What does this have to do with the thread you're responding to (besides both comments being shit takes)?

Also, for the "average shopper" in the West (as in, someone who is not actually poor), it is untrue. Buying Patagonia is simply a matter of priorities. E.g. a Patagonia vest costs between 119 and 199 USD. At that price, it's much less expensive than the most expensive thing in that "average shopper's" household.

But to a lot of people that vest will be less important than, say, a dishwasher or a car. Or maybe they actually want a vest but they prioritize buying 5 super-cheap vests to have more choice.

Nb: There are luxury items that those people literally can't afford. And there are also people below the poverty line who indeed never have 120 USD on hand at once. Neither is relevant here.

[Edit: Quite honestly, I would be interested in why I get downvotes on the observation that, above a certain wealth threshold, which items people spend money on depends on their priorities.]