/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10221278
It's probably a weight thing combined with a trend thing but also these less than 40% cotton jeans are just so much cheaper to produce. Real cotton jeans are so expensive now.
Deferring to anyone who knows more about it tho

lol at not wearing comfy chinos

>>10221284
>It's probably a weight thing
really? why is weight a factor? i do agree these seem "lighter", but how does that make a difference? you mean because people want lighter clothing? that would seem weird because jeans are often worn as winter pants, and they should be warm in that case. or do you mean for shipping costs? i thought most container-ship based shipping was based on volume (i.e. what fits in containers) rather than weight....

>but also these less than 40% cotton jeans are just so much cheaper to produce. Real cotton jeans are so expensive now.
interesting. i didn't realize that was even true. is it? why?

>>10221278

You're trying to discuss fashion in /sci/? Take this to /fa/. Science isn't in the business to discuss fashion trends. You are treading sociology waters.

>>10221299
first off, sociology is arguably a "science" if you admit social science. and if the reason is that people's weights are fluctuating, that's medical science. second, i asked already whether there was a materials science explanation for it. denim is a highly robust material that is suitable for durability, warmth, and protection from burns/scrapes/etc, so i am curious whether stretch jeans are popular because they reached equivalency in terms of those scientific properties in a time frame that explains their current dominance in the market

Because slim/skinny fit is the trend right now and stretch jeans are way more comfortable for that.

>>10221295
>why weight a factor
Weight corresponds to resources needed. We are a lot less dirty than we used to be from less physical labor and rigorous lifestyles, so lighter clothing is not surprisingly more common. We also develop better ways to make clothing, whether synthetic materials, more elaborate weaving, better dyes, and more robust material.

>jeans are often worn as winter clothes
Most people do less walking, and we don't need to survive as much outside, from less physical labor.

>container based shipping based on volume
For a given material, a single resource takes an amount equal to it's weight. If you can make clothes dense, they're less volume per unit, and less costly to ship per unit. Shipping is a cheap cost (a t-shirt is like one cent), so it's unlikely shipping cost would be significant. Per unit materials would be much, much more.

He's believing not real, but traditional cotton clothes are rarer or more expensive. If they were heavier, they would be more costly. If there was limited scaling of material compared to demand, there'd be a rise in cost. If the clothes are being produced less, they'd be more expensive.

Denim was the best because it was all we had for durable material. As materials improved and work became less laborious, if some clothing was less encumbering, cheaper, or more comfortable, but retained the cultural fashion trends and perceptive functionality, it's inevitable it'd be preferred.

>>10221386
good post. that makes sense. the only thing i’m still not really convinced of is that these materials are cheaper. is it really true that whatever synthetic polymers go into stretchy jeans are now cheaper than old-fashioned cotton? cotton literally “grows on trees” (or bushes? whatever) and i would be surprised if synthetic fibers that mimic it are any cheaper

>>10221421
1) It wouldn't have to be cheaper if it improves other qualities of the fabric. It could even be many times more expensive, if the reduction in other material was enough.

2) Spandex can be made from flowing liquid reactants. Plants take time to grow. As for how much cotton is needed, cotton grows in swabs basically. How light is a bag of cotton swabs? How many bushes do you think it would take to make one pair of pants? Plants take time, fertilizer, land, transportation, don't scale very well, etc. A chemical process becomes more efficient an often grows exponentially as we devote more space, besides improvements in process.

If the ingredients that went in spandex were plastic/oil derived, plastics have the advantage that the cost is subsidized by gasoline and plastic usage. Even if it didn't spandex is a polymer and any development in chemicals needed or processing. Cotton has very little usage outside of clothing and medical purposes, and you aren't exactly improving the yield of the cotton plant every year.

>>10221434
>plastics have the advantage that the cost is subsidized by gasoline and plastic usage
goddamn, yes, fossil fuels are in everything aren't they. kinda makes me sick to think my new jeans i'm wearing are thanks to evil oil corporations.....

>Even if it didn't spandex is a polymer and any development in chemicals needed or processing.
i feel like you didn't finish this thought -- should it have ended with "...needed or processing would make it cheaper."? i guess that would explain it

i guess your general argument here is that polymers / petroleum-derived materials are so dominant, and come from mines/industrial processes that are lucrative throughout industry, that humble cotton farms are getting out competed thanks to "subsidies" of one form or another plus the continual "progress" in the synthetic chemicals/materials industry. would you say that's a fair characterization of your thoughts?

>>10221284
Denim is also harder to machine, it's like heavy upholstery fabric.. These have mass appeal because the fit is always going to be better.

>>10221278
but real pants ya slob

>>10221278
>stretch jeans
Could there be a rapid fattening going on in your country? It is an issue in many countries now so stretch jeans makes it easier to fit more people.

Have you ever tried them on? They function exactly the same as normal denim jeans, are extremely comfortable, and unlike them, they actually don't restrict your movement at all. Added to this the fact that wearing loose fitting pants is almost universally considered bad looking, unless you're a fatty, in which case you look shit anyways (I and most other Europeans view fat people as actual subhumans, so I may be biased).

Its just to show off how thin you are, if youre fat you lool silly wearing this shot.
Fashion is not for fatties.

>>10221278
go for a docker, pocket are more natural, texture/ fabric is softer and they are more good looking
>What about price ?
>It is the same !

simply asking for a "scientific reason" doesn't suddenly make your shitpost applicable to /sci/