In the novel Men at Arms by Terry Pratchett, Watch Captain Sam Vimes wears boots so thin that he can tell where he is in the city by the feel of the cobblestones.^[1] He muses that a good pair of boots would cost him fifty dollars and last ten years, but an affordable pair would cost only ten dollars and last two years, but leak as soon as the cardboard gave out.^[2] Thus a man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that would last ten years, while the poor man would spend twice as much on boots in that time and still have wet feet.^[3] This was the Sam Vimes “boots” theory of economic inequality.^[4] The theory remains starkly applicable in the fashion industry, with severe impacts both on consumers and the underpaid workforces that create low-quality staple goods. The severe quality disparity in finished goods comes down to three major factors: corporate profit-seeking, unethical labor practices, and artificial scarcity. Though the three terms sound nearly synonymous, each is descriptive of a different strategic or systemic feature of the fashion market.

Corporate profit seeking behavior in the fashion industry has been a marginally declining factor with the advent of more accessible fashion imports.^[5] When fast-fashion brands such as Shein entered U.S. markets, those companies gained major market shares largely due to what the industry labelled as “deceptive pricing tactics, counterfeit products, and unsafe goods.”^[6] Yet these fast-fashion practices have been the backbone of consumers’ purchases of inexpensive clothing since the 1990s.^[7] More importantly, even some higher-end brands use the same practices.^[8] The real source of most of the cost of clothing tends to be the company markup, often described as a “sweet spot” between 2.2 and 2.5 times the costs of production, for both the sale to a retailer and the retailer’s sale to the consumer.^[9] Profit, rather than costs, ensures that even goods produced in the same unsafe way can command premium prices that put them outside of the reach of poorer consumers.

The unethical labor practices involved in the fashion industry take a severe toll, however, in both quality and the human impact on workers and consumers. Fast Fashion specifically has received criticism for the use of forced, child, and penal labor throughout supply chains.^[10] Additionally, the cheaper synthetic materials which make up a large majority of the cheaper textile market are harmful to both producer and consumer alike.^[11] With wages at a fraction of a living wage as the industry standard, many companies produce cyclical poverty in the communities where their products are produced.^[12]

The final piece of the “boots” puzzle is found in the artificial scarcity of higher quality goods which would be a sustainable and less harmful substitute. Rather than allow prices to fall marginally to replace the demand for fast fashion, companies resort to destruction of finished products to ensure high prices.^[13] Gloves with the fingers sliced, jackets ripped apart, and t-shirts with holes punched into them ensure that retailers and suppliers can continue charging inflated prices on both cheap and expensive goods alike.^[14]

While this destruction paints a bleak picture for those who struggle to afford clothing, some countries have allowed for tax loopholes to ensure that clothes which would otherwise be destroyed are resold in poverty-friendly programs such as the United Kingdom’s Charity Shops.^[15] With an incentive as simple as an exemption from value-added tax on items resold for charity, companies that would otherwise have destroyed quality products provide them at a lower cost and recoup some of the value of their supply lines.^[16] In short, the problem is similar to many other issues in poverty law: A lack of concerted effort to attempt workable solutions. With a broad range of potential incentives like tax breaks and better public relations, durable clothing can be something that everyone can afford, so nobody has wet feet.

[1] Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms 32 (1993).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. (emphasis in original).

[4] Id.

[5] Daphne Milner, Does Shein’s Profit Slump Indicate a Waning Obsession with Fast Fashion?, Atmos (Mar. 4, 2025), https://atmos.earth/does-sheins-profit-slump-indicate-a-waning-obsession-with-fast-fashion/.

[6] Id.

[7] Lei Nguyen, Fast Fashion: The Danger of Sweatshops, Earth.org (Oct. 10, 2020), https://earth.org/sweatshops/.

[8] Rachel Lawler, Why Luxury Fashion is Not Immune to ‘Sweatshop’ Scandals, JustStyle (July 26, 2024), https://www.just-style.com/features/explainer-why-luxury-fashion-is-not-immune-to-sweatshop-scandals/.

[9] Emily Farra, What is the Right Price for Fashion?, Vogue (June 29, 2020),  https://www.vogue.com/article/what-is-the-right-price-for-fashion.

[10] Eco-Stylist, Shein and Temu (Apr. 2, 2025), https://www.eco-stylist.com/shein-and-temu/.

[11] Id.

[12] Natascha Holenstein, The Link Between Fast Fashion and Poverty, The Borgen Proj. (Aug. 5, 2020), https://borgenproject.org/fast-fashion-and-poverty/.

[13] Roberts et al., Product Destruction: Exploring unsustainable production-consumption systems and appropriate policy response, 35 Sustainable Prod. and Consumption 300, 301 (Jan. 2023).

[14] Id. at 310, Jim Dwyer, A Clothing Clearance Where More than Just the Prices Have Been Slashed, N.Y. Times (Jan. 5, 2010), https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06about.html.

[15] Roberts, supra note 13.

[16] Id.