derek guy

How much do you think it costs to make a pair of Nike shoes in Asia? 

I'll show you. 🧵 

In 2014, Steve Bence served as Nike's Program Director in Footwear Sourcing and Manufacturing. He pulled back the curtain on manufacturing in an interview with Portland Business Journal. He said that, if a sneaker retails for $100, it generally costs them about $25 to manufacture 

This is the FOB cost. In the industry, "free on board" is the shoe's cost at the point when it's loaded onto a vessel at the port of origin. "Free" refers to how the factory will pay to deliver a finished product up to the point when it boards a ship—the rest is your problem. 

Tariffs are calculated on the declared value of the import. In this imaginary case, if Nike paid a factory $25 to produce a pair of sneakers, then their tariff cost is $26. This roughly doubles the cost of making a pair of shoes in Asia and bringing it into the US (landed cost). 

"OK," you say, "so that leaves them with a $49 profit. $100 retail minus $25 manufacturing cost and $26 tariff. That's still good." 

Not so! There are other costs associated with getting that shoe into your closet. You are not collecting that sneaker at the port.

In 2016, Sole Review took a look at Nike's income statement and came up with this breakdown. On an imaginary $100 shoe, they estimate manufacturing cost is $22. Add freight, insurance, and import taxes, they estimate it costs Nike $27 to bring that shoe from Asia to the US. 

They also looked at Footlocker's income statement/ 10k filing and came up with this model. On the same imaginary $100 shoe, Footlocker makes $6 after expenses. 

Of course, Nike can retail the shoes themselves, but then they'll also take on similar business costs. 

The actual costs associated with shoes will vary depending on the design, sourcing, and other specifics. The imaginary shoe above is set at $100 to make things easier as a percentage. For completeness, you can read Sole Review's story here:

https://www.solereview.com/what-does-it-cost-to-make-a-running-shoe/ 

From this model, you can see a few things. 

First, adding $26 tariff at the port doesn't just add $26 to the final price. Everything here works off of percentages. In this simple model, we say Nike has a landed cost of $25, sells it to Footlocker for $50, and they retail at $100 

But if we bump the cost of freight, insurance, and customs from $5 to, say, $28, then they wholesale the shoes to Footlocker for about $75. And if Footlocker purchases Nike shoes for $75, then they retail them for $150. Everyone needs to fixed percentages to avoid losses. 

The second thing we see is that Asian manufacturing in Asia produces US jobs. You go to Footlocker to buy a pair of $100 shoes because you can afford them. This creates jobs for the Footlocker employees, Nike designers, marketing teams, and other US people throughout this chain. 

The third thing we see is that Nike only paid the factory about $25 to make these sneakers. How much did it cost the factory to produce them? I don't have numbers on that, but if we assume the usual turnkey model, then maybe $12.5? And how much of that went to the worker? 

Again, it's a popular misconception that all overseas production is sweatshops. Production can be done ethically abroad and still be relatively cheap because the cost of living is not the same everywhere. I encourage you to note assume that every Asian worker is a slave.

We have some idea of how much it would cost to make sneakers in the US. Victory/ Hersey (before they closed), SAS, and certain New Balances are made here. They retail for about $220.

Note, many of these rely on imported materials (up to 30%). So they will go up with tariffs. 

I think making shoes is a perfectly fine job, although it suffers from the same problem as other manufacturing jobs. As the US has switched to a post-industrial economy, a lot of the wage growth has been in knowledge intensive services—medicine, law, engineering.

That means the Nike designer and marketer typically see more wage growth year-after-year than someone working on the manufacturing line (especially if they're not unionized and can leverage collective bargaining power). 

Tech optimists think that technology will make factory jobs easier and better for workers. I'm less sanguine. I think some tech improves productivity and wages; other types of tech deskills and eliminates jobs (look at AI with illustration art).

https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1908736017886277789

I raise this only because I see some people suggest that it only costs Nike $2 to make a pair of sneakers in Asian sweatshops, which retail on the shelf for $150, and this is $148 profit. And if we move this back to the US, American workers can capture some of that money.

I think the truth is much more complicated. Manufacturing overseas can create certain jobs here by offering a more affordable product. In the end, you may actually see a *loss* of US jobs as fewer people pay for $220 sneakers, both at home and abroad. 

Let's talk about some of the tailoring and choices in this photo, and how you can avoid making the same mistakes. 🧵

A lot of guys have a hard time accepting that good tailoring is not about making things as slim as possible. When clothes are this tight, they will restrict movement. I suspect this is why a lot of guys say that tailoring is uncomfortable. 

A lot of guys should first get it out of their head that slimmer is better. Some outfits can be slim! But the point of tailoring is not always to make things as slim as possible. It's about flattering your body's shape, not recreating it. 

The shoulders and sleeves on the purple suit are too small, making the person look like he's about to burst out of his coat. The second coat doesn't even look like it can be fastened. Both men are wearing trousers that are too narrow and tapered. 

A lot of athletic men assume they look better in this type of tailoring. They do not. Look at these athletic men who are wearing more classic proportions. A fuller coat with higher-rise trousers. The clothes have *drape and shape.* This is both comfortable and elegant. 

Some may feel those outfits are too boring. But check out Domingo, who has a similar build. His clothes follow the same principles (drape and shape). Lines are clean. There is room for comfortable movement. The creativity comes from cut, silhouette, and fabric. 

Although you don't always have to choose classic footwear, doing so will provide you with the guardrails against falling into stuff like this. Two-toned, tasseled driving mocs and double-monks look like five open browser tabs set to various menswear blogs. 

A safer, more tasteful choice would be brown or black oxfords (pic 1) or conservative tassel loafers (pic 2). If you want to be dandy, then Prince Albert or Belgian loafers (pics 3 and 4). 

Patrick's outfit here is pretty good, except for a critical part: the jacket's collar should always hug your neck. 

It's difficult to judge why a jacket isn't hugging a person's neck online without seeing the outfit in person. 

But you can see this in any example of quality tailoring. Here's Fayard &amp; Harold Nicholas (The Nicholas Brothers) dancing in the 1943 film Stormy Weather. Notice that even in such extreme movements, the collar hugs the neck.

https://x.com/DancerOnFilm/status/1752381187799310666/video/1

Finally, jacket and trousers should always work together to form a harmonious whole. When trousers are too low rise and tapered like this, they look at odds with the coat. 

The trousers should hang clean and the jacket should flow into the trousers. Jeans should not be cut like dress trousers, but even when wearing something like chinos or jeans with a tailored jacket, you can see how the two parts need to form a coherent whole. 

IMO, we should take our country back from made-to-measure clothiers run by marketing people instead of tailors; from bad-taste shoes; and from the idea that everyone needs to squeeze into slim-fit tailoring instead of dressing for their body type 

The arguments I've seen for the dress code fall into one of two categories: players look better in a coat-and-tie (some use descriptions such as "classy"). Others say that requiring players to dress in this way shows respect for the game. I will address each argument in turn. 

It's true that tailoring once played a larger role in sports. Basketball coaches, for instance, used to wear tailored jackets pretty regularly, even at games. Some even looked quite good in these outfits. 

Even professional athletes occasionally wore tailoring, such as Muhammad Ali. Although this was not a requirement for going to or from games.

It's important to note this happened during the Golden Age of tailoring (1930s-80s), when bespoke tailors were more common. 

What's a bespoke tailor, you ask? A bespoke tailor is someone who makes you a garment from scratch. They take your measurements, draft a pattern from scratch, and then use that pattern to create a custom garment that's refined through an iterative series of three fittings. 

This is important because professional athletes have atypical builds, which means they don't fit easily into ready-to-wear clothing. When Kareem Abdul-Jabbar bought custom clothes as a UCLA sophomore, he went to a bespoke tailor. (He had a 51" inseam!) 

As ready-to-wear has taken over the market, and as fewer people today wear tailored clothing, the market for bespoke tailors has shrunk dramatically. A few are left in NYC, but most people rely on international tailors who visit select US cities three or four times per year. 

Such cities include NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington DC. If you're located in another city, such as Chicago or Phoenix, your options are smaller. If you're not located in or near a city, your options are basically next to none.

Most people who buy custom clothes don't actually use bespoke tailors. They use made-to-measure outfitters, where someone measures you. These measurements are then sent to a distant factory, where a block pattern is adjusted and a garment is made straight to finish. 

It's important to note that the person measuring and fitting you is typically not a tailor. Meaning, they don't know how to draft a pattern or make clothes. They are business people, sales people, and fitters. This is sometimes fine if you're within distance of the block pattern.

But the further you are from the block pattern, the more problems you'll encounter. The MTM companies I've seen often suffer from a few problems:

— Prices are low (sub $1,000), which means they run on slim margins. This limits how much they can serve you. Have a problem? Too bad

— Since they run on small margins, they often have to sell a lot of units. Which means the block pattern is downmarket from early 2000 trends (short jacket, slim pants, low waisted)

— The person running the company is not really into clothing, they are into making money. 

In such cases, you often have the blind leading the blind. Since the person is primarily interested in sales, not tailoring, they play up gimmicks like contrast buttonholes, wacky lining, contrast stitching. Anything to make the sale.

These are all cheap gimmicks: 

Compare, for instance, the fully machine-made coat in the first image. The client is likely new to tailoring, so they throw everything into the sauce. Contrast stitching! Exciting!!

But when a coat is genuinely well-made, the hand-felled stitching is invisible.

IG lawtonltd 

These flash bang gimmicks blind the customer, preventing them from noticing that the garment doesn't fit very well. They may not have much experience with quality tailoring, so they have no reference point. But just compare the fit and silhouette of these two outfits: 

This situation is exacerbated when the person has an athletic build. The salesperson (who, again, is not a tailor) has developed a trendy block pattern. They are then trying to squeeze these athletic figures into slim fit suits designed for thinner men. That's how you get this: 

I should stress this is not to demean the men in these clothes. It's their clothier that failed them. 

These clothiers try to solve every problem by taking in the seams. To prevent the seams from busting, they use stretch fabrics. 

This looks ridiculous: 

As a matter of aesthetics, I don't see anything special about bad tailoring. IMO, guys look better in hoodies, sweats, and casualwear than an ugly suit. 

Why have a dress code that only serves to put money in the pockets of clothiers that make players look bad? 

The dress code also places a weird expectation on players. This article from the hockey blog Offside News suggests players should be fashion icons. Unique doesn't necessarily mean good, and athletes aren't necessarily fashion icons. They are there to play sports. 

The idea that a good outfit has to be unique and creative also negates the person underneath the clothes. Some guys are "crazy outfit guys;" other guys are "conservative outfit guys." Ignoring this treats the person as a mannequin, not as a human with a personality. 

As I understand it, hockey players have been asked to adhere to a dress code since at least the 1990s. Part of this is so that the player's attire doesn't "embarrass the organization."

I think you can create a dress code that's a bit more flexible while meeting this standard. 

IMO, the current dress code isn't about "showing respect for the game," as some suggest. If you force everyone to wear a coat-and-tie, then many will do so simply because they wish to adhere to rules. They are meeting a requirement, not signaling what's in their heart.

Tailoring is also ill-suited for traveling as an athlete, as these clothes need special storage and pressing. Since players have atypical builds, making them look good requires special construction techniques. This looks great, but it's bespoke and required multiple fittings: 

Note everyone has time for that.

If you want a strict dress code, consider a team uniform, but in a more casual style that can be easily transported. Something like a tracksuit, which won't wrinkle or get crushed in transit. More importantly, it's more forgiving in terms of fit. 

Rumors are going around that Pete Hegseth might be on his way out. I don’t know if that’s true, but just in case, I want to do a thread on his style. To me, Hegseth’s wardrobe reflects a common pitfall guys fall into when they first start caring about clothes. 🧵 

When men start dressing with more intention, they often fall into the trap of cranking every knob to 11—volume, gain, treble, bass. The thinking is: more = better. But like in music, maxing out every setting doesn’t lead to clarity—it leads to noise. 

We see this in how Hegseth dresses. His belt buckle is USA. Pocket square is USA. Socks are USA. Open up his jacket and what do you see? USA. 

If there’s ever a chance to customize, he takes it—monogrammed shirt cuffs, contrast buttonholes, lapel pins galore. No flourish is left behind. 

With dark worsted pinstripe suits—the hallmark of conservative business dress—he skips the standard black oxfords and opts for bright tan shoes, simply because they catch the eye. And to drive it home, he throws on yellow socks to match his tie. 

The problem is that his clothes don't fit very well, and no amount of flourish or flair will hide this fact. He commonly wears clothes that are slightly too tight, sometimes resulting in a collar gap, as seen here

https://x.com/cspan/status/1914311301272052045

Trousers are a bit too low rise, sometimes revealing the flash or shirt fabric beneath the coat's buttoning point. Or, at times, his necktie. 

No matter your personal style, the most important elements of any outfit are fit and silhouette. Without those, everything else falls flat. Compare the more classic proportions on the left: longer jacket, wider shoulders, lower buttoning point, higher rise pants. 

Tailoring is meant to flatter the body, not reproduce its lines. On the left, the llama has a human-like shape, even though that’s not its natural build. Hegseth’s tailoring hews too close to his actual build, which makes things look a bit tight. 

Even in plain worsteds and without a single flourish, an outfit can look great if the tailoring is right. The first priority should always be fit and silhouette—everything else is secondary. 

Examples below from Atelier Willow and Assisi, both in South Korea 

The second step is to think of your outfit as a whole—not just as a collection of pieces that excite you individually. Tan double monks might be fun, but they’re too casual for a charcoal pinstripe suit. Historically, tan shoes were for leisure, not business. 

Business attire calls for "serious" shoes, typically lace-up oxfords in conservative colors such as black, dark brown, or mid-brown. They signal formality and restraint, which is exactly what conservative business dress is meant to convey. 

It's admirable that Hegesth likes to wear his patriotism on his sleeve (or all over his body). But everything comes off very ham-handed and with no appreciation for this country's great clothing history. (Also, belt with black tie is .... very inelegant). 

I'd like to suggest some more sophisticated choices. Instead of an aggressively cut back spread collar (awful, tacky, too European) with a Windsor knot, he should honor this country's history with a button-down collar worn with a four-in-hand. 

The button-down, of course, is that style that Brooks Brothers introduced in the early 20th century and soon became a hallmark of classic American male dress. When cut properly, the collar points are long enough to create a soft, angelic roll. Can be worn with or without a tie. 

He should also ditch these suits. In the first pic, we see stiff, padded shoulders. In the second image, we see side vents (the flap at the back). And in the third pic we see machine-made pick stitching—the hard dimples along the lapel's edge. 

Those dimples are made to imitate the look of a handsewn European suit. Since the lapel is made from multiple layers of material, European tailors finish the edge with this gentle pick stitch. This results in soft dimples, not hard ones. Can look lovely if done well. 

American clothiers typically finish their suit jackets and sport coats with a machine-sewn lapel, but they do a straight line so that there's no contrivance. See how the edge here doesn't have dimples—it's just a straight line of machine sewing. Doesn't try to imitate hand sewing 

Classic American tailoring is also distinguished by its soft shoulders, hook vent, and dartless front, which gives the jackets straighter sides. 

This is the style that carried American men from the hopping jazz clubs of the Roaring 20s through the Great Depression and onto campuses of a booming postwar America. The style suits any build, which is what makes it so democratic. 

As you start to dress with more intention, I encourage you to:

1) Prioritize fit and silhouette
2) Resist the temptation to turn every knob up
3) Think of dress as social language informed by history

IMO outfit on left is more sophisticated and American than one on the right. 

Fabric comes in different weights. In the menswear industry, this is measured in ounces or grams per square meter. American tailors tend to use ounces; Europeans and Asian tailors tend to use grams. Here we see swatches from Draper's Ascot book ranging from 8oz to 12oz. 

In men's tailoring, 12-14oz is considered midweight. Anything less than 12 oz is lightweight; anything above 14oz is heavyweight. Once you get above 18oz, this is considered "coating" weight, which is to say it's typically used for overcoats. 

If you live in a very hot, humid climate, then you might want to wear lighter weight fabrics, especially in open weaves, as they will wear cooler. Here's a suit made from a Harrisons of Edinburgh cloth (from their Indigo book). If I remember correctly, this is an 8oz fabric. 

Conversely, here's a pair of grey flannel trousers made from what I believe is a 16oz cloth and a wrap coat made from a whooping 27oz cloth. You would melt if you wore this outfit in the summer, so it's strictly for cold days. 

Lots of things go into how a fabric hangs or keeps its shape: the fiber composition, the weave, the finishing, etc. However, one important dimension is the weight. Here are two pure linen suits. Right is 11oz; left is 17oz. Look at the difference in the wrinkles around the lap. 

Men in the past wore much heavier fabrics. It wasn't unusual for a summer suit to start around 13oz; winter suits to start around 16oz. This is partly why everything hung so well and looked so great. Look at the sharpness of these trousers. 

Over time, fabric has gotten lighter weight for a variety of reasons. First, the spread of central heating meant that people no longer had to wear heavy clothes indoors. Second, a combination of technology and animal breeding made lightweight cloth more accessible. 

The fashion industry also sold men on the idea that lighter, shinier, and silkier fabrics were more luxurious. "Oh la la, monsieur! Just feel that fabric. So silky and smooth and lightweight. You will always be so comfortable!" 

There are two problems with lightweight fabrics. First, any mismatch between the tailoring and your body will show up in the form of ugly wrinkles and creases. Heavy fabrics hang better, so they're more forgiving. Check out how these heavy tweed trousers hang. 

Second, as mentioned earlier, lightweight fabrics will hold their winkles more readily than their heavier counterparts (all things equal). Trump buys many of his suits from Brioni, and luxury Italian brands like these often sell customers on the idea of "luxurious" wools. 

If you get a lightweight fabric, you have to compensate in other ways. For instance, Ascot's 2-ply Ascot fabrics clock in at 8oz. But the yarn has been given an extra twist during the spinning process, which makes them naturally wrinkle resistant. 

Everyone has to figure out which types of fabrics are right for them. Your internal furnace, sensitivity to heat, lifestyle, and climate all play a part. One person might sweat in 14oz fabrics; another person is totally fine in something as heavy as 18oz, even in the same area. 

But as a general rule of thumb, you should try to wear the heaviest fabrics you can bear. Trump favors lightweight, luxurious wools almost year round, and that's why his pants often look wrinkly. 

Sorry, this is switched. The suit on the left is made from an 11oz pure linen. The suit on the right is made from 17oz pure linen. You can see how the suit on the right is less wrinkly. This is due to the difference in fabric weight. 

https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1846687640948822424

again, i feel like guys who have no interest in clothes don't understand that women commonly dress for other women. if you see a woman dressing in a very revealing way, they are prob doing it for their female friends.

i mean, my replies and QTs are of a bunch of women saying "true" and then guys with gaming youtube channels and fake war patches on their twitter page saying "no." 🤷‍♂️

https://x.com/deadbeatdorothy/status/1833114678609768596

most beanies are a plain ribbed cotton, wool, or acrylic knit (pic 1). the stoffa beanie is a wool-silk-mohair blend made with a boucle texture (pic 2). the norlha beanie has dropped stitches for a distressed effect

I can tell you what's stopping most men from dressing like this. Please click open this thread (into a new window) so that you can see the correct placement of my photos. This will help you understand my argument more clearly. 

We should first identify what we're looking at.

the clothes look better in motion, but you can't attach a video in the format i used above. so here is a clip in a separate tweet.

y ways to dress stylishly, including ones that have nothing to do with what James Stewart is wearing here. If you decide to do ready-to-wear, you can also get a version of this outfit (overcoat with a suit and traditional hat). It just may not have certain characterist