Live data from Hacker News

Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

expmag.com

231–240 of 245 posts

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American that doesn't buy new clothes often, but I want to provide my view. My clothes last a lot longer than 2-3 years. To get to the point that they're ragged or faded takes a long time for most of them. (The very cheapest t-shirts from online sites are the exception. I don't buy those any more.) On the other hand, my wife gets great pleasure from getting new clothing. She has a lot more than I do, and still…

In case she is open to discussing this, it's a fairly common problem. It can be resolved by finding another source of praise, for example volunteer work or teaching, or exceeding in extra activities in her field. She is not needing new clothes but attention, and there are healthy ways to achieve that. Experience: my own (as a woman) and various friends over the years.

I don't think she has a "problem" per se. I think her clothes buying is entirely within reason, and she makes wise decisions about when to buy or retire clothes.

I was mainly extrapolating her feelings for new clothes to others who spend a lot more on clothes.

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#232
post #72
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living with my girlfriend really opened my eyes to how many clothes women go through. She even tries to be responsible about it and sell items to second hand markets, but I still think it’s a bit crazy. - Women’s fashion cycles much faster then men’s. Office wear is a bit more stable but anything aimed as social settings like weddings may only provide a few opportunities to wear it before it’s out of style. Men can r…

At the office several of my coworkers use a service in which they rent cloths. Kinda oike Netflix was for DVDs. You pick a few you like, they send them over and next month you send them back. All for a monthly fee. Someone once told me the average piece of cloth only gers worn 7 times before being disposed of. Dont qoute me on that though :)

In a Bloomberg businessweek article this week on Rent The Runway the figure they give is that they rent the articles an average of 20 times before retiring them.

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#233
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would gothy-style, belt-heavy designs work well here? I imagine Victorian women didn't rotate clothes at the rate implied here. This seems just ... bad

There's no benefit in producing robust clothing that can be washed and worn over many years if the populace at large is unwilling to pay for that robustness. You'll just spend money to get provide a feature very few people actually care about and you'll hurt your competitiveness. Much of the population was trained to be good little consumers and that's just what they are doing.

Consume or we spend the money on the military complex and start killing each other ;)

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Local producers are great, but they're outnumbered ten thousand to one by local consumers. How the world would be any better if some of the world's poorest were forced by their governments to pay extra money to buy inferior clothes, while some small-time politically-connected tycoon profited from it? Employees of local producers are great too, the theory I always hear is that people getting paid in an area stimulate…

> 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 the…

Well, at some point people have to trust someone other than themselves to tell them how complicated things work because there is just too much complexity and layering of knowledge in our modern world for one person to be an expert in everything.

So, I have accepted this natural propaganda as you call it because it seemed to be said by lots of people who were experts, I mean it's not just like I heard it from Milton Friedman and went with that. It's a pretty wide range of people I've heard this from. If it is a propaganda campaign it is a wide ranging one with lots of people involved some of whom you would think would have had the clout to make different arguments but didn't. In the many times I've encountered the argument there tends to be statistics and graphs involved, sure, not in my specialty but at any rate things looked reasonable on the surface and so over the years I accepted an argument that did not necessarily follow common sense when first encountered.

Your argument against it sounds totally reasonable and sensible. But you do not bring any evidence to bear, just your argument. Admittedly the argument is based on logic, but sometimes the things that seem logically sound can be shown to not work because of some deeper underlying logic to it. Is this your own idea, or did you encounter it somewhere and think that sounds much more reasonable than the other stuff I've been told? If so can you give me a guide to where I can read about the idea myself. What leads you to call the opposing argument propaganda, is there any research you can point to about this?

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should try the Disney vault model where they keep unsold goods in a warehouse for an ultra pricey limited release. The difference is that there would be actual scarcity, but yeah maybe warehouse costs would offset any profit. It would be nice to see the experiment though.

The difference is that the Disney “vault” stores information. It can be a simple RAID array. (Or two at different locations to protect against fire etc) Storing information is ridiculously cheap and easy compared to storing physical goods. Unsold stock takes up valuable space and if you don’t pay enough to maintain the right circumstances they start to get damaged too. This is usually not a concern and in modern oper…

According to Sivio Gesell nobody will consider storing physical goods if the storage costs exceed the return on money which is guaranteed to be 0%. Hence it is better to have a summer sale and throw unsold inventory away because money beats goods.

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#236

The whole commercial system is so full of perverse incentives. It is absolutely horrible what we do to your planet but there is so much momentum behind this. Someone near me loves to throw things away. I kid you not. Mountains of disposables, perfectly good stuff gets replaced just to get something new. And let's not get started about the amount of food that goes into the waste bin even though there is nothing wrong…

Positive interest rates are by definition short term thinking.

The borrower must pay sooner than later. Investors will not be satisfied with companies that perform worse than the interest rate.

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A lot of the super cheap stuff from Shein is so utter shit quality it won't last more than a few wears." Then why do people buy the stuff? I just do not understand their mentality. I buy good clothes to last. Let me give an example, I have a number of pairs of BD-like dungarees which I bought brand new several decades ago (they're not ex military but a high quality clone thereof). These are my knockabout do-anything…

I'll try to say this in a polite way, but if you're presenting dungarees as an example of a good purchase, explaining fashion simply isn't possible. It's like trying to explain to a typical old woman born and raised in rural Belarus the value of a a fine set of chopsticks, or a Mormon the value of a fine coffee grinder. Your reason for buying clothes is completely fine--but it's not at all what motivates people who p…

"For younger people, fashion is a way to show off to people or be comfortable in various situations. It's much easier to spend $150 on a set of new clothes to try impressing a date than it is to try impressing someone with your car like people may've tried decades ago."

That's the real problem, the world can no longer afford that given the environmental crisis. They cannot have it both ways: millions of young people are always whingeing that the older generation has left them with a horrible environmental legacy that they'll have to clean up. Well, I suggest we start by pointing to them that to continue with both behaviors would shown them up as hypocritical.

Of course all those in the rag/fashion trade or the overly fashion conscious will vigorously disagree—mainly that to do otherwise would reduce their incomes.

The fact remains, we're using and wasting cotton in huge amounts and the amount of water needed to produce cotton is outright enormous—just phenomenal. Essentially the world's ecosystem can't afford it. If you want to be reminded of exactly how much that is that damage then I'd suggest you see what happened to the Aral Sea because of cotton growing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea. Right, cotton growing has essentially made the sea disappear. This really ought to be a wake-up call to the clothing and fashion industries.

"But it's not a thing you're ever going to "logic and reason"

Hike the price and it'd have an effect, so would nuking clothing and fashion industry ads (like the tobacco industry) and it may have to come to that. If I had any say in the matter (which I never will) I'd put an environmental tax on cotton (in first world countries only where the main waste occurs). What's needed is a cultural shift that it's not cool to show off this way. Like any other cultural shift, it'd take quite some time but it;s not impossible. If things continue to go from bad to worse governments may even force the matter.

BTW: That example was for knockabout clothes. I also have much better clothes right up to a 'money suit' complete with bow tie, although I've not updated any in recent years because almost all of them are AOK—i.e.: not out of fashion (it's actually quite easy to buy clothes whose fashion hardly ever changes). If I'm going to a formal dinner then I definitely look the part, same goes for a processional engagement (dealing with clients etc. one must be very particular and I never look out of place there either).

Re cars: I've never had one good enough to impress anyone (to me, vehicles are only a means to an end and I often wonder why they impress so many). Currently, I don't even own one. Environmental waste and the enormous waste of human effort is the result of the premature turnover of vehicles and it is an unmitigated environmental disgrace. Again, much of this is driven by fashion 'forced' on people by the manufactures and advertising industry (i.e.: same as the clothing/fashion industry in that they 'manufacture consent'—a feeling of need to continually want to buy and or upgrade their clothes).

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just take a look at what industry most billionaires got rich from. Those are the industries that extract most value from society and environment. And since there's no free lunch there probably is some associated cost no matter how well hidden and surprising. > My mind would have gone to energy, war industry, tech, banking, news media, chemical, health and pharmaceutical, and probably a lot of others before I thought…

This isn't really how things work. Let's say Belon Tusk is worth $100 million and invests that into starting a submarine company. Eventually they make a working product they can sell, and that puts the value of the company at $1 billion. Eventually the second design comes along and revolutionizes submarine industry and reduces the costs that governments (taxpayers) and private industry were paying for submarine voyag…

That's details. Look at list of the top richest people and look how most of them got there. You can see trends that go beyond any single person and any accounting tricks.

The real estate moguls don't create value for society. They capture finite resource with capital and extract the value from society to capture even more. It's literally called rent.

Check out Bezos. Amazon is in large part worker-exploitation-as-a-service delivered to customers same day, washed squeeky clean of any moral qualms. Bezos just takes his cut.

Fasion industry is in large part child-labor-as-a-service.

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#239
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends, buying is cheap, so why not - meanwhile also having so much clothes can be annoying. Easier to get rid of them, then sell them and such.

>>so why not The 'why not' only matters if you care about the planet, buying and replacing things that don't need to be purchased in the first place is horrible for the planet in every conceivable way. I recycle things when I can, but I am a firm believer that not buying things that won't last or that you don't need - is much much better than separating your plastic and cardboard in the recycling bins - most of which…

I agree, but consumerism/shopping is a hobby in the USA. You can choose to buy quality, but it will not be the same price point. Shoes from H&M vs LL Bean are a huge difference in price and quality.

Re: Many clothing donations end up in African landfills

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really how things work. Let's say Belon Tusk is worth $100 million and invests that into starting a submarine company. Eventually they make a working product they can sell, and that puts the value of the company at $1 billion. Eventually the second design comes along and revolutionizes submarine industry and reduces the costs that governments (taxpayers) and private industry were paying for submarine voyag…

That's details. Look at list of the top richest people and look how most of them got there. You can see trends that go beyond any single person and any accounting tricks. The real estate moguls don't create value for society. They capture finite resource with capital and extract the value from society to capture even more. It's literally called rent. Check out Bezos. Amazon is in large part worker-exploitation-as-a-s…

It's not details, it's the central tenet of your argument was that billionaires are rich because they extracted something and there's no free lunch.

That's just now how it works. Most of the new tech billionaires got rich entirely on the value of companies they created or invested in.

Tesla has been pushing the old automotive industry that's built around internal combustion into the EV era, and SpaceX has been lowering the cost of rocket launches so tax payers get more bang for their dollar spent for government launches, allowing companies to provide more connectivity and other satellite services to more people, and is taking monopoly money away from the old war profiteers who were milking their government-funded cold war technology.

Absolute wins. So Musk became a billionaire by providing better and cheaper things to people and improving society.

So billionaires=bad metric is pretty flimsy, in my opinion.

Post reply on HN