4 ms·

Or you know, just don't make it in the first place. If all low quality fast fashion were $20 instead of $7 across the board people would still gorge themselves

Or you know, just don't make it in the first place. If all low quality fast fashion were $20 instead of $7 across the board people would still gorge themselves on it. They're not buying stuff for the need to have clothes, they're buying things for the experiences of buying it and the novelty of something new.

TremendousJudge 5y ago
Supply and demand: if it was more expensive, less people would buy it. The reason fast fashion is popular is because it's cheap as hell, which can give a lot of people "buying things for the experiences of buying it and the novelty of something new". If clothing was as expensive as some decades ago, this experience would only be affordable to rich people as was in the past
themaninthedark 5y ago
And who is going to police this? All the trinkets and gadgets that we produce all fall in the same category. >Nest, Echo, Homepod... Just get up and turn off the damn lights yourself. >Drones How many people bought one or two, flew it around for a while and crashed it. Very few are making videos or doing something interesting with them. >Starbucks Do we really need separate stores, trucks shipping product all over for someone to have the convenience of a cup of coffee? >TV/Netflix If we want to talk about the utility of something, this one is amazing. How much money, time and energy has been spent so that someone can watch a 30 minute show on demand. And we have to keep spending money and energy because the novelty of the old stuff has worn off.
- ctdonath 5y ago
  Yet the net result of all this "waste" is to employ billions, to incentivize productivity to the point of surplus bringing much of civilization into a luxurious life - rather than scrimping bare sustenance. Remove the smart speakers, entertainment UAEs, luxury drinks, screen time, etc and the economic ripple effects will stop funding essentials that near all currently enjoy. We've driven world abject poverty from >90% to <10% in half a century. End the products you mention (and the like), and those buying them won't themselves have customers enough to fund their own work. End Starbucks etc, and coffee farms worldwide will crash. Money is the ultimate arbiter of value. Many deride whatever as "trinkets and gadgets" etc, but they're not putting up the sustenance calories to support life otherwise.
fighterpilot 5y ago
Fast fashion is probably one of the most price elastic goods in existence. And your suggestion to "just don't make it" is patently silly. Are you advocating for a ban on clothes or are you advocating for all manufacturers to willingly stop production and avoid profits? Either of these is detached from reality. A carbon tax is what's needed.
- whywhywhywhy 5y ago
  I'm being facetious I understand no one will ever stop making cheap fragile clothes out of synthetic fibers and people will never stop buying them. I just don't think paying money to someone who can't even solve the problem that is being caused is going to solve anything.

TremendousJudge 5y ago

Supply and demand: if it was more expensive, less people would buy it. The reason fast fashion is popular is because it's cheap as hell, which can give a lot of people "buying things for the experiences of buying it and the novelty of something new". If clothing was as expensive as some decades ago, this experience would only be affordable to rich people as was in the past

themaninthedark 5y ago

And who is going to police this? All the trinkets and gadgets that we produce all fall in the same category. >Nest, Echo, Homepod... Just get up and turn off the damn lights yourself. >Drones How many people bought one or two, flew it around for a while and crashed it. Very few are making videos or doing something interesting with them. >Starbucks Do we really need separate stores, trucks shipping product all over for someone to have the convenience of a cup of coffee? >TV/Netflix If we want to talk about the utility of something, this one is amazing. How much money, time and energy has been spent so that someone can watch a 30 minute show on demand. And we have to keep spending money and energy because the novelty of the old stuff has worn off.

ctdonath 5y ago
Yet the net result of all this "waste" is to employ billions, to incentivize productivity to the point of surplus bringing much of civilization into a luxurious life - rather than scrimping bare sustenance. Remove the smart speakers, entertainment UAEs, luxury drinks, screen time, etc and the economic ripple effects will stop funding essentials that near all currently enjoy. We've driven world abject poverty from >90% to <10% in half a century. End the products you mention (and the like), and those buying them won't themselves have customers enough to fund their own work. End Starbucks etc, and coffee farms worldwide will crash. Money is the ultimate arbiter of value. Many deride whatever as "trinkets and gadgets" etc, but they're not putting up the sustenance calories to support life otherwise.

fighterpilot 5y ago

Fast fashion is probably one of the most price elastic goods in existence. And your suggestion to "just don't make it" is patently silly. Are you advocating for a ban on clothes or are you advocating for all manufacturers to willingly stop production and avoid profits? Either of these is detached from reality. A carbon tax is what's needed.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago
I'm being facetious I understand no one will ever stop making cheap fragile clothes out of synthetic fibers and people will never stop buying them. I just don't think paying money to someone who can't even solve the problem that is being caused is going to solve anything.