How much do you think it costs to make a pair of Nike shoes in Asia?
I'll show you. 🧵
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
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.
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).
"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.
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Style lessons from Robert Redford, one of the most stylish men in the last century. 🧵
A tailored jacket continues to be one of the most flattering things you can wear. However, for it to look good, it has to fit right. That means a jacket that bisects you halfway from your collar to the floor when you're in heeled shoes. Also trouser + suit jacket silhouette flows
It also helps to know how to use this visual language, especially with regard to ideas about formality. For instance, a dark business suit cries out for a tie. If you don't want to wear a tie, try a more casual garment, like a sport coat.
Let's start with a test. Here are two tan polo coats. One is machine-made. The other is handmade. Can you guess which is which?
Please answer before moving on. Then you can scroll through the answers to see whether most people got it right.
The first coat is machine-made. It's from an American ready-to-wear company called J. Press. The second is handmade. It's from a London bespoke tailoring house called Anderson & Sheppard.
You can spot the difference by how the edges are finished.
I've seen people here suggest Obama was a stylish president. I couldn't disagree more. Outfits like these read better in 2025, but during the slim-fit, Euro style craze of his presidency, Obama was routinely panned for his "frumpy dad style." See Vanity Fair.
His style transformation really came post-presidency. I suspect, but don't have proof, that this is partly the influence of his wife, who is quite stylish. Even his suits look better now. See clean shoulder line + shirt collar points reaching lapels + nice four-in-hand dimple.
Although it's rarely expressed in outright terms, people often use a very simple heuristic when solving fashion problems: they wish to look rich, which is often disguised as "respectable."
I will show you why this rarely leads to good outfits. 🧵
In 1902, German sociologist Georg Simmel neatly summed up fashion in an essay titled "On Fashion." Fashion, he asserted was simply a game of imitation in which people copy their "social betters." This causes the upper classes to move on, so as to distinguish themselves.
He was right. And his theory explains why Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor, was the most influential menswear figure in the early 20th century. By virtue of his position and taste, he popularized soft collars, belted trousers, cuffs, Fair Isle sweaters, and all sorts of things.
It's funny to see people imbue traditional men's tailoring with their own prejudices. They assume every man who wore a suit in the far past must be a staunch conservative like them. The truth is much more complicated. 🧵
This bias, of course, stems out of the 1960s and 70s, from which many of our contemporary politics also spring. I don't need to belabor this point because you already know it. The framing is neatly summed up in this Mad Men scene — the rag tag hippie vs man in a suit.
Thus, people assume that men in suits must always be part of the conservative establishment. But this was not always so. The suit was once a working man's garment. When Keir Hardie, founder of the Labour Party, arrived for his first day in Parliament, he wore a suit.
There's no "right" or "wrong" answer here, so feel free to go with your gut. I will then give you my views below. 🧵
In men's tailoring, the area below the jacket's buttoning point is colloquially known as the "quarters" among menswear enthusiasts. Or the "front edge" by actual tailors. These terms refer to the edge of the coat, connecting to lapels.
Some suit jackets have very closed quarters, such as you see on the left. In this way, the jacket forms a Y-shaped silhouette.
Other suits have open quarters, such that the front edge sweeps back on the hips, as you see on the right. This forms an X-shaped silhouette.