$500 for a pair of khakis? Here's why.

[dhermann1]

Interesting article from the NY Times. They make a lot of points that are often discussed here. Question: Why is there nothing in between the $44 dollar cheapos and the $700 designer items?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/fashion/29ROW.html?8dpc

I

 

[JimWagner]

Interesting article from the NY Times. They make a lot of points that are often discussed here. Question: Why is there nothing in between the $44 dollar cheapos and the $700 designer items?

The article pretty well spelled out why the designer items cost what they do. If the machine made pants can be made for $44 then what process would be in between? Seems that particular void is more likely to be filled by the same cheap machine made items with a higher price tag and better marketing than anything else.

Or possibly locally made items that the manufacturer sells direct to cut out the middle man. Cutting out the middle man seems the only way to maintain quality and reduce the price. That's not done very often for any number of good reasons.

 

[Feraud]

“It sounds crazy to say this, I know, but our pants are a steal,”

He's right, it is crazy to say it.
As long as you are the guy doing the $tealing..

 

[mattfink]

"At Martin Greenfield, a union shop where employees earn about $13 an hour, before benefits, it takes an average of four hours of labor to make a pair of pants."

So, why aren't more things made here in the USA? $13 an hour sounds cheap and chips to me!

 

[JimWagner]

"At Martin Greenfield, a union shop where employees earn about $13 an hour, before benefits, it takes an average of four hours of labor to make a pair of pants."

So, why aren't more things made here in the USA? $13 an hour sounds cheap and chips to me!

My opinion is that the educational system in this country is and has been for some time intent on turning out little socially well adjusted politically correct anti-capitalist pliable consumers who think that earning a buck is somehow distasteful or evil unless it's by taking it out of tax payers' pockets. Those that want to make money think it's by having an MBA and counting beans instead of producing anything.

Pretty hard to replace yesterday's entrepreneurs from that pool.

 

[mattfink]

I don't think earning a buck is bad, just bending people over to the tune of $400 for some pants that are no better than the ones at the Gap.

 

[JimWagner]

I was only commenting on why we don't seem to be able to make the goods here any more. Nothing else really. Probably shouldn't have quoted the whole post. Sorry.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Okay but there is still the in-between price class ranging from 150-400$.

I know several people with own small fashion labels.
They sew by hand, have to buy the fabrics (wait for it when the supplier says it is out of stock) , do the accountancy, pay the taxes, do the webpage including web-shop, pack the packages, bring them to the postal office...and if anything goes wrong ...shit happens.
I don't know what they earn per hour.

To be fair: I can't afford most of thier stuff too. So I try to mix cheap stuff from the mall, vintage pieces from the thrift store or ebay and a few pieces from the few young fashion designers I like. I think thats fair.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I don't buy it. All those figures of $50+/yard fabrics are likely not typical of the actual material cost involved in producing "premium Khakis." What you are seeing is, the designer labels mentioned in the article using a media outlet to reinforce their brand's positioning.

There's a concept in marketing called brand equity, it is determined by multiplying the price premium by the quantity premium. By rattling off a bunch of figures for high priced materials, these not only justify their retail price points, but also signal to consumers the inherent quality of their product as well.

Price, more than anything else, is what signals quality to consumers (irrational as that sounds it is a FACT). A really good book about this topic is Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I was only commenting on why we don't seem to be able to make the goods here any more. Nothing else really. Probably shouldn't have quoted the whole post. Sorry.

Actually, a surprising amount of stuff is still manufactured in the United States. A lot of people are shocked to find out that only about 3% of items sold in the US are made in China.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

So with labor and fabric, the cost to make Mr. Sternberg’s pants was about $110 — a fifth of what they cost in a store.

I wonder what it is for the stuff they produce in large quantities in asia. (no offence

Less than a fifth or even more? And who gets the money? The designers, the workers (haha) or the dealers? Or even somebody else?

 

[mattfink]

I think there is no doubt that to stay in business a small designer that hand makes items needs to charge more. However, a giant fashion manufacturer that makes thousands of pieces does not. These guys are typically make reproductions of vintage items, not some fashionable catastrophe being shilled by some on-line magazine.

Further, I would like to assert that some of this hand made hype coming out of Japan sounds like bull shit to me. If they put "Union Made" or "Made In USA" on items that are clearly neither, who is to say they don't have things made in China or Thailand?

 

[mattfink]

Actually, a surprising amount of stuff is still manufactured in the United States. A lot of people are shocked to find out that only about 3% of items sold in the US are made in China.

Probably, a lot of stuff is made in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mexico, etc.. The fault of our illustrious g'ment who have sold us down the river.

 

[Trotsky]

It's the cost of labor, cost of regulation, cost of doing business in the US in the last 25 years has risen dramatically. Sure, your standard cobbler which is a one man band can do just fine, but any small company can be overwhelmed with regulation and labor costs. China has none of these problems, little regulation and cheap labor.
It's a Western thing, we can afford to luxury of environmental regulation, good working conditions and other things that breed a competent, well kept, healthy and happy work force. But businesses no longer think in the long term any more; they think quarter to quarter. Why do companies that survived 100 years go out of business? Because they only look a few months hence, instead of the decade outlook that the '40s and '50s possessed.
Why do you think so much labor is outsourced to Asia? Cheap, cheap labor. Many companies are finding out that technical support is not all its cracked up to be, but sewing a pair of pants is not as complicated as tech support.
Then there's the premium of owning a specialized item of clothing, prestige, if you will. Limited numbers of $500 pants exist, and the owner MUST be suave, cool and wealthy enough.

 

[Edward]

A story often repeated - not least by the man himself - is that when the current owner of Gibson guitars bought the company, sales of Les Pauls were down. He promptly doubled the price: sales rose. There are endless examples of this right across all sectors - software, even. Never underestimate the power of perceived value based on retail price - "This cost a lot of money, therefore it is worth a lot of money". The average consumer buys not the product, but the brand name attached thereto. Hence the availability of designer-name khakis, t shirts, and all sorts of basics, costing hundreds of dollars. Simples.

And, not to take this thread any further in a political direction than it has already strayed, it is pure and simple capitalism to seek to produce goods as cheaply as possible and sell them for as much as possible. Hence big names producing their goods overseas, outsourced to places where labour and materials cost less. It's not rocket science.

 

[Lou]

I've known people who would drop that kind of coin on a pair a khakis just because the price suggests that that brand is the one to have. I don't mind paying a bit extra for quality, but the prices in the article are way past my view of value.

Bill's Khakis appear to be of great quality, are made in the US, and sell for around $100. I'm just waiting for a sale at the local retailer.

 

[Edward]

I've known people who would drop that kind of coin of a pair a khakis just because the price suggests that that brand is the one to have. I don't mind paying a bit extra for quality, but the prices in the article are way past my view of value.

Bill's Khakis appear to be of great quality, are made in the US, and sell for around $100. I'm just waiting for a sale at the local retailer.

When next I'm in the US, I'll be sure to be looking into Bill's. Whereas when I was younger I looked for the cheapest option always - often as much about avoiding the big brand logos and names as it was about the price - I now find myself prepared to pay more for quality. Where I decide the ceiling lies on price vs quality.... well, that's always going to be a calculation based on the Law of Diminishing Returns; everyone's jump-off point there will be different. As yourself, I'm happy to pay for a quality garment. I truly can appreciate the quality of my new Aero Bootlegger over a 'mall jacket'; for me, that was worth it. One the other hand, I would simply be unable to bring myself to pay the sort of money that The Few's Buco-style jacket (see thread 'The Few') goes for. If others want to ,cool for them - I'd love to be able to. But as it sits.... it's not worth the extra to me. Quality, yes I will pay for. And I will develop a certain level of brand loyalty where I know I can trust a brand to provide me quality at a price I am happy to pay. I will never, however, pay for a brand alone. I'm especially incredulous at people who will pay thirty quid for a very ordinary (read: baggy, shapeless, unflattering) white t shirt with a giant (and often ugly - ref Tony Hellfinger or whatever it is) logo on it. Not only paying through the nose for a qualitatively similar garment, but doing so for the privilege of being a walking billboard?? Not me!

 

[MrBern]

I don't think earning a buck is bad, just bending people over to the tune of $400 for some pants that are no better than the ones at the Gap.

I thought the point was that the $400 garments were hand-made, and the $40 garments were machinemade.

A machine might make pants more cheaply, Mr. Sternberg said, but for a designer who wants to be known for quality, what would be the value in that?

Its all about the markup. The manufacturer marks up, the designer marks up, then the store marks up.
You could wait for a SALE, when the markup is lowered, but then your size might be gone....

 

[cptjeff]

I thought the point was that the $400 garments were hand-made, and the $40 garments were machinemade.

No, they said 'key details' were handmade. Like buttonholes. Didn't say anything about the stitching, and any supposedly handmade anything has machine stitching these days. It's a matter of where, and a matter of how much.

And machine stitching isn't actually bad- hand stitching just makes for better marketing. There are a few areas where it does matter, but khakis aren't one of them.

Also, they're adversing split waistbands as a justification for the price. It's not. You can buy $50 slacks with one. Doing those various things by hand doesn't improve quality any, it just drives up the labor cost so they can drag out articles like these to justify the price.

I will hand them the basting though. That's a real, honest to god added value. Not one I would feel is important on a pair of khakis, but it is something that does provide a legitimate benefit over your standard run of the mill pants.

No matter how they talk about it, there is very little difference from much cheaper pants. You're paying for the name.

 

[repeatclicks]

I don't buy it. All those figures of $50+/yard fabrics are likely not typical of the actual material cost involved in producing "premium Khakis." What you are seeing is, the designer labels mentioned in the article using a media outlet to reinforce their brand's positioning.

There's a concept in marketing called brand equity, it is determined by multiplying the price premium by the quantity premium. By rattling off a bunch of figures for high priced materials, these not only justify their retail price points, but also signal to consumers the inherent quality of their product as well.

Price, more than anything else, is what signals quality to consumers (irrational as that sounds it is a FACT). A really good book about this topic is Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational.

This is very true, and a few others quotes on here I have to agree with. The article stated that the trousers pass through more than 20 pairs of hands from start to finish. Why? My wife has made me two pairs and they have taken her about the same time to complete as the expensive ones, and everything on hers are entirely hand made. I got gabardine for mine, and yeah, she basted the seams on those and blind stitched the hems on the cuffs too. And NO, you CANT see the stitching. My fabric cost me £12 per metre.

However, I do work for a place that sells vintage furniture here in London. We sell a great deal of polished steel desks and other industrial furniture. The price for the desk when we find it in a yard somewhere in belgium is about £100-120. Then it gets transported back to London to be sandblasted. The desk then comes back to our restorer who polishes and lacquers the desk, finally reassembling it. The owner of the shop had to pay for petrol to get his van from London to Belgium round trip, plus food and lodging for one night, pay the sandblaster, pay the restorer, and pay the staff to sell it, plus a 10% discount (our standard if someone asks), plus 2% if they pay with a credit/debit card.

To make any money at all on this, he has to charge around £1000.

The same goes for any vintage clothes brought over from the US to here. After sourcing the clothes, flights, hotels, etc, what was a $100 jacket is now £225 over here.

Basically I can see both parts of the coin! :eusa_doh: