[bryanlarsen]

No easy answer since most garments > 100 years ago were home-made. But I can confidently assert without data that the number of man-hours of labor in the average closet is substantially up.

garment makers chosen because of this recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43450515

[MITSardine]

How can you be so sure?

I found this document: https://web.archive.org/web/20210126040017/https://ribevikin... It asks the question "How long would it take to make a Viborg shirt?". The answer seems to be 354 hours per their experiments. This is from seed to shirt. (linen)

I'd be surprised if we had that many man-hours, let alone 3 or 4 times that (this is a single piece of clothing), in our wardrobes. Conservatively assuming a man-hour in the wardrobe costs us $5 (while people are often paid less, their salaries are also but one expense), you'd need at least around $1500 to equal just that shirt.

[bryanlarsen]

I'm talking 100 years ago, not 1000. We've had mechanized fabric production for > 300 years.

From your document, weaving and spinning are > 85% of the labor in your shirt. Those would be almost 0% for a shirt made 100 years ago. And those wouldn't be the only steps mechanized 100 years ago.

[watwut]

100 years ago is 1925 - people were already buying cloth in stores at that time. You need to go further into history.