Thrifting is the ultimate inflation killer. It's also the best way to shop.
There is something cathartic about securing an interesting and cheap find while shopping. It's thrilling to find the perfect trinket, or shirt or pair of shoes after spending hours looking through racks and racks of clothing.
You might not have experienced that thrill before, but you might soon have reason to give it a try. Tariffs, or taxes on imports, remain at the highest levels in living memory. Americans could soon face higher prices and even a shortage of goods. While the economy could suffer, you've got options. There are no tariffs on secondhand goods.
Thrifting is affordable – and exciting.
My thrifting origin story is fairly recent. I was searching for a way to relieve anxiety and stress that was taking over my life, even if that relief was only for an hour or two.
There is a large community of secondhand shoppers who document their thrifting experiences and hauls online, and I had always enjoyed that type of content. I decided to start thrifting about a year ago and immediately fell in love.
While spending most of my waking hours studying for a graduate school entrance exam, I needed to unwind. Going on long walks was great, but I needed something more engaging and involved – and something that had the potential of a material reward.
I began frequenting thrift stores after study sessions. Thrifting felt like a wiser financial decision than just shopping regularly, and I liked how it was a slightly more sustainable and environmentally friendly practice.
After hours of studying, I would walk into a thrift store – headphones on and music turned up, because thrift stores are more overstimulating than you would think – with the goal of finding a few high-quality items. The crux of my thrifting desires was rooted in the idea of being able to find clothing from higher quality brands at a fraction of the price. I was in search of brands, and a level of quality, that I would otherwise find difficult to pay full price for.
I found the motions of thrifting cleansing. I enjoyed the process just as much as I enjoyed leaving with my new purchases. There are no curated displays or mannequins modeling clothes in thrift stores. I loved the challenge of looking through hundreds of shirts with unnecessary slogans, and pants with unflattering seams, to find the few items worthy of purchase.
A best practice is to look at tags and labels to see what items are made of. Thrifting forced me to consider what types of fabric compositions I was interested in.
Synthetic fibers, like polyester and acrylic, are everywhere in our clothing. Synthetic fibers, while being environmentally harmful, are also a lot weaker than natural fibers. My goal was to find items made with higher quality materials and fibers that would last longer.
I shop at regular stores far less than I used to. I enjoy the challenge of finding higher quality clothing than typical fast-fashion clothing stores sell – and I buy clothes at a fraction of the price. It helps me think about clothing in a more intentional way. I am forced to consider whether, and how, I am going to use or wear my potential purchase.
I could spend a few hours a week in a thrift store and leave with maybe one sweater and one shirt. There are times when I leave with nothing. I don't mind.
Opinion: Why Muslim-owned coffee shops are Indy's best late-night hangouts
Cultivating thrifty habits starts with how you think. Instead of immediately turning to the website or app for your favorite retailer, think about a secondhand source you can use – whether that is a physical thrift store, a garage or estate sale or an online marketplace.
Garage and estate sales are especially great for finding home decor, clothing and other random trinkets. Facebook Marketplace listings are another source, especially if you care about making your purchases locally. There are even online ways to shop secondhand through platforms including Depop, ThredUp and eBay. These sites let you search for exactly what you want.
If we experience another bout of inflation, secondhand shopping could be a solution. Even if we don't, though, I suggest giving it a try. Thrifting will always be one of my absolute favorite ways to shop.
The thrill of finding something vintage or unique after an hour of scavenging through random clothes came to me when I was stressed and anxious. I was looking for an outlet. I found it thrifting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
23 minutes ago
- Mint
European Kindness Is Threatening Freedom of Speech
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Britain and Europe have become 'a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom,' according to Samuel Samson, a senior adviser to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. His punchy boss further threatens to bar European visitors to the US for 'censoring' Americans online. Vice President JD Vance also condemned European 'backsliding' on basic democratic values in a speech that outraged his audience at the Munich Security Conference last autumn. It used to be liberal progressives and radicals who denounced the state for infringing freedom of speech. Now it's the turn of the populist right to rage against 'woke' censorship. President Donald Trump's own respect for the democratic process is questionable, and administration officials, contemptuous of academic and artistic freedoms at home, make unlikely ambassadors for human rights abroad. But what if these populists have a point? Alas, the UK and Europe should look hard at their protections of the rights of individuals to say whatever they please. Some governments who would regard themselves as liberal minded are in danger of stifling, if not killing, free speech, albeit out of kindness. That's where the muddle begins. In theory, all states, even totalitarian ones like North Korea and dictatorships like Russia which murder truth-telling journalists, subscribe to Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states 'everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference.' In practice, all states also have restrictions on freedom of speech, and rightly so. Shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema out of mischief and you'll be held responsible for those trampled in the rush for the exit; incite a crowd to lynch a victim and you'll spend many years behind bars. Individuals also have the right to protection against libel, slander and harassment. This is the stuff of a thousand philosophy seminars. But balancing individual rights with social responsibility is harder than it looks. The US Supreme Court has made a better fist of it than most by extending First Amendment protections for free speech in recent decades, ruling that the authorities may only prosecute inflammatory speech that's 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action.' Several European governments, however, have now tilted in the wrong direction — toward censorship and overreach. Germany goes to absurd lengths to protect its political class from personal abuse, for instance. France and Italy have similar laws. In the UK, however, the desire to promote social harmony and protect minorities has taken precedence over free speech. So, a retired police officer was arrested in his Kent home by a posse of former colleagues for a wry tweet about pro-Palestinian demonstrators. As his home was ransacked, the police commented on his suspiciously Brexit-y reading material. In another notorious incident that made the front pages, a couple were held for eight hours at a police station for writing WhatApp messages and posting salty criticism of their daughter's primary school. Unfortunately, these aren't isolated incidents of overzealous authorities. Another cause celebre of the populist right on both sides of the Atlantic is the case of Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor who was jailed for 31 months for a public order offence. Yet she's no free speech martyr. After three children were murdered in a knife attack in Southport last year, Connolly wrongly assumed the assailant was an immigrant — he was the son of refugees from Rwanda — and tweeted on X calling for mass deportations and inciting people to set fire to hotels housing immigrants. The post was viewed more than 300,000 times on a day when racist thugs attacked mosques and migrant hostels. Judges are the ultimate guardians of the rule of law, the fertile ground out of which both British and American democracy grew. The courts therefore come down hard on those who threaten public order. Connolly's sentence was intended to be exemplary, but it was at the extreme range of censure - and should have been reduced on appeal. Confused thinking and badly drafted legislation lies behind the UK's recent illiberal tilt. Hate crime is now defined by law as 'any criminal offence perceived by the victim or any person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.' Such vague, subjective criteria should have no place on the statute book. As Jonathan Sumption, a former supreme court justice puts it: 'Words may now be criminal if they are abusive or even insulting, even if they are not threatening and put no one in danger.' At the root of much of this is poorly written legislation. The concept of 'non-crime hate,' introduced after the racist murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence 30 years ago, also obliges the police to record incidents of so-called offensive speech that have no criminal penalty. The evidence, such as it is, can stay on file and be used in criminal record checks seen by potential employers. The College of Policing's Kafkaesque guidance states 'the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception' — a charter for aggrieved individuals to pursue private vendettas. Ten of thousands of police hours are devoted to non-crime hate; 13,200 incidents were recorded by police in the year to June 2024. It's easy to collect the evidence because most of it is posted online — far easier than tracking down violent criminals, burglars and fraudsters. So while police chiefs went public in the media this week with demands for more money from the Treasury, the government should be asking whether officers are making best use of their existing budgets. Unfortunately, things look likely to get worse before they get better. The Labour government's new employment bill includes provisions to require employers to take 'all reasonable' steps to prevent harassment of staff at work by clients and customers, including 'overheard conversations' - a boggy territory which strips out context and relies heavily on subjective impressions about what was heard. How will free speech in bars and pubs be monitored in practice? Prime Minister Keir Starmer made his reputation as a lawyer by taking on corporations trying to stifle free speech. He needs to be alert to the wider context in which this legislation is being proposed, ideally calling for a review that would halt the pernicious drift toward limiting freedom of speech for fear of causing minor offence. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. More stories like this are available on
Gulf Insider
an hour ago
- Gulf Insider
Biden Unaware Of Executive Orders 'Signed' By Autopen: Report
President Joe Biden issued 162 executive orders over the course of his Oval Office tenure, but according to a new report, most of them were signed by 'autopen,' giving rise to concerns that unelected White House staffers may have had more say in shaping policy than the president. The report is furthering those concerns and suggesting that Biden may not have even been aware of the existence of the orders being signed in his name. The American energy advocacy group Power the Future published the report Wednesday, examining eight Biden-era executive orders on climate change and U.S. energy policy, and found 'no evidence' that Biden ever spoke about or acknowledged the existence of any of these orders. 'Not in a press conference. Not in a speech. Not even a video statement,' Power the Future's report stated. Power the Future Executive Director Daniel Turner said in a statement, 'Americans deserve to know which unelected staffers or radical unnamed activists implemented sweeping change through an autopen. The Biden energy agenda destroyed the livelihoods of energy workers and fueled the record-high inflation that broke the budgets of millions of Americans.' He asked, 'The question is simple, and deserves an immediate answer: what did Joe Biden know, and when did he know it?' According to the Oversight Project, dedicated to government accountability, practically every order signed by Biden was signed via autopen, with the exception of his announcement withdrawing from the 2024 presidential election. The Oversight Project cited House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who questioned Biden on an executive order affecting liquefied natural gas (LNG) and reported that the president didn't remember signing the order. 'He looks at me, stunned, and he said, 'I didn't do that,'' Johnson recounted. He continued, 'And I said to him, 'Mr. President, yes you did, it was an executive order, like, you know, three weeks ago.' And he goes, 'No, I didn't do that.' … It occurred to me … he was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had signed.' 'For investigators to determine whether then-President Biden actually ordered the signature of relevant legal documents, or if he even had the mental capacity to, they must first determine who controlled the autopen and what checks there were in place,' the Oversight Project wrote in a social media post. The accountability organization continued, 'Given President Biden's decision to revoke Executive Privilege for individuals advising Trump during his first Presidency, this is a knowable fact that can be determined with the correct legal process…' Click here to read more…
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The state's mistreatment of the disabled dead
For 50 years, his brother David yearned to know where John was buried and how he died, but Every year, states reject thousands of public requests for medical records and hidden burial locations of the disabled dead. They claim they are protecting patient privacy. It is a perverse abuse of an important legal protection for the living, and it has a frightening impact. With every person turned away, states prevent a long-overdue reckoning with how our continued reliance on government programs for institutionalizing disabled people has ripped apart the lives of Americans for nearly two centuries. Advertisement From Advertisement That's why they called the disabled people under their watch 'inmates' — not 'patients' — and subjected them to enslavement, sexual violence, and psychological torture. Three years ago, we took up these issues by spearheading the creation of the Massachusetts Massachusetts reformers first planted the seeds for a nationwide mass institutionalization movement in the mid-1800s. Ever since, the state Advertisement Yet much of this story is hidden. A Without consequences for state and local leaders who have knowingly allowed it to happen, this neglect enables communities to rewrite history. For example, at the Fernald School where John Scott died in 1973, powerful local interests are Nationwide, towns and cities have raced to redevelop former institutional sites without listening to survivors who say that there needs to be Massachusetts needs to pass much-delayed legislation to manage and open historical records while committing to a coordinated effort to open burial records, make an earnest search for unmarked graves, memorialize this history, teach it in schools, and stop this massive act of erasure. It must begin with a formal state apology because, as we saw with David Scott and so many others, we cannot walk out from under the shadow of institutions when it still hangs over so many today.
