>>18564667
You're not crazy. The demographic with the most egregiously ill-fitting pants are working class millennials and gen-x, in my experience. I don't know how they can look at their slim-fitting jeans with 4 inches of extra fabric bunching at the ankles and think it's acceptable.

you just have a weird build. im the same way, 6' 30" inseam. shirts are never long enough, and pants are always too long

Pants? Definitely. The art of getting your pants hemmed seems to have died with normal people. It's something only dandies care about seemingly.

I think jeans can bunch up a little and look fine. Sneakers look best with a little bit of bunching imo. Never liked the cuffed look. That said, certain types of skinny black guy really go overboard here.

>>18564667
I dunno man I like my pants covering my ankes, also on the baggier side
6' too and I wear 32 usually

>>18564787
There's a pretty big difference between a tasteful drape and bunching.

You have a long torso, but you’re still correct in saying so.

I’m 6’0” exactly and 30L fits me pretty well. Sometimes it’s a bit too short. 32L is usually a bit too long.

I am long legged at 6'3 and 32 creates a tasteful break. I imagine anyone who is shorter and more torso heavy than me finds themselves swimming in today's trousers. Not sure why this is the trend. Especially when the awful skinny suit fad often involves pants that are too short.

5'9" and 32 usually breaks well depending on muh shoes
a 30 just rides up to my shins when i sit down it looks terrible

>>18564667
>>18564687
contrary to popular belief, inseam is more correlated with your ethnicity than height.

Yeah, most pants are too long. But some people are really tall, so it helps to just make pants long and you can tailor them. Some also like the stack look, so exact length isn't always the look.