Ultimately could this potentially be an unintended good thing? We've seen plenty of evidence of the deleterious environmental effects of fast fashion, so this could theoretically make a dent in that.
Ultimately could this potentially be an unintended good thing? We've seen plenty of evidence of the deleterious environmental effects of fast fashion, so this could theoretically make a dent in that.
Tariffs have become hyper partisan under Trump, but in fact many on the left have supported them in the past, and environmental concerns are one reason. I think it’s just an easy talking point to...
Tariffs have become hyper partisan under Trump, but in fact many on the left have supported them in the past, and environmental concerns are one reason. I think it’s just an easy talking point to say “he’s raising your prices”. But to me the real issue is that one man is at his whim raising these tariffs based on nonsensical calculations, his temper on a given day, etc.
As one of the Democrats arguing for "sensible trade controls" for 30 years and being ignored (at best) I hope this is one of the big lessons the party takes from this: If you don't choose to do...
As one of the Democrats arguing for "sensible trade controls" for 30 years and being ignored (at best) I hope this is one of the big lessons the party takes from this: If you don't choose to do things a sensible way when you have the opportunity they will certainly be done in a bad destructive way eventually and you can't really complain when that happens.
I don't agree. There are some things that shouldn't be done, and this principle could be used to argue that civil rights should be rolled back for minority groups for example, or else it'll be...
I don't agree. There are some things that shouldn't be done, and this principle could be used to argue that civil rights should be rolled back for minority groups for example, or else it'll be done destructively. If you don't infringe on university free speech a little, they'll do it more? Should one no push for ideals because it'll be blown up more spectacularly if they make too much progress.
Trump's administration is responsible for its own actions. There's plenty to blame Dems for that isn't whatever the GOP does. They were going to do this regardless and said so for decades.
While I agree with your position that civil rights shouldn't be rolled back for anyone, your argument comes off as straw-man-ish (to my reading of both sides). I don't think the argument is that...
While I agree with your position that civil rights shouldn't be rolled back for anyone, your argument comes off as straw-man-ish (to my reading of both sides). I don't think the argument is that Democrats need to take any action of concession otherwise the other side will do emotional and destructive actions. I think the argument is that when Democrats look at a situation like trade, where there is reasonable, mathematical, economic evidence of what the situation is and what the future looks like, it is prudent to take sensible, prudent action instead of letting the pressure build up to the point of emotional reaction. I would preclude your examples as they are not sensible or prudent and are not reactions to any data other than an emotional reaction to a potential slippery slope.
I think it's possible to be both an idealist and a pragmatist but the intersection can not be a concessionist.
I don't agree that I'm engaging in a slippery slope or a strawman, I'm looking at many of the very "bad destructive' things this administration is doing such as targeting trans rights and I'm...
I don't agree that I'm engaging in a slippery slope or a strawman, I'm looking at many of the very "bad destructive' things this administration is doing such as targeting trans rights and I'm seeing many people argue that "we" should have just ceded/should now cede "reasonable ground" on those topics and focus on other things. So no, this is based on my experience on this forum and from reading the news, not a slippery slope with no evidence
Also it was not an emotional reaction, there was nothing overtly emotional in my post, but if it were there'd be nothing wrong with that. Humans are rational and emotional in equal turns. Your implication is that emotional responses are negative ones
I take your point that when you have data you should consider and attempt to act on it, however economists do not all agree on what action to take to create the best outcome, so I don't think it's a clear "obvious" action to take, especially if you have different goals (protectionism vs globalism for example.)
I know I'm days late but I wanted to clarify because I didn't make it very clear in my original post: I didn't mean to imply that your post was an emotional reaction (or that emotions are bad or...
I know I'm days late but I wanted to clarify because I didn't make it very clear in my original post: I didn't mean to imply that your post was an emotional reaction (or that emotions are bad or negative!) but that the inaction of Democrats - or even the incorrect ceding actions in the 90s - led to the pressure building up so that the right is taking childish, immature, purely emotional action.
I, too, am tired though of hearing that "maybe we shouldn't care if they take a little bit of trans rights." I do not believe in ceding the rights of anyone, especially minority populations (which is quite hard, as a Frenchman, I'm quite inspired to cede the rights of certain brains to communicate effectively with their attached bodies... it's how we solved so many of our problems in the past) I'm tired of Democrats capitulating to every whim of the right in general while not getting the same in return.
Ultimately I just don't think the right should get that sort of relief from the blame for their actions. On other issues it hasn't mattered how reasonable or moderate things have gone, the...
Ultimately I just don't think the right should get that sort of relief from the blame for their actions. On other issues it hasn't mattered how reasonable or moderate things have gone, the backlash is still reactionary.
A toddler's response by grown adults should just be scorned as one. The Dem's failings are their failings, but they're not responsible for the "burn it down" approach being applied to literally everything. Like environmental protection regulation is a bunch of incremental reasonable steps over decades, and the response is still "MORE COAL!" not equally incremental rollbacks.
I also think that there's not one "truth" of economics that obviously and "mathematically" should have been followed. That doesn't mean what the Dems did was right, it's just not obvious to me (not an expert by any means though) that there was a right choice, certainly not one that would have prevented this.
No grudge or anything. I don't think I was arguing a strawman at all however.
Thank you, yes. To put a finer point on it: "When you choose to do nothing on issues that stand to benefit a majority of the electorate for a long time, this is what happens in the end." I hadn't...
Thank you, yes. To put a finer point on it: "When you choose to do nothing on issues that stand to benefit a majority of the electorate for a long time, this is what happens in the end."
I hadn't considered the notion that rolling back civil rights would be a real benefit to anyone (although that's certainly being done right now for political reasons that benefit no one IMHO but that's another topic). Which forms a corollary: "The civil rights things you care about will also be nuked if you choose to ignore these kinds of sensible policy issues."
"Sensible trade policy" was a thing we could have done since (really) the Carter administration and chose not to for the sake of "money from big donors". It was compatible with our ideals (labor, environment) unlike repealing civil rights (which is not) but we just chose to do nothing for like 50 years except tell people they were too stupid to understand how competing with child slaves in China was "actually good for them".
The Republican party certainly considers it so and a non-zero number of Dems have advocated for it. I don't agree with your point as a broad "lesson", I don't feel I have a strong enough knowledge...
I hadn't considered the notion that rolling back civil rights would be a real benefit to anyone
The Republican party certainly considers it so and a non-zero number of Dems have advocated for it. I don't agree with your point as a broad "lesson", I don't feel I have a strong enough knowledge of economics and trade to judge the specific topic which is why I'm speaking to your broader point.
Yes, Bernie Sanders has been notably quiet about tariffs for this reason and because the unions that support him support tariffs. I'm personally excited about tariffs on China for personal...
Yes, Bernie Sanders has been notably quiet about tariffs for this reason and because the unions that support him support tariffs.
I'm personally excited about tariffs on China for personal reasons, even though I think these specific tariffs are dumb as fuck. I've tried to avoid buying products made in China at least since we started hearing about the Uyghur genocide, so anything that makes it easier for me to avoid buying MIC is good in my book. But I also know these tariffs aren't about doing the right thing and that they'll make it harder for people to consume, consume, consume.
Most doesn't come from China, and they're answering a consumer demand that's not going anywhere even with tariffs. Fast fashion is popular independent of China producing fast fashion clothing.
Most doesn't come from China, and they're answering a consumer demand that's not going anywhere even with tariffs. Fast fashion is popular independent of China producing fast fashion clothing.
I think it could be a good thing in some cases. My mother buys a lot of worthless junk off Amazon and TikTok and while I don't know if all of it comes from China, I'd bet a good deal of it does....
I think it could be a good thing in some cases. My mother buys a lot of worthless junk off Amazon and TikTok and while I don't know if all of it comes from China, I'd bet a good deal of it does. Probably not so much on the clothing side as another comment mentioned I don't know if a lot of that is coming from China, but she buys many other useless trinkets and stupid waste items. She's basically a consumer marketer's intended target, very easy mark.
That's what I'm hoping for. Fewer people buying multiple sizes of a single garment then returning what they don't use only to see it end up in a landfill.
That's what I'm hoping for. Fewer people buying multiple sizes of a single garment then returning what they don't use only to see it end up in a landfill.
It's really hard for plus size folks, especially women, or anyone else who doesn't fit into typical easy sizing to know what fits. I haven't bought from Shein but I know a lot of people who wear...
It's really hard for plus size folks, especially women, or anyone else who doesn't fit into typical easy sizing to know what fits. I haven't bought from Shein but I know a lot of people who wear my sizes have, because first they can actually afford the clothes (plus size up charge is the worst), and second they can afford to figure out what size works because so many of them won't actually work. It's not great but it's also one of an increasingly limited number of options. And the quality is basically the same as the brands.
In the past decade-ish, stores have been cutting plus sizes in store, online is often the only option even for stores where others can shop in person. And stores designed for plus size women like Torrid have not kept up with styles, prices are high unless you basically only shop during annual sales. (And thrifting plus size can be even tougher)
I've genuinely not shopped for more than a random piece of clothing or like underwear, in about 5 years. The system is bad but removing the source of the cheap clothing doesn't actually solve the reason why people buy the cheap clothing. It just restricts options further.
I'm happy to support a system that helps people find clothing that fits them but when that same system can't build in a costed process for restocking, the increasing size of garbage island makes...
I'm happy to support a system that helps people find clothing that fits them but when that same system can't build in a costed process for restocking, the increasing size of garbage island makes me wonder if online shopping is the right way.
I'm not saying "online shopping" is the right way though personally I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are places that explicitly resell returned Amazon products and...
The system is bad
I'm not saying "online shopping" is the right way though personally I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are places that explicitly resell returned Amazon products and businesses that have both physical and digital presences will let folks return items at the store where items can be evaluated and put on the sale rack if they don't typically stock the items.
But the underlying reasons for this customer behavior isn't something that will be solved by not offering the shipping and returns. This is a combination of stagnant wages, all companies dropping the quality and durability of their clothing, social pressures, size discrimination, etc.
Some folks see a step towards positive change, others see their only access to clothing that fits their bodies that they can afford going away.
Of course, I get ya. It still boggles my mind that with so many different body types and the fact that everyone needs to dress themselves, that women's fashion is still so severely unbalanced and...
Of course, I get ya. It still boggles my mind that with so many different body types and the fact that everyone needs to dress themselves, that women's fashion is still so severely unbalanced and the market so narrow.
Men's isn't great either (I'd argue it's the style choice that's severely lacking), but we have the benefit of all dressing a relatively similar box-y style of body.
Also, I feel like there's a greater leniency for how frumpy we look -- something that accommodates the lack of proper fitting 'everything.'
I think you're really overlooking how much variety there is among mens' body types. Most consumer fashion is tailored for a similar style of body, but that does not mean it actually reflects well....
we have the benefit of all dressing a relatively similar box-y style of body
I think you're really overlooking how much variety there is among mens' body types. Most consumer fashion is tailored for a similar style of body, but that does not mean it actually reflects well. I'm transmasc, so I've had to do a lot of resources on how to find men's clothing for someone with narrower shoulders, wider hips, shorter stature, etc., and in doing so I've gone across plenty of cis guys who struggle to find clothes that fit properly because their bodies aren't the default build. I will say that men's big & tall sections are a bit better than women's plus-sized sections in my experience, but part of that is because they don't suffer as badly from having fewer options, since men's fashion often has more limited options anyway.
Tried to capture the variation in a reductive phrase without getting too descriptive and pedantic. I guess it didn't work. Yes, men have a large variation of body types, shapes and sizes, but...
Tried to capture the variation in a reductive phrase without getting too descriptive and pedantic. I guess it didn't work. Yes, men have a large variation of body types, shapes and sizes, but conventional fashion dresses us like a box with far less regard for curves and shape than women's clothes.
Even theoretically well fitting clothes don't fit me great, and if men's cuts fit better I'd probably try to switch, but the sleeves are the wrong length and I still can't keep pants where they're...
Even theoretically well fitting clothes don't fit me great, and if men's cuts fit better I'd probably try to switch, but the sleeves are the wrong length and I still can't keep pants where they're supposed to, and really I need to get at least my jeans to someone for alterations. I own a few pairs of grey cargo men's sweatpants though and they're so wonderful.
Then again my personal fashion oscillates between "don't think about clothes and don't have others perceive me" and "I'm an eldritch sprite of the woods beyond your ken, my skirt is actually pants* and the horns on my head are real"
Haha, yeah. I sincerely appreciate the sprite approach, hence my love for yoga and hiking gear. I guess we're not all wearing the cuts of even fifty years ago - what we're basically homemade...
Haha, yeah. I sincerely appreciate the sprite approach, hence my love for yoga and hiking gear.
I guess we're not all wearing the cuts of even fifty years ago - what we're basically homemade linens with an eye-balled seam up some side and a hole for the head. Well, for those of us who couldn't afford a tailor anyway.
Remembering that you, like I, work at a university and that pay likely doesn't mean custom tailored clothing, I'm inclined to think it'll be a while before the middle class get a quality, custom, conscious of price yet environmentally sensitive option.
Until then, tie me up with the pants hat (and no joke, I've made more than one of those)
I don't know if '75 was really an age of homemade shirts and shirts so much, but we're quite far from that era today for certain. If I thought my body would work with it, I've been eyeing these...
I don't know if '75 was really an age of homemade shirts and shirts so much, but we're quite far from that era today for certain.
If I thought my body would work with it, I've been eyeing these "mens' corsets" that look so good but are so expensive and would not be daily wear. Which is the thing really, if I could wear what I want, I'd look somewhere in the high quality renaissance fair garb range, more or less steampunk vs fantasy depending on the day. But since that isn't socially acceptable in a business casual student affairs environment (oh to be tenured faculty..... I mean not really but also)
I really feel boxed in on all sides - most clothing isn't what I want to wear, I can maybe afford to make the basic "work" clothing fit, but I'm only wearing it because I have to. What I want to wear is too expensive or won't fit at all, and if it did, I'd be too weird for day to day. ¯\_( ͠° ͟ʖ °͠ )_/¯
Always said I'd wear capes if I could but, even in the loosey world of student affairs (where I worked until recently), I'd be expecting the third degree.
Always said I'd wear capes if I could but, even in the loosey world of student affairs (where I worked until recently), I'd be expecting the third degree.
This sounds more like a failure of clothing to fit people, than it is a failure of people who buy clothes. Like I'm a short but otherwise very typically sized woman, and clothing sizes are fucking...
This sounds more like a failure of clothing to fit people, than it is a failure of people who buy clothes. Like I'm a short but otherwise very typically sized woman, and clothing sizes are fucking bonkers and make no sense.
Not really sure how this works- aren't tariffs evaluated and priced on the price of the product that is shipped to you? Meaning they should probably keep the prices the same and let...
Not really sure how this works- aren't tariffs evaluated and priced on the price of the product that is shipped to you? Meaning they should probably keep the prices the same and let USPS/FedEx/whoever handle billing the recipient for the tariffs?
The importer pays the taxes, not the shipment company. For Temu, technically you are the importer, as they use de minimis (whereas for most Amazon transactions, the merchant is the importer). Temu...
The importer pays the taxes, not the shipment company. For Temu, technically you are the importer, as they use de minimis (whereas for most Amazon transactions, the merchant is the importer). Temu just handles the import customs paperwork for you.
They're saying the operating expenses have gone up in their press release. Which would make some sense. They're having to manage the tariffs now as an entirely new expense because the exemption...
They're saying the operating expenses have gone up in their press release. Which would make some sense. They're having to manage the tariffs now as an entirely new expense because the exemption that let small items through without charging any tariffs has been removed.
That's true for drop shippers, but Temu and Shein take advantage of the de minimis exemption and ship from China straight to the buyer. https://youtu.be/ZvC_QLrBfUM
That's true for drop shippers, but Temu and Shein take advantage of the de minimis exemption and ship from China straight to the buyer.
Doesn't matter if Temu (for example) never has to pay a tariff: they will raise prices based on both real and perceived costs. If Wal-Mart gets to raise prices, why shouldn't Temu? They want to...
Doesn't matter if Temu (for example) never has to pay a tariff: they will raise prices based on both real and perceived costs. If Wal-Mart gets to raise prices, why shouldn't Temu? They want to make bigger profit, too, and as long as they are cheaper in real or perceived terms, they will still be the choice for price-sensitive shoppers. Temu can especially justify raising prices because they won't be the bad guy in the situation, Trump will be; after all, he put these evil tariffs in place that are ruining your ability to buy cheap clothes.
This is not to say I agree with the actions, I personally think they are fairly abhorrent. But capitalists are going to capitalist.
Ultimately could this potentially be an unintended good thing? We've seen plenty of evidence of the deleterious environmental effects of fast fashion, so this could theoretically make a dent in that.
Tariffs have become hyper partisan under Trump, but in fact many on the left have supported them in the past, and environmental concerns are one reason. I think it’s just an easy talking point to say “he’s raising your prices”. But to me the real issue is that one man is at his whim raising these tariffs based on nonsensical calculations, his temper on a given day, etc.
Sensible tariffs might be one thing; across-the-board insane tariffs are not.
(i.e. I largely agree with you)
As one of the Democrats arguing for "sensible trade controls" for 30 years and being ignored (at best) I hope this is one of the big lessons the party takes from this: If you don't choose to do things a sensible way when you have the opportunity they will certainly be done in a bad destructive way eventually and you can't really complain when that happens.
I don't agree. There are some things that shouldn't be done, and this principle could be used to argue that civil rights should be rolled back for minority groups for example, or else it'll be done destructively. If you don't infringe on university free speech a little, they'll do it more? Should one no push for ideals because it'll be blown up more spectacularly if they make too much progress.
Trump's administration is responsible for its own actions. There's plenty to blame Dems for that isn't whatever the GOP does. They were going to do this regardless and said so for decades.
While I agree with your position that civil rights shouldn't be rolled back for anyone, your argument comes off as straw-man-ish (to my reading of both sides). I don't think the argument is that Democrats need to take any action of concession otherwise the other side will do emotional and destructive actions. I think the argument is that when Democrats look at a situation like trade, where there is reasonable, mathematical, economic evidence of what the situation is and what the future looks like, it is prudent to take sensible, prudent action instead of letting the pressure build up to the point of emotional reaction. I would preclude your examples as they are not sensible or prudent and are not reactions to any data other than an emotional reaction to a potential slippery slope.
I think it's possible to be both an idealist and a pragmatist but the intersection can not be a concessionist.
I don't agree that I'm engaging in a slippery slope or a strawman, I'm looking at many of the very "bad destructive' things this administration is doing such as targeting trans rights and I'm seeing many people argue that "we" should have just ceded/should now cede "reasonable ground" on those topics and focus on other things. So no, this is based on my experience on this forum and from reading the news, not a slippery slope with no evidence
Also it was not an emotional reaction, there was nothing overtly emotional in my post, but if it were there'd be nothing wrong with that. Humans are rational and emotional in equal turns. Your implication is that emotional responses are negative ones
I take your point that when you have data you should consider and attempt to act on it, however economists do not all agree on what action to take to create the best outcome, so I don't think it's a clear "obvious" action to take, especially if you have different goals (protectionism vs globalism for example.)
I know I'm days late but I wanted to clarify because I didn't make it very clear in my original post: I didn't mean to imply that your post was an emotional reaction (or that emotions are bad or negative!) but that the inaction of Democrats - or even the incorrect ceding actions in the 90s - led to the pressure building up so that the right is taking childish, immature, purely emotional action.
I, too, am tired though of hearing that "maybe we shouldn't care if they take a little bit of trans rights." I do not believe in ceding the rights of anyone, especially minority populations (which is quite hard, as a Frenchman, I'm quite inspired to cede the rights of certain brains to communicate effectively with their attached bodies... it's how we solved so many of our problems in the past) I'm tired of Democrats capitulating to every whim of the right in general while not getting the same in return.
Ultimately I just don't think the right should get that sort of relief from the blame for their actions. On other issues it hasn't mattered how reasonable or moderate things have gone, the backlash is still reactionary.
A toddler's response by grown adults should just be scorned as one. The Dem's failings are their failings, but they're not responsible for the "burn it down" approach being applied to literally everything. Like environmental protection regulation is a bunch of incremental reasonable steps over decades, and the response is still "MORE COAL!" not equally incremental rollbacks.
I also think that there's not one "truth" of economics that obviously and "mathematically" should have been followed. That doesn't mean what the Dems did was right, it's just not obvious to me (not an expert by any means though) that there was a right choice, certainly not one that would have prevented this.
No grudge or anything. I don't think I was arguing a strawman at all however.
Thank you, yes. To put a finer point on it: "When you choose to do nothing on issues that stand to benefit a majority of the electorate for a long time, this is what happens in the end."
I hadn't considered the notion that rolling back civil rights would be a real benefit to anyone (although that's certainly being done right now for political reasons that benefit no one IMHO but that's another topic). Which forms a corollary: "The civil rights things you care about will also be nuked if you choose to ignore these kinds of sensible policy issues."
"Sensible trade policy" was a thing we could have done since (really) the Carter administration and chose not to for the sake of "money from big donors". It was compatible with our ideals (labor, environment) unlike repealing civil rights (which is not) but we just chose to do nothing for like 50 years except tell people they were too stupid to understand how competing with child slaves in China was "actually good for them".
Now we're where we are.
The Republican party certainly considers it so and a non-zero number of Dems have advocated for it. I don't agree with your point as a broad "lesson", I don't feel I have a strong enough knowledge of economics and trade to judge the specific topic which is why I'm speaking to your broader point.
Yes, Bernie Sanders has been notably quiet about tariffs for this reason and because the unions that support him support tariffs.
I'm personally excited about tariffs on China for personal reasons, even though I think these specific tariffs are dumb as fuck. I've tried to avoid buying products made in China at least since we started hearing about the Uyghur genocide, so anything that makes it easier for me to avoid buying MIC is good in my book. But I also know these tariffs aren't about doing the right thing and that they'll make it harder for people to consume, consume, consume.
Most doesn't come from China, and they're answering a consumer demand that's not going anywhere even with tariffs. Fast fashion is popular independent of China producing fast fashion clothing.
I think it could be a good thing in some cases. My mother buys a lot of worthless junk off Amazon and TikTok and while I don't know if all of it comes from China, I'd bet a good deal of it does. Probably not so much on the clothing side as another comment mentioned I don't know if a lot of that is coming from China, but she buys many other useless trinkets and stupid waste items. She's basically a consumer marketer's intended target, very easy mark.
That's what I'm hoping for. Fewer people buying multiple sizes of a single garment then returning what they don't use only to see it end up in a landfill.
It's really hard for plus size folks, especially women, or anyone else who doesn't fit into typical easy sizing to know what fits. I haven't bought from Shein but I know a lot of people who wear my sizes have, because first they can actually afford the clothes (plus size up charge is the worst), and second they can afford to figure out what size works because so many of them won't actually work. It's not great but it's also one of an increasingly limited number of options. And the quality is basically the same as the brands.
In the past decade-ish, stores have been cutting plus sizes in store, online is often the only option even for stores where others can shop in person. And stores designed for plus size women like Torrid have not kept up with styles, prices are high unless you basically only shop during annual sales. (And thrifting plus size can be even tougher)
I've genuinely not shopped for more than a random piece of clothing or like underwear, in about 5 years. The system is bad but removing the source of the cheap clothing doesn't actually solve the reason why people buy the cheap clothing. It just restricts options further.
I'm happy to support a system that helps people find clothing that fits them but when that same system can't build in a costed process for restocking, the increasing size of garbage island makes me wonder if online shopping is the right way.
I'm not saying "online shopping" is the right way though personally I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are places that explicitly resell returned Amazon products and businesses that have both physical and digital presences will let folks return items at the store where items can be evaluated and put on the sale rack if they don't typically stock the items.
But the underlying reasons for this customer behavior isn't something that will be solved by not offering the shipping and returns. This is a combination of stagnant wages, all companies dropping the quality and durability of their clothing, social pressures, size discrimination, etc.
Some folks see a step towards positive change, others see their only access to clothing that fits their bodies that they can afford going away.
Yeah, agreed across the board. I can't speak for the solutions, but the price of modern convenience is icky on all fronts.
Agreed, I just wanted to speak for those that aren't here to do so. (And I'm not personally that far off from it.)
Of course, I get ya. It still boggles my mind that with so many different body types and the fact that everyone needs to dress themselves, that women's fashion is still so severely unbalanced and the market so narrow.
Men's isn't great either (I'd argue it's the style choice that's severely lacking), but we have the benefit of all dressing a relatively similar box-y style of body.
Also, I feel like there's a greater leniency for how frumpy we look -- something that accommodates the lack of proper fitting 'everything.'
I think you're really overlooking how much variety there is among mens' body types. Most consumer fashion is tailored for a similar style of body, but that does not mean it actually reflects well. I'm transmasc, so I've had to do a lot of resources on how to find men's clothing for someone with narrower shoulders, wider hips, shorter stature, etc., and in doing so I've gone across plenty of cis guys who struggle to find clothes that fit properly because their bodies aren't the default build. I will say that men's big & tall sections are a bit better than women's plus-sized sections in my experience, but part of that is because they don't suffer as badly from having fewer options, since men's fashion often has more limited options anyway.
Tried to capture the variation in a reductive phrase without getting too descriptive and pedantic. I guess it didn't work. Yes, men have a large variation of body types, shapes and sizes, but conventional fashion dresses us like a box with far less regard for curves and shape than women's clothes.
Even theoretically well fitting clothes don't fit me great, and if men's cuts fit better I'd probably try to switch, but the sleeves are the wrong length and I still can't keep pants where they're supposed to, and really I need to get at least my jeans to someone for alterations. I own a few pairs of grey cargo men's sweatpants though and they're so wonderful.
Then again my personal fashion oscillates between "don't think about clothes and don't have others perceive me" and "I'm an eldritch sprite of the woods beyond your ken, my skirt is actually pants* and the horns on my head are real"
So you know... I'm conflicted.
*Split skirts are so good
Haha, yeah. I sincerely appreciate the sprite approach, hence my love for yoga and hiking gear.
I guess we're not all wearing the cuts of even fifty years ago - what we're basically homemade linens with an eye-balled seam up some side and a hole for the head. Well, for those of us who couldn't afford a tailor anyway.
Remembering that you, like I, work at a university and that pay likely doesn't mean custom tailored clothing, I'm inclined to think it'll be a while before the middle class get a quality, custom, conscious of price yet environmentally sensitive option.
Until then, tie me up with the pants hat (and no joke, I've made more than one of those)
I don't know if '75 was really an age of homemade shirts and shirts so much, but we're quite far from that era today for certain.
If I thought my body would work with it, I've been eyeing these "mens' corsets" that look so good but are so expensive and would not be daily wear. Which is the thing really, if I could wear what I want, I'd look somewhere in the high quality renaissance fair garb range, more or less steampunk vs fantasy depending on the day. But since that isn't socially acceptable in a business casual student affairs environment (oh to be tenured faculty..... I mean not really but also)
I really feel boxed in on all sides - most clothing isn't what I want to wear, I can maybe afford to make the basic "work" clothing fit, but I'm only wearing it because I have to. What I want to wear is too expensive or won't fit at all, and if it did, I'd be too weird for day to day. ¯\_( ͠° ͟ʖ °͠ )_/¯
Always said I'd wear capes if I could but, even in the loosey world of student affairs (where I worked until recently), I'd be expecting the third degree.
I could get away with a cape for sure, half my office sweaters are cape adjacent. I just lack the confidence for a real masc but still fae look IMO
This sounds more like a failure of clothing to fit people, than it is a failure of people who buy clothes. Like I'm a short but otherwise very typically sized woman, and clothing sizes are fucking bonkers and make no sense.
Not really sure how this works- aren't tariffs evaluated and priced on the price of the product that is shipped to you? Meaning they should probably keep the prices the same and let USPS/FedEx/whoever handle billing the recipient for the tariffs?
The importer pays the taxes, not the shipment company. For Temu, technically you are the importer, as they use de minimis (whereas for most Amazon transactions, the merchant is the importer). Temu just handles the import customs paperwork for you.
They're saying the operating expenses have gone up in their press release. Which would make some sense. They're having to manage the tariffs now as an entirely new expense because the exemption that let small items through without charging any tariffs has been removed.
I think a lot of these direct-from-china companies have begun keeping stock in american warehouses. So they do end up paying tariffs themselves.
That's true for drop shippers, but Temu and Shein take advantage of the de minimis exemption and ship from China straight to the buyer.
https://youtu.be/ZvC_QLrBfUM
Doesn't matter if Temu (for example) never has to pay a tariff: they will raise prices based on both real and perceived costs. If Wal-Mart gets to raise prices, why shouldn't Temu? They want to make bigger profit, too, and as long as they are cheaper in real or perceived terms, they will still be the choice for price-sensitive shoppers. Temu can especially justify raising prices because they won't be the bad guy in the situation, Trump will be; after all, he put these evil tariffs in place that are ruining your ability to buy cheap clothes.
This is not to say I agree with the actions, I personally think they are fairly abhorrent. But capitalists are going to capitalist.