Throughout the ages, making clothing was ...

For centuries, the task of creating clothing fell predominantly upon the hands of housewives, who meticulously crafted garments for their families within their own homes. This practice remained prevalent well into the early days of the United States. Notably, in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures, Alexander Hamilton remarked that in many areas, two-thirds to four-fifths of the clothing utilized by residents was self-made. The affluent, on the other hand, sought custom tailors and dressmakers or opted for garments imported from Paris and London.

To discover more, please check out PPF ELEMENTS.

The clothing sector is among the oldest industries in Britain, with roots tracing back to medieval guilds. Even in the early 1800s, despite the onset of the industrial revolution, small custom tailoring shops catered primarily to men's attire, demonstrating the continuation of traditional craftsmanship. Skilled English tailors would personally measure clients, cut fabric by hand, and meticulously sew and fit garments, while those in lower socioeconomic brackets often created clothing for themselves at home.

As the 19th century progressed, ready-to-wear manufacturers began to emerge in both Britain and the United States. In the U.S., these businesses catered to specific populations, such as slaves in the South and sailors in the North. A prime example is Brooks Brothers, which originated in New Bedford, Massachusetts, to fulfill the clothing needs of whalers. Furthermore, bachelors without home sewing assistance turned to retailers of secondhand garments. In response to increasing demand, some retailers started purchasing fabric and commissioning home-sewing farm women to fulfill orders, while others formed groups of women into collective workshops.

The groundbreaking invention of the sewing machine by Elias Howe, followed by an enhanced model from Isaac Singer four years later, significantly transformed clothing production processes. The Civil War further catalyzed this evolution due to heightened needs for military uniforms. Consequently, a revolution in men’s clothing emerged, where most garments were manufactured in factories rather than being custom-made. Women’s clothing production transitioned to factories somewhat later, but by the late 19th century, this sector boomed, supported by retail and wholesale dealers. In New York, the central hub for women’s clothing production, many Irish and German immigrant women constituted the labor force, even though some still operated from home. As immigration patterns shifted, Jewish and Italian immigrant men, many of whom had tailoring skills, flooded into this burgeoning industry.

Two distinct production models surfaced during this period. The first involved large-scale factories, where garment assembly broke down into specific tasks, allowing the employment of less skilled workers. A balanced approach emerged in the more fashion-driven sectors, which combined elements of both refined craftsmanship and factory production. In this model, the division of labor was limited to specific tasks such as cutting, machine-sewing, and hand-finishing. The assembly process adhered to a 'bundle' system, where workers untied bundles to complete required tasks before passing them along for subsequent stages, receiving piece rates based on output.

Forces at Work in the Garment Industry

The portrayal of the 20th-century industry, characterized by massive factories employing thousands of workers and owned by large corporations, does not fully encapsulate the garment industry. Even large factories producing standardized items remained significantly smaller regarding scale compared to manufacturing industries. Labor-intensive workshops with lower-skilled, predominantly female workers required minimal capital investment, relying mainly on simple technology, namely the sewing machine. Initially, fabric cutting was done with scissors and hand pressing, only later replaced by electric cutters and steam presses. To this day, the apparel industry maintains one of the lowest capital-to-labor ratios of any sector. Intense competition among manufacturers, alongside pressure from textile suppliers and large retail chains as primary buyers, has consistently defined this industry.

Possessing no extensive sunk capital or reliance on highly skilled labor, the industry demonstrated potential mobility, albeit largely concentrated in specific urban locales. This concentration resulted from fashion's influence, particularly in women's apparel, tying production to areas associated with high-society lifestyles. Major cities established themselves as style setters, with trends originating from the wealthy and transitioning from higher-price to lower-price lines as trends trickled down. A prime example of this upward emulation is the global fascination with blue jeans, rooted in work apparel. While cities like London and Paris stood alongside New York as major centers of apparel production, New York emerged as the unparalleled leader in the U.S.

The degree of fashion orientation dictated industry ownership types, as well as the sizes and locations of factories. Less fashionable men’s clothing was produced by more substantial companies with their own factories, complemented by smaller firms and contractors in various cities. Standardized workwear, dictated by constant demand irrelevant to fashion cycles, could be produced virtually anywhere, including rural southern U.S. locations. On the contrary, fashion-sensitive women’s wear, often marked by volatile demand, utilized subcontracting and smaller workshops primarily located in significant cities, predominantly New York.

Seasonality posed additional challenges to the garment industry, heavily influenced by consumer preferences tied to weather—e.g., heavy coats are typically worn only during winter—and the ever-changing nature of fashion. Steady-demand items, less susceptible to fashion whims, could potentially be produced in advance for inventory. This seasonality underscored the importance of locating firms near regions with ready access to skilled labor, ensuring flexible workforce capabilities to meet market demands.

In higher-end apparel sectors, fashion served as the primary differentiator. The success of companies hinged upon the acceptance of their distinct styles rather than labor cost advantages. These businesses generally operated in-house and required employees to have higher skill levels. As these companies focused on quality over rapid production, they often compensated workers based on time spent rather than piece rates, resulting in better wages and working conditions. High-fashion manufacturers typically remained close to fashion hubs to quickly adapt to evolving consumer preferences.

In contrast, non-high-end firms could afford to streamline production functions, segmenting design and sales from manufacturing. Companies utilizing outside contractors included those engaging in production while outsourcing surplus work to contract shops and jobbers responsible solely for cutting materials to be sent to contractors for final assembly. Contractors competed for job orders, with profits determined by the margin between payments from jobbers and manufacturers and wages paid to workers, fostering low compensation and poor working conditions.

Britain addressed these issues through labor standard regulations. In the early 20th century, Winston Churchill championed a bill to establish minimum wage boards across four trades, encompassing a substantial portion of the clothing sector. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court hesitated to endorse minimum wage legislation while labor unionization steadily gained momentum. Two prominent labor unions emerged within the apparel sector: the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU) for women's clothing and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA) for men's attire. Through collective bargaining efforts, they sought to regulate working conditions in subcontracted shops and limit the number of contractors each jobber could employ. However, their capacity to secure higher wages was less effective compared to unions in other industries. Both the British minimum wage regulations and U.S. collective bargaining strategies eventually resulted in comparable wage levels for garment workers across both nations, generally low compared to wages in alternate manufacturing jobs.

Moving out of the Big Cities

The geographical distribution of garment manufacturers influences and is influenced by the economics of the trade. Specifically, examining women's and children's wear in the U.S. highlights that, historically, contracting had little impact on the geographic concentration of clothing production. This was because shops needed proximity to jobbers' showrooms and labor supply. With concentrated production primarily located in Manhattan, particularly in the Garment Center, economies of scale developed as firms serving this sector—including embroiderers, belt makers, and others—converged in the same region. Unions benefited from this concentration, as they could effectively monitor and enforce working conditions.

The necessity for quick adaptation to style changes had tethered production to the Garment Center; however, advancements in transportation allowed firms to explore labor sources beyond the city limits. The introduction of motor trucks allowed companies to utilize bridges and tunnels linking into Brooklyn and New Jersey, enabling contractor shops to emerge with a workforce primarily consisting of young women willing to accept lower wages. Faced with internal conflicts, the ILGWU struggled to manage this migration, causing production to shift further into these outlying regions. It wasn’t until the New Deal arrived that the union gained the capacity to incorporate these workshops into its organizational framework. However, as transportation infrastructure improved, trucks expanded their reach to farther locations overnight, prompting even more shops to open distant operations. Following World War II, this migration intensified, taking root in previously industrial towns in New England abandoned by the textile sector, as well as in regions of northeast Pennsylvania struggling due to transitions to oil heating.

The implementation of a standardized production system, similar to those used for men's clothing, facilitated women’s wear shops' relocation. In the production of higher-quality dresses, coats, and suits, a clear division of labor enabled one employee to manage all machine sewing, while another managed hand sewing; however, standardized products—including more affordable dresses, coats, and suits—could be produced through section work. Task division—one worker setting sleeves, another sewing lapels—made it viable to hire less skilled and lower-paid employees. The New York locals' ban on section work, in contrast, prompted many shops to migrate from the city. Though the union actively pursued these "runaway shops," it treaded cautiously, gauging wage increases to ensure they did not dissuade employers from relocating operations elsewhere. As a consequence, although all unionized facilities contracted for Manhattan jobbers fell under a collective agreement, workers outside the city often earned less than their metropolitan counterparts.

While Manhattan sustained its prominence as a design and sales center for women’s and children’s apparel, it began to diminish as a production hub. By the immediate post-WWII years, the metro area accounted for two-fifths of national apparel employment. However, by the mid-20th century, that share had substantially decreased to less than one-third, even as the metro area maintained its percentage at 43.5. With most job losses traced to relocations within the industry, particularly to Pennsylvania and New England, the northeastern region remained stable in its overall contribution to national employment figures. However, during the 1960s, the expanding interstate highway system lured manufacturers southward, drawn by the availability of inexpensive labor.

In the earlier years, the South’s contribution to the apparel sector accounted for merely one-sixth of industry employment; by 1980, however, this dramatically increased to one-fourth, with an upward trajectory continuing persistently thereafter. Historically, southern production was limited to highly standardized outputs, primarily men’s work clothing, but over time, more segments of the industry began migrating southward, establishing the region as a leader in apparel manufacturing. Labor organizing endeavors faced significant hurdles in this context, with right-to-work legislation posing a major impediment, particularly in sectors with high employee turnover, since unionized shops could be decertified when workforce changes occurred. Consequently, unions relied increasingly on federal minimum wage hikes to account for diminished bargaining power.

The Challenge from Imports

Until the mid-20th century, most developed nations enjoyed significant self-sufficiency in clothing production, experiencing negligible levels of apparel imports. However, during the mid-1960s, standardized apparel types began entering the U.S. market from countries like Japan and Hong Kong. The 1962 customs law revision, which permitted offshore assembly of products with duties applied only to the "value-added" parts, provided a significant boost to imports. Efforts by unions and employer associations prompted the U.S. government to engage foreign nations in limiting exports, leading only to temporary relief, as developing Asian countries began intensifying efforts to boost exports, leveraging their comparative advantage of low-wage labor to dominate labor-intensive manufacturing sectors such as clothing and electronics.

Confronting competition from low-wage nations, advanced economies sought international solutions. Instituted through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the Multifibre Arrangement (MFA) aimed to manage export increases from developing nations, allowing developed nations’ clothing sectors time for necessary restructuring while permitting developing countries to sustain growth. The MFAs dissolution in 2005 gave rise to heightened imports, spreading garment production further into even lower-wage countries.

Despite pressures from imports, U.S. production remained consistent until the 1980s when it began a sharp decline, with employment figures in the clothing industry dropping from approximately 1 million jobs in the 1970s to fewer than 400,000 today. While Los Angeles maintains significant traction in sportswear production, New York persists as the leading center for fashion design and marketing, with most garments now assembled overseas. This shift signifies an ongoing evolution of the New York labor market, expanding from Brooklyn and New Jersey in the 1950s to Pennsylvania and Massachusetts in the 1960s and 70s, migrating south from the 1980s to encompass the wider global landscape today.

Enhancements in transportation have significantly influenced this burgeoning global division of labor. The protracted durations associated with maritime shipping were manageable for standardized items like men's shirts, but others necessitated expedited turnaround times. The advent of jumbo cargo aircrafts not only reduced airfreight costs—especially beneficial given apparel’s high value-to-weight ratio—but also expedited the procurement of fashion-oriented apparel produced internationally. Notably, while transportation expenses contribute to total costs, they are often offset by the significantly lower wage structures in developing nations.

The relatively static technological and manufacturing processes governing the apparel sector foster geographic dispersion, as establishing a workshop poses minimal technical, capital, or skilled labor requirements. There has been speculation regarding microelectronic innovations potentially revitalizing advanced nations' clothing sectors; indeed, technology-driven restructuring—such as moving away from traditional bundle systems toward team-based work on standardized lines—has enhanced productivity. However, the vast majority of these technological advancements are applied to design and cutting stages, rather than assembly, where labor costs comprise the majority of total production expenses. Furthermore, new technologies can be deployed in both foreign and domestic workshops, aided by advancements in information technology that facilitate coordinated production across a global network.

While developed nations benefit from productivity gains, these advantages are insufficient to counterbalance wage disparities. A report from the Asian Productivity Organization illustrated this disparity: American workers could produce a shirt in just 14 minutes, requiring 25 minutes for counterparts in Bangladesh, where average wages stood at $7.53 compared to only 25 cents per hour in Bangladesh. Other studies indicated that productivity among Mexican garment workers reached only 40% of their American counterparts, with pay rates at merely 21% of U.S. standards.

Contact us to discuss your requirements of women's wear manufacturer. Our experienced sales team can help you identify the options that best suit your needs.

The sewing machine remains the foundational tool for garment manufacturing, having undergone significant improvements while keeping the industry accessible for new businesses due to limited capital demands. While some larger firms have emerged, numerous small shops persist, with 17,000 apparel businesses still operational in the United States. In various countries, expansive retail chains currently dominate large portions of the industry, exerting notable oligopsonistic control over production and consumption patterns. For example, Swedish fashion giant H&M designs its inventory in Stockholm but outsources production to 900 workshops spanning 21 predominantly low-wage countries, frequently shifting operations to secure optimal price points. Nevertheless, the enterprises directly manufacturing clothing remain relatively small-scale ventures.

This tableau establishes the backdrop to one of globalization's most intriguing dilemmas. The distinctive qualities of garment manufacturing—particularly the low entry barriers for establishing shops and their capacity to employ numerous low-skilled workers—render it a vital catalyst for industrial development in many less-developed nations. Still, these same attributes frequently result in substandard labor conditions, leaving apparel companies reliant on contracting in these regions vulnerable to scrutiny over labor rights and compensation issues.

Sources

• Business Week, November 11,
• The Economist, February 15,
• Roy B. Helfgott, "Women's and Children's Apparel," in Made in New York: Case Studies in Metropolitan Manufacturing, Harvard University Press,
• Kurt Hoffman and Howard Rush, Micro-Electronics and Clothing: The Impact of Technical Change on a Global Industry, Praeger,
• Michael Scheffer, Trading Places: Fashion, Retailers, and the Changing Geography of Clothing Production, Royal Dutch Geographical Society/Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht University,

Footnotes

1. A business survival strategy recently adopted by domestic manufacturers in high-wage countries has been the development of "designer labels" (e.g. Calvin Klein), to compete with imports on the basis of style and quality rather than price.
2. The ILGWU was established in . The Amalgamated formed in as a split-off from the AFL's United Garment Workers. Regarding it as a "dual" union, the AFL refused it admittance, but it came to dominate the industry. It was admitted in with jurisdiction over suits and overcoats and the UGW over work clothes, but it soon left the AFL for the new Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).
3. Cut goods were delivered to the contractor and finished products returned by young men pushing carts through the streets and up and down the elevators.
4. The center of Manhattan's men's industry was a mile south, around Union Square.
5. The availability of lower wages elsewhere was not the only factor contributing to Manhattan's decline as a manufacturing center. Consumer demand shifted away from traditional dresses, coats, and suits, a segment dominated by Manhattan, to more informal sportswear. Also, affordable loft space needed to accommodate section work in the larger shops was in short supply. Finally, while Manhattan garment wages were high relative to those in other locations, they were low relative to wages in general. The industry found itself facing labor shortages as the old male tailors retired and young women turned to other employment opportunities in white-collar positions.
6. Later, the European Union adopted a similar policy, known as outward processing trade (OPT). Many firms, particularly in Germany, have taken advantage of it to have clothing produced in Eastern Europe.