Net worth before you can "afford" $500 shoes?

[forex]

What about $5K bespoke suit?

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by forex

What about $5K bespoke suit?
Change my numbers in Post #144 to yearly income of $500K and a net worth of $10M.

 

[Knucklehead]

I just spent $500 on shoes. I just started my first job after med school. This year my salary will be ~56k USD pre tax (but I live in CA so...30 something after taxes). I feel justified to make this purchase because I don't have any children, I don't have a car note, and I only pay 500 dollars per month in rent. I'll purchase a few more pairs in the 200-300 range this year (Herring/Loake/AE), but another 500 dollar purchase this year is unlikely.

 

[feastmaster]

Are the shoes on sale? Anyway, I think you just have to do what's practical for yourself. Every time I go into Guitar Center I see someone buying a $1000 guitar or a $500 amp and I can guarantee you that this is not their only big music purchase over the course of the year. If you have expendable income, at any level of earning, go for it.

 

[Archivist]

Simple question:
In your opinion, what should a guy's liquid net worth be before he can "afford" $5.00 toilet paper? (Your answer is a number)
Conversely, below what level would your natural reaction to his $5.00 toilet paper be: What a jackass!

First, please note the use of quotations above.
This is not a literal question. (eg: When he has $5.01, duh!)
That said, $5.01 certainly is a valid answer.

I am using net worth and not salary because the latter can be a very weak gauge of one's financial solvency.
Free Cash Flow (FCF) paints a more direct picture.

I also deliberately picked the $5.00 threshold, and not $3.00 for Scott's, et al.
$5.00 is a different pricing paradigm entirely, and is probably 3 SD's over the average toilet paper expenditure.
At this level, one has deliberately groomed himself as a "serious toilet paper guy".

So, at what point does a guy have no business wiping with $5.00 toilet paper, and be viewed as a fraud/idiot?

Alternate question: What other criteria would you use in deciding whether a guy can afford $5.00 toilet paper?

 

[westinghouse]

You should first afford the $500 shirts and $500 pants that go with those $500 shoes.

Don't forget the $5,000 watch too.

If you do forget and I see you, I will be the first to call you out on it.

"When I see a guy with an expensive watch and cheap shoes, I know I have him nailed"

-George Hamilton

 

[sportin_life]

I just bought another pair of $500 shoes. I don't make much b/c I'm still in training, but I guess that's what moonlighting is for

 

[pvrhye]

Originally Posted by DWFII

Well I did say "some degree". I am a shoemaker not an English professor. I am not even all that well read...I've never read Jane Austen, for instance.

So please detail my mistake so that I may avoid repeating it.

It's good to see that you can cobble together a coherent sentence.

My sense of humor is unforgivable...

 

[scientific]

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Will you help me line up the debt financing and a secondary buyer for the shoes once I own them and want to dump? Also, can you help me set up derivatives of the shoes to sell off in some fashion? Maybe based on the risk that Reevolving actually wears them and ruins their pristine soles?

bro it's ok just keep buying until you become a 'systemic risk'

 

[upnorth]

The question is interesting because it takes a bigger view of whether a $500 shoe purchase "fits" into one's lifestyle based on net worth. Chances are that in reality, it has very little to do with it. It depends on one's overall priorities (as I've personally experienced going into parenthood), availability of disposable income, preferences, expected utilization amongst other things.

Some people are average income earners yet they spend more on shoes because they just want a simplified rotation of 3-4 high quality good fitting essential shoes. That's very different from someone who wants to buy a $500 fun pair of bright green suede loafers, to make it the 82th pair of shoes in his collection.

My take is that if you have to think about your net worth before you decide if you should get the shoes, you either cannot afford them or the shoes are not enticing enough to make a compelling case to buy them. Either way, you shouldn't buy them.

 

[duke651]

501. Invest the leftovers.

 

[Mr.Pooter]

Originally Posted by Reevolving

Simple question:
In your opinion, what should a guy's liquid net worth be before he can "afford" $500 shoes? (Your answer is a number)
Conversely, below what level would your natural reaction to his $500 shoes be: What a jackass!

First, please note the use of quotations above.
This is not a literal question. (eg: When he has $500.01, duh!)
That said, $500.01 certainly is a valid answer.

I am using net worth and not salary because the latter can be a very weak gauge of one's financial solvency.
Free Cash Flow (FCF) paints a more direct picture.

I also deliberately picked the $500 threshhold, and not $300 for AE's, et al.
$500 is a different pricing paradigm entirely, and is probably 3 SD's over the average shoe expenditure.
At this level, one has deliberately groomed himself as a "serious shoe guy".

So, at what point does a guy have no business wearing $500 shoes, and be viewed as a fraud/idiot?

Alternate question: What other criteria would you use in deciding whether a guy can afford $500 shoes?

Of course we're only talking about a pair of shoes here that anyone can buy so I guess you meant what class would generally spend this sum. I'd say it would be appropriate for someone with a net worth of about $3m and with an income of about $300k per annum.

 

[Reevolving]

Originally Posted by Archivist

Simple question:
In your opinion, what should a guy's liquid net worth be before he can "afford" $5.00 toilet paper? (Your answer is a number)

$10k

Originally Posted by westinghouse

"When I see a guy with an expensive watch and cheap shoes, I know I have him nailed" -George Hamilton

That's great. But, is this b/c he's cheap and allocating his funds to the most obvious accessory?
Or that he just doesn't know any better? (The majority of men do not even know $500 shoes exist)

 

[bluesman528]

11 pages of postings for one ridiculous question. But I think we have a conclusion here. If a member of this forum can afford $500 shoes his nickname isn't Reevolving and never will be.

 

[RSS]

Was it not Diana Vreeland who said, "If you want to know if someone is well dressed, look at the shoes."

That being so, shouldn't we be discussing a pair of shoes that might actually be deemed of quality?