4 ms·

This focuses on the environmental complications, but the economic issues are particularly difficult. Clothing manufacture and repair is in general among the fi

This focuses on the environmental complications, but the economic issues are particularly difficult. Clothing manufacture and repair is in general among the first technologically sophisticated value adding sectors that developing countries use to climb the economic ladder. Dumping vast quantities of used clothes into an economy effectively kills off an extremely precious local industry.

lesuorac 3y ago
A similar effect happens post-disasters where of course people with nothing need a lot of free stuff (namely food). But after the hurricane is gone your free stuff is just pricing out the local economy. i.e. USA buys a bunch of USA rice and gives it to X country for free which means X countries' farmers cannot actually sell their rice and it hampers economic recovery.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The ideal situation is to (a) send non-free stuff and (b) send money so people can buy said stuff. So (a) is more about logistics (do we have stuff to buy) but (b) can be abused (money is siphoned off by corruption and can't be used to buy a.).
- autoexec 3y ago
  How would people with nothing buy rice from local farmers anyway? As long as the US sends only enough rice for people to be fed until they are back on their feet there shouldn't be a problem, since there won't be piles and piles of free rice floating around once the disaster has passed and people are again able to afford to pay local farmers.
Pet_Ant 3y ago
I mean that is great to say if you are a seamstress in a developing country, but if I'm a labourer in said country, I'll happily take a cheaper clothes and less sun-burns thank you.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Does that also apply to stuff you might be making? From food to any goods?
  - Pet_Ant 3y ago
    I mean, that's kind of what I'm saying. Is that the effect benefits part of an economy, and hurts others. It's not a universal benefit. I mean the automobile benefitted many parts of the economy, but killed the buggy whip maker. You need to look at the totality and you will definitely be hurting and pissing off some people.
randunel 3y ago
> Retailers buy and sort through 55kg (121lb) bales of clothing – most of it is either “deadstock” (clothes kept in warehouses and storerooms for years but never worn) or items donated to charities or left in recycling bins. About 6m of the better-quality items are sold or upcycled in the market every week. They're not only purchasing, but they've built an entire local industry around it. "Dumping" and "killing of an extremely precious local industry" are not in this article, on the contrary.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The industry they have is making a few, select people rich. The industry they don't have, small taylor shops, would help everyone and support a much more stable local industry.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Small tailor shops can't compete with industrialized cloth production anyways, as the luddites protested against and lost. As long as they can produce something else that can be traded, it isn't weird that clothes can just be imported. It isn't great for self sufficiency, but the reality is clothes are produced only in a few countries these days anyways.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      It's not like tailors have their own looms, they're buying fabric same as everyone else. The value-add is that a tailor can do alterations or made-to-order clothes. Even "industrialized" clothing relies on humans to do most of the joining work so the pricing advantage isn't as big if we actually cracked down on labor exploitation. We won't but a girl can dream, right?
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        That kind of cloth manufacturing isn't really scalable. So clothes would be a lot more expensive, even by western standards, and even considering how labor would be much cheaper in those countries.

lesuorac 3y ago

A similar effect happens post-disasters where of course people with nothing need a lot of free stuff (namely food). But after the hurricane is gone your free stuff is just pricing out the local economy. i.e. USA buys a bunch of USA rice and gives it to X country for free which means X countries' farmers cannot actually sell their rice and it hampers economic recovery.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
The ideal situation is to (a) send non-free stuff and (b) send money so people can buy said stuff. So (a) is more about logistics (do we have stuff to buy) but (b) can be abused (money is siphoned off by corruption and can't be used to buy a.).
autoexec 3y ago
How would people with nothing buy rice from local farmers anyway? As long as the US sends only enough rice for people to be fed until they are back on their feet there shouldn't be a problem, since there won't be piles and piles of free rice floating around once the disaster has passed and people are again able to afford to pay local farmers.

Pet_Ant 3y ago

I mean that is great to say if you are a seamstress in a developing country, but if I'm a labourer in said country, I'll happily take a cheaper clothes and less sun-burns thank you.

Ekaros 3y ago
Does that also apply to stuff you might be making? From food to any goods?
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  I mean, that's kind of what I'm saying. Is that the effect benefits part of an economy, and hurts others. It's not a universal benefit. I mean the automobile benefitted many parts of the economy, but killed the buggy whip maker. You need to look at the totality and you will definitely be hurting and pissing off some people.

randunel 3y ago

> Retailers buy and sort through 55kg (121lb) bales of clothing – most of it is either “deadstock” (clothes kept in warehouses and storerooms for years but never worn) or items donated to charities or left in recycling bins. About 6m of the better-quality items are sold or upcycled in the market every week. They're not only purchasing, but they've built an entire local industry around it. "Dumping" and "killing of an extremely precious local industry" are not in this article, on the contrary.

hef19898 3y ago
The industry they have is making a few, select people rich. The industry they don't have, small taylor shops, would help everyone and support a much more stable local industry.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Small tailor shops can't compete with industrialized cloth production anyways, as the luddites protested against and lost. As long as they can produce something else that can be traded, it isn't weird that clothes can just be imported. It isn't great for self sufficiency, but the reality is clothes are produced only in a few countries these days anyways.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    It's not like tailors have their own looms, they're buying fabric same as everyone else. The value-add is that a tailor can do alterations or made-to-order clothes. Even "industrialized" clothing relies on humans to do most of the joining work so the pricing advantage isn't as big if we actually cracked down on labor exploitation. We won't but a girl can dream, right?
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      That kind of cloth manufacturing isn't really scalable. So clothes would be a lot more expensive, even by western standards, and even considering how labor would be much cheaper in those countries.