If I have to power up a shed with some SWA the wholesalers charge me double the amount for the cable if the shed is 10m away and not 5m away.
But there is more to it than that. If you are on fixed price for a job (eg new build wiring) and all the materials are supplied for you then you get paid more for a 4 bed house than for a 1 bed flat because it takes more labour time to do the job.
Most people that sew clothes are on piece work.
I've certainly seem clothes and footwear priced by size in other countries. Ultimately, it depends how much of the end-cost is cost of materials and other things that change with size (such as storage, transport, etc).
Very common in the US. Extra charges for tall people, as well as fat ones.
I've seen it in the UK, they are not the first to charge more for larger sizes.
BBC talking rubbish again. It's not a moral issue, it's simply a cost/business issue.
Well, over umpteen years I have been paying the same price for my clothes/shoes as everyone else, and I am on the small-medium size range. I've often wondered why I pay the same, as not only do the larger clothes use more material, but they must take slightly longer to make (on the grounds that a sewing machine will stitch a fixed number of cm/s, and bigger clothes have proportionally more cm to stitch).
Should I complain that I've been subsidising those with a larger frame all this time? ;-)
Before I saw this item, I had always thought it was normal practice to charge more for larger items of clothing
In the 1960s, there was a big fuss because miniskirts were costing MORE than 'conventional' skirts!
Yup. Will give retailers a perfect excuse to put up prices for larger sizes. Without reducing those for smaller one.
One of the big costs for business is keeping stock of slow-moving lines or sizes. This factor would tend to increase the cost of less popular sizes. As the population gets fatter, and outsize becomes the new norm, we could see the prices being higher for small sizes!
Confusion of cost with price! They are not the same.
OK, "cost to the consumer".
I think you said that wrong. Its the perfect excuse to put up prices for the smaller sizes so they are the same as the larger ones.
If only the cost to the consumer bore a direct relation to manufacturing cost. If it did, Dyson might be value for money.
I've had a 31" waist for > 30 years - I've always thought I was subsidising the fat bastards.
The worth of any article is what people are prepared to pay for it.
1st principle of capitalism.Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required