5 ms·

How do you figure?

flowerbreeze 3mo ago
It seems plausible. Less common sizes have a lower chance of being sold out, so if they can no longer be destroyed at the end and need to be further managed at lower quantities, it can become more cost effective to simply not make them. Whether it is true or not, I don't know.
- palata 3mo ago
  Hmm... say you estimate that you will sell 1000 items of "normal size", you stock 1000 items, and hope that you sell all of them. You end up selling 900, you have a remaining 10%. No say you estimate that you will sell 10 items of "less common size", you stock 10 items, and hope that you sell all of them. You end up selling 9, you have a remaining 10%. How does that make a difference?
  - jandrewrogers 3mo ago
    There is no global definition of "less common size". It varies greatly from one locale to another. At the same time, production has relatively high fixed costs and is centralized. It would be very expensive for the global factory to customize the distribution of sizes manufactured for a retail store in Des Moines, Iowa. The order is tiny and it would require customized logistics, all of which greatly increases cost and complexity.
  - flowerbreeze 3mo ago
    It's more like if you find one mushroom in the forest, it doesn't make sense to bring it home, get the knife, clean it, get the pan, oil the pan, fry the mushroom, eat it, clean the knife, clean the pan, put things away. It's not worth the effort for just one mushroom. If there are many, a lot of these actions only need to be taken once.
    - palata 3mo ago
      Right. So what you're saying is that instead you should be allowed to go in the forest to get another 99 mushrooms, give them the same treatment, and then throw them away? And suddenly it's worth it for one mushroom if you threw away 99 other mushrooms in the process?
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      - wisty 3mo ago
        > Right. So what you're saying If you start a sentence with "so what you are saying", and then say something obviously silly ... The argument would be that it's a large burden to have to write a report if you forage 10 mushrooms and toss one away. Low volumes, higher fixed costs.
        palata 3mo ago
        Wait. I say "how does wasting 10% have more impact if you waste 10% of 10 or 10% of 1000?", and they answer "it's just not worth doing it for 1". I just don't see how this is related to waste. Of course if it's not profitable when you sell 100% of what you produce, then it is not profitable (that's a tautology). My question is: why is it more profitable to sell the same amount but to waste more? Turns out someone explained in another comment [1], and the "it's just not worth it for one mushroom" just does not explain it. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48962668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48962668
    - Dylan16807 3mo ago
      But that's about the cost of making them. That doesn't change between the destroy and not-destroy scenarios.
- ungreased0675 3mo ago
  Companies should have extensive data on how many of what size they can expect to sell.
  - altairprime 3mo ago
    The missing factor in cheap-fast fashion here is warehousing costs. Companies are shredding shoes and landfilling clothing — and underproducing relative to what they could sell — rather than paying money to store products in a warehouse. One possible outcome the EU sellers can choose is to reinvest in product storage, so that they can raise their production targets to meet demand rather than to minimize product storage — at which point there is a vast demand for outlier sizes that is, today, unmet due to the unwillingness to store anything.
toast0 3mo ago
If your minimum run is 1000 of a size, and you can only really sell 500 because it's an uncommon size, and you would prefer to sell at full price or not at all, seems like making that size no longer fits your plans.
- watermelon0 3mo ago
  Wouldn't it be cheaper to only produce 500 items, instead of producing 1k, and throwing half of it away?
  - SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
    1k in this example would be the minimum needed to make it worth the static cost of setting up and tearing down the production run.
  - binaryturtle 3mo ago
    Many years ago I worked in the printing industry. F.ex. a client wants 100 products of something (e.g. posters or flyers), usually it was more cost effective to produce a 1000 (or more) and then throw away 900 the client didn't need. Obviously a huge waste of material.
    - palata 3mo ago
      Isn't that law exactly trying to avoid that kind of waste?
      - toast0 3mo ago
        Yes. But in some cases the waste will be avoided by not doing a production run at all if the minimum production quantity is too high and the law prohibits destroying the unwanted product.
        palata 3mo ago
        I just don't get how it is cheaper in total to produce more units and throw them away. If you make more units, it's cheaper per unit. But doesn't it mean that waste is always a loss?
s1artibartfast 3mo ago
It's really different depending on if the manufacturer has Brand reputation or is just a replaceable good. For no name jeans, they probably just keep making them and donate the leftovers. For a high-end designer dress, may be better to not manufacture large or small sizes that don't sell frequently.
cm2012 3mo ago
Normally you can overproduce clothing and make three of every size or something, knowing that it only costs a couple bucks to make another shirt, for instance. And you can throw out if you make too many. If it's illegal to throw it out, maybe that raises the price from $2 to $4 because now you have to pay for storage for a long time. So you'll buy less inventory at the start, which usually means cutting less common sizes first
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  > because now you have to pay for storage for a long time Or you sell the extras off at a discount and it's fine.
jandrewrogers 3mo ago
Currently, unpopular sizes are over-produced because they are subsidized by popular sizes. If the unpopular sizes have to be paid for, the logistics and production processes would push producers to under-produce popular sizes. A key insight is that what constitutes an "unpopular size" is a very local phenomenon. Every point of retail sells a different, semi-predictable distribution of sizes. It is much cheaper to ship sizes no one will buy than to manage the logistics of exactly matching local demand for a specific distribution of sizes. I asked the same question to someone who works in this business and got an eye-opening detailed explanation that made it obvious in hindsight why things the work the way the do. The difference in product cost and logistics infrastructure was not small.

How do you figure?

It seems plausible. Less common sizes have a lower chance of being sold out, so if they can no longer be destroyed at the end and need to be further managed at lower quantities, it can become more cost effective to simply not make them. Whether it is true or not, I don't know.

palata 3mo ago
Hmm... say you estimate that you will sell 1000 items of "normal size", you stock 1000 items, and hope that you sell all of them. You end up selling 900, you have a remaining 10%. No say you estimate that you will sell 10 items of "less common size", you stock 10 items, and hope that you sell all of them. You end up selling 9, you have a remaining 10%. How does that make a difference?
- jandrewrogers 3mo ago
  There is no global definition of "less common size". It varies greatly from one locale to another. At the same time, production has relatively high fixed costs and is centralized. It would be very expensive for the global factory to customize the distribution of sizes manufactured for a retail store in Des Moines, Iowa. The order is tiny and it would require customized logistics, all of which greatly increases cost and complexity.
- flowerbreeze 3mo ago
  It's more like if you find one mushroom in the forest, it doesn't make sense to bring it home, get the knife, clean it, get the pan, oil the pan, fry the mushroom, eat it, clean the knife, clean the pan, put things away. It's not worth the effort for just one mushroom. If there are many, a lot of these actions only need to be taken once.
  - palata 3mo ago
    Right. So what you're saying is that instead you should be allowed to go in the forest to get another 99 mushrooms, give them the same treatment, and then throw them away? And suddenly it's worth it for one mushroom if you threw away 99 other mushrooms in the process?
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - wisty 3mo ago
      > Right. So what you're saying If you start a sentence with "so what you are saying", and then say something obviously silly ... The argument would be that it's a large burden to have to write a report if you forage 10 mushrooms and toss one away. Low volumes, higher fixed costs.
      - palata 3mo ago
        Wait. I say "how does wasting 10% have more impact if you waste 10% of 10 or 10% of 1000?", and they answer "it's just not worth doing it for 1". I just don't see how this is related to waste. Of course if it's not profitable when you sell 100% of what you produce, then it is not profitable (that's a tautology). My question is: why is it more profitable to sell the same amount but to waste more? Turns out someone explained in another comment [1], and the "it's just not worth it for one mushroom" just does not explain it. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48962668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48962668
  - Dylan16807 3mo ago
    But that's about the cost of making them. That doesn't change between the destroy and not-destroy scenarios.
ungreased0675 3mo ago
Companies should have extensive data on how many of what size they can expect to sell.
- altairprime 3mo ago
  The missing factor in cheap-fast fashion here is warehousing costs. Companies are shredding shoes and landfilling clothing — and underproducing relative to what they could sell — rather than paying money to store products in a warehouse. One possible outcome the EU sellers can choose is to reinvest in product storage, so that they can raise their production targets to meet demand rather than to minimize product storage — at which point there is a vast demand for outlier sizes that is, today, unmet due to the unwillingness to store anything.

toast0 3mo ago

If your minimum run is 1000 of a size, and you can only really sell 500 because it's an uncommon size, and you would prefer to sell at full price or not at all, seems like making that size no longer fits your plans.

watermelon0 3mo ago
Wouldn't it be cheaper to only produce 500 items, instead of producing 1k, and throwing half of it away?
- SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
  1k in this example would be the minimum needed to make it worth the static cost of setting up and tearing down the production run.
- binaryturtle 3mo ago
  Many years ago I worked in the printing industry. F.ex. a client wants 100 products of something (e.g. posters or flyers), usually it was more cost effective to produce a 1000 (or more) and then throw away 900 the client didn't need. Obviously a huge waste of material.
  - palata 3mo ago
    Isn't that law exactly trying to avoid that kind of waste?
    - toast0 3mo ago
      Yes. But in some cases the waste will be avoided by not doing a production run at all if the minimum production quantity is too high and the law prohibits destroying the unwanted product.
      - palata 3mo ago
        I just don't get how it is cheaper in total to produce more units and throw them away. If you make more units, it's cheaper per unit. But doesn't it mean that waste is always a loss?

s1artibartfast 3mo ago

It's really different depending on if the manufacturer has Brand reputation or is just a replaceable good. For no name jeans, they probably just keep making them and donate the leftovers. For a high-end designer dress, may be better to not manufacture large or small sizes that don't sell frequently.

cm2012 3mo ago

Normally you can overproduce clothing and make three of every size or something, knowing that it only costs a couple bucks to make another shirt, for instance. And you can throw out if you make too many. If it's illegal to throw it out, maybe that raises the price from $2 to $4 because now you have to pay for storage for a long time. So you'll buy less inventory at the start, which usually means cutting less common sizes first

Dylan16807 3mo ago
> because now you have to pay for storage for a long time Or you sell the extras off at a discount and it's fine.

jandrewrogers 3mo ago

Currently, unpopular sizes are over-produced because they are subsidized by popular sizes. If the unpopular sizes have to be paid for, the logistics and production processes would push producers to under-produce popular sizes. A key insight is that what constitutes an "unpopular size" is a very local phenomenon. Every point of retail sells a different, semi-predictable distribution of sizes. It is much cheaper to ship sizes no one will buy than to manage the logistics of exactly matching local demand for a specific distribution of sizes. I asked the same question to someone who works in this business and got an eye-opening detailed explanation that made it obvious in hindsight why things the work the way the do. The difference in product cost and logistics infrastructure was not small.