Mary Portas take on dying High St's

ninky_2

at the risk of being controversial, i don't really care if the high street dies. there are far too many shops selling far too many clothes to people who really don't need them. (and i don't just mean one or two indulgent purchases it's wholesale excess). i bet the average amount of clothes in a typical wardrobe has increased by ridiculous amounts in the last few decades - most of it plastic based (so much for not using plastic bags, the majority are wearing them on their backs). the only shops i'd like to see come back / survive are repair shops. i'd like to see manufacturers of electrical goods offer better repair services through legislation as well as tailors / altering / clothes repair services.

abaxas

The high street isnt dead.

It's just being converted into fast food outlets.

ninky_2

apparently the average person owns 101 pieces of clothing (124 for women 77 for men). can't find how many it was in the 1950s. if anyone can remember that far back perhaps they can guesstimate for me? it seems to me that style is often in reverse proportion to amount of clothes owned.

abaxas

ninky wrote: »

apparently the average person owns 101 pieces of clothing (124 for women 77 for men). can't find how many it was in the 1950s. if anyone can remember that far back perhaps they can guesstimate for me? it seems to me that style is often in reverse proportion to amount of clothes owned.

I guess this would include socks and underwear?

ninky_2

abaxas wrote: »

I guess this would include socks and underwear?

would people own more of these now? i don't know tbh. the figure was from an oxfam survey. it didn't mention underwear. i'm guessing it didn't include underwear.

having said that, maybe there was a lot more underwear in the past (bloomers, corsets, underslips, petticoats etc etc)

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

apparently the average person owns 101 pieces of clothing (124 for women 77 for men). can't find how many it was in the 1950s. if anyone can remember that far back perhaps they can guesstimate for me? it seems to me that style is often in reverse proportion to amount of clothes owned.

Much fewer. I read something about this but can't remember where to reference, but much, much less. Women also MADE more clothes, altered them to fit instead of replacing, and cut down their clothes for daughters. That said: I guess more women miht have ''had time'' (i.e. included in a heavier duty schedule of home work) to make clothes, in general of course.?

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Much fewer. I read something about this but can't remember where to reference, but much, much less. Women also MADE more clothes, altered them to fit instead of replacing, and cut down their clothes for daughters. That said: I guess more women miht have ''had time'' (i.e. included in a heavier duty schedule of home work) to make clothes, in general of course.?

that is true. we think of modern life / appliances etc making our lives easier. instead, of course many of us now have to do other work - and commute to and from that work. so in reality we are a lot busier. i'd love to sit around sewing clothes, digging the garden and planning what's for dinner - but unfortunately the cost of the mortgage dictates i must do paid for work.

many of my collegues at similar job level have a cleaner but i just can't bring myself to go down that route. it seems wrong paying someone to clean up your domestic mess (sometimes is tempting though). so we live in contained chaos and muck in together to get it done. fortunately OH is more housetrained than me and i usually go home to a hot meal and a tidy house - even though he works too!!

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

many of my collegues at similar job level have a cleaner but i just can't bring myself to go down that route. it seems wrong paying someone to clean up your domestic mess (sometimes is tempting though). !

I think thats an intersting view. I'd see it as spreading the wealth and providing (generally) flexible family friendly employment. I was brought up that you sould expect noone to do work you wouldn't do (i.e. if you pay a cleaner to clean it should not be to deal with udure etc that you wouldn't) but that it is not wrong to have someone in that work that you can't get to. My father's last housekeeper and I are good chums (she also used to sometimes help me when we had a full house in London) and because we're having a full house here in August I'm considering having someone help me here too. I've sorted out willing, indeed, eager help, for the horses (in fact the teenager begged for lessons instead of pay, but she's going to get both , and I think I'd benefit from help in the house. I don't feel that's demeaning to who does it, they'll be well remunerated and its nothing I eouldn't do myself if I was as fast as I used to be or could manage a thirty hour day.

Full marks to partener domestication though, I have a good one too. Coffee in bed for me almost every weekend, and IMO he doestoo much for me here as the housework is currently ''my job''.

dopester

lostinrates wrote: »

I'd see it as spreading the wealth and providing (generally) flexible family friendly employment.

So do I. Ironing + cleaning lady around our way is seeing a big drop-off in people asking her to do their ironing at pretty appealing rates. Obvious reasons, combined with others trying to chase the remaining orders in the market with ever better offers. Others in their immediate family having a change of income for the worse as well. Nothing wrong with taking up the cleaning/ironing ect services provided in open-market in the right circumstances which suit you. It isn't "wrong" and if anything it is a good thing.

The reason that services rise as income rises is that the opportunity costs of doing certain things for yourself, like fixing a meal or ironing your shirts, rise. This pushes more household and personal chores into the market. If you are making £60,000 a year, spending £20 to have someone iron your work-shirts is a bargain. It economises your free time. But when they take a pay-cut, lose their jobs, he can iron his own shirts. It is amazing how many services you can do without when your income falls.

ninky wrote: »

that is true. we think of modern life / appliances etc making our lives easier.

Still has a long way to go. Need much better tech. Smarter robots, cleaning the floors, washing them.. destroying all the grit, neatly cutting the grass grass - whilst requiring little maintenance. I know those robots already exist (am about to see if prices have fallen for those robot mowers).. but still pretty low-tech for what I want.

lostinrates

I'd love a robot vacuum cleaner (its my most hated job) but I'd wnt it to be solar powered, (could leave it in a light place to ''charge'') and much heavier duty ...I use a miele dog and cat now, any thing light weight wouldn't cope.

I hate stacking/unstacking the dishwsher too. I like the more rewarding jobs like cleaning windows, scrubbing floors/bathrooms. I'm not god on patience: spending twenty minutes in the bathroom shows more result than ten minutes doing the rubix cube that is stacking the dishwasher, and then ten minutes putting it all away.