I'm not an economist so pardon my lack of knowledge. From what I understand about the supply and demand model, in a free market the supply and demand will reach an equilibrium i.e. price will be very close to cost. Unless there is monopoly, price jacking, government policies etc. As far as I know, the shorts industry and the pants industry operate in the same economic environment. So cheap labor is available to both shorts and pants industries.
Personally, I think that the supply and demand model doesn't explain this phenomenon well. It's better explained with customer behavior.
1. Price sensitivity: when you're already paying $50 for something an extra $5 wouldn't make you stop wearing shorts so most people just buy it.
2. Convenience: if you're already buying a bunch of clothes, you wouldn't bother to travel to another shop just to save $5 on a pair of shorts.
(continue...)
3. Branding: chances are you're buying from a branded store (unbranded shorts are actually very cheap). And you buy from them because you trust them and like them. You wouldn't mind paying the premium to have a good pair of shorts you like.
4. Pants and shorts are replaceable with each other. If you don't wear shorts you wear pants etc. So no loss for the business if they're priced the same.
Reply
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
There's no logical reason for a size small to cost as much as a XXL either. But here we are.
If I have to pay three times more for a slightly bigger bra thats just basic beige just because I have big boobs then people who are overweight can pay more for 3 times the fabric
I've seen enough clothings (on amazon for example) that get more expensive the bigger the size.
deleted
· 7 years ago
You think of capitalism in terms of a 4th grade school book. The sales price of brand products is not based on a calculation of costs plus margin equals price. Brand companies find out what maximum price people are willing to pay for a product without switching to another brand. If you compare cheap no-name pants and shorts, you will find the shorts are likely to be cheaper.
I used to never buy pants over 20€. But they kept tearing (knee and butt mainly) and I figured it'd be a lot more expensive for me to pay 20€ twice to three times a year than 60€ once and I get to keep it for a few years because it's better quality.
deleted
· 7 years ago
I just go to the thrift store and get a couple pairs for about $6 each.
We don't really have a lot of thrift shops around here... And if anything, they mostly have weird curiousities from the 80s or something, like feather boas and glass plateaus.
Okay so I'm a little late into this discussion, but as a garment technologist and merchandiser I have to inform you all that the costing of one style of clothing is done for for all sizes in one go because the extra inch or two will be too difficult to calculate especially if you have several sized to deal with. Shorts are approximately the same price as pants because they both require the same number of operations to make them (pockets, waistbands etc.), and only a little less material is used. Because of this, the time taken to make shorts is almost the same as that to make pants. Since all costing is done on the basis of time taken to manufacture the entire mass order, less material is actually not a major deciding factor in the cost.
Personally, I think that the supply and demand model doesn't explain this phenomenon well. It's better explained with customer behavior.
1. Price sensitivity: when you're already paying $50 for something an extra $5 wouldn't make you stop wearing shorts so most people just buy it.
2. Convenience: if you're already buying a bunch of clothes, you wouldn't bother to travel to another shop just to save $5 on a pair of shorts.
(continue...)
4. Pants and shorts are replaceable with each other. If you don't wear shorts you wear pants etc. So no loss for the business if they're priced the same.