Hacker News Reader

Comment by soared | Hacker News Reader

Patagonia is great but obscenely expensive - a solution that does not scale at all.

$300 sweater jacket http://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-down-sweater-jacket/84...

Isn't that inflation adjusted pretty much a normal price for a down jacket 30 years ago? Something that you'd buy once every 3-4 years or so? At least that's how I'm still treating this. Also, I'm Swiss, so my sense of pricing may be off here. But winter shoes and winter jackets for us is something expensive that one doesn't buy often.

300$ USD is ~25% of a entry level workers monthly pay (net) in the US. Housing frequently hits between 50-30%, transportation another ~20%. Which means buy a 300$ anything means not eating that month for a large % of the US. Obviously Patagonia is still running which means there are enough people who can spare that but it's not universal (see the Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Inequality).

ETA: 300$ = 25% => 1200 a month net => 1500 gross (if no state taxes) => 9.38 an hour IF we assume the completely unrealistic 40/week

That sounds like a problem with depressed wages, not the price of the coat.

Welcome to the USA?

Absolutely, but my point is that the cost is reasonable, the wages are not, and that implies a fix. Moreover, the fix doesn’t lie with Patagonia. Even more, if the true cost of things like clothing weren’t extermslized brutally, Americans would be far more aware of the pressing need for said fix.

I certainly agree that 300$ USD should be completely reasonable for something that lasts half a decade, I'm just not sure how to get from here to there realistically (well in the 5-10 year short term).

I don't know how you can consider any $300 clothes reasonable. It doesn't cost a tenth of that to make and deliver.

>for something that lasts half a decade

Personally I made ~11000 USD last year: I consider $30 to be unaffordable, that's not the same as believing I should have to consider it unaffordable.

> It doesn't cost a tenth of that to make and deliver.

Well, not if you have a conscience about our ecosystem.

You ever sewn any? Some clothing is incredibly labour intensive.

Exactly. Again, I will use Switzerland as an example and give a few typical salaries:

Banker in Zurich with 10y experience: 12k USD/M

Engineer in Zurich with 0y experience: 8k USD/M

so far it probably sounds pretty normal for people used to SF / NY levels right?

Here's the difference:

Mc Donald's cashier in Zurich: ~3500 USD/M

Median Salary in Zurich: ~6000 USD/M

Median Salary across Switzerland: ~5600 USD/M

These give you the low and mid points of the salary spectrum. It's just much more compressed than in the US - this Patagonia jacket should be <10% of anyone's monthly salary, probably affordable for >90% of population. If it isn't, then it would be if you take social services into account that are designed to correct for such market mistakes that leave people behind in poverty.

And this is Switzerland, mind you, probably the most US-like libertarian and decentrally governed place in Europe. All of this would be affordable to Americans if your government wouldn't just pander to the big corporations and throw out money by the boatloads for insanely overpriced defence contracts.

>> most US-like libertarian and decentrally governed place in Europe.

Ah that's your problem the US economic model is punitive, not libertarian.

Switzerland is a small country benefitting from being the hub of a disproportional amount of global banking and commodity trading. I think that props up the minimum wage at McDonalds. That being said, the pride that the Swiss - from a McDonald’s worker to bus driver - show in their jobs is noticeable to this American.

Banking revenue is 7-9% of Swiss GDP, on par with many industrial nations. Commoditie Trades are disproportionate to Switzerland’s size for sure, but I fail to see how that translates to salaries in McDonalds - their main target market is hardly bankers and commodity traders. I think it has much more to do with the social safety net which imposes an implicit minimal wage (companies have to offer something significantly above what one can get from the government).

Which means buy a 300$ anything means not eating that month for a large % of the US.

Or, it means you have to save for more than a month to buy a jacket. Which, assuming it lasts a decent number of years, seems reasonable.

Assuming someone's income is that low, they can't just spend multiple months saving up for each and every article of clothing. That also means forgoing saving for anything else. What good is just a warm jacket when it is below 10F outside? Or when my car breaks down and I need to choose between that single jacket and a new alternator?

There is no long term if I can't survive the short term to get there. So in this situation, you buy the cheapest you can to ensure that you can at least make it to tomorrow.

How much have wages increased since then? I can imagine on average, people's purchasing power has decreased a lot since then. Mind you this is also due to rising fixed expenses - didn't have cable, internet, phone subscriptions back then either. And work was often closer to home, so less travel expenses.

They have web specials on their site, and a 50% off sale at least twice a year. Get on their mailing list and they'll tell you when it happens.

Pretty sure this is the same jacket, in an old color:

http://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-down-sweater-jacket/84...

But if they sold in larger volumes would the price go down with economies of scale? Maybe not as far as the cheapest stuff on the market but it could become attainable. or maybe parts of their approach could be used to build a cheaper line of clothing that is still environmentally responsible.

Yes and no. The costs of manufacturing may go down but it doesn't mean that it will be passed down to the consumers.

Generally speaking, selling cheaper is a bad business decision. It will increase costs and decrease earnings, you don't want to do that as a business. Prices should go up, not down.

In this specific case, we're talking about a niche brand appealing to an affluent audience. They milk their customers to give them good conscience. The price can't go down, that's against the business model.

I do agree. That's why see many companies like this https://aprl.la are coming up quickly in this space.

Zero info on that site. I'm looking for a jacket that lasts 5 years of consistent use that is not $300. Doesn't look like that site will provide it?

(Nothing against that brand because I don't know it but it looks like one of those shitty instagram ad brands)

5 years of consistent use, let's say that goes to ~180 days per year (no idea what your climate is) -> 900 days of wear. A $300 jacket would cost you 30 cents per day of usage then. Are you sure you do not spend a higher fraction of your money on ephemeral luxury like beverages or entertainment?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com