221–230 of 322 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that law exactly trying to avoid that kind of waste?
Yes. But in some cases the waste will be avoided by not doing a production run at all if the minimum production quantity is too high and the law prohibits destroying the unwanted product.
If you make more units, it's cheaper per unit. But doesn't it mean that waste is always a loss?
It seems like this policy would lead to shortages in less common sizes of clothing.
The invisible hand of the market will rectify this of course. Nothing to see here.
For example: if Nike is willing to destroy 100$ shoes, instead of selling them at 40$ discount, for brand protection, another shoemaker could try make identical shoes and sell them at discount. But the alternative shoemaker is not allowed to make identical shoes, this would infringe Nike trademark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU is doing everything it can to fail. The only thing that seems to be coming out of the EU in the last 20 years is regulation. It seems to be its only invention and contribution to itself. They have no upper bounds on creativity when it comes to creating rules that disrupt business. I can't tell if this is coming from jealousy or incompetence—or perhaps a combination of both. They see the rest of the world, espe…
You're arguing in favor of destroying unworn clothes instead of donating to charity or discounting them as somehow being good for business? The point of this is to control against wasteful business practices, not a ban on producing or selling clothes. The EU is a $23 trillion economy, hardly a slouch even though it is underperforming. The VW example is actually something you probably don't understand - they're failin…
The main problem they have is that you just need a fraction of the number of people to build an electric car than what you need for a combustion car. You no longer need complex transmission, exhaust filtering, turbos, highly complex combustion engines,... all of which are marvels of engineering but no longer necessary for EVs. VW "main" (i.e. excluding sub-brands like audi) was already rather highly staffed (though part of this is due to them taking over some duties for their sub-brands), so the employee impact is higher than what you would expect, but even for a reasonably staffed car company this would imply huge layoffs and changes in the structure of the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supermarkets and stores throwing away edible food is pure waste and fundamentally immoral when people are going hungry.
Why? the two are generally unrelated. Lack of food isnt the bottleneck, there is no shortage. It is usually a host of complex problems. Is throwing away water in a rainforest immoral when there are thristy people in a desert? The problem is connecting the two.
This is some truly bizarre logic. The perfectly good food being thrown away can be given to the hungry for free since the company is saying it has no value if they are willing to throw it away. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding this basic logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or.. lower the price?
Lowering the price doesnt solve the problems of lost revenue and higher costs. Most goods are priced such that you cant make more money on increased volume by lowering the cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or.. lower the price?
Lowering the price doesnt solve the problems of lost revenue and higher costs. Most goods are priced such that you cant make more money on increased volume by lowering the cost.
> higher costs.
Higher costs of what? Of those new fruits? Well, maybe wasting food should cost?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
»If some businesses get killed in the process, so be it.« The problem with this attitude is that the rest of the world often doesn’t have these strict regulations and as result, businesses aren’t killed but just leaving the country.
Is that a justification for resuming slavery, child labour and dumping chemicals in our rivers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nike certainly could choose to sell at a discount rather than grind unsold shoes into rubber. They have a wealth-signal brand to maintain, however, so they will resist doing so if at all possible.
Is it really the case that Nike is a wealth signalling brand? In the investigation I think you're referring to ( https://www.fastcompany.com/90697259/nike-appears-to-be-shre... ), I find Nike's side of the story much more plausible: if they find in processing returns that a shoe appears to have been altered, they prefer to reuse the shoe materials for other purposes, rather than carefully inspecting individual shoes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The invisible hand of the market has been handcuffed a bit here though. Though I imagine this will simply show up as higher cost rather than blanket inavailability.
If a charity sets up a ‘returned product classification’ flow and issues tax credits to companies donating their return flow to the charity, then companies can simply shunt returns to charity and lower their costs in triplicate: 1) changeover of return provider replaces expense with deduction; 2) compliance with EU regulations costs shipping to charity; 3) charity provides itemized receipts for compliance and further…
Why is a charity supposed to be able to magically conjure sales the original seller was unable to find?
I just think if it was as easy to doing this, there's already be nothing for regulators to be complaining about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the full price is €6, there isn’t much room for a discount. Destroying and freeing up store space for something that does sell can easily be profitable.
Donating to charity is cheaper than destroying.
Allllso maybe the junk that is trashed by Zara is just junk that charities don't want to be burdened with?