A lot of times they do cost more. I was watching some makeover show and the woman on it said she's not motivated to dress well since she has to pay more for larger clothes (or something like that).

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In theory yay :D in practice boo :(

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Bigger size=unhealthy. You're saying someone with long legs who needs pants that use more material should have to pay extra so they'll be motivated to "stay fit"? Yeah, no.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

But you voted yes.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Actually I voted no but the color was messed up, it should be fixed now though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay. I thought you might have voted yes on accident.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

On one hand, someone along the line is going to be penalised for the material. If the retailer gets a bulk price so everything is the same, as does the wholesaler, and all the middlemen along the way, the manufacturer gets it in the shorts. For example, if he can sell ten thousand small shirts with one tonne of cotton, at $10 each, but only seven thousand large shirts with the same material, but is forced to sell at the same price, then he loses out. If this is passed onto the farmer, the overall price of cotton drops so he loses out. Someone along the way will lose out, unless things are sold according to how expensive it was to make them. Also, in designer clothes, you're paying for the label (seriously, the label. Not even the design, just the little tag) more than the material. This should only count for small companies which need to pay the manufacturer more for bigger sizes, and for ridiculously expensive material like some kinds of fur and silk. More importantly, those who don't already make huge profits.

by Anonymous 11 years ago