands had the very worst environmental and social records according to the Ethical Fashion Report. But I came across something important when I was analysing the data included in the report. And that was the fact that most of the brands surveyed that sold exclusively or primarily children’s clothing scored abysmally.Continue reading “Did a child make your child’s clothes?”
One of the great advantages trumpeted about the school uniform is its capacity to make everyone equal. If all children have to wear the same uniform, the theory goes, discrimination based on socio-economic background, as signaled through, for instance, their brand of shoes or jacket, will disappear.
But is this really the case? Can uniforms actually exacerbate discrimination?
When it comes to talking about retirement, it surprises me how often I hear people say things such as ‘the government won’t let me retire until I’m 65’. Or, ‘by the time we’re ready to retire, they’ll have pushed it back to 70’.
But there’s no reason to assume that your retirement age will be the same as your superannuation preservation age or your pension eligibility age.
As we’re preparing to leave Japan after almost three months, getting ready to pack our bags, I find myself reflecting on the belongings we have with us, those we left behind, and the day we arrived in Osaka.
We got off the bus with our small backpacks and began walking down the road. Most people were struggling with heavy suitcases and multiple bags. As we continued on foot to a cheap restaurant where we could spend a few hours before our check-in, we passed a small trolley, probably belonging to a homeless person, impeccably organised. Expensive executive bags with specialty pockets and zippers and organising inserts would not come close to the precision with which the owner of this trolley had carefully stored their few possessions. An assortment of neatly stacked books. A row of well-organised toiletries.
“Fashion is a language that creates itself in clothes to interpret reality.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Some – such as fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld – view fashion as an art form. A mode of communication. A way of life.
In Britain, women spend an average of £28,350 ($35,400) on clothing compared to men’s spend of £16,200 ($20,230). Average spends on shoes are likewise are £8,100 ($10,100) for women, £4,725 ($5,900) for men.
There is a variety of reasons for this disparity. Women’s clothes are generally more expensive, and women buy more clothes. But why?
In my previous post, we looked at physical differences and social expectations that result in men and women paying different amounts for everyday living. But in addition to expectations for women to spend more time and money on cosmetics and personal care, there may be another, more insidious reason for the difference in spending… the so-called ‘pink tax’.
Laundry has never been one of my favourite tasks. And what leads to laundry piling up and getting out of hand?
My diagnosis: TOO MANY CLOTHES.
The hamper is full. You should really do a load of washing.
But your wardrobe is jam-packed.
Which is more tempting? Grabbing something already washed and folded? Or washing the things you need to?