Great news! I live in America and I would like it to continue to be the leading economic zone. The more Europe (and others) lag behind, the better my life will be :).
> Great news!
I live in America...
Great news, indeed.
EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
321–330 of 894 posts
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#322What about the environmental impact of all the extra warehouses they have to build to store the unsellable stock?
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming there was no /s there: The US and I assume Europe have laws against "dumping" - selling a product for below cost - because it drives local competitors out of business. That is exactly what shipping containers full of clothes to Africa does.
I think GP was referring to donations, which are not subject to dumping rules AFAIK.
People living in the tropics don't need clothing suited for temperate climates.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparel firms exist not to clothe people as common sense would suggest but to make a profit, and this practice of erring on the side of overproduction is more profitable than under production. The perfect solution would be to produce exactly the number of goods they will sell, but forecasts aren't perfect so they overproduce. Firms are already incentivised by profit to not waste, so this adds another incentive and re…
> Firms are already incentivised by profit to not waste Anecdotal but my perception is that clothing has become so extremely low quality, and I assume dirt cheap to produce, that they have less of an incentive to let it go to waste. When I buy socks they get holes after wearing them 7 times, and then they go in the bin too.
If you can make a shirt for $1 and sell it for $10, you can throw out literally half of your inventory and still make $5 per shirt.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not always a win. There have been a few reports that sending large numbers of clothing donations to areas that don't specifically need them has the result of harming local industry that would otherwise be able to produce and sell clothes.
The appearal industry is among the most exploitive in the world. It's good to kill it before it springs up. Bangladesh is not anyone's example of a model country.
You seem so certain despite having it backwards as likely as not.
the western ordered cheap quality overproduction solution of swamping developing countries with it, where much also ends in a trash heap, means they can continue the exploitive and environmentally destructive mass production.
Smaller local industries would be economically better for the countries, supply more aligned so less waste, and there’d be less of the bad factories in Bangladesh.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I am surprised how anti-billionaire HN is given its run by a venture capital company and its aim is (indirectly, through reputation building and PR), to get wanna be billionaires to raise capital from them.
I don't think this forum has significant costs of running, especially considering it is not in development.
It employs two full–time moderators.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not always a win. There have been a few reports that sending large numbers of clothing donations to areas that don't specifically need them has the result of harming local industry that would otherwise be able to produce and sell clothes.
OK, send them somewhere else or sell them at a discount but brand dilution I don't care. If you over produce then you made a bad economic decision, tough luck. Destroying goods for accounting reasons is an abhorrent policy driven by greed.
This is kinda the real thing at play here... and the 'wave' in the economics;
After all, the company could have arguably instead produced fewer product, sold what they have already sold for the same price, paid their workers the same amount of money to do less work, they wouldn't have to pay for the destroyed goods, and wouldn't have had to pay for the wasted input materials...
All in the name of profit FOMO.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worth is zero because the producer doesn't pay for the externalities (pollution, landfill usage etc). So essentially it is "free" because it is subsidized by everyone. The "headache" is just : produce what you sell, sell what you produce, don't fill the world with your shit.
What landfill doesn't charge fees?
The Pacific Ocean, I think.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#329The "Less Growth for Europe" party strikes again.
Yes, to the frustration of supporters of the "Paperclip Maximising Means Growth" party.
Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparel firms exist not to clothe people as common sense would suggest but to make a profit, and this practice of erring on the side of overproduction is more profitable than under production. The perfect solution would be to produce exactly the number of goods they will sell, but forecasts aren't perfect so they overproduce. Firms are already incentivised by profit to not waste, so this adds another incentive and re…
more market economics framing of life, as if numerous very smart people haven't already tried to make this paradigm work for society, and failed.
The funny thing is that textbook economics has all of the answers about why laissez-faire market economics doesn't work as a foundation for economic policy. It's almost as if it's never been about making good policy and always about doing whatever is best for big businesses and the small number of wealthy people who stand to gain the most from minimizing consumer surplus.