5 ms·

HN users should be wary of cheap clothing the same way they are of free online services. They cut those costs somewhere.

by kmfrk 13y ago

terhechte 13y ago
I always find it amusing if people claim (just an example) "I would never buy Apple/Nike/++, they employ child workers, it is awful" and then they go to the supermarket, buy the cheapest meat/vodka/sugar/coffee they can find, or they buy a cheap $99 tablet/smartphone/TV from india/china/malaysia, or they buy $3.99 t-shirts/pants/shoes from throwaway stores. As if somehow these products can be produced at such low prices without affecting quality and wages of the workers behind it.
- iaskwhy 13y ago
  One thing to remember is that you must start somewhere. Overall, it's way better than not doing anything.
  - kmfrk 13y ago
    Indeed. You can't send a message to noname brands in the same way. I think companies like Abercrombie & Fitch are feeling the hurt as a result of this. I'm sure there are ways of making a point to companies on both the long and short tail of fashion/clothing, though.
  - rebel 13y ago
    I don't see how. Whether you buy it from Nike or (insert lesser known shoe company with same policy), there's really no difference.
    - iaskwhy 13y ago
      Can't say I have an example but let's hope there's at least one company who cares about that. Some industries actually changed to accomodate for those that care. A good example: food companies. At least in Europe it's quite easy to buy from companies that care about the environment, animals, lack of chemicals, etc. Eventually this kind of thinking will expand to other industries. Update: I tried to search for a couple of minutes for more responsible brands, apparently New Balance makes some of their shoes in the US: http://www.zappos.com/search/made+in+usa/filter/productTypeFacet/%22Shoes%22/orig/made+in+usa?zfcTest=sis%3A0#!/made-in-usa-men-sneakers-athletic-shoes/CK_XARC81wHAAQLiAgMBGAI.zso?t=made+in+usa http://www.zappos.com/search/made+in+usa/filter/productTypeF...
      - marquis 13y ago
        American Apparel is a famous example. Though their marketing may be subject to discussion, their production practices are admirable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Production
- amirmc 13y ago
  There are ways for those companies to reduce costs (and pass on savings) which still support low prices. Primark [1] is a case where they have no advertising spend and rely on low prices and word of mouth. Makes me wonder about the marketing budgets of other retailers. [1] http://www.primark-ethicaltrading.co.uk/newsfaq/faqs http://www.primark-ethicaltrading.co.uk/newsfaq/faqs
- scotty79 13y ago
  It's better to buy $4 t-shirts than $14 t-shirts. Workers get pretty much the same in both cases but their exploiters get rewarded whole $10 less. This might put some of them out of business which is a good thing.
McGuffin 13y ago
There is nothing that says the same isn't true of expensive clothing (and for that matter, online services). They may still cut the costs in the most unethical manner possible. They'll just have a higher profit margin at the same time.
- route66 13y ago
  That is what this article claims: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323998604578567522527553976 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732399860... (2013)
- tinco 13y ago
  This is the most frustrating thing about society today. We seem to have absolutely no means to discern quality. If a no name brand starts to make quality t-shirts, no one will know about it, and no shops will stock it, because the margins will be too low and the marketing will have too little budget. If it takes $1 to make a shitty $15 shirt, and $15 to make a proper shirt, what will you charge for the proper quality shirt? How will you market it? The end result is that they're marketed as super high quality only available for the sort of person that can afford to spend $100 on a basic shirt, just to compensate for the decreased margin and decreased demand. The solution would have to be that these kinds of brands need to be ran by charities, with such low margins that no one gets rich of it. You need someone to splurge a couple million to buy a factory in India, and then increase wages and conditions until you make 0 profit. Is it true that the only way to run capitalism humanely, is to have capitalists surrender their money?
  - tinco 13y ago
    At least.. on an international scale? I mean, the reason we don't run those factories in the Netherlands, is because in The Netherlands things like minimum wage and working conditions are enforced more consistently, making it too expensive. If we would force India to also enforce those conditions, all we would do is make their factories unattractive, and business would move to another country. Solving that, would perhaps require legislation to ban clothing (et al.) companies from using offshore factories that are not under close scrutiny of our own government. But perhaps that will just make our brands like H&M unattractive to more liberal countries like the U.S.
kaivi 13y ago
I wouldn't want to buy goods made by children, primarily because children lack an eye for quality. But I also imagine that refusing to buy such goods would do no good to said children.
- camus2 13y ago
  > primarily because children lack an eye for quality Dont worry,it's likely they get beaten if they dont "deliver" > But I also imagine that refusing to buy such goods would do no good to said children. You are assuming children are getting paid. they are not most of the time.
  - kaivi 13y ago
    Sure I assume that they get paid. If not in currency, perhaps in food or the stuff they manufacture? I remember taking a train through Russia in the early 90s: almost on every stop, there were people selling stuffed toys or lead glass tableware – that's what they've manufactured, and it was their payment. When I can either work or starve to death, I would definitely prefer the former under any conditions. Exploitation of child labor is a consequence of poorly functioning government, not an isolated issue by itself. So if we want to do something with it, we should deal with the source of these problems. Hans Rosling did some great talks on related issues here: http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html
Brakenshire 13y ago
I highly doubt the cost of clothing makes much difference, because labour is such a small percentage of the total price. For instance this report - http://www.ecouterre.com/infographic-how-much-does-that-14-t-shirt-really-cost/ http://www.ecouterre.com/infographic-how-much-does-that-14-t... - says that labour makes up 12c out of a $14 t-shirt, only 1% of the total. You could double wages, and only add 12c onto the final price. The difference between cheap and expensive clothes is branding, profit margin, and sometimes quality, it's not clear at all that there's any difference in labour practices.
swombat 13y ago
Reducing costs is not necessarily linked to reducing quality of life for workers. In the early 20th century, Taylor deliberately attempted to increase both pay/quality of life and productivity, by encouraging systems where workers and managers worked together to make work more efficient, which was supposed to result in increased wages for workers as well. Of course, it was twisted out of recognition by endless consultants over the following decades. That said, the work culture that we have now in modern, enlightened companies, is a descendant of this movement - a movement that started in just as bad a place as the factory described in the article. The fault lies not in reducing costs per se. Rather, it lies in reducing costs in an inhuman, inhumane, stupid and mean fashion: by abusing weaker people rather than by creating smarter solutions. In the long term, the latter will win. However, that does not help those poor souls caught in the former trap. Lower costs are a noble objective. Lower costs through any means, however, are an abomination.
- skylan_q 13y ago
  Lower costs are a noble objective. Lower costs through any means, however, are an abomination. Agreed. People have the causation backwards. Lower prices stem from lower costs which come from use of less resources (natural or productive) which means that there is more produced stuff out there. Increasing costs is the best way to increase prices and induce smaller supplies of produced goods.

HN users should be wary of cheap clothing the same way they are of free online services. They cut those costs somewhere.

by kmfrk 13y ago

HN users should be wary of cheap clothing the same way they are of free online services. They cut those costs somewhere.

terhechte 13y ago

I always find it amusing if people claim (just an example) "I would never buy Apple/Nike/++, they employ child workers, it is awful" and then they go to the supermarket, buy the cheapest meat/vodka/sugar/coffee they can find, or they buy a cheap $99 tablet/smartphone/TV from india/china/malaysia, or they buy $3.99 t-shirts/pants/shoes from throwaway stores. As if somehow these products can be produced at such low prices without affecting quality and wages of the workers behind it.

iaskwhy 13y ago
One thing to remember is that you must start somewhere. Overall, it's way better than not doing anything.
- kmfrk 13y ago
  Indeed. You can't send a message to noname brands in the same way. I think companies like Abercrombie & Fitch are feeling the hurt as a result of this. I'm sure there are ways of making a point to companies on both the long and short tail of fashion/clothing, though.
- rebel 13y ago
  I don't see how. Whether you buy it from Nike or (insert lesser known shoe company with same policy), there's really no difference.
  - iaskwhy 13y ago
    Can't say I have an example but let's hope there's at least one company who cares about that. Some industries actually changed to accomodate for those that care. A good example: food companies. At least in Europe it's quite easy to buy from companies that care about the environment, animals, lack of chemicals, etc. Eventually this kind of thinking will expand to other industries. Update: I tried to search for a couple of minutes for more responsible brands, apparently New Balance makes some of their shoes in the US: http://www.zappos.com/search/made+in+usa/filter/productTypeFacet/%22Shoes%22/orig/made+in+usa?zfcTest=sis%3A0#!/made-in-usa-men-sneakers-athletic-shoes/CK_XARC81wHAAQLiAgMBGAI.zso?t=made+in+usa http://www.zappos.com/search/made+in+usa/filter/productTypeF...
    - marquis 13y ago
      American Apparel is a famous example. Though their marketing may be subject to discussion, their production practices are admirable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Production
amirmc 13y ago
There are ways for those companies to reduce costs (and pass on savings) which still support low prices. Primark [1] is a case where they have no advertising spend and rely on low prices and word of mouth. Makes me wonder about the marketing budgets of other retailers. [1] http://www.primark-ethicaltrading.co.uk/newsfaq/faqs http://www.primark-ethicaltrading.co.uk/newsfaq/faqs
scotty79 13y ago
It's better to buy $4 t-shirts than $14 t-shirts. Workers get pretty much the same in both cases but their exploiters get rewarded whole $10 less. This might put some of them out of business which is a good thing.

McGuffin 13y ago

There is nothing that says the same isn't true of expensive clothing (and for that matter, online services). They may still cut the costs in the most unethical manner possible. They'll just have a higher profit margin at the same time.

route66 13y ago
That is what this article claims: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323998604578567522527553976 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142412788732399860... (2013)
tinco 13y ago
This is the most frustrating thing about society today. We seem to have absolutely no means to discern quality. If a no name brand starts to make quality t-shirts, no one will know about it, and no shops will stock it, because the margins will be too low and the marketing will have too little budget. If it takes $1 to make a shitty $15 shirt, and $15 to make a proper shirt, what will you charge for the proper quality shirt? How will you market it? The end result is that they're marketed as super high quality only available for the sort of person that can afford to spend $100 on a basic shirt, just to compensate for the decreased margin and decreased demand. The solution would have to be that these kinds of brands need to be ran by charities, with such low margins that no one gets rich of it. You need someone to splurge a couple million to buy a factory in India, and then increase wages and conditions until you make 0 profit. Is it true that the only way to run capitalism humanely, is to have capitalists surrender their money?
- tinco 13y ago
  At least.. on an international scale? I mean, the reason we don't run those factories in the Netherlands, is because in The Netherlands things like minimum wage and working conditions are enforced more consistently, making it too expensive. If we would force India to also enforce those conditions, all we would do is make their factories unattractive, and business would move to another country. Solving that, would perhaps require legislation to ban clothing (et al.) companies from using offshore factories that are not under close scrutiny of our own government. But perhaps that will just make our brands like H&M unattractive to more liberal countries like the U.S.

kaivi 13y ago

I wouldn't want to buy goods made by children, primarily because children lack an eye for quality. But I also imagine that refusing to buy such goods would do no good to said children.

camus2 13y ago
> primarily because children lack an eye for quality Dont worry,it's likely they get beaten if they dont "deliver" > But I also imagine that refusing to buy such goods would do no good to said children. You are assuming children are getting paid. they are not most of the time.
- kaivi 13y ago
  Sure I assume that they get paid. If not in currency, perhaps in food or the stuff they manufacture? I remember taking a train through Russia in the early 90s: almost on every stop, there were people selling stuffed toys or lead glass tableware – that's what they've manufactured, and it was their payment. When I can either work or starve to death, I would definitely prefer the former under any conditions. Exploitation of child labor is a consequence of poorly functioning government, not an isolated issue by itself. So if we want to do something with it, we should deal with the source of these problems. Hans Rosling did some great talks on related issues here: http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html

Brakenshire 13y ago

I highly doubt the cost of clothing makes much difference, because labour is such a small percentage of the total price. For instance this report - http://www.ecouterre.com/infographic-how-much-does-that-14-t-shirt-really-cost/ http://www.ecouterre.com/infographic-how-much-does-that-14-t... - says that labour makes up 12c out of a $14 t-shirt, only 1% of the total. You could double wages, and only add 12c onto the final price. The difference between cheap and expensive clothes is branding, profit margin, and sometimes quality, it's not clear at all that there's any difference in labour practices.

swombat 13y ago

Reducing costs is not necessarily linked to reducing quality of life for workers. In the early 20th century, Taylor deliberately attempted to increase both pay/quality of life and productivity, by encouraging systems where workers and managers worked together to make work more efficient, which was supposed to result in increased wages for workers as well. Of course, it was twisted out of recognition by endless consultants over the following decades. That said, the work culture that we have now in modern, enlightened companies, is a descendant of this movement - a movement that started in just as bad a place as the factory described in the article. The fault lies not in reducing costs per se. Rather, it lies in reducing costs in an inhuman, inhumane, stupid and mean fashion: by abusing weaker people rather than by creating smarter solutions. In the long term, the latter will win. However, that does not help those poor souls caught in the former trap. Lower costs are a noble objective. Lower costs through any means, however, are an abomination.

skylan_q 13y ago
Lower costs are a noble objective. Lower costs through any means, however, are an abomination. Agreed. People have the causation backwards. Lower prices stem from lower costs which come from use of less resources (natural or productive) which means that there is more produced stuff out there. Increasing costs is the best way to increase prices and induce smaller supplies of produced goods.