derek guy Profile picture
Apr 8 19 tweets 8 min read Read on X
How much do you think it costs to make a pair of Nike shoes in Asia?

I'll show you. 🧵 Image
In 2014, Steve Bence served as Nike's Program Director in Footwear Sourcing and Manufacturing. He pulled back the curtain on manufacturing in an interview with Portland Business Journal. He said that, if a sneaker retails for $100, it generally costs them about $25 to manufacture Image
This is the FOB cost. In the industry, "free on board" is the shoe's cost at the point when it's loaded onto a vessel at the port of origin. "Free" refers to how the factory will pay to deliver a finished product up to the point when it boards a ship—the rest is your problem. Image
Tariffs are calculated on the declared value of the import. In this imaginary case, if Nike paid a factory $25 to produce a pair of sneakers, then their tariff cost is $26. This roughly doubles the cost of making a pair of shoes in Asia and bringing it into the US (landed cost). Image
"OK," you say, "so that leaves them with a $49 profit. $100 retail minus $25 manufacturing cost and $26 tariff. That's still good."

Not so! There are other costs associated with getting that shoe into your closet. You are not collecting that sneaker at the port.
In 2016, Sole Review took a look at Nike's income statement and came up with this breakdown. On an imaginary $100 shoe, they estimate manufacturing cost is $22. Add freight, insurance, and import taxes, they estimate it costs Nike $27 to bring that shoe from Asia to the US. Image
They also looked at Footlocker's income statement/ 10k filing and came up with this model. On the same imaginary $100 shoe, Footlocker makes $6 after expenses.

Of course, Nike can retail the shoes themselves, but then they'll also take on similar business costs. Image
The actual costs associated with shoes will vary depending on the design, sourcing, and other specifics. The imaginary shoe above is set at $100 to make things easier as a percentage. For completeness, you can read Sole Review's story here:

solereview.com/what-does-it-c…Image
Image
Image
From this model, you can see a few things.

First, adding $26 tariff at the port doesn't just add $26 to the final price. Everything here works off of percentages. In this simple model, we say Nike has a landed cost of $25, sells it to Footlocker for $50, and they retail at $100 Image
But if we bump the cost of freight, insurance, and customs from $5 to, say, $28, then they wholesale the shoes to Footlocker for about $75. And if Footlocker purchases Nike shoes for $75, then they retail them for $150. Everyone needs to fixed percentages to avoid losses. Image
The second thing we see is that Asian manufacturing in Asia produces US jobs. You go to Footlocker to buy a pair of $100 shoes because you can afford them. This creates jobs for the Footlocker employees, Nike designers, marketing teams, and other US people throughout this chain. Image
The third thing we see is that Nike only paid the factory about $25 to make these sneakers. How much did it cost the factory to produce them? I don't have numbers on that, but if we assume the usual turnkey model, then maybe $12.5? And how much of that went to the worker? Image
Again, it's a popular misconception that all overseas production is sweatshops. Production can be done ethically abroad and still be relatively cheap because the cost of living is not the same everywhere. I encourage you to note assume that every Asian worker is a slave.
We have some idea of how much it would cost to make sneakers in the US. Victory/ Hersey (before they closed), SAS, and certain New Balances are made here. They retail for about $220.

Note, many of these rely on imported materials (up to 30%). So they will go up with tariffs. Image
Image
I think making shoes is a perfectly fine job, although it suffers from the same problem as other manufacturing jobs. As the US has switched to a post-industrial economy, a lot of the wage growth has been in knowledge intensive services—medicine, law, engineering.
That means the Nike designer and marketer typically see more wage growth year-after-year than someone working on the manufacturing line (especially if they're not unionized and can leverage collective bargaining power). Image
Image
Tech optimists think that technology will make factory jobs easier and better for workers. I'm less sanguine. I think some tech improves productivity and wages; other types of tech deskills and eliminates jobs (look at AI with illustration art).

I raise this only because I see some people suggest that it only costs Nike $2 to make a pair of sneakers in Asian sweatshops, which retail on the shelf for $150, and this is $148 profit. And if we move this back to the US, American workers can capture some of that money.
I think the truth is much more complicated. Manufacturing overseas can create certain jobs here by offering a more affordable product. In the end, you may actually see a *loss* of US jobs as fewer people pay for $220 sneakers, both at home and abroad. Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with derek guy

derek guy Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dieworkwear

Nov 3
Not true. Both Joe Biden and Gavin Newsom wear ready-to-wear or factor-made clothes produced on a block pattern.

I'll show you how I know. 🧵 Image
First, what do you notice about this jacket? Image
For me, the glaring issue is how far the sleeve comes down.

In a 1966 essay titled "The Secret Vice," Tom Wolfe wrote about men obsessed with custom tailoring. He talked about "marginal differences" such as working buttonholes. Image
Image
Read 15 tweets
Nov 3
I will tell you how to get pants like this. 🧵 Image
First, what makes these trousers special?

On first glance, you may be impressed but not know why.

The reason is deceptively simple: they hang pin straight. This is more obvious when you compare them to trousers that don't hang so cleanly. Image
Image
It's not easy to get trousers to hang this straight. There are a few reasons for this.

First, if you were to take off all your clothes and look in the mirror (do this privately, not on the internet), you'll notice your body is not perfectly symmetrical.
Read 15 tweets
Nov 2
I'll give you three reasons why someone might be into a watch.

I will use three watches in my personal collection. 🧵
As some may know, my family is from Vietnam. My parents fled Saigon shortly after the Tet Offensive, as bombs were falling around them and they weren't sure what was going to happen once the North Vietnamese took over the city. Image
When my dad left Vietnam, he wasn't able to take much with him — just some family photos of life back home, some clothes, and a 1960s Rolex Datejust he bought as a present for himself. Growing up, I always saw my dad wear this watch. It was basically part of his body. Image
Read 17 tweets
Oct 29
Not true.

You fell for a fake news story. 🧵
Earlier this year, it was reported that JD Vance has a tailor in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was a charming story about an Italian immigrant named Romualdo Pelle, who has worked as a tailor since he immigrated to the US in 1960.

Watch the story very closely. What do you notice?
Those familiar with tailoring will see something very peculiar:

Mr. Pelle is basting a finished jacket! Image
Image
Read 20 tweets
Oct 26
I disagree. At least in appearance, both of these men are more culturally American than Eric.

I will explain. 🧵
In the 19th century, gentlemen wore black frock coats or tailcoats with a white shirt and dark waistcoat. As the frock coat gave way to the suit, the white linen shirt — a mark of respectability and propriety — remained. Image
Image
For much of the 20th century, this was the standard uniform of the American male that sat at any social station above blue collar. And even then, blue collar people often wore these clothes to churches and weddings. Image
Image
Read 11 tweets
Oct 23
A couple of weeks ago, Trump struggled with a broken umbrella as he boarded Air Force One.

Let me tell you how we got to this point — and the tragic downfall of the noble umbrella. 🧵
It's hard to imagine now, but it was once controversial for a man to carry an umbrella. The modern umbrella's progenitor, of course, is the parasol, which 18th century French women carried to preserve their light-colored skin (at the time, a mark of class and status). Image
British men considered the accessory too French, too foreign, and most importantly, too effeminate. That was until 1756, when Jonas Hanway, an upper-class philanthropist, started to carry a waterproofed version around London to protect himself from the rain. Image
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(