Some misinformation in today's US presidential debate about who bears the cost of tariffs. So let's talk about how tariffs affect what you pay for a suit. 🧵
Note, the following model is very stylized since I can't capture all the nuance in a Twitter thread. But the info was given to me by the Senior VP of a major US suit factory, who also happens to serve as the president of a trade organization for clothing designers and executives.
There are three ways to make a suit: fully fused, half canvassed, and fully canvassed (in ascending order of quality). Let's assuming for this model that the suit is designed in the United States and manufactured in China, then imported into the US for sale.
So, how much does it cost to make a fully fused suit in China? We can estimate the costs to be:
— Labor: $10
— Fabric: $105
— Trims: $30
This is what it costs the factory ($145). The factory needs to make a profit, and in this industry, they typically operate on a 40% gross margin. Which means they markup the garment by 66.67%.
So they sell the suit to the US brand for $242. Once paid, it goes on a ship.
When the ship arrives in the US, the government sees there there's a suit arriving from China. Consequently, they impose a 25% tariff (this is the actual number). The entity who pays this cost is the US brand. On a $242 suit, that means paying $61 in taxes to the US government.
Now the US brand's total cost (manufacturing + import duty) is $303. Of course, they also need to make a profit. Brands commonly have a 60% gross margin, which means they markup the suit by 150%. The import tax is then passed onto the consumer.
That means you, the consumer, pay $758 for a fully fused suit made in China.
But what if the US government didn't impose any tariff? Well, then the brand would only pay $242, and the retail price would be $605. Hence, the consumer saves $153.
Let's quickly run through the other types of suits. For a half-canvassed suit, a factory will typically pay:
— Labor: $20
— Fabric: $105
— Trims: $30
The factory's manufacturing cost is $155, which means they sell it to the US brand for $258. The brand then pays $65 for import duty, and the resulting retail price is $809.
If there were no tariff, the retail price would be $645, so a savings of $164 to the consumer.
And what about the highest end? A fully canvassed suit? Well, a Chinese factory can expect to pay:
— Labor: $94
— Fabric: $105
— Trims: $30
Again, the factory's manufacturing cost is $229, which means they sell it to the US brand for $382. The brand then pays $96 for import duty, and the resulting retail price is $1,195
If there were no tariff, the retail price would be $955, so a savings of $240 to the consumer.
Of course, the point of these import duties is to make it more expensive for US brands to manufacture abroad. As JD Vance noted in an interview, people who impose these taxes are hoping to discourage US brands from using overseas factories, and thus hire Americans.
There's a lot of debate over whether this works. US suit manufacturing is undeniably a shell of its former self. And it's notable that the people who work in these factories are typically first-generation immigrants from Latin, Asian, and Afro-Caribbean countries.
There's a very simple reason for this: native born Americans often think garment manufacturing jobs are beneath them. And in any case, many don't even know how to sew. Immigrants often arrive here with sewing skills they learned back home.
I personally don't care where things are made, as I am not a nationalist. I only care that workers are treated fairly (e.g., labor protections, fair pay, etc).
However, I do question whether people are honestly willing to pay what it costs to make clothes in the US.
When Bikers for Trump went around searching for someone to make their pro-Trump t-shirts, they said paying just $8 more for a US-made t-shirt would be too much. They have good reason to believe this: most consumers are very price sensitive when it comes to clothing.
It was also recently discovered that Rudy Giuliani buys $10 polyester ties off Amazon, even though he could have bought a made-in-USA tie from Brooks Brothers for about $100. These were made in Queens, where he was once mayor. (I believe the factory is now closed)
Whether you think tariffs will bring back jobs or not, there are two undeniable facts: US brands pay the cost, and they typically pass the cost to consumers. With retail markups, the difference for a suit can be in the hundreds of dollars.
If you think inflation is bad now, tariffs will certainly make it worse.
Secondly, the end goal—to make consumers buy American—is available now. Clothes are still made in the US. You simply have to be willing to pay what it costs. Ask yourself: will you?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A few years ago, I interviewed my friend @andrew3sixteen, who runs one of my favorite denim brands, 3sixteen. I really like how he combines workwear in a way that feels relatable. For the feature, he wore this tremendous Schott B-3 sheepskin jacket. 🧵
The B-3 is a thick and heavy sheepskin jacket originally designed to protect US pilots. I think it looks great, but it can be very much of a statement piece in civilian life. Alternatively, there's the B-6, which saw service from 1939 to 1943.
Left: B-3 Right: B-6
The B-6 was designed to fill the space between the lighter A-2 and the heavier B-3. Made with a smaller wool pile and shorter body length, it was primarily worn by ground crew members and bomber crewmen who were less exposed to the elements.
I sad that, despite belabouring the point over and over again, it still does not come through. So I will make another attempt at explaining why I think respectability in dress is stupid. 🧵
When it comes to respectability in dress, there are two sides of the equation: you as a person getting dressed and you as an observer.
If you're going somewhere, you can make a decision to dress "respectably," if you wish.
For instance, if I were to attend a wedding, I would wear a suit to communicate that I wish to honor my hosts on their special day. My clothes are an outward representation of what's in my heart. I'm using the clothes to communicate to people.
My intention is never to tell you to purchase a garment from a certain brand, and certainly not luxury brands like Tom Ford. Instead, it's to hopefully pull back the curtains and show you why some things look the way they do. I will give some examples. 🧵
I don't encourage you to buy garments just because of how they look on other people. Instead, it's to develop an eye for why something works or doesn't work. For instance, the Winklevoss twins have very broad, square shoulders.
To my eye, they do not look good in these suits because the jackets have too much shoulder padding. If you place a shoulder pad—even something as thin as 1.5 ply—on a person with very square shoulders, they will look like a linebacker.
Dislike the term "fatass" here. IMO, it's unnecessary to body shame anyone, regardless of how you feel about them. But I can explain why you have this impression. 🧵
Aside from the fact that Musk is one of the most photographed men in the world and anyone can be made to look in any way if you take enough photos of them, what you're seeing is partly the effect of clothes. Some years ago, the WSJ reported that Musk shops at Nordstrom.
If you zoom in on photos of Musk, you will see a curious detail: his suit jackets have five buttons at the cuff, rather than the more standard four, and one buttonhole is longer than the others. This is a signature of Tom Ford suits.
Many people go about this the wrong way: they throw some wacky item into an outfit, thinking this makes things more interesting. This is like inserting random letters into a sentence. When you do so, you spoil the meaning. The tchotchkes here ruin the business suit.
To make an outfit more interesting, you have to know what you want to say. This requires knowledge: knowledge of self (who are you), knowledge of cultural hitsory, knowledge aesthetic language, and knowledge of what do you want to say.
I think very slim trousers in a tailored outfit can work on certain men, but the percentage is much smaller than many believe. It often doesn't work in real life for a variety of reasons. Here are some. 🧵
When you slim the trousers beyond a certain point, you end up breaking the silhouette into two distinctive blocks: upper and lower. This ruins the harmony of a tailored aesthetic. To me, the coat and trouser should have some relationship so they form a coherent whole.
The second reason has to do with the rise. The cut of the legs typically moves in concert with the rise. Full legged trousers have a high rise; slim trousers typically have a low rise. It would be weird to switch these bc you'd mess with the proportions of pants.