4 ms·

As a side-effect this will also increase the prices of the cheapest clothes available on the market, and as such would in effect be a regressive tax.

naoqj 5y ago
- jotm 5y ago
- rozenmd 5y ago
  They get subsidised by the individual countries to soften the blow? Think I'm missing your point.
Proven 5y ago
oliwarner 5y ago
It will also mean a healthier used market with modern garments that will last years and years. New cars are disproportionately expensive too. Shrugs. I think it's okay that not everyone can afford everything new, as long as they can afford enough to not be further disadvantaged.
- PolygonSheep 5y ago
  I too think the poor should be driving clapped out beaters and wearing secondhand clothes. It builds character!
  - oliwarner 5y ago
    There's a facetiousness to your reply that really doesn't help the discussion. My response requires thinking about clothes in a different way, but that's the sort of thinking we all need to engage with. Since the 50s we've seen races to the bottom with clothes, homeware, furniture. It's all lovely shiny and new and when we've decided we need to change it, we burn or throw into a hole in the ground. Fashion has invented its own mechanisms and sub-industry to make sure things aren't just disposable, but that people want to throw them away. It's disgusting. We don't do that with cars. We demand that cars are serviceable. Older cars doesn't carry stigma (unless they're clapped out). We need to start demanding the same from everything we buy.
riidom 5y ago
Not so sure about that. First, this will revive the second-hand market, which is where you got clothes for cheap in the past. Second, The absolute price for a clothing item is not really relevant without considering its lifespan. A metric of sorts "square meter of fabric per year" per capita would be more useful, and the super cheap clothes don't look good at all here. Even poor people will not wear a super cheap shirt for years, when other people throw it away after 2 weeks.
- viraptor 5y ago
  > Second, The absolute price for a clothing item is not really relevant without considering its lifespan. With the exception of children's clothes. These unfortunately get hit with all issues: 1. Kids are more active and will stain/tear them more often than adults. 2. They grow out quickly, limiting initial lifespan. 3. Due to point 1, it's hard to resell things past the baby stage.
  - Y-bar 5y ago
    A significant portion of kids inherit clothes from their older siblings when I grew up, and I still see it happening today. If clothes are more durable more items will survive to be inherited or re-sold. Also, second-hand markets here are already large and could become even larger. Searching for "used kids clothes" on Ebay shows 350k results.
    - viraptor 5y ago
      I agree and should've phrased it better - there's a second hand market, but it would be significantly larger since the kids clothes get more damaged than adult.
  - xxs 5y ago
    The best part is giving them away to friends and family, if they have kids few years younger it tends to work well for the higher quality clothes. Higher quality materials (and seams) does help preserving them too.
mateo1 5y ago
While there is an issue to be addressed, there's a better way to do it. Create a standardised quality ranking of cloth longevity/repairability and force the manufacturers to display it prominently and accurately. Why would the law prohibit me from buying a $1 shirt that lasts 1 week and instead buy a $50 shirt that lasts a year? The effect will be identical to that achieved by reusable grocery store bag laws. Tons and tons of extra waste, as well as taxing the poor more.
- aembleton 5y ago
  > Why would the law prohibit me from buying a $1 shirt that lasts 1 week and instead buy a $50 shirt that lasts a year? Because society has to bear the cost of the environmental degredation of manufacturing and disposing of that $1 shirt. The price signal doesn't include the externalities.
wallfacer120 5y ago
This an extremely obvious side effect and this regulation will directly and very negatively affect the quality of life of Europe's poorest citizens. I'm glad you brought it up.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

naoqj 5y ago

jotm 5y ago
rozenmd 5y ago
They get subsidised by the individual countries to soften the blow? Think I'm missing your point.

Proven 5y ago

oliwarner 5y ago

It will also mean a healthier used market with modern garments that will last years and years. New cars are disproportionately expensive too. Shrugs. I think it's okay that not everyone can afford everything new, as long as they can afford enough to not be further disadvantaged.

PolygonSheep 5y ago
I too think the poor should be driving clapped out beaters and wearing secondhand clothes. It builds character!
- oliwarner 5y ago
  There's a facetiousness to your reply that really doesn't help the discussion. My response requires thinking about clothes in a different way, but that's the sort of thinking we all need to engage with. Since the 50s we've seen races to the bottom with clothes, homeware, furniture. It's all lovely shiny and new and when we've decided we need to change it, we burn or throw into a hole in the ground. Fashion has invented its own mechanisms and sub-industry to make sure things aren't just disposable, but that people want to throw them away. It's disgusting. We don't do that with cars. We demand that cars are serviceable. Older cars doesn't carry stigma (unless they're clapped out). We need to start demanding the same from everything we buy.

riidom 5y ago

Not so sure about that. First, this will revive the second-hand market, which is where you got clothes for cheap in the past. Second, The absolute price for a clothing item is not really relevant without considering its lifespan. A metric of sorts "square meter of fabric per year" per capita would be more useful, and the super cheap clothes don't look good at all here. Even poor people will not wear a super cheap shirt for years, when other people throw it away after 2 weeks.

viraptor 5y ago
> Second, The absolute price for a clothing item is not really relevant without considering its lifespan. With the exception of children's clothes. These unfortunately get hit with all issues: 1. Kids are more active and will stain/tear them more often than adults. 2. They grow out quickly, limiting initial lifespan. 3. Due to point 1, it's hard to resell things past the baby stage.
- Y-bar 5y ago
  A significant portion of kids inherit clothes from their older siblings when I grew up, and I still see it happening today. If clothes are more durable more items will survive to be inherited or re-sold. Also, second-hand markets here are already large and could become even larger. Searching for "used kids clothes" on Ebay shows 350k results.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    I agree and should've phrased it better - there's a second hand market, but it would be significantly larger since the kids clothes get more damaged than adult.
- xxs 5y ago
  The best part is giving them away to friends and family, if they have kids few years younger it tends to work well for the higher quality clothes. Higher quality materials (and seams) does help preserving them too.

mateo1 5y ago

While there is an issue to be addressed, there's a better way to do it. Create a standardised quality ranking of cloth longevity/repairability and force the manufacturers to display it prominently and accurately. Why would the law prohibit me from buying a $1 shirt that lasts 1 week and instead buy a $50 shirt that lasts a year? The effect will be identical to that achieved by reusable grocery store bag laws. Tons and tons of extra waste, as well as taxing the poor more.

aembleton 5y ago
> Why would the law prohibit me from buying a $1 shirt that lasts 1 week and instead buy a $50 shirt that lasts a year? Because society has to bear the cost of the environmental degredation of manufacturing and disposing of that $1 shirt. The price signal doesn't include the externalities.

wallfacer120 5y ago

This an extremely obvious side effect and this regulation will directly and very negatively affect the quality of life of Europe's poorest citizens. I'm glad you brought it up.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]