Conversely, when we visited the US in January I bought three pairs of jeans whose inside leg measurements were understated by an average of 4 inches. My 30"-leg trews turned out to be no less than 34" long from the inner seam.
I can't for the life of me figure out why a US customer would want to pretend they're shorter than they really are.
(Mostly I'm annoyed because getting them fixed at home adds 50% to the price, negating the entire reason for purchasing them in the first place. And yes, two of the three were bought at Old Navy.)
Given the general quality at Old Navy, I wonder if the vast over-sizing of the waist and your observed under-sizing of the inseam are really just artifacts of sloppy work. I've personally gotten pants from the them that were much skinnier than the same size at other stores. I'm not sure how big a sample size Esquire used, but maybe Old Navy just suck at QA.
It's artifacts of sloppy work. I regularly hit the inseam problem, I have to push for a 28" inseam, when in tailored pants I'm a 32". However I noticed waist size can frequently vary by as much as 4" as well, but sometimes I get a pair that fit perfect again. I did notice that costco's Kirkland pants are regularly 2" narrower in the waist than Old Navy (for anyone who cares).
I think the problem is that pants are being labelled as a 36x36 when they're actually more a 40" waste, causing the inseam to be made closer to a 40" too.
There was a trend recently for rolled cuffs on jeans, started because people wanted to show off the inside seam of their $200 'selvedge' denim. It helps me out a lot because my inseam really is that long.
I can't for the life of me figure out why a US customer would want to pretend they're shorter than they really are.
(Mostly I'm annoyed because getting them fixed at home adds 50% to the price, negating the entire reason for purchasing them in the first place. And yes, two of the three were bought at Old Navy.)