The Blog

A t-shirt for £5. A pair of joggers for £8. A full outfit, from shoes to jacket, for less than the cost of a decent meal. These are real prices, available right now, on websites that will deliver to your door by tomorrow.

The question worth sitting with is not how to find them. It is how they are possible at all.

What a Price Actually Is

A price is supposed to represent the cost of making something. Materials, labour, energy, transport, the infrastructure that holds the supply chain together. When a price is honest, it covers those costs and leaves a margin for the people involved to earn a living.

The prices fast fashion charges do not do this. They cannot. The arithmetic does not work. A t-shirt sold for £5 in the UK, after the retailer’s margin, the shipping, the import duties, and the marketing budget, leaves almost nothing for the people who cut and sewed it.

That gap has to be filled from somewhere. It is filled by people who have no power to refuse.

Rana Plaza

On 24 April 2013, a building called Rana Plaza collapsed in Savar, Bangladesh. It housed five garment factories. The collapse killed 1,134 people and injured more than 2,500. It remains the worst garment worker disaster in history.

The building had visible cracks the day before it fell. Workers were told to return anyway. Production targets do not pause for structural concerns.

Rana Plaza was not an aberration. It was the logical consequence of a system built on the premise that the people making the clothes are the last thing that matters. More than a decade later, a comprehensive 2025 audit of global fashion brands found that 97 per cent of major fashion companies still cannot demonstrate that they pay a living wage to the workers in their supply chain. In key production hubs like Bangladesh and Vietnam, workers earn on average 45 per cent less than what is required to cover basic family needs.

The average monthly wage of a garment worker in Bangladesh is around £110. For that, they work long hours in conditions that have improved only marginally since 2013, in factories that remain, in many cases, structurally and legally opaque.

This is where the £5 t-shirt comes from. Not from efficiency. Not from clever logistics. From the decision, made repeatedly and deliberately, that the people doing the work are not entitled to a fair share of what it produces.

What the Environment Absorbs

Labour is not the only thing the fast fashion model externalises. The environment absorbs enormous costs that never appear on a price tag.

Textile production is one of the most polluting industries on earth. Dyeing and treating fabrics contaminates rivers across manufacturing regions in Asia, introducing chemicals into waterways that communities depend on for drinking water and agriculture. The scale of production is staggering. One estimate suggests Shein alone makes 6,000 new styles available to buy every single day.

Most of what is produced does not last. It is not designed to. A garment made to be worn a handful of times before it loses its shape or fades or simply feels disposable is a garment that will end up in landfill or incineration within months of purchase. The Atacama Desert in Chile has become a dumping ground for unsold and discarded Western clothing, mountains of fabric rotting in one of the driest places on earth because the recycling infrastructure cannot absorb what the industry produces.

None of these costs are borne by the brands that created them. They are pushed onto the environment, onto local communities, onto future generations. The price tag reflects none of it.

The Race to the Bottom

There is a mechanism that drives this, and it is not complicated. When a retailer presses a factory for a lower price, the factory presses its workers. When workers attempt to organise for better wages or conditions, they are frequently suppressed. When environmental regulations in a manufacturing country are strengthened, production moves somewhere they are not.

This is not a series of accidents. It is the system working exactly as designed. The competitive pressure to lower prices flows in one direction: downward, through the supply chain, until it reaches the people and the ecosystems with the least power to resist it.

The UK textile and apparel industry has lost the vast majority of its workforce since the 1990s, not because British workers became less skilled, but because they could not compete with wages that were never meant to be liveable. The same pattern has repeated across every country with meaningful labour protections. The work moves to wherever the floor is lowest.

What Honest Pricing Looks Like

Manufacturing in Britain costs more. This is simply true, and it is worth being direct about why.

British workers are paid a living wage. The factories that remain are subject to health and safety regulations that actually function. The supply chain is short enough to be audited and understood. The energy used in production is subject to environmental standards that exist precisely because we have decided, as a society, that certain costs should not be externalised onto the public.

When a garment made in Britain costs more than one made in a factory in Bangladesh paying its workers £110 a month, that price difference is not luxury. It is the cost of making something honestly. It is what a t-shirt actually costs when the people who made it were paid fairly, when the factory they worked in was safe, when the production process was subject to the kind of oversight that we would consider basic anywhere we could see it happening.

The premium is not for the label. It is for the absence of a hidden cost that someone else pays instead.

What You Are Actually Choosing

When you buy cheap clothing repeatedly, you are not saving money in any meaningful sense. You are paying a fraction of the real cost and allowing the remainder to be collected from people you will never meet, in places you will never see, under conditions that most people in this country would find unacceptable if they were happening down the road.

This is not a moral judgement about individual choices made under financial pressure. Many people have no option. But for those who do have a choice, the question is whether the price on the label is the whole story, or whether it is simply the part of the story that is easy to read.

Buying less and buying better is not a luxury position. It is an accurate one. A well made garment that lasts five years and costs four times as much as a disposable one is cheaper over that period, costs the planet less, and did not require anyone to work in an unsafe building for wages that cannot feed a family.

The £5 t-shirt is not cheap. It is expensive in ways that do not show up on your bank statement.

The Argument for Slow

Slow fashion is sometimes framed as an aesthetic preference, a retreat from trends into timelessness, a choice made by people who can afford to be selective. That framing misses the point.

Slow fashion is a response to a specific kind of dishonesty. The dishonesty of a price that does not include its full cost. The dishonesty of sustainability pledges made by brands that, by their own data, have no evidence of cutting emissions. The dishonesty of a system that presents exploitation as efficiency and calls the result a bargain.

Making things carefully, in places where people are paid fairly, from materials chosen for longevity rather than disposability, produces something that costs more upfront. It also produces something that does not require a garment worker in Bangladesh to choose between safety and her job. It does not require a river in Asia to absorb the runoff of a dyeing process that regulation would not permit here. It does not require a desert in South America to become a graveyard for clothing that was never meant to last.

These are not small things. They are the actual cost of making clothes. Slow fashion does not inflate that cost. It simply stops hiding it.