Recession/hair length article

[Debra83]

http://www.theprovince.com/business/fp/Hair%20length%20shear%20indicator%20economy/1880527/story.html

This article is kind of interesting (I like all the zany hair phrases) but I thought when the economy was bad, everyone grew their hair according to something somebody posted not too long ago!

[Kimberly]

Article said: "When there's uncertainty about the economy, women realize they can't spend as much time on their hair, or as much money on [hair] products, and as a result tend to go for shorter styles."

haha Soap and ACV sure won't break the bank, though my new love for Baerreis could be my downfall.

[Raven2448]

Length certainly is the cheaper option in my opinion.

My short hair grew ridiculously fast and required all kinds of product and maintenance to keep it looking decent. Plus it's more difficult to cut your own hair when it's short.

[noelgirl]

For me, long hair is cheaper, but from a conventional fashion standpoint, I can see where they're coming from. The "Glamour do" version of long hair involves extensions, coloring, styling, etc., and the longer the hair, the more of each. Beauty in artifice and what not. My version of long hair involves CO washing with cheap stuff and little or no product, but you're not going to see that in the magazines. Hey, we should have our own magazine! :cheese:

[willowcandra]

I last bought shampoo and conditioner a year ago in a haul of three leave ins, two conditioners of one type and two of another and two shampoos. I have also bought two blocks of lush henna.

In the last year I have spent about £70 on my hair. (and that's on high quality products.)

I still have most of the leave in and a bottle or two of conditioner.

Had I had short hair I would have paid that plus about 6 haircuts at £30 each....and sprays and gels to control a shorter length.:rolleyes:

I just don't understand how shorter is cheaper? But I guess if people really do go shorter in a recession there must be a reason?

[tangocurl]

Fascinating! I agree with the others here that the longer my hair gets, the cheaper it is to maintain, in savings on haircuts and the pile of half-used products purchased in a weak moment of wishful thinking.

Funny that they say hair length is opposite from skirt length as an economic indicator. We've all heard that skirts are longer when the economy is suffering: hemlines shot up during the twenties, and then lowered again in the 30s.

How do the 1950s work into these theories? During the postwar boom time, short hair was popular, as well as the "New Look" of longer, fuller skirts. I guess if one is going to vacuum in high heels, better not have long flowing hair in the mix. Could get dangerous....

[Feye]

I would have thought that hair goes longer during bad times. It's similar to how musicals and "fun" movies get an upswing when people need to cheer themselves up (at least that's what I've read that they do, correct me if I'm wrong)

I think it's funny that they drop a couple of celebrity names in the article as proof to this theory, as if those would be hit by the bad times! They're probably making money this year too.

And this quote by a professor is interesting: "When we feel stressed or threatened, we take on different preferences than when we feel safe and secure". This is why we cut our hair, according to the article. Long hair is usually thought of as a safety blanket, but now we apparently cut it short when we're feeling stressed or threatened. Interesting.

[JamieLeigh]

It takes more money to support a shorter hairstyle (the cuts, for instance. It costs ten bucks for a tiny trim at Cost Cutters, I can only imagine what it would cost in a private salon) than it does a longer one (put it up and forget about it). The only thing that would make long hair less cost-effective would be if you're trying to maintain highlights or use a lot of product in your hair daily.

[embee]

Heh. Seems to me counter to the long skirts / short skirts thing.

And *my* long hair journey began when *my* personal financial situation became difficult. I couldn't afford the upkeep of short hair with trims every time I turned around. I wonder what I've spent on my hair in the last year.... a few years back I bought a hair stick from Catstyle - it was about $15. I love it.

Products? Maybe $5. And a Denman brush perhaps last summer, not sure!

[may1em]

For me, long hair is cheaper, but from a conventional fashion standpoint, I can see where they're coming from. The "Glamour do" version of long hair involves extensions, coloring, styling, etc., and the longer the hair, the more of each. Beauty in artifice and what not. My version of long hair involves CO washing with cheap stuff and little or no product, but you're not going to see that in the magazines. Hey, we should have our own magazine! :cheese:

We don't need no stinkin' magazine! We have this place! :)

Yeah, long hair is definitely cheaper for me, too.

I have three kinds of shampoo:
Queen Helene Mint Julep, aka cheapest stuff on Earth;
Some VitaminShampoo that I got for sales tax and a postage stamp after the rebate (80 cents total);
and a bottle of VO5 I keep around if I need to clarify.

I may spend a little more on conditioner (8 on Aubrey Organics, 5 on Kiss My Face - I order online to save), but I'm also not washing every day or going to the salon because I self-trim, and I'm also not buying and using styling products. I also may have a small handful of expensive toys, but those are OPTIONAL.

[ericthegreat]

Its just an easily disproved myth really. But I can see how a non-LHC person would easily assume that short hair is more affordable.

Short hair = less hair. Longer hair = more hair. So if you are seeing things from this simple angle you would of course assume that longer hair requires more products and more maintainance.

Yes, longer hair will require a lot more conditioner, and you'll have to be more gentle with how you treat it in terms of brushing and combing it. But other than that, I've found that longer hair is just so much easier to control. Even on a "bad hair day", I can easily whip up a neat ponytail or a braid to make myself feel presentable.

[Rohele]

I agree, longer hair on me is definitely a cheaper option - I don't need monthly cuts and I use way less product in my hair.

To be fair, the article mentioned a few reasons besides simply maintenance cost as to why women cut their hair during a recession. Plus I think they were talking about really high maintenance long hair with extensions and a lot of styling, not the more natural look many of us prefer here.

[Reptilia]

Short hair costs way more! All the upkeep, and product to make it look decent. Long hair is so simple.

The ladies at my work with short hair spend about $60 a month just for cut/color, then there is product on top of that.

[Teakafrog]

Well I used to spend $90 every 6 weeks for a cut and color, and WAY more on products when I kept it SL. Now all I need is some cheap CO conditioner at $1-2 a bottle, and a bottle of good conditioner every month or so. No products, no coloring, only get a trim twice a year. Yeah, lots cheaper.

[Euphony]

I think a lot of what it is, is society's idea of long which is about shoulder length to bsl, I think ear lobe length is medium and pixie is short.

A pixie even for my thick, wavy hair is probably cheaper to maintain then my hair even is now. Though I've never wanted or had a pixie - I can't say for sure. And heck really, you could probably easily cut and maintain a pixie yourself with some clippers and a couple of guards.

I've had short hair, I think the shortest I've had is about ear lobe length (I listened to the stylist when she said it would make my face look thinner :rolleyes: ). I had a mass of hair about 2" long all over that stood just about on end. Once my hair grew to a long bob (roughly shoulder length) if I was a product junkie I'm sure I would've spent a ton on products. Instead I blow dried it straight and hoped for no humidity.

Once my hair gets about halfway from shoulder to bsl is when it starts to stay put and looks fine without a bunch of goop or the need to straighten it. But to average society that's very long - that's much longer than most women will ever have their hair in their entire life.

If people grew their hair longer they'd realize how inexpensive it is to care for it well.

[Fractalsofhair]

I suppose it depends on what women mean by long hair. Dying long hair does cost a ton, and it's more accepted to have one's natural hair color in a pixie, and highlights/multiple shades are not expected in such a short cut, rather as for longer hair, it's basically required if you dye your hair for it to not look flat. Now, the LHC long hair is the cheapest thing to do, it involves little cutting, cheap drugstore conditioners for CO washing, and a few hair toys. But what I see most women with "long" hair, they dye it, they bleach it, they have to get regular cuts, they have to flat iron it more(and thus need more conditioners), they get treatments at salons and they often have to chemically relax it. That costs a lot more than shampoo, conditioner and hairgel, and maybe a flat iron or some bleach(Able to be done at home!). A buzz cut is the cheapest hairstyle, or terminal length neglected straggly hair(Sorta a style...), worn down all the time. Or dreadlocks I guess.(Not quite totally sure of the care required.)

[Beatnik Guy]

But I guess if people really do go shorter in a recession there must be a reason?
I don't think they really do. But that wouldn't be much of story though would it? :rolleyes:

[Lady Mary]

Hmm, I thought the opposite to be true. Heck, look at the ladies from the 20s, super short bobs. When the Great Depression hit, hairstyles became longer. I'm not saying there's a direct correlation of course, just something I noticed.

Short hair takes a lot of upkeep, trimming, more products to keep it where it should stay. Longer hair can be cut less frequently (or cut never) pulled into an updo and washed less.

[Naamah]

Long hair is cheaper for me. I don't have to worry about getting it cut every couple of weeks to KEEP it short. The only thing I spend money on for my hair is conditioner. Which isn't very expensive.

[Fiferstone]

When you find your ideal hair care products in the food aisle (ACV, Coconut oil) rather than in the expensive salon or salon-wannabe hair product aisle, AND when you figure out how to do the self-trim and self-coloring methods, long hair is most definitely much cheaper than short hair.

If I spend 500 dollars on hair care products in a year, I'll be surprised, and as yet I have not been bitten by the "must collect hairtoys" bug.

[ilovelonghair]

Having a hair cut every 6 weeks (for very short hair) or every 3 months (for bobs) is quite expensive I think. Not cutting is so much cheaper :D

[dawnss]

Hmm I like this topic, and I am agreeing with most people short hair is more difficult to maintain. Yet it also depends on what type of hairstyle you have, I have my type 4a hair relaxed and I know that as my hair grows, my mom has to spend more money (buy more) on the relaxer set because my hair has grown. So the situation just depends on what you do to your hair and the type of maintence your hair requires. At least this is my opinion.