Hoarding is a psychological problem. I hope she gets help! I know I have tendencies too and when it gets ridiculous I clean house and donate. I am lucky than I am able to hit a tipping point, many are not able to on their own.

Jean often misses the point. i think the whole reason this segment ran is so jean could tax-deduct as a business expense Ludwig's treating jean for this behavior. It's pretty clear to me, from everything Jean writes and everything I've seen/read that jean is a compulsive shopper crying out for help. Her work is some kind of weird subconscious way of treating what is actually her own problem. I'm tired of the Today show catering to this. Fire her and get a finance editor who doesn't have a shopping issue, please. Before someone writes about it/ airs it in an expose.

Totally agree.

I worked at wal*mart for a time, and I know SOMETHING of their return policy... as worried as you are about "returned jars of food" don't be. Unfortunately Wal*Mart just throws all returned foods, including canned foods, in the garbage. They do it to protect their consumers, and when asked why they don't give returned food to a food bank? Well, that's simple, if they did that conspirators of "the walmart" would just do that all the time so Wal*Mart would have to donate the food. Items that are returned with the box completely in tact go back on the shelves. I'm pretty sure clothes have to be returned with the tags still on them. Obviously if stuff is rolling around or is filthy they won't put it back (I'm not even sure if they'd TAKE it back). There are some pretty strict return policies out there... Like BestBuy charges you something like 15% as a "restocking fee."

I think it was 60 Minutes, that did a undercover investigation on returning underwear. It was soooo foul! The undercover customers would return underwear with no tags or with STAINS (they made the stains but you get the idea as to what they were supposed to be stains of) to high and low end retailers, from Walmart to Victoria's Secret and the sales women would do the return and in no time return the exact same item to the sales floor. So ALWAYS wash your "New" underwear cause god knows where it has been.

I was once the "victim" of a scam. I went into Dayton's (now Macy's) in Minnesota and purchased a pair of jeans. I tried them on, loved them, then brought them home. Only after putting them on to go out for an evening did I happen to put my hand in the pocket. I discovered these pants had been worn, then returned. I looked at the tag and discovered somebody had pulled the tag off, then taped it back on. I didn't mind at all.

My "reward" for discovering I had been scammed? The buyer had stuffed a $50 in one of her pockets and left it there. The pants only cost me $29.99.

And yes, I did wash them before wearing them. Ewwwwww!

slightly off topic...but, when I hear ladies say that their clothes cost more than comparable mens, and is of less quality. I think...aren't womens clothes returned much more than mens....doesn't that result in lots not being sold because they are returned...so don't they have to charge much higher margins.

How about stopping that practice of returning stuff all the time ? It is wasteful, probably millions of gallons of gas are used each year returning stuff, in addition to the waste the returned products often become.

What's the problem with overbuying? There are certain hoarders, like magazines, boxes, filth and no room to walk in a house.

Re: goods. If someone has the money, then it is ok. They can buy storage containers.

Too many material goods?; give away the things you do not use, or give them as gifts.

It certainly is better than doing drugs, smoking or being an alcoholic.

Besides these addictions, it helping the economy.

"Live within your means". That's all.

In the end scheme of things, one cannot "hug" a vase. Try for a social outlet to compensate for the over buying.

John - returns are not the reason that women's clothes cost more. It's because from the time we are little girls, it's crammed down our throats that we have to dress in the latest fashions. Next time you are at a book store with a large magazine inventory, take a look at how many magazines focus on women's fashions and compare that to how many are for men's fashions. Retailers take advantage by charging more for ladies apparel. Just like everything else in life, retailers create a market for their merchandise and then charge through the nose for it.

I love the feel of flannel shirts in the winter time and have found that I can purchase a good quality men's shirt for half or more less than I would pay for a flimsier shirt in the women's department. The men's version is made from a thicker, better quality fabric and is better made.

Scales67:

I don't think buying what is in fashion today, applies anymore. It is the Apparel Retail Business that is suffering the most in hard times.

People will buy from stores like Consignment Shops, Goodwill, etc. Girls and Women like to wear Eclectic clothes now. Mixing the old and the new.

There are still some fashion shoppers out there, mostly the rich, or who can buy without credit, but the usual attire now is Jeans and a nice top. Shoes are a mania with women.

Men are easy re: their dressing---they don't care.

I agree scales67. Even young girls clothing costs a little more than boys. A plain white T for a girl costs more than boys. Sure it may only be a difference between $0.50 - $2 more, but why? I can understand if there are frilly collars or designs added, but there isn't.

It "bugs" me that plus size women pay the same price for a piece of apparel that a smaller sized person would pay.

How does this "even" out for the consumer. We are being gouged.

Hawaii2 - You don't get the point, which is that clothes made for females, whether they are women, teens or girls, always cost more than for men and boys regardless of whether they are bought from an expensive clothing store or Walmart. Just like Loo-E Loo-I posted, why should a boy's tee shirt cost half or less than the same simple tee shirt for a girl?

As for plus size women paying the same for clothes as a smaller sized woman, you have no idea what you are talking about. Try looking in any Pennys catalog. Yes, go on-line and take a look. The larger sizes are always more expensive than the smaller sizes. The same is true at Blair's.

What "bugs" me is people like you who have to complain about everything without first knowing the facts. Try volunteering or find something better to do with your time than worrying about whether life is fair.

Scales67:

I do get the point. Maybe I should have written a single post and not to you.

My pet peeve is Plus Size Women pay the same for their clothing as regular sized people.

Everything written are my beliefs. Sorry, wrong entry to you.

Volunteering and find something better than complaining life is not being fair?.

Dearie. You are "barking up the wrong tree". Another one with Assumptions about who is using the computer keys and their freedom of speech..

Now get going, and find a job.

My pet peeve is Plus Size Women pay the same for their clothing as regular sized people.

Hawaii2 - Still didn't take my suggestion and check the Pennys catalog to see that plus size women pay more for the same outfit. What's wrong? Afraid that you might find out that you are wrong? At department stores, where misses fashions are in one department and plus sizes in another, how is it even possible to make a comparison when the styles aren't the same? That's like comparing apples and oranges.

If you go into Target and want sweatshirts or sweatpants in an XXL or bigger...you are paying $2.00 more :)

Lynne:

$2.00 is a small price to pay, compared to gouging the customer who is smaller for same garment, using the large amount of material and labor involved.

Scales67:

Apparently, you haven't shopped lately. Of course Clothing Manufacturers make the same styles in both Misses and Plus Sizes! The Manufacturers are very with it; they are catering to the Plus Size Women's body.

BTW: What should I be afraid of. I don't care what other people think of what I write on the comment board..

Many people never get to this point in life. Too bad.

Material costs are pretty low compared to the designing/manufacturing/labor costs, which are the same across sizes. So the extra yard of fabric in an XL shirt is probably negligible. Does a few pennies really matter? I mean, how many shirts do you buy in a year... it probably doesn't even cost a dollar to "subsidize" the plus sizes!

Larger items cost more because they are not the same as the smaller ones. It's a totally different pattern. The size is not just increased by adding and inch or two here and there...it has to be redesigned. Larger sizes also take more material, thread, and materials to make. These costs are passed along to the consumer.

You're overestimating the wholesale cost of material and thread. It's negligible.

And you're forgetting that it only takes one pattern to make thousands of shirts... and that pattern takes the same amount of intellectual energy (and patent costs) whether it is a petite small, XXL, or somewhere in the middle. Perhaps a small shirt is "redesigned" to fit a larger person, or perhaps a large shirt is "redesigned" to fit a petite person. Does it really matter which one is made first?

There's no restocking fee if the item is junk, which is the only good reason to return something. I've also had to return things because the store associate recommended the wrong item, rendering it incompatible with something else, and therefore worthless to me. I've always been able to avoid the restocking fee in such cases, even if they were unable to exchange it for the correct item. You just have to be assertive. A "change your mind" return deserves a restocking free! A return you made because the store advised you wrong... does not.

I agree. I don't *buy* that all the people who shop/return/shop/return stuff are addicts. What about the people who buy things for temporary necessity just to be free-bee jerks? Video cameras for vacations - restocking charge probably cheaper than renting. Dresses for prom or other events. TVs for the Super Bowl (same as cameras). then they lie about fit or function so they can return it. There are those types of people that do that on purpose because they found they can get away with it. Gee, maybe there's a addiction for that.

Scales67:

This certainly is a spending society. What about the days, when saving to buy something or "lay away"! (Long time ago). Now it is paying huge interests on Credit Cards, putting the owner in debt.

The Younger Adult Generation today do not want to wait for their luxury items. Retirement will get them for sure. Who thinks about that?

You're right; the inability to delay gratification is not an addiction.

I read a recent study, conducted over a 30-year period, showing that the ability to delay gratification improved one's success in life more than IQ, health, looks, socioeconomic status, or a number of other variables. The single most important thing you can do in life (and teach your children to do) is resist impulses. It is the biggest predictor of success.

I used to work for an office supply company. They would no longer accept returns on digital cameras or laptops because people would buy them, use them, and return them...often without wiping the memory. (We saw a lot of term papers and graduation photos.)

If it was truly defective, we could exchange it for the same item only. This cut down on the "renters".

Sounds like there's a market for rentals...

Perhaps they should just offer a rental option in the first place, and charge what they must to be solvent and competitive.

Where do you shop? Places I shop don't say anything - they expect you to read their return policies that are on the wall as you pay for your stuff. All stores have some sort of return policy. It's the consumer's job to find out exactly what it is. I think there is a law that it has to be visible somewhere, but if the consumer doesn't read it, it falls on the consumer.

The chance that you won't return it doesn't mean every one else won't. ;-)

Agreed- If stores didn't have return policies I probably would never buy anything absolutely non-essential. I was never taught how to shop so I only began buying cloths (before I just wore really old stuff or things my friends got me) when I got a job at Target and realized that putting away returned items was no more difficult then putting away items carried to the other side of the store.

I began buying things and even though I returned half of them (because I decided the item didn't work with my wardrobe or I could find something better if I waited), I always returned them promptly and in good condition. In the end I spent more and was happier then if they didn't have a return policy. Making costumers feel guilty over it could be counter-productive for stores.

No, you're not the only one that thinks that way. Unethical? Sometimes yes & sometimes no. But, any way it's looked at, it's definitely unreasonable & a costly mistake to purchase from someone who uses cheap gimmicks to sell a product.

The media & advertising sometimes use cheap attention grabbing ploys to gain our attention. They also help contribute to the problems of senseless spending by those who they target. Look at how many lame commercials have little to do with the product they're selling to gain attention?

Sometimes, I think they're more out to make the manufacturers & sellers look good unto themselves than to the consumer.

Many of these seedy outrageous commercial ploys make me think that the sellers don't take their product or the consumer seriously. And, in both cases, it makes the seller look like a fool and or that they think the buyer is. Not good for anyone in my book.

Pennys Mom - the problem isn't with returning items. Its with people who buy an item for the purpose of using it and then returning it. For example, someone who buys a new flat panel TV for his Super Bowl party and then returns it the next day. There is also a problem with people who break or destroy an item on purpose just to get their money back. Those type returns cut into the profit margin and we all end up paying more as prices are increased to cover the loss.

Retailers hate returns. They deal with it in the interest of customer service but a company I worked for really cracked down on them. A return without a receipt required a driver's license. You got 3 of these returns per year before you were locked out for 12 months. (People would steal stuff and then return it without receipt.)

It also messed up our inventory counts. If we sold something, a replacement was sent from the warehouse. If the item was returned, we were immediately overstocked.

I had people come in and purchase three varieties of the same thing. When offered help to find the correct product, they would blow us off with, "I'll just return the two I don't want later." Ok, why don't you let me help you so you only purchase one today and save us all the hassle of the return later??

Also, if it wasn't in perfect condition, we either had to sell it at a reduced cost (often at a loss) or throw it out (again, a loss). Because of this, we did ban some of our heavy returners from the store. We had a certain subset of shoppers who liked to buy things, play with them at home, and then return them so they could buy more things. After a while, we had to invoke our right to refuse service to them since they were blatantly abusing our store.