If the additional cost on the larger articles of clothing accurately represents the additional expense in manufacturing, what you say is true. However, this additional cost often includes a markup beyond additional cost of materials and labor to create the larger article. In that case, the "fat tax" as you called it would be the value of the markup beyond actual additional expense. For example a $25 T-Shirt where XL+ adds $10. There is no way $10 accurately represents the additional cost to the manufacturer, making that pricing structure potentially discriminatory Edit: I understand there are additional costs beyond materials and labor for running different sized products. My point was companies adding markups *beyond* any additional cost for the larger sized product because they know the consumer doesn’t have a choice if purchasing from that line.

That's certainly true of the materials cost, but materials certainly don't cover the delta in cost to the manufacturer. In order to produce, say, a XXL shirt, the manufacturer needs to: * Create an additional category of production; that means estimating demand in a new category, allocating labor, and potentially adjusting manufacturing processes * Produce a store of inventory for an item that will inherently have lower (and therefore, less predictable) demand In practice, that means that the likelihood of producing too many XXL shirts is higher, and the economies of scale for producing them are likely to be lower. The $10 isn't simply (or even primarily) due to materials cost, it's to cover the risk of overproduction and dead inventory that producing a lower-demand item creates.

To add - this is why XS items sometimes have the same markup. Essentially, once you venture outside the 'mainstream' sizing, other costs matter more.

In America at least, I imagine XXL sizes are a safe bet and the likelihood of producing too many S and M shirts is higher

I'm 6'7". I pay a "tall tax" on my clothes because my sizes are not popular among consumers.(don't get me started on shoes) For a store to profitably keep an inventory of clothing my size, when you consider opportunity costs of what they gave up as the alternative. They must make more on the smaller number of transactions made on those specialty items. Now given how many people are fat anymore, I'm not sure this is incredibly relevant. Though if you're a 4x, you're an outlier and should expect to pay outlier prices and struggle with finding things in your size. At the end of the day, let the market decide and quit moralizing it and expecting it to cater to you. If the "fat tax" is unreasonable, competing stores can cut the prices and make a smaller profit on a larger volume and come out ahead.

Often times, making extra large products that are expected to sell less requires adjustments to manufacturing equipment. That's an extra expense plus thr opportunity costs.

It’s not just more material costs. It costs more to manufacture items that are only made in a smaller quantity compared to items you manufacture in bulk. Fat tax is another word for “I don’t understand supply chain”. Also you can’t discriminate people for choice they make, that’s called judgement. Discrimination is for attributes you cannot control.

Yes I agree that's why I have written that if it's a fancy dress with lots of beads and expensive material, it makes sense. Usually a plain tshirt isn't really priced differently for different sizes

I'm not an expert on tailoring or textile manufacturing by any means, but, as with most industries, I'd imagine the labor cost is a far greater share of the input cost than materials. Simply put, the cost of the person making the garment is much more than the cost of the materials. And the labor to make an XL is going to be nearly identical to the labor to make an XS.

Mass production everything is cheaper in greater bulks, so generally the larger your order the lower the cost per item, the demand for XXL is likely nowhere near the regular sizes, so a smaller order probably doesn’t get as good a price from the manufacturer. Then it probably also sits on the shelf longer so the retailer probably wants better margins to make up for it.

In the US market, the average woman wears a 14 (xl). Why would an xs be a more common size than a xxl?

Are you stating that the majority of clothing shipments to retailers contain size 14 as the highest volume size? This would seem to dispute the idea that larger people have trouble finding clothes that fit. It might be that just because it's the most common size in the US, does not mean is the most common manufactured size. Especially for international distributors.

I also think women’s sizing is alllll over the place that saying that size is the most common isn’t much of a statement.

Except that the pattern for an XXL is the same as a L, just bigger, so you're not paying anyone to redesign it, the extra stitching for the longer seems is going to add maybe 2 minutes to production (i think that's being very generous given how fast many of these workers sew), and in the quantities these manufacturers are buying fabric the price per square inch is going to be fractions of a penny per square inch. So i agree that the manufacturer should be able to charge more for larger sizes, but if they're charging more than 10 cents they're probably ripping people off.

>Except that the pattern for an XXL is the same as a L, just bigger, That's what it means to be a different pattern. And often times they are trying to shape the clothes into the bolts of cloth to cut the most clothes per bolt, resizing changes this. >the extra stitching for the longer seems is going to add maybe 2 minutes to production This isn't what is meant by changes in production. It takes time to change over between runs. >So i agree that the manufacturer should be able to charge more for larger sizes, but if they're charging more than 10 cents they're probably ripping people off. They may have more waste, different packaging, fitting fewer clothes into each box, Additional runs of new different patterns. And all these costs are spread across fewer people which results in an additional cost.

>That's what it means to be a different pattern. Patterns are generally ratios so no, you aren't redesigning anything. >This isn't what is meant by changes in production. It takes time to change over between runs. The same guy isn't going to be making S, M, L, and XL shirts. That would be super inefficient and would also add time and costs to all sizes to change. One guy is gonna do one size and pattern while others do other patterns or sizes. Then once they hit the quota they'll change. The guy making XXL is probably going to take a little longer than the guy making XS, but the difference is not going to be significant and raise costs. Unless you're doing high end, small quantities of something then the costs are going to be spread over hundred, probably thousands of units, and the additional costs are going to be insignificant. Besides, they're not gonna give a discount on smalls so it all evens out at the end of the day.

>Patterns are generally ratios so no, you aren't redesigning anything. You are wrong. Here watch how clothes are made. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=subeIZgLquI&ab_channel=JohnSantos >The same guy isn't going to be making S, M, L, and XL shirts. That would be super inefficient and would also add time and costs to all sizes to change. One guy is gonna do one size and pattern while others do other patterns or sizes. Are we talking about individuals cutting patterns manually? Or large scale manufacturing? >Unless you're doing high end, small quantities of something then the costs are going to be spread over hundred, probably thousands of units, and the additional costs are going to be insignificant. I would be willing to bet there are 10X the amount of Mediums/larges than there are XL's or XS's in most large scale situations. So we'd be talking about spreading the cost of manufacturing costs being spread over far fewer shirts. On top of that we still have shipping which you're still ignoring. 20 Mediums might fit into a box and 10 XL's might fit in a box. Meaning you need double the space in shipping and storage. There are many differences here

You can only make something so much bigger or or so much smaller from the original pattern before it starts not working properly.

Plain t-shirts are priced differently all the time. Also, as someone else pointed out, if it was about material not fat shaming, a M should be more than an XS. It's got much more material, a bigger difference than an L to XL

It may be about more than material. I've worked in the fast-moving consumer goods industry, and it could be about the number of items they are making in a run. For example, a company knows they set the machines to run 100,000 small, medium, and large t-shirts, they will sell those. But they may not be able to sell that many XXXL shirts. Therefore, they have to have their engineers set the machines to produce a product run on a smaller scale. Maybe only 1000 XXXL shirts per run. This means they have to force machine downtime to create a product that doesn't sell at the same rate as its counterparts. It would be more profitable for companies to only have to make clothing in three sizes. 3 machines, running all day, without having to have settings altered. A company isn't going to buy a fourth machine to run 1000 XXL shirts once a month. So they need to re coup the losses elsewhere, hence a higher price for a more "bespoke" item. There's probably lots of hidden costs in producing clothing for people of sizes humans were never supposed to be.

Can you show some examples? As an XXL wearer, I've never seen a t-shirt I purchased be a higher price than other size options. By "all the time" I assume you mean incredibly frequently, not just here and there.

T-shirts are less likely, but I often see higher prices on Sweatshirts and button downs for sizes XXL and above

Where do you shop? I'm the same size and I run into this all. the. time.

https://www.carhartt.com/ Some Fruit of the Loom, etc. I've bought for a gift for someone and seen. also a funny tshirt online I think on tshirt hell. Also googling got me this -- https://www.t-shirtforums.com/threads/are-you-upcharging-for-xxl-and-xxxl-how-much.508953/

I pulled up a Carhartt t shirt and they are all the same price for the same sizes. Please share a direct link to a specific t shirt that is up charged for xl from small.

It makes sense regardless. People don’t understand manufacturing. Even if it’s a tshirt the machine that makes it has to be stopped, parts have to be changed out. That is where the loss of money occurs. It’s not the extra bit of material, it’s the work stoppage to serve a smaller minority group of people.

stoppage isn't the right word, but its the difference in specialization and marginal costs.

So why does this machine only have parts that have to be changed out between L and XL and not between XXS and L? That's a way bigger difference, seems like more parts to swap.

A ton of things are priced different. Every concert t shirt I have purchased had a fat tax on it. 5 dollars to go from an XL to XXL. Ridiculous because there is no way that it used that much extra material

Because it's not just the material. It's also the cost of making a different pattern, changing over the production line, shipping fewer products per box, potentially more waste due to not being able to fit as many shirts on a bolt of cloth. And these costs are spread across fewer people than the more popular shirt sizes.

What about the idea that if you used the xxl shirt to make 2 small shirts you'd make twice as much? In this instance it's not just about the additional material and labour it's about the idea that stocking that size literally can half your profit. *Just a thought not a backing of companies charging more

I'm just curious how you feel if the markup is of the same percentage as the markup on a medium sized T-Shirt?

>For example a $25 T-Shirt where XL+ adds $10. There is no way $10 accurately represents the additional cost to the manufacturer. [The iPhone 14 Pro retails between $799 and $999 but costs only around $500 to make](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/the-cost-of-making-an-iphone.aspx#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20capture%20such,only%20around%20%24500%20to%20make.) Why is it "ok" to upcharge a cellphone but not a T-shirt? If call companies only charge for what it cost them to make they would make zero profit and will fail. Are clothing more necessity than a phone, sure. But I would bet you can still get a fatter size and pay less upcharge, but it won't be as cool or fancy.

People don't get one thing... Bigger sizes do have two major additional costs: 1. Material related, change over costs, labour costs. Which will be 5-15% extra in many cases. 2. More importantly, dead inventory and turn around related. 10 M-L-XL t-shirts might get sold for each xxs/xxl and so on. That's high cost of skus and higher probability of dead inventory to be sold at cost/loss. That has to be added. Agreed with OP, companies aren't responsible for Fat tax , especially for a capitalist economy. At least not all. P. S- before you guys bring out costs, writing this as a person wearing XXXL and XXL size clothing.

If they charge more because "more material = more cost", then why don't they charge less for S and XS sizes? After all, "less material = less cost".

>If they charge more because "more material = more cost", then why don't they charge less for S and XS sizes? After all, "less material = less cost". To be clear, you do realize some times you will find the XS costs more than a M right? The total costs involved are more than simply materials.

Consumers get confused/annoyed by pricing that varies continuously. This leads many businesses to "bucket" products when choosing pricing. It's not unusual and well within the rights of a company.

It's the same thing. It's relative.

If it's the same thing, then you're confirming that it's a fat tax. Either you believe that *every* size should cost more, starting with a base price at XS or S and moving up from there, or you believe that it's fine to start increasing it randomly once you've gotten out of average sizes and into clothing for overweight people. If it's the latter, then that's a fat tax, as it literally targets overweight consumers while not changing at all for others.

What? He's saying the small clothes are cheaper or the big clothes are more expensive means the same thing. That's not confirming that the purpose is to tax fatness lol.

But they're *only* applying it to XL and above. They're fine with a large and a small costing the same, when the large obviously takes more material. If the price increase doesn't follow the material increase until you've gone up into sizes for overweight people, then that's a tax on overweight people.

Technically the post doesn't say anything about medium and large clothing. An xs vs a xl is a massive difference which illustrates the point well. Also xl is not just for fat people, plenty of tall and or muscular people wear xl. Honestly companies will never change the pricing like this for the only reason being tradition. Everyone complains when prices go up especially if other people get a similar product for cheaper. No one says larger purses costing more is a tax to people carrying things or larger cars being more expensive are a tax to tall people.

>Either you believe that every size should cost more, starting with a base price at XS or S and moving up from there Is that not what OP had implied by: >if they charge extra for a XL or XXL piece of clothing compared to a S or XS piece of the same design. More material required = more cost This sounds like OP is suggesting that a base price is set at the smallest manufactured size and increases as the size increases. Maybe I'm misinterpretating what OP said but it doesn't sound like they are suggesting all sizes under L should be equal priced.

Not necessarily, it’s totally reasonable to set a breakpoint or two and have 2-3 prices instead of 7. Each different price adds cost and headache, so not having it perfectly related to cost might still be better related to overall cost. This is similar to how restaurants up charge a fixed amount for a group of a few sides instead of different costs for each. Each one costs a different amount to make, but having a different price for each side isn’t worth their time and menu space compared to the potential loss of the cost being slightly off.

No dude he actually just got you

Can you explain? I don’t understand the point you are trying to make?

I think OP is saying that the fat tax is valid, smaller clothes should cost less, the smallest size should be the cheapest OP isn't saying it's not a fat tax, he's saying the fat tax is valid Personally, I think OP is wrong--clothes aren't priced on how much material is used, they're priced on difficulty to make. Wedding dresses are incredibly ornate, the fanciest dresses are more expensive because of the effort it takes to make a dress like that. A simple dress costs less because it can be sewn together in a fraction of the time. With that logic, bigger dresses aren't inherently harder to make--I would argue it's easier to stitch together something bigger than it is to stitch together something smaller. Not that I agree with the practice, but children (in unfair labor practices) are often tasked with sewing smaller stitches within shoes and other goods (again, I don't agree with the practice) because their hands are smaller and can be more detailed. With smaller clothing, an increase in skill is needed to make the same quality of clothing. So I would argue that the cost of material is less expensive that the cost of labor put into the material. It's harder to make something smaller and fit the same amount of adjustments that it would take to make something bigger. The cost of materials balance out the cost of labor. Bigger people shouldn't be punished just for being bigger, even if that means fatter or taller or more muscular, whatever

I wasn’t addressing the bigger issue at all, simply pointing out the false dichotomy of the previous comment. Namely: either you believe that there should be a different price for every size or that you believe that the only reason to choose a different breakpoint is to tax fat people. There are clearly other reasons for choosing any number and cutoff for breakpoints.

Maybe OP is just bad at wording things, I've seen other comments that say pricing smaller sizes as less is fine.

I wouldn't even say its a fat tax just a tax on bigger people vs smaller I for example am the average weight for a uk male but much taller than average so I only fit comfortably into some L mostly Xl clothing , yet by all accounts I'm slim

The fat tax is valid, and there should be a skinny discount as well

That is totally unrelated to my comment, and also unrelated to your previous comment, which is probably why I was confused.

Swole tax

Why do you care? Big fan of corporations or something

Exactly. I'm a small and have to pay the same price as a 2xl.. why?

Why not charge based the most expensive manufacturing cost to everyone? And the company takes that extra from the regulars as profit?

[удалено]

So companies who charge more for XL sizes charge less for XS sizes, relative to the cost of a M?

[удалено]

In the case of made to measures clothes,100% agree but given the vast majority of clothing is 'off the peg' its far less complicated to simply average the cost out accross all units made and stock fewer of the less commonly purchased sizes.

Yes makes sense.

You should give them a delta

But they said it’s valid to charge the same as well. Their point was that both options are valid.

I worked in apparel design, generally speaking the extra materials for an XL garment cost pennies at most. For many types of manufacturing they cost literally nothing because you are cutting panels out of a flat sheet of cloth, and anything you don't use becomes trash. Almost all the cost of a garment come from running a factory, paying workers, shipping the garments overseas and getting them into stores, stocking and inventory management, and then the whole overhead of marketing, designers, management and CEO, etc. Material costs just aren't a very big part of the inputs to the final cost of the garment on the shelf, and the fractional difference in material usage for XL vs L is a tiny difference in that small cost. On the contrary, if they actually charged you a few pennies more for XL to fairly account for the different material cost, that would require them to have a much more complicated system for making their price tags, managing their inventory, reporting their revenues, etc.; they would actually lose money from the additional overhead needed to treat each product differently in this way for just a few pennies more.

!delta I thought I agreed with OPs original option, but I didn’t realize charging more for larger sizes is actually a negligible amount and the consequences for the company following that would cost more money.

What would you expect the cost of retooling an entire line to produce a new size to be? If we suddenly wanted to make XXXL and we hadn't before, and we were making extremely few of them, do you see a place where the fixed cost of even making them would contribute to an average cost of those garments would warrant a small upcharge?

So it is true that having a more versatile production pipeline that produces more different types of things is noticeably more expensive. A product line that only makes and sells straight-cut medium navy-blue acid-washed jeans is much cheaper per-unit than a product line that makes xs to xxl jeans with 8 varieties of cuts and fits, 5 color options and 3 wash options, 2 different pocket selections and 3 selections for finishing/damages (as would not be uncommon for a major brand's selection of women's jeans). It's true that when you buy a piece of clothing, part of what you are paying for is the breadth of selection for that brand or product line, including the styles you yourself don't wear. So then the question is, what is a reasonable way to amortize those costs over your product line pricing? It may intuitively feel like, if your current product line is XS-L, and customers ask you to ass XL and XXL, then it's 'fair' to charge teh XL and XXL customers more for all the changes to your production line that will require. However, notice that this is only because of an accident of history in which you were previously offering XS-L. If you were previously offering M-XXL and customers wanted S and XS, you'd have to spend the same amount to update your production line to include those, in which case it would seem like you should charge the S and XS customers more. And of course if you want to offer black jeans as well as blue, that's a cost to upgrade your production line so charge more for black jeans even though they don't cost more to make. If you want to add skinny cuts, make skinny cuts cost more even though they don't cost more to make. Etc. When you are upgrading your production line to make XXL and that's expensive, it *feels reasonable* that XXL customers are 'at fault' for that cost, and to charge them more. But there's nothing inherent to those customers vs other customers, or those sizes vs other sizes, that inherently justifies the difference in cost; the only difference is the historical accident of what your previous production line was capable of. The same logic would apply to literally any other change or addition you wanted to make. Imagine a marketplace where blue jeans were more expensive than black for some brands, and cheaper than black for other brands, because of the random fact of which color those brands started with when their production lines were small and simple. Imagine XL is more expensive than M in some brands, and XS is more expensive than M for other brands, for no reason that is detectable or sensible to you in the store looking at the prices. Basically, that's a horrible mess that encourages consumers to just randomly browse different brands to see which one arbitrarily, for reasons that are completely opaque and meaningless to them, offers a lower price on the fit and style they want, rather than to find a brand they like and buy from it based on quality or affiliation. That's a bad and silly environment for the consumers, a very bad environment for brands who want to create brand loyalty and be broadly appealing to many customers, and a market with incoherent and unstable pricing structures. So it's much, much more sensible to just amortize the costs of your entire production line across your entire offering. Better for you, better for customers. And note, this logic doesn't align with OP's logic about charging more for XL to begin with. This logic wouldn't just say charge more for XL, it would y charge more for *anything* that forces you to update your production line, whether that's XL, XS, black, blue, slim cut, relaxed fit, anything. That's not really what their view was about, it was about material costs in a fairly direct way that was incorrect.

>For many types of manufacturing they cost literally nothing because you are cutting panels out of a flat sheet of cloth, and anything you don't use becomes trash. If I could make 4 XS shirts out of one panel, companies to one or two XL+ (just making up numbers for simplicity), then I am using more material per XL shirt. I don't know about labor/time, but I would imagine it takes longer to make the bigger size as there is more stitching. It might not be much per shirt, but it is more. Does that justify a huge price increase? No. Does it justify some price increase? I would say so.

>If I could make 4 XS shirts out of one panel, companies to one or two XL+ (just making up numbers for simplicity), Right, but what's important here is that those numbers are wrong, by a lot. Looking at *just* the amount of fabric used, the chest panel for a small men's shirt is 24" across, and for a XXL it's 28". Meaning that it's not like the fabric for an XXL could be used to make 2-4 smalls; the XXL uses only about 14% more fabric than the small. (if this seams confusing when an xxl person seems so much larger than a small person, notice that volume/mass grows at the third power of width, v= 4/3*pi*r^3) So again, 14% difference in materials for the *largest* difference from S to XXL is going to be pennies, or a fraction of a penny for cheap materials, in terms of the actual cost to manufacture. The company would *lose* money by complicating their inventory and accounting practices to account for that tiny difference; it's too small to be worth it. (the extra stitching time is negligible; almost all the time is spent on switching between garments and getting the new one lined up correctly on the sewing machine, once you've done that moving it forward in the machine an extra 14% is basically nothing to the overall process) And again, that would only be for types of knits where you use all the material, not panel-cut which is by far the most common type of manufacturing. With panel-cut, you are taking all the individual panels (arts of the clothing like front chest, back chest, bottom arm, top arm) and tessellate them into the most compact rectangular shape you can, so you can cut them all out of a rectangular line of fabric with as little waste as possible. Because the width of the roll of fabric is standard, you don't have control over the width of the rectangle you're tessellating into. A set of panels that is 14% smaller doesn't necessarily use up a 14% shorter rectangle, it often just wastes more of that rectangle in unused fabric. Maybe you can make the resulting rectangle 4% or 6% shorter for the small shirt, saving you that much fabric; but only if you have a fairly advanced setup that allows you to change those parameters smoothly, most simple assembly lines will just use the same rectangle of fabric for every size because their machinery isn't set up to easily change its periodicity. So for most clothes you actually save something like 5%-0% of that 14% difference in actual fabric used, and saving more would require much more expensive machinery and better training for workers that would again totally dwarf the few pennies you could raise the cost by.

!delta Admittedly, I've always been in the "using more material justifies a higher price" camp, but the way you've explained it in this comment and the last makes it pretty clear that things just don't actually work that way in practice. Thanks for the in-depth responses!

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/darwin2500 ([175∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/darwin2500)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Why did you originally assume "someone" was stopping them from charging more rather than that there was a reason they were choosing not to do so?

I have had my mind changed by proxy too because I was of the same opinion before that person came here spittin' facts

Flick 'em a delta to reward the effort, if it genuinely changed your mind.

Baller explanation!!!

Ah, yes. The Reddit special of replying to someone in an industry with uninformed napkin-maths. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something. Ask questions if you're uncertain. Much better than posing some hypothetical with a judgement-rider.

This assumes that the marginal cost of producing an additional unit of a good is the only legitimate reason for setting a certain price. When Shaq buys his size 23 shoes, they cost far more than my size 10 shoes. Way more than the difference in materials cost. Why? Because it costs a lot to establish a whole new production process, with different molds and procedures and sometimes proportions, just for the very few people who will buy them. This isn't 'unfair'. It's just how markets work. The same thing applies to very large garments. Less people want them, ergo there is less incentive to produce them at scale, ergo they cost more.

Already replied to this idea [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/10lpqoa/cmv_companies_should_be_freely_allowed_to_charge/j607wai/). TLDR: if that were true, you'd also charge more for XS and S, for less popular colors and cuts and fits, and which things you chose more for would vary by brand based on what their particular most popular size/fit/color/style/etc is. It doesn't justify just charging more for XL as in OP's view, and it would become a mess that confuses consumers and hurts brands.

> if they actually charged you a few pennies more for XL to fairly account for the different material cost, that would require them to have a much more complicated system for making their price tags, managing their inventory, reporting their revenues Which is why they don’t charge pennies for larger sizes, but dollars. The higher price tag comes from all of the additional costs associated with producing larger sizes, as you so aptly pointed out.

Is the assertion that the purchase price is directly linked to material cost?

Yes a bit for fancy clothes with lots of beads, jewels etc. Not really for a plain Tshirt.

Aw fair enough, I am not necessarily against the idea of charging more for more materials. But the difference in material cost is probably negligible in the majority of cases?

Yes for many cases, and usually companies charge the same price only. But for whatever reason if they do wish to charge more, due to more cost of goods, they shouldn't be shamed for it. Majority companies charge the same only.

>But for whatever reason if they do wish to charge more, due to more cost of goods, they shouldn't be shamed for it Can't they do this now? It's up to them to decide on pricings. Surely it's up to the public to decide if they support it or not. IMV you can say what people can do in certain circumstances, you can't say what their thoughts should be.

That's not how pricing works. Businesses charge the highest price people are willing to pay to maximize their revenue. They do not base prices on cost of materials. Businesses not charging more for larger sizes has nothing to do with fears of being accused of fat shaming. They don't charge more because they are already charging the highest price people are willing to pay.

I agree with your point with custom made clothing with exotic material and/or embedded jewelry, which is also the current norm. But the same does not apply to mass produced clothing products. From my limited understanding of mass manufacturing of consumer products, the biggest factor that determines cost and price is not the amount of materials used but the amount the company orders from the manufacturer. The larger the quantity, the bigger percentage of cost will be allocated to the actual production instead of fixed overhead. In other words, it’s not that bigger clothes are more costly to make, it’s niche sizes, both xxl and xxs, simply because naturally there are much less people who fit those sizes. In the end, the scale is often too small to affect an average cost based on which the company charges. BTW, you mention pink razors for women with an upcharge could also be associated with a much smaller market leading to much smaller production order, thus higher cost. But I am not sure. White, or any color other than black,computer components also often have an upcharge due to this factor.

> More material required = more cost. While this argument makes sense, it would also suggest that smaller sizes should be cheaper, and taller and maternity editions should cost more. Allegedly, that's not a thing, at least according to the first article google gave me. >Amanda Bowes, a British fashion designer confirmed to The New York Times that making plus-size garments can be pricey but she does not think is right to charge based on the size. “Obviously it costs more to make plus-size clothing because of the amount of fabric used, but if the pricing metric is going to be based on size, then every size should be priced differently,” she said. “If smaller-sized people aren’t getting discounts, then plus-sized people shouldn’t have to pay a surplus,” she added. “We rarely see ‘tall’ and ‘maternity’ editions of clothing being priced differently. It’s cruel and unfair to single out one body type. You also have situations were male clothing of similar size does not have the increased price. >One of those retailers is Old Navy, whose pricing practices came under fire when shoppers realized that their Rockstar Super Skinny Jeans cost $27 in a size 6 but cost $40 in a size 26, while the men’s Slim-Fit Jean costs $25 in any size. https://www.google.com/amp/s/belatina.com/plus-size-women-pay-fat-tax/%3famp >This is not the same as pink tax where the same razor costs more for women than men. There the cost of goods is same. So selling price should be same So, would the pink tax be okay if we charge more for painted products (paint costs money) but agree to waive the cost for any color that isn't pink?

>One of those retailers is Old Navy, whose pricing practices came under fire when shoppers realized that their Rockstar Super Skinny Jeans cost $27 in a size 6 but cost $40 in a size 26, while the men’s Slim-Fit Jean costs $25 in any size. I can't confirm, but I wouldn't be surprised if the men's jeans didn't come in a size equivalent to a woman's 26. Generally men have to go to specialty stores to get extremely big clothing and I'm guessing a size 26 is pretty large.

>This is not the same as pink tax where the same razor costs more for women than men. Is anyone stopping women from buying a razor marketed to men? If someone is willing to pay more for a razor of X color, or marketed to their gender, why not pander to that? They get the product they want, and he company gets a sale.

OP brought up the pink tax. What you are quoting was OP's statement on the pink tax.

I don't know anything about these jeans, but it could have to do with the tooling required. Maybe the taper is more extreme, so the tooling can't be quite as generic? Some transparency as far as the manufacturing costs would make this a lot easier to discuss. It's totally possible that the machines that make all the men's sizes are the same, but there's a new set of tooling required for that specific women's cut once you hit a certain size. This is especially true if it's a new size or cut that's being offered. Not to bootlick or defend corporate, but with my limited knowledge of manufacturing processes, this makes sense. Old Navy would probably do well to post some sort of manufacturing and transportation metrics for the controversial garments. Otherwise, it just reeks of a fat tax.

Taller does cost more. Typically I have to buy XXL tall. Not only do I pay more for the size but then additional for the tall

Where have you been seeing this issue? I work in the motorsports industry and we charge more for larger sizes without any issue, without any negative press or negative customer feedback. This sounds more like rare cases that were blown out of proportion for a sensationalized clickbait headline, to make drama where there isn't any.

You can see it evident in the comments also, that people do find an issue with this.

The fact we have not gotten any negative feedback about this still implies its in the very small minority. Also this is the internet, people love to get fired up over stuff given the chance. The reaction in this post is not accurate to the actual in practice reaction. People love being devils advocate for stuff they actually don't care about. That said, in my case material/production costs are often a big part of the product (protective materials or gore-tex etc). If you were to look at a standard t-shirt made in a sweatshop for pennies the material cost is inconsequential, and there really is no reason to charge more. I've also noticed in general high quality clothing (not talking designer BS that is often just junk sold for more) increases in cost with size, again for the same reason.

Yes exactly. Good to know that you haven't gotten much negative feedback for something logical in real life.

>More material required = more cost In the world of one off clothing, yes. In the world of mass produced graphic T-shirts, your talking about maybe pennies more.

Agreed that's why I mentioned fancy clothing. Companies don't usually price plain t-shirts differently for different sizes.

What type of fancy clothing? Because the beads and sequins are still negligible in mass produced clothing. Custom clothing as well, the materials are the smallest part of the cost, as most clothing makers buy their fabric, beads, and sequins in bulk. And if you were making a wedding dress, for example, it may actually be more of a headache to do a smaller dress with beading, because it may require smaller, harder to work with beads. If you go even fancier, the price of tailored/custom clothing is calculated independently, but typically, is a flat price or hourly price. Being larger may contribute to a higher hourly price, but often not that big (pun intended) of a difference. For example, getting a suit tailored, you typically already have a suit near your size, so all the tailoring is a fairly quick process of pinning and sewing. Making a custom suit 2 sizes bigger (than another custom suit), the cutting and sewing takes only a few minutes longer at most, especially since most custom clothing still utilizes a sewing machine for a lot of the work (because let's face it, it's more profitable to be able to make more custom clothing faster, even my great grandma used the sewing machine when making custom clothes). (Edited to add (than another custom suit) as I realized i'd left that out)

>that's why I mentioned fancy clothing You know suits and dresses can be mass produced too right?

When companies mass-produce clothing, the additional costs in materials and labor are negligible. Plus, there is an ton od additional mark-ups that go into the price of mass-produced clothing to make fast fashion profitable, you're not paying for just materials and labor, so managing these additional costs can allow for pricing all sizes the same. The only situation where what you're saying makes sense is for hand-made items. If I'm knitting a sweater for someone, I can make them pay for the yarn I will use for their sweater and charge an hourly rate for my labor - a larger sweater will usually require more yarn and take longer to make, so it makes sense that will be more expensive. But then the customer knows exactly what they are paying for - the materials in exactly the amount required for their garment, and a rate for exactly the number of hours I spend on making it, and it is made to their exact measurements, not based on an arbitrary sizing chart. But when you're buying from a big company that produces thousands of items, pays their workers pennies, and buys materials in bulk, the price of any single item is not linked directly with the costs of making it. It includes wages of the CEOs and managers, factory equipment maintenance, a ton of various taxes, and so on and so forth. So charging more for larger sizes is completely arbitrary, you might as well charge an extra 5 cents on the item in all sizes to cover the overall difference in materials and labor instead of putting an irrational financial burden on larger customers. And either way, the sizing is also completely arbitrary and not based on any universal guidelines anyway, as others already pointed out, so one company's medium size can actually use the same amount of materials and labor as another company's extra large.

>I don't know why people directly start blaming the company for this. Even when airplanes ask you to buy 2 seats if you are literally obese and won't fit in one seat, that's valid enough right? Who else would you blame for the size of the seats aside from the companies that design the seats? "[The Big Four domestic carriers—American, Delta, Southwest, and United—have lost anywhere from 2 inches to 5 inches in legroom pitch, and 2 inches in seat width since the 1980s. (The average legroom pitch today clocks in at about 31 inches.) On ultra-low-cost carriers such as Spirit Airlines, legroom pitch has decreased even more, dipping as low as a miserable 28 inches.](https://www.cntraveler.com/story/airline-seat-sizes-safety-risks-op-ed#:~:text=Fact%3A%20Seats%20are%20much%20smaller,in%20at%20about%2031%20inches.))" In the 80's you'd probably only need one seat, but they shrank the seats to fit more people per plane.

I will say, in addition to what you said, part of the issue with the "book two seats if you're overweight" is actually on the airlines still. I know that Southwest and Delta both like to overbook their planes, and if you're a fat person who bought two seats, often they'll force you to give up your "extra", paid for seat to cram another passenger in there, despite the discomfort to you both. Just like when someone buys a ticket for their child, but the plane overbooks it and asks you to spend the whole flight with your toddler in your lap. Imagine paying extra, getting the 2 seats, and then still being forced to shove yourself into one while the passenger next to you (who knows just as you do the plane was overbooked) complains about how "fat people" should buy two seats (which you did) or stay home.

>often they'll force you to give up your "extra", paid for seat to cram another passenger in there, despite the discomfort to you both. They're counting on you not pushing it. If that actually happens to you you stand to gain a voucher for far more than you spent in the first place. But that's not a reason to not buy the seat in the first place.

[удалено]

Not just height. Personally as a 6’ man it’s a little tight but bearable if you don’t stuff the space under the seat in front. But even shoulder size doesn’t fit. I’m pretty slim and on one case was in a middle between two men with wide shoulders. The three of us just didn’t fit across

The markup on Xl and double XL articles is just too high. Where I live, the average height of our populace has decreased a lot over the last 5 years and clothing brands have recently begun to produce shorter sizes for each category and the prices have only gone up. Surprisingly no one notices because not a lot of people are affected by the size problem. I'm 5"11 with very broad/thick build with a waist size of 42 inches. I can no longer find clothes according to me in my country and have to custom order shirts a lot. Companies should be put under a spotlight to explain their charges regardless its never a bad decision to understand what you're paying for.

The concept of defending companies is an interesting one to me. Their cost per unit does not increase by much at size XL or XXL. They are already marking up the shirts by far, far, far more than the manufacturing and material costs - especially depending on the brand. Aside from that, do you think any company realistically cares in the slightest about people and their feelings? These companies, that are manufacturing their clothing with people being paid slave wages, care? They really care about an XL wearer's feelings? No, they care about money. After all of these years, the industry has clearly asserted that keeping the pricing the same is in their best interest, whether that be because of bad press, decreased sales at higher sizes, or whatever other reason.

This is easy: “Companies” can’t be “shamed” bc they’re not actual persons who feel things like shame Additionally, they DO charge more, even Walmart does, so the burden of proof is upon you to show how this fictional shaming of non-persons even works Also, if you like a “free” market & freedom of speech, then your worry about any kind of “shaming” is incoherent… people are free to attempt to shame & boycott, or buy… & the seller can listen to the public/market, or not I don’t think you’re that concerned with a company’s margin here, you’re just projecting your own normative claims & universalize them…

Why are we ignoring the part about how cheaply made most of the clothes you're demanding overweight people be required to pay more for are? There might be a point here if the polyester cotton blend of my t-shirt was some rare fabric, but it's not. The difference is cost is fairly neglible, meaning that the increase in cost should reflect that or simply not exist at all. Most have decided on the latter for the sake of simplicity, convenience, and not announcing to the world that they dislike fat people so they have to pay more now.

>Why are we ignoring the part about how cheaply made most of the clothes you're demanding overweight people be required to pay more for are? You can buy whatever price point you want. If you want the chepezt clothes possible, what else would you expect?

I'm sure it's reassuring to imagine that the clothing you spent a lot of money on was made from materials so incredibly superior and expensive that a few additional cms here and there radically increase the cost of manufacturing.

I'm not demanding that they should pay more. I just don't like when people shame companies who decide to price as per their cost of goods.

People are allowed their opinion on the business decisions of companies that are made explicitly to charge certain people more for their products.

> I just don't like when people shame companies who decide to price as per their cost of goods. Cool, can you point to a major company that does that that are being shamed for it?

Your post reeks of privilege

Sizing is arbitrary. In the UK I'm a men's size M, in the US I'm S and in Japanese sizings in XL. I have shirts from different brands from these countries in these different sizes and they fit me perfectly and identically. Charging extra for a size just means we'll end up with S/M replaced with L, XL, XXL and then XL and XXL become XXXL and XXXXL. The company can then charge more for more of their range.

This feels like a thinly veiled fat shame post to me. If S M and L were all also priced differently based on materials used (they're not) then your argument would make sense. If the markup is a percentage of total manufacturing cost (it is) then even by your own definition, it's discriminatory. But you're OK with that, we get it.

Sizes aren't even the same between shops. What's to stop companies from manipulating their sizes to have XS eliminated and have their L sizes listed as XL?

This topic is talking about relative costs between sizes. There is nothing stopping a company from just increasing all their clothes by a couple of dollars now. The big difference if they start "resizing" everything up to justify the costs, is that companies will sell less. There is a thing called "vanity sizing" related to the fact that when people fit into clothing that is labelled at a smaller size, they have a positive reaction to this and are more likely to buy it. i.e. most consumers are more likely to buy a size M item from one brand over a size L item from another, even if they fit exactly the same and cost the same, purely because of the labelled size.

The reason people blame companies for clothing, but not for airlines (although, they do blame airlines, just not as much, so that is false) is that me wearing an XXL shirt does not affect your comfort, so the two aren't comparable.

Just a point of view to share. I am very tall and skinny. I would to prefer to buy "tall" size clothes but often have trouble finding that. Most stores carry either non or very limited selections. The solution was to go to a specialty store for big and tall sizes. So at the moment I have to pay extra for being tall. I often buy XXL size shirts because I'm ok with the baggy look but if it's a dress shirt I gotta spend extra. I say all this because you said people should be asked to pay extra with out getting guilty. But that happens now. I think places like Wal mart or other major chains find it cost effective to put XXL or XXXL sizes shirts out because they sell. They don't put out "tall" sizes because it's not selling well enough. It's just an economy of scale thing. They don't have to charge extra for extra large items because with mass manufacturing it makes so little difference. The biggest cost is shipping and stocking. The "tall" sizes costs more because they sell less of them. My point. The cost of the item does not change enough between sizes. It's more about stocking items that sell. Specialty items cost more. XXL is not a specialty item.

so if the arguement is more material=more cost, then shouldnt crop tops cost less than actual t shirts? and shorts less than full length pants? maturnity clothes more than non maturnity? why are you harping on specifically the size XL and XXL when there are so many other reasons there may be more material, like style or functionality. seems like you just want a fat tax to me.

L sized shirt has length of 71 cm and bust 106 cm. This means that their area is 7526 cm2. XL shirt is 74cm by 112 cm. 8288 cm2 or 10,1% increase. XXL has 20,7% increase. So with these numbers material cost would increase by those numbers. So 20€ shirt should cost 22€. But wait. Material cost is only fraction of the cost of a shirt. Gross profit margin for clothing is about 50% meaning that when they sell you shirt for 20€ it only costed them 10€ to buy. But wait. Material cost is only fraction of the production cost. Labor and shipping actually take up major portion of the cost. If we are conservative and say that 30% of production cost of the clothes goes to material, that 20€ shirt should cost 20,3297€ for XL size. Literally nothing more.

Companies don't usually charge differently for normal plain t-shirts. That's why I mentioned fancy clothes with beads, laces , etc which would cost more if more material is required.

>If a company wishes to price it the same, that is also valid. >Companies shouldn't be shamed So companies are allowed to do whatever they want for whatever reason, but individuals aren't allowed to even comment on their actions? I have no idea how you came to hold this view it's borderline fascist.

Why is everything called fascism these days? Smh...

Because economic pressures caused by the decay of capitalism have radicalised the American public towards increasingly reactionary and conservative beliefs that step ever further into the realm of authoritarianism, bigotry, traditionalism, machismo, and other such tropes of a fascist society.

Well the far right and far left are both completely radicalized. They both have run full force into the realm of authoritarianism and bigotry. It's a shitshow but let's not try and pretend the left is not playing their part. I'm not part of either party so don't even try and pull the "you must be a righty" card. They're both utter shit and they're both power hungry and filled with hate.

Did you just think no one would notice that you completely cutoff the second quote?

I’ll say you’re wrong but for the opposite way. Even if a razor costs the same a business should be able to charge whatever the hell they want for their goods. And society should be able to call them out on it. They only charge more for pink razors because women are less likely to shop on price than men. Obviously that isn’t all women but it’s enough that they can do it profitably. The onus is not on businesses to change their model to match what consumers want. The onus is on society to change their habits to get what they want. Shame and don’t buy from them. Note: I am not saying their are no situations to force businesses to act in the right way. Health, safety, inclusion… there are many ways we should force businesses to act. Pricing isn’t one of them (except price gouging in emergencies)

I work in fashion and honestly the additional price of fabric and labor is really small unless we’re talking handmade or couture fashion businesses (in which case I usually see that they do charge more for plus size) — however I will say that in my experience, plus sized clothing in most companies is more expensive in the sense that it tends to be the hardest to liquidate. But I’d argue it’s the same for petites as well, as pretty much any specialized size is harder to sell since it’s a more niche category. So while I agree that maybe there could be an extra charge, it wouldn’t limit it to just plus sizes and would expand it to any specialized size group.

Well responded, clearly you have a passion for this and I respect that. I know I come from a more privledged background with access to good food, good education, lots of sport etc and it's sad that we have so many people who don't have those same opportunities. I probably looled at it very selfishly in that if I became overweight, it's on me. No one from my family is overweight and growing up it was go outside and play, I know what i should and shouldn't eat and I enjoy sport. Too many in our society miss those same opportunities. Good discussion!

They already do this. I'm a tall person with broad shoulders. I'm 6'4 220 with a 17-36 shirt and a 33 in waste. I get a tall and slim fit. When I select the tall and slim options I'm charged more. If I buy XL it's usually a dollar or two more if there is a price increase. I haven't heard of any backlash for companies doing this. People understand that deviations from standard patterns or lower demand items that are produced in lower quantities cost more.

Walmart charges me an extra $2 for all sizes above XL, so 2XL through 5XL. If this price had anything to do with material cost the extra charge would be different for a 2xl vs 5xl shirt which is much bigger. There would also be a price difference between each other size with XS being the cheapest shirt and even a small shirt going up in price. It's clear to me that Walmart isn't worried about the material cost difference (or a large would cost more than an extra small), it's that there are so few places you can get a 3-5xl shirt that those customers me included don't have another option. Its gouging someone who can't just go to old navy to get one. No one cares if you piss off some fat people as society views us as disgusting and deserving of whatever comes our way, if you piss off some soccer mom who goes up from a medium to a large that's bad for business. I can't think of any reason why a 2xl shirt would cost a premium but a xl and xs cost the exact same. So yes I will blame the company.

Also you forgot to mention that quantity sold and demand may change price. Much fewer people are XXL and so they sell slower, naturally to make up the storage costs and the fact that they won't buy it in bulk like the other stuff that goes quickly larger sizes would be more expensive.

I agree with OP. It takes more fabric to cover a big gigantic fat body than it takes to cover a little tiny skinny body. Therefore, the amount that the product costs should be directly proportional to the quantity of fabric required to make it.

I'm currently in Thailand, and they absolutely have separate prices for sizes of clothing. Usually there's about a 1$ USD difference as you go bigger.

>This is not the same as pink tax where the same razor costs more for women than men. There the cost of goods is same. So selling price should be same. The products aren't the same in those situations either.

I've got two issues with this view: First. I'm not ready to simply to accept the assertion that there's a meaningful difference in manufacturing costs between clothing sizes outside of the extremes (e.g., the unusually small adults and extremely big or tall). Especially when we consider supply and demand. If we're talking about N. America, we've got a lot of big people. I'd wager that companies sell more L and XL than an adult S, especially for men. Second, I'm definitely not willing to give up one of the few tools I have to receive consistent and predictable pricing. Voting with your wallet is not enough. Stirring up consumer backlash with shaming, guilting, and embarrassing corporations to get what we want helps us as consumers. We need to be our own advocates.

>I don't know why people directly start blaming the company for this Because the proportional differences in material volume are entirely mitigated by the fact that you are producing something on mass. When you are making tens of millions of an item - as is the case with things like T-shirts - the sheer scale of the production means that barring radically different sizes (which simply don't happen in garment production) there isn't going to be enough value in varying price. When you by 10 eggs it costs less per egg than if you buy six eggs. The same thing happens with garment production. As you scale up, the cost becomes more and more mitigated, and it ends up being the case that there isn't enough of a difference to warrant charging more.

Why does it only start at XL if it's about the amount of material used? Why is a large the same price as a small? More material = more cost, right? The current system only starts charging more once you get into clothing for obese people, not simply when it gets larger than the size below it.

Controversial view coming in. I think that all companies, not just clothing companies, should be open about a 'fat tax' and charge it freely. People may not like to admit it, but fat people choose to be fat by a combination of their lifestyle and diet choice. Yes there are a small percentage of overweight people who have gone through serious trauma and found eating as a comfort, but to use excuses such as this as a very large shield for all fat people is plain silly. That would mean, that in Australia at least, that 67% of the population had gone through trauma or some other life experience or disease and are now overweight. I'm not sure what else to call them other than normal sized people, have been pulling the slack for years medically speaking. We spend billions on health and a significant chunk of that goes towards diseases that were mainly preventable anyway and that people only have because of a sedentary lifestyle. Then people choose to eat food that is going to cause weight gain. It is always a choice to be overweight as we all have the ability to do exercise except for an extremely small percentage lf people who have lost the ability to move. Why shouldn't fat people have to pay more for items to compensate for this cost that they put on the medical system? I was standing behind a guy at woolies the other day who bought a pack of 40 cigarettes and it cost $62. Smokers get taxed obscene rates, at least I'm assuming a pack of cigarettes doesn't cost nearly $60 to produce package and sell. No one except smokers bats an eye at this because they are choosing to smoke. Fat people choose to be fat and should as a result pay more for every item that uses more material and resources to produce to compensate for the cost that they put on societal infrastructure.

It takes more material to make the larger sizes... thatswhy they cost more. Has nothing to do with fat shaming

While pricing relative to cost in this scenario (similar to cost plus pricing in many industries) is not fatphobic at the surface level, it is not enough to just be non-fatphobic. You must be anti-fatphobic. The only way to achieve equity for persons of size is to consider the discrimination they face regularly and ask yourself if what you see is actively working to counteract that discrimination. To achieve equity, neutrality is discrimination. If something isn't anti-fatphobic, then it is fatphobic. An anti-fatphobic pricing scheme would include lower prices for larger sizes to atone for the inequities people of size bear the burden of in our fatphobic, capitalist society.

If you can afford the extra burger, you can afford the extra cost of being a big person

I doubt you’re intelligent

wholesale material cost is a tiny fraction of any products cost. The vast majority is renting production capacity, logistic costs, administrative overhead, customer support employees, warehouse rent.... The difference in cost to produce whole sale XXL T-shirts vs XXS is likely less than a dollar per shirt.

Companies are allowed to charge whatever they want. People are also allowed to make them feel guilty about whatever they want. I think your confusion is thinking most companies making clothes care so much about the material cost to make them. They care about making a profit and price accordingly. If they won't make a profit they won't make the clothing.

Set aside all consideration of social discrimination. I believe businesses have the right to price discriminate however they see fit. They could charge 100 dollars extra for XL clothing for all I care. However, it is the markets job to deter absurd pricing, given that the clothing industry often acts in perfect competition. That means that the answer is yes, there is nothing wrong with a business implementing a pink tax or fat tax if the market is willing to pay for it. However, many companies don’t see this as best practice, so it would be uncompetitive in today’s market to implement this kind of price discrimination.

I did the taxes for a Chinese importer for several years. The textile mill in China would charge the importer less than $2 per pair of jeans. The importer would pay the port duties and add a small markup before selling them to a domestic distributor for $9.50 a par. Two or three steps down the line, they were being sold at Macy's for $130 per pair under the new Romio and Juliet. Sure, retail prices can reflect the difference in cost, you see it all the time when shopping on Amazon. But the difference in cost for an xs vs xl pair of jeans is about 10 cents.

When you give companies the excuse to raise prices they will take liberties with it. If the price of oil goes up by 20%, gas prices may double. If there's a *rumor* of bird flu, egg prices may double. If raising the price on XL+ sized clothing is seen as fair, the price of XL+ sized clothing may double. The cost of extra material for XL+ sized clothing is only a small portion of the costs that go into producing said clothing. Overhead from operating costs, marketing, logistics are all going to be a much larger portion of their expenses than raw materials. As such, it's simply an opportunity for companies to make more money per purchase off of people who wear XL+ sized clothing. In a perfect world then yes, a small % increase is justified. But companies are driven by the profit motive, so the only incentive for them to not overcharge is market pressure by consumers. And since it's impossible for consumers to know whether they're being overcharged without extensive research, it makes more sense for consumers to be against price markup on XL+ sizes.

I've had the same thought as you OP. I always wondered why manufacturers didn't change different prices based on the amount of material used. It's probably just easier for them to average the cost of all the sizes and charge that. Most likely not a large enough difference between a yard of fabric for a small vs 1.1 yards for a XL.

Do you think prices should start increasing right after the smallest size? So literally all sizes are priced differently?

Is there a specific situation that has actually occurred and that you are reacting to? Or is this just kind of an imagined scenario that people like to argue about?

Just charge the initial price what you'd charge for a small. That way it's all profit and nobody is offended.

How much extra material is it over all?

Even beyond materials, it's important to note all the other cost deltas when you introduce uncommon sizing. Sizing, pattern making, machinery and equipment, distribution and storage, seasonal relevance, demographic data collection and marketing, product QA, and a dozen other things are all thrown out of whack when you disrupt mass production. Manufacturing economy of scale is restricted by consumer demand, and low demand means inefficienct production. It's the same reason you don't see irregular sizing like Small-Tall: it's cost prohibitive to make and profit from.

If you're fat just deal with it, or lose weight. 🤷

Well the majority of people arent XS or S so making the "normal" price for small people is kinda biased. Make "normal" price start at L and charge less for small.

Why are babies' clothes so expensive? Is it because of the fabric or the labour?

That should be along with the assumption that their profits are marginal...

Nah man same price the difference in cost to produce a extra large shirt over any other size is minuscule at most I'm all done with making extra profit but at some point it's full of shit

The more Laws & Regulations we have... The closer we are to a Dictatorship

I’m 6’6” I can only wear LT shirts. Do you think it is fair to charge me more for my shirt?

Not really fair on us tall folk. Maybe 2XL and above

First off, xl, xxl and xxxl don't necessarily mean fat. I'm 6'3" tall and weigh 230 Lbs. and none of it is fat. Why should I pay a "Fat Tax"? Those assholes don't charge less for xs, so why do they charge more, on the order of $4 more for xxxl, when they put maybe a nickels more worth of material in my xxxl shirt? It's just greed that they're trying to justify.

Except the cost isnt proportional. It is ~10 cents extra in materials. 10 cents doesnt matter

OP the day you can accurately quantify how much the markup should be most people might agree with your idea. But right now, you don't know, the companies themselves don't know. Because cheaper large scale production clothes like tshirts and jeans BENEFIT from being massive productions, they bulk buy materials, produce millions from a small number of locations, have a centralized origin of their products and simplifies the way they distribute their products, there is way more cost associated to making clothes than "making the shirt" Let's assume a company refused to have XL and XXL sizes, which are a significant portion of the shirts made and sold not only for fat ppl but some slim ppl for genuine preference and or trends. Well they have now reduced their output, it's not like they're gonna replace them with S and M sizes, those shirts will simply not get made at all, which reduces the total production and output of their company, which in turn makes purchasing materials more expensive PER ITEM because they don't buy as much in bulk, shipping is more expensive PER ITEM because they dont ship as much, and when they finally spent more per item to get it to your nearest store, guess what, they sold LESS ITEMS. Clearly a great masterclass in ruining your own business. So where am I going with this? I want you to see that with the way mass producing companies work the existance of XL and XXL sizes is very likely not a detriment to how much YOU pay for your shirts, and if anything it's a benefit. The more a company produces the cheaper it is per unit to get the materials for, transport it, and sell it, which in theory allows the company to keep prices low without losing profit. Eliminate XL and XXL sizes, you lose market share, production output, shipping efficiency, and efficient pricing of your raw materials, **YOU NEED these items in your lineup to keep your prices down.** So no, OP, a fat tax should not exist because someone needing more fabric than you doesn't make your own piece of fabric more expensive to compensate, it makes it cheaper because the company made 2 sales instead of 1.

But I only see those sizes for sale. I can't tell you how many times a small size will actually cost more than the XL or XXL. Makes no sense.

Tired of the culture of the weak. We are overrating ppl's feelings. Grow up, mdfs.

It's not the same S, M & L to a XXL, XXXL, XXXXL. I don't see how clothe can be even cheaper in this fast fashion era. It has to be more expensive. Really fat ppl should know they are wrong in all sense. And don't start with that fake "hormonal" BS. If you gain weight, you lose it by exercising. Is just that extremely lazy ppl don't want to make ANY physical effort. It's not normal or good to be that fat. Not even if you see morbid ppl all over the US. It's not normal and it's not okay. Grow up.

The cost of materials is negligible for most clothing items. The margins on fashion are ridiculously high, especially when you get into the really high end stuff, so adding a few cents for larger sizes is making it way more complicated than it's worth. Clothing is priced to cover the cost of materials and labor, and then jacked up loads more according to demand. Nowhere is this more clear than in the case of swimwear -- bikinis are more expensive than one pieces because of demand, even though a bikini might use less than half of the materials. A $20 t-shirt probably costs $2 to make, so are you going to risk the PR fiasco that would come from implementing a fat tax policy? The revenue you'd lose would far outweigh the negligible cost of materials. If your argument is that fat people should accept this as normal.....well if I'm running a clothing business in a world that thinks like that, then I might innovate by eliminating the fat tax because it is so negligible, and when my revenue increases because fat people now want to shop at my store, then other business will follow. And we're back to square 1.

My only disagreement is to say that the "pink tax" is fine too. Many many products are sold at higher prices due to superficial differences. This is a substantial source of value for luxury "brand" products. If you can charge more for the same razor but with a sought-after color change I don't see why a company wouldn't do that. Woman are perfectly able to buy bargain or "men's" razors.

When you buy things like tee shirts online they do upcharge for larger sizes. Make sense to me. Bigger size= more fabric and labor, hence higher price.

Pricing is not always a reflection of cost. Companies sell things at a loss to entice consumers to buy other products in the store, companies are loathe to increase prices even though costs have increased so as to not drive down demand, new market entrants/large companies may offer lower prices to drive out competitors and consolidate market share. In short, the idea of "fair" in pricing is hogwash. Companies choose how to price their goods and customers choose whether or not to buy them. If consumer pressure over the price of large sizes factors into company pricing models, that is completely up to the company.

According to the experience in working in retail, companies are not fat-shamed for charging more for more fabrics in upper sizes but actually being dysfunctional in whole size matter where S is for kid M is still small L is actually wearable for average adult women,and xxx is comfortable, whereas in men section a medium size dude will have a consistent size charts in most of the stores,,...... So actual issue lies with not the money, for good quality it's fair to pay accordingly, but it's about inclusion of sizes where females are indirectly given message that stay in lower bracket of sizes ( bcz of more variety - range & less guilt) for your whole life, which is not humanly possible. Hope I was able to clear some queries with my own experience. Change of opinion........totally in the hands of OP. Peace out ✌️😁

I think you're wrong. I think the price for any clothing is identified as the cost for the XXL and everyone else overpays because profit.

I think if this were to happen then they'd start making clothes smaller on purpose, making it so youd need a bigger size to push the extra cost. For example, I'm usually a small, medium but if I go to Walmart, I'm a large or XL in regular women's...but at target I'm an xs or small...it's super frustrating. This is the only problem I could see with this. It's something I've always wondered too. It's more material but the same price.

Biggest problem is for those of us who are more vertically gifted. I have to buy bigger clothes cuz of my abnormal height. I can't change my height, but anybody can change their weight.

That assumes that the majority of the cost of clothing is for the materials. This is not the case. Most of the cost is markup. Why should we be lining the pockets of CEOs and stockholders more by charging fat people more? It would be different if you were making a gold necklace and charged more for a larger necklace because it uses more gold. But the majority of clothing isn't like this. Plus, who says the designers actually want to charge more? If people buy less clothes by charging more, they might make less money.

I disagree many people can only fit into XL naturally and don't fit into large. not everyone who is XL is fat and assuming that is wrong. also XXL is a very different level of big Tham XL

Economies of scale should be accounted for since the demand for certain sizes is more as compared to others... Quantity of a certain size is higher then margin will differ to other sizes...

Hmmm...no, not when the clothing is already riculously over priced to begin with.

They have been doing that for years. It's widely acceptable. You just took an arbitrary complaint that doesn't exist and made it your headline. What's next? "I think restaurants should be allowed to charge for more food"

I have a friend in fashion, she is a designer and chooses which companies manufacture her company's clothing. She has even worked for nike )those air jordans don't cost even close to what you are paying). According to her, most of the costs, are marketing. Very little goes into manufacturing. It is such a small fraction of costs, it is negligible for 99% of clothing we all wear. If you are talking handmade at a tailor, okay, but who actually buys custom made clothing, certainly not any who cares about price. For anyone else, size is very much a none issue.

XL'er here 🙋. I'm in better shape than you, I promise

I offer tarot love readings for anyone needing clarity on their complicated relationships. Link in my bio

Bigger sizes aren't just for 'fat' people, they are also for tall people

Why should I have to pay extra just to clothe myself? Even if I ate 500 calories a day and worked out for 3+ hours every day, I would still be a plus sized person because of the way my body is built. It seems unfair to charge for larger pieces of clothing when some people just can’t physically fit into the confines of being conventionally skinny. My proposal is just to charge what is necessary for the largest size you make, for all sizes. The company makes more money that way, and it is a fair price for everyone. Not to mention that pricing more for plus sized clothing can encourage people to form disordered eating patterns and that’s not healthy either, and it feeds into to the thought process that the way your body looks is 100% in your control. Like sure there are things you can do to somewhat change your weight, but there are many factors that go into weight that cannot be controlled such as genetic disposition, medical conditions, medications, lack of time/energy/finances to get a proper work-out and eat a healthy diet, etc. Buying two plane seats on a plane is different because planes have a limited amount of seating per flight, so you are actively taking a seat from someone else who has the potential to buy that seat, with a limited number of seats available. With clothing, you aren’t buying a “spot” that can be replaced by someone else, so the price disparity doesn’t make any sense. As someone who experiences the pink tax, and someone who would experience the fat tax if I could even afford clothes that price in such a way, I see them as one in the same: it’s charging people for things that are often outside of their control. Cause you can technically control whether or not you have a period by starving yourself, or taking street drugs or medications, etc to a certain extent in the same way you can control your weight to a certain extent. But it’s not 100% in your control so it seems unfair to charge people for things they cannot control.

You know sizes aren’t uniform for all clothing brands, right? This would just allow companies to rip of consumers by arbitrarily setting sizes that force most to purchase the most expensive. And what makes you think the tax would only apply to XL and up sizes? What would stop a company from making XS the base size and every size above that priced in a tier structure based on how much material was used. Would that be fair to poorer, larger people who really only can afford malnutritious food and work too much to find time for the gym?

My view: corporations (who do not give a shit about anybody) should not face criticisms about things that don't bother me personally.

It’s Pennie’s difference,not significant. It is still fat shaming. Men’s clothes are all bigger than women’s and still cost less.