The Cost of Cheap Clothes

sbsquarepants · 25-04-2013 05:08PM

ScumLord wrote: »

We have a problem here though that we think cheap means good value when it rarely does. If you bought the expensive European product it will often outlast 3 or 4 of the imported cheap version of the product. so you're spending more in the long run.

Europe is good at making food and a lot of the basics can be bought from within the EU, when it comes to manufacturing only the Japanese beat us. I don't think it would be too hard to buy the majority of your stuff in Europe.

It's kind of like saying buy a good range rover, it will last longer than that nissan - a lot of people have the quality the buy decided for them by circumstance.
Also i think you're being a bit naive - i think it would prove a lot harder than you imagine, possibly next to impossible to buy european only. Consider something like guaranteed irish - it's purely an advertising slogan - the stuff comes from all four corners of the globe if you look into it in any depth.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Just because you move to avoid aiding expoitation in some areas doesn't mean you have to do it in everything you buy all the time. You can make some effort. Its better then sitting back and saying, ah well that's the way of life I am not bothered doing anything if I can't do everything.

I agree to an extent. But it's less than pointless to say i'm not shopping in penneys because they exploit the poor and then wearing your Nikes to McDonalds to to buy a big mac and a cofee. It may ease your conscience to a degree, but that is all it will do.
Avoiding exploiting the poor basically means going back to growing your own food and making your own clothes, and basically boycotting electronics and jewellery all together. It's not going to happen.

25-04-2013 05:17PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Well, cheaper clothes than their competitors to be more accurate. If the standard was raised across the board, Pennies could still be the cheapest on the market.

So really, we agree? That the real problem is that standards need to be raised across the board.

The only difference of opinion here is that I don't see how boycotting Pennys will ever accomplish across-the-board, worldwide progress in working conditions in the fashion industry. Seems like madness to me to imply that it will.

ScumLord · 25-04-2013 05:36PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's kind of like saying buy a good range rover, it will last longer than that nissan - a lot of people have the quality the buy decided for them by circumstance.

Well, Range Rover is a bad example because they make notoriously unreliable cars. It's not just a matter of brand though. We see brands like range rover or sony that have an undeserved reputation for quality. Their problem is they have had to reduce manufacturing standards to meet the demand for the cheapest products. Most well known brands aren't the best brands, they just spend allot of advertising.

To know what the best product is you have to do some research and you'll more than likely find it's a small time producer in Europe, the product will be much more expensive due to smaller runs but it will be leaps and bounds ahead of what's known on the general market.

Also i think you're being a bit naive - i think it would prove a lot harder than you imagine, possibly next to impossible to buy european only. Consider something like guaranteed irish - it's purely an advertising slogan - the stuff comes from all four corners of the globe if you look into it in any depth.

That's because you can buy the right to use the GI logo and they don't do much to check up on the company once they have your money. It's the same with many of those logos, FSC logo is just a yearly fee, no checks are made.

The BSI Kitemark and TUV mark are one's to look out for, one is British the other is German, they actually do inspections and demand that records are kept to prove regular inspections are made in house.

ocli64 · 26-04-2013 12:35AM

I don't really get why everyone's insinuating that the OP wears Nike and drinks loads of coffee...

What happened in the Penney's factory is disgraceful and if it happened here there's no way the company they're supplying wouldn't come into the firing line!

It's actually getting a lot easier to make more ethical purchases. Buy fairtrade tea/coffee, avoid Starbucks (it's **** and overpriced anyway). There's also some really good second hand clothes around and if that's not your thing there's often good deals on asos and other sites for fairtrade clothing. Got an Organic Cotton Fairtrade dress on it recently for less than €30. Apricot also do some clothes made in the UK and they're stocked in Awear and seem to be always on sale. With shoes just buy good quality ones that will last instead of the cheap ones that'll fall apart after a few wears.

At the end of the day people were killed in horrible conditions and if this were in the developed world the company would be put under more pressure to find a factory with better conditions. The argument that people will be put out of work by avoiding Penney's is illogical...96 people are dead and if there was a shift in spending habits Penney's and other retailers would be forced to address this.

Celly Smunt · 26-04-2013 01:14AM

H&M shits all over penneys.

Queen-Mise · 26-04-2013 01:21AM

pmcmahon wrote: »

H&M shits all over penneys.

I am so slow tonight - are H&M cheaper/dearer, better/worse. Don't know anything about H&M...

OP - slagging Penny's is probably the wrong way to go. At least it is legal. Write a letter of complaint to the Bangladeshi authorities/consulate.

If you are going to rant about anything - then rant against fake designer stuff, that whole industry is 100 times worse than the Penny's one.

SeanW · 26-04-2013 02:09AM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Fine sentiments, but unfortunately a load of bollix in reality.
Allmost all your clothes, food + electronics were produced using exploited in some cases practically slave labour. That's the world we live in.

And that's the problem. You can pay $1000 for an iPhone (and another $1000 for the next version next year) but it will be made for $10 by some Chinese workers who sleep 3 to a bunk, work 18 hours a day in a factory they have to have suicide nets around it to catch all the overstressed workers jumping off the roof. In other words, no better than one of those €25 euro sim-free basic phones that you can get on Moore St. Dublin etc.

The cheapness of the product has nothing to do with it, ****ty companies that only care about profits and nothing else dictate what the lowest common denominator for workers pay and conditions.

Celly Smunt · 26-04-2013 02:12AM

Queen-Mise wrote: »

I am so slow tonight - are H&M cheaper/dearer, better/worse. Don't know anything about H&M...

Slightly dearer if not the same (euro or two for t-shirts and that) but much much better quality and much nicer stuff.

ocli64 · 26-04-2013 10:17AM

pmcmahon wrote: »

Slightly dearer if not the same (euro or two for t-shirts and that) but much much better quality and much nicer stuff.

Unfortunately have also been known to use sweatshops. The sad reality is that unless a company explicitly states that they dont, you can take it they do, and even some of the ones that say they don't do!

The best way to help the situation without being loaded and/or becoming completely obsessed with it is to simply buy less of things and buy things that last.

ScumLord · 26-04-2013 10:23AM

ocli64 wrote: »

Unfortunately have also been known to use sweatshops. The sad reality is that unless a company explicitly states that they dont, you can take it they do, and even some of the ones that say they don't do!

Like shops claiming their chicken is organic, when they're version of organic might be letting some natural sunlight and air into the building. "We didn't use really, really, young children, most are in their teens."

af_thefragile · 26-04-2013 11:03AM

That's the cost you pay for buying cheap clothes. I wrote about this on that "are bankers to blame" thread.

Here's a good website that lists out which brands work ethically and which are guilty of exploitation and human rights violations.
http://www.betterworldshopper.org

If you wanna buy in a morally conscious manner then you can follow the guide and avoid the brands that rank poorly.

Irish Guitarist · 26-04-2013 11:41AM

Paying more for clothes doesn't necessarily mean factory workers are going to be treated any better. You could buy a Nike or Adidas t-shirt for €30 instead of buying one in Penneys for €5 and the people that made the t-shirt will still have been treated like crap. All you're paying for is a brand name.

I'd love to be able to get clothes that are made by people that are treated fairly. However I don't think there are many clothing companies that do this and I don't want to walk around naked, therefore if I need a new t-shirt I buy one.

Stercus Accidit · 26-04-2013 11:57AM

ScumLord wrote: »

We have a problem here though that we think cheap means good value when it rarely does. If you bought the expensive European product it will often outlast 3 or 4 of the imported cheap version of the product. so you're spending more in the long run.

Europe is good at making food and a lot of the basics can be bought from within the EU, when it comes to manufacturing only the Japanese beat us. I don't think it would be too hard to buy the majority of your stuff in Europe.

A lovely sentiment but I have a very expensive 'made in Italy' suit which I got a couple of years ago and it was not very well made. Some of the fastening came off, buttons had dangling loose threads etc.

Price isn't the only indicator of quality, there's a bit more to picking a well made piece of clothing. Lately I buy the roughest feeling denim in jeans, it seems to be working as those jeans haven't ripped as most of my smoother presumably weaker denim ones have, and they were from penney's by the way.

I also decided to buy some decent shoes, I was wearing penneys flats which are sh1te and other low cost rubbish that never lasted for ages. I picked out two nice pairs of shoes for just over 100€ each, one pair has lasted and weather very well and look great, the other pair is sh1te I should have paid 20€ for.

All I'm saying is that I agree with the sentiment, the implementation though is tricky as price is not indicative of quality.

af_thefragile · 26-04-2013 12:03PM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Paying more for clothes doesn't necessarily mean factory workers are going to be treated any better. You could buy a Nike or Adidas t-shirt for €30 instead of buying one in Penneys for €5 and the people that made the t-shirt will still have been treated like crap. All you're paying for is a brand name.

I'd love to be able to get clothes that are made by people that are treated fairly. However I don't think there are many clothing companies that do this and I don't want to walk around naked, therefore if I need a new t-shirt I buy one.

There are actually many that treat their workers fairly and don't exploit.
Look at this chart: http://www.betterworldshopper.org/r-clothing.html

sbsquarepants · 26-04-2013 12:25PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Well, Range Rover is a bad example because they make notoriously unreliable cars. It's not just a matter of brand though. We see brands like range rover or sony that have an undeserved reputation for quality. Their problem is they have had to reduce manufacturing standards to meet the demand for the cheapest products. Most well known brands aren't the best brands, they just spend allot of advertising. .

Sorry, i'm not much of a car lover, i thought range rovers were top notch!
But my point stands sometimes you have to buy crap, even knowing it won't last because you just don't have the money to buy quality. It's a cash flow thing! Most people buying in penneys, aren't doing it because Louis Copeland is closed for lunch.

ScumLord wrote: »

To know what the best product is you have to do some research and you'll more than likely find it's a small time producer in Europe, the product will be much more expensive due to smaller runs but it will be leaps and bounds ahead of what's known on the general market. .

There is the problem. Ethics don't come cheap. Most people can ill afford them!

ScumLord wrote: »

That's because you can buy the right to use the GI logo and they don't do much to check up on the company once they have your money. It's the same with many of those logos, FSC logo is just a yearly fee, no checks are made.

The BSI Kitemark and TUV mark are one's to look out for, one is British the other is German, they actually do inspections and demand that records are kept to prove regular inspections are made in house.

I'm not sure what the TUV mark is but the BS is merely a product standard, this particular widget is this size, this shape, this strong made form this material and so on. It is the product that recieves the kite mark not the company that makes it. You can most likely find them on a lot of the crap they sell in penneys!

Wurly · 26-04-2013 12:36PM

Arcsin wrote: »

Cost to me: €50
Cost to anyone else: their problem

This attitude is what's wrong with the world. F*cking hell!!

paddy147 · 26-04-2013 02:12PM

Anyonme see the programme on RTE1 last night....Riches from Rags.

The eastern eropean lads robbing all the charity clothes bins through the night and selling on the clothes for large profits.

26-04-2013 02:19PM

SeanW wrote: »

And that's the problem. You can pay $1000 for an iPhone (and another $1000 for the next version next year) but it will be made for $10 by some Chinese workers who sleep 3 to a bunk, work 18 hours a day in a factory they have to have suicide nets around it to catch all the overstressed workers jumping off the roof. In other words, no better than one of those €25 euro sim-free basic phones that you can get on Moore St. Dublin etc.

The cheapness of the product has nothing to do with it, ****ty companies that only care about profits and nothing else dictate what the lowest common denominator for workers pay and conditions.

An iPhone costing $650 costs about $280 dollars in materials, labour and transport on top of that you have all the R&D costs that have to be recouped, things aren't made as cheaply as people might think. Obviously there is still a nice profit but nowhere near as much as you suggest and some people would imagine.

That cheap phone will be far far inferior product to the iPhone in every way possible.

af_thefragile wrote: »

That's the cost you pay for buying cheap clothes. I wrote about this on that "are bankers to blame" thread.

Here's a good website that lists out which brands work ethically and which are guilty of exploitation and human rights violations.
http://www.betterworldshopper.org

If you wanna buy in a morally conscious manner then you can follow the guide and avoid the brands that rank poorly.

That's quite interesting, a lot of the bigger companies actually fair quite well e.g. Apple, Sony, Abercrombie (who people always complain about).

Irish Guitarist · 26-04-2013 03:37PM

af_thefragile wrote: »

There are actually many that treat their workers fairly and don't exploit.
Look at this chart: http://www.betterworldshopper.org/r-clothing.html

I've never seen anything from category A actually available in a shop though.

Arcsin · 26-04-2013 05:29PM

Wurly wrote: »

This attitude is what's wrong with the world. F*cking hell!!

I can't and won't solve every fcuking problem in the world so I'm not going to try.

Building standards in Bangladesh are way down the list of things that I am responsible for and can influence.

This is a chronic problem in Bangladesh, the fault lies with the Bangladeshi government, not consumers half a world away.

In a months time when all the faux outrage has died down and you've forgotten about this thread you will have done fcuk all to change anything in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Neither will I but I'm not fooling myself.

ScumLord · 26-04-2013 05:41PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Sorry, i'm not much of a car lover, i thought range rovers were top notch!
But my point stands sometimes you have to buy crap, even knowing it won't last because you just don't have the money to buy quality. It's a cash flow thing! Most people buying in penneys, aren't doing it because Louis Copeland is closed for lunch.

It wasn't always the way though, people often had less money in the past and saw spending the money a good quality product as the preferable option, they wouldn't have had the money to be buying another one down the road.

I think we're just accustomed to disposable culture and we also like the idea of replacing everything on a regular basis.

There is the problem. Ethics don't come cheap. Most people can ill afford them!

They can afford them, we just don't care.

I'm not sure what the TUV mark is but the BS is merely a product standard, this particular widget is this size, this shape, this strong made form this material and so on. It is the product that recieves the kite mark not the company that makes it. You can most likely find them on a lot of the crap they sell in penneys!

The Kitemark is more than just a product standard. It includes an awful lot of paperwork which includes ISO 9001. The majority of the work is paperwork so that there's traceability should something go wrong. TUV is basically the German version of the British Standards Institute.

skinny90 · 26-04-2013 05:50PM

The Queen of England wrote: »

You can buy the entire contents of your local Penneys shop for under €50 but at what cost?

Yesterday, a building in Bangaldeah - which housed factory workers making clothes for Primark (among others) - collapsed, killing around 100 people.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0424/385306-bangladesh-building-collapse/

What a load of cock - if these companies had any concerns at all about the safety of the workers who supplied their clothes, then they shouldn't be using them. But of course, they don't give a f*ck as they only thing they are interested in is selling you a pair of knickers for 20cent & making millions off the backs of exploited workers the world over.

F*ck you Penneys - and f*ck your cheap shoddy clothes & cheap shoddy work practices.

ya screw you pennys!!!from now on im only gonna buy big expensive brands that costs over the odds because they definitely pay the workers more seeing as it costs so much...right?:rolleyes:

Precious flower · 26-04-2013 07:29PM

As someone was saying on (Newsnight I think not sure) it should be the Western countries that should be pushing to try and make sure the products we import from these countries meet a certain criteria and that the people who make them are paid good wages and work in safe conditions. Now, I'm not sure how easy that would be to do, but it seems like the right attitude to have. Also, I feel companies should not be allowed to sub-contract to prevent certain standards being ignored, I do feel that the companies have to take responsibility as it their clothes being made in these countries.

26-04-2013 07:41PM

I never understand how people claim Penney's clothes don't last as long as bigger brands. I've had jumpers, jeans and some tshirts that have lasted the same length of time, if not longer, than more expensive brands. Jeans especially. Shoes is about the only thing that won't last as long, but they generally don't last with me - a €50 pair of converse lasted the same length of time than a €20 pair of runners from Penneys.

bnt · 26-04-2013 07:52PM

I haven't been to Dhaka, but I have been to Bangalore, which gave me a taste of what life can be like in these large cities. The population density needs to be seen to be believed, and even then you won't believe it. The population of Dhaka is over 12 million and growing at an estimated 4.7% per annum (> 560,000). 307 people died in that building, but the population of Dhaka is increasing by 5x that many every day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2lqXhDPgUA

Why do I mention this? Because unskilled labour is a commodity, and the value of any commodity is related to its scarcity. There's nothing scarce about labour in these megacities.

Wurly · 26-04-2013 09:42PM

Arcsin wrote: »

I can't and won't solve every fcuking problem in the world so I'm not going to try.

Building standards in Bangladesh are way down the list of things that I am responsible for and can influence.

This is a chronic problem in Bangladesh, the fault lies with the Bangladeshi government, not consumers half a world away.

In a months time when all the faux outrage has died down and you've forgotten about this thread you will have done fcuk all to change anything in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Neither will I but I'm not fooling myself.

I was actually more shocked by your lack of empathy.

Arcsin · 26-04-2013 10:25PM

Wurly wrote: »

I was actually more shocked by your lack of empathy.

I won't lose sleep over something that wasn't my fault, didn't affect me and I can't change.

People die tragically every minute of every day but that's not my burden to carry.

I can feign concern like everyone else only to forget about it five minutes later when the next story comes along or I can just get on with my own life.

Its easy to talk on the Internet, but few, if any, posters ever follow it up with any kind of action.

Whatever I say or dont say on here won't make a difference to anyone in Bangladesh. They will still live, work and die in those conditions again tomorrow.

05-05-2013 01:29PM

The count is up to 580 dead.. Horrific.

corktina · 05-05-2013 01:39PM

ah yes, lets shut all these factories down, those people would be much better off with no jobs and no social welfare system.

April O Neill · 05-05-2013 02:38PM

The Queen of England wrote: »

F*ck you Penneys - and f*ck your cheap shoddy clothes & cheap shoddy work practices.

Shouldn't it be: "Fúck you, consumers, for creating the demand"?

I personally never shop there, but am not convinced that higher charging retailers are any better, TBH.

The Cost of Cheap Clothes

Comments