3 ms·

> It only benefitted the owners. And the buyers. As a ballpark estimate, it would take around 50 hours of human labor to produce a shirt by hand, fabric plus s

> It only benefitted the owners. And the buyers. As a ballpark estimate, it would take around 50 hours of human labor to produce a shirt by hand, fabric plus sewing, versus about an hour of human labor by industrial machines. That lowers the cost greatly, which most consumers demonstrably value over custom tailoring.

thrance 9mo ago
At the time, the quality of machine-made clothes was noticeably worse than human-made. It's debatable wether the "consumers" (the term certainly wasn't used at the time) won in the end. Terry Pratchett's "Boots theory" feels relevant here: > Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. > But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
- delichon 9mo ago
  > It's debatable whether the "consumers" won in the end. If "in the end" is now, it's pretty clear that automation has made clothing both better and cheaper. And paying $10 now for shoes of less than 1/5th value of $50 shoes much later, or not at all, can be entirely rational. Most of us make that kind of compromise frequently.
  - thrance 9mo ago
    Is it really better if it's made by slaves in the Global South, from a mix of plastics and crops grown in an unsustainable way, then shipped across the globe, and made to last about seven washing cycles before being disposed? Debatable, as I said.
    - SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
      I just don't think that this is an accurate description of modern clothing. Cotton is not typically grown in unsustainable ways, and cheap 100% cotton clothing that will last for years is widely available at a variety of retailers. But a lot of people don't want that. They want comfortable stretchy clothing, accepting or not realizing the inherent tradeoff with durability. Or they want thinner, lighter styles at the very edge of what a 50/50 polyester blend can hold together.
  - JohnFen 9mo ago
    > automation has made clothing both better and cheaper. Cheaper, yes. Better, most definitely not. We have traded quality for price.
- stoneforger 9mo ago
  It's a cult, these people really just want to believe everything is better because of unhinged capitalism, not despite it.
  - delichon 9mo ago
    I just bought a new shirt on eBay for $22, including shipping. If that shirt had taken 50x as much labor to produce, what would it have cost? Is it unhinged capitalism to prefer the cheap shirt?
    - asdff 9mo ago
      The only reason why the shirt is cheap is because we value your labor in the dollars an hour and the shirt maker's labor in the pennies. Now what if you made that same $5 a week as the shirt maker. Is that $22 shirt still cheap? How many might you own? Now think of what shirt the $5 week shirt maker is wearing. It says Chicago Bulls on it and was given to them by a nonprofit. The nonprofit only had this shirt available because people like him make 1000 shirts a day to sell to westerners to wear for a few weeks collectively before they give it for free to goodwill. Does this seem like a sustainable, scalable system of resource and labor distribution to you? Or is it based entirely on the fact that there exist some orphan crushing machine still in some corner of the world to make it seem cheap and frictionless for those of us in the global 1%?
      - telotortium 9mo ago
        No it wouldn’t. American Apparel used to (maybe it still does) make its shirts in a factory in Los Angeles, and its shirts were not noticeably more expensive than the likes of Abercrombie that made clothes overseas. AA couldn’t have competed in the lower end of the market, but their clothes were still not astronomically expensive because the factory was already heavily automated via machines. The larger cost for a lot of manufacturing in the richest countries is permitting and regulation, plus the fact that the manufacturing knowledge cluster is concentrated in China now, making every part of setting up a factory there smoother.

thrance 9mo ago

At the time, the quality of machine-made clothes was noticeably worse than human-made. It's debatable wether the "consumers" (the term certainly wasn't used at the time) won in the end. Terry Pratchett's "Boots theory" feels relevant here: > Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. > But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

delichon 9mo ago
> It's debatable whether the "consumers" won in the end. If "in the end" is now, it's pretty clear that automation has made clothing both better and cheaper. And paying $10 now for shoes of less than 1/5th value of $50 shoes much later, or not at all, can be entirely rational. Most of us make that kind of compromise frequently.
- thrance 9mo ago
  Is it really better if it's made by slaves in the Global South, from a mix of plastics and crops grown in an unsustainable way, then shipped across the globe, and made to last about seven washing cycles before being disposed? Debatable, as I said.
  - SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
    I just don't think that this is an accurate description of modern clothing. Cotton is not typically grown in unsustainable ways, and cheap 100% cotton clothing that will last for years is widely available at a variety of retailers. But a lot of people don't want that. They want comfortable stretchy clothing, accepting or not realizing the inherent tradeoff with durability. Or they want thinner, lighter styles at the very edge of what a 50/50 polyester blend can hold together.
- JohnFen 9mo ago
  > automation has made clothing both better and cheaper. Cheaper, yes. Better, most definitely not. We have traded quality for price.
stoneforger 9mo ago
It's a cult, these people really just want to believe everything is better because of unhinged capitalism, not despite it.
- delichon 9mo ago
  I just bought a new shirt on eBay for $22, including shipping. If that shirt had taken 50x as much labor to produce, what would it have cost? Is it unhinged capitalism to prefer the cheap shirt?
  - asdff 9mo ago
    The only reason why the shirt is cheap is because we value your labor in the dollars an hour and the shirt maker's labor in the pennies. Now what if you made that same $5 a week as the shirt maker. Is that $22 shirt still cheap? How many might you own? Now think of what shirt the $5 week shirt maker is wearing. It says Chicago Bulls on it and was given to them by a nonprofit. The nonprofit only had this shirt available because people like him make 1000 shirts a day to sell to westerners to wear for a few weeks collectively before they give it for free to goodwill. Does this seem like a sustainable, scalable system of resource and labor distribution to you? Or is it based entirely on the fact that there exist some orphan crushing machine still in some corner of the world to make it seem cheap and frictionless for those of us in the global 1%?
    - telotortium 9mo ago
      No it wouldn’t. American Apparel used to (maybe it still does) make its shirts in a factory in Los Angeles, and its shirts were not noticeably more expensive than the likes of Abercrombie that made clothes overseas. AA couldn’t have competed in the lower end of the market, but their clothes were still not astronomically expensive because the factory was already heavily automated via machines. The larger cost for a lot of manufacturing in the richest countries is permitting and regulation, plus the fact that the manufacturing knowledge cluster is concentrated in China now, making every part of setting up a factory there smoother.