These are shoddy incomplete economic arguments because they focus exclusively on demand, treating supply as some highly reactive all-knowing pants creation engine. If women really wanted better pockets, they would magically become widely available at reasonable prices!
Of course, if you look at the actual context of those comments, relatively little of it attempts to invoke anything beyond a cursory nod to that particular anti-economic solecism. It really is largely about blaming women for not making better choices.
> If women really wanted better pockets, they would magically become widely available at reasonable prices!
This is not accurate. There are multiple variables in play. Price, functionality, desirability (to others), etc.
The claim is that across all those variables, what major retailers sell for the lowest prices available is what the broader population of women are able and willing to pay for. Note that the lowest prices require economies of scale, which means the type of clothing that a broad population will accept, even with features they do not like.
It is publicly known that selling clothes is a very low profit margin business, so it stands to reason that unless you know what you are doing, you are not going to survive.
The thing with clothes is that many are not able or willing to pay for the customizations they seek. Because clothes are “easy” to make, the only question is how much are you willing to pay.
I hope that the above website and other discussions around this issue spur clothes makers to make clothes with bigger and more pockets for women at lower prices. Perhaps times are changing and bigger/more pockets is a more profitable market that has not yet been tapped.
These are shoddy incomplete economic arguments because they focus exclusively on demand, treating supply as some highly reactive all-knowing pants creation engine. If women really wanted better pockets, they would magically become widely available at reasonable prices!
Of course, if you look at the actual context of those comments, relatively little of it attempts to invoke anything beyond a cursory nod to that particular anti-economic solecism. It really is largely about blaming women for not making better choices.