Does paying more for clothing always ensure higher quality?
a $50 T-shirt isn't going to be better quality than a $20 one.
If you're an idiot and buy from allsaints or isaora, then not specifically, the same could even be said for labels like our legacy or acne studios (mid-range shit for people who think they're better than uniqlo shoppers but don't have the balls to make big purchases on the real deal), apc, Patrik Ervell etc.
As a general rule though, yes it does, qlo is better than H&M, reigning champ is better than qlo, and then you get to the mid-tier shit I mentioned and then it can become 'artisanal' and it will be higher quality.
A Rick Owens drapey white t-shirt is better than an XL target t-shirt.
There is a limit to how well you can stitch a piece of clothing together and how durable the materials are.
A 150USD bespoke shirt will be just as good quality wise, if not better, when compared to some 1000USD designer stuff.
You pay for the brand, not for quality.
A lot of the people on fa who cling rigidly to price as the out and out way to determine quality do it because they're not knowledgeable enough to know any other way to distinguish a poor, middling and good pair of jeans but want to come across as if they know something anyway.
Learn a bit about construction, materials etc OP and you'll be able to determine when the quality and the price of something are about right or not.
No see brands like givenchy, SLP, Chanel, LV, Gucci. All horridly overpriced and with quality of clothing much cheaper than them. This isnt true for everything many artisinal brands make expensive clothing but it is probably some of the highest quality garments you can buy. That being said you are still paying a good amount for non quality aspects, if that makes sense.