5 ms·

I don't know why you would donate to a for profit thrift store like Value Village. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/state-ag-sues-value-village-cla

I don't know why you would donate to a for profit thrift store like Value Village. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/state-ag-sues-value-village-claiming-thrift-shop-chain-isnt-as-charitable-as-it-seems/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/state-ag-sues-v... The owner has a giant estate on Mercer Island near Seattle that's second only to Paul Allen's.

kejaed 9y ago
I hear this argument a lot, but it is still a better alternative than a garbage can.
- jonknee 9y ago
  There are plenty of places you can donate that aren't for profit businesses pretending to be generous donors. For business clothes Dress for Success is a great option, but even Goodwill is a better option.
- _jal 9y ago
  It is, and their marketing does a decent job of giving people donating things the warm fuzzies about it. You can just do more good with the same amount of effort by finding distributors who aren't pocketing the bulk of the benefit. It is a small thing, and maybe not worth it to you; my general outlook here is that if it is worth the effort for me to take old stuff somewhere vs. tossing it, it is worth 10 more minutes to find the address of the local Quaker outreach, vets assistance group or some other honest nonprofit.
the_unknown 9y ago
I don't know anything about the ownership but I do see the value and good that is created locally. Sometimes doing what's good locally may help somebody local and still make somebody else stinking rich. That doesn't mean I should stop helping out locally. At least with Value Village I can see that people are being helped. f I donate elsewhere the benefits are difficult (if not impossible) to see.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  This is the way I see it as well. They at the very least never claimed to be a charity and operated this way. To that end, I also donate items to the Salvation Army who also makes a visible positive impact on lives and communities. They operate on a non-profit basis.
- krrrh 9y ago
  At least in Vancouver, organizations like Big Brothers do clothing drives and then sell the clothes on to Value Village. This way a charity makes some money along the way. Check around and see what’s available in your area.
indubitable 9y ago
I think entering a profit motive is not inherently a bad thing. When companies have a profit motive, there tends to be an extrinsic motivation to do well. When companies are able to survive on donations alone, you're relying entirely on intrinsic motivations that may not be as strong as we'd like to imagine. Take for instance the Red Cross and Haiti as one of the most visible recent examples. They received half a billion dollars and achieved next to nothing. 25% [1] of that half billion was spent on "internal expenses." And they have very little clue or accounting of how the remaining money was even spent. Most of it was not even directly spent but instead donated to other nonprofits, who in turn took their cuts, and accountability quickly breaks down. According to that reporting from NPR, the "ambitious plan to build housing resulted in just six permanent homes" from that half a billion dollars. That sort of waste and lack of any accountability is something that would rarely fly in any for profit business. Would that money in Haiti have been better spent by entrepreneurs looking to create housing/food and other necessities with open intentions of profiting in the long run? Maybe not a fair question since they'd have had to have tried hard to spend it worse, but that's the whole point. Aligning a good service with a good profit is, in my opinion, the true soul of capitalism. It's just such a shame that today it's often easier to make more money in less than ethical ways. [1] - https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin...
thaeli 9y ago
Frankly, it's because their acceptance criteria are less stringent. When I donate there, they're fine with no-longer-wearable clothes (rag grade) and even tube TVs, both of which are pay-to-dispose at the local dump. Goodwill, on the other hand, refuses many donations that VV doesn't blink an eye at. Sending me home with half a trunk still full of stuff that VV is happy to accept doesn't encourage bothering to go to the Goodwill. I just want to drop my old stuff, easily, at one location reasonably near my house, where it won't completely exit the value chain like it would in a landfill. And Goodwill is even worse to its employees. Many of their workers are paid well under minimum wage, under the FLSA exemption for disabled workers. Their CEO makes over $400k though.. (The Salvation Army is quite good on a costs ratio, but has political positions I can't support.)

kejaed 9y ago

I hear this argument a lot, but it is still a better alternative than a garbage can.

jonknee 9y ago
There are plenty of places you can donate that aren't for profit businesses pretending to be generous donors. For business clothes Dress for Success is a great option, but even Goodwill is a better option.
_jal 9y ago
It is, and their marketing does a decent job of giving people donating things the warm fuzzies about it. You can just do more good with the same amount of effort by finding distributors who aren't pocketing the bulk of the benefit. It is a small thing, and maybe not worth it to you; my general outlook here is that if it is worth the effort for me to take old stuff somewhere vs. tossing it, it is worth 10 more minutes to find the address of the local Quaker outreach, vets assistance group or some other honest nonprofit.

the_unknown 9y ago

I don't know anything about the ownership but I do see the value and good that is created locally. Sometimes doing what's good locally may help somebody local and still make somebody else stinking rich. That doesn't mean I should stop helping out locally. At least with Value Village I can see that people are being helped. f I donate elsewhere the benefits are difficult (if not impossible) to see.

52-6F-62 9y ago
This is the way I see it as well. They at the very least never claimed to be a charity and operated this way. To that end, I also donate items to the Salvation Army who also makes a visible positive impact on lives and communities. They operate on a non-profit basis.
krrrh 9y ago
At least in Vancouver, organizations like Big Brothers do clothing drives and then sell the clothes on to Value Village. This way a charity makes some money along the way. Check around and see what’s available in your area.

indubitable 9y ago

I think entering a profit motive is not inherently a bad thing. When companies have a profit motive, there tends to be an extrinsic motivation to do well. When companies are able to survive on donations alone, you're relying entirely on intrinsic motivations that may not be as strong as we'd like to imagine. Take for instance the Red Cross and Haiti as one of the most visible recent examples. They received half a billion dollars and achieved next to nothing. 25% [1] of that half billion was spent on "internal expenses." And they have very little clue or accounting of how the remaining money was even spent. Most of it was not even directly spent but instead donated to other nonprofits, who in turn took their cuts, and accountability quickly breaks down. According to that reporting from NPR, the "ambitious plan to build housing resulted in just six permanent homes" from that half a billion dollars. That sort of waste and lack of any accountability is something that would rarely fly in any for profit business. Would that money in Haiti have been better spent by entrepreneurs looking to create housing/food and other necessities with open intentions of profiting in the long run? Maybe not a fair question since they'd have had to have tried hard to spend it worse, but that's the whole point. Aligning a good service with a good profit is, in my opinion, the true soul of capitalism. It's just such a shame that today it's often easier to make more money in less than ethical ways. [1] - https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-finds-fundamental-concerns-about-red-cross-finances https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin...

thaeli 9y ago

Frankly, it's because their acceptance criteria are less stringent. When I donate there, they're fine with no-longer-wearable clothes (rag grade) and even tube TVs, both of which are pay-to-dispose at the local dump. Goodwill, on the other hand, refuses many donations that VV doesn't blink an eye at. Sending me home with half a trunk still full of stuff that VV is happy to accept doesn't encourage bothering to go to the Goodwill. I just want to drop my old stuff, easily, at one location reasonably near my house, where it won't completely exit the value chain like it would in a landfill. And Goodwill is even worse to its employees. Many of their workers are paid well under minimum wage, under the FLSA exemption for disabled workers. Their CEO makes over $400k though.. (The Salvation Army is quite good on a costs ratio, but has political positions I can't support.)