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
Disagree with some of the reactions to this tweet.
Will offer what I think is a better framework for understanding when you should cuff your jeans. 🧵
Prior to the 1970s, most men cuffed their jeans. This was not, as it has been suggested, because they were poor and needed jeans they could grow into. Rather, it has to do with how denim, as a fabric, was made.
Most jeans today are sanforized, which is to say that the fabric has been put through a mechanical process to remove shrinkage. Sanforization was invented in the 1930s, but sanforized jeans weren't broadly popular until after the 1960s.
When British economist Alfred Marshall looked out of his window in the late-19th century, he saw a country full of clothing and textile production. In the Scottish Border towns up north, weavers and knitters were making tweeds and cashmere out of local and native wools.
In the London district known as Spitalfields, the descendants of French refugees toiled over looms to make some of the world’s finest silks. Once woven, these materials were often sent to Macclesfield, where they were printed by hand.
Style becomes a lot more interesting when you stop thinking of clothes as a way to look younger, hotter, or richer. Or as a way to gain status and advance your career.
Let me show you. 🧵
The internet is full of people who post photos like these and tell you where you can buy the clothes shown. Often, this requires subscribing to their Substack or clicking their affiliate link, so they earn some money on the backend.
This can be fine, but sometimes there's a not-so-subtle suggestion that you can transform your life by purchasing something. You can be happier, younger, richer, and more handsome by wearing a polo. In reality, you will continue being who you are and living your regular life.
For the purposes of this thread, I will assume you mean an alterations tailor, which is someone who alters clothes you bought from a store. I will not cover bespoke tailors, who are people that make clothes from scratch. That kind of discussion goes beyond what I can cover here.
Like any trade, the clothing business can involve a bit of insider baseball. To find a good tailor, call a few stores that sell high-end clothes. For men, these will be suits that retail for $3,000 and up. For women, it will be things like suits, eveningwear, and bridal gowns.
I should first emphasize this thread is not meant to body shame. I mean that sincerely. Few men are built like Adonis, so when shopping for clothes, most will have their own fit challenges, including muscular figures. This thread is only meant to highlight a tailoring issue.
Let's first do an experiment. Which suit do you think looks better?
But first, let's play a game. Here are two men wearing gray tailored jackets with blue pants. Which outfit looks better to you? Ignore physical attributes of the people underneath and focus on the outfits. Then reply with your answer.
If you said the right looks better, then we have the same taste. In this case, we can again go back to history to understand our views.
As I've said before, our notions in traditional men's tailoring largely derive from Britain, where suits and sport coats were invented.