I just walked by this place the other day. Haven't had a chance to look into how they're doing what they do, but it sounds like they could be what you're looking for:
http://beawear.eu/
No, they're just choosing where they decide sustainable such that it doesn't strictly require every body in the supply chain earning at least (ppp adjusted) poverty wages.
I don't mean this as like a nihilistic "buy anything because it's all awful" sort of thing it's just that we live in an inescapably mutual world so there is basically no direct line or direct chain from the base inputs to the consumer outputs and somewhere in that tree is a leaf that is terrible. We can choose the best that we can but there is no perfect and its a stretch to even claim there's a good.
this is the how capitalism kills us all. we cannot be ethical and so every day we betray our ethics until we begin to betray them as a matter of course instead of a matter of necessity.
You can buy your jeans from quality selvedge shops. There are many denim manufacturers to choose from that grow sustainable, organic cotton and weave/sew them in first-world countries that pay their workers livable wages. Obviously you'll pay more for these kinds of jeans – think in the range of $150 at the low end up to well past $500 for high end.
If you're into techier outerwear, you can look into the very popular Outlier (www.outlier.nyc) – again, you pay a premium but the textiles and sewing are made in socially responsible ways in socially responsible areas (I think).
I don't have a super comprehensive knowledge of fashion in this space though.
In the UK there's a startup called Birdsong [1] that's providing local, ethically sourced clothing.
They're still fairly small, but growing, and recently completed a successful crowdfunding campaign. They came through the same accelerator [2] as we did with Overleaf (then known as WriteLaTeX) back in 2013.
They were one of the first major brands to popularize the environmental impact of their clothing, especially cotton. They made a major push 25 years ago to educate consumers on the impacts of cotton, and switched to entirely organic cotton to help reduce those impacts.
They also helped create 1% For The Planet, were an early adopter of Bluesign, early adopters of recycled polyester for their clothing, and most recently have been promoting reselling and repairing used clothing.
I don't think its hyperbole to say that Patagonia was one of the very first companies that started the line of thinking you see in this QZ article.
On a personal note, most of my Patagonia clothing has been very durable. I have Patagonia stuff that is 20+ years old that I still use every year.
Patagonia is also known for its use of recycled bottles to make its polyester fleece jackets, which has expanded to many of its products.
Their warranty and repair program is fantastic as well. I brought in a shirt that I had worn the elbow out of and they first offered a replacement from one in the store. They didn't have the same pattern (the shirt is probably 5 or 6 years old), so they sent it in for repair for free.
A couple of years ago they sent out a repair-mobile. They not only repaired Patagonia gear, they repaired items regardless of brand. Pretty damn cool.
Patagonia is the same cheap polyester crap made in Vietnam you get from Wal-Mart, with slightly tougher welds and reinforced seams. It's the bougie male equivalent of Lululemon. Carhartt is where it's at for quality durable outdoor clothing made in the US.
The Patagonia / Carhartt divide in the U.S. is essentially cultural. But when it comes to the environmental impact of their clothing, Patagonia objectively puts in more effort than Carhartt. It's one of the reasons (but not the only one) that Patagonia is more expensive than Carhartt.
Isn't that inflation adjusted pretty much a normal price for a down jacket 30 years ago? Something that you'd buy once every 3-4 years or so? At least that's how I'm still treating this. Also, I'm Swiss, so my sense of pricing may be off here. But winter shoes and winter jackets for us is something expensive that one doesn't buy often.
300$ USD is ~25% of a entry level workers monthly pay (net) in the US. Housing frequently hits between 50-30%, transportation another ~20%. Which means buy a 300$ anything means not eating that month for a large % of the US. Obviously Patagonia is still running which means there are enough people who can spare that but it's not universal (see the Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Inequality).
ETA: 300$ = 25% => 1200 a month net => 1500 gross (if no state taxes) => 9.38 an hour IF we assume the completely unrealistic 40/week
Absolutely, but my point is that the cost is reasonable, the wages are not, and that implies a fix. Moreover, the fix doesn’t lie with Patagonia. Even more, if the true cost of things like clothing weren’t extermslized brutally, Americans would be far more aware of the pressing need for said fix.
I certainly agree that 300$ USD should be completely reasonable for something that lasts half a decade, I'm just not sure how to get from here to there realistically (well in the 5-10 year short term).
Exactly. Again, I will use Switzerland as an example and give a few typical salaries:
Banker in Zurich with 10y experience: 12k USD/M
Engineer in Zurich with 0y experience: 8k USD/M
so far it probably sounds pretty normal for people used to SF / NY levels right?
Here's the difference:
Mc Donald's cashier in Zurich: ~3500 USD/M
Median Salary in Zurich: ~6000 USD/M
Median Salary across Switzerland: ~5600 USD/M
These give you the low and mid points of the salary spectrum. It's just much more compressed than in the US - this Patagonia jacket should be <10% of anyone's monthly salary, probably affordable for >90% of population. If it isn't, then it would be if you take social services into account that are designed to correct for such market mistakes that leave people behind in poverty.
And this is Switzerland, mind you, probably the most US-like libertarian and decentrally governed place in Europe. All of this would be affordable to Americans if your government wouldn't just pander to the big corporations and throw out money by the boatloads for insanely overpriced defence contracts.
Switzerland is a small country benefitting from being the hub of a disproportional amount of global banking and commodity trading. I think that props up the minimum wage at McDonalds. That being said, the pride that the Swiss - from a McDonald’s worker to bus driver - show in their jobs is noticeable to this American.
Banking revenue is 7-9% of Swiss GDP, on par with many industrial nations. Commoditie Trades are disproportionate to Switzerland’s size for sure, but I fail to see how that translates to salaries in McDonalds - their main target market is hardly bankers and commodity traders. I think it has much more to do with the social safety net which imposes an implicit minimal wage (companies have to offer something significantly above what one can get from the government).
Assuming someone's income is that low, they can't just spend multiple months saving up for each and every article of clothing. That also means forgoing saving for anything else. What good is just a warm jacket when it is below 10F outside? Or when my car breaks down and I need to choose between that single jacket and a new alternator?
There is no long term if I can't survive the short term to get there. So in this situation, you buy the cheapest you can to ensure that you can at least make it to tomorrow.
How much have wages increased since then? I can imagine on average, people's purchasing power has decreased a lot since then. Mind you this is also due to rising fixed expenses - didn't have cable, internet, phone subscriptions back then either. And work was often closer to home, so less travel expenses.
But if they sold in larger volumes would the price go down with economies of scale? Maybe not as far as the cheapest stuff on the market but it could become attainable. or maybe parts of their approach could be used to build a cheaper line of clothing that is still environmentally responsible.
Yes and no. The costs of manufacturing may go down but it doesn't mean that it will be passed down to the consumers.
Generally speaking, selling cheaper is a bad business decision. It will increase costs and decrease earnings, you don't want to do that as a business. Prices should go up, not down.
In this specific case, we're talking about a niche brand appealing to an affluent audience. They milk their customers to give them good conscience. The price can't go down, that's against the business model.
5 years of consistent use, let's say that goes to ~180 days per year (no idea what your climate is) -> 900 days of wear. A $300 jacket would cost you 30 cents per day of usage then. Are you sure you do not spend a higher fraction of your money on ephemeral luxury like beverages or entertainment?
Beware - some people think 'buying American' is a proxy for 'buying ethically', but that is not necessarily the case. Some brands are 'made in America' - but are made on nominally American territories in the Western pacific, where the workers are working in essentially sweatshop conditions. This article[1] is old but this charade is still going on last I checked.
I had just heard about these guys too, and actually have been looking for stores like this. I'd like to switch out all my clothes that wear out fast with responsibly sourced, quality clothing. Hopefully this one will deliver.
There's also a looming huge problem right now with recycling. Traditionally old, worn-out clothes could have their fibres reused. But the cost of new textiles has been pushed so low that it is destroying the market for recycled textiles. And so we're producing ever-the-more of this stuff and recycling ever-the-less of it. An environmental catastrophe in the making.
The baseline / timeline you're suggesting doesn't really fit the discussion.
Looking at a Bloomberg article from this past January, the period in question is "at least two decades", which would put us back to the mid-1990s, but not five decades-plus into the 1960s:
Between 2000 and 2015, global clothing production doubled, while the average number of times that a garment was worn before disposal declined by 36 percent. In China, it declined by 70 percent.
The article is also dated in 2018, seven years after the most recent date your Wikipedia article cites.
It's entirely possible that 1) total garment fraction recycling grew from 1960 - 1998, 2) has fallen since 2011, and 3) the total quantity of garment and textiles production has climbed since 1960.
Fair question, and one that might require some digging to get to.
If you're interested in this, the US BLS household expenditure survey data, or some metric of industrial activity data, might be useful. The HHES would provide a baseline on spending by category and should include clothing. The industrial data might provide metrics on quantities of textiles produced, possibly measured by either fabric area (e.g., yards) or mass (e.g., tons).
Total purchases of clothing as measured in garments or outfits have probably risen over this time, though I'm saying that without a strong basis in data. Much of this has to do with the introduction of more synthetic fabrics -- clothing is such a strong indicator of time period in large part because of the number of synthetic textiles (and garments utilising them) that became available over the 20th century, from early viscose rayon, to nylon, polyester, and other materials. This resulted in a shift of fabrics from cottons (mostly working-class) and wool (professional), with some leather and fur (high-ticket items) to a wide range of single- or blended-fibre fabrics, as well as various dyes and other treatments.
(I'm not an expert on the field, by any stretch, though I've been becoming increasingly aware of these developments, underlying technology, and numerous implications.)
I've not found any readily-available long-term historical data based on a quick search, though I'm sure it's available if you know where to dig (or dig long enough to find out).
I don't know how it works on your side of the pond (whichever side you're on), but over here in NL, clothes are generally not thrown in the trash unless they're really worn out (like, unusable); otherwise they're collected by e.g. the salvation army and either resold in their own stores, or sold to a recycler or reseller by the kilo.
Then there's the neighbour lady (and my mum) who collect old woolen sweaters, pull them apart and reuse the threads to make hats and scarves and such to be sent to a local charity, which packs collected and made clothes into a truck a few times a year and ships it off to Albania.
Tried starting a company to connect big brands with manufacturers. It was not a pretty picture. The brands made it almost impossible for the factories to make a decent profit without cutting corners.
From my understanding (mainly from reading this article[0]), it's almost impossible to find all of the original producers of most clothes. The manufacturers usually have subcontractors, who themselves have subcontractors, etc. and it will often go as far down as just being made by some woman in her home while she is minding her children.
Thank you for this! They give a surprising information about companies and their practices. This will definitely help with purchasing ethical and quality clothes.
But what would you do if you wanted to be fast fashionable? Presumably you either don't care about fashion, or only wear 'timeless' pieces, which while they don't go out of style, don't set you apart with your fashion choices.
Having worked in the supply chain for companies producing fashion clothing for popular western brands, it is eye opening and terriying the amount of work/energy/inputs which goes into making clothes.
To give a denim example:
Cotton growing wrecks the land, farmers gets peanuts.
I'll give a pass on the actual fabric making and sewing process, but what really got me was the amount of energy and robots used to destroy denim to make "distressed" jeans.
In some processes you have many hours of fabric being distressed, in wheels, in drums filled with different types of pebbles, giant presses, even lasers to slice them up... the jeans spent more energy and way more time getting ready for fashion then they did getting produced. (not considering cotton growing time).
All this work to produce something which lasts a lot less then it could, and probably will get thrown away soon. Clothes need an environmental impact label.
I have a new found respect for man-made fibres like polyester, polypropylene etc as producing those fibres is so much cleaner than natural goods, and instead of having to spend a lot of energy getting the fabric to "feel" right, you just modify the properties of the fibre by changing how its produced.
Edit: Fashion is one of the few remaining industries where obsolutely zero consideration is given to environmental impact when designing and producing clothes. This isn't just a poor country thing where they make clothes in a enviornmentally destructive way, the design of the clothes involves IMHO a lot of un-necessary production steps for an extra minuscle percentage of improvements.
Other industries, like say car parts, think about things like the energy inputs to their production process from the design state onwards, fashion doesn't. Even in sevice industries like making web apps, people think about inputs, and design to use as few of them as possible.
Fashion is one of the few remaining industries where obsolutely zero consideration is given to environmental impact when designing and producing clothes. This isn't just a poor country thing where they make clothes in a enviornmentally destructive way, the design of the clothes involves IMHO a lot of un-necessary production steps for an extra minuscle percentage of improvements.
It's interesting that you highlight this, as fashion is one industry that springs to mind where the costs of production and the costs of sale do not correlate nearly as closely as with other industries.
In your car part example, the cost of production viz. energy inputs is priced into the end product, so that there's a direct financial incentive to drive down that production cost. In contrast, fashion has 'premium product' overheads which in many cases dwarf the possible efficiencies derived from production, disincentivising their realisation. Indeed, in some cases less efficient production is more desirable, for example with handmade and bespoke items rather than efficiently mass-producted items.
"I have a new found respect for man-made fibres like polyester, polypropylene etc as producing those fibres is so much cleaner than natural goods, and instead of having to spend a lot of energy getting the fabric to "feel" right, you just modify the properties of the fibre by changing how its produced."
One of the bigger problems with many such fabrics is they don't breathe. This can be a really big problem for women, who can get vaginal yeast infections from non-cotton underwear and/or tight pants, often made with a nice stretchy material with plenty of man-made fibers woven into the cotton. It can also be an issue with socks. I personally have to wear breathable socks and shoes (usually cotton or wool socks and leather or fabric shoes) to keep from having athletes foot quite often.
Once the man-made fabrics can actually compete with these sorts of things found with natural fabrics and have an affordable price point - it seems more feasible to wear such garments most of the time.
Polyester has it's own problems. As you wash polyester clothing, very tiny pieces of the polyester break off and get washed down the drain and into the ocean. It's contributing to plastic pollution.
Cotton is nice because at least it degrades naturally. We can regulate fashion to remove the most environmentally damaging parts. If distressed jeans are the most egregious offenders, then just ban them. (And for what it's worth, cheaper clothing brands do have noticeably less distress marks on clothing than expensive ones - it's clear they recognise it's a huge expense and have optimised it)
Also, the fashion industry is fully funded by what mobile devs would call "whales"; a small group of people who do most of the purchasing. I haven't bought many clothes in the last 10 years, an item here and there. But there are others who buy new stuff every week and then stuff it away in closets. Perhaps we need to have more awareness around wasteful shopping?
> Also, the fashion industry is fully funded by what mobile devs would call "whales"; a small group of people who do most of the purchasing. I haven't bought many clothes in the last 10 years, an item here and there. But there are others who buy new stuff every week and then stuff it away in closets. Perhaps we need to have more awareness around wasteful shopping?
Do you have a source for that? It's a compelling hypothesis but I'd like to see some data.
"I have a new found respect for man-made fibres like polyester, polypropylene etc as producing those fibres is so much cleaner than natural goods, and instead of having to spend a lot of energy getting the fabric to "feel" right, you just modify the properties of the fibre by changing how its produced."
Linen and hemp are also good natural fabrics. They require less water than cotton and are quite comfortable.
Their main problem is the price as they are less mass produced than cotton.
Hemp is a good alternative to cotton that has similar advantages - biodegradable, non-toxic, allows skin to breathe, but does not require input of toxic chemicals to produce.
One major drawback of synthetic fabrics that is recently coming to light is the tiny particles they constantly shed, which are too small to be filtered by most municipal water systems and are now found all over in lakes and rivers: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfib...
Hemp-lime aggregate is good insulation, but cement-fiber aggregates do not have the characteristic properties of more famous composite materials. Additionally, Portland cement is highly basic and tends to weaken wood, so the hemp is not really acting as a reinforcement in this case, but a filler which reduces density. Hempseed shells (the indigestible portion of hempseed) are often preferred here. See:
The Patagonia website used to have a really goo presentation about the pollution caused by washing synthetic clothing but they seem to have redesigned their website very recently and it's not easy to get around.
Another major source of ocean plastic pollution is from car tyres. That 6mm of tread which disappears from your tyres is generally washed off the roads, through the drains and into the ocean.
> The report found between 15% and 31% of plastic pollution came from primary microplastics, of which the biggest contributors (almost two-thirds) were abrasion of synthetic textiles, while washing, and abrasion of tyres, while driving.
You'd think most countries would have good drainage by now, which includes filtering and reusing as much rain water as possible before dumping it back into the rivers / oceans / etc. I know in most towns over here, rain water goes through a different sewage system than sewage and isn't just discarded in the nearest river.
It's to do with how fine these plastic particles are and the sheer volumes of waste which need filtering. They do remove a fair percentage but not all. [1]
Even in regular drains there will be a significant amount of contamination which would prevent the water from being used as-is; if you have a specific rainwater collection system that would work but is basically what our reservoirs are now.
Much infrastructure in the US is old and critically underfunded for maintenance, much less improvements, even when inadequate. Witness the drama over the collapsing Oroville dam in California, the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis, or more specifically, sewage overflows in Great Lake states.
I lived in Duluth, MN, and anytime there was significant rainfall, the sanitary sewer system would be overflowed by storm water, and dump thousands of gallons of untreated sewage directly into Lake Superior. http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/3772570-court-order-du...
I agree with a lot of your sentiments. I’ve similarly worked in a clothing supply chain environment and found it, well, gross. But your opinion on synthetics is totally divorced from the products actual lifecycle.
Polyesters dethread quickly and the fibers rub constantly. A polyester winter jacket will start pilling within 2-4 months of daily use. The wool version can last a decade plus. A synthetic version’s fabric will start balling up in weeks.
Second, polyesters don’t breath and sweat leads to accelerated breakdown and abrasion in the fibers.
WRT your edit: there’s a production difference between high-volume garments and short-run high fashion.
Neither should be immune from such ratings, but I think these manufacturing techniques will end up being the polar ends that template the future of clothing production.
I wouldn't give a pass to the sewing either. There's been more than enough investigations into the conditions of those sewing garments overseas to make me distinctly uncomfortable about it.
Then there's the garments that are a hot-spot for child labour as they use items that need hand sewing - beads for example.
Buy locally made? Well I used to, and still do if it's feasible, but it's become such that all the brands are made in the same places. Funny that I noticed no savings at all for the consumer when Levis or whoever switched production to Vietnam etc.
> I have a new found respect for man-made fibres like polyester, polypropylene etc as producing those fibres is so much cleaner than natural goods, and instead of having to spend a lot of energy getting the fabric to "feel" right, you just modify the properties of the fibre by changing how its produced.
I wonder how rayon fits in this picture. It's a semi-synthetic, made from natural cellulose. In terms of comfort, it is probably my favourite synthetic fibre, but the manufacturing process is still pretty nasty.
I think the real trouble with rayon, at least in my experience with it, is that it seems to be slightly less durable than chewing gum, so you have to replace the garments more often.
Textiles is a funny one, it makes for a great (extreme) example for looking at current and past economic system debates. Free market emergence vs centralized design. Consumerism vs.. whatever the alternative is.
For a central planner in 2018 (if planned economies were still a thing), clothes would be an easy one. It's easy & cheap to make enough clothes for everyone to wear, in above-median economies. You might face inefficiencies. but, there is little chance of failure like the eastern block's automative industry failures in the 70s.
Free markets see efficiency differently, but from a planning perspective, the free market for textiles seems pretty inefficient. The hard inputs are cheap. The biggest "value adds" are not strictly necessary: fashion-design, wholesale, retail and marketing.
I realize this is a cheat, but imagine a small, leninist country popped into existence today. The central planning comittee could go to a global clothing manufacturer and order 1 million winter jumpers. They would buy them at a small fraction of retail prices. Jumper problem solved. You can deal with a lot of inefficiency before the cost of a jumper approaches the average retail cost of free market jumpers.
The variety, choice and such will be gone, but it's unlikely there will be a shortage of jumpers.
I've framed this in a potentially argumentative way, but if we look past the ideological aspects, the fashion industry has a lot more of "avoidable" costs, from a purely utilitarian perspective.
Thinking back, It's interesting to recall the last days of planned economies in eastern europe. There were all sorts of shortages. Most iconic was cars. Most ridiculous was consumables like toilet paper or tires.
With clothes.. One recurring story from eastern european travelers in the late 70s and early 80s was jeans. Jeans represented western youth culture, rock and roll, liberalism.. People wanted them, really wanted them. I've heard several people (famous people and people I know) talk about exchanging pants with someone (presumably someone they like) in the street, and making their day.
I don't think they had pants shortages though. People had pants, they just didn't have cool pants.
Curious.
The practical, measurable, rationally justifiable needs this industry serves represents a tiny fraction of its economic output. Mostly, it's about decoration.
Possibly not, but that isn't the average price of a jumper. It's the lowest price.
What I mean is this. A soviet-like economy might be able to produce enough jumpers for everyone, at a lower average price than a modern one. There won't be the choice or fashion and consumers may not like them as much, but they will be perfectly functional jumpers.
>Possibly not, but that isn't the average price of a jumper. It's the lowest price.
As one who lived in an eastern Europe stalinist country, I assure you that the mass produced, single version of jumper provided by the state will be typically of an inferior quality that even the lowest priced free market version.
I vividly remember the way common western goods seemed almost magical before and shortly after the fall of communism. They were slick, finished and of an exceptional quality, the Pepsi Cola bottle seemed to me almost an abstract work of art.
The free market incentives affect production and design to such a degree that it's often impossible for a centrally planned economy to reproduce: the most inferior capitalist good is still the result of a selection process that induces large survivor bias, so even if the central planners are just as competent and motivated, you would still usually end up with an inferior product due to sheer luck. And once production is in motion, small inadequacies pile up without a strong and conscious efort to improve the product, to the point where people in my country were buying in 1989 a car that was in every way inferior to the same car built by the same factory in 1970, itself a replica of a 60s western car.
There are exceptions to this, particularly with fungible agricultural goods: when things like butter or cheese were available, they were of very high quality and made to traditional recipes compared to the more "efficient" free market versions that have copious amounts of fillers, adulterants and preservatives.
Sure, I'm absolutely not argueing for Stalinism, just using it as a mental prop to think about textiles. In any case, clothes would not be a reason for Stalinism even if they were great.
The point that I was trying to get at is that it is fairly easy to make/get clothes. Most of the retail price, and most of the competitive dynamics between operators are related to things outside the basics: materials, manufacturing and logistics. These are shockingly cheap in 2018.
You're point on food quality is interesting, an example where open markets have produced excellent volume and variety, but often poor quality, especially in the previous generation.
I want to argue with you, but I have problem understanding where you're making a factual observation and where you're making a value judgement.
You're using words "utilitarian perspective", "rationally justifiable", "decoration". I hope you don't want the whole society to be based on such values, do you?
Utilitarian = gets the job done. In this case, producing clothes.
Rationally Justifiable = justifiable in non-subjective ways: warmth, durability...the kind of argument you could make to a central planner.
Decoration = Not Rationally Justifiable
BTW... central planning is not a rare thing. Tesla is centrally planned, so is Shell. If you want to argue for private offices or gym memberships in a company, you'll generally be limited to "rationally justifiable" (to stick to this choice of words) reasons. People will get more done, employee churn will be lower..
What do you think about organic clothing? When it comes to regular clothing, it's become relatively easy to buy organic clothing at least where I live, primarily due to relatively big-name clothing store C&A having a pretty wide selection of organic clothing. However, since they cost just as little as other clothing, I'm wondering whether it really is that much better.
Then again, I guess production costs are hardly factored into final pricing anyway.
That price label may not fully represent the actual economic cost of the good (if the environmental impact externalities are not factored in). Factories could pay market price for all materials and labor, but cheap out on waste disposal. If that waste flows downstream and causes adverse health effects, the cost to that economy is not reflected in the clothing production. Market price for cotton could be the farmers who over farm their land. This price would not include the damage done and impact it might have on farming food years later.
You're right that we need to be fixing the issues at the level they appear, but every level is being squeezed for the best cost. It's up to the retailers, consumers, and fashion companies to place a larger value on environmental impact and pay the proper price.
golergka’s point is that if there are environmental problems in the production of clothes they should be fixed as part of the problem of side effects of production rather than specifically as production of clothes.
If there are negative externalities of production those externalities should be taxed, whether in the production of books, clothes or automobiles.
The labeling of environmental impact for clothes is an exceptional idea.
We do it for durable goods like a refrigerator or car, yet the clothes you use during the same period could have an impact that is orders of magnitude higher than, say the extra fuel impact of a certain car.
The documentary The True Cost https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaGp5_Sfbss covers many of the problems with fast fashion -- the pollution, exploitation, and more, but especially the pollution.
I stopped shopping those stores since watching it. I recommend it.
Fast fashion is when clothing companies quickly latch on to fashion trends and then manufacture quickly and often really cheaply clothing. H&M are famous for this, they are often out with the latest trends, selling super cheap and usually not of great quiality. And thus essentially making clothing disposable.
> The agency also estimates that one in six people worldwide works in a job related to fashion
And mostly the poor and uneducated.
Fast Fashion keeps people from dying.
It could be cleaned up environmentally but the fast bit has nothing to do with it.
All the fast bit has done is pulled more people out of poverty at a much greater rate and probably reduced environmental damage.
Garment factory workers don't slash and burn, their extended families don't die of malnutrition or polluted water, and afford electricity over burning wood, they get to move forward as a society and care above just living and care about environments.
Where does this rubbish come from, environmental “emergency” my ass.
So disgusting, selfish and narrow minded all to appear environmentally friendly.
Only after reading "Let my People go surfing" by Yvon Chouinard I realized the potential scale of this issue. I now think twice before buying clothes and I'm willing to pay extra for better quality that will last me longer.
Anyone has an idea what would happen to economy if we stopped buying things we don't need? Would we see a total market collapse?
109 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 99.6 ms ] threadMy girlfriend and I always try to buy resale if possible, but we still end up buying resale clothes which qualify as "fast fashion".
you can at best pick your threshold but it is almost guaranteed that somewhere in the supply chain is something awful.
I don't mean this as like a nihilistic "buy anything because it's all awful" sort of thing it's just that we live in an inescapably mutual world so there is basically no direct line or direct chain from the base inputs to the consumer outputs and somewhere in that tree is a leaf that is terrible. We can choose the best that we can but there is no perfect and its a stretch to even claim there's a good.
this is the how capitalism kills us all. we cannot be ethical and so every day we betray our ethics until we begin to betray them as a matter of course instead of a matter of necessity.
https://www.manomama.de
If you're into techier outerwear, you can look into the very popular Outlier (www.outlier.nyc) – again, you pay a premium but the textiles and sewing are made in socially responsible ways in socially responsible areas (I think).
I don't have a super comprehensive knowledge of fashion in this space though.
They're still fairly small, but growing, and recently completed a successful crowdfunding campaign. They came through the same accelerator [2] as we did with Overleaf (then known as WriteLaTeX) back in 2013.
[1] https://birdsong.london
[2] https://bethnalgreenventures.com
You might even enjoy it. I do.
Edit: noted your site but more resources welcome too
Edit2: was on mobile, didn't notice docs, good site
They were one of the first major brands to popularize the environmental impact of their clothing, especially cotton. They made a major push 25 years ago to educate consumers on the impacts of cotton, and switched to entirely organic cotton to help reduce those impacts.
They also helped create 1% For The Planet, were an early adopter of Bluesign, early adopters of recycled polyester for their clothing, and most recently have been promoting reselling and repairing used clothing.
I don't think its hyperbole to say that Patagonia was one of the very first companies that started the line of thinking you see in this QZ article.
On a personal note, most of my Patagonia clothing has been very durable. I have Patagonia stuff that is 20+ years old that I still use every year.
Their warranty and repair program is fantastic as well. I brought in a shirt that I had worn the elbow out of and they first offered a replacement from one in the store. They didn't have the same pattern (the shirt is probably 5 or 6 years old), so they sent it in for repair for free.
A couple of years ago they sent out a repair-mobile. They not only repaired Patagonia gear, they repaired items regardless of brand. Pretty damn cool.
http://www.latimes.com/fashion/alltherage/la-ar-patagonia-la...
$300 sweater jacket http://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-down-sweater-jacket/84...
ETA: 300$ = 25% => 1200 a month net => 1500 gross (if no state taxes) => 9.38 an hour IF we assume the completely unrealistic 40/week
Personally I made ~11000 USD last year: I consider $30 to be unaffordable, that's not the same as believing I should have to consider it unaffordable.
Well, not if you have a conscience about our ecosystem.
Banker in Zurich with 10y experience: 12k USD/M
Engineer in Zurich with 0y experience: 8k USD/M
so far it probably sounds pretty normal for people used to SF / NY levels right?
Here's the difference:
Mc Donald's cashier in Zurich: ~3500 USD/M
Median Salary in Zurich: ~6000 USD/M
Median Salary across Switzerland: ~5600 USD/M
These give you the low and mid points of the salary spectrum. It's just much more compressed than in the US - this Patagonia jacket should be <10% of anyone's monthly salary, probably affordable for >90% of population. If it isn't, then it would be if you take social services into account that are designed to correct for such market mistakes that leave people behind in poverty.
And this is Switzerland, mind you, probably the most US-like libertarian and decentrally governed place in Europe. All of this would be affordable to Americans if your government wouldn't just pander to the big corporations and throw out money by the boatloads for insanely overpriced defence contracts.
Ah that's your problem the US economic model is punitive, not libertarian.
Or, it means you have to save for more than a month to buy a jacket. Which, assuming it lasts a decent number of years, seems reasonable.
There is no long term if I can't survive the short term to get there. So in this situation, you buy the cheapest you can to ensure that you can at least make it to tomorrow.
Pretty sure this is the same jacket, in an old color:
http://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-down-sweater-jacket/84...
Generally speaking, selling cheaper is a bad business decision. It will increase costs and decrease earnings, you don't want to do that as a business. Prices should go up, not down.
In this specific case, we're talking about a niche brand appealing to an affluent audience. They milk their customers to give them good conscience. The price can't go down, that's against the business model.
(Nothing against that brand because I don't know it but it looks like one of those shitty instagram ad brands)
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/18/world/made-usa-hard-labor-...
I'm not an expert and haven't spend a lot of time researching them. Happy to hear more opinions/insights.
Also we recycle low-quality clothes as isolation for example.
2.8% of 10 tonnes of textile waste leaves 9.72 tonnes to landfill.
8% of 1000 tones of textile waste leaves 920 tonnes to landfill.
Herein lies the problem.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-15/no-one-wa...
Looking at a Bloomberg article from this past January, the period in question is "at least two decades", which would put us back to the mid-1990s, but not five decades-plus into the 1960s:
Between 2000 and 2015, global clothing production doubled, while the average number of times that a garment was worn before disposal declined by 36 percent. In China, it declined by 70 percent.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-15/no-one-wa...
The article is also dated in 2018, seven years after the most recent date your Wikipedia article cites.
It's entirely possible that 1) total garment fraction recycling grew from 1960 - 1998, 2) has fallen since 2011, and 3) the total quantity of garment and textiles production has climbed since 1960.
I'd put a fair sized wager on all three points.
Of which your example addresses precisely none.
So, I don't know if we recycle more or less today than in 1960.
[1]: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100GMT6.txt?ZyActionD=Z... (page 76)
If you're interested in this, the US BLS household expenditure survey data, or some metric of industrial activity data, might be useful. The HHES would provide a baseline on spending by category and should include clothing. The industrial data might provide metrics on quantities of textiles produced, possibly measured by either fabric area (e.g., yards) or mass (e.g., tons).
Total purchases of clothing as measured in garments or outfits have probably risen over this time, though I'm saying that without a strong basis in data. Much of this has to do with the introduction of more synthetic fabrics -- clothing is such a strong indicator of time period in large part because of the number of synthetic textiles (and garments utilising them) that became available over the 20th century, from early viscose rayon, to nylon, polyester, and other materials. This resulted in a shift of fabrics from cottons (mostly working-class) and wool (professional), with some leather and fur (high-ticket items) to a wide range of single- or blended-fibre fabrics, as well as various dyes and other treatments.
(I'm not an expert on the field, by any stretch, though I've been becoming increasingly aware of these developments, underlying technology, and numerous implications.)
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Expenditure_Survey
I've not found any readily-available long-term historical data based on a quick search, though I'm sure it's available if you know where to dig (or dig long enough to find out).
Then there's the neighbour lady (and my mum) who collect old woolen sweaters, pull them apart and reuse the threads to make hats and scarves and such to be sent to a local charity, which packs collected and made clothes into a truck a few times a year and ships it off to Albania.
[0] http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-myth-of-t...
To give a denim example:
Cotton growing wrecks the land, farmers gets peanuts.
I'll give a pass on the actual fabric making and sewing process, but what really got me was the amount of energy and robots used to destroy denim to make "distressed" jeans.
In some processes you have many hours of fabric being distressed, in wheels, in drums filled with different types of pebbles, giant presses, even lasers to slice them up... the jeans spent more energy and way more time getting ready for fashion then they did getting produced. (not considering cotton growing time).
All this work to produce something which lasts a lot less then it could, and probably will get thrown away soon. Clothes need an environmental impact label.
I have a new found respect for man-made fibres like polyester, polypropylene etc as producing those fibres is so much cleaner than natural goods, and instead of having to spend a lot of energy getting the fabric to "feel" right, you just modify the properties of the fibre by changing how its produced.
Edit: Fashion is one of the few remaining industries where obsolutely zero consideration is given to environmental impact when designing and producing clothes. This isn't just a poor country thing where they make clothes in a enviornmentally destructive way, the design of the clothes involves IMHO a lot of un-necessary production steps for an extra minuscle percentage of improvements.
Other industries, like say car parts, think about things like the energy inputs to their production process from the design state onwards, fashion doesn't. Even in sevice industries like making web apps, people think about inputs, and design to use as few of them as possible.
It's interesting that you highlight this, as fashion is one industry that springs to mind where the costs of production and the costs of sale do not correlate nearly as closely as with other industries.
In your car part example, the cost of production viz. energy inputs is priced into the end product, so that there's a direct financial incentive to drive down that production cost. In contrast, fashion has 'premium product' overheads which in many cases dwarf the possible efficiencies derived from production, disincentivising their realisation. Indeed, in some cases less efficient production is more desirable, for example with handmade and bespoke items rather than efficiently mass-producted items.
One of the bigger problems with many such fabrics is they don't breathe. This can be a really big problem for women, who can get vaginal yeast infections from non-cotton underwear and/or tight pants, often made with a nice stretchy material with plenty of man-made fibers woven into the cotton. It can also be an issue with socks. I personally have to wear breathable socks and shoes (usually cotton or wool socks and leather or fabric shoes) to keep from having athletes foot quite often.
Once the man-made fabrics can actually compete with these sorts of things found with natural fabrics and have an affordable price point - it seems more feasible to wear such garments most of the time.
Cotton is nice because at least it degrades naturally. We can regulate fashion to remove the most environmentally damaging parts. If distressed jeans are the most egregious offenders, then just ban them. (And for what it's worth, cheaper clothing brands do have noticeably less distress marks on clothing than expensive ones - it's clear they recognise it's a huge expense and have optimised it)
Also, the fashion industry is fully funded by what mobile devs would call "whales"; a small group of people who do most of the purchasing. I haven't bought many clothes in the last 10 years, an item here and there. But there are others who buy new stuff every week and then stuff it away in closets. Perhaps we need to have more awareness around wasteful shopping?
I'd prefer them highly taxed
Do you have a source for that? It's a compelling hypothesis but I'd like to see some data.
Linen and hemp are also good natural fabrics. They require less water than cotton and are quite comfortable.
Their main problem is the price as they are less mass produced than cotton.
One major drawback of synthetic fabrics that is recently coming to light is the tiny particles they constantly shed, which are too small to be filtered by most municipal water systems and are now found all over in lakes and rivers: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfib...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-reinforced_concrete
Another major source of ocean plastic pollution is from car tyres. That 6mm of tread which disappears from your tyres is generally washed off the roads, through the drains and into the ocean.
> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39042655
> The report found between 15% and 31% of plastic pollution came from primary microplastics, of which the biggest contributors (almost two-thirds) were abrasion of synthetic textiles, while washing, and abrasion of tyres, while driving.
Even in regular drains there will be a significant amount of contamination which would prevent the water from being used as-is; if you have a specific rainwater collection system that would work but is basically what our reservoirs are now.
[1] https://www.patagonia.com/blog//2017/02/an-update-on-microfi... "wastewater treatment plants filter a good amount of microfibers (65–92 percent) but still release a significant volume of waste into the environment"
I lived in Duluth, MN, and anytime there was significant rainfall, the sanitary sewer system would be overflowed by storm water, and dump thousands of gallons of untreated sewage directly into Lake Superior. http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/3772570-court-order-du...
It is a problem for the whole region: https://greatlakes.org/campaigns/sewage-overflows/
Polyesters dethread quickly and the fibers rub constantly. A polyester winter jacket will start pilling within 2-4 months of daily use. The wool version can last a decade plus. A synthetic version’s fabric will start balling up in weeks.
Second, polyesters don’t breath and sweat leads to accelerated breakdown and abrasion in the fibers.
WRT your edit: there’s a production difference between high-volume garments and short-run high fashion.
Neither should be immune from such ratings, but I think these manufacturing techniques will end up being the polar ends that template the future of clothing production.
Then there's the garments that are a hot-spot for child labour as they use items that need hand sewing - beads for example.
Buy locally made? Well I used to, and still do if it's feasible, but it's become such that all the brands are made in the same places. Funny that I noticed no savings at all for the consumer when Levis or whoever switched production to Vietnam etc.
I wonder how rayon fits in this picture. It's a semi-synthetic, made from natural cellulose. In terms of comfort, it is probably my favourite synthetic fibre, but the manufacturing process is still pretty nasty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon
For a central planner in 2018 (if planned economies were still a thing), clothes would be an easy one. It's easy & cheap to make enough clothes for everyone to wear, in above-median economies. You might face inefficiencies. but, there is little chance of failure like the eastern block's automative industry failures in the 70s.
Free markets see efficiency differently, but from a planning perspective, the free market for textiles seems pretty inefficient. The hard inputs are cheap. The biggest "value adds" are not strictly necessary: fashion-design, wholesale, retail and marketing.
I realize this is a cheat, but imagine a small, leninist country popped into existence today. The central planning comittee could go to a global clothing manufacturer and order 1 million winter jumpers. They would buy them at a small fraction of retail prices. Jumper problem solved. You can deal with a lot of inefficiency before the cost of a jumper approaches the average retail cost of free market jumpers.
The variety, choice and such will be gone, but it's unlikely there will be a shortage of jumpers.
I've framed this in a potentially argumentative way, but if we look past the ideological aspects, the fashion industry has a lot more of "avoidable" costs, from a purely utilitarian perspective.
Thinking back, It's interesting to recall the last days of planned economies in eastern europe. There were all sorts of shortages. Most iconic was cars. Most ridiculous was consumables like toilet paper or tires.
With clothes.. One recurring story from eastern european travelers in the late 70s and early 80s was jeans. Jeans represented western youth culture, rock and roll, liberalism.. People wanted them, really wanted them. I've heard several people (famous people and people I know) talk about exchanging pants with someone (presumably someone they like) in the street, and making their day.
I don't think they had pants shortages though. People had pants, they just didn't have cool pants.
Curious.
The practical, measurable, rationally justifiable needs this industry serves represents a tiny fraction of its economic output. Mostly, it's about decoration.
Can you really? Primark sells jumpers for less than ten bucks. Can you really buy and distribute for much less than that?
What I mean is this. A soviet-like economy might be able to produce enough jumpers for everyone, at a lower average price than a modern one. There won't be the choice or fashion and consumers may not like them as much, but they will be perfectly functional jumpers.
This is not the case for cars or smartphones...
As one who lived in an eastern Europe stalinist country, I assure you that the mass produced, single version of jumper provided by the state will be typically of an inferior quality that even the lowest priced free market version.
I vividly remember the way common western goods seemed almost magical before and shortly after the fall of communism. They were slick, finished and of an exceptional quality, the Pepsi Cola bottle seemed to me almost an abstract work of art.
The free market incentives affect production and design to such a degree that it's often impossible for a centrally planned economy to reproduce: the most inferior capitalist good is still the result of a selection process that induces large survivor bias, so even if the central planners are just as competent and motivated, you would still usually end up with an inferior product due to sheer luck. And once production is in motion, small inadequacies pile up without a strong and conscious efort to improve the product, to the point where people in my country were buying in 1989 a car that was in every way inferior to the same car built by the same factory in 1970, itself a replica of a 60s western car.
There are exceptions to this, particularly with fungible agricultural goods: when things like butter or cheese were available, they were of very high quality and made to traditional recipes compared to the more "efficient" free market versions that have copious amounts of fillers, adulterants and preservatives.
The point that I was trying to get at is that it is fairly easy to make/get clothes. Most of the retail price, and most of the competitive dynamics between operators are related to things outside the basics: materials, manufacturing and logistics. These are shockingly cheap in 2018.
You're point on food quality is interesting, an example where open markets have produced excellent volume and variety, but often poor quality, especially in the previous generation.
Belarus?
You're using words "utilitarian perspective", "rationally justifiable", "decoration". I hope you don't want the whole society to be based on such values, do you?
Rationally Justifiable = justifiable in non-subjective ways: warmth, durability...the kind of argument you could make to a central planner.
Decoration = Not Rationally Justifiable
BTW... central planning is not a rare thing. Tesla is centrally planned, so is Shell. If you want to argue for private offices or gym memberships in a company, you'll generally be limited to "rationally justifiable" (to stick to this choice of words) reasons. People will get more done, employee churn will be lower..
^ I'm not going to argue back
Then again, I guess production costs are hardly factored into final pricing anyway.
They already have a price label. And I expect companies that produce it to pay market price for the robots, washing machines and electricity.
And if they don't, let's fix exactly that, not just patch up a problem a couple of steps down.
You're right that we need to be fixing the issues at the level they appear, but every level is being squeezed for the best cost. It's up to the retailers, consumers, and fashion companies to place a larger value on environmental impact and pay the proper price.
If there are negative externalities of production those externalities should be taxed, whether in the production of books, clothes or automobiles.
Otherwise, the point is spot on—environment impact should be dealt with at the source and factored into the price.
We do it for durable goods like a refrigerator or car, yet the clothes you use during the same period could have an impact that is orders of magnitude higher than, say the extra fuel impact of a certain car.
I stopped shopping those stores since watching it. I recommend it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fashion
And mostly the poor and uneducated.
Fast Fashion keeps people from dying.
It could be cleaned up environmentally but the fast bit has nothing to do with it.
All the fast bit has done is pulled more people out of poverty at a much greater rate and probably reduced environmental damage.
Garment factory workers don't slash and burn, their extended families don't die of malnutrition or polluted water, and afford electricity over burning wood, they get to move forward as a society and care above just living and care about environments.
Where does this rubbish come from, environmental “emergency” my ass.
So disgusting, selfish and narrow minded all to appear environmentally friendly.
Anyone has an idea what would happen to economy if we stopped buying things we don't need? Would we see a total market collapse?
https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/