| ▲ | babybjornborg 4 hours ago |
| 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 removes the pollution externality they have been enjoying. So now either they err closer to under-production and risk missing out on sales or secondary market supply of their goods increases leading to possible brand dilution. So in the end the value of these companies ends up lower than before, less pollution, and apparel is cheaper. I'd like to know more about the equity and carbon effects of the process they will need to now follow. So they trade destruction with shipping a crate to Africa. What is the difference? Firms will be less profitable, manufacturing is reduced, who is impacted by that? |
|
| ▲ | rapnie 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | gwerbin 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | Uvix 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How will apparel be cheaper? When they lower production runs, it'll be less available, which will mean prices will go up. |
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | usefulcat 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Economically, producing less to start with is not very different from what is currently done, destroying excess inventory. Therefore I don't think it's at all a given that prices will go up. | | | |
| ▲ | fn-mote 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The only error in the whole post. I think it's more productive to ignore that and focus on the important stuff... which is about why this kind of market interference isn't going to work out the way a naive optimist would hope. | | | |
| ▲ | babybjornborg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | sophrosyne42 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If firms prodice less, prices will be higher. |
| |
|
| ▲ | vegabook 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | gwerbin 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | babybjornborg an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | scotty79 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Overproduction is not an issue. The issue is that they damage unsold things instead selling them for a market price dictated by supply and demand. This is not only clothing and apparel, also sporting goods and many other items. This should be forbidden across all industries. Unsold stock should be delivered to non-profits at no cost for further distribution. If you can't prove that you either sold or transfer to non-profit an item you manufactured then you should be fined for each unaccounted item proportionally to their market price. |
| |
| ▲ | eastbound 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And suddenly the EU becomes #1 in private non-profits, the first ever non-profits to turn up revenue and reinvest them into stock from Gap and H&M. Also the first non-profit to build gigalandfills in Africa. | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Obviously there would be some rules for non-profits eligible for those donations. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | behringer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If they ship unused crates to Africa then they get cheap clothes. Win win all around. |
| |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | to11mtm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | Der_Einzige 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | mint5 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Note specifically that I said local industry. I don't mean some factory owned by a global chain. | | |
| ▲ | Der_Einzige 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm specifically talking about local, small business. Giant companies usually have better labor protections in the 3rd-4th world than small buisness does. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fn-mote 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | apparent 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think GP was referring to donations, which are not subject to dumping rules AFAIK. | | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People living in the tropics don't need clothing suited for temperate climates. | | |
| ▲ | apparent 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | People who live in temperate climates wear tshirts, underwear, and socks, if I'm not mistaken. |
| |
| ▲ | usrusr 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The effect is the same though (well, worse), that was GP's point. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|