3 ms·

"women don't value putting things in pockets" "women want form over function" "women [are lying] about wanting pockets" "women refuse to wear clothes they fi

"women don't value putting things in pockets" "women want form over function" "women [are lying] about wanting pockets" "women refuse to wear clothes they find ugly" These are all morality based statements. They hold a moral value. Other comments build on these assumptions to discuss supply and demand. > Travel to a developing country with a reputation for making clothes and for a few thousand dollars, I am guessing you can get custom clothes with bigger pockets made for you. Your solution is "have money and take advantage of developing labor." That's not helpful.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> These are all morality based statements. They hold a moral value. Other comments build on these assumptions to discuss supply and demand. I would describe those as statements as more about economics, and which tradeoffs people are willing to make in their clothes buying decisions. > Your solution is "have money and take advantage of developing labor." That's not helpful. The clothes in Costco and pretty much every other store in America take advantage of developing labor.
- growingkittens 3y ago
  Any human economic system is intrinsically tied to human values (and human nature). What we value depends on our moral systems. Discussing economics involves making assumptions about what other people value and why they value it. > The clothes in Costco and pretty much every other store in America take advantage of developing labor. Yes, so why suggest "more of the same"?
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > Yes, so why suggest "more of the same"? Because it solves the problem? The person making your clothes is in front of you and you can tell them make your pockets a certain size.
    - growingkittens 3y ago
      Again, you've only "solved" the problem for people with money. You can "solve" lots of problems by saying "use money to fix it."
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Yes, that is generally what you need to trade for other people’s time. An option that lets you trade less money, but more time, is watching YouTube videos on how to sew and making your own clothes.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  You are being far too generous here. These are shoddy incomplete economic arguments because they focus exclusively on demand, treating supply as some highly reactive all-knowing pants creation engine. If women really wanted better pockets, they would magically become widely available at reasonable prices! Of course, if you look at the actual context of those comments, relatively little of it attempts to invoke anything beyond a cursory nod to that particular anti-economic solecism. It really is largely about blaming women for not making better choices.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > If women really wanted better pockets, they would magically become widely available at reasonable prices! This is not accurate. There are multiple variables in play. Price, functionality, desirability (to others), etc. The claim is that across all those variables, what major retailers sell for the lowest prices available is what the broader population of women are able and willing to pay for. Note that the lowest prices require economies of scale, which means the type of clothing that a broad population will accept, even with features they do not like. It is publicly known that selling clothes is a very low profit margin business, so it stands to reason that unless you know what you are doing, you are not going to survive. The thing with clothes is that many are not able or willing to pay for the customizations they seek. Because clothes are “easy” to make, the only question is how much are you willing to pay. I hope that the above website and other discussions around this issue spur clothes makers to make clothes with bigger and more pockets for women at lower prices. Perhaps times are changing and bigger/more pockets is a more profitable market that has not yet been tapped.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      > This is not accurate. My point was not that your assessment is wrong. It's that you're giving other people in this thread way too much credit here: > I would describe those as statements as more about economics, and which tradeoffs people are willing to make in their clothes buying decisions.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
Examples 1, 2, and 4 are value based statements, nothing about morals at all. Examples 4 comes close, but it's really just saying "women value form over function" using different words, so it's a repeat of example 2. Claiming that a group values good looking pants over pants with pockets isn't an appeal to morals.
- growingkittens 3y ago
  What we value depends on our moral systems. Value based statements are an expression of morality.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

> These are all morality based statements. They hold a moral value. Other comments build on these assumptions to discuss supply and demand. I would describe those as statements as more about economics, and which tradeoffs people are willing to make in their clothes buying decisions. > Your solution is "have money and take advantage of developing labor." That's not helpful. The clothes in Costco and pretty much every other store in America take advantage of developing labor.

growingkittens 3y ago
Any human economic system is intrinsically tied to human values (and human nature). What we value depends on our moral systems. Discussing economics involves making assumptions about what other people value and why they value it. > The clothes in Costco and pretty much every other store in America take advantage of developing labor. Yes, so why suggest "more of the same"?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > Yes, so why suggest "more of the same"? Because it solves the problem? The person making your clothes is in front of you and you can tell them make your pockets a certain size.
  - growingkittens 3y ago
    Again, you've only "solved" the problem for people with money. You can "solve" lots of problems by saying "use money to fix it."
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Yes, that is generally what you need to trade for other people’s time. An option that lets you trade less money, but more time, is watching YouTube videos on how to sew and making your own clothes.
nerdponx 3y ago
You are being far too generous here. These are shoddy incomplete economic arguments because they focus exclusively on demand, treating supply as some highly reactive all-knowing pants creation engine. If women really wanted better pockets, they would magically become widely available at reasonable prices! Of course, if you look at the actual context of those comments, relatively little of it attempts to invoke anything beyond a cursory nod to that particular anti-economic solecism. It really is largely about blaming women for not making better choices.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > If women really wanted better pockets, they would magically become widely available at reasonable prices! This is not accurate. There are multiple variables in play. Price, functionality, desirability (to others), etc. The claim is that across all those variables, what major retailers sell for the lowest prices available is what the broader population of women are able and willing to pay for. Note that the lowest prices require economies of scale, which means the type of clothing that a broad population will accept, even with features they do not like. It is publicly known that selling clothes is a very low profit margin business, so it stands to reason that unless you know what you are doing, you are not going to survive. The thing with clothes is that many are not able or willing to pay for the customizations they seek. Because clothes are “easy” to make, the only question is how much are you willing to pay. I hope that the above website and other discussions around this issue spur clothes makers to make clothes with bigger and more pockets for women at lower prices. Perhaps times are changing and bigger/more pockets is a more profitable market that has not yet been tapped.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    > This is not accurate. My point was not that your assessment is wrong. It's that you're giving other people in this thread way too much credit here: > I would describe those as statements as more about economics, and which tradeoffs people are willing to make in their clothes buying decisions.

xboxnolifes 3y ago

Examples 1, 2, and 4 are value based statements, nothing about morals at all. Examples 4 comes close, but it's really just saying "women value form over function" using different words, so it's a repeat of example 2. Claiming that a group values good looking pants over pants with pockets isn't an appeal to morals.

growingkittens 3y ago
What we value depends on our moral systems. Value based statements are an expression of morality.