Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

> Employees of local producers are great too, the theory I always hear is that people getting paid in an area stimulate more economic activity. So I mean you should take that idea apart more as it is pretty much established wisdom.

The "established wisdom" you cite is a long-lived natural propaganda campaign. It begins with politicians, people who succeed or fail based mostly on their image, not on the quality of their governance. Why would they do the hard work seeking out the causes of prosperity, help organize that prosperity, and seek ways that collective action can make things better? That's a sucker's game. If you rip off the population at large — just a little bit at a time, mind you — then you gain political allies in the industry who benefits. Of course they'll market you as the champion of prosperity: you've made their success possible. It's not strictly cynical; it's quite easy to believe, if you're not the person paying for it, and motivated reasoning is strong. It's a win/win deal, because you ignore the people who actually pay for things. Welcome to public-choice theory. It likely won't ever change. Hooray!

It should be painfully obvious to anyone who thinks about the facts of the matter that having access to nearly-free clothes — not the obnoxious piles of waste or anything, just the bales of clothing the article laments being imported into South Africa — having access is strictly better than not having this access. These people, after all, are always free to buy different clothes. It's not hard: Americans have access to similar, and can buy stupidly cheap clothes at an American thrift store, but in practice, they mostly don't even look at such an establishment. So why don't the people of South Africa buy locally made clothes right now? Because given their income, they much prefer the nearly-free clothes.

Common sense does work here! As an individual, you don't become prosperous by looking for ways to do things that are more expensive. As a society, the same principle applies. Yes, yes, someone will conjure many promises: if everyone just spends more money, we'll have more money! But you know, if you spend less money on clothes you can spend more money on literally anything else which you'd rather have. It's like a perpetual motion machine: the energy does actually come from somewhere, you just might not be looking at it. The prosperity they propose society will gain from protecting garment industry is stolen from everyone who buys clothes, and everything that they would have bought instead, and you lose some of the prosperity in the process, because you expend effort and capital and materials.

My teenage daughter, whose fashion sense runs to the eclectic, gets basically all of her clothing second-hand online. She also wears a number of my old Hawaiian shirts that are still going strong after nearly 40 years of (admittedly occasional) use. So it is possible to source responsibly, but it helps if you don't set too much store by the judgements of the hoi polloi.

How is this a problem? They get free clothes they would otherwise never be able to afford. Perhaps they should be grateful instead of expecting everything to be free forever.

I've been trying to emphasize natural fabrics and tossing out stuff that doesn't fit, so I've been buying:

Pendleton - Amazing wool shirts, and their cotton stuff is very solid. They still sell all-wool sweaters, which is becoming rare even at the high end. Sometimes eBay/poshmark have nice older USA-made pieces but sizing can be a crapshoot.

Brooks Brothers - Reliable for well-made warm-weather linens and cottons, pretty sure that remains so post-bankruptcy. Style choices run from 'Weekend Lawyer' to 'Insolent Schoolboy.'

American Giant - All-cotton tshirts and hoodies. Haven't tried their pants.

Woolrich - Good sweaters and heavy shirts. My first sweater from the now-shuttered PA factory has survived 30 years with spells of very rough traveling and outdoor work without holes.

Bemidji Woolen Mills - Wool Mackinaws and barn jackets do well in most situations where waterproofing isn't required.

Arc'teryx - The Canadian-made Gore-Tex stuff is very durable. Overseas-made no slouch either. I believe Gore is making serious progress in shedding fewer microplastics.

Double Pump - I think this is a captive Amazon brand? Durable and inexpensive cotton cowboy snap work shirts, the only ones I've found that are not synthetic blend. Ely Cattleman has a line of 97% cotton shirts but most are awfully rodeo-y.

LL Bean - Still make good casual and lined winter pants, but they're going downhill fast in nearly every other category. Will market something as 'wool' when it's 95% synthetic.

Eddie Bauer - See LL Bean, maybe with better shirt choices.

Smartwool/Meriwool - Base layers are magic, both brands seem indestructible. Smartwool socks are nice for all but the hottest weather. Meriwool is more likely to be all-wool. Runner-up goes to Peoplesocks brand.

Oh and the key to laundering all of these natural fabrics? Wash as cold delicates, dryer cycle with no heat for wrinkles, hang dry near a dehumidifier.

> I don't throw things away without some premeditation, because I bought it with some premeditation.

I like this. Lately I've been thinking about what I own. I've come to the conclusion that if I'm going to own something, I want it to be good, and I want to have made a deliberate decision to own it. But I also have a bit of a minimalist side to me and can't stand clutter, so to me the decision to buy something is a big one, because I feel like I need to consider the whole lifecycle of that object first (Where will I keep it? Can I easily bring it with me? And how will I eventually dispose of it?).