Rob1742 Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 You go in shops and see that a size S costs the same as a size XXXL. Surely it would be more fair that the more material that is used, the higher the cost of the item? I was in this shop with the missus the other day and I saw this item that was a size 20 for women. It was like a pair of curtains, at least double the amount of cloth that a normal person would wear, yet the same cost. If we had progressive pricing, or at least hiked the pricing up once it got to a certain size, then the larger population might start eating less, doing a bit more exercise and may generally be healthier. That or they end up paying their way for a change. This is the future, but I bet the MPs wouldn't suggest it as most of them could do with a good workout. Next time you see one of these seriously large burger eating fatties walking down the street, just remember we are subsidising them when they buy clothes. This is the future I am telling you.
Matt Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 But the World is too PC nowaday, well Britain anyway, it'd be classed as 'Fattist' or 'Fattism' probably. Another thing is it'd have to be regulated properly because companies would probably make clothes smaller meaning they could hike the price up abit, I'd say i'm a M to L in t-shirts, yet in certain places (Superdry are one of the worst offenders but I like their clothes) I seem to be a XL or even in some cases an XXL
Kent Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 I'd imagine the pricing is calculated on an average across all the sizes.
davieG Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 They invariably have too many large and very small sizes (see LCFC) and those are the ones you see in their sales.
Vicki Vixen Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 The cost of the material itself is probably a fairly small portion of the total cost of production, distribution and sales.
Rob1742 Posted 25 August 2014 Author Posted 25 August 2014 They will produce more standard sizes, and only a small amount for the porky population. That is why the standard sizes will be in the sale. You pop into a store and see how much material these size 20's use up, we are subsidising them. I wouldn't suggest we adopt the same policy for bras though. We should show a bit of leniency here I think.
pSinatra Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 They invariably have too many large and very small sizes (see LCFC) and those are the ones you see in their sales. I always seem to do well in the sales........seeing as I'm a size small or even XS in some cases. I don't think the amount of material dictates the cost of clothing. Tax, sales, manufacturing, advertising, distribution, etc. Take a Ralph Lauren Polo shirt. About £75 in the shops. The materials are probably 5% of that cost. They will charge what people are willing to pay.
Webbo Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 Bit unfair to class a bloke 6'5'' and broad as some fat bastard who deserves to pay more.
MooseBreath Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 The cost of the material itself is probably a fairly small portion of the total cost of production, distribution and sales.Maybe for a standard high street t-shirt but not so much for things like high end dress shirts or leather belts. The larger client can be getting twice as much of those smooth silky yarns for free. I'm with the OP this madness has to stop.
Rob1742 Posted 25 August 2014 Author Posted 25 August 2014 Can't believe this thread has been up for two hours and someone hasn't come on and said that they are not fat, they are big boned. Anyway, we will be doing them a favour if we got this passed in parliament. You watch the weight drop off when they need to try and squeeze into a size 16 to get a price reduction.
ScouseFox Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 what about hench fellas why should they have to pay 5 times as much just cos they go the gym and aren't skinny little pricks
Guest Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 Can't believe this thread has been up for two hours and someone hasn't come on and said that they are not fat, they are big boned. Anyway, we will be doing them a favour if we got this passed in parliament. You watch the weight drop off when they need to try and squeeze into a size 16 to get a price reduction. Perhaps cos nobody can be bothered to respond to your obvious wumming in that manner?
ADK Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 I'm sure some places already do this. I don't think they are banned from charging different prices per size, just that it isn't usually done. Probably working out an effective marginal cost per extra material is not worth it. As someone who is distinctly average it wouldn't affect me at all.
Fox92 Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 Isn't this the sap who is terrified of dogs What's wrong with not liking dogs?
Samilktray Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 What's wrong with not liking dogs?Nothing. But if you didn't see his ridiculous posts on the dogs thread then you won't understand
Rincewind Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 Not all big people are 'fat' some may be big boned or just have more muscle through exercise. Some people are tall some are short. There is a shop on Granby Street think its called Big and Tall which sells unusual sizes for the big and tall would you believe. I take a large to XLin T-shirts but I have got the XXL because I like a looser fitting. At my sister's wedding the waistcoat and jacket were tight yet I had given the right size. Others found the waistcoats too small. It was panic stations as the re-order was made on the Wednesday for the right sizes to be delivered on the Friday. It was a Leicester company from a warehouse. If pricing is done by size would a normal person be discriminated against as opposed to a midget? I think I am the first person to mention big boned. My mum always says that. Although all her sisters were big as were her mother. Her younger sister was normal although she was only a half-sister as her mother had strayed during the war.
purpleronnie Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 Can't we just tax people who wear sweatpants in public?
Samilktray Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 Can't we just tax people who wear sweatpants in public?Nothing wrong with sweatpants. Alexander Wang sweats are almost art.
purpleronnie Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 Nothing wrong with sweatpants. Alexander Wang sweats are almost art.
purpleronnie Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 Stick to your suits old man You wish , but I will gladly stick to them you scruff bag.
Rob1742 Posted 25 August 2014 Author Posted 25 August 2014 Just because I don't like dogs, does not mean I can't have a view about progressive pricing for clothing for the obese.
davieG Posted 25 August 2014 Posted 25 August 2014 Just because I don't like dogs, does not mean I can't have a view about progressive pricing for clothing for the obese. How about clothing for dogs now that is silly.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.