There’s some amount of gradient between use-once and fully bespoke clothing, and most people’s economic means are positioned somewhere on that gradient. Indeed it’s a U curve of sorts – cheap clothing can be surprisingly expensive (see also the Vimes Boots Theory).

▲

eru 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I never bought Vimes Boots Theory.

Yes, it can be expensive to be poor, but the rich really do consumer more dollars-of-boot per day, because they can afford it.

> There’s some amount of gradient between use-once and fully bespoke clothing [...]

Bespoke clothing mostly fits you better. It doesn't necessarily last longer. (But you can ask for harder wearing material or longer lasting manufacturing techniques, of course.)

▲

Sharlin 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The "rich" mapped to our world are the middle class (which only barely exists in Ankh-Morpork, just like it only barely existed historically in the real world). We could define "middle class" as the people who can afford to buy boots that last, but can’t afford to buy boots that don’t have to last. Exactly the bottom of the U curve I mentioned.

This is why wear-once ultra-fast fashion is attractive in the first place: not only is it cheap (in a very short-sighted sense) but it allows the less-than-affluent to signal affluence (by never wearing the same outfit twice – we call this "being fashionable" but of course being fashionable has historically been about signaling wealth first and foremost).

	▲	epolanski 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You remind me of what my grandpa always said "we're not rich enough to buy crap, we can only afford quality".

▲

Gigachad 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the “the rich” in this story is just someone who can afford not garbage boots, and not what we would consider rich today.

It’s also possible the situation has changed enough with modern manufacturing that it’s no longer as relevant.