Michael Kors, Coach, Nike; all luxury brand names produced heavily in China. Does that mean we expect to pay less for a “Cheaply Made” product?. Resolved: overseas production does not mentally devalue the American brand name. There is a beginning to all companies, even in fashion. Before his luxe watches, the man wore a watch. Michael Kors came from a generational line of chic individuals. “His mother was a former Revlon model, his father an Easy Rider-esque rebel. His grandmother trawled the racks at Loehmann’s daily, and his grandfather was a dandy”(American Evolution, 2018). Micheal now sells a wide range of styles, for both men and women, accessories included. Ralph Lauren trademarked the “polo” shirt. His preppy styles and pastel colors …show more content…
Individuals associate a higher price tag with more wealth, even if the item is hard to afford. The original intent was individualism, or how we see ourselves. Now clothing represents social class. With designer price tags Americans feel better than the population without. This feeling is the same whether someone paid full price or discounted overseas product. Rarely are women or men interested in quality. Many studies have proved this to be true. Economist George Taylor noted that as a country enters recession and adopts austere spending habits, women often show preference towards longer dresses, whilst during times of prosperity, the opposite result can be seen (Hemline Index, 1926). This concept is based on having what others do not. If the world can now afford more fabric then the woman will wear less to prove she doesn't need the excess. When the society can no longer afford extending hemlines, the fashion obsessed will go even further. Americans are willing to settle for poor quality in order to feel recognized and tower over the “other half”. This is human brain at work. The psychology shows human will almost never value designers less for producing
Both 1984 and The Handmaid’s Tale are dystopian novels, however, these books are a lot more complex than mere portrayals of dystopia, it can be argued that they are explorations of dystopia rather than mere portrayals. In order to explore dystopia, many themes must be considered, such as; feminism, love and repression. Nonetheless, it is apparent that human characteristics are the driving point of the two novels, predominantly, the depiction of human resilience. In an imperfect world, it is important to have certain qualities which, if plentiful, it can mean success, whereas if it lacks, it can mean failure, this characteristic is resilience. The protagonists in each novel, Winston in 1984 and Offred in The Handmaid’s Tale face situations which leave them both in disarray, and both even consider suicide. The authors tentatively highlight human resilience, its limits and most importantly its strengths into the two novels.
“‘They score! Henderson has scored for Canada!’” Foster Hewitt wordlessly described” (Pelletier) when Paul Henderson scored the series-winning goal. This allowed Canada to win the 1972 Summit Series, a moment that no one would ever forget since it all happened during the climax of the Cold War. Prior to this, the Soviets had won the previous three Olympic gold metals since Canada could not use its NHL players. Thus, this provided Canada with the chance to play hockey against the USSR using its best players. This raised the question: if Canada were able to send its best players, would it still be enough to beat the Soviets? Everyone in Canada was certain that the Soviets would not win a single game, but little did they know they underestimated the extent of the Soviets abilities. Tied in the last few minutes of game eight, Canada had to score or they would lose the series. However, when Paul Henderson scored the game-winning goal, never before had a single sporting event meant so much to Canadians. Therefore, Paul Henderson’s goal is a defining moment for Canada in the twentieth century becauseit provided Canada with the opportunity to evolve hockey, proved that Canada and our democratic society were superior to the USSR and their communist society, and brought citizens together to unify Canada as a nation.
People are often deceived by some famous brands, which they will buy as useless commodities to feel they are distinctive. People require brands to experience the feeling of being special. People spend their money to have something from famous brands, like a bag from Coach or Louis Vuitton which they think they need, yet all that is just people’s wants. Steve McKevitt claims that people give more thought on features or brands when they need to buy a product, “It might even be the case that you do need a phone to carry out your work and a car to get around in, but what brand it is and, to a large extent, what features it has are really just want” (McKevitt, 145), which that means people care about brands more than their needs. Having shoes from Louis Vuitton or shoes that cost $30 it is designed for the same use.
People go out and buy all these big price tag clothes thinking it will attract the oppost sex. You don't need to spend all your money to be get clothes and stuff to look nice. “They be like, Oh, that Gucci. That's hella tightI'm like, Yo that's fifty dollars for a T-shirt Limited edition”, says Macklemore. People love to get the nicest things that money can buy because it nice to have something that is made of good quality and foriegn.
What started as a trend that could supposedly “make” any outfit or “add a touch of sophistication” now does nothing more than scream out to the world “look at me, I’m cheap.”
Whether it be the new “in” clothes, or the hottest music. People want to seem cool or do things everyone else loves doing. In Brave New World everyone is conforming to their peers and their government. There is a quote from the government saying “The more stitches less riches”. Which indicates that if you wear something that is worn or has a few tears in the fabric the citizen would be identified as not wealthy.
The Trickle-down theory, a well-known theory in fashion industry, has significant meaning in 19th to 20th century Europe. The American economist and sociologist, Veblen, published The theory of the Leisure Class by 1899, in which he discussed the split between the leisure class and the industrial class in the US critically. He concluded that leisure class treats dress as a sign of their status and possessions, furthermore, ‘Dress must not only be conspicuously expensive and inconvenient; it must at the same time be up to date’(Veblen 1994), by saying that, he refers to upper class was tend to create new fashion trend which was the top of the trickle-down theory. In the 20th century, Simmel, the German sociologist and philosopher, developed this theory further from a more sympathetic perspective. He drew much attention to sameness and difference amongst both classes in his book Fashion (Simmel 1973). The upper class gets self-satisfied and the proof of its priority by distinguishing itself from others, and working class follows the fashion trend which led by upper class in order to feel like he or she is ‘belonging to’ higher class. These opinions which were discussed by Veblen and Simmel were coined by a journalist in the mid-20th century, as ‘Trickle- down Theory’. During mid-18th to early 20th century, the trickle-down theory described the process of how fashion flows, and explains that fashion is a cultural and sociological phenomenon which includes the discourse of identity and uniformity, agency and structuralism. This phenomenon was not limited by geography, at the same period, in the other side of the world, similar situation happened in China which is a typical East Asian country....
Religion’s chief functions include: a system of explanation and justification for morality. Religion in society provides us with a sense of purpose, security, morality, and obedience. This impacts every society because, as Pojman stated, “it legitimizes social mores, morality itself, as well as rituals for the dedication of children, rites of passage, marriage, and the passage from death to the beyond” (Pojman 1). This gives an accurate explanation of the different cultural traditions and views that exist worldwide.
It’s no secret that some women believe fashion portrays who they are. Therefore follow every season’s new trend. This leads to spending money that they don’t have. Waller Lea, a journalist, suggest that “for some communities, purchasing knockoffs or generic products are frowned upon, forcing minorities to spend more money. Now businesses and companies are targeting minorities, causing more debt problems.” Addicted to retail or brainwashed? Opponents claim that fashion is simply a creative way to express themselves. There are others ways to express ourselves that are no based on our appearance. Through drawing, painting or through our thoughts and ideas. What happens when someone can’t afford expensive clothing or doesn’t have access to fashionable clothes? They are singled out and excluded from society for being different.
miscommunication, which in ways could cause loss of work time, due to doing the wrong job.
Fashion is an outlet people use to express themselves. People anxiously wait to see what the next trends are as seasons pass by. We buy anything that doesn’t break a bank, people buy a $10 shirt just because it’s cheap and they might not even wear it, but it’s all right, since it wasn’t expensive. As harmless and normal as that scenario sounds, the fashion industry has created the harmful concept that is “fast fashion”, in which stores sell an abundance of extremely cheap trendy clothing and “where deliveries are small and often, with stock delivered twice a week, for instant-access fashion.” (Cochrane)
In the early 1800s, France was the sole fashion capital of the world; everyone who was anyone looked towards Paris for inspiration (DeJean, 35). French fashion authority was not disputed until the late twentieth century when Italy emerged as a major fashion hub (DeJean, 80). During the nineteenth century, mass produced clothing was beginning to be marketed and the appearance of department stores was on the rise (Stearns, 211). High fashion looks were being adapted and sold into “midlevel stores” so that the greater public could have what was once only available to the social elite (DeJean, 38). People were obsessed with expensive fashions; wealthy parents were advised not the let their children run around in expensive clothing. People would wait for children dressed in expensive clothing to walk by and then they would kidnap them and steal their clothes to sell for money (DeJean, 39). Accessories were another obsession of France‘s fashion; they felt no outfit was complete without something like jewelry or a shrug to finish off the look and make it all around polished (DeJean, 61). As designers put lines together, marketing began to become important to fashion in the nineteenth century; fashion plates came into use as a way to show off fashion l...
We all do things at home that we would never do at work. It could be smoking, imbibing, and many more actions that are not accepted in the work environment but should we be penalized for doing these things outside of work? This is a great question because in this case a plethora of us would be out of a job. The fine line between work and personal life has been wearing away for some time. As work life and personal life start to blur employers are naturally going to endeavor to regulate the comportment of their employees since they now represent their respective compa-nies both in and out of the work place. Regulating people outside of the workplace feels like an assault on individual rights. I can understand some regulation of military or professional sports because their physical condition directly relates to their job performance… but that’s a slippery slope. Unless it is detrimental to the job or poorly reflects values of the vocation personal life is just
One pays a large amount of money to buy clothes which sometimes does not suit her/him. It is claimed that clothes and accessories that are in trend are generally the most costly. Not to mention the fact that they go out of fashion very quickly. Furthermore, the current vogue for stylish objects has brought social discrimination, especially among the young generation. It is unfair to the poor, who cannot afford the latest products, being discriminated on the grounds of class or money.