| ▲ | saubeidl 4 hours ago |
| What about the poor in their own countries that might not be able to afford clothes? |
|
| ▲ | ozgrakkurt 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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 |
| |
| ▲ | WarmWash 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The shareholders losing value means that either all clothes drop to shein quality or they just stop making clothes. | | |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | OK. We were told creative destruction is good, if some companies exit the market and are replaced by others that offer better value then resources are being allocated more efficiently, no? | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Just like other companies came along and offered a better Sears catalog when the internet killed their revenue? People don't voluntarily lose money. Understand that and the world will way more understandable. |
|
| |
| ▲ | saubeidl 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If the shareholders are rich because the poor are not clothed then fuck the shareholders and the system that made them rich. |
|
|
| ▲ | smt88 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Any name brand would rather send their unsold clothes to a landfill in India rather than allow their wealthy customers to see poor people wearing the clothes. |
| |
| ▲ | saubeidl an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Which is why you write regulations to ban that. Hence, this thread. | |
| ▲ | bluebarbet 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A perhaps inadvertent but nicely succinct indictment of capitalism. |
|
|
| ▲ | philipallstar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's very very easy to spend much less on clothes. Buying a new handbag every 6 months vs maintaining a bag for 20 years isn't that much different in terms of effort, but one is unbelievably more expensive. |
|
| ▲ | cindyllm 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
