4 ms·

Of course you would enjoy that when every single externality involved has conveniently been exported elsewhere and you have been handily trained over generation

Of course you would enjoy that when every single externality involved has conveniently been exported elsewhere and you have been handily trained over generations to accept piss-poor quality clothing as normal. Perhaps in a couple of centuries when a tube of nutrient slurry is the standard meal, people will be equally proud of not spending 15% of their salary on food...if salaries even exist by then.

autoexec 7mo ago
Not even just piss-poor quality, much of our clothing is actually poisoning us with PFAS and microplastics.
- filleduchaos 7mo ago
  In that sense it's rather similar to triumphantly holding up Big Macs as evidence of the modern food industry being awesome actually. Is it relatively cheaper to fill your stomach than at most other points in history? Sure, but at what cost? There is a debate to be had about whether being stuffed with unhealthy levels of fat/salt/sugar is worth the low price and accessibility, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that someone opposed to the existence of McDonald's and the like just "hates efficiency" or wants to "gatekeep" food.
IncreasePosts 7mo ago
Anyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago. In fact, it will be even higher quality than people had access to since we have much more advanced materials and techniques than existed back then. But, almost no one does that. Maybe you consider it brainwashing, but I consider it people just making a rational economic choice. And yes, I can see a world where, if tasteless nutrient slurry was essentially free and perfect nutrition for the body, then people would gladly consume that for most meals, and maybe splurge every now and then on an "old school" meal. I don't really see a problem with that.
- bluefirebrand 7mo ago
  > Anyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago You really can't. That price/quality point basically does not exist anymore What's worse is that we have "designer brands" that charge the higher price point but are the exact same low quality as the lower price point stuff. Actual midrange quality just plain does not exist
  - simianwords 7mo ago
    The simple reason is that there isn't a market for it. If there were, we would see it.
  - IncreasePosts 7mo ago
    Sure it does, you just need to get something custom/bespoke/made to measure. Take your yearly clothing expenditure and multiply it by 10. And then, just like people 200 years ago, be content with 2 to 4 compete outfits. And then stop buying clothes yearly and go more on 10+ year cycle, where you use your funds to mend clothes instead of replacing them. Even if you only spend $300 on clothes per year, doing it the old school way means you can spend about $15,000 on 2-4 outfits and save the other $15,000 for mending and cleaning over the next 10 years. I guarantee you you can find a high quality custom outfit for $5000.
    - filleduchaos 7mo ago
      It is precisely because I both make and buy custom apparel that I will always push back on people proudly announcing that the Luddites were wrong because they can buy clothes that are worse than rags for a few dollars today. I have actually felt and worked with quality textiles which is why it's crystal clear to me that the slop the modern garment industry produces (and I mean that very literally, a lot of these clothes straight-up lose their structural integrity after a few routine laundry cycles) is not "efficiency". The fact that I live in a region that becomes the ultimate landfill for all of this slop when westerners discard it, doesn't help either.
simianwords 7mo ago
> Of course you would enjoy that when every single externality involved has conveniently been exported elsewhere and you have been handily trained over generations to accept piss-poor quality clothing as normal. Lots of countries attribute the clothing industry to increasing standard of living and economic prosperity. Like India, Pakistan.
- filleduchaos 7mo ago
  Of course, do not ask the question of how they ended up with the original low standard of living to begin with, or how that increased standard of living compares to the standard of living of the westerners proud to announce that they can get the commodities they produce for cheap. "Something something uplifted from poverty" is much shorter, quippier and cleaner.
  - simianwords 7mo ago
    This paints an us vs them narrative which is frankly overdone and just appeals to emotions
    - filleduchaos 7mo ago
      If you think that paints an "us vs them" narrative as opposed to asking you not to cut off your introspection where it's convenient for you, then that's on you.

autoexec 7mo ago

Not even just piss-poor quality, much of our clothing is actually poisoning us with PFAS and microplastics.

filleduchaos 7mo ago
In that sense it's rather similar to triumphantly holding up Big Macs as evidence of the modern food industry being awesome actually. Is it relatively cheaper to fill your stomach than at most other points in history? Sure, but at what cost? There is a debate to be had about whether being stuffed with unhealthy levels of fat/salt/sugar is worth the low price and accessibility, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that someone opposed to the existence of McDonald's and the like just "hates efficiency" or wants to "gatekeep" food.

IncreasePosts 7mo ago

Anyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago. In fact, it will be even higher quality than people had access to since we have much more advanced materials and techniques than existed back then. But, almost no one does that. Maybe you consider it brainwashing, but I consider it people just making a rational economic choice. And yes, I can see a world where, if tasteless nutrient slurry was essentially free and perfect nutrition for the body, then people would gladly consume that for most meals, and maybe splurge every now and then on an "old school" meal. I don't really see a problem with that.

bluefirebrand 7mo ago
> Anyone can make the choice to spend a similarly large amount of their income on clothing the way people did 200 years ago You really can't. That price/quality point basically does not exist anymore What's worse is that we have "designer brands" that charge the higher price point but are the exact same low quality as the lower price point stuff. Actual midrange quality just plain does not exist
- simianwords 7mo ago
  The simple reason is that there isn't a market for it. If there were, we would see it.
- IncreasePosts 7mo ago
  Sure it does, you just need to get something custom/bespoke/made to measure. Take your yearly clothing expenditure and multiply it by 10. And then, just like people 200 years ago, be content with 2 to 4 compete outfits. And then stop buying clothes yearly and go more on 10+ year cycle, where you use your funds to mend clothes instead of replacing them. Even if you only spend $300 on clothes per year, doing it the old school way means you can spend about $15,000 on 2-4 outfits and save the other $15,000 for mending and cleaning over the next 10 years. I guarantee you you can find a high quality custom outfit for $5000.
  - filleduchaos 7mo ago
    It is precisely because I both make and buy custom apparel that I will always push back on people proudly announcing that the Luddites were wrong because they can buy clothes that are worse than rags for a few dollars today. I have actually felt and worked with quality textiles which is why it's crystal clear to me that the slop the modern garment industry produces (and I mean that very literally, a lot of these clothes straight-up lose their structural integrity after a few routine laundry cycles) is not "efficiency". The fact that I live in a region that becomes the ultimate landfill for all of this slop when westerners discard it, doesn't help either.

simianwords 7mo ago

> Of course you would enjoy that when every single externality involved has conveniently been exported elsewhere and you have been handily trained over generations to accept piss-poor quality clothing as normal. Lots of countries attribute the clothing industry to increasing standard of living and economic prosperity. Like India, Pakistan.

filleduchaos 7mo ago
Of course, do not ask the question of how they ended up with the original low standard of living to begin with, or how that increased standard of living compares to the standard of living of the westerners proud to announce that they can get the commodities they produce for cheap. "Something something uplifted from poverty" is much shorter, quippier and cleaner.
- simianwords 7mo ago
  This paints an us vs them narrative which is frankly overdone and just appeals to emotions
  - filleduchaos 7mo ago
    If you think that paints an "us vs them" narrative as opposed to asking you not to cut off your introspection where it's convenient for you, then that's on you.