|
fishmech posted:Cuz that's going to be loving expensive clothing? Also a lot of people might not understand how to do their measurements correctly, and that's a really annoying situation for customer support to work through. K Prime posted:Speaking as someone who works in robotics, among other things, robots with the level of precision and handling required to say, stitch a shirt together are still extremely expensive and prohibitively complex to set up for a given pattern. Haifisch posted:Aside from what everyone else said, most people can find clothing good enough(especially once they've settled on a few brands they know and trust), so you'd have a pretty small market for custom-measured-robo-made clothes. Cicero fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Sep 10, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
there wolf posted:Oh, yeah. I wasn't implying that's the reason behind a '36' that measures 41", just why you aren't going to get perfect consistency across sizes. You wouldn't even need to do that, just connect a computer to an adjustable dressmaker's form. Goon project?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
I recall something about how they make 95% of the clothes for 5% of the people. The whole market seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
Stitching is a repetitive, mindless task which is why embroidery and quilting are totally automated. Stick fabric on frame and let the sewing arm go where you've programmed it. But to make a garment you have to constantly shift, flip, and invert the fabric and robots just don't have that level of dexterity yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Now that brits are slightly less empowered to rape, murder, and enslave everyone else on earth they have to redirect those corrosive impulses towards telling other countries how to govern themselves. The entire world must rearrange itself for british comfort - rumpled corduroy slacks and unseasoned chicken for everyone! fishmech posted:But your disagreement makes no sense given the material circumstances - it is clearly better to handle the variances this way than any other way. People need to do comparison on cross jurisdiction basis routinely and this simplifies it. And the real solution would end the need to show the now abolished tax at all. Gahhh shut the gently caress up consumer prices should be the price including tax and if thousands of different sales tax codes make that impossible then change all the sales tax codes to be the same like it's a civilised country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 08:50
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Funnily enough, in countries with VAT, there can be situations where if you're buying an items don't actually need to pay the VAT. A common one would be if you're buying it for a business. How do shops which have a mixture of business and personal customers (e.g. An office supply shop) handle this? Well, they just put both prices on the label. Would everyone be OK with that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
The thing about sales tax is that certain categories have exemptions based on dollar amounts or other factors that can change day-by-day. For example, in New York there is a general exemption by New York State and New York City (as well as a few of the smaller counties, but most of the remaining counties including Westchester, Nassau and County don't give the exemption so there's local sales tax charged) for clothing or footwear that costs less than $110 per item/pair. So, if something is one day $200 and then you give a 50% discount to $100 the next day, that would mean having to remove the sales tax listed on that particular item day-to-day, which is honestly asinine. In summary, sales tax laws are a clusterfuck and there's a reason people like me get brought in to provide sales tax matrices and/or run sales and use tax audits. 
Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
It's absolutely criminal that retailers can advertise their jobs as paying $12/hr when we all know that's a drat lie. You get your paycheck and it's not $12/hr at all! There's all kinds of "taxes" and "withholdings" and other made-up stuff. The law should require job advertisements to be accurate for every individual person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
greazeball posted:It's absolutely criminal that retailers can advertise their jobs as paying $12/hr when we all know that's a drat lie. You get your paycheck and it's not $12/hr at all! There's all kinds of "taxes" and "withholdings" and other made-up stuff. The law should require job advertisements to be accurate for every individual person. That is dumb and silly given civilised countries manage to advertise accurate prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
greazeball posted:It's absolutely criminal that retailers can advertise their jobs as paying $12/hr when we all know that's a drat lie. You get your paycheck and it's not $12/hr at all! There's all kinds of "taxes" and "withholdings" and other made-up stuff. The law should require job advertisements to be accurate for every individual person. What does one have to do with the other? Plenty of other countries manage retail selling prices just fine. And do companies even have to disclose their pay rates with job offers in the US?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
GOONS : "american retail is so dead, it cant adapt, its a busted flush, time has moved on" ALSO GOONS : "changing the way tax is levied on an item is literally impossible and to suggest that the american way is not perfect is grounds for accusation of imperialism" I mean, if you can't possibly fathom the idea of changing how you price an item - and some of the incredibly defensive replies seem to indicate that you can't - then how do you expect to engage with an industry in crisis?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Government is not for the people. In many instances, corporations write the law and give it to their government rep who introduces it sometimes literally word for word. Start designing policies from a business standpoint and you will understand America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Shuka posted:Government is not for the people. In many instances, corporations write the law and give it to their government rep who introduces it sometimes literally word for word. yeah but we're more interested in what things should be like because everyone can go outside and look at the current problems on their own
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Another 230 stores closing with the reorganization of Perfumania and Portrait Innovations, which I'm surprised were still around anyways. http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Two-Latest-Mall-Retailer-Bankruptcies-Will-Force-230-Lease-Cancellations/193964 The description of Perfumania expanding from its online-only store to a large retail presence beginning in 2012 is pretty ironic. Also worth mentioning that both stores sell things you'd want to check out in person (smelling perfumes or going in person for the portrait service experience) but that obviously didn't help these chains very much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
atal posted:I mean, if you can't possibly fathom the idea of changing how you price an item - and some of the incredibly defensive replies seem to indicate that you can't - then how do you expect to engage with an industry in crisis? I am not defending any of those things, but those are all things that are completely out of my control as someone running a legitimately small storefront brick-and-mortar neighborhood business, and they're honestly probably out of control of 99% of retailers, though I'm sure you could argue that Amazon or Walmart could and do lobby on these matters. In terms of things to criticize failing retailers for, "not being able to change a complex web of thousands of laws that have been in effect for decades" seems rather unfair. I also think (understandably) that this whole thread looks at things through the lens of enormous conglomerates, not individual retailers. If there were less complex sales tax laws then sure, I could set my prices based on tax-included rates and figure out something. It would take work to change things over, but it wouldn't be the end of the world, especially if it were a one-time shift. If I were legally obligated to change the price on every item in the store every time the tax code changes, or when there's a tax free weekend, or setting up a table at an event one county over, this would become pretty burdensome. It's easy to wave away "lol it's Target they'll survive they've got thousands of employees" and that's great, but most businesses do not. I've actually been fined by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs because of a regulation stating everything you're selling has to have a price tag or shelf tag, and on the day they came in some of our shelf tags were missing/had been knocked down. I was able to get the fine reduced to a warning, but had I not it would have cost me somewhere around $300. There are a few exemptions given for "small" businesses (under $2m annual sales, which we would kill to have 10% of) but in general these laws are applied uniformly. If some sort of law were to be passed to make including sales tax accurately into every listed/marked price everywhere, what sort of enforcement mechanism do you guys foresee? If it's a low level fine (under $1000) it would be painful for small businesses to get hit with a fine, but absolutely meaningless for Best Buy if they wanted to lie and entice people away from competitors into their store for the [some gizmo]. If the fine were large enough to deter a company with $40,000,000,000 in annual sales from using deceptive practices, a missed 'sales tax adjustment' would absolutely obliterate most businesses if they hosed up. I am sure this sounds like whining, and to be clear I would love it if we abolished sales tax on a national level but this sort of "nut up or shut up, this is why you're all going out of business, because you loooooove sales tax and are too lazy to do some arithmetic" talk is nonsense. Also, Amazon charges me (and anyone living in states where they have physical locations) sales tax, all online merchants do, sales tax isn't killing anyone. I've literally never heard someone over the age of 12 who lives in the United States make any sort of complaint about the confusing or deceptive practice of list prices being "plus tax". Sales taxes existed when retail was booming in decades past. The retail industry is like a patient who comes in with a collapsed lung and a broken leg and deep bruises and a concussion (and appears to have been driving under the influence right into a wall, which is why it's in the shape it's in) and this sales tax thing is like coming into the emergency room and going UGH THAT SCAR ON YOUR CHEEK FROM CHILDHOOD IS DISGUSTING YOU KNOW YOU COULD GET IT REMOVED, MAYBE THAT'S WHY YOU'RE IN SUCH ROUGH SHAPE.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Edge & Christian posted:The reality of the situation is that as America exists as an actual place in 2017, there are thousands of different sales tax rates. They've been put in place on a state and local level and there are all sorts of odd details:.in New York clothing is untaxed up to $115 per item, but taxed at anywhere between 4% and 9% above that rate depending on the city or county you're in. Many states off tax-free periods for back to school, but only on certain categories of items. I'm sure there are other vagaries that exist in cities and states I've never lived in. These are all the result of laws passed at a state and local level. These laws bring a lot of revenue for state and local governments. State and local governments are often hostile to federal intervention into their workings. Firstly, E & C, I want to thank you for being an informed and rational voice in this discussion. I understand your point now and, having lived a long time in both Europe and NA, I see more clearly the major differences between tax law jurisdiction between the East and West. Secondly, I also wanted to mention my support for the removal of sales tax and possibly VAT because they are the most regressive taxes in a world of regressive policies designed to take from the weak to nourish the strong. Thirdly, I want to compliment you on your forum name; Edge & Christian were a hell of a tag team, though I personally preferred Christian myself. quote:OwlFancier posted: OwlFancier, as a fellow Brit (Correct me if I'm wrong) who has lived in England, France and Wales, I understand where you are coming from about tax legislation & "transparency" between the two countries. E & C has made some very cogent points and I've come around to thinking that perhaps what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. On another note, I would suggest not engaging with either fishmech or Tiny Brontosaurus on any level. As far as I can tell, fishmech is the personification of all of they idiocy on the Internet and Tiny B is the chemical formula for pure, misplaced hatred, so your time would probably be better spent trying to knit a jumper from your own hair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Gahhh shut the gently caress up consumer prices should be the price including tax and if thousands of different sales tax codes make that impossible then change all the sales tax codes to be the same like it's a civilised country. You can quit flipping out. The fact is the price is the same across multiple jurisdictions but the tax is different. And also sales tax shouldn't exist. there wolf posted:Stitching is a repetitive, mindless task which is why embroidery and quilting are totally automated. Stick fabric on frame and let the sewing arm go where you've programmed it. But to make a garment you have to constantly shift, flip, and invert the fabric and robots just don't have that level of dexterity yet. Well again, we DO have robots that can do that... but getting your clothes made by them is going to cost a hell of a lot more than a skilled human worker, even if they're being paid high wages unlike the sweatshop wages they often get. Fame Douglas posted:What does one have to do with the other? Plenty of other countries manage retail selling prices just fine. And do companies even have to disclose their pay rates with job offers in the US? Because they have an identical tax across the whole territory, unlike Canada or the US. And again with Canada, the federal level has been trying to unify it since like the 80s and it still hasn't happened outside the Atlantic provinces. atal posted:GOONS : "american retail is so dead, it cant adapt, its a busted flush, time has moved on" Changing the way taxes are levied on the items you sell is way the gently caress beyond the control of a retailer, my man. It also has literally nothing to do with why retail has problems, as it's only a problem for tourists or newcomers from other countries - hardly the day to day retail base of a store. I'm not sure why this last bit is so hard to get for foreigners. It simply isn't a problem in everyday life. It's at worst a mild confusion when you go visit somewhere else or move somewhere new but you figure out the new amounts quickly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:Firstly, E & C, I want to thank you for being an informed and rational voice in this discussion. I understand your point now and, having lived a long time in both Europe and NA, I see more clearly the major differences between tax law jurisdiction between the East and West. Secondly, I also wanted to mention my support for the removal of sales tax and possibly VAT because they are the most regressive taxes in a world of regressive policies designed to take from the weak to nourish the strong. Thirdly, I want to compliment you on your forum name; Edge & Christian were a hell of a tag team, though I personally preferred Christian myself. Careful, don't go there unless you're ready for a three page nuclear meltdown from babby (and, uh, probably some chucklefuck buying you a custom title with a dictator in it and red text *completely* missing the boat on your personal politics.) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:With this many gun nuts in this country mad about government overreach, why havent any tried the 2nd amendment solution? Prospective prison time is worse than death and shooting politicians historically hasn't solved jack poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It sounds like things really suck for women. My wife is always complaining about the same things people have brought up in this thread (e.g. it fits me here but not here). As a skinny dude I often have trouble finding clothes (especially pants) that actually fit. I think this could be a big market once automation gets better. I'm not arguing against the idea that someday automation might make this trivial enough that there's hardly any extra cost, but that day isn't in the near future as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Haifisch posted:They do(ASK ME: about being a woman who insists on pants with usable pockets, and who hates all the weird 'fashion' details on anything fancier than a t-shirt, and who has to find stuff that actually fits while satisfying the first two conditions), but again, most people find stuff good enough that they're not going to pay a ton extra for custom made clothes. And as it stands right now, having custom-measured clothes cut by a robot would cost a ton extra. Yeah, that's about where I'm at with the issue too. It's important to remember that it's not really a technological barrier making it hard for women to find clothes, but a social one. Stores don't carry a limited range of sizes because it's hard to manufacture the rest - frequently the lines they stock actually make a larger range of sizes than what the store chooses to have on its shelves. They stick to small sizes, stocking more of a size the smaller it is, because rich people are thin and stores want to look like places where rich people shop. No matter where they're located or who their clientele is, small sizes are "aspirational" and that matters more than actually making sales. If robo-clothing were available in the current retail climate the website would just say "Sorry! Sign up for our newsletter to hear if we ever start carrying your size!" to 90% of the market. Hell, there are "Totally custom clothing! Find your perfect size!" sites that do that right now. I saw some custom bra site that makes you do this huge long quiz with a million measurements and references to bras from other brands and at the end of it and shrug that they only carry cup sizes A-D, no better than Victoria's Secret.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Well again, we DO have robots that can do that... but getting your clothes made by them is going to cost a hell of a lot more than a skilled human worker, even if they're being paid high wages unlike the sweatshop wages they often get. Everything I've see that's "robot makes shirt" has been the usual robotic arms doing what human arms do, but slower, and with less dexterity. In my head, true robot-made-clothes is going to involve an automation process that completely re-engineers clothing construction the way sewing machines re-engineered how to make a stitch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Probably something involving fabric being woven/extruded directly into the desired shape without having to deal with the whole 2d-3d conversion mess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Everything I've see that's "robot makes shirt" has been the usual robotic arms doing what human arms do, but slower, and with less dexterity. In my head, true robot-made-clothes is going to involve an automation process that completely re-engineers clothing construction the way sewing machines re-engineered how to make a stitch. There is a reason why fast fashion places keep trying to bring back the poncho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's important to remember that it's not really a technological barrier making it hard for women to find clothes, but a social one. Stores don't carry a limited range of sizes because it's hard to manufacture the rest - frequently the lines they stock actually make a larger range of sizes than what the store chooses to have on its shelves. They stick to small sizes, stocking more of a size the smaller it is, because rich people are thin and stores want to look like places where rich people shop. No matter where they're located or who their clientele is, small sizes are "aspirational" and that matters more than actually making sales.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Maybe it's different for guys but whenever I go clothes shopping finding smalls/extra-smalls is hard as hell while there's usually tons of larges/extra-larges, and this is especially true for stuff on clearance they're trying to get rid of. To me it's always looked like it's the smaller sizes that get underproduced. But maybe that's just me noticing the times I'm personally inconvenienced more. It's the complete opposite. XS, S and XXL will be overstocked while L and XL is typically in short supply.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Xae posted:There is a reason why fast fashion places keep trying to bring back the poncho. Fast fashion doesn't 'bring back' anything, but designers favoring looser cuts with less seams is directly tied to lowering production costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
This whole discussion on Sales tax is why my company refuses to deal with america directly and only works through distribution contracts stateside. We leave all that bullshit to you guys to sort out among yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:This whole discussion on Sales tax is why my company refuses to deal with america directly and only works through distribution contracts stateside. We leave all that bullshit to you guys to sort out among yourselves. Hey man, between overlapping jurisdictions and product codes there are only 50,000 possible rates an item could be taxed at and how that tax has to be broken down. Not even major retailers do sales tax anymore. Everyone outsources it to a handful of companies that sell a packaged solution. Federalism really sucks some times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Maybe it's different for guys but whenever I go clothes shopping finding smalls/extra-smalls is hard as hell while there's usually tons of larges/extra-larges, and this is especially true for stuff on clearance they're trying to get rid of. To me it's always looked like it's the smaller sizes that get underproduced. But maybe that's just me noticing the times I'm personally inconvenienced more. Yes, it's different for guys. Very very different. A typical women's store might order 30 pairs of size 0 pants and four pairs of size 10. This is the normal way purchasing is done in women's apparel retail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
It is completely ridiculous that in America I have to resort to arithmetic to figure out the price I am going to pay at the till, due to sales tax not being included in the price tags. But this is ignoring the elephant in the room. Even in civilized countries like the U.K., I can go to, say, a Tesco and buy a sandwich, a newspaper and a coffee--and while there will be clearly marked prices for each individual item--tax included--there is NO sign whatsoever indicating the total price for the particular combination of items I have selected! It is literally impossible for me to figure out how much I am going to pay without resorting to sophisticated mathematics. I feel that while including sales tax into the listed price is a good first step, none of the so-called advanced economies are doing consumers any favors by only indicating prices for individual items, when it is far more common to purchase several of them at a time. Morbus fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Morbus posted:I feel that while including sales tax into the listed price is a good first step, none of the so-called advanced economies are doing consumers any favors by only indicating prices for individual items, when it is far more common to purchase several of them at a time. You jest but we also price things by volume or quantity in addition to the SKU price to assist people in working out the cheapest way to buy things in volume, which is another good practice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Wow that's a novel idea what will you guys think of next
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Honestly that sounds like the kind of thing that online ordering + better automation should be capable of fixing. Why is typing in your measurements into a website to get clothes custom made by a robot not more popular? There are suit boutiques in NYC that have 3D body scanners for getting precise measurements; cheaper scanners coupled with sewing robots is going to be awesome for consumers + another nail in retail
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:There are suit boutiques in NYC that have 3D body scanners for getting precise measurements; cheaper scanners coupled with sewing robots is going to be awesome for consumers + another nail in retail Yeah let me just buy a $500 scanner array (assuming massive discounts from today's prices) and clear the space to put it when in use and store it when not in use to save $5 on clothes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
but do you brits wipe your rear end with sales-tax-included receipts whilst sitting or standing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah let me just buy a $500 scanner array (assuming massive discounts from today's prices) and clear the space to put it when in use and store it when not in use to save $5 on clothes. Could also see depth sensors being integrated into something like the Echo Look.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Maybe it's different for guys but whenever I go clothes shopping finding smalls/extra-smalls is hard as hell while there's usually tons of larges/extra-larges, and this is especially true for stuff on clearance they're trying to get rid of. To me it's always looked like it's the smaller sizes that get underproduced. But maybe that's just me noticing the times I'm personally inconvenienced more. Also try shopping at H&M, they usually carry actually sized clothes, and much on the smaller side as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Costco never carries anything smaller than a medium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:Costco never carries anything smaller than a medium. It's also Costco policy to straight up never have more than 700 SKUs total
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 05:03
|
|
