Individual women have very little control over the clothing that they can buy.
As an exercise, go to any mall or shopping center and try to find a pair of women's jeans that meet the following criteria:
1. Decent quality material, is not deliberately pre-destroyed
2. Functional pockets, but not outlandish 90s style cargo pockets
3. Cut with a straight lower leg, not flared or tapered "skinny", and a proportional leg overall, not extra-wide or skinny
4. A waist size that doesn't assume the wearer is an athlete with a flat stomach (remember, women's pants are sized by number, not by waist x length), even in a "curvy" fit
5. Is not purpose-designed hiking gear
If you can find anything meeting all 5 criteria, I will pay you a $50 finder's fee and consider booking a trip to visit your fair city, because my wife would be thrilled to know they exist.
Revealed preference only ever makes sense when interpreted as preference among available options, not preference among all possible options.
> Evidence suggests that any demand is a vocal minority
The demand for any one individual improvement is probably a relatively vocal minority. There are so many busted messed up attributes about women's clothing that it's hard to choose any one of them to be vocal about. So the overall effect is diluted.
That, and, a lot of women are probably just used to carrying their stuff in a handbag and don't even realize that decent pockets could be an option. Likewise for the unnecessary forced selection between super skinny and super wide jeans.
I haven't carried a purse since my teens and it's absolutely a struggle to find a pair of pants that values function over some dumb designer's idea of fashionable style. I'm pretty sure it's the designers who want women to have smooth lines unbroken by practical things like keys, and underwear.
Whenever I find a pair of jeans that are, as you described, straight leg, 4 pockets of a size large enough to fit my phone comfortably and my wallet (yes I use a men's slim wallet), not sparkly or embroidered, I will buy a half dozen and pray my weight won't change too much. (Asking for a good fabric in top of that is just too much now.)
> If you can find anything meeting all 5 criteria, I will pay you a $50 finder's fee and consider booking a trip to visit your fair city, because my wife would be thrilled to know they exist.
Is it possible that your criteria is not possible? If it is possible, buy a vacation to Bangladesh or India, and go to one of the many fabric stores. They have people who can design and make literally make whatever clothes you want. It won’t be $50, but it would be affordable for many in the US.
The question is, is it worth sufficiently more than the $30 clothes that clothes sellers are betting will appeal to a much more broad audience?
>Revealed preference only ever makes sense when interpreted as preference among available options, not preference among all possible options.
In the case of clothing, especially women’s clothing, surely the available options comes close to all possible options, especially after all these decades. Carrying smartphones has been ubiquitous for 10+ years, surely someone in the supply chain has personally (or their spouse) experienced the need for bigger pockets.
> buy a vacation to Bangladesh or India, and go to one of the many fabric stores. They have people who can design and make literally make whatever clothes you want
Yes, clearly. That's a reasonable thing to suggest /s
If there is meaningful demand, the idea is worth quite a lot of money. Starting a business to capitalise on it is a reasonable suggestion. I know a girl who started her own underwear line, she'd be happy to do pants I'm sure.
The issue is that the meaningful demand is not there, or already filled and the market is just small. As nerdponx observed, it isn't really about pockets. There are 4 different other concerns that probably outrank pockets and that is just specific to his wife. And she might not even buy the things when she sees them. When I buy pants, I literally just buy a long pair of pants with the most and largest pockets. I dunno what the name for them is, tradesmen wear them. Cargo pants? They carry a lot of cargo. That in a nutshell is why male pants get pockets and womans pants don't.
As an exercise, go to any mall or shopping center and try to find a pair of women's jeans that meet the following criteria:
1. Decent quality material, is not deliberately pre-destroyed 2. Functional pockets, but not outlandish 90s style cargo pockets 3. Cut with a straight lower leg, not flared or tapered "skinny", and a proportional leg overall, not extra-wide or skinny 4. A waist size that doesn't assume the wearer is an athlete with a flat stomach (remember, women's pants are sized by number, not by waist x length), even in a "curvy" fit 5. Is not purpose-designed hiking gear
If you can find anything meeting all 5 criteria, I will pay you a $50 finder's fee and consider booking a trip to visit your fair city, because my wife would be thrilled to know they exist.
Revealed preference only ever makes sense when interpreted as preference among available options, not preference among all possible options.
> Evidence suggests that any demand is a vocal minority
The demand for any one individual improvement is probably a relatively vocal minority. There are so many busted messed up attributes about women's clothing that it's hard to choose any one of them to be vocal about. So the overall effect is diluted.
That, and, a lot of women are probably just used to carrying their stuff in a handbag and don't even realize that decent pockets could be an option. Likewise for the unnecessary forced selection between super skinny and super wide jeans.