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!

Is this directed at me? I have no idea and the original question I asked didn't really relate to being healthy. I'm not suggesting that they 'tax' overweight people by charging more for their clothes to make them lose weight. I was asking why smaller clothes aren't cheaper than bigger ones as I assumed they'd cost less to make.

But if I had to guess at whether size 4 (old size 8 based on 1980s / 90s clothes measurements before vanity sizing was a thing) is healthier than a size 12 (size 16 in older measurements), I'd say yes if you're below average height, probably not if you're on the tall side and 'maybe' if you're average. Don't forget that we've lost sight of what's healthy. Just because size 16-18 is average size nowadays, it doesn't mean that it's the right size. For most people (not all), wearing clothes that size would mean that they're obese.

“we've lost sight of what's healthy”

Classic MN quote! So predictable. Next you’ll be going on about portion sizes and how 1,000 calories a day is more than enough.

You’ve admitted you’re fat yourself - so why don’t you stop judging others? Or are you just that full of self-hate?

So, what I'm taking from this is that the clothes companies shouldn't be charging more for the same kids' clothes in bigger sizes?
And as for kids' shoes? They don't have VAT added, so why are they so expensive? More expensive than the shoes I'd buy for myself!
Topic for a different thread, but still!

When I was a size 8-10, I had an eating disorder and had no energy, was struggling to get out of bed. My BMI was something like 20 - I looked skeletal, despite never being underweight. I had that head too large for my body look. I’m now a 12-14, no idea what my weight or BMI is - I can get out of bed no problem, I no longer have vitamin deficiencies. So I highly doubt that for most people, a 4 is healthier than a 12.

Don't forget that we've lost sight of what's healthy

Wonderedhow long it would take to spout this line.

I always assumed that this was more of a supply-and-demand thing, that parents are willing to pay more for older childrens' clothing and that is why it costs more. Until you get into the realms of luxury fabric, the quantity of fabric and time taken to assemble would have very little bearing on the price to consumers.

I read the other day, that kids shoes are only VAT exempt up to size 5.5 for girls or 6.5 for boys.

Was speaking to a manager in Black's or Millets and he told me that the reason they don't keep sizes other than the most popular (ie no really small or really large) is because they both cost more than the most popular sizes and they incur the wrath of management if they end up with excess stock in the highest cost items

This.

This is why the retailers do their graded costs to the customer.

Only this.

As VAT is applied to adults clothes and shoes, it appears to be agreed that a flat cost per garment will be applied irrespective of the size.

But really, OP, way to go on the fat shaming, big busted shaming and basically everything shaming thread you posted.

I noticed you have turned off the option to vote? Why would that be I wonder???

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4085886/The-size-4-slightly-smug-club-tips-women-stay-slim.html

Sorry for DM link but yeah only eating once a day and consuming 1000 calories a day is healthier than a size 12. Really?

Salons near me do.

They charge more generally if you’re very hairy too. Or in other words, if you pretty hairless, they charge less abs give a reasonable discount.

They are using way less wax and taking way less time, why should it cost the same? I get why they do it.

This is a weird concept. Look at the average man’s vs woman’s clothes. Generally men are considerably taller and more fabric is used but in general a woman’s top would cost three times what a man’s would cost. Just look at the price difference between our undies and the material used there!

Same with shoes, a strappy pair of womens shoes with a few bits of leather holding it together will always be significantly more expensive than a larger full leather man’s shoe.

Weird how OP is concentrating on a premise that fat people should pay more then slim people and not that by default all men’s clothing should be much more expensive than women’s. Hmmmmm

I think you should pay for what you get just like with everything else. We pay for what is in our trolleys at the supermarket and don't just pay for the average trolley. Should be the same with clothes and shoes.

Maybe larger ladies may not want to go shopping with their skinny friend ,and end up paying more for their large size ?Over half of women in UK size 16 or above! (Including me at s 16!)Usually in Sales /Charity shops ,lots of bargains to be had for s 8/10 less at other end! I imagine a range of dresses is priced somewhere in the middle!

The thing is like for like women's clothing is not more expensive than men's clothing. For example men's basic underwear (from a supermarket, next, etc) costs a lot more than women's basic underwear from the same retailer, and a full leather women's shoe costs the same as a men's shoe.

Where women's clothes do cost more it is due to the design costs, quality of material and increased manufacturing costs because of the increased complexity and/or smaller numbers produced.

I'm not judging anyone. Just stating a fact that as a nation (myself included), we are generally overweight and this has become the norm.

@LookItsMeAgain I haven't 'turned off' the option to vote - I posted on the app which as far as I can see doesn't give the option to vote.

And I'm not 'fat shaming' or 'big-busted shaming' anyone. If you'd read my posts, you'd notice that I am both overweight and big-busted myself.

@HoppingPavlova. I disagree with many of your points about mens' clothing being less expensive than ladies'.
A pack of 3 mens' simple boxers is as much as £15-18 in M&S. I can buy a pack of 5 briefs for under £12. Yes, if you want fancy / lacy garments they are more, but the basic ranges are not. I assume that the boxers cost more because the use more material and cost more to make.

It’s a poor attempt to shut down a discussion that people feel uncomfortable with by calling it ‘xxxxxx-shaming’

I don’t think anyone here has said anything pejorative about overweight or obese people have they?

So if larger bras cost more why wouldn't other larger clothing cost more? I agree with you OP. I have often thought that if I was any good at dress making I would buy the largest size the shop had and make it into 2 outfits. I would then sell the one I didn't need, could be a great sideline money spinner :)

@Tania64 Genius idea

I agree. I don't think it makes sense for a size 12 to be more expensive than a size 10 because there isn't much difference. But for a size 20+ there is a huge difference in the amount of material. It's not fat shaming, it's matter of fact that it uses more material so it costs more to make and that should be passed on to the consumer. I think a lot of people need to face up to reality that we have a) an obesity crisis and b) an environmental problem with fast fashion. I think charging more for bigger sizes could help with those two issues even if just a little.

That's not the sole reason you pay more for 12+ clothes, you need to consider VAT.

Also I saw this question raised with regards to designer brands and branded sportswear and in a lot of cases, as already pointed out, the actual cost of the fabric is only a small % of cost. In a lot of cases, you're paying for the brand name.

Those stats don't necessarily translate to clothes sizes.

You could be very short, considered overweight for your height but still be a size 8.

You could be very tall, normal weight but be a size 14 due to your height.

You could be a cross fit nut and your muscle mass would play a factor.

Body shape is an issue - my donkey thighs mean my upper body garments are generally a size lower than trousers. My waist isn't an issue, just years of playing sport filled my thighs out.

Not rtft but I have to pay more for mine. I shop at asda, tesco etc. Its only a couple of pounds more but there is definitely a price increase at size 20-22