To wonder why clothes aren't more expensive in bigger sizes

[mrsfoof]

If you buy children's clothes, you'll have probably noticed that you have to pay a good few quid more for a T-shirt in age 12 than you would for the exact same T-shirt in age 5. Fair enough, the bigger size uses a lot more fabric.

Why then, is a size 24 ladies' T-shirt the same price as the same T-shirt in a size 6, despite it using a lot more - maybe even twice as much - fabric?

Would people be more motivated to stay a healthy weight if they had to pay more for bigger clothes? Why don't we charge more for bigger clothes? Are the prices based on the average amount of fabric used - so skinny people pay more and very large people pay less than they should do based on the resources used to make their clothes?

FWIW I'm marginally overweight and wouldn't have a problem paying more for my size 14 than a 6. I think it would motivate me to lose some weight if the size 10 was cheaper though!

Not had a fat shaming thread for ages have we?

And of course, the VAT on larger, more expensive sizes would be higher.
Great - a fat tax.

But people still buy them when the kids' sizes are priced differently for bigger and smaller sizes. I just wonder why it's the norm for kids but outrageous to think that we should do it for adults' sizes 🤷‍♀️

I'm not fat shaming. I'm overweight myself.

Maybe everyone over the size of an 18 should be forced to wear a black plastic bag and a sign round their neck saying “I am fat” and it might actually shame them into losing some weight… 😠

😒

So OP do you just mean fat people should pay more even if you are fat and short, what happens if you are 6ft and willowy like a model, your clothes might use the same amount of material as short fat peoples.

Hardly if you are a size 14 as you say.

I get your point, but some places do charge more for say over a size 18 in the same style as a size 8 or the cut off is 18 or 20 with a plus size range that's different (and usually less choice) that is presumably priced accordingly, or as pp said not available at all above an 18/20 and so you're looking at more expensive shops anyway.

And no, I don't think it'd be an 'incentive' to lose weight or be healthier because you had to pay more for clothes, a good start for that is keeping healthier foods cheaper than unhealthy foods - while you can walk into a supermarket and buy more crap for your money than healthy food, that takes less time and fuel to cook, it's a no brainer for people on a budget.

Or maybe just stay inside feeling deeply ashamed and hide until you are thin enough to wear a cheap T shirt?

Grrr....

What’s your motivation for posting this thread OP? What do you hope to gain or learn from starting this discussion?

I'm size 14 and tall so my clothes probably use for example the same amount of material as a size 20 or 24, and short, do you suggest it is done by material area of garment, OP

I'm guessing the reason they do it with kids clothes is because as a society we are accustomed to the idea that you pay more for older kids generally, so they can get away with it, rather than it being an accurate reflection of how much more the clothes actually cost to make.

They're out in force this afternoon.
Fat people are smelly, unattractive to the opposite sex, lazy, deserve to pay more for our clothes and should lose weight without any help...that's just from browsing through a handful of threads.

I'm just going to waddle off and sit on a nice sturdy naughty step now 😂

Well obviously because it would annoy their bigger customers, and fabric is only a small part of cost - labour, factory, transport, warehousing cost much more - so the smaller customers wouldn’t get enough of a boost to make up for it.

Plus size customers already have far fewer options, so it presumably wouldn’t make sense for suppliers to disadvantage them further, given the limited cost benefits.

The above are the practical reasons. Other than that we know that the worse people feel about themselves the less likely they are to loose weight, so it wouldn’t help that either.

I should have thought all this would have been obvious had you given it a moments thought.

A google suggests that in womens sizes a 14/16 is the most common size.

Lets assume that a factory can make 1,000 t-shirts in an hour. Now the ordering company won’t be making 100 of each size, but lets say 500 of the most popular size of 16, then the remaining sizes in a smaller quantity. So for both the company and the manufacturer the size 16 is the most profitable as they’ll sell more, for the manufacturer the size they make the most of is the most profitable as they aren’t having to change the cutters etc for a larger quantity of items.

Lets say they make 50 size 6 t-shirts and it takes ten minutes to switch to the size 6 fabric cutter guides. Where as it takes ten minutes to switch to the size 16 guides which will be used for 500. This means the 50 t-shirts in a size 6 are more expensive to make as time is a huge cost, but actual materials really aren’t.

It’s the same with shoes, the most common shoe size will also be the most profitable.

Unfortunately with my height and bone structure I am never likely to be a size 10 in OPs motivational world

I'm with you OP. It is completely inconsistent. Children's clothes are often more expensive for the larger sizes, as your screenshot shows. If the fabric itself is not the main cost, how come they do this with children's clothes. (or as you say, duvet covers!)

Personally I think it's because they are trying to AVOID fat shaming, as it makes no financial sense why a t shirt for a 14 year old is more expensive than the same t shirt for an 8 year old, yet for a size 18 it's not more expensive than a size 10. So clearly the reason for this is not business/financially motivated - at least not directly. They must think they can get away with it for children's clothes and shoes as people consider the size to be age-related, whereas they think they will turn off adult buyers where the sizing is more obviously about girth. As you say, I imagine the smaller sizes are subsidising the larger ones.

@PaddingtonBearStareAgain My BMI is 27.3, so yes, I'm overweight.

The reasons people are giving why it doesn't make financial sense (eg admin involved, changing over templates etc) are all well and good - Except they are still conveniently ignoring the fact they do price differently for kids sizings!

Ie yes, it is completely inconsistent!

Just wondering why we all accept that you pay more for bigger clothes than smaller ones in kids' sizes but don't in adult sizes.

I only thought of difference in size based on width but I guess the same is true for tall vs petite sizes.

My BMI is 21.5, why should I pay more because I am tall so take a larger size

I'm not entirely sure how similar it is with mass production, but how much fabric is used in total to make a garment doesn't go up smoothly through the sizes. Often you can fit the pattern into a particular length of cloth up to a break point, say size 20, and sizes bigger than than require another length of fabric. So you'd get a sudden jump in fabric costs at that size. But fabric costs are a tiny proportion of the whole, when you consider sewing together, hemming, zips, buttons, rivets, transfers, patches, lining, belt-loops and belts, decorative beading etc., and the time it takes to do all these things. You could have a plus-size surcharge on sizes above [whatever], but to truly reflect the additional costs that break size would probably be different for each garment. It would complicate admin and piss off some of your fat customers who recognise that the extra bit of fabric and extra cost of shipping should really only add a few pence to the garment, and most of the extra cost is probably eaten up by the admin required for charging them a different amount for their jumper.

I didn't ignore it in fairness! I think they do it with kids clothes because they can get away with it, and this isn't an indicator that clothes actually are significantly more expensive to make if they are a bigger size.

Anyone who is a size 14 (and average height of 5'3-5'5, not 6ft tall) is probably going to be overweight. I'm a 10-12 and at 5'5 and 10 and a half stone I am right near the upper end of a healthy weight for my height (7st 13lb - 10st 10lb)...

Would people be more motivated to stay a healthy weight if they had to pay more for bigger clothes? Why don't we charge more for bigger clothes?

🙄

I'm 5ft 10, should I pay more for size 12 clothes because my frame is bigger than someone who is 5ft?