I ran to Target today to get tights for the girls for Easter and this is what I paid:
$1.89 (size 4-6x)
$3.99 (size 18-24 month)
Can anyone explain to me why the little bitty tights are $2 more than the big girl tights?
I should've bought some tights for myself, I bet they would've been like $.19 or something.
Why, oh why do retailers feel the need to exploit the pocketbooks of mommies with baby girls? Just because it's tiny, cute and pink doesn't mean it should cost more than what I paid for my entire spring wardrobe--which at this moment is about $7--since spring hasn't decided to show up yet--but you get my point.
By the way, I almost paid $86 for a Pink Floyd concert t-shirt that was converted into a baby girl dress. It was so rockin' and cute. But a rare moment of sensibility overcame me...
...thank goodness.
3 comments:
1. I want little girls with little girl tights!!!
2. Lovely bedspread! I want it too.
3. I want a little girl.
This made me so happy.
While I keep buying new undies for Jacob because of the POOP, you have bragged and bragged about the fact that your kids practically trained themselves.
Suck it up.
Your tights didn't cost that much either way.
Nowhere near the undie investment I've got going on. Some undies just ain't worth saving.
**You know I'm kidding... right?**
Oh that is annoying!
Post a Comment