![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
holliI had a conversation with ellen_fremedon and another friend about clothing, and how it's made, earlier this week, and it wandered into territory I thought y'all might find interesting. So here's what I had to say, more or less.
Basically: there is a reason the clothes you buy at H&M are so shitty, and it's not exactly that they're doing it on purpose. Well, it sort of is. But mostly, it's because they can't not be shitty. It's because the entire production chain, start to finish, has become structured in such a way that it is actually quite difficult to produce quality clothing.
When you buy a piece of clothing at a modern retail store, you are probably buying clothing made with dubiously ethical labor, of fabric sourced to cost as little as possible, made of pieces cut on machines designed to cut as many pieces of fabric as quickly, simply, and efficiently as possible. At every step in the chain, every step that can be cut has been cut. The process of clothing manufacturing is, at this point, breathtakingly streamlined, and it results for the most part in a very specific type of clothing.
If you have any familiarity with vintage clothing, you are probably aware that they are usually of significantly higher quality than most modern clothing. When I say "vintage" I mean, in particular, clothes made before about 1965-- before the offshoring of our garment industry began. Most clothes worn in the United States before that time were made domestically, by union labor-- that is, skilled workers being paid a living wage. This is relevant.
Also relevant is the fact that clothes used to cost more, as a proportion of a person's income. The average woman in 1950 had one-quarter a modern woman's wardrobe, and paid a higher percentage of her income for that wardrobe than a modern woman does. That vintage wardrobe, though smaller, was made to a higher standard-- sturdier fabrics, better tailoring, sewn from more complex patterns, adorned with more details and better finishing. That wardrobe routinely featured things like deep-pocketed skirts, matching belts, bound buttonholes, pintucks, piping. These are not things we often see in modern fast fashion.
What happened? Well, it starts with labor. When we lost the domestic garment industry, we lost that pool of skilled labor, and switched to a lower-skilled, lower-paid labor pool. We switched to an emphasis on making as many simple garments as possible, as quickly as possible, rather than fewer, more complex pieces. We chose $5 t-shirts over $250 day dresses.
Which is not to imply that I'm judging people who wear fast fashion. It's a completely rational economic decision to buy the clothes you can afford, and there are other factors at play here, too.
For instance, the price of fabric was once much lower, and home sewing a much more accessible hobby. Due in part to environmental factors and our changing climate, the price of cotton has risen in recent years-- why do you think those whisper-thin cotton knits have been the prevailing trend? Why do you think everyone who can get away with it has switched to synthetics?
This is the point I'm trying to make: at every step in the production chain, from the manufacture of fabric to the design and assembly of the clothes themselves, someone has decided to do the least expensive thing.
Shift dresses require less complex cutting than structured ones-- and what, coincidentally, has been the most common shape you see in stores? Miniskirts require less fabric than long skirts-- and minis are, coincidentally, in vogue. Sheer fabrics require less raw material to manufacture; machine-assisted beading and studding takes less-skilled labor and less time than other forms of embellishment that call for skill and handwork. Garment workers being paid pennies a piece earn more when they don't have to add pockets or extra finishing, or sew buttons on too securely.
The cutting machines that stamp out pieces to be assembled into clothing? They're loaded with as thick a stack of fabric as possible, because the more fabric you cut at once, the more clothes you can make in a day. The thicker the fabric, the fewer pieces you can cut at once; the more pieces you cut, the greater the margin for error, so better make those pieces simple. Clothes that fit close to the body need to be cut and sewn more precisely, unless they're made of stretchy fabric. Boy, leggings sure are popular these days.
We're seeing the end result of a garment industry that has cut itself to the bone in pursuit of profit. The clothing currently in stores reflects an industry that has streamlined every process it's capable of. This has actually influenced trends and driven fashion in a direction that calls for cheap-to-manufacture clothing. It's a process that is fundamentally unsustainable, because there's only so much you can cut before you're left with rags. And it's built on the backs of a labor pool that has begun to protest its treatment, to demand fair wages and attempt to unionize.
If that happens-- and I sincerely hope it does-- we may begin to see the price of clothing rise again. With it, if we're lucky, we may see a rise in quality. When the people who make your clothing are paid a living wage, when they have the ability to develop their skills and be fairly compensated for them, there is a ripple effect through the whole production chain.
We might end up with smaller wardrobes. But perhaps the pieces in them will be worth owning.
ellen_fremedon and another friend about clothing, and how it's made, earlier this week, and it wandered into territory I thought y'all might find interesting. So here's what I had to say, more or less.Basically: there is a reason the clothes you buy at H&M are so shitty, and it's not exactly that they're doing it on purpose. Well, it sort of is. But mostly, it's because they can't not be shitty. It's because the entire production chain, start to finish, has become structured in such a way that it is actually quite difficult to produce quality clothing.
When you buy a piece of clothing at a modern retail store, you are probably buying clothing made with dubiously ethical labor, of fabric sourced to cost as little as possible, made of pieces cut on machines designed to cut as many pieces of fabric as quickly, simply, and efficiently as possible. At every step in the chain, every step that can be cut has been cut. The process of clothing manufacturing is, at this point, breathtakingly streamlined, and it results for the most part in a very specific type of clothing.
If you have any familiarity with vintage clothing, you are probably aware that they are usually of significantly higher quality than most modern clothing. When I say "vintage" I mean, in particular, clothes made before about 1965-- before the offshoring of our garment industry began. Most clothes worn in the United States before that time were made domestically, by union labor-- that is, skilled workers being paid a living wage. This is relevant.
Also relevant is the fact that clothes used to cost more, as a proportion of a person's income. The average woman in 1950 had one-quarter a modern woman's wardrobe, and paid a higher percentage of her income for that wardrobe than a modern woman does. That vintage wardrobe, though smaller, was made to a higher standard-- sturdier fabrics, better tailoring, sewn from more complex patterns, adorned with more details and better finishing. That wardrobe routinely featured things like deep-pocketed skirts, matching belts, bound buttonholes, pintucks, piping. These are not things we often see in modern fast fashion.
What happened? Well, it starts with labor. When we lost the domestic garment industry, we lost that pool of skilled labor, and switched to a lower-skilled, lower-paid labor pool. We switched to an emphasis on making as many simple garments as possible, as quickly as possible, rather than fewer, more complex pieces. We chose $5 t-shirts over $250 day dresses.
Which is not to imply that I'm judging people who wear fast fashion. It's a completely rational economic decision to buy the clothes you can afford, and there are other factors at play here, too.
For instance, the price of fabric was once much lower, and home sewing a much more accessible hobby. Due in part to environmental factors and our changing climate, the price of cotton has risen in recent years-- why do you think those whisper-thin cotton knits have been the prevailing trend? Why do you think everyone who can get away with it has switched to synthetics?
This is the point I'm trying to make: at every step in the production chain, from the manufacture of fabric to the design and assembly of the clothes themselves, someone has decided to do the least expensive thing.
Shift dresses require less complex cutting than structured ones-- and what, coincidentally, has been the most common shape you see in stores? Miniskirts require less fabric than long skirts-- and minis are, coincidentally, in vogue. Sheer fabrics require less raw material to manufacture; machine-assisted beading and studding takes less-skilled labor and less time than other forms of embellishment that call for skill and handwork. Garment workers being paid pennies a piece earn more when they don't have to add pockets or extra finishing, or sew buttons on too securely.
The cutting machines that stamp out pieces to be assembled into clothing? They're loaded with as thick a stack of fabric as possible, because the more fabric you cut at once, the more clothes you can make in a day. The thicker the fabric, the fewer pieces you can cut at once; the more pieces you cut, the greater the margin for error, so better make those pieces simple. Clothes that fit close to the body need to be cut and sewn more precisely, unless they're made of stretchy fabric. Boy, leggings sure are popular these days.
We're seeing the end result of a garment industry that has cut itself to the bone in pursuit of profit. The clothing currently in stores reflects an industry that has streamlined every process it's capable of. This has actually influenced trends and driven fashion in a direction that calls for cheap-to-manufacture clothing. It's a process that is fundamentally unsustainable, because there's only so much you can cut before you're left with rags. And it's built on the backs of a labor pool that has begun to protest its treatment, to demand fair wages and attempt to unionize.
If that happens-- and I sincerely hope it does-- we may begin to see the price of clothing rise again. With it, if we're lucky, we may see a rise in quality. When the people who make your clothing are paid a living wage, when they have the ability to develop their skills and be fairly compensated for them, there is a ripple effect through the whole production chain.
We might end up with smaller wardrobes. But perhaps the pieces in them will be worth owning.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 04:06 pm (UTC)*will likely be revisiting this multiple times*
no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 09:58 pm (UTC)Lately they even get better necklines; it's been impossible to find a V-neck lately except by browsing the men's section. (Well, a V-neck that isn't also transparent and/or that stops at a my navel.)
Men's jeans seem to have resisted the "add more and more spandex, and cut them smaller" trend, too. Wonder why that is? *annoyed* Do only dudes deserve pants that don't fall off!? Do only dudes know the magical method of communicating to the fashion industry that they prefer pants that don't fall off? Because I am seriously fed up with "stretch denim" as a concept, and especially with its ubiquity in every pair of jeans EVER!
no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 05:12 pm (UTC)If men buy less often, and consider buying less often a feature, then the manufacturers have an incentive to use sturdy fabrics and sewing techniques. And since men are generally less worried about fit except at the high end, then complexity of garment design isn't really a problem either. Really, what amazes me is that the manufacturers haven't caught on and started charging more for men's basics than women's. I routinely buy casual pants from the men's department these days: same price, higher quality.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 06:23 pm (UTC)I've noticed that with plus-sized clothing in particular, prices keep going up but quality keeps going down. Which is one of the many reasons I usually buy second hand - if I can get a 2005 basic top for £10 including shipping on eBay and I know it'll be heavier cotton and have tighter stitching than its 2014 counterpart, why would I want to pay £40 including shipping for a new one?
Just to be clear, I'm not demanding clothes that cost £10 or less new! It's just that if I do want to shell out for an item that goes beyond the basics, I'm far more likely to buy online from a vintage seller or an independent designer whose quality I know and trust. I have to pay for shipping and sometimes for returns, but I'm willing to live with that as a compromise.
I agree with cofax7 about mens clothes; my husband tends to shop at Primark and TK Maxx, and the things he manages to find for Stupid Cheap aren't anything like as shoddy as what plus-size manufacturers try to foist off on me at four times the price.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 10:00 pm (UTC)Indeed! I bought a couple new tees at TJ Maxx last week, and one came from the men's section - it's a sturdier fabric than the "ladies" tee I bought, and the seams feel more secure, too. And, at $15, it's five bucks cheaper than the flimsier female-labelled tee!
no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 07:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 07:35 pm (UTC)(I say, sitting here in leggings and a dress from Forever 21, because I'm totally part of the problem.)
no subject
Date: 2014-02-08 10:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 04:59 pm (UTC)But I know there was a point around 2000 (haven't found the exact date) when the standards for leather garments got relaxed. The material got way lighter and thinner, which made it more flexible and presumably easier to sew, but also made it much more flimsy. I have a post-2000 leather jacket which is aging very badly, and really isn't designed for the kinds of leather-upkeep techniques you can do on shoes; whereas the one I bought recently is in the 15-17 year-old range, and looks great. And weighs probably 15 lbs.! But looks great.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 05:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 08:36 pm (UTC)IMHO the change is going to come from small manufacturers. There are several emerging, from what limited attention I pay, making clothing that's more expensive with an eye to durability. These folks make ridiculously expensive sweatshirts ($89), but they reportedly go heavy-duty on the materials. I think they got started through a Kickstarter.
I suspect we'll see a return of quality clothing, but it's not going to be through the existing clothing industry.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 09:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-02-10 04:08 pm (UTC)It's clear consumer demand is there, particularly from women's clothing. I'm really curious to see what happens as robotics gets better at this kind of stuff.
no subject
Date: 2014-02-10 04:14 pm (UTC)