Randy Evans is executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that promotes openness and transparency in Iowa’s state and local governments. He can be reached at DMRevans2810@gmail.com. 

Many people would rather get their teeth drilled than discuss economics. If you are one of them, dial up your dentist, because today’s topic probably will make you uncomfortable.

Some politicians like to talk about other countries “stealing” the jobs of American workers. The politicians would have us believe these countries are snatching jobs right from under the noses of unwilling, and unwitting, employers in the United States.

A menswear writer named Derek Guy recently provided an important dose of context for American consumers. The story he told shows politicians have not been completely candid about the economic realities behind this trend.

I will leave the political side of this story for another day and another person. Instead, I want to share the knowledge and analysis Guy recently shared on social media. (You can find the thread on X/Twitter or on Bluesky.)

The peg for Guy’s discussion of manufacturing economics was the closure and auction of the machines and other contents of what for 70 years was known as the Garland Shirt Factory. The plant was named for Garland, North Carolina, a town of about 600 people where 150 men and women made an American fashion icon, the Brooks Brothers button-down oxford shirts. 

For generations, upwardly mobile men in boardrooms, banks, and businesses throughout the U.S. favored these high-quality shirts. “They were a popular perennial,” Guy wrote of the Brooks Brothers’ shirts.

“But over time, Brooks Brothers fell into a common problem: the burden of expansion,” Guy wrote. “In 1971, they had just 11 locations. In 2001, there were 155 stores and outlets in the U.S. and Japan.”

Expansion increased the company’s real estate costs. Brooks Brothers was locked into long-term leases. So, executives looked for other ways to offset those expenses. One way was reducing the cost of making the shirts sold in their stores. Another was to turn to discounting to sell even more shirts.

Brooks Brothers moved its production to other countries, where labor costs were dramatically lower.

Traditionally, Brooks Brothers shirts rarely went on sale, Guy wrote. When they did, it was once a year and only after Christmas. But by 2010, Brooks Brothers shirts were available at discount during mid-season sales, at end-of-season sales, at Christmas sales, “4 for $249” sales, and “select shirts for just $39” sales.

While that discounting led to more shirts being sold, it also complicated the economics of producing shirts at a profit in Garland, even with the factory sewing for other companies in addition to Brooks Brothers.

Guy explained this shirt-making reality in his social media post: “When Brooks Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, I interviewed a number of their executives. I asked, How is it possible that the company that invented the oxford cloth button-down, one of the most iconic American designs, is not able to charge a premium over stuff found on Amazon?”

Here are some shirt-making economics:

“The simple reason is because at $10-$14/hour wages, a shirt is expensive,” Guy wrote. “At such prices, a company might buy a shirt from Garland at $40, sell it to a store for $80, and then the store sells it to you for about $150. 

“But people don’t want to pay $150 for a shirt. Ultimately, consumers want cheap clothes,” Guy wrote.

What happened in Garland has occurred in many other American communities where textile companies have cut jobs and stopped cutting and sewing shirts — and suits, blouses, slacks and dresses — over the past several decades.

The U.S. International Trade Commission reported in September that the United States is the largest apparel importer in the world, bringing into the U.S. $79 billion worth of clothes each year, mostly from Asia.

A report by Statista, a data analysis company, helps explain why clothing manufacturing has shifted overseas, primarily to countries in Asia. While workers in Garland might have earned $10 to $14 per hour, garment workers in China are paid the equivalent of about $220 *per month*, Statista reported. In Cambodia, they receive about $190 per month. In Bangladesh, the pay is about $95 per month, according to Statista. 

American employees have no desire to work for wages found in developing countries. And economists remind us that tariffs will simply increase the cost to U.S. consumers for those button-down shirts Brooks Brothers now sells, which are made overseas. 

Kenneth Ragland, who last managed the Garland operation, summed up the challenge bluntly in an interview with North Carolina’s Sampson Independent newspaper: “Lots of people talk about Made in the USA as being so necessary, but when the rubber meets the road, most Americans want cheap goods, which do not make it easy for U.S. firms to survive.”