A pauper's budget [sic]

Ha. I have recently started receiving, absolutely free, a magazine called In Style. I have no idea why I’m getting it, but it comes through the mail slot and I read it.

So in the current issue (oct., p. 350) there is a little item about how costume designer Sophie de Rakoff dressed Cameron Diaz for her role in In Her Shoes, taking the challenge of “making a star look stunning on a pauper’s budget.”

Here is what your average pauper is wearing, these days:

14k yellowgold pendant, $520
Juicy Couture cashmere sweater with tie, $210
Metal bangles, $6.50/set, 2 sets. (Okay, that IS cheap.)
Juicy Couture cotton T, $44
Old shorts from Abercrombie & Fitch, not available but substitute is $34
Juicy Couture zip-front jacket, $88
Gold hoop earrings, similar pair, $50

Naturally it tells where these things are available.Neiman Marcus for the Juicy stuff, f’rinstance.

Hey, Neiman Marcus! Where the paupers shop! Who knew? And here all this time I thought it was Ross Dress For Less.

Umm…what’s below “pauper”?

When I worked for a living, I thought Value Village was costly! (heck, I still do.)

I’m pretty damn well off these days… but it looks like I’ve got a way to go before I can live the high life of a pauper.

The price list for that one outfit exceeds the value of my entire wardrobe. If only I could afford to be a pauper!

Someone needs to tell that designer about Wal-Mart. Heck, even Sears is out of my price range.

The sweater and necklace are patently ridiculous, but to be frank, $34 US is not unreasonable for a pair of shorts, if they’re good quality.

As a larger girl, it often costs me $50-$60 (AU, which works out to about $45 US ATM) for a single pair of jeans. No studs or fancy embroidery or faded denim or anything. No brand names. Just blue jeans. I’ll admit I can get a pair from Target sometimes, if I’m lucky, for about $30. But they generally only last me about three months, where a good pair will last about 10-12 (I wear them every day). So paying about $45 AU for a pair of shorts isn’t terribly offensive.

But anyone who thinks $210 for a sweater is a “pauper’s” budget deserves a slapping.

I can hardly wait to be poor.

Yeah, and I would point out that the shorts in question looked about as substantial as a pair of boxers. (In fact, they may have been a pair of boxers.)

Actually the $$$ for the jewelry probably wasn’t unreasonable either; I just don’t see that kind of jewelry on myself, and before this little article I considered myself somewhat above pauperhood. Either that writer was trying for irony or she needs a reality check.