@therealjrn
We work hard to keep costs low across the board. Buying 2 4XL tshirts on mediocritee still comes out to $19.50 (+tax).
To be clear, we don’t profit more from larger sizes. We just don’t lose money on them. The larger blanks cost more, which sucks.
There is a solid discussion for size discrimination and price gouging in the clothing and fashion industries for sure. There’s some debate regarding more resources per item (fabric and extra sewing time, etc.), but there’s strong evidence to suggest that the price jump doesn’t equal the higher resource usage.
@therealjrn@Thumperchick not to belabor it, but are petite sizes less expensive? Not that I’m aware. So it seems the cost of inputs argument is only applicable on the upside (speaking generally, not specific to meh or mediocritee).
@therealjrn@Thumperchick@ybmuG look online at places like jiffyshirts… you’ll see how petite blanks aren’t less expensive, but above 1x is more. Then add the fact that the vinyl/screenprinting/sublimation has to be significantly larger to cover an appropriate amount of the shirt to look the same as the smaller sizes.
@therealjrn@Thumperchick@ybmuG not sure who you’re referring to by “they”… but if a medium size shirt has an image, for example, 7" across… a 4x size shirt would look ridiculous with a 7" image. It needs to be larger to be of the same proportions.
Sublimation is a special printed image, when pressed at a certain temp and pressure, changes the ink directly to a gas, making the image permanent on the fabric. Won’t have the risk of peeling like heat transfer vinyl, or cracking like screenprinting.
Roughly, the costs of a shirt are materials and labor/machine time for assembly. Ignore shipping for the moment.
For a smaller shirt, labor/machine time makes up a much larger proportion of the cost than for a larger shirt. By the time you get up to whatever XL, the costs of materials become a more significant factor. It’s also possible that a 3XL cannot be made on the same machine as a L, while an XS can.
And, I may be wrong, but I don’t think material usage scales linearly with size. A large might take 1.5 times the raw material of a small. A 4XL might take eight time the raw material. You don’t save that much money making an small versus a large, but you spend a lot more making a 4XL.
@Limewater@therealjrn@Thumperchick@ybmuG but a petite uses far less material than a misses. A pair of jeans or slacks has roughly four less inches of material on the leg with a shorter torso and a slimmer cut for the same size in misses.
If this is the case and we charge more for plus sizes because of the cost of labor and material, then shouldn’t us shorties be able to purchase our clothes a bit cheaper?
@Limewater@therealjrn@tinamarie1974@ybmuG sewing smaller clothing items can be more difficult, surprisingly. Scaling for skillset required may be part of why there’s no cost drop for petite items.
@Limewater@therealjrn@Thumperchick@tinamarie1974 So, it really just boils down to a price disadvantage for larger sizes. I get it. They’re really just being helpful, if you think about it. They’re creating a financial incentive against obesity.
Say it costs a quarter for material to make a size Large shirt, and a dollar for machine time to sew the shirt. So, $1.25 to make a size large.
A size small uses half the material, but machine costs are the same. So, $0.125 for material, and $1.00 for machine time yields $1.125 per shirt.
A size 4XL uses 8 times the material. So, $2.00 in material and $1.00 in machine time for $3.00 per shirt.
Going from large to small saves the manufacturer twelve and a half cents. Going from 4XL to Large saves the manufacturer $1.75
Those proportions are made up. I don’t know the real numbers. But I do know that material usage in an article of clothing does not scale linearly.
Another factor that we’re not considering is waste. Fabrics come in fixed widths, and there is a lot of waste in mass clothing production. A pair of jeans is primarily made up of four quarter-pieces. Front-left, front-right, back-left, and back-right. For smaller sizes, the manufacturer might be able to get all four of these cut from a single yard of fabric. But there’s not a lot of elasticity there. They can get four quarter-pieces from a yard whether they are size 36x34 or size 28x34. The extra left over from making the smaller jeans is just waste.
At some size, they cross a threshold and can’t get four quarter-pieces out of a single yard of fabric. Material usage suddenly goes up significantly.
They also only go down to medium on this deal. There is a real issue with folks on the other end of the scale finding adult clothes that will fit them.
The first time around I think these were 2 for $20 but they had up to 3XL… So it looks like the fast fat people got jackets and now there aren’t any left.
Oh, @PooltoyWolf, @PooltoyWolf, @PooltoyWolf You always think the best about things! No, it is not. I was reminded that meh sold these February 12th and I bought a 3X and a 2X.
FOR $2 MORE EACH!
I just found them, I never opened them up–they’re kind of a nice light jacket. I need to go find some gold chains to wear with them.
Me too!
<.<
>.>
Mediocritee Usually goes up to 4XL and has new designs weekly.
Yeah, for an extra price, we can get larger sizes at Mediocritee Isn’t it time you quit discriminating Meh?
@therealjrn
We work hard to keep costs low across the board. Buying 2 4XL tshirts on mediocritee still comes out to $19.50 (+tax).
To be clear, we don’t profit more from larger sizes. We just don’t lose money on them. The larger blanks cost more, which sucks.
There is a solid discussion for size discrimination and price gouging in the clothing and fashion industries for sure. There’s some debate regarding more resources per item (fabric and extra sewing time, etc.), but there’s strong evidence to suggest that the price jump doesn’t equal the higher resource usage.
aww, @Thumperchick, I was just yankin’ yer chain…next Imma go to Burger King and ask why they charge more for large french fries.
@therealjrn @Thumperchick
@therealjrn @Thumperchick not to belabor it, but are petite sizes less expensive? Not that I’m aware. So it seems the cost of inputs argument is only applicable on the upside (speaking generally, not specific to meh or mediocritee).
@therealjrn @Thumperchick @ybmuG they are NOT!! This has been my argument for YEARS
@therealjrn @Thumperchick @ybmuG look online at places like jiffyshirts… you’ll see how petite blanks aren’t less expensive, but above 1x is more. Then add the fact that the vinyl/screenprinting/sublimation has to be significantly larger to cover an appropriate amount of the shirt to look the same as the smaller sizes.
@jnicholson0619 @Thumperchick @ybmuG You think “they” change the size of the graphics? I don’t know what sublimation is.
@therealjrn @Thumperchick @ybmuG not sure who you’re referring to by “they”… but if a medium size shirt has an image, for example, 7" across… a 4x size shirt would look ridiculous with a 7" image. It needs to be larger to be of the same proportions.
Sublimation is a special printed image, when pressed at a certain temp and pressure, changes the ink directly to a gas, making the image permanent on the fabric. Won’t have the risk of peeling like heat transfer vinyl, or cracking like screenprinting.
@therealjrn Sublimation yields shirts like this:
It really only works with polyester, though.
(Also I still don’t know why I
spentwasted $6 for it. Whoever owned it before didn’t care to wear it either.)@therealjrn @Thumperchick @tinamarie1974 @ybmuG I don’t know. I think that aspect of the pricing structure kind of makes sense.
Roughly, the costs of a shirt are materials and labor/machine time for assembly. Ignore shipping for the moment.
For a smaller shirt, labor/machine time makes up a much larger proportion of the cost than for a larger shirt. By the time you get up to whatever XL, the costs of materials become a more significant factor. It’s also possible that a 3XL cannot be made on the same machine as a L, while an XS can.
And, I may be wrong, but I don’t think material usage scales linearly with size. A large might take 1.5 times the raw material of a small. A 4XL might take eight time the raw material. You don’t save that much money making an small versus a large, but you spend a lot more making a 4XL.
@Limewater @therealjrn @Thumperchick @ybmuG but a petite uses far less material than a misses. A pair of jeans or slacks has roughly four less inches of material on the leg with a shorter torso and a slimmer cut for the same size in misses.
If this is the case and we charge more for plus sizes because of the cost of labor and material, then shouldn’t us shorties be able to purchase our clothes a bit cheaper?
@Limewater @therealjrn @tinamarie1974 @ybmuG sewing smaller clothing items can be more difficult, surprisingly. Scaling for skillset required may be part of why there’s no cost drop for petite items.
@Limewater @therealjrn @Thumperchick @tinamarie1974 So, it really just boils down to a price disadvantage for larger sizes. I get it. They’re really just being helpful, if you think about it. They’re creating a financial incentive against obesity.
@therealjrn @Thumperchick @tinamarie1974 @ybmuG
I think you’re missing what I’m saying. I am going to assign some numbers. These are made up-- I don’t know the real numbers.
Say it costs a quarter for material to make a size Large shirt, and a dollar for machine time to sew the shirt. So, $1.25 to make a size large.
A size small uses half the material, but machine costs are the same. So, $0.125 for material, and $1.00 for machine time yields $1.125 per shirt.
A size 4XL uses 8 times the material. So, $2.00 in material and $1.00 in machine time for $3.00 per shirt.
Going from large to small saves the manufacturer twelve and a half cents. Going from 4XL to Large saves the manufacturer $1.75
Those proportions are made up. I don’t know the real numbers. But I do know that material usage in an article of clothing does not scale linearly.
Another factor that we’re not considering is waste. Fabrics come in fixed widths, and there is a lot of waste in mass clothing production. A pair of jeans is primarily made up of four quarter-pieces. Front-left, front-right, back-left, and back-right. For smaller sizes, the manufacturer might be able to get all four of these cut from a single yard of fabric. But there’s not a lot of elasticity there. They can get four quarter-pieces from a yard whether they are size 36x34 or size 28x34. The extra left over from making the smaller jeans is just waste.
At some size, they cross a threshold and can’t get four quarter-pieces out of a single yard of fabric. Material usage suddenly goes up significantly.
@Limewater @therealjrn @Thumperchick @tinamarie1974 No, I get the math and the concepts, just being snarky
@Thumperchick Why not give small people a discount instead of charging large people more?
@medz @Thumperchick
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
@medz @therealjrn @Thumperchick How about this: XXL and up is full price. XL and lower is $2 less…oh wait…
@medz @Thumperchick @ybmuG A discount is so much fairer than an upcharge. lol
They also only go down to medium on this deal. There is a real issue with folks on the other end of the scale finding adult clothes that will fit them.
@Limewater Yes! Petite and Plus sizes are underserved markets.
@Limewater @Thumperchick I feel the petite issue constantly. Everything has to be hemmed because I’m a shorty.
(Not really my birthday)
@Gypsigirl213 @Limewater @Thumperchick me too! It makes everything so expensive
The first time around I think these were 2 for $20 but they had up to 3XL… So it looks like the fast fat people got jackets and now there aren’t any left.
@djslack Who would have thought?
Is it possible the product currently being offered was simply never manufactured above a certain size?
Oh, @PooltoyWolf, @PooltoyWolf, @PooltoyWolf You always think the best about things! No, it is not. I was reminded that meh sold these February 12th and I bought a 3X and a 2X.
FOR $2 MORE EACH!
I just found them, I never opened them up–they’re kind of a nice light jacket. I need to go find some gold chains to wear with them.
@PooltoyWolf @therealjrn
/giphy Tulsa high fashion
@f00l More of an Northern East Coast city look, but we can be fashion-forward here out in the sticks too!