/fa/ - Fashion

>all the stuff I buy is from zara
>surprised your clothes are so shitty

wear James Perse OP

COS is like an upscale zara. check that out if you're in the EU

buy designer, dip. There's a reason they're that price, it's not "overpriced" by any means

>>7237982
>designer
>not overpriced
you just went full retard

>>7238002
>Those grapes were sour anyways!
You've been accustomed to shit materials and assumed that that price should be universal. Congrats.

>>7238010
designer clothes are 3 times as good and 10 times as expensive as fast fashion clothes

>>7238017
Oh really? Where did you get this equation from, your autistic justifications for not wearing designer? Do you have any idea what goes into making a designer product. I could give you some copypasta, about it if you're really this misinformed.

>Uniqlo
>good materials
>poor design choices

What the fuck am I reading?

>>7238033
>Oh really? Where did you get this equation from, your autistic justifications for not wearing designer?
who says i'm not wearing it?
>Do you have any idea what goes into making a designer product.
tell me

>>7238049
More like:
>Uniqlo
>poor materials
>good design choices

Uniqlo is shit.

>>7238057
Okay. It was originally written as a response I gave to Macklemore's thrift shop so ignore the parts about him (Or don't because I think I'm p. funny, you may disagree)

Usually when someone says something stupid, demeaning, dismissive, elitist, and downright stupid, people will ignore them. Or if you're Macklemore you can dismiss an entire industry, say every artist involved's work is useless, demean every single person down the way that they are involved in something evil, and call anyone who supports that industry as "ignorant bitch(es)" and people will say OMG LETS GO TO GOODWILL AND LOOK FOR SHOES THAT HAVE VELCRO ON THEM, SAME LOVE MADE ME CRY, SO DEEP.

So is $50 on a t-shirt really ignorant bitch shit? Is Macklemore onto some new ground by stating that spending money on things is stupid unless it costs 99 cents and smells like pee? Do only smart people collect clothing haphazardly with no regards as to what it means in a collective outfit, and then go on to claim they are more fashionable than others?

Jesus Christ. Okay. You there. You. Yeah you. You think 50 bucks on a shirt is ridiculous right? Right, I mean who wouldn't think that. Spending more than 100 dollars on any clothing item is just not sensible. Okay. So go grab a t shirt. One that you found to be fairly priced. Probably $8-$12 yeah? Look at the sticker. Made in China right? Right okay. Which leads me to a constructive, numbered list on what made that shirt so cheap.

(cont.)

>>7238068
1. Made in China. THAT MEANS IT WAS MADE IN A SWEATSHOP. That means there were Chinese workers getting paid pennies an hour making your shirt. Pennies. They were exploited, abused, and made to work insane hours for cheap, because you wanted a more sensible, cheap option for clothing. How economically sound of you :^)

2. At this point this shirt would cost a few pennies to buy, but let's backpedal a little to the start of this humble little shirt that says "Bazinga!" on it. The shirt had to be made of something, suicidally depressed Chinese workers can't just make the shirt out of nothing. Your shirt is either a Cotton blend or 100% cotton. Why? BECAUSE COTTON IS EASILY AVAILABLE AND CHEAP AS SHIT. After the cotton (most likely low quality Chinese cotton, because China is the largest producer of cotton) is cultivated, spun, and prepared for the sweatshop by the equally poorly paid Chinese cotton workers, you're up to about a $0.30 shirt. Neat!

3. This is when the cost of the shirt skyrockets. This is the importing stage. Companies manage to keep their costs low here by importing massive amounts of shirts, getting steep discounts on how much they pay per shirt. If they had to pay for each shirt individually they would probably have to price each shirt at around $50, which we all know is ignorant bitch shit. But through the magic of being able to import millions of shirts at a time, each shirt is around $2.00 at this point.

4. Now comes the pesky problem of Overhead. You have to pay utility expenses of your stores, shipping to and from warehouses, paying employees to do these things (And at this point, unfortunately they're United States employees, meaning you have to pay them more than a few pennies a day which is complete bullshit. These shirts could be so much cheaper if we just starved Americans, ugh), unloading trucks, loading trucks, putting clothes on display, rotating display, etc and so forth. At this point you are up to $4 dollar shirts.

(cont.)

>>7237697
>and aren't ridiculously overpriced?
herewego.jpg

>>7238075
5. Everything at this point is paid off if all those shirts sold, you broke even. You paid your employees, everyone in corporate, you covered the costs of your store, your designer, those damned Chinese (which you're still finding a way to sell, ship, and design your clothes because then you could really get some competitive prices) BUT WHAT ABOUT YOU. You deserve a cut. Markup! Markup, what the high fashion industry is almost always accused of ("You're paying for the brand not the quality", "It's so expensive because stupid people like you buy it", "That's some ignorant bitch shit") is far more prevalent in the places like Kohls, Walmart, Target, etc... You're seeing markups of near 200% or more there. And with such a massive supply that moves units so fast this yields insane profits. That's why in the top 10 of the richest people in fashion, 8 of them are owners of common and cheap clothing stores. The other two own like 6 of the most popular high fashion brands. In other words "sensible, cheap fashion" is making more money than more expensive "ignorant bitch shit fashion".

So why would a shirt cost $50? Are there elements beyond the aforementioned "ignorant bitch shit"? Why yes, yes there is!

(cont.)

>>7238017
Yeah, sometimes shit isn't linear, but you still have to get above the X axis.

Anyway, you probably – because you were trained to by the overlords of Bangladeshi child slaves – have a skewed view of how many pieces you need to own and how much they "should cost." Buy less but better, more beautiful, more useful, more durable, more you. Cheaper in the long run, usually.

Also, there is a whole world of stuff between $8 shirts and $800 shirts. It'd take for-fucking-ever to describe it all in detail, so lurk or give us an idea about WTF you're looking for.

>>7238080
1. Made in Italy. Usually what you're going to see on a tag from a fashion house like Rick Owens or Ann Demeulemeester or A Diciivdsvsadiowefsdioaskgioawergjw or however the fuck you spell his retarded ass name. It is true that there are sweatshops in Italy as well, and often times fashion houses will take advantage of the cheaper labor they can obtain, but it's usually the basic bitch labels that do that anyways. Gucci, for example, has notably been involved in accusations of using sweatshops, which is okay because you really shouldn't be wearing Gucci under any circumstance. But the majority of high respected fashion brands pay their workers a living wage. An actual, real, living wage. And each fashion house produces 1/1000th of the amount that something like Kohls brands produce. This makes each shirt have to be increased in price to recoup the costs of production. PRICE PER SHIRT AT THIS POINT $7 for a big name house, $25 for small name. Already more than the total cost of the previous shirt.

2. We're gonna do some similar backpedalin here and see where we get our materials. Often times you'll see cotton, cashmere, even silk sometimes. And this cotton ain't no low grade, spun quick and get it out there cotton. Na, this some top of the line shit homie. This some luxurious, ass cotton. Higher thread count, grade, and better paid workers in the place of origin. Aka this shit more expensive. If we're only talking cotton $8.50 per shirt at this point for a big house like Prada, $50-100 (ignorant bitch shit) for something niche like Rick Owens, especially since each shirt uses more material for the most part.

(cont.)

>>7238068
>>7238075
>>7238080
You're not funny.

>>7238082
Also, unlike this other guy, I'm all for thrifting and used stuff. But it has limits your style may or may not run up against.

>>7238085
how new are you

>>7238084
:^(

>>7238085
3. Shipping stage! This is when things get crazy. Since each designer is shipping a tiny amount of clothes, where demand isn't nearly as high costs can skyrocket. For a well known fashion house you can be at about $30 per shirt because high demand. But if you happen to be Carol Christian Poell who is so niche that his highest hopes are probably to move a few thousand garments per year (spread across the globe), hahahaha $250.

4. Overhead. You own fewer stores, less employees, etc, so forth so this is actually somewhat cheaper but still. $35 for da Prada. 260 for da CCP.

5. Markup. Markup percentage wise is much lower for fashion houses, because while they still need to pay their designer, they want to keep costs as low as possible to not dissuade any customers (Because they already have numerous issues just selling the limited supply they already made). At this point the markup is going to the owner and the designer mostly with most other things paid off, meaning around a 20% markup for each product. Places like Gucci and Prada can get away with higher markups because everyone knows them. If Julius, M.A+, Rick Owens, or CCP DARE markup more than 20% they can say goodbye to the industry. They are gone.

(cont.)

>>7238091
And that's how you get a $50 t-shirt. Is that being swindled and pimped? Tricked by a business? Some houses put a higher investment into their clothes and are legitimately out there to make clothes, which they see as art (which you can disagree with if you want, but you're flat out wrong), and need to charge far more than Kohls if they're ever going to see any form of return on their investment.

The fact Macklemore is so dismissive of this and has the elitist attitude that because he found his clothes at a thrift shop, he is somehow better than those who do care about quality, human rights, etc... is the biggest asshole thing a person could do. Being so self involved in one's own beliefs and patterns that anyone who differs is being an ignorant bitch or is only into an item because of its pricetag. The people who buy clothes, specifically because they are expensive, do not usually look all that great. You'll probably look like this dipstick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMan4bOCSOw (go to about 3:08 seconds) rather than be able to build a cohesive silhouette for yourself that can't be matched in terms of quality, which in my eyes justifies the price point.

Also Macklemore spent $600 on a single pair of ugly shoes. Spends insane amounts on tons of clothes rather than a smaller closet that is more effective and cheaper, just because for him it's about collecting. It's about going to a thrift store, finding a quirky item, wearing it once and moving on and somehow feeling you're better than those who spend the same amount on less items and know the purpose of each of them. And it may seem that I'm making a big deal out of all this, but it is a pretty big deal when one artist dismisses an entire industry of artists and workers and their supporters because of inaccessibility.

(cont.)

>>7238092
been up in here all week bitch

>>7238097
>Spends insane amounts on tons of clothes rather than a smaller closet that is more effective and cheaper. . .

Bingo. This.

It's better for me to have a closet of fewer, yet quality clothes. I'm willing to shell out the extra cash for a pair of pants or a t-shirt. As long as it lasts me a year or two. I just hate it when a brand new clothing item falls apart with regular wear.

>>7238106
Oh, yeah!? My nipples are more firm than yours.

>>7238097
>The fact Macklemore is so dismissive of this and has the elitist attitude that because he found his clothes at a thrift shop, he is somehow better than those who do care about quality, human rights, etc... is the biggest asshole thing a person could do.
lol
i didn't realize he was this serious about it
i thought it was just a song

>>7238120
He's told people in interviews to not spend a lot on clothing because "it will end up owning them" lol

>>7238128

>>7238010
You're an ignorant mouthpiece of one of the stupidest industries in the world. Congratulations. I'll keep buying non designer stuff made in first world countries without bullshit mark ups.

craftsmen>"designers"

>>7238068
>>7238075
you're not talking to who you think you're talking to. buying designer and paying more for well made clothing isn't the same thing

>>7238161
it can be

>>7238151
Man what can a sheep like me do to become enlightened like you, I've read Das Kapital but it didn't immediately make me think I'm better than people based on my and their spending habits. Did I do something wrong?