>>10654591
No, clothes are cheap now. Before the RTW revolution, when garments and cloths toon a good chunk out of a normal persons pay check, the size of your wardrobe may have suggested status.

>>10654591
See >>10654607

I can go blow a shit ton of cash at H&M, that doesn't suddenly elevate me to a classy position.

>>10654607
>>10654616
I see what you're saying, but that alone doesn't imply it doesn't hold.
Independent of how affordable stuff is - it may well be that upper class people decide to actually wear more layers and lower class people don't.

>>10654637
>Independent of how affordable stuff is - it may well be that upper class people decide to actually wear more layers and lower class people don't.
I do think you might have a very, very limited point: my experience with both upper-class and lower-class people generally indicates that the latter gyrate towards "t-shirt plus" outfits, whereas the former are usually raised to do a bit more than that. Most of my poorer friends, even in colder regions, will automatically toss on a t-shirt and coat in freezing weather, whereas my wealthier friends are much more likely to try to "dress up" for the weather.

>>10654650
I now read up on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready-to-wear
and this all seems to have happend half a decade before that class book was written.

Also, what do you mean by "dress up" for the cold weather? What would they wear?

Also, are you sure you have a good grip on knowing when to label people lower and upper class?

>>10654664
>Also, what do you mean by "dress up" for the cold weather? What would they wear?
Speaking broadly: cardigans under blazers and over dress shirts, etc. Basically anything that was an affirmative effort to dress up.

>Also, are you sure you have a good grip on knowing when to label people lower and upper class?
I'm going on socioeconomic status exclusively, and the delta between the people I'm talking about is huge.

>>10654671
How come you hang out with both?

What line or work are you in, or who did you get to know them?

>>10654679
>How come you hang out with both?
Why not?

>What line or work are you in, or who did you get to know them?
I'm an attorney and have connections.

>>10654688
>Why not?
I didn't ask why but how. It leads up to the second question

>I'm an attorney
kek