Wearing Your Virtue On Your Sleeve*

No, I don't think the average US consumer will pay 150% more for MiUSA goods. A few things:

First, consumers are practical. They will not pay more just because something was made in the US, but they may pay more if the upcharge comes with an increase in quality. There's no… https://t.co/aRyF7VozPE pic.twitter.com/9Poms9933c

— derek guy (@dieworkwear) June 10, 2026

No, I don't think the average US consumer will pay 150% more for MiUSA goods. A few things:

First, consumers are practical. They will not pay more just because something was made in the US, but they may pay more if the upcharge comes with an increase in quality. There's no reason to believe that MiUSA clothing is inherently better than clothing made abroad. In fact, sometimes it's worse.

Second, you can look around you. Look at the vociferous MAGA influencers who criticize corporations for offshoring their manufacturing, while at the same time getting their merch made abroad. They could get their merch made right here in the US from fiber to finish — it literally only takes a few clicks of a button — but they won't. I know because I've offered my services to help them reshore their manufacturing, and not a single one has accepted.

Third, look at consumers. Consumers don't want to pay a lot of money for clothes because Western society has long discounted the cultural significance of clothing. Fashion is commonly considered too vain, too mercantile, and too superficial. Just look at how many people loudly posture about how much they either dislike or don't care about clothes. This is a form of virtue signaling to show that you're smarter and more substantive than other people. Thus, it's unreasonable to expect this sort of person to pay a lot of money for clothes — they take pride in not valuing them.

If you want to reinvigorate US garment manufacturing, you can't envision a future in which thousands of Americans make crappy t-shirts and jeans that eventually retail for $25 and $75, with such items sold to US consumers who are likely to be bitter about having fewer options and higher prices. This is not a sensible strategy for either employment or wage growth, as those jobs will eventually be replaced by robots anyway.

IMO, you'd be better off moving upstream into luxury goods and exporting them to the global market. Just as the average Italian doesn't wear luxury Italian suits and the average French person doesn't carry saddle-stitched bags, you don't have to count on Americans wearing Alden shoes and Rochester Tailored Clothing suits. Instead, you can access the larger global market.

This strategy protects the worker. We already live in a world where a machine can pad-stitch a suit. Whether this industrially produced garment is up to snuff to benchmade tailoring is up for debate, but no one can argue that the average consumer can tell the difference between machine and handwork. Yet, those who have the means are willing to pay for the handwork. Why? Because at that tier of clothing, handwork adds a sense of romance — human labor adds something that a machine can never replace. This higher-skilled work also comes with higher wage growth. The US doesn't have an employment problem; it has a wage growth problem.

Instead of erecting tariffs that increase the cost of European leathers, British and Italian wools, and Mongolian cashmere (inputs we need to make high-quality clothes), you can tax the rich and use the money to train Americans in crafts-based, high-end luxury sectors. Then you can export these goods to the global market. But doing so requires government spending (in training and education), lower trade barriers (so you can access other markets and get cheaper inputs), and improved relationships with other countries (such as not insulting Canadians, prompting them to boycott our goods).

The primary MiUSA customer has always been a fashion customer, not someone buying something out of patriotism. I'm reminded of an interview I did long ago with someone who owned a custom button-up shirt company. He had his shirt manufactured at the Garland factory in North Carolina, which is now unfortunately closed. He recalled standing on the factory floor and watching his shirts roll off the same assembly line as some of Thom Browne's Brooks Brothers Black Fleece shirts, which retailed for about twice his prices. His company primarily served people who said they "love" supporting US manufacturing, but behind the scenes, they were often complainers, time wasters, and people with a high return rate. Meanwhile, the fashion customer thinks nothing of spending $300 for a button-up shirt because it has a fashionable label on it. This is the kind of customer you want to pursue, not the supposed "patriots."

The strategy was always doomed from the start because the most vociferous proponents hold all three positions at once:

— wants to virtue signal about supporting US manufacturing
— is against increasing the minimum wage
— buys foreign imports because they're cheap and see thrift as a moral virtue

I’ve mentioned before that I wear Levi’s and button down shirts. Yes, Levi’s retail for $75, and I could buy more expensive jeans which would probably wear about as well.  Maybe better; who knows? I know what size I need, and I buy them on sale, or at Levi’s outlet stores. No virtue signaling here. I’m retired, I don’t need to wear “nice clothes.” And if I don’t have to pay retail, I won’t. Most of the shirts in my closet were bought at a discount. I admit it; I’m cheap. I suppose that’s a kind of virtue signaling. (Yes, I am guilty.) But I connect with the Italians  and the French he mentions; the ones who don’t buy luxury goods.

I would rather my Levi’s were still made in the town where I grew up. But let’s be honest, garment manufacturing is just a small step up from sweatshops as it is. The only way to bring that back to America is to unwind everything done since the New Deal. Which is probably what Project 2025 still hopes to do, tbh.

It’s a funny thing, to think about “virtue signaling” with your clothes.  It’s kind of like thinking your status is displayed by what’s on your wrist….

*”…for daws to peck at.” “Othello,” Act I, sc. 1, Iago to Roderigo. Though Iago was speaking of his heart but, to him, same difference.