Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Ten to the Fifth and Beyond

In what I hope to be among the last posts I ever write concerning Lady Also, I am staggered to note the following:

In a new 50,000 word article on the presidential campaigns that will come out tomorrow, Newsweek reports that Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) spent far more on clothing than the $150,000 reported last month.
I am staggered that Newsweek will publish a 50,000-word article -- that's one hell of a long article -- but I'm more staggered at the very idea that Lady Also could find a way to spend far more than $150,000 on clothes in these brief months since she was tossed before the national klieg lights.

For exactly how many lifetimes was she stocking up on clothes? Does she not realize that sometimes you have to look below eye-level on the store shelves to find the better deals (it's an old retailing trick) -- for example, the same gaudy blouse made with cotton thread rather than the one hand-sewn with gold thread? That alone can save thousands, or so I assume.

I have to assume this because I simply have no idea how one breaks into the fifth power of ten when spending on clothing. If it's made of fur, is the animal actually dead? Is it the very last of its kind? Perhaps the first of its kind -- synthesized in a high-tech lab to be a wearable creature?

And by the way, what does Joe the Plumber spend on clothes? Does he get into the fifth power of ten on the trucker caps and the jeans that expose the plumber's smile? Idiotic questions deserve no answer. Let us hope he never, ever comes up again.

4 comments:

larryniven said...

Actually, I talk about this with my sister all the time - apparently women's clothing, especially stuff towards the more formal end, is just vastly more expensive than men's clothing. Plus also maybe that number includes jewelry, which would definitely help bump that number up. I don't mean, of course, to say that 150 grand is a reasonable amount to spend on clothes, just that it's not the amount it might seem like, where in order to actually buy that much stuff you'd be drowning in clothes. For me, the better question is...clothes? If you could go on a $150,000-plus shopping spree for anything, why clothes? Why not, for instance, buy like fifty HD flatscreens, or baby items for your pregnant teenage daughter? (Sorry - couldn't resist) Even in greed, she's disappointing.

Dale said...

LN, I see your point. I am also coming to the realization that I am, apparently, naive about the actual price profile of the items for sale in a typical Nieman Marcus or Saks 5th Avenue (etc.) store. I don't enter those stores, and nothing in this series of news items about $150,000 shopping sprees makes me want to.

And yes, sure -- jewelry does make it more believable.

Still. That's crazy money!

Domestically Challenged said...

LOL, you BOY (ok, MAN)! You have NO idea!

I spend $85 on my basic bra! That thing which goes under my clothes that no one (other than DH if he's lucky) will ever see!

Work wear is really pricey. The average suit jacket runs $500-1000. If you buy higher quality you are looking at 1050-3000. Just the jacket! A good skirt will start around 500 (maybe 300 if on sale)and go up from there, but skirts are versatile so you only need a few skirts but several jackets. Blouse is easily 500+. Shoes, start around 200, designer 500+.

Oh! Jeans (not that she wore them) start around $180 but for the really popular ones you're looking at $270!

The cost of women's apparel is insane!!!

Dale said...

DC, I'm starting to see it. It's still pretty astonishing, and it's still pretty far from "populist" as gestures go.