A very poorgeois pair: Mary-Kate Olsen and beau Nate Lowman (source: Just Jared)
Call it a cure for Sex and the City style bling bling, or perhaps a case of shoppers going "underground" with their spending, but the article I read on the Guardian website reports that wealthy women are still spending money on luxury goods; it's just their aesthetic that's changing. The fact that these types of consumers are embracing luxury in a new way; the tattered look a la pricey Balmain torn jeans is not exactly breaking news.
But my eyes tripped over the punny neologism used to describe these slum-as-glam types: the "poorgeois."
A few days ago, Eric Felten of the Wall Street Journal explored the attributes of this re-emerging trend and had this to say about camoflauging one's wealth by becoming poorgeois: "First, it won't work: Unless you're demonstrably destitute, dressing as if you don't have a job suggests that you have the luxury of living comfortably without one. As New York magazine put it three years ago, the grungy yupster look represents a 'convergence of downtown cool and easy, abundant money.' The second reason not to join the poorgeoisie? You have to dress like a bum."
Is anyone else bothered by this rampant recession-driven coining of new phrases? Yes, it's catchy and cute... But don't we already have vocabulary about this type? Bobo, yupster or grups, anyone? What do you think? Would you use this word?
***Hey you, don't be so poorgeois! Click here and enter to win an amazing Style Booster mini-makeover session with Mademoiselle Robot! Giveaway ends July 22nd. Click click!***