Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

environment.ec.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 894 posts

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#191

Post by detritus »

Aurornis wrote: post #35

In my experience in other physical goods industries (not textiles specifically) there is a big difference between products that are good but aren’t ever sold for some reason and products that are deemed not sellable for some reason. For example, if a custom returns a product that was opened but they claim was never used (worn in this case) you can’t sell it to someone else as a new item. With physical products these…

> What if a batch of products is determined to have some QA problems? You can’t sell it as new, so it has to go somewhere.

Isn't this TKMaxx's entire business model?

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#192

Post by blell »

jjkaczor wrote: post #165
blell wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want those brands to die?

Why do you want those brands to exist? Some perspectives would say that they serve no real purpose other than performative wealth display and distribution. They appeal to everyone at fundamental psychological levels to "fit in" with a popular trend or "in group". Their actual quality is often no better than other manufactured goods. It is their perceived quality and style that are the entire reason their brands exist…

The opposite of “Why do you want those brands to die?” is not “Why do you want those brands to exist?”.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#193

Post by WarmWash »

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #89
saubeidl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the poor in their own countries that might not be able to afford clothes?

But then the prices might drop and the shareholders might lose value. Rather have all people spend all of their money to the cent to buy clothes, to pay rent and to buy water tbh

The shareholders losing value means that either all clothes drop to shein quality or they just stop making clothes.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#194

Post by WalterBright »

blackqueeriroh wrote: post #60
Der_Einzige wrote: post #53

Problems that don't happen with actually good clothes. If you buy from (It's mostly menswear brands here, sorry ladies) companies who specialize in actually quality vs "fake exclusivity", trends, or hype, than you'll never have to worry about this. I'm specifically talking about selvedge denim brands (i.e. brave star, naked and famous, the osaka 5 brands, etc) high end leather makers (i.e. Horween, Shinki, and the pe…

Wow, you know what never happens? People changing size.

> People changing size.

I was curious why I no longer was able to wear pants I wore in my 20s. I could not get them over my hips. It wasn't because I was getting fatter, my weight is about the same.

I was also intrigued by young men looking slim in the hips, and older men not.

So I looked it up.

Turns out that your hips grow wider with age. I'd never heard of this before! Though I did know one's ears got bigger.

Too bad my shoulders never get wider, and my height shrinks :-/

My feet have gotten considerably wider with age, too.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#195

Post by jorvi »

Aurornis wrote: post #113
dlcarrier wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy mostly from liquidators, where everything is sold as-is, but that doesn't stop end users from trying to make a claim, so many manufacturers often have methods for marking items that are not covered by the warranty. For example, Ryobi brands the items with a plastic welder, leaving a tell-tale wavy mark. A robust liquidation market does a lot to prevent waste, and it reduces the cost of living for those who part…

> so many manufacturers often have methods for marking items that are not covered by the warranty With textiles this is usually a hole punch or something with the tag. With hardware we had the serial number recorded. But consumers don’t care. If they buy something from a vendor they think is selling them something as new and the vendor tells them to go the manufacturer, the customer doesn’t care that you marked it as…

> We even had customers write ragebait Reddit posts claiming we were unfairly denying warranties, people sending stories to popular newsletters and journalists, and other attempts to make us look bad for not honoring warranties on products

These days this is often the only recourse you have, because going the legal route you get stonewalled unless you are willing to spend serious money on pursuing a case. And it'll cost you gobs of time. An example is my mother buying new pants for 220 bucks from a reputable seller, the stitching starts to disintegrate after 7 months, and both the retailer and the manufacturer tell my mother to go pound sand.

So please do not portray customers trying to get their due as "ragebaiters".

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#197

Post by blurbleblurble »

anymouse123456 wrote: post #189

It’s shocking to see this legislated. As if companies are just out here wantonly destroying otherwise valuable goods that could have been easily sold at a profit instead. I guarantee this problem is far more complex and troublesome than the bureaucrats would ever understand, much less believe, yet they have no problem piling on yet another needless regulatory burden.

They're wontonly destroying and or dumping shitty goods that they got for cheap by externalizing costs.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#198

Post by estimator7292 »

philipallstar wrote: post #120
vscode-rest wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a carbon tax. This is plain overregulation.

Just businesses being intrinsically incentivised to not produce waste by the loss of profit is already a good motivation.

If that were true, we wouldn't have companies overproducing and burning unsold products to protect profits on the next model.

Business and economics don't work the way you naively assume. Businesses should have a natural incentive to provide an environment that doesn't kill workers because it's cheaper to not kill someone and not hire a replacement. This is entirely disjoint from the reality where we have laws saying things like "you must stop a machine before putting a person inside it".

Business and economies are not rational by any definition of the word. If something feels like it will be easier or more profitable, business will happily shovel children into the active machinery of a printing press until government forces them to stop.

We have something like 200 years of labor laws around this point. You should probably read some history and ask yourself why every government on the planet has been compelled to force legislation on business to protect the interests of the people.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#199

Post by ljf »

buckle8017 wrote: post #131
jwr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> companies who will claim to recycle your products or donate them to good causes in other countries, but actually they’ll just end up on eBay or even in some cases being injected back in to retail channels Isn't that good though? Unless the defects make the product somehow dangerous, this means that it found its way to users who are OK with it, thus avoiding waste. And someone even made money in the process. (all as…

The problem is the eBay sellers always label defective stuff as simply new product. People buying it may or may not be ok with the defect. Think bad welds, usually they're fine for a while and then they're very much not.

Had this recently, bought a dehumidifier for a good price, marked as new - arrived and had obviously been opened and didn't work. Out of a desire to have a dehumidifier sooner than later I was about to open it up when I saw it already had been, so I opened a return instead and sent it back.

I can only assume it is worth it for the seller to sell untested goods as new, a good number must work long enough for the buyer to be happy.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#200

Post by WalterBright »

em-bee wrote: post #157
WalterBright wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imported secondhand clothing is sold at prices that local textile producers cannot compete with. As a result, local garment industries collapse, unable to survive against the flood of cheap imports. Hence, jobs are lost in manufacturing and design, stifling innovation and economic growth.What was intended as charity often becomes a form of economic sabotage. Isn't that another version of the Broken Window Fallacy?…

this is not destroying things to create jobs. this is about globalization negatively affecting local culture. clothing especially represents culture. if people can not afford to create their own clothes then that has a negative effect on their culture as a whole.

I don't see how localized culture clothing styles would be destroyed by importing different styles from other countries.
Post reply on HN