I just read okay, skimmed the start of the book “Millionaire Women Next Door” by Thomas J. Stanley, one of the co-authors of The Millionaire Next Door.
If anyone ever asked me “FB, what is the single most important PF book you’ve ever read that changed your life?”
It’d be The Millionaire Next Door. L’original.
I loved the stories about how they built the cash up from scratch, and while it was very male-centric, it was interesting and inspirational.
So I picked up the book at the library 2 days ago (finally have a library card, isn’t that sad?) and eagerly borrowed “Millionaire Women Next Door” to sit down and devour.
I won’t go into a review of the book until I skim more, but the running theme is most millionaire women try not to act or look rich because they find it to be in poor taste and don’t feel a need to show off. Got it.
In fact, the author states that it is out of a fear of being found out, that they try to be as inconspicuous as possible in their society.
But one sentence jumped out at me in the book, where it triumphantly states: “Millionaire women focus on not dressing rich“.
I stopped in my tracks.
What does that mean, “they focus on not dressing [like they're] rich”?
Does it mean women who deck themselves out in fur coats, head to toe in designer gear and dripping with diamonds?
(I mean, who the heck does that anyway?)
Or does it mean that they really shun wearing anything that could look “nice” or “rich” and walk around in sweatpants and normal beer t-shirts all day?
I guess I may be focusing on something quite trivial in light of the entire book, but I just didn’t quite get what “not dressing rich” looked like.
This ended up in an impromptu Twitter flurry which is as follows:
From what I could gather, the stats say millionaire women spend around:
- $384 – $550 on a suit
- $146 – $174 for a pair of shoes
Okay. That’s what I’d spend.
But not everyday and not for 50 suits or pairs of shoes.
Just a couple. A few things like that.
So maybe we’re on the same page with not dressing rich.
But then I read this:
- $341 – $1185 for a wristwatch
WHOA! That isn’t dressing rich? Really? $1000 for a watch?
The most I ever paid for a watch was my Fossil watch that I wear religiously. $100.
I guess I don’t place a high value on having a single beautiful timepiece on my wrist, so I don’t put my money there.
But wait, some women think even $384 for a suit is “dressing rich” too!
I am also well aware of the fact that spending $384 for a suit is not “normal” or affordable for many women either.
So these millionaire women could be considered to be dressing “rich” by other women’s standards, simply because they pay over $100 for a pair of shoes.
Or up to $500 for a suit.
Some women would rather spend $400 – $500 on 4-5 suits rather than just on one, for various reasons:
- Wanted a variety of suits
- Couldn’t stomach dropping that kind of cash
- Found a great deal on quality suits for $100 each
And while some women look like a hot mess in those suits, others make it work, and people think they spent a lot more on that suit than they really did.
But sometimes, a $100 suit is not the same as another $100 suit.
A lot of women tend to end up with a lot of variety in their wardrobe, but ultimately, nothing to wear.
But some women who can afford a $5000 suit, look worse than the woman who wore a $150 number, because of other factors such as the suit not fitting correctly any more after gaining or losing weight, her hair is a mess, or she’s wearing makeup from the 80′s and standing with a hunched back.
So what’s a girl to do, with these contradicting ideas!?
I think what it boils down to, is exactly summed up by these tweets:
So what have I concluded from trying to figure out what Stanley means by “dressing rich”?
It means to be dripping in pearls and diamonds, flouting a $bajillion fur coat, wearing $2000 t-shirts and $3000 ripped jeans, using their minion assistants as shoes.
Clearly, dressing rich doesn’t mean wearing $1000 watch or $550 shoes.
But that’s just ridiculous.
No one I know (even the uber rich who love to spend money like it’s water) ever wears fur coats and ostentatiously dripping in diamonds.
The difference between a stylish uber rich girl and a stylish not-so-rich girl, is that each may have a similar looking outfit on, but the uber rich outfit costs much more.
It may be made out of more expensive fabrics, bought in more expensive stores, and have subtle not-so-known labels such as Rock & Republic on the t-shirt tag.
The less expensive outfit may have been sourced from thrift stores, or mass merchandise stores, and the tag on her shirt? The Gap.
But they look the same to most people, save for the very minute little details that give it away.
Maybe he should have had a little section with examples of their clothing, since he is kind of targeting WOMEN to read that book about WOMEN millionaires. 
It would have helped the ambiguity of his sentence.
Or at least, be more specific “and by rich, I mean they don’t walk around in mink fur coats, sipping champagne, saying “Hello how are you DARLING”, and flashing big diamond rings on every one of their fingers“.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda.
We have concluded: you can dress stylishly but not be a rich show-off:
1. You don’t need a lot of money to look great, if you have:
- a good sense of style
- an eye for quality because it is possible to find it on the cheap!!
- a great common sense to not pay for what has little practical value for your life
- an even better sense of knowing WHEN to pay when quality matters
2. It’s how you wear it, not what you wear.
3. There’s no need to be decked out in designer logos to look stylish (or rich).
In fact, I find girls who dress head to toe in labels sort of sad. I won’t lie.
When they’re wearing Burberry headbands with huge Fendi sunglasses, trotting around in Coach-logo laden boots, flashing a J’adore Dior t-shirt, with Lindsay Lohan liquid leggings, gripping tightly on a bright orange Hermes Birkin and fingering their diamond-encrusted iPhones with a huge Starbucks cup in the other hand, I just shake my head.
4. Any mention of “Dressing rich” is a silly phrase that should be banned immediately:
- it’s relative what someone thinks is “rich” and “expensive” to them
- it’s ambiguous because dressing with quality items is not considered to be dressing rich
- not all expensive pieces of clothing are of high quality
- not all cheap pieces of clothing are of low quality
- no one I know dresses like a fur-coat clad millionaire starlet, rich OR poor
- you may not be able to tell the difference between a $10,000 outfit and its $500 equivalent
More to read:
- Beskeie’s pre-empted response post on my asking what dressing rich really means. (Damn that girl gets a post up fast!!)
- Debt sucks, but so does not living your life
- In defense of the rich
- FB Posts around the Globe
- The Paradoxes of Money & Women
- 5 Lies we tell ourselves to Help us Continue Spending
Joy-Mari Cloete
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 8:48 AM:
Quality doesn’t come cheap. Sure, you can find great looking pieces for cheap, cheap, cheap but they might only last a season or two, at most. Poor people generally can’t afford to save money to buy a pair of more expensive shoes. So they buy the cheapest they can afford — I see this in my family. Those of us who can afford to spend a bit more do not have as many shoes…but the shoes that we buy are leather, not pleather.
You have to pay to get quality. I don’t like it but it’s reality.
Joy-Mari Cloete´s last blog ..Logic: a scarce commodity among retail assistants and their managers
Foxie
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 8:51 AM:
Well, if you think about it, we’re always wearing all labels… They just aren’t all well-known and recognized brands.
I’ve had such an issue with this myself, when it comes to the clothes that I seem to like. I’d love to have the money for the quality, since I have trouble finding it in cheaper places. (And the sizes aren’t great for me.) But if I mention ever wanting a pair of nice, classic Louboutins or something to my husband, he questions why I want them. Can I not just want them for well-made, worth keeping for years classic shoes? (With a red sole, because I can get hooked on tiny details like that… Eheh.) Is it because of the name I want them? I’m saying no, because I see TONS of designer stuff and all I’m like is WTF? Ew. So…. o_O I dunno, honestly.
And I know some guys who’d say a $1k watch is CHEAP. One of the guys my hubby works with already has a collection of watches going… Rolexes included, but certainly not all he has.
Foxie´s last blog ..How do you see other people’s cars?
Meg from FruWiki
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 9:00 AM:
I guess perhaps the choices are (and these ARE intended to be rather extreme examples for illustration purposes):
1. Being a “label whore” covered in bling trying to convince people that you’re really, really rich no matter how awful it looks and how poor it leaves you.
2. Dressing like a slob to convince yourself and the world that you “just don’t care” about things as “trivial” as appearances anymore.
3. Focusing on looking “put together” so that you give off a confident, professional appearance. I.e., making sure that things fit well, wearing outfits that aren’t matchy-matchy per se but where the pieces seem to naturally go together, wearing colors that look well on you, wearing quality clothes that aren’t so thin as to be see-through when they shouldn’t be or that have seams sewn so poorly that they never lay right, making sure that the fit of everything is just right, not wearing things with tears or stains just out of laziness, etc. etc. etc.
Note that none of these is directly tied to cost. You can look pulled together without spending a lot by buying well-made clothes at thrift stores, being VERY selective about what you buy even if it means a very small wardrobe, and then taking care of your clothes. On the other hand, you can be a slob that wears expensive brands. And you can even be a label-whore wearing fakes (though I think it LOOKS cheap, either way).
Meg from FruWiki
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 9:07 AM:
FB & Foxie,
On another note, I’m so glad my husband and I aren’t feeling the need to have expensive watches. So pricey! Our Black Berries are our watches — though I have a couple cheap watches I could wear just for fashion.
I don’t know why for sure, but I really like the idea of just avoiding those obvious things — when possible — that other people tend to judge people buy. For example, I didn’t get a diamond engagement ring and I just wear a simple wedding band. Also, we don’t have a television. For other people it might be not having a car. It’s kind of freeing, I guess, to just take yourselves out of the competition when it comes to those things. It’s definitely a lot cheaper!
Of course, one might think that we’re poorer looking for not having those things at all, but I think we and our lives look richer for the quality of things that we do have and the lack of clutter. And we can always act like snobby hipsters if we feel defensive
Meg from FruWiki´s last blog ..Costumes
Ellen
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 10:19 AM:
FB – I know you are a consultant, so you generally want to dress nicely when you’re working at a customer site, but honestly, do you wear a lot of suits? I have tons of trousers (mostly Editors from Express because I worked there before I graduated college), and I have a few full suits, but only one that I like enough to wear. Fact is, though, that I only wear it when I need to interview somewhere, which hasn’t happen since I got my job in 2007.
To me, wearing a suit as a 25 year old woman just feels outdated and old. Maybe it’s because I went to school in LA and most young LA women wouldn’t be caught dead in a suit ever. I just feel like I’m much better off wearing a nice pair of pants with a layered button down and a sweater, or a pretty satin top.
I ask all this because well fitting pants you can get for around $100. I’d rather buy ten pairs of pants & get them altered to fit me properly for $1000 than get 3 full suits.
Lastly, I definitely don’t care about most labels. I have been known to buy label sunglasses, but I’ve never found a cheap pair of sunglasses that fit me properly. They always sit lopsided on my nose for some reason. I also buy Coach bags (on crazy 50% discounts at outlets), but again, I have 2 of them, and they have lasted me YEARS. I’ve long since thrown out any cheaper bags that I bought around the same time because they fall apart or get dirty too easily.
Oh, & hi! I haven’t commented in a while, though we’re always talking on Twitter
me in millions
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 10:31 AM:
Really interesting post. I loved the Millionaire Next Door… must get the Women Million Next Door! I’m guilty sometimes of focusing too much on labels, but in my defense, I do get a lot of the more expensive brands secondhand. I’d love to shop at boutiques and wear fancy brands that no one’s heard of, but the practical part of me thinks that is a bad choice.
me in millions´s last blog ..Financial Updates…
E
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 11:00 AM:
Oh FB…you totally got lost, and over did it, in trying to figure out that definition.
But I would agree nevertheless. Dressing Rich is pretty damn vague…so vague, I’d say that it doesn’t mean anything actually. At the end of the day, it’s all about how a person “rocks” their style (if one is even applicable). No one walks around in Hollywood evening gowns everyday, nor business suits (well, except Mon-Fri during work hours). Someone (a woman) could walk around in a white tanktop and a decent pair of jeans and it would get my attention – regardless if the jeans were $40 or $350, and the tanktop is a Wal-Mart special or a FCUK. And I’m with you…brand whores are funny to look at.
Liam
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 1:09 PM:
All the rich women I know and or have known even when they dress down have the most expensive shoes on earth on their feet.
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 1:38 PM:
@Ellen I don’t wear a suit at all. I hate them.
I’d rather be in a sweater and nice trousers, but if I worked in a bank, I’d have to wear a suit.
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 1:40 PM:
@Joy-Mari OK…. but you don’t always have to pay $300 for a pair of shoes to get quality either. You can find good quality shoes for $100 or less sometimes, especially when you hunt for sales.
My point was that it is difficult to find good quality for cheap, but it is also difficult to tell who is wearing okay priced items vs. very expensive items that look pretty much the same
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 1:41 PM:
@E — Please be conscious of the way your tone comes across in your comments.
I almost deleted it but am giving you the benefit of the doubt for not trying to be rude.
Maybe you’re the one that didn’t get the point in the end?
I didn’t want to really figure out the definition but wanted to explore the idea of dressing rich. Not everything in the world has to be defined.
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 1:42 PM:
@Liam That’s a good point. I think shoes do elevate an outfit — maybe that’s where the money goes? Yet I cannot see it as “dressing rich”. I feel like the sentence makes no sense without a clear example of what the author means.
budge tchic
on Sep 25th, 2009
@ 5:36 PM:
I agree, its all about balance for your financial situation. I believe it always best to live well below your means so that if and when a crisis occurs you can handle it a lot better then if you are leveraged to the hilt! It sad that quality has to have such an insane price tag. I don’t think I could ever justify paying $695 for a DVF ruffle woold coat when I’ve seen quality coat with similiar designs at Macy’s for $149. Even if I could justify having the DVF coat for like 10 years – that’s like paying $69 every year for a wool coat. I buy coat once every 4 years or so just to switch up the style.
LA Daze
on Sep 26th, 2009
@ 12:40 AM:
Hmmm…I know plenty of women who dress rich and then there are women who dress to look rich.
Dressing rich to me = expensive labels but you wouldn’t know because there’s no obnoxious logo. These women don’t think: I want an LV/Prada/Gucci/Balenciaga/expensive designer purse because it will make me look rich…I want it because of the leather/shape/cut/will work with those clothes and shoes. Also, when people point and go: (gasp!) Is that the newest Hermes bag? This type of woman will be modest and act like it’s just another purse.
Dressing to look rich are the types that love having logos splashed all over their clothes, love to show off their designer items, and somehow think that wearing expensive clothes make them better than everybody else who aren’t wearing designer duds. They just care too much and are always conscious of what they are wearing.
That’s my two cents!
LA Daze´s last blog ..For future reference…
Kelly
on Sep 26th, 2009
@ 3:01 AM:
FB – i’ve followed your blog before and i’ve loved it. I dont knowhow i found it but i was sad i didnt save a link so i feel honored to have you grace mine!!!
i agree with LA Daze – there is the dressing rich and dressing to look obnoxiously rich . I’ve had people ask me about whatever purse im carrying and i always get embarrassed… and then i think its so uncouth when they ask me how much it cost..and i think its even worse when people respond what the price is.
i guess my literal translation reading ” they focus on not dressing [like they're] rich” is that they’re focused on business and other things that really matter rather then spending 4 hours a day to primp and worry about how many diamond bracelets they need to wear to solidify their wealthiness. Its one thing to look your best for every situation – even if you’re decked out in designer – its just how you carry yourself….
oh and thanks for the book recommendation! I definitely will be checking it out.
xoxo,
Kelly
Kelly´s last blog ..double the pleasure….updated*
enc
on Sep 26th, 2009
@ 7:40 AM:
Hi FB!
Thanks for your comment on my blog. I’m just starting to get back into the comments aspect of blogging, and it’s taking me some time to catch up. Sorry about that.
After reading this post, I’d say that dressing “rich” is relative. The suits part really got me. I think the “value” people put on what is paid for them is really interesting. I’ve always read “buy the best you can afford,” and I’ve always done that.
The trick is knowing what one can “afford.” That term is relative, too.
~enc
enc´s last blog ..Poll #45: Blame it on the Sale
suzie
on Sep 26th, 2009
@ 8:46 AM:
i have a pair of fendi sunnies and while looking for them, tried very hard NOT to have an obvious brand splayed across the sunnies. but let me tell u that very hard indeed!
suzie´s last blog ..Crispy Seaweed
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Sep 26th, 2009
@ 9:29 AM:
@LA Daze
AWESOME explanation!
“Caring too much and are always conscious of what they are wearing” summed it up quite perfectly.
FB @ FabulouslyBroke.com
on Sep 26th, 2009
@ 9:29 AM:
@Kelly Why thank you!