/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.8686077]

I don't browse this board, I'm not into fashion. Can you explain why this shit is so expensive? Is it so people with cash can "distinguish" themselves? I don't understand this.

http://tres-bien.com/brand/maison-martin-margiela/velcro-sneaker-anthracite

[Anonymous No.8686087]

1. brand/design
2. materials
3. construction

[Anonymous No.8686096]

>>8686087
4. because they know people will still buy it

[Anonymous No.8686109]

it's fashion, we're narcissists, what's to not understand.

[Anonymous No.8686110]

>>8686087
2 and 3 are total bullshit. There's no way the materials or the labor for this space boot cost them more than 10 bucks.

Which I get #1, but srsly

[Anonymous No.8686120]

>>8686110
Kek, 10 bucks

[Anonymous No.8686129]

demographics and uniqueness

do you want your lambo to be driven by everyone? do you want your shoes being worn by crack-hoes and hobos or maybe rather people that are interested in fashion and are successful enough to spend a grand on a pair of trainers?

[Anonymous No.8686143]

>>8686110
There's no way the materials or the labor for this space computer cost them more than like 10 bucks

[Anonymous No.8686146]

>>8686110
Really ten dollars? I'm sure the price of materials and construction aren't equal to the retail value, but seriously ten dollars?

[Anonymous No.8686148]

>>8686110
Actual leather (no, not the leather your sambas are made of) costs more than 10 dollars idiot. Also, i dont care what fags like you think. They will last you way longer than vans or other cheap shit. For example, I spent 200 on some gats and after two years they're still I'm great shape. I bought vans as beaters at the same time, wore them significantly less, and the heel is worn to hell and the canvas has holes. Suck my fashionable, well-off cock

[Anonymous No.8686155]

>>8686110
theres no way this space car cost them more than ten bucks

[Anonymous No.8686163]

>>8686155
>>8686143
top kek

[Anonymous No.8686176]

>>8686110
theres no way this space ship cost them more than ten bucks

[Anonymous No.8686184]

there's no way this space teeth cost them more than like 10 bucks

[Anonymous No.8686190]

there's no way this space planet cost them more than like 10 bucks

[Anonymous No.8686193]

>>8686110
you're the type of dude who thinks that expsnive clothing is shit quality because you own some discount Silent


>>8686143
>>8686155
>>8686176
lul

[Anonymous No.8686204]

>>8686193
you're kidding yourself if you think £400 sneaks cost more than like £40 to make.

we're all vain egocentric arseholes, so what? at least don't lie to yourself about it.

[Anonymous No.8686208]

>>8686143
>>8686146
>>8686155
You're not doing anything for your argument. I'm not criticizing your clothing choices, I'm just trying to understand.http://nymag.com/fashion/06/spring/15735/

2300 dollar dress costs 400 bucks to 475% mark up.

Are you guys seriously suggesting 800 space boots have a profit margin that makes sense?
>>8686129
This makes sense.

[Anonymous No.8686211]

>>8686110
Ok it's obvious the material and labour costs more than 10 bucks, but his point is valid none the less. The surplus value of every piece of designer clothing must be immense, a lot larger than say, a pair of regular nikes or converse. And kek at the kids ITT comparing costs of spaceships with the cost of designer clothing, you're highly delusional

[Anonymous No.8686213]

there's no way this space spider-expert cost them more than like 10 bucks

[Anonymous No.8686215]

>>8686193
I never said it was shit quality, I just don't understand a markup of 475-1500%. You're paying for exclusivity, which I mean... okay.

[Anonymous No.8686226]

>>8686110
theres no way this space gun cost them more than 10 bucks

[Anonymous No.8686229]

>>8686211
>And kek at the kids ITT comparing costs of spaceships with the cost of designer clothing, you're highly delusional
110%

[Anonymous No.8686235]

>>8686211
I don't think people are comparing them I think they are just mocking him for say mmm only costs ten dollars.

[Anonymous No.8686244]

>>8686110
lol take a fashion design class
then a merchandise marketing class
then a merchandise development class
you'll understand high prices

[Anonymous No.8686248]

>>8686229
You're an idiot

[Anonymous No.8686252]

>>8686235
Well, they are comparing them, all whilst ignoring his point which was completely valid.

[Anonymous No.8686253]

limited runs come in to play to some degree. the designer stuff is not ubiquitous and what is put out one season may not be sold again

[Anonymous No.8686257]

this thread is p bad

[Anonymous No.8686259]

>>8686252
His point wasn't valid and people aren't comparing them. The cost of the materials is much greater than ten dollars and then add the cost of construction you've got a large percentage of the retail price.

[Anonymous No.8686267]

Okay guys I think I understand. You pay for exclusivity, and uniqueness...

and then get really fuckin defensive about it. Smells like I prolapsed ur butthurt 2 infinity.

[Anonymous No.8686272]

>>8686259
exactly
keep in mind a lot of materials are imported

overall though they do have a point
you are buying the brand
but the quality also plays a factor
brands like margiela sell a lifestyle not just the high quality and design

source: fashion school student

[Anonymous No.8686277]

>>8686211

that's true if you look at it piece:piece, designer:nike, 1:1 surplus value.

however, if you look at it as design-run:design-run, any run of a nike product is guilty of extracting exponentially more surplus value from laborers and consumers than any designer product. nike manufactures hundreds of millions of units and extracts billions of dollars in surplus value.

also, the supply chain of designer products is much more varied when compared to the supply chain of mass market made-in-china products. if your product is made in china, maybe it's made by a chinese artisan who is compensated with a living wage. that's possible, and surely does happen. but it's not statistically probable, and is basically non-existent with a company like nike.

on the other hand, a made-in-england product might very well be made by disadvanteg immigrant laborers making minimum-wage or less. but there's definitely a higher chance that it's made by some crafts-person who is compensated more fairly.

also you can't get the lux materials (no matter what they cost supply-side) on a well-designed pair of shoes at a nike price-point. regardless of the markup, if i want specifically xyz and it costs 1000 dollars and i can't get it anywhere else, id' rather spend that if i could afford it than settle for something less and thus essentially spend money in order to receive dissatisfaction. if i'm going to spend my money, i'm only going to spend it on something that's either absolutely necessary, or something that's completely satisfactory. not going to spend my hard-earned money on something that i find disappointing.

[Anonymous No.8686280]

>>8686259
You're so fucking autistic I actually feel bad for you. It was a hyperbole.

[Anonymous No.8686295]

>>8686259
there's absolutely no way the production cost of those boots are anyway near 850 dollars. 200 max, its made of leather and rubber, and the wages of the workers assembling these cannot possibly be high enough to warrant this price. The point is prices are hyper inflated because there are fuckboys willing to pay for them

[Anonymous No.8686298]

>>8686204
pretty sure they do though.

the materials for a shoe like this might not be that expensive (or they also might; really no clue), but they're made somewhere in europe (probs italy) by people with developed country tier hourly wages. which is part of the appeal also, i sure as hell wouldn't pay 600 for shoes made in Vietnam.

if your point is you could make a 99% replica of this shoe in some Nike factory for pocket change, that's probably true. but you can't take the designers out of the equation either, that'd be retarded. they're people on the company's payroll as well and their wages (probably a lot) are reflected on the price.

also OP you picked a terrible example. you can't really find a shoe like this in a mall, it's a pretty unique design. so it's immediately obvious what people are paying for. should've picked cp's or some 100 dollar white tee as an example

[Anonymous No.8686311]

>>8686277
I agree with you, it's because the nikes sell more they can afford to extract less surplus value per piece while still making a profit, while designer clothing has to extract more surplus value per piece in order to make a profit

[Anonymous No.8686317]

>>8686280
You sound irritated.

[Anonymous No.8686323]

the materials definitely didn't cost more than 10 dollars

you're not necessarily paying for the materials. you're paying for this specific arrangement of specific materials in a specific context. clothing and shoes are just different forms of sculpture. what's the monetary value of art? whatever people will pay for it

[Anonymous No.8686332]

>>8686323
This
Although construction definitely is better in general as you approach some of the bigger bands. However, there is a certain threshold of cash where no amount of money will get you anything more than sneakers. I think 300ish is the ceiling for that, maybe 400 since CPs seem to be pretty well made.

[Anonymous No.8686350]

>>8686323
I see what you did there....

[Anonymous No.8686421]

>>8686323
>definitely didnt cost more than 10 dollars

lol stfu

[Anonymous No.8686435]

>>8686204
>>8686215
>>8686267


you are one dense motherfucker.

What I pay for is the design. Ever noticed that nothing at 90% of clothing stores actually looks good (maybe not because you're a plebe)?

[Anonymous No.8686535]

>>8686421
You think a piece of unframed canvas and some paint cost more than ten dollars in the 40s?

[Rezr No.8686601]

>>8686077
Material/Labour/Design/Limited/Exclusivity.
The Mona Lisa probably cost the equivalent of $10 to make, but it's insured for $100 million.

You'd have to be autistic to think that everything is price to manufacturer + small profit = retail price.