i'm talking about the "real rich people choose function over fashion" idea. i know timbs aren't all that expensive compared to a lot of sneakers out there but they've been a status symbol for a long time, at least where i'm from.

i agree that they're durable, but the prevailing opinion among people who aspire to be "really rich but humble" is they're actually cheaply manufactured and fall apart easily. ergo, actually-rich people would never wear them because actually-rich people are wise about their investments. so the argument is that rich people will elect to buy a likely more expensive and almost certainly uglier option so they can wear them for forty years and pass them down to their grandchildren or whatever. (and on the other hand, there's a separate timbs circlejerk that comes from the bottom-up, whereby timbs are worn by people who have never actually done manual labor.)

but the people in these threads never acknowledge that the reason super wealthy people aren't "flashy" is because they don't have class insecurity and never have. they were born into wealth.