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

341–350 of 894 posts

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

#341

Post by ddtaylor »

I get the impression this will turn out similar to how some "for cause" businesses have. Past examples include:

    - TOMS Shoes
    - PlayPumps
    - Textile Aid
I worry that, one way or another, this is going to create a pile of unwanted products somewhere, and it probably won't be in a nice neighborhood.

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

#342

Post by slaymaker1907 »

throwaway198846 wrote: post #2

Can they ship it outside the EU and then destroy it? What happens if truly nobody wants those clothes? Why not just put a carbon tax per weight?

This already happens a lot for used clothes with the thrift store->poor country->landfill pipeline. That third step will likely be a lot less rare with new clothes.

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

#343

Post by peterfirefly »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #307
jadenPete wrote: post #252

I think what bugs me about EU legislation like this is how micro-targeted it is. Why apparel specifically? If waste and a disregard for the finite-ness of natural resources is the problem, why not impose a blanket, Pigovian-style tax on all extracted resources? I got the same feeling when they mandated USB-C on Apple devices. If the problem of waste were tackled categorically, then the state wouldn’t need to get invo…

You have an odd perception of what constitutes "micro-targetting". Why apparel specifically ? Because apparel is specifically the consumer industry where enormous quantities of unsold product are intentionally destroyed to then be replaced in the market by newly made equivalent articles. Why was USB-C mandated specifically on Apple devices? Well here's the thing: it wasn't . It was mandated on smartphones in general…

> Because apparel is specifically the consumer industry

Because it is very visible to low information voters who are also red/green voters.

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

#344

Post by 1718627440 »

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.

Companies can and should participate in law drafting. If they have some not yet mentioned insight they should raise it or just take it to their grave.

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

#345

Post by kakacik »

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.

Shocking? Why such drama? Is this AI text?

I don't see anything shocking here. Corporations doing corporatey things, which is maximizing profits and that can easily literally mean destroying unconsumed stuff since it would cost them 2 cents more per tonne to ship it and sell someplace cheaper. Ever heard the term economies of scale for example? Those distort many things in money flows.

Those corporations don't give a fuck about mankind, environment, future, long term stuff etc. Any approach to similar topics which gives them benefit of the doubt is dangerously naive and misguided from the start. It's up to society to enforce rules if its healthy and strong enough. Some are better off, some worse.

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

#346

Post by dollylambda »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #293
motbus3 wrote: post #204

I'm reading the comments and I get confused. I kinda think this is a good idea and it is not like the government is purely making it a 3rd party problem only. This might make production more complicated for a while, but nowadays it is much easier to predict demand and produce quicker in smaller batches. In the 90s you might need change a whole factory setting for every single piece of fabric but nowadays it is that m…

You have already gotten two answers showing why this causes the manufacturer to lose money. A third: I hike, enough that pretty much all my gear out there is the good stuff. I do not care one bit about brands and would prefer not to be an ad for the outdoor companies--but I am anyway because it's not just a name. Suppose Big Brand X fails to sell all of this year's design and offloads them as discount brand Y. People…

This feels like the argument for why not deflationary currency. Said another way, I have a property worth X, but next year it will be worth more because money is deflationary. Why would I want to sell my house this year when I can wait until next year to sell my house and get more money.

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

#347

Post by slaymaker1907 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #313
nine_k wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what do you do with unsold Chanel quilts?

Cut the price, this is basic microeconomics.

That is not what they should do according to microeconomics because luxury goods are Veblen goods. Decreasing price would lower demand, at least until they lowered it enough that it was no longer a Veblen good.

Basic microeconomics is just that: basic and thus an oversimplification.

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

#348

Post by [deleted] »

behringer wrote: post #269
babybjornborg wrote: post #230

Earlier 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…

If they ship unused crates to Africa then they get cheap clothes. Win win all around.

[deleted]

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

#349

Post by roughly »

sschueller wrote: post #305
PhoenixFlame101 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luxury brands do in fact intentionally destroy old stock to make sure their value doesn't drop due to excess supply. I suppose the next step is making everything extremely limited like hypercars?

However hypercars are not purposely limited. It takes an enormous amount of time and labor to build them unlike a handbag where the limit is artificial to sell more.

> However hypercars are not purposely limited

Are you serious? Pricing theory includes both supply and demand, and limiting supply makes the remaining items more valuable by dint of rarity. Companies absolutely limit supply on items to maximize profits. How is this even a question?

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

#350

Post by thewebguyd »

cosmic_cheese wrote: post #272
motbus3 wrote: post #204

I'm reading the comments and I get confused. I kinda think this is a good idea and it is not like the government is purely making it a 3rd party problem only. This might make production more complicated for a while, but nowadays it is much easier to predict demand and produce quicker in smaller batches. In the 90s you might need change a whole factory setting for every single piece of fabric but nowadays it is that m…

> Here, we don't have winter, fall or anything anymore. In my inland US east coast hometown there’s been a big shift in winters. It used to be that it consistently got quite cold after late September to mid October, winters consistently came with several feet of snow, and spring hadn’t fully arrived until well into April. For the past several years winter has almost disappeared — many years there’s almost no snow and…

It’s honestly terrifying. I’m in the PNW and we haven’t had winter yet. Extremely low snowpack in the mountains and not even a single day below freezing where I live.

I’ve been observing the change for the past 10 years or so here and this is the first year that’s it’s been so “in your face” obvious instead of just subtle changes and effects.

If this is our new normal winter and/or gets rapidly worse we will have a major water crisis sooner than anyone is ready for.

Climate change needs to be the number one focus and policy for every nation on earth right now. Not AI, not economic growth, not wars.

Post reply on HN