This topic contains 23 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by  troll 3 months ago.

  • Author
  • #4586


    Is it discrimination if shops charge more for larger size clothes of the same range of clothing?

    More cloth is used, so why should this be subsidised by people who pay the same for smaller size clothing?

  • #4587


    The argument for penalising those who require bigger items strays into complicated territory if you think about people who happen to have large breasts, or who are taller than average – they’re effectively being penalised for their genes, which doesn’t seem particularly fair.

    • #4588


      I see your point but, pragmatically, as someone with size 14 feet, I would much prefer to pay a little more and actually be able to buy shoes than worry about “gene fairness”.

  • #4589


    The Material cost is a pretty small part of the price. Labour time would be the same, packaging would be the same, shipping costs would be the same, marketing would be the same. The difference between making a garment in small or XL is pretty miniscule really.

    • #4590


      Agreed – it only really gets complicated with things like bras, where larger sizes require more complex engineering. Though in that case, the material costs are small as, compared to a jacket or a pair of trousers, there’s not much material involved.

    • #4592


      I was thinking that the demand for XxxxL sizes would be smaller so volumes being made in those sizes would be lower but these days……

      Fatties could avoid the problem by eating less so save money on the food bill and clothing!

    • #4594


      I suspect the low numbers produced push prices up for large (or small) sizes. Particularly for shoes etc where lasts are needed.

    • #4596


      So who should cover the cost then of overly large people or people with large appendages such as breasts and feet?

      Cant really expect the manufacturer to pay for it, not their fault?

      What about other genetic body issues?

    • #4598


      I would happily pay more for tall sized clothes if it guaranteed I could actually get stuff long enough! Apparently as a woman you can’t be a 6 ft size 10 according to most outdoor clothing designers and manufacturers.

    • #4600


      Surely with bras for example, those designed for small cup sizes are really a different product from those designed for large cup sizes, as you suggest one can be quite a simple product and the other far more complex, designed to offer a much higher level of support. These are generally sold at different price points.

      As others have pointed out, material costs are a relatively small part of the retail price and manufacturers choose not to differentiate for marketing reasons. Of course if you look at the outdoor industry, XL versions of sleeping bags and bivvy bags are sometimes offered at a premium.

  • #4591


    They can charge what they like, doesnt mean you have to pay.

  • #4593


    If you look at the products on offer at discount shops like TKmaxx and on the end of season sale rails you’ll notice immediately that they are mostly stupidly big or small. These items obviously don’t sell as well as the middle sizes and therefore the economies of scale aren’t as substantial.

  • #4595


    Can we apply the same thinking to portion sizes in restaurants?

    • #4597


      Most of the price is shop overheads, staff, rent, design, marketing, hanger space. The cloth cost is negligible.

      But it is capitalism, so the price is what people will pay. So the question is, what does society want to pay due to an innate sense of fairness ?

      In restaurants here it is more accepted that high price ingredients get the higher markups, while other countries have a smaller markup combined with a cover charge. We can shop at whichever shop has the ethos we approve of. Up to you.

      (As a different example, I will pay a little more for Patagonia clothing, because not only do they believe that womenswear should prioritise function and have proper pockets rather than fake ones, they spend some of their profits on environmental causes)

    • #4602


      Can we apply the same thinking to portion sizes in restaurants?

      ‘We’ do, with fast food particularly – that’s part of the problem.

      As with clothes, the cost of the raw material is a tiny fraction of the price of the finished article. (Hilariously so with post-mix fizzy pop which is ludicrously cheap to produce.)

      So if you charge a little bit more for a significantly bigger portion, you make more profit. What you do, as the proprietor of a fast-food restaurant to capitalise on that is offer a larger portion, “supersize”, whatever for only a little bit more money. Seems like an absolute bargain. Over time, the “supersize” portion becomes the regular size, so you do it again. And again.

  • #4599


    Is it fair that people are charged more to travel ‘when they have to’ in order to get to their job (i.e. peak fares)

  • #4601


    Most of the clothes in these stores are dirt cheap anyway.

    Are they afraid that spending a bit more on large clothes means there’s less money left over for them to stuff their mouths with cake ?

    Of all the things to complain about while the world goes to hell in a hand cart.

  • #4603


    More cloth is used, so why should this be subsidised by people who pay the same for smaller size clothing?

    Not just more cloth, also more sewing so more manufacturing cost.

    My guess is the more significant thing is that ‘extreme’ sizes sell far fewer units and are another inventory item for the manufacturer and stores to carry which takes space and a risk of being left holding inventory that might need to be sold off at a loss. For example, without outdoor clothing it’s the XXL jackets that get the 50% discounts in the last week of the sale.

  • #4604


    It’s discriminatory if there is a single point where the price changes.

    Don’t forget that most shops work on a markup. So even if the material costs are a small element, those costs are at source and everything gets a %age added, not a fixed amount.

    Transport costs? If you can get 20 size 8 dresses in a box but only 10 size 16 dresses jna box then transport costs are doubled.

    The costs are more but most retailers swallow them. As pressure increases on prices then the retailers can’t afford to hide these costs.

    • #4615


      It’s discriminatory if there is a single point where the price changes.


      To say this issue is discrimination, Waters down what the meaning was originally intended for such as sex, race or religious descrimination which could have serious consequences to those involved.

      We’re talking about a product that a retailer can set what ever price they want, and a customer who can choose to either buy the product or take their money elsewhere.

      Not exactly descrimination to me.

      As for people who are taller than the average or have larger feet than average, then they have limited options where they have little option than to choose bespoke solutions but that has always been a fact of life.

      How about another extreme such as air travel?

      The seat price is the seat price irrespective of weight. Should this not change to total weight of cargo, as in customer + baggage?

  • #4605


    As several people have pointed out, the difference in production cost will be negligible.

    I think this will be more about retail space.

    Shops have a limited amount of space in which to display their wares, and will typically require to make a certain amount of profit per square unit of area per unit time. (Certain areas of the display may be premium, too – where things sell better, so it’s best to have more profitable items on display.)

    If something sells in large quantities, they can get by with making a smaller margin on each sale; if it is purchased less frequently, they’ll need to make more on each sale, or remove it from display and replace it with something which does better.

    So it may just be that fewer of the large fit items are sold, so it isn’t worth selling them unless more can be made per item.

  • #4606


    I’d happily pay more if it meant more shops stocking Size 13 shoes. Ironically though the place that I find is best at stocking them is Sports Direct where they are nice and cheap.

    Other clothes (specifically 38″ waist 35″ leg trousers[1]) I don’t mind, I know what fits me so just order it online, if the shops don’t want my business I’m happy not to give it to them.

    Why is it that you have to be short and stocky/fat or tall and skinny, and you can’t just be “massive”?

    • #4607


      Totally agree! Would happily pay a bit more if big stuff fitted, the current situation is that retailers assume being tall and having broad shoulders means you have an epic gut resulting in most shirts and jackets resembling teepees.

      For anyone needing athletic, tall man smart-casual clothes that look acceptable in the office the Arc’teryx A2B polo shirts and chinos are pretty dam good.

  • #4614


    Its the price we pay for having incredibly low cost clothing, which is only so cheap because we are prepared to outsource the manufacture to someone in another part of the world that has a much lower cost of living.

    We have been so conditioned into the low cost of goods there is an outcry when we have to pay more for something that fits anyone outside the standard bodyshape.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.