43 thoughts on “These are homeless Australians in the 1960s. What's your excuse?

  1. Anonymous says:

    That’s because back in the day people weren’t a bunch of degenerate consoooomers. They didn’t have 50 pairs of cheap clothes at any moment and kept replacing them every couple of months. Most people used to have barely 5-6 sets of clothes. A couple of work clothes, a set of clothes to wear at home, their "Sunday clothes" for church, and one set stashed in the closet that was their best and most expensive, reserved for special celebratory occasions. So, they could afford to wear such high quality clothes because they bought them once and wore them for years and decades.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not necessarily, hand me downs and second hand clothes existed even back then, people were poorer in general than they are now, the clothes were generally made of thicker and better quality fabric, but that doesn’t mean everyone dressed in immaculate well fitting clothes like movie stars. They just look smart compared to people today, but that isn’t something what is particularly difficult to achieve, clothes were also made in places like india in the early 1900’s and ready made clothes were a thing going into the thirties.

        • Anonymous says:

          but your wife or mother or someone would adjust them for you. someone in an ill-fitting suit would be seen as mentally ill or something.

    • Anonymous says:

      this, and if you go back only a few decades before the period of time we’re talking about, most people used to either make their own clothes, have a family member make their clothes, or have their clothes made by someone in their local community. it was a lot less common to buy one size fits all clothes and department stores were just starting to exist.

      Those weren’t high quality clothes and they aren’t tailored.

      look at how expensive modern reproductions of these clothes are. and jsyk the brands making that stuff have one of the lowest profit margins in the entire garment industry, used to work at one helping them source textile.

      • Anonymous says:

        >look at how expensive modern reproductions of these clothes are
        It’s because it’s an incredibly niche product, while in the thirties-forties these clothes were normal. If you want old style clothing brand new, then you are going to have to shell out the big bux.

        • Anonymous says:

          >It’s because it’s an incredibly niche product
          no, lower quality clothes are just normalized now.
          i used to think that but if you adjust for real inflation and look through old sears and montgomery ward catalogues people used to pay the equivalent of like $100-300 for a pair of jeans. if you consider the fact that the fabrics are much nicer now (in the 30’s 12 or maybe 15oz was the upper limit of what could be made and most jeans were 8-10oz) you’re actually kind of getting a better value for your dollar.
          i designed some made in usa jeans with cone mills denim that got manufactured & sold by a major legacy brand that retailed at 180 and they cost us around 100 or 120 to make package ship etc and that’s with stuff like free lifetime repairs in the margin. thats a super super low profit margin % compared to something like say a $10 shein tee shirt or anything from a major fashion house.

          • Anonymous says:

            I am talking about the cut and style of the clothing, do you see many people in general who like dressing up in thirties or forties suits, hell even sixties clothing? the answer is you don’t. If you like a niche style and are not willing to wear second hand clothes, you are going to have to pay higher prices.

          • Anonymous says:

            read my post again. if you adjust for real inflation the $3-10 pairs of jeans from a sears catalogue back then costed about the same as those $500 japanese reproductions of pre-war levi’s you can buy today. the expensive niche reproduction in current year isn’t any more expensive than a pair of jeans used to cost back then. if anything cheaper because back then they were technologically & skill ceiling capped to lighter weight fabrics.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Clothing catalogues were also a thing, where you sent money in the post along with what you wanted and your size and you would then receive your suit after a few weeks to a month so there would’ve been room for error. This was cheaper than getting a suit made.

    • Anonymous says:

      yeah, dude, we still have catalogues today. I swear every zoomer thinks they’re some sort of historian when talking about anything that isn’t ticktock.

      • Anonymous says:

        It was an example that not everyone wore tailored well fitting clothes.

        but your wife or mother or someone would adjust them for you. someone in an ill-fitting suit would be seen as mentally ill or something.

        >someone in an ill-fitting suit would be seen as mentally ill or something
        No, people were dirt poor, even more so than now, you made do with what you could get your hands on, altering clothes could also only do so much and it’s bit of an assumption that everybody’s wife or or mother or people would be willing to get them altered by a professional which costs money, money which could be spent on food.

        It’s a myth that everybody was extremely well dressed.

  3. Anonymous says:

    High quality compared to today, considering most things were made of natural fibres and polyester didn’t really become ultra popular until the seventies i think, but you are right in saying they prob were not tailored. off the rack clothing has existed for a hundred years at least perhaps even longer.

    • Anonymous says:

      fashion is fun to watch pan out. people don’t have a monarch/god to emulate so they dress like celebrities, who dress how their managers tell them, said managers usually having direct ties to the fashion industry

    • Anonymous says:

      cause on the east coast for the most part it is hecking cold its sunny only during summer all that shit you heard about it being sunny 24/7 is bullshit its 90% overcast most of the year

  4. ࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ says:

    BEING HOMELESS IN THE NINETEEN HUNDRED SIXTIES WAS, VIRTUALLY, THE SAME AS BEING A YOUNG ADULT IN THE TWO THOUSAND TEENS, AND TWO THOUSAND TWENTIES.

  5. Anonymous says:

    >no, lower quality clothes are just normalized now.
    and inflation is just that bad. a subway foot long sandwich is $19 in my city right now.

    • Anonymous says:

      Quality equivalent clothes were way more expensive back then relative to average wages. The choices were way more limited too

      There’s decent research on that afaik.

      The only thing nowadays that remains about as expensive or even more expensive is healthcare, education, and housing if I remember correctly

      I recommend you check out the tom woods show for economic stuff

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *