• callouscomic@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    This is one of many reasons I don’t buy textbook economics of capitalism.

    For example, if they’d just put lots of pockets in women’s clothing decades ago as standard, they’d have sold SOOOO much.

    This idea that capitalism and the free hand of the market will gravitate towards bulk of demand is bullshit.

    • sturger@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      Capitalism’s goal is profits. Not helping the customer, selling more, or anything else. We’re in late-stage capitalism, so it is ‘Profits Uber Alles’.

    • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      I use to work retail selling (mostly) women clothes. At one point we had the same model of sundress with and without pockets. Every one of them that was watching or trying the one without got like super hyped and excited when we told them we had it with pockets. The pocketless one still sold better. And it wasn’t even a tight fitting dress, it was slack and baggy.

    • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      I read a thing (not sure if it’s true) that the reason there’s no pockets in women’s clothing is that women have more diverse body shapes than men. Pockets are designed not to interrupt the lines of the garment where possible - it’s more straightforward to place men’s pockets because they’re going to be in a more predictable place when worn Vs women where it ends up making the clothes fit poorly.

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        where it ends up making the clothes fit poorly

        a.k.a makes the clothes fit anything but skin-tight because the pockets need space so the clothes have to be wider-cut