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!

There are many reasons people are fat, absolutely none are your business

whilst my taxes are paying for all the treatment they get/will get on the NHS it totally is my business. There is literally nothing positive about being overweight and we need to stop normalising it.

They’re not “your taxes”, taxes are the price of living in a civilised society. It’s amazing how people feel ownership over other peoples bodies because you contribute to the society that we live in, and likely use far more than you put in anyway. Ridiculous comment.

We can agree to disagree on that.
It was a very popular figure of speech when I was younger, and intended to mean ‘enough’ with no opportunity for response, or else.

I hear it infrequently to be honest as it’s an inelegant phrase. But there you go - we’re all different.

I don't think it's fat-shaming merely to ask the question, so I don't see why it was necessary to pile onto the OP to such an extent. The answer to the question is clearly that there are practical and economic reasons, as has been explained by several posters.

And anyway, most things don’t concern most people so regardless, it’s still a ridiculous phrase in the context of a discussion forum.

The Most sensible response on here so far.

@ForestFae i don’t feel any ownership over their bodies at all. But I totally reserve the right to judge them.

Smaller people are being charged exactly the same, that's the point. I don't know how you got that they're being charged more for there being fewer. They're charged the same because to a retailer everyone, large or small, is one person that needs clothes so will be charged the same price to encourage as many sales as possible.(But yes, single people using a single duvet alone are usually paying more than a person in a couple sharing a double duvet).

Would people be more motivated to stay a healthy weight if they had to pay more for bigger clothes?

Not everyone is overweight because they aren’t motivated. I became very overweight in my early 30’s after I became disabled, I’m now in my 40’s. The medications I took and the vast difference in my mobility meant that the weight just piled on despite eating less than before and being a size 8-10 from my late teens.

I lost 6 stone after a medication change, I then put another 2 stone back on after an adjustment to my meds. I’ve been working my arse off and have lost 17lbs. I have been working alongside my physio so that I can exercise without causing myself further pain etc but I know if my meds have to change I can put the weight back on through no fault of my own.

I have clothes from size 8 to 24. I live on benefits any clothes I buy are cheap, usually second hand because I simply can’t afford expensive clothes. So I guess in that respect plus size being more expensive in shops wouldn’t impact me so much.

You know why I'm fat?
I eat too much. I sit on my arse shoving my face until I feel sick and then cry afterwards.
I do this because I can't actually cope with the world.
I have numerous mental health problems which go unchecked by the NHS because mental healthcare is non existent.
I have been let down in my life by people who were supposed to protect and help me. GP's, Mental Health, Police, Criminal Justice system, hell even my own family at times.
I just get chucked another pill.
"Take these pills that do nothing and go away."
I'm left with a fragmented brain that needs repairing but there isn't anything available.
So I eat. Makes no sense to other people, but it's the only constant in my life sometimes.
Don't worry though, I don't really leave the house so my fat self isn't going to cross your path anytime soon and repulse you.

And THIS is why many of us didn't want 'quoting'

🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

@mrsfoof twat is another slang word the same as foof.

OP seems to think size 10 is midsize because that is what she aspires to

Thank you 😊

Doesn't it just? A disingenuous OP scouting for likeminded chums to froth with... what a rarity that is!

Because they have been doing it for years and getting away with it.

I don't think that's true of children's clothes that fit a range of sizes from 4-12. They'd all be zero-rated yet the age 4 top is £9 and the age 12 is £12. It must be based on size alone. I'm pretty sure that the age 13-15 (£14) would also be zero-rated for VAT, maybe not the age 16 (but that is still £14 anyway).

If you're a size 4/6 (I am due to illness) my best tip if you don't want to pay more is buy children's clothes.

And she's got a valid point. Cashmere is expensive. A garment that's twice the size as a smaller one must cost more to make. Maybe not true of mass produced thin cotton Primark T-shirts, but I bet it's true for Cashmere, silk and the like.

So generally you would pay less for clothes if you are a shortarse, is that what you want OP

What an unpleasant thread!

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that it doesn’t cost much more to make the same adult clothing item in a bigger size. You’re talking pence for that bit of fabric to a big manufacturer while the making of it would take the same time. Indeed, the smaller garment might just result in more fabric offcut waste, as it depends how well the pattern pieces will fit on the fabric width. I’ve made a number of garments where the fabric required is the same for a smaller size as a larger one for this reason.

However, the smaller the garment, often the fiddlier and more time consuming it is to make, so instead of trying to draw out the fat haters, the question you should be asking is simply, why do bigger child sizes cost more?

Really?
But who’s getting personal here?

I have fairly large norks (GG cup) and yes actually, the bigger sizes often do cost more than the A-D ranges. I don't have a problem with this. It's a bit annoying, yes, but I accept they probably cost more to make and get on with it.

Thank you @Boymumsoymum That was exactly the point of my question.

Haven’t read the full thread, but I’d rather see it go the other way and all children sizes be a set price. I picked up some shorts for ds yesterday I thought they were £10 but I grabbed the size behind and they were £14, only size 10-11 so small. More annoyingly is other teen ds who’s been in men sizes for years

As a busty woman myself, I'm well aware of that. Hence me wondering why the same doesn't apply to T-shirts, jeans, pyjamas etc.