No One Wants Used Clothes Anymore(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
No One Wants Used Clothes Anymore
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-15/no-one-wants-your-used-clothes-anymore
279 comments
Local thrift stores still desire these clothes. Having volunteered at a thrift store though, they are not a dumping ground for all of your dead relatives clothes and they are not a trashcan for all the clothes you've put holes in. If you have clothing which you could still wear but don't want/don't fit in anymore then consider donating. Especially consider it if you are a non-standard (American) size ie. not big and tall. Petite/short can be good for kids and adults, slim-fitting clothes are always in want, manual labor has a tendency to eat up shoes so decent shoes are always good and anything which was in fashion just a year or two ago is especially nice.
> They are not a dumping ground...
They kind of are, and it's a role they seem to have embraced. In other words, a good % (50%+?) of the intake volume of clothes is not fit for secondary garment sale, and is instead sold "downstream" (in bulk) to tertiary markets ("poor countries", to use Bloomberg's parlance) and recycles to use as raw material. This is a source of revenue, too.
In other words, most thrift stores play an important role in the recycling chain. Otherwise, clothes would go into the garbage. After all, I can't put them in the green recycling bin with my cans, jars, and plastic.
They kind of are, and it's a role they seem to have embraced. In other words, a good % (50%+?) of the intake volume of clothes is not fit for secondary garment sale, and is instead sold "downstream" (in bulk) to tertiary markets ("poor countries", to use Bloomberg's parlance) and recycles to use as raw material. This is a source of revenue, too.
In other words, most thrift stores play an important role in the recycling chain. Otherwise, clothes would go into the garbage. After all, I can't put them in the green recycling bin with my cans, jars, and plastic.
Agree. See NPR's story from 2013 "The Afterlife of American Clothes"
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/12/10/247362140/the-...
Right, the mentality of a lot of people is I'd feel bad putting this in the trash so I'll put in the donation bin and then all thinking about where it actually ends up is for someone else to deal with.
That's as it should be. Nobody should expect every person in the country to individually solve the problem of how best to allocate that resource. The donation bin is the correct solution, so that the resource can be graded, sorted, sold locally, or compressed into bales and sold internationally.
Only if it's profitable for the donatee. It's not right for me to just dump my trash on your lawn and call it a "gift".
When that someone is someone who specializes in dealing with the issue, passing it along to them makes a lot of sense.
I don't know the best way to recycle used clothes (for any definition of best). It is likely that a used-clothes donation center does. If that donation center can make a profit, even better.
I don't know the best way to recycle used clothes (for any definition of best). It is likely that a used-clothes donation center does. If that donation center can make a profit, even better.
What if they can't make a profit?
It's a particularly American approach to recycling to assume that the onus on sorting / separating should not fall on the individual generating the trash. Other countries don't take this approach - instead, they place a high premium on disposal costs of unsorted trash, and require that anything you try to recycle be carefully sorted.
It's a particularly American approach to recycling to assume that the onus on sorting / separating should not fall on the individual generating the trash. Other countries don't take this approach - instead, they place a high premium on disposal costs of unsorted trash, and require that anything you try to recycle be carefully sorted.
This kind of runs counter to how the entire rest of modern civilization works, doesn't it? I don't have the foggiest idea how to grow grains, refine aluminum from bauxite, knit a sweater, build a water purifier, manufacture pens and pencils, bleach paper and bind it into spiral notebooks, raise livestock, or pick coffee beans, so I indirectly pay millions of people to do these things for me and focus on writing code. Why shouldn't I indirectly pay someone to sit at a conveyor belt and separate my recyclables? Single-stream recycling is a godsend, and it's annoying that I have to drive across town or find specific vendors to recycle textiles, batteries, electronics, and stuff like that.
The problem is you don't pay for someone to separate your recyclables. If we were all charged for the garbage we generate, and also for how expensive it was to process, then it'd be fine. But in most cases, consumers in the US don't pay truly variable rates for the garbage they generate. (Even in the generally progressive San Francisco, you're charged a monthly fee based simply on how many trash cans you have - so pretty much everyone pays the same, and there's little incentive to generate less trash.)
https://www.recology.com/recology-san-francisco/rates/
However, in our current scheme (at least in the US), when you don't sort your garbage, the cost of that is mostly just distributed across everyone else - both in terms of the cost to process the garbage, as well as the environmental costs of things like improperly disposed of batteries that end up in landfills.
There's efforts to automate the processing of mixed-stream recycling, but they're not widely available yet.
It's entirely possible that we'll see single stream recycling end here in the US soon, because the places we used to send it for processing (like China) no longer want to do it for us due to the environment problems. At that point, we'll either have to start doing a better job separating it ourselves, charge more for garbage and single-stream so we can pay for processing, or fill up our landfills even faster.
However, in our current scheme (at least in the US), when you don't sort your garbage, the cost of that is mostly just distributed across everyone else - both in terms of the cost to process the garbage, as well as the environmental costs of things like improperly disposed of batteries that end up in landfills.
There's efforts to automate the processing of mixed-stream recycling, but they're not widely available yet.
It's entirely possible that we'll see single stream recycling end here in the US soon, because the places we used to send it for processing (like China) no longer want to do it for us due to the environment problems. At that point, we'll either have to start doing a better job separating it ourselves, charge more for garbage and single-stream so we can pay for processing, or fill up our landfills even faster.
Or we'll realize that it's not cost-effective to recycle anything other than glass and metal and stop subsidizing plastic recycling at all. Glass and metal recycling wouldn't be any problem for single stream recycling because the value of recycled materials would make up for the cost of separation.
If we're going to subsidize forms of recycling that aren't cost-effective, I'd rather we subsidize forms of recycling that also aren't annoying to the end user. Forcing people to separate Plastic #1 from Plastic #5 when it's cheaper to just dump both plastics in a landfill in the first place strikes me as Kafkaesque.
If we're going to subsidize forms of recycling that aren't cost-effective, I'd rather we subsidize forms of recycling that also aren't annoying to the end user. Forcing people to separate Plastic #1 from Plastic #5 when it's cheaper to just dump both plastics in a landfill in the first place strikes me as Kafkaesque.
You can't base recycling decisions only on what's "cost effective" while not considering revising the fees people pay to dispose of household. Generating trash isn't supposed to be inherently costless, and it really shouldn't be.
Even glass has become questionable in terms of recycling economics[0] based on current fees, partially because Americans generally fail to clean the containers properly.
"It's cheaper to dump it in a landfill" is frankly, a lame approach that ignores the environmental costs and short-sightedness of creating more landfills. Do you want to live on a landfill, or next to one? They're basically a toxic waste dump.
The obvious answer is to do what other countries do: charge a lot for disposal of non-recycleable/non-compostable garbage, charge much less for recycling properly (and that includes cleaning and sorting), and use the fees from the garbage to subsidize the cost of recycling. This results in 1) less waste in landfills 2) more recycling 3) less pollution and 4) less use of non-renewable resources.
[0] http://www.waste360.com/glass/focusing-economics-glass-recyc...
Even glass has become questionable in terms of recycling economics[0] based on current fees, partially because Americans generally fail to clean the containers properly.
"It's cheaper to dump it in a landfill" is frankly, a lame approach that ignores the environmental costs and short-sightedness of creating more landfills. Do you want to live on a landfill, or next to one? They're basically a toxic waste dump.
The obvious answer is to do what other countries do: charge a lot for disposal of non-recycleable/non-compostable garbage, charge much less for recycling properly (and that includes cleaning and sorting), and use the fees from the garbage to subsidize the cost of recycling. This results in 1) less waste in landfills 2) more recycling 3) less pollution and 4) less use of non-renewable resources.
[0] http://www.waste360.com/glass/focusing-economics-glass-recyc...
Doesn't this beget an economic feedback cycle? I.e., if it's more cost productive to send to a landfill, then more waste will be sent to a landfill, and so the costs to do so will go up as "demand" (waste) outstrips "supply" (landfill space). Then the cost effective pendulum swings back to recycling. Is that already happening?
In some ways, recycling should pay for itself. Consumers generate raw material for free, which through aggregation, sorting, and rectification (de-generating into raw-er materials) gains value for recyclers.
In some ways, recycling should pay for itself. Consumers generate raw material for free, which through aggregation, sorting, and rectification (de-generating into raw-er materials) gains value for recyclers.
Depends how you define "cost productive". Cheaper on a cash basis, but that ignores the (not insignificant) externalities of doing that, such as landfill remediation down the road, and increased cost of transporting other trash to more distant landfill sites.
It's easy to say recycling should "pay for itself" but if you're going to do that, you need to consider the entire economic picture, not just how much value is generated from the recovered goods. There's also landfill savings, protection of the environment, reduced usage of energy (both in disposal and generation of new materials), etc. Given all of those, it can be entirely rational for a government to subsidize recycling heavily, because the overall impact is still "cost effective."
It's easy to say recycling should "pay for itself" but if you're going to do that, you need to consider the entire economic picture, not just how much value is generated from the recovered goods. There's also landfill savings, protection of the environment, reduced usage of energy (both in disposal and generation of new materials), etc. Given all of those, it can be entirely rational for a government to subsidize recycling heavily, because the overall impact is still "cost effective."
Maybe the place I volunteered at is weird but we did just throw those clothes into the garbage.
What a waste.
that's true, recycled denim makes for great insulation apparently
https://www.homedepot.com/p/UltraTouch-16-in-x-48-in-Denim-I...
I think a lot of the fill in punching bags is some sort of garbled/blended fabrics of some mixed variety.
I think a lot of the fill in punching bags is some sort of garbled/blended fabrics of some mixed variety.
The North Beach branch of the San Francisco Public Library actually uses denim as insulating material within their walls.
http://sfpublicworks.org/project/north-beach-branch-library
http://sfpublicworks.org/project/north-beach-branch-library
"...and 11,350 square feet of insulation made from recycled denim, equating to approximately 4,500 pairs of jeans."
That's a lot of jeans!
That's a lot of jeans!
It's kinda important to build with less flamable materials whenever possible.
A library, by definition, is full of flammable materials anyway :)
I remember this dude putting a bunch of materials to the test with a direct blowtorch flame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NC79e0oztM. I was hoping he had a demo of denim; it's mentioned in the video description, but skimming the video I couldn't locate it in a reasonable time. You can look at his demo on treated cellulose around 1:48
Denim Batt at 12:39
https://youtu.be/8NC79e0oztM?t=12m39s
https://youtu.be/8NC79e0oztM?t=12m39s
bummer ><, I was hoping it would perform a lot better. The brief coverage of the poor performers explains why I couldn't skim it and land on it. Only the strong contenders had long enough coverage to skim with a mouse hover over the timeline and spot them in the thumbnail. Sounds like it was trading on low allergic response vs flammability according to his commentary.
I imagine it was sprayed with a flame retardant?
Old clothes make excellent raw material for the production of shop rags. They can also be used to make high quality paper.
plus all those sketchy stuffed animals, when they run out of oily rags and newspaper!
(regarding the denim sound insulation and fire)
Maybe, but there's a pretty good chance it's treated with flame retardants before use, and cotton fabric generally doesn't really burn that well - or at least not fast.
There's a reason people working with hot glass wear long cotton shirts/pants for it.
Maybe, but there's a pretty good chance it's treated with flame retardants before use, and cotton fabric generally doesn't really burn that well - or at least not fast.
There's a reason people working with hot glass wear long cotton shirts/pants for it.
I had a chemistry professor mention to the class she always travels with natural fabrics, cotton and the like, whenever she's onboard a flight. She mentioned something along the lines of it increases your chances of survival if ever there's a fire because synthetics melt and stick to your skin and burn like crazy.
I took some glassblowing classes and the first day safety lecture included a bit about this. Eye protection, closed toe shoes, and cotton clothes, precisely for this reason.
Especially when we were first learning, it was easier than you might think to spill or splash 2000F liquid glass on the ground when gathering it out of the crucible, and that'd turn synthetic clothes into napalm.
Especially when we were first learning, it was easier than you might think to spill or splash 2000F liquid glass on the ground when gathering it out of the crucible, and that'd turn synthetic clothes into napalm.
That's an ... interesting failure of statistical thinking. Fire in the cabin is by far less risky than many other potential harms he encounters en route to the airport.
Assuming your clothes fit properly, your choice of clothing will have little effect on your chances of surviving your journey to the airport. However, clothing that might help you survive a plane crash will likely have the same benefit in a car crash.
I used the term fire loosely, it was basically a plane crash and subsequent fire, an inferno in other words not a small camp fire around the center aisle seat.
>After all, I can't put them in the green recycling bin with my cans, jars, and plastic.
Depends, in SF you now can now put unfit fabrics in the blue bin[1]. For usable, they suggest place like USAgain.
[1]https://www.recology.com/recology_news/sf-accepts-new-recycl...
Depends, in SF you now can now put unfit fabrics in the blue bin[1]. For usable, they suggest place like USAgain.
[1]https://www.recology.com/recology_news/sf-accepts-new-recycl...
Actually, if they're really ruined, most recyclers will take them with the paper recycling.
Really? Even in Germany where a ton of things go in household recycling bins (including basically all plastics and composites), you'd have to bring ruined clothes to the recycling center separately. Definitely only paper/cardboard in the paper bin.
Where I live in the UK we just put the clothes in a bag next to the recycling containers and they get taken away.
They also take away car batteries, car oil, small appliances, batteries etc
In an effort to not have to go to the dump with them, as I didn’t have a car at the time, I actually chopped up two entire sofas with an axe and a knife and recycled them over the space of three months too :)
They also take away car batteries, car oil, small appliances, batteries etc
In an effort to not have to go to the dump with them, as I didn’t have a car at the time, I actually chopped up two entire sofas with an axe and a knife and recycled them over the space of three months too :)
> as I didn’t have a car at the time, I actually chopped up two entire sofas with an axe and a knife and recycled them over the space of three months too :)
And for sofas that aren't in unsalvagable condition there are furniture recycling projects around the country that will collect old furniture, give it a bit of a sprucing up, and sell it.
And for sofas that aren't in unsalvagable condition there are furniture recycling projects around the country that will collect old furniture, give it a bit of a sprucing up, and sell it.
In many places in US you don't have separate bins for paper, plastics, glass and what not, but only one (usually green) recycling bin for everything that is somehow recyclable.
In Japan, I think there were like ten bins, with clear instructions on how each should be used (eg take the label off the plastic bottle before binning it). It was a bit stressful before I got used to it.
Here in Seattle, at least, recycling has transitioned to blue and green is now used for municipal compost bins. I think SF is the same.
We (Seattle) used to have separate bins in the late 90's or early 00's. A lot smaller total volume than the 96 gal toters, though.
I remember that as a kid in general King county (many of the suburbs of Seattle).
However it's still not enough.
There should also be a push towards the use of glass and metal and paper over plastics. Sturdy glass bottles can be cleaned, thermal blast smoothed and re-used or broken down and recycled completely. Similarly metal lids and cans can also attain a new life with ease.
However it's still not enough.
* More bins for more specific TYPES of plastic
* Better, machine readable, (BIG) labels
* Financial incentives (carrot and stick)
There should also be a push towards the use of glass and metal and paper over plastics. Sturdy glass bottles can be cleaned, thermal blast smoothed and re-used or broken down and recycled completely. Similarly metal lids and cans can also attain a new life with ease.
There's always tradeoffs. If you require people sort at home, more recyclables end up in the trash and/or people missort anyway.
I agree we should incentivize use of more recyclable materials (in place of non-recyclable or more expensive to recycle materials) in general.
I agree we should incentivize use of more recyclable materials (in place of non-recyclable or more expensive to recycle materials) in general.
Blue in LA as well.
Where "everything" may be limited. For example, I just went and looked: I can recycle "recyclable glass, aluminum, cans, plastics and paper".
At least where I lived in Germany, in cities, there were dumpster-sized stand-alone donation bins labeled "Kleidung und Schuhe" (clothing and shoes) everywhere.
It's often far less convenient to get to a recycling center in the US (especially for people without a car) so they do more of their own sorting.
I wasn't going to share a link to a barely related discussion from last month, but:
Recycling Chaos in U.S. As China Bans 'Foreign Waste' | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15888827
... China doesn't want recycling anymore!
Recycling Chaos in U.S. As China Bans 'Foreign Waste' | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15888827
... China doesn't want recycling anymore!
I've never heard of this, and have heard a presentation on how paper recycling works that makes me kinda doubt it.
Knowing something about how paper making works, I'm not at all surprised by the idea; since part recycling is going to have reduce everything to fibers anyway, I'm not sure why including clothes which you could use as feedstock to make paper would necessarily be functionally any different to the recycler than reducing those clothes to fibers, combining those with other fiber sources, making paper out of that, and then putting the resulting paper into the recycling.
I loved this article on making paper for U.S. currency, which is produced by one company out of cotton and linen. Up until very recently, the company used denim as a source of raw material.
> "But recently, Americans decided they liked jeans that stretched, so jeans companies began adding spandex to their fabric. Money with spandex in it wouldn't be money anymore, which means much of Crane's time is now spent on a global search for waste cotton that wasn't used to make elastic pants."
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a24292/benjamin-hundred...
> "But recently, Americans decided they liked jeans that stretched, so jeans companies began adding spandex to their fabric. Money with spandex in it wouldn't be money anymore, which means much of Crane's time is now spent on a global search for waste cotton that wasn't used to make elastic pants."
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a24292/benjamin-hundred...
"Before the industrialisation of the paper production the most common fibre source was recycled fibres from used textiles, called rags."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paper#Fiber_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paper#Fiber_sources
What country are you in? It's technically illegal in New York to put anything but PAPER in the cardboard bin.
...is cardboard counted as paper?
My girlfriend goes shopping at a thrift store and she finds top-notch women's clothing there which looks it has been used only a few times, if at all. Unfortunately men seem to wear their stuff longer so I have never found anything good in the men's section.
To grossly overgeneralize, most men aren't as inclined as many women to get rid of clothing just because they're tired of it after wearing it a few times. Sure, I buy things that I decide aren't as comfortable or look as good as I thought they would be--and I'll donate them. And then there are the copious piles of giveaways I seem to end up with in spite of my best efforts. But by and large, I'm probably fairly typical in that I keep most things until they're stained or worn out. (And sometimes even then if I really like them :-))
> To grossly overgeneralize, most men aren't as inclined as many women to get rid of clothing just because they're tired of it after wearing it a few times.
I don't even think that's an overgeneralization.
I wouldn't be surprised if studies and stats show that men buy less clothes and reuse existing clothes more often than women, as verified by the fashion market size.
If I go to my local mall which has a mixture of high and middle end in the world, I might find a handful of stores which sell only men's clothes, but they are both rare and tiny. In comparison, the stores which sell only women's clothes are extremely common and take up a huge portion of the mall.
Furthermore, it's rare for me to see a women's only brand also sell men's clothes, but invariably nearly every men's only brand I know of eventually expands into women's.
I don't even think that's an overgeneralization.
I wouldn't be surprised if studies and stats show that men buy less clothes and reuse existing clothes more often than women, as verified by the fashion market size.
If I go to my local mall which has a mixture of high and middle end in the world, I might find a handful of stores which sell only men's clothes, but they are both rare and tiny. In comparison, the stores which sell only women's clothes are extremely common and take up a huge portion of the mall.
Furthermore, it's rare for me to see a women's only brand also sell men's clothes, but invariably nearly every men's only brand I know of eventually expands into women's.
I own three sets of casual clothes (jeans, t-shirts, nice shirts), one suit, one pair of black dress shoes, one pair of tan boots and a pair of hiking boots.
All the clothes I own would fit in a single bin bag, I can nearly wash everything in one wash cycle.
Just never seen the point in more, I buy good stuff that lasts and that's about iy.
All the clothes I own would fit in a single bin bag, I can nearly wash everything in one wash cycle.
Just never seen the point in more, I buy good stuff that lasts and that's about iy.
This implies to me that you never do anything besides walk from your air-conditioned home, to your air-conditioned transportation, to your air-conditioned destination.
Hobbies sometimes benefit from different clothing - playing sports, hiking activities, water activities, layers for UV protection or heat insulation, 'work' clothes for getting dirty in a garden or painting a house, etc.
Hobbies sometimes benefit from different clothing - playing sports, hiking activities, water activities, layers for UV protection or heat insulation, 'work' clothes for getting dirty in a garden or painting a house, etc.
I could admittedly get rid of a lot of clothing that I rarely if ever use or could readily substitute something else for. But I still probably have a dozen different pieces of footwear I need for different purposes and a closet worth of clothing that I genuinely use on a regular basis for work, around the house, and hiking/watersports/skiing/other activities across multiple seasons from sub-zero to nineties F temperatures.
I live in the North of England, Air Conditioning isn't a thing here and I don't drive or use public transport (I live a 15 minute walk away from work).
I do have some cycling gear but that's specifically cycling gear.
I do have some cycling gear but that's specifically cycling gear.
> I live in the North of England, Air Conditioning isn't a thing here and I don't drive or use public transport (I live a 15 minute walk away from work).
Ok, it sounds like I was pretty close.
You sometimes cycle but otherwise don't have any hobbies which would benefit from specific clothing and your climate seems moderate enough that you can get by with 3 shirts. I admire the simplicity!
Ok, it sounds like I was pretty close.
You sometimes cycle but otherwise don't have any hobbies which would benefit from specific clothing and your climate seems moderate enough that you can get by with 3 shirts. I admire the simplicity!
I discovered that moving country is a great way to figure out what clothing you actually wear.
All my clothing now fits into a single army surplus duffle bag.
All my clothing now fits into a single army surplus duffle bag.
Apparently you live in a stable climate (or are immune to weather changes somehow).
In my part of the world men's clothing always seems to be several times the cost of comparable women's clothing. This may also have something to do with it.
You can get Kirkland brand men’s khakis at Costco for $20. Decent polos can be had for < $10 from JC Penny. Anyway, that’s what I wear, and they are good until the wife complains about the holes, and then some.
I keep telling her I’ll someday fit into that favorite heavy metal T-shirt from high school; don’t throw it out.
I keep telling her I’ll someday fit into that favorite heavy metal T-shirt from high school; don’t throw it out.
Seriously? What part of the world is this? Are you talking about formal wear?
Fashionable looking clothes for men in I would say Northern Europe is relatively expensive... because people buy brand names.
Jeans, t-shirts the likes... 200-300 USD for a pair of jeans is quite common (above also exists). You can get dirty cheap, but men are stupid (me included) -- and to be fair the quality is pretty decent.
I don't really shop in the US, because quality sucks.
Jeans, t-shirts the likes... 200-300 USD for a pair of jeans is quite common (above also exists). You can get dirty cheap, but men are stupid (me included) -- and to be fair the quality is pretty decent.
I don't really shop in the US, because quality sucks.
So what does a pair of high quality women's jeans cost in Northern Europe?
I looked very hard for the article I read recently about a woman (in US) who just straight up stopped buying clothes gendered for women because they fell apart immediately. I am extremely curious whether there is a similar cost/construction problem in Europe.
I looked very hard for the article I read recently about a woman (in US) who just straight up stopped buying clothes gendered for women because they fell apart immediately. I am extremely curious whether there is a similar cost/construction problem in Europe.
Can't say I know much about womens clothing, but there a wider selection of less expensive fashionable clothes.. Like H&M, which I'm sure also compromises on quality.
Obviously, women can also get highend, quality stuff. But for men it's either highend or the supermarket, there's few things in between.
In the US my experience is that high-end stuff is being VERY high-end, and low end is becoming very low end... likely as a result of incoming inequality.
Obviously, women can also get highend, quality stuff. But for men it's either highend or the supermarket, there's few things in between.
In the US my experience is that high-end stuff is being VERY high-end, and low end is becoming very low end... likely as a result of incoming inequality.
Fascinating, thank you for the extra breadcrumbs. I think the mental model has to include something about mass produced vs bespoke, not just high/low fashion.
In the US, the easiest example to take is the three tiers of fashion produced by Old Navy, The Gap, and Banana Republic. As far as I'm aware, it's always been the same ownership, but each brand is clearly marketed to different price ranges. And also as far as I'm aware: all three brands use offshore sweatshop labor. Right now, rough prices for jeans:
Old Navy: starting at 25USD The Gap: 40-60USD and up. Banana: starting at 120USD
If I had to pay 200-300USD for one pair of denim jeans, I would make damn sure it's because it was machined by a highly paid local artisan. (I don't really care that they're local. I'd still have to think about the cotton sourcing, I guess. Everything about the supply chain is problematic.)
You're right that income inequality is shaping the market, but I think the reverse is true too. The only go-to-market strategies anyone seems to use are: 1. dominate the market with razor thin margins (or even at an initial loss), 2. well differentiated luxury products at outrageous margins. Changing the subject from cloth, Apple is the only company that doesn't seem to operate barely above margins for their low-end products. But of course they benefit from fierce competition on margin with their suppliers. And electronics recycling is a lot more profitable than clothing recycling. I don't know, I guess I was never talking about clothes anyway, and always talking about Late Capitalism.
In the US, the easiest example to take is the three tiers of fashion produced by Old Navy, The Gap, and Banana Republic. As far as I'm aware, it's always been the same ownership, but each brand is clearly marketed to different price ranges. And also as far as I'm aware: all three brands use offshore sweatshop labor. Right now, rough prices for jeans:
Old Navy: starting at 25USD The Gap: 40-60USD and up. Banana: starting at 120USD
If I had to pay 200-300USD for one pair of denim jeans, I would make damn sure it's because it was machined by a highly paid local artisan. (I don't really care that they're local. I'd still have to think about the cotton sourcing, I guess. Everything about the supply chain is problematic.)
You're right that income inequality is shaping the market, but I think the reverse is true too. The only go-to-market strategies anyone seems to use are: 1. dominate the market with razor thin margins (or even at an initial loss), 2. well differentiated luxury products at outrageous margins. Changing the subject from cloth, Apple is the only company that doesn't seem to operate barely above margins for their low-end products. But of course they benefit from fierce competition on margin with their suppliers. And electronics recycling is a lot more profitable than clothing recycling. I don't know, I guess I was never talking about clothes anyway, and always talking about Late Capitalism.
Really, I've never observed this. If anything women need more variety and clothing tends to be more expensive. Formal wear comes in all price points for both men and women, as does casual clothing.
This is doubly true if you're buying button-down shirts, because if you're not one of a handful of exact anatomical sizes you've got to have things altered after purchase if you want them to fit well.
Men's button down shirts are generally sized in 3 dimensions - collar, sleeve and fit (slim / normal)... which is more axes than most clothing items. If you're only seeing a handful of sizes, find a different brand.
Unless you're trying to buy a flannel. Then it's small medium large.
You can get custom sized flannels too, I'm wearing one right now. Just have to look around or pay more but it's worth it if you're a fringe size. (I'm tall.) I get mine from Trumaker.
People buy me a lot of cloth that I never wear, because I find them uncomfortable. Either they don't fit or are uncomfortable, impractical or I dislike how they look. By a lot, I mean I get them multiple times per year (birthday, christmas). People don't seem to gift as much to guys.
I had also multiple times had to buy something so that I wear something appropriate (for wedding, job interview, classical dancing or other official occasion) and when similar occasion happened again, they did not fit anymore. Guys can do with same official outfit for all these occasions.
I had also multiple times had to buy something so that I wear something appropriate (for wedding, job interview, classical dancing or other official occasion) and when similar occasion happened again, they did not fit anymore. Guys can do with same official outfit for all these occasions.
For men, ties used to be the utterly stereotypical gift that everyone gave when you didn't know what to give someone. So men ended up with closets full of the things, half of which they hated. (I've donated a lot of mine and I can still say, with considerable certainty, that I could wear a different tie on every occasion I wear a tie for the rest of my life and I wouldn't run out.)
I'll second this. If you live next to a 'nice area' like in West LA, the Richmond, Walnut Creek, etc. then the local Good Will is a Goldmine for good quality women's clothes. It will all be a season out of date, but the clothes have been worn maybe once or twice by some super-rich person and they are easily 99.9% off. For best results, go the week after a Fashion Week in Milan or NYC, when 'last season' is now official.
I've switched to exclusively wearing Brooks Brothers shirts from my local thrift store. They seem to survive to donation, being somewhat higher quality. I also find good winter dress coats and decent suits on a regular basis. It's there, though I'll grant that I might end up digging a little more to find it.
For those who question the value of rummaging through the riff raff at their local thrift shop, I refer them to this:
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/found-vintage-lecoultre-de...
Jeans and shirts are pretty much a lost cause. Every now and again you can get really lucky on formal wear. Example: Last spring I found a ~$1000 cashmere overcoat in my size at one of the local thrift stores for $20.
I don't have the skills to distinguish a 1000 dollar coat form a 20 dollar coat so even if I found one I wouldn't recognize it :(
Neither do I. I saw the coat, liked it, confirmed it was my size, and bought it. On a whim I googled the brand when I got home. Point is, you typically have a better chance of scoring dressier stuff at the thrift store because it doesn't get beat to hell.
"they are not a dumping ground for all of your dead relatives clothes"
What's so bad about dead peoples clothes? I used to buy lots of clothes at estate sales and I still have a few overcoats from them. I have a barely worn leather jacket and camel skin coat that I bought for a few dollars each, plus maybe 10-20 for dry cleaning. Women would buy clothes at these sales so dresses and women's coats would be more expensive, but for some reason I was the only one purchasing men's clothes. These coats have lasted me much longer than new coats that I buy from stores because fashion today is so disposable.
What's so bad about dead peoples clothes? I used to buy lots of clothes at estate sales and I still have a few overcoats from them. I have a barely worn leather jacket and camel skin coat that I bought for a few dollars each, plus maybe 10-20 for dry cleaning. Women would buy clothes at these sales so dresses and women's coats would be more expensive, but for some reason I was the only one purchasing men's clothes. These coats have lasted me much longer than new coats that I buy from stores because fashion today is so disposable.
Nothing is wrong with some of them. Frequently though we would get donations where someone had stripped everything off hangers and out of dressers, thrown it in trashbags and hauled it all in. Much of the clothing is unusable due to wear, almost zero of it is still in fashion and sometimes you get stuff no one will ever buy - used grandma underwear, stains and all (you'd be surprised how common it was.) The stuff you bought sounds nice and should be donated, I'm just saying that people should use a little of their own discretion.
"Discretion" is just not going to happen when it comes to estate donations. People are already feeling a huge loss, and the last thing they want is to feel that the decedent's possessions are also now just trash.
I'm here to make it happen! (if only in a very small way) I'd say that people feeling a huge loss may want to reconsider whether they want volunteering strangers and probationers looking at their relative's undergarments, judging them by how many of their clothes are moth-eaten, how big their pants are, etc. Having done it I can tell you when my parents pass away, I will be donating a few select articles of clothing and trashing the rest.
Some but not all.
I haven't worked in a thrift store, so maybe you can fill me in on something:
It seems like there are "scalpers" (can't think of another word for them) who semi-professionally go through thrift stores buying up the good things, and then reselling them on ebay. I've definitely seen this with sports equipment.
(My fiance and I like going to thrift stores looking for art project supplies, and I always look over the golf clubs seeing if there is anything interesting in there [I am actually a golfer]).
It seems like there are "scalpers" (can't think of another word for them) who semi-professionally go through thrift stores buying up the good things, and then reselling them on ebay. I've definitely seen this with sports equipment.
(My fiance and I like going to thrift stores looking for art project supplies, and I always look over the golf clubs seeing if there is anything interesting in there [I am actually a golfer]).
Same thing with used book stores. Basically just exploiting arbitrage opportunity in the inefficient used clothing market. Unless you pay people to price things more accurately or can identify the resellers reliably this seems difficult to combat.
If you can price things accurately yourself the resellers won't have arbitrage opportunities and you'll make more money. And if you can't price things accurately yourself you'll gain nothing by excluding arbitraging resellers, so I don't see why they're worth trying to exclude.
I used to go to a local book reseller hoping to find a deal, a book worth more than fifty cents. Its kinda fun, they could always lure me in for an hour and I always left with extra stuff... sell the sizzle not the steak. In the long run if they "lost" ten dollars on one nice book that they underpriced for me, I probably bought five pieces of junk for two bucks each that aren't actually worth anything so they at least break even (or probably better). As long as the cost of perfect pricing is higher than the profit off moving some impulse purchase trash... This sets a very tight constraint for how much you spend as a business owner on perfect pricing.
Then again, for a homeless person who brings net negative value to the business bu being there and their time is worth $0/hr... you can't pay a clerk $11/hr or $15/hr or whatever the new minimum wage demand is, if you're competing against homeless who repel the regular clientele.
They're one of the many resellers on Amazon now; there's no point in visiting their local store anymore, because anything worth more than the fuel value of burning it is being diverted to Amazon so by definition the store has nothing left in it that's worth reading. Its also faster and easier and better selection to find anything worth reading on Amazon rather than going to the store. They're trying to branch out into selling weird trinkets kinda like how Barnes and Noble is less than 50% books. In the long run they're on the downward slope of all retail to sell only urgent convenience store swill and spontaneous gifts.
Then again, for a homeless person who brings net negative value to the business bu being there and their time is worth $0/hr... you can't pay a clerk $11/hr or $15/hr or whatever the new minimum wage demand is, if you're competing against homeless who repel the regular clientele.
They're one of the many resellers on Amazon now; there's no point in visiting their local store anymore, because anything worth more than the fuel value of burning it is being diverted to Amazon so by definition the store has nothing left in it that's worth reading. Its also faster and easier and better selection to find anything worth reading on Amazon rather than going to the store. They're trying to branch out into selling weird trinkets kinda like how Barnes and Noble is less than 50% books. In the long run they're on the downward slope of all retail to sell only urgent convenience store swill and spontaneous gifts.
Accurately is a misleading word. It depends on what your goals are. Maybe you prefer to make a bit less profit so that people can read more, as a public service. Or maybe you're just using those books to attract people into the store.
Finally, the scanners don't know if you can price "accurately", so if you can, they're just occupying space and blocking ways for no benefit to anyone.
Finally, the scanners don't know if you can price "accurately", so if you can, they're just occupying space and blocking ways for no benefit to anyone.
All thrift stores I know of and have donated to exist to raise money for a charity. They should be thrilled to move stock. But the vast majority of books are next to worthless, so your "read more" crowd will have plenty of options, and won't care that some rare first edition got picked up for premium pricing.
If scanners don't find anything to resell (because you've already scanned and correctly priced, or even listed online yourself), they'll leave soon enough.
If scanners don't find anything to resell (because you've already scanned and correctly priced, or even listed online yourself), they'll leave soon enough.
I assumed they felt that the thrift store was basically a charity helping the less fortunate buy clothes for a discounted price and that resellers buying all the decent stuff was taking away from the needy.
I meant the used book store case. I have a hard time thinking of used books with high resale value that the needy need. Maybe they exist. Valuable used books are generally out of print due to low sales. Or they're specialty books that weren't ever printed/read in large numbers. I'm happy that I got some expensive-on-Amazon old books from the free giveaway shelf of a technical library, but I don't think the needy are often looking for Opioid Analgesics: Chemistry and Receptors in the first place.
Used bookshops used to be plagued by 'scanners,' people who would come in with internet-connected UPC guns and scan every single item to see if they found something they could sell for more online.
I don't know if it's still a thing though. It was painfully irritating when they'd do it in the library.
I don't know if it's still a thing though. It was painfully irritating when they'd do it in the library.
Oh, to be plagued by people showing you a zero-barrier-to-entry method to increase your revenue. The absolute rascals.
Partner worked in two s/h bookshops OZ/UK. The painful part is when they are amateur, and don't deal fairly with you over your own stocking and shelving policies. Leaving a trail of badly re-shelved books behind is trashing your farm. The good part is that you wise up and realize you have to do more input work on your stock to price it, if you don't want to become part of the wholesale chain. Or, learn to live with it and accept a different profit model.
Now me, as a customer? I walked out of one shop here in brisbane when I found a treasure (architects drawings from pugins practice, neoclassical sketches of British buildings) and they refused to honour the written price which was (I acknowledge) undervaluing the book, but none the less reflected what somebody had thought the book was worth, righ up until I decided to buy it. Yes, this is strictly illegal. its also impossible to police in practice. I should have reported them, I just decided never to shop there again.
Ex seller of huge numbers of books (we're kindle now. books are dirty and feed roaches in the tropics) -I salt the valuable ones in amongst the trash, because I want you, the book buyer, to buy the box not the ones you want of high worth. There have to be a lot of high worth books, to make it worth my time to sort them out, and I'm left with the remove-the-trash problem I was motivated with in the first place.
This is the deal: you buy all my books and I accept I get less than high water mark price for the jewels, but I do get my shelves emptied.
Now me, as a customer? I walked out of one shop here in brisbane when I found a treasure (architects drawings from pugins practice, neoclassical sketches of British buildings) and they refused to honour the written price which was (I acknowledge) undervaluing the book, but none the less reflected what somebody had thought the book was worth, righ up until I decided to buy it. Yes, this is strictly illegal. its also impossible to police in practice. I should have reported them, I just decided never to shop there again.
Ex seller of huge numbers of books (we're kindle now. books are dirty and feed roaches in the tropics) -I salt the valuable ones in amongst the trash, because I want you, the book buyer, to buy the box not the ones you want of high worth. There have to be a lot of high worth books, to make it worth my time to sort them out, and I'm left with the remove-the-trash problem I was motivated with in the first place.
This is the deal: you buy all my books and I accept I get less than high water mark price for the jewels, but I do get my shelves emptied.
"Flippers" would be the term you're looking for.
I actually got all of my "nice" clothes at thrift stores. Since you can get clothes there for $5-6 from brands that cost... well, drastically more than I'm willing to spend on clothes. The nicest clothes I wear are the cheapest clothes I ever bought.
I agree. I have a few used sportcoats and overcoats from high-end manufacturers that I bought for pennies on the dollar. They are good-to-great quality, and thanks to "timeless" men's fashion, are still in style.
You have to wade through a lot of crap to find the good stuff, though. Unless the source is an estate sale, donated pants are almost always at the end-of-life and shoes are always a joke.
You have to wade through a lot of crap to find the good stuff, though. Unless the source is an estate sale, donated pants are almost always at the end-of-life and shoes are always a joke.
Here we have Consignment stores which work a little differently. The "donor" and the shop split the proceeds from the sale. Things start at a higher price that is still a good deal, maybe 1/3 of retail, and then the price falls on a weekly schedule. The shops are picky about what they'll take, but the selection is usually great. Also, it might sound weird, but the clothes tend to be of better quality because they're the ones that stood up to a couple of washings (stuff that just falls apart never makes it there).
Myself, and pretty much everyone I know buys rags in bulk from thrift stores. They make money off the crappy worn clothes and I get cheap and plentiful rags.
Out of style clothes in good shape seems to be the worst issue for thrift stores. Once the crappy clothes are turned into rags and the modern/stylish good clothes are sold, you're left with racks and racks of out of style/out of date clothes no on wants which is why it was donated in the first place.
Out of style clothes in good shape seems to be the worst issue for thrift stores. Once the crappy clothes are turned into rags and the modern/stylish good clothes are sold, you're left with racks and racks of out of style/out of date clothes no on wants which is why it was donated in the first place.
What are you doing that eats up so many rags? I have a clothing downgrade cycle that goes from work, to yard work, to rags, and it keeps me adequately supplied, especially when supplemented by occasional worn-out linens.
Work on old engines, the oil, grease, dust, grime, soot, and the rest of stuff that accumulates means lots of rags.
I used to work at a power plant, and we would go through a pallet-sized box of rags every week or two. Grease, especially, eats them up
Cleaning. You can replace most uses of paper towels with rags.
Having toured a Goodwill facility once, I was pretty impressed with the process for dealing with "garbage". They seem to have a fantastic process for squeezing every bit of value out of it before sending it to the landfill. Obviously, this won't be the case for smaller thrift stores.
> If you have clothing which you could still wear but don't want/don't fit in anymore then consider donating.
But please only to local homeless shelters/refugee assistance organizations, and only after checking if they actually accept the kind/size of clothes you want to bring, as most of them only have limited space. This is also valid for stuff like sleeping bags or food.
The "donation boxes" you see all over the streets in Germany (or those at charity organizations) are in fact often the worst of the worst - the charity organization may get money, yes, but the price of that money is the total and utter destruction of African textile industry. The "creme" aka first-class clothes goes to second-hand stores, the not-so-fine-anymore goes to Eastern Europe and the rest goes to Africa... and for local dealers it's hard to compete. Of course, the trade creates jobs, but the price of the countries not being able to produce anything locally and making them totally dependent on donations is enormous.
But please only to local homeless shelters/refugee assistance organizations, and only after checking if they actually accept the kind/size of clothes you want to bring, as most of them only have limited space. This is also valid for stuff like sleeping bags or food.
The "donation boxes" you see all over the streets in Germany (or those at charity organizations) are in fact often the worst of the worst - the charity organization may get money, yes, but the price of that money is the total and utter destruction of African textile industry. The "creme" aka first-class clothes goes to second-hand stores, the not-so-fine-anymore goes to Eastern Europe and the rest goes to Africa... and for local dealers it's hard to compete. Of course, the trade creates jobs, but the price of the countries not being able to produce anything locally and making them totally dependent on donations is enormous.
Sounds like a relevant piece of information to me. Have you got any pointers/sources for this?
> Have you got any pointers/sources for this?
For the African exports, sure - "mitumba" is the African word for "donated" clothing. If you speak German, public TV station ARD has a documentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djXkFedpTrE (and newspaper Zeit has a short text, based on that documentation: http://web.archive.org/web/20120822083146/www.zeit.de/2011/4...)
For homeless/refugees: at least this is what the Munich organizations regularly state within their calls (and especially during fall of 2015, where people brought in way too much stuff for the refugees and there were severe shortages of space and sorting manpower). Besides, asking someone if he can use donations before getting on the road is always better ;)
For the African exports, sure - "mitumba" is the African word for "donated" clothing. If you speak German, public TV station ARD has a documentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djXkFedpTrE (and newspaper Zeit has a short text, based on that documentation: http://web.archive.org/web/20120822083146/www.zeit.de/2011/4...)
For homeless/refugees: at least this is what the Munich organizations regularly state within their calls (and especially during fall of 2015, where people brought in way too much stuff for the refugees and there were severe shortages of space and sorting manpower). Besides, asking someone if he can use donations before getting on the road is always better ;)
The local homeless shelter here doesn't accept coats.
One of the things I loved about America (at least Sacramento) was the thrift stores! In the UK we have to go to charity stores if we want second hand stuff (usually), and they're mostly quite small.
In American the store was huge and sold so many different things, I spent at least an hour or so wandering around!
In American the store was huge and sold so many different things, I spent at least an hour or so wandering around!
I used to buy my work clothes when I was younger from a local thrift shop called 'Savers'. At the time I was working as a welder in a factory, and being able to get used jeans/work-pants for $2-3 a piece really helped out. I'd wear them out after about a week(lots of hot debris burns holes in them), and couldn't afford to buy new clothes constantly.
Having worked in a couple thrift stores I concur. Only give clothes in good condition. If it's faded, stained, or holey just throw it out because that's what Goodwill is going to do and instead of helping them, you're costing them money (in labor).
Your experience with Goodwill is pretty much the opposite of mine.
Goodwill (supposedly) provides important job skills training, including for many immigrants and refugees.
In Seattle they specifically instruct everyone to give your worn out holey socks and underwear to Goodwill and DO NOT put them in the garbage.
Goodwill (supposedly) provides important job skills training, including for many immigrants and refugees.
In Seattle they specifically instruct everyone to give your worn out holey socks and underwear to Goodwill and DO NOT put them in the garbage.
If the clothes are good enough to be used by a for-profit thrift store, they can be used by a non-profit.
The problem is the clothes that no one wants and end up in the landfill, and thrift stores don't fix it.
The problem is the clothes that no one wants and end up in the landfill, and thrift stores don't fix it.
I don't know, good big & tall clothes are hard to come by, especially for a reasonable price. You don't get too many choices locally (JCPenney, Meijer for shirts, and a specialized Big & Tall shop that charges way more than I'd like is all that I know around me).
I appreciated that there were actually clothes my size at thrift stores, but even at thrift stores there isn't a huge selection of them. Do they really not sell that much at thrift stores?
I appreciated that there were actually clothes my size at thrift stores, but even at thrift stores there isn't a huge selection of them. Do they really not sell that much at thrift stores?
There's also an argument to be made that people are over-claiming tax deductions for used clothing that becomes scraps for pennies.
Poor people don't itemize. Even fewer with the new tax legislation.
I'll take people getting a few extra bucks back from taxes for scraps vs. religious donations that offer no benefit to general society. Thrift stores offer employment opportunities to the disabled and ex-convicts, and provide an option for those that can't afford to buy new.
There is always a place that will take old clothes, even if they are worn out. They are "binned" somewhat like CPUs. The ultimate destination for the lowest quality textiles is places that sanitize them and sell them to institutions and such as rags for cleaning.
If all else fails they are shredded and made into painter mats, industrial rags or even sound proofing panels.
It's also a tax write off :)
"No One Wants Your Used Clothes Anymore"
Notice that this is in the Opinion column. None of what's said here is even close to true.
Plenty of people shop at their local Goodwill or Salvation Army, where clothes are vastly cheaper than buying them new. Not only are they cheaper, but the clothes are often better quality.
Saying used clothes cost as much as new clothes and then citing an Indian blanket mill competing with Chinese manufacturers as evidence of this is disingenuous.
Notice that this is in the Opinion column. None of what's said here is even close to true.
Plenty of people shop at their local Goodwill or Salvation Army, where clothes are vastly cheaper than buying them new. Not only are they cheaper, but the clothes are often better quality.
Saying used clothes cost as much as new clothes and then citing an Indian blanket mill competing with Chinese manufacturers as evidence of this is disingenuous.
The global problem is not the stuff that is in a good enough condition for resale. It's the stuff that isn't and still ends up in the donation bins.
I'm not arguing what the global problem is. Condition of the donated clothing is not referenced anywhere in the article.
I'm arguing that what the author is saying is largely false.
I'm arguing that what the author is saying is largely false.
Where do you think the recyclers in the article are getting their raw materials from?
Your counterpoint to the authors claim that nobody wants your used clothes anymore seems to be that a handful do, which is great but is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of new product being churned out, consumed, and ultimately dumped - albeit in some cases via a donation bin or even a cycle of reuse - via the fast fashion chains.
Your counterpoint to the authors claim that nobody wants your used clothes anymore seems to be that a handful do, which is great but is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of new product being churned out, consumed, and ultimately dumped - albeit in some cases via a donation bin or even a cycle of reuse - via the fast fashion chains.
Title should really be "One Company in Panipat Doesn't Want your Used Wool Anymore".
I won't say you're wrong but it does seem as if there's at least somewhat of a trend away from selling used goods.
One example local to me is a local sports store used to have a thriving second-hand section. A few years ago they got out of it because it wasn't profitable. Selling used ice hockey gear made more sense when most of the new stuff was made in the US, Canada, Finland, etc. compared to China. And, of course, eBay has shifted more toward new things from big sellers.
One example local to me is a local sports store used to have a thriving second-hand section. A few years ago they got out of it because it wasn't profitable. Selling used ice hockey gear made more sense when most of the new stuff was made in the US, Canada, Finland, etc. compared to China. And, of course, eBay has shifted more toward new things from big sellers.
I suspect that the quality (therefore price) has gone down on most of what they sell. Result: the goods don't last as long and don't retain value as well, and most people looking to buy can probably afford new.
Of course. It's a highly subjective title. However, with fast fashion such as H&M and Zara at similar prices, it would sense if interest is in the latest fashion versus stores carrying vintage like Buffalo Exchange. But in the world of fashion, everything comes back around. Vintage will strike again if it's truly on the out.
One of the better arguments here. I had problems with a blanket mill that supplies refugees being compared to good will shops.
Also another HN'er commented that recycled denim is used in insulation. Linus Tech Tips outfitted their server room with fireproofed denim insulation.
Also another HN'er commented that recycled denim is used in insulation. Linus Tech Tips outfitted their server room with fireproofed denim insulation.
Yeah, when i was in college, i went to thrift stores. I'd get decent things on the cheap. By things i mean pants and shirts. No shoes or anything more personal.
Today i donate my stuff to them. Even if they have holes, they can be recycled.
I recall some guy in college who bought used clothing and shipped it to some guy who sold it somewhere in the Balkans, iirc. Do even if there isn't a local market, there probably is an intl market.
Today i donate my stuff to them. Even if they have holes, they can be recycled.
I recall some guy in college who bought used clothing and shipped it to some guy who sold it somewhere in the Balkans, iirc. Do even if there isn't a local market, there probably is an intl market.
Poshmark and similar are huge in the millenial-female market.
Out of curiosity, what percentage of clothes donated to Goodwill do you think end up on their retail racks? What happens to the clothes that don't?
Maybe in the US. In Germany I've been stunned at how thriving the flea market is for used clothes, especially baby and toddler clothing. In my town, there are two major flea markets on a weekly basis. Every neighborhood in town will have at least one yearly "Hofflohmarkt" (courtyard flea markets) and there are countless smaller and specialized flea markets organized by local kindergardens and churches.
The amount of high-quality pieces of clothings bought and sold is staggering. For baby clothes, in particular, pieces that have been worn once or twice, easily worth 15-20 euros selling for 50c a pop.
I compare this to the experience of my siblings raising their kids in the US and the general difference in mentality to second-hand clothes is shocking. I'll admit to being (culturally) shocked when my partner first suggested buying "used" clothes on our newborn but we've must of easily saved 1000s of Euros on children clothing, without sacrificing quality. It blows my mind. This mass flea-market system should be much more prevalent imo.
The amount of high-quality pieces of clothings bought and sold is staggering. For baby clothes, in particular, pieces that have been worn once or twice, easily worth 15-20 euros selling for 50c a pop.
I compare this to the experience of my siblings raising their kids in the US and the general difference in mentality to second-hand clothes is shocking. I'll admit to being (culturally) shocked when my partner first suggested buying "used" clothes on our newborn but we've must of easily saved 1000s of Euros on children clothing, without sacrificing quality. It blows my mind. This mass flea-market system should be much more prevalent imo.
Used clothing stores are very common in the US, especially for the baby and toddler category (which has its own dedicated stores). For baby clothes, a rough fit will do and they're generally only good for a couple months anyways. That said, a lot of baby clothes is given as gifts, and there's a minor social taboo against giving used gifts.
I doubt the US is very different from most Western European countries in this regard.
I doubt the US is very different from most Western European countries in this regard.
In Ontario (Canada), Value Village[0] has been a staple of the working and lower-middle class for at least 15 to 20 years, and continues to be. I can afford new clothes more than I used to be able to, and I still choose to go there for some items. I regularly donate my old (still wearable) clothing to the CDA[1] or Value Village directly.
I wouldn't say no one.
[0] https://www.valuevillage.com/
[1] http://www.diabetes.ca/ - They're often responsible for the bin placement and even neighbourhood pickup of donated clothing and toys.
I wouldn't say no one.
[0] https://www.valuevillage.com/
[1] http://www.diabetes.ca/ - They're often responsible for the bin placement and even neighbourhood pickup of donated clothing and toys.
I don't know why you would donate to a for profit thrift store like Value Village.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/state-ag-sues-v...
The owner has a giant estate on Mercer Island near Seattle that's second only to Paul Allen's.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/state-ag-sues-v...
The owner has a giant estate on Mercer Island near Seattle that's second only to Paul Allen's.
I don't know anything about the ownership but I do see the value and good that is created locally. Sometimes doing what's good locally may help somebody local and still make somebody else stinking rich. That doesn't mean I should stop helping out locally.
At least with Value Village I can see that people are being helped. f I donate elsewhere the benefits are difficult (if not impossible) to see.
At least with Value Village I can see that people are being helped. f I donate elsewhere the benefits are difficult (if not impossible) to see.
At least in Vancouver, organizations like Big Brothers do clothing drives and then sell the clothes on to Value Village. This way a charity makes some money along the way. Check around and see what’s available in your area.
This is the way I see it as well. They at the very least never claimed to be a charity and operated this way.
To that end, I also donate items to the Salvation Army who also makes a visible positive impact on lives and communities. They operate on a non-profit basis.
To that end, I also donate items to the Salvation Army who also makes a visible positive impact on lives and communities. They operate on a non-profit basis.
Frankly, it's because their acceptance criteria are less stringent. When I donate there, they're fine with no-longer-wearable clothes (rag grade) and even tube TVs, both of which are pay-to-dispose at the local dump. Goodwill, on the other hand, refuses many donations that VV doesn't blink an eye at.
Sending me home with half a trunk still full of stuff that VV is happy to accept doesn't encourage bothering to go to the Goodwill. I just want to drop my old stuff, easily, at one location reasonably near my house, where it won't completely exit the value chain like it would in a landfill.
And Goodwill is even worse to its employees. Many of their workers are paid well under minimum wage, under the FLSA exemption for disabled workers. Their CEO makes over $400k though.. (The Salvation Army is quite good on a costs ratio, but has political positions I can't support.)
Sending me home with half a trunk still full of stuff that VV is happy to accept doesn't encourage bothering to go to the Goodwill. I just want to drop my old stuff, easily, at one location reasonably near my house, where it won't completely exit the value chain like it would in a landfill.
And Goodwill is even worse to its employees. Many of their workers are paid well under minimum wage, under the FLSA exemption for disabled workers. Their CEO makes over $400k though.. (The Salvation Army is quite good on a costs ratio, but has political positions I can't support.)
I think entering a profit motive is not inherently a bad thing. When companies have a profit motive, there tends to be an extrinsic motivation to do well. When companies are able to survive on donations alone, you're relying entirely on intrinsic motivations that may not be as strong as we'd like to imagine.
Take for instance the Red Cross and Haiti as one of the most visible recent examples. They received half a billion dollars and achieved next to nothing. 25% [1] of that half billion was spent on "internal expenses." And they have very little clue or accounting of how the remaining money was even spent. Most of it was not even directly spent but instead donated to other nonprofits, who in turn took their cuts, and accountability quickly breaks down. According to that reporting from NPR, the "ambitious plan to build housing resulted in just six permanent homes" from that half a billion dollars.
That sort of waste and lack of any accountability is something that would rarely fly in any for profit business. Would that money in Haiti have been better spent by entrepreneurs looking to create housing/food and other necessities with open intentions of profiting in the long run? Maybe not a fair question since they'd have had to have tried hard to spend it worse, but that's the whole point. Aligning a good service with a good profit is, in my opinion, the true soul of capitalism. It's just such a shame that today it's often easier to make more money in less than ethical ways.
[1] - https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin...
Take for instance the Red Cross and Haiti as one of the most visible recent examples. They received half a billion dollars and achieved next to nothing. 25% [1] of that half billion was spent on "internal expenses." And they have very little clue or accounting of how the remaining money was even spent. Most of it was not even directly spent but instead donated to other nonprofits, who in turn took their cuts, and accountability quickly breaks down. According to that reporting from NPR, the "ambitious plan to build housing resulted in just six permanent homes" from that half a billion dollars.
That sort of waste and lack of any accountability is something that would rarely fly in any for profit business. Would that money in Haiti have been better spent by entrepreneurs looking to create housing/food and other necessities with open intentions of profiting in the long run? Maybe not a fair question since they'd have had to have tried hard to spend it worse, but that's the whole point. Aligning a good service with a good profit is, in my opinion, the true soul of capitalism. It's just such a shame that today it's often easier to make more money in less than ethical ways.
[1] - https://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482020436/senators-report-fin...
I hear this argument a lot, but it is still a better alternative than a garbage can.
It is, and their marketing does a decent job of giving people donating things the warm fuzzies about it.
You can just do more good with the same amount of effort by finding distributors who aren't pocketing the bulk of the benefit. It is a small thing, and maybe not worth it to you; my general outlook here is that if it is worth the effort for me to take old stuff somewhere vs. tossing it, it is worth 10 more minutes to find the address of the local Quaker outreach, vets assistance group or some other honest nonprofit.
You can just do more good with the same amount of effort by finding distributors who aren't pocketing the bulk of the benefit. It is a small thing, and maybe not worth it to you; my general outlook here is that if it is worth the effort for me to take old stuff somewhere vs. tossing it, it is worth 10 more minutes to find the address of the local Quaker outreach, vets assistance group or some other honest nonprofit.
There are plenty of places you can donate that aren't for profit businesses pretending to be generous donors. For business clothes Dress for Success is a great option, but even Goodwill is a better option.
In Markham Ontario. The city has made textile recycling a city program. http://www.markham.ca/wps/portal/Markham/Residents/Recycling...
5-7% of garbage is textiles, and could be diverted away from a landfill.
Markham has a lot of trash sorting rules (organic, recycle, textiles, trash, etc.), which we complained about when they were implemented. Honestly, i can't imagine not having them anymore. You'd be surprised how much of your waste (by weight) is organic and can be composted. Best part is, i throw it away like trash, but the city does the whole composter stuff most people can't be bothered to.
5-7% of garbage is textiles, and could be diverted away from a landfill.
Markham has a lot of trash sorting rules (organic, recycle, textiles, trash, etc.), which we complained about when they were implemented. Honestly, i can't imagine not having them anymore. You'd be surprised how much of your waste (by weight) is organic and can be composted. Best part is, i throw it away like trash, but the city does the whole composter stuff most people can't be bothered to.
Downtown Toronto is making a little more of a push for this these days as well.
My girlfriend and I have taken up being more strict with our sorting and we almost never through out a bag of actual trash anymore. We don't often dispose of textiles, as we reuse old shirts (ice skate rags, and other cleaning) or donate other clothing.
I didn't know about Markham's textile recycling program, though. That's great.
My girlfriend and I have taken up being more strict with our sorting and we almost never through out a bag of actual trash anymore. We don't often dispose of textiles, as we reuse old shirts (ice skate rags, and other cleaning) or donate other clothing.
I didn't know about Markham's textile recycling program, though. That's great.
I'd like there to be three waste streams: fluid, compostable, everything else.
IIRC, a local study showed that fluids account for 50% of the weight of trash.
Then keep the compostable separate.
Finally, let the recycling sorters do there their thing, because do a better job and the curb side logistics are more simple.
Separate handling for specialty stuff like sharps, rechargeable batteries, prescriptions, hazardous waste, etc, of course.
IIRC, a local study showed that fluids account for 50% of the weight of trash.
Then keep the compostable separate.
Finally, let the recycling sorters do there their thing, because do a better job and the curb side logistics are more simple.
Separate handling for specialty stuff like sharps, rechargeable batteries, prescriptions, hazardous waste, etc, of course.
What fluids end up in the trash? Leftover/spoiled vegetables and fruits for sure are water for a large part, but I can't think of anything I would throw out in fluid form.
Sorry, I can't refind the study, presentation I attended.
The local university's sustainability advocate group examined the campus' waste stream. IIRC, ~50 of the weight of the waste in trash cans was from liquids. From coffee cups, water bottles, soda cans.
Preventing this liquid from being bagged would reduce costs, weight, labor, etc.
My sole silly notion was a) put trash cans near sewers b) place a cup grinder / crusher on top of each can c) there's some kind of clever spout that diverts fluid into the sewer drain d) cup somehow falls thru to the can / bag.
Not very practical.
But maybe if it was made fun, like a big crank to manually turn, people would do it for kicks.
The local university's sustainability advocate group examined the campus' waste stream. IIRC, ~50 of the weight of the waste in trash cans was from liquids. From coffee cups, water bottles, soda cans.
Preventing this liquid from being bagged would reduce costs, weight, labor, etc.
My sole silly notion was a) put trash cans near sewers b) place a cup grinder / crusher on top of each can c) there's some kind of clever spout that diverts fluid into the sewer drain d) cup somehow falls thru to the can / bag.
Not very practical.
But maybe if it was made fun, like a big crank to manually turn, people would do it for kicks.
Plus kids clothes! My wife and I do about half of our clothes shopping for our 2.5 year old at Value Village and bring stuff there that we or she don't use anymore. She doesn't care about labels, the clothes are cheap, and she'll grow out of them in 6 months (and they may end up donated back again).
Even Value Village sends the stuff they can't sell (which is probably quite a bit) to these recyclers, who it seems now can't really use the materials.
I’m sorry, what? This is great news — clothing is now so cheap that providing it to everyone on Earth is a solved problem.
Of course, wealthier individuals will purchase and discard more as a result, and the refuse can simply be thrown into the ground. We are not running out of space to discard things.
http://www.waste360.com/operations/regional-landfill-capacit...
“Nationally, Staley says he estimates that the U.S. has about 62 years of landfill capacity remaining in its current facilities.”
Also, I firmly believe that our future technologically-more-advanced selves will have automated processes for reprocessing landfill waste, so this isn’t even a permanent state of affairs.
Of course, wealthier individuals will purchase and discard more as a result, and the refuse can simply be thrown into the ground. We are not running out of space to discard things.
http://www.waste360.com/operations/regional-landfill-capacit...
“Nationally, Staley says he estimates that the U.S. has about 62 years of landfill capacity remaining in its current facilities.”
Also, I firmly believe that our future technologically-more-advanced selves will have automated processes for reprocessing landfill waste, so this isn’t even a permanent state of affairs.
Great news. We can go on exploiting sweat shop labour and the environment by producing more and more flimsy garments that disintegrate after a few washes.
Just trust future us to deal with the fallout, no need to take any action now. Buy buy buy.
Just trust future us to deal with the fallout, no need to take any action now. Buy buy buy.
For anyone reading this with an open mind -- I believe this style of cynical worldview is typically created by the following process:
1) You have an initial difficulty managing environmental stressors.
2) As a coping mechanism, you vilify individuals who possess things you desire that seem unattainable.
3) You look for broadly-supported arguments supporting this vilification -- e.g., "things aren't made like they used to be" and "I want people to be treated well".
4) You adopt and repeat these broadly-supported arguments -- nobody would give you airtime for the underlying drive of "I want your resources/rewards, give them to me."
5) This repetition leads your mind to emotionally believe isolated arguments as fact, independent of their actual merit or relevance to the situation.
6) You gradually become blind to the underlying unfulfilled desires (including reduction of environmental stressors) that started this whole process, and adjust your identity to include rigid belief in your adopted arguments.
7) You are emotionally compelled to respond to anything that threatens your belief.
I'm excited that we're now able to break down the psychological mechanisms for maladaptive behavior, which inspires possible interventions.
For example, I'm encouraged by current trends promoting healthy ways of managing stress early in life, and interest in mindsets of loving compassion and open investigation of authentic desires; I suspect that these approaches and similar are likely to increase overall coping skills and self-reflection, which can lead to better outcomes for humanity.
1) You have an initial difficulty managing environmental stressors.
2) As a coping mechanism, you vilify individuals who possess things you desire that seem unattainable.
3) You look for broadly-supported arguments supporting this vilification -- e.g., "things aren't made like they used to be" and "I want people to be treated well".
4) You adopt and repeat these broadly-supported arguments -- nobody would give you airtime for the underlying drive of "I want your resources/rewards, give them to me."
5) This repetition leads your mind to emotionally believe isolated arguments as fact, independent of their actual merit or relevance to the situation.
6) You gradually become blind to the underlying unfulfilled desires (including reduction of environmental stressors) that started this whole process, and adjust your identity to include rigid belief in your adopted arguments.
7) You are emotionally compelled to respond to anything that threatens your belief.
I'm excited that we're now able to break down the psychological mechanisms for maladaptive behavior, which inspires possible interventions.
For example, I'm encouraged by current trends promoting healthy ways of managing stress early in life, and interest in mindsets of loving compassion and open investigation of authentic desires; I suspect that these approaches and similar are likely to increase overall coping skills and self-reflection, which can lead to better outcomes for humanity.
I was initially unsure whose was the 'cynical worldview', yours or the person you were responding to. I found your initial comment breathtaking.
'For anyone reading this with an open mind' - well, anyone could write that before any comment. It's a code phrase - people who agree with you are defined as having an open mind, etc? If not then, oh, you have a closed mind. I've heard that one before. Nice work if you can get it.
You talked past the person you responded to like they weren't a person at all. You are just 'excited' 'we' can treat maladapted close-mindeds like them? I can see nothing loving in that, nor healthy in your initial comment. Maybe we both (mis)understood it; I thought you must have been joking, but it seems not.
'For anyone reading this with an open mind' - well, anyone could write that before any comment. It's a code phrase - people who agree with you are defined as having an open mind, etc? If not then, oh, you have a closed mind. I've heard that one before. Nice work if you can get it.
You talked past the person you responded to like they weren't a person at all. You are just 'excited' 'we' can treat maladapted close-mindeds like them? I can see nothing loving in that, nor healthy in your initial comment. Maybe we both (mis)understood it; I thought you must have been joking, but it seems not.
Pfft, that can't be right. _I_ claim that those that disagree with my ideological conclusions are obviously haters who are just jealous of my idols' objectively superior attributes. But this isn't a broad insult to those who disagree with the narrative of a consumerist accelerando saving us all somehow, because this problem I perceive in other people can be solved not by reorganization of our society's priorities, but by, y'know, teaching then coping skills. Because they're big babies.
I dunno about the parent comment, but _I_ am excited about the chance to indoctrinate future generations more quickly and efficiently. This should cut down on needless obstruction of Progress.
I dunno about the parent comment, but _I_ am excited about the chance to indoctrinate future generations more quickly and efficiently. This should cut down on needless obstruction of Progress.
What is preventing you from creating your own society?
I recommend engaging with the guy who took you seriously, rather than the guy who's just lampooning you.
I wonder if negative emotions are largely driven by pessimistic interpretations of reality, which then create a self-fulfilling cycle.
Perhaps one way to break the cycle is to demonstrate and maintain empirical results well beyond expectations, decreasing the validity of the pessimistic interpretation.
Perhaps one way to break the cycle is to demonstrate and maintain empirical results well beyond expectations, decreasing the validity of the pessimistic interpretation.
I think you meant to reply to another comment?
seriously? lots of men with lots of guns that get paid by rich people who like being in a society that keeps them rich
Cool!
I suspect that this system exists and proliferates because the men with guns also generally enforce a fuzzy minimal standard of honesty and civility in society, leading to some degree of stability and general prosperity, which most people seem to desire.
It’s fascinating to watch what’s happening with digital currency, specifically the degree of market manipulation and social engineering driving people into outright scams.
I think that humans have a general tendency to exploit other humans, when they have the opportunity to do so. Of course, the degree of this exploitation varies widely, dependent on many factors.
One of the big factors affecting the degree of exploitation is how much social connection you have with a given individual — someone is unlikely to sustantially exploit their best friend, for example, (and this is why it’s so shocking and unsettling when it does happen) but clearly more likely to exploit a random internet stranger.
This applies to group identities as well — I’m more likely to treat members of my organization well than random strangers.
National cohesion has a similar effect, where it exists.
It might be interesting to promote social cohesion between economic classes, and pay close attention to the details of any difficulties encountered.
I suspect that this system exists and proliferates because the men with guns also generally enforce a fuzzy minimal standard of honesty and civility in society, leading to some degree of stability and general prosperity, which most people seem to desire.
It’s fascinating to watch what’s happening with digital currency, specifically the degree of market manipulation and social engineering driving people into outright scams.
I think that humans have a general tendency to exploit other humans, when they have the opportunity to do so. Of course, the degree of this exploitation varies widely, dependent on many factors.
One of the big factors affecting the degree of exploitation is how much social connection you have with a given individual — someone is unlikely to sustantially exploit their best friend, for example, (and this is why it’s so shocking and unsettling when it does happen) but clearly more likely to exploit a random internet stranger.
This applies to group identities as well — I’m more likely to treat members of my organization well than random strangers.
National cohesion has a similar effect, where it exists.
It might be interesting to promote social cohesion between economic classes, and pay close attention to the details of any difficulties encountered.
It's a good thing all of these activities are perfectly efficient and there are no negative externalities.
We are always ‘running out’ of landfill space.
There isn’t much reason to have more than 60-80 years capacity for anything. Technology changes too much to develop more.
There isn’t much reason to have more than 60-80 years capacity for anything. Technology changes too much to develop more.
Corrupt entities which acquire donated clothes then sell them in bulk still want your clothes.
My high school friend's mom had a "business" where she would buy truckloads of used clothes, some donated to go to Eastern Europe, some "diverted" from Africa and she would resell them to smaller distributors, who would setup shops in local markets or just on street corners. Compared to other people I knew they were fairly "successful" based on revenue from that "business".
I am sure people in abject poverty could use clothes. The problem is that it's not the lack of clothes, it's corruption why they don't have access to them. Same goes for food as well.
One a different note, try going to a local thrift store in a nicer part of town, I had luck finding nice used clothes there.
My high school friend's mom had a "business" where she would buy truckloads of used clothes, some donated to go to Eastern Europe, some "diverted" from Africa and she would resell them to smaller distributors, who would setup shops in local markets or just on street corners. Compared to other people I knew they were fairly "successful" based on revenue from that "business".
I am sure people in abject poverty could use clothes. The problem is that it's not the lack of clothes, it's corruption why they don't have access to them. Same goes for food as well.
One a different note, try going to a local thrift store in a nicer part of town, I had luck finding nice used clothes there.
> One a different note, try going to a local thrift store in a nicer part of town, I had luck finding nice used clothes there.
Goodwill does pretty good even in bad parts of town, because unlike independents where the store is also often the sole permanent donation center, Goodwill often operated separate donation centers, generally in more affluent areas, recognizing that supply and demand for used clothes are often not geographically aligned.
Goodwill does pretty good even in bad parts of town, because unlike independents where the store is also often the sole permanent donation center, Goodwill often operated separate donation centers, generally in more affluent areas, recognizing that supply and demand for used clothes are often not geographically aligned.
IIUC, all of Goodwill's donations go to regional warehouses for cleaning and sorting.
People praise Goodwill a lot here but I can't really condone their business practices and exploitation of handicapped workers
Why is "business" and "successful" in quotes. It seems like a perfectly valid business operation to me.
> It seems like a perfectly valid business operation to me.
If they take clothes that were donated to a particular cause, and then resell them instead, that's not a valid business operation. That's a scam.
If they take clothes that were donated to a particular cause, and then resell them instead, that's not a valid business operation. That's a scam.
Im assuming they weren't stealing so I assume either the charity sold it to her in bulk. It's not a "scam" if the charity decided the best way to put the donations to use was through her business.
but the charity that took the donation decided the best use was to sell them and use the cash for their activities. This is exactly what money and commerce are for. Would it be better for the charity to be less efficient and do less for their cause?
They were stolen or probably marked as "distributed to the needy" on paper and then shoved into truck or I heard a large cargo plane and flown to Eastern Europe to be sold on the street.
Oh. I assumed the "some donated to..." meant she donated some of what she bought to Eastern European charities.
It was "donated to go to...", so I think the eastern Europe was the intention of the original donor. But I could be mistaken.
It was a scam, exactly.
Regarding the disingenuous headline, it was likely chosen by an editor to get clicks.
There are problems with the article itself though:
> new clothes are becoming as cheap as used ones
You can find $30 - $40 t-shirts from the GAP, and $3 - $4 t-shirts from Goodwill. The Goodwill shirts also have more cotton in them and so will probably last longer.
Most of my t-shirts are hand-me-downs or old t-shirts from Goodwill, and several are over 10 years old and among my favs. (Back then I only paid $1 to $1.50 each for them!)
There are cheap new t-shirts though: I once bought some at Wal-Mart and regretted it. They came in a bag so I couldn't try them on or get a good look at sizing, and lo and behold they were weirdly shaped around the shoulders and I couldn't really wear them. Just a waste of cotton.
Hell, Goodwill even has a fitting room.
Side note: it's fascinating how Goodwill manages to improve the community while having low prices, whereas Wal-Mart appears to impoverish it.
There are problems with the article itself though:
> new clothes are becoming as cheap as used ones
You can find $30 - $40 t-shirts from the GAP, and $3 - $4 t-shirts from Goodwill. The Goodwill shirts also have more cotton in them and so will probably last longer.
Most of my t-shirts are hand-me-downs or old t-shirts from Goodwill, and several are over 10 years old and among my favs. (Back then I only paid $1 to $1.50 each for them!)
There are cheap new t-shirts though: I once bought some at Wal-Mart and regretted it. They came in a bag so I couldn't try them on or get a good look at sizing, and lo and behold they were weirdly shaped around the shoulders and I couldn't really wear them. Just a waste of cotton.
Hell, Goodwill even has a fitting room.
Side note: it's fascinating how Goodwill manages to improve the community while having low prices, whereas Wal-Mart appears to impoverish it.
I wonder what happens to clothes donated to Goodwill that aren't fit to be resold in their stores. You've got to figure they have to do something with that leftover 5 or 6%.
/s
/s
[deleted]
You have to split these into two markets:
1. Secondary Clothes Market - As trends move faster and clothes get cheaper, used clothes a) aren't as much of a deal and b) aren't what you want anyway. Moreover, as new clothing prices drop, quality drops as well. That means that fewer used clothes are fit for the secondary market in the first place—as they're less able to stand up to wear and tear.
2. Recycling Market - It appears we're in a glut right now, so "new" material can be manufactured almost as cheaply as "recycled" material. The cost savings with recycled material are offset by slower supply chains, lower relative quality, and fewer options. So why recycle, other than social good? (Which, it's worth noting, is an increasing buyer value.)
I expect the market may correct, likely in rising costs of new materials. In the interim, it's a race to the bottom for recycled material.
1. Secondary Clothes Market - As trends move faster and clothes get cheaper, used clothes a) aren't as much of a deal and b) aren't what you want anyway. Moreover, as new clothing prices drop, quality drops as well. That means that fewer used clothes are fit for the secondary market in the first place—as they're less able to stand up to wear and tear.
2. Recycling Market - It appears we're in a glut right now, so "new" material can be manufactured almost as cheaply as "recycled" material. The cost savings with recycled material are offset by slower supply chains, lower relative quality, and fewer options. So why recycle, other than social good? (Which, it's worth noting, is an increasing buyer value.)
I expect the market may correct, likely in rising costs of new materials. In the interim, it's a race to the bottom for recycled material.
There are sites like grailed.com which have been taking advantage of the used clothing market for higher end fashion wear.
To my mind, this argues for buying a smaller number of very good items rather than a larger number of not-so-good items.
I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies, and many people misunderstand the extent to which nonprofits want money, not goods—especially used goods—or volunteers: http://seliger.com/2014/04/20/volunteers-nonprofits-really-w... . It's nice to see a mainstream outlet cover this underappreciated fact.
I do grant writing for nonprofit and public agencies, and many people misunderstand the extent to which nonprofits want money, not goods—especially used goods—or volunteers: http://seliger.com/2014/04/20/volunteers-nonprofits-really-w... . It's nice to see a mainstream outlet cover this underappreciated fact.
Good luck trying to find those good items, even the high end brands are starting to slip.
It feels like they got good at optimizing for revenue at the cost of quality, and who can blame them? But all I know is an old pair of jeans was made of heavier gauge thread and didn't wear through like today's.
The most frustrating thing is the tags are not detailed enough. "Cotton" may describe the material but not the weave or the gauge of the thread.
The most frustrating thing is the tags are not detailed enough. "Cotton" may describe the material but not the weave or the gauge of the thread.
Outlier is great at this. Pricey and a bit overly technical but very high end. You may be able to find others in the list I posted in my last comment right above this.
Example (click details); https://shop.outlier.nyc/shop/retail/nyco-oxford.html
Example (click details); https://shop.outlier.nyc/shop/retail/nyco-oxford.html
I like to refer to this list when looking for quality clothing. I've been slowly transitioning my wardrobe to a more lean BIFL high quality closet. It's specific to American brands. I do wish the list gave more details or why they were considered great but I own a lot of items from brands on the list (Redwings, Darn Tough, Pendleton, Alden, Duluth) and have found them all to be fantastic and typically with great lifetime warranties.
http://www.acontinuouslean.com/the-american-list/
http://www.acontinuouslean.com/the-american-list/
I used to use cheap quality shoes until recently due to foot issues, I decided to buy something better. Ended up getting the New Balance ones made in the US. Their quality is amazing. Even after 2 years of continuous use, there is hardly any wear to it. No abraded lining or blemishes. The sole is worn a little. My old shoes were 5 times cheaper but they would fall apart in 6 months. One of those things the quality is worth the extra cost. Now I've started to lean towards quality manufacturers for many things I buy. This includes a solid build sofa from one US manufacturer and wood furniture made of quality wood by a local company.
Look at article.com for very well built furniture where you won't pay $10k for a couch. It's still pricy if you're accustomed to Ikea/Mass furniture shops.
What you're looking for furniture wise is kiln dried solid wood, full-grain (not top, etc) leather, etc. You'd pay $5-10k for this quality of furniture in most stores.
Personally article.com is too mid-centry for me which is unfortunate. I haven't found anything like them that are more modern.
Joybird.com is kiln dried hardwood as well but they don't mention what type of leather they use so I've just assumed it's not high quality. They're mid-century as well.
I'd love suggestions if anyone has some. I need new furniture.
edit: Ok joybird is top-grain. That's more resistant to stain (has a finishing coat applied) but it's lses breathable and doesn't develop a patina. Also it tends to be shinier due to the coat/scraping off of top hide. https://joybird.com/leathers/
What you're looking for furniture wise is kiln dried solid wood, full-grain (not top, etc) leather, etc. You'd pay $5-10k for this quality of furniture in most stores.
Personally article.com is too mid-centry for me which is unfortunate. I haven't found anything like them that are more modern.
Joybird.com is kiln dried hardwood as well but they don't mention what type of leather they use so I've just assumed it's not high quality. They're mid-century as well.
I'd love suggestions if anyone has some. I need new furniture.
edit: Ok joybird is top-grain. That's more resistant to stain (has a finishing coat applied) but it's lses breathable and doesn't develop a patina. Also it tends to be shinier due to the coat/scraping off of top hide. https://joybird.com/leathers/
I bought from dutchcrafters.com the last few times. There can be a bit of a wait but well worth it.
I grew up near the New Balance factory in Skowhegan, ME. Every summer, there would be a big tent sale where they unloaded their discontinued models and factory-seconds at pretty steep discounts. Just about every pair of tennis shoes, basketball sneakers and cleats I ever owned came from there, and they were good quality - that was typically your one pair of shoes for the year, and they held up.
Another great US manufacturer is Labonville, out of Gorham, NH. They make fantastic work boots and other heavy-duty outdoor gear. Their logger boots are the most comfortable and durable footwear I've ever owned, and my wool jacket is going on ten years of heavy use, and looks like brand new.
Another great US manufacturer is Labonville, out of Gorham, NH. They make fantastic work boots and other heavy-duty outdoor gear. Their logger boots are the most comfortable and durable footwear I've ever owned, and my wool jacket is going on ten years of heavy use, and looks like brand new.
I wish that list could be sorted by product type, instead of alphabetically.
Discarded knitwear is especially valuable: a single, fully-fashioned knit sweater can contain up to 2 miles of yarn. My wife has devoted herself to making use of this abundant resource for people who are looking for high-quality yarn for knitting.
https://www.unraveling.club
https://www.unraveling.club
We try to keep our old clothing local.
We donate our children's clothes to friends (even if 30% is used by them its worth it). Also children grow so fast!
If we decide to discard them ourselves we do the following, in order.
* we each keep 1-4 sets of "paint" or "work" clothing
* long sleeve button down shirts are worn backwards as children art smocks
* a single t-shirt cut apart becomes 4 rags for cleaning, working
* a single t-shirt cut into about 20 strips becomes perfect in the garden to hold tomato plants to stakes, etc
* a whole bunch of old clothes gets vacuum sealed and stuck between studs in the shed to act as a great insulator (I dust borax on the layers of clothes to act as a flame retardant).
We donate our children's clothes to friends (even if 30% is used by them its worth it). Also children grow so fast!
If we decide to discard them ourselves we do the following, in order.
* we each keep 1-4 sets of "paint" or "work" clothing
* long sleeve button down shirts are worn backwards as children art smocks
* a single t-shirt cut apart becomes 4 rags for cleaning, working
* a single t-shirt cut into about 20 strips becomes perfect in the garden to hold tomato plants to stakes, etc
* a whole bunch of old clothes gets vacuum sealed and stuck between studs in the shed to act as a great insulator (I dust borax on the layers of clothes to act as a flame retardant).
I didn't go shopping for clothes in the store ever until 7th grade. Everything I owned was from bags and bags of hand-me-downs from various places.
> But longer-term, the industry will have to try to refocus consumers on durability and quality -- and charge accordingly.
This seems like wishful thinking. H&M already operates programs where they accept old H&M clothes and give you a discount, working as both a guilt-reduction mechanism for those that want it and a customer retention strategy.
This seems like wishful thinking. H&M already operates programs where they accept old H&M clothes and give you a discount, working as both a guilt-reduction mechanism for those that want it and a customer retention strategy.
Where I live (Caribbean island) you often find in dump place or trash clothes that are still in good condition, sometimes very good.
For example last week, I found an almost new suitcase near a trash bin. Out of curiosity I gave it a look. Inside were brand new clothes, new shoes in their box with still the price on it (around 250€).
I don’t know what people thinks...
For example last week, I found an almost new suitcase near a trash bin. Out of curiosity I gave it a look. Inside were brand new clothes, new shoes in their box with still the price on it (around 250€).
I don’t know what people thinks...
A Caribbean Island where you can find new clothes just left around...? Where do I sign up??
> poor countries are turning their backs on the secondhand trade
Perhaps those countries are not that poor anymore then?
Perhaps those countries are not that poor anymore then?
Often they want to build their local textile industry. They're still poor, but they realize that undercutting their local production capacity with free handouts has been one of the things keeping them poor.
I visited West Africa recently, and was surprised to find that the fabric worn by most women and many men[1] was often produced in China -- even though cotton is a major export of the region[2].
I'm not sure why. Could it be the costs imposed on businesses — corruption, less-educated labour force and so on — are higher than in China?
[1] The remaining men and most boys wore cheap western clothes, mostly printed t-shirts. I saw lots of "X conference 2017" shirts, European and American football shirts, and company shirts. They were in good condition, so I assume they are either rejected or returned stock.
[2] http://madame-tay.blogspot.dk/2014/01/know-your-wax.html
I'm not sure why. Could it be the costs imposed on businesses — corruption, less-educated labour force and so on — are higher than in China?
[1] The remaining men and most boys wore cheap western clothes, mostly printed t-shirts. I saw lots of "X conference 2017" shirts, European and American football shirts, and company shirts. They were in good condition, so I assume they are either rejected or returned stock.
[2] http://madame-tay.blogspot.dk/2014/01/know-your-wax.html
The African textile industry was killed by the used clothing market. https://www.voanews.com/a/used-clothing-kills-nigerian-texti...
Somewhat ironic, in context.
Somewhat ironic, in context.
I've heard that argument from various people but I don't understand it. If you don't need to produce clothes you have more energy and workforce available to produce other things, like infrastructure, and run schools, hospitals and build other industries. What is the value in having a textile industry for the sake of having it? I'd imagine that the best industry is the one that you don't even need...
Unlike many other industries, textiles are all of:
(1) relatively low capital to get started due to the relative simplicity of the equipment and the age of the industry and equipment designs
(2) mostly low skilled, meaning that the government doesn’t have to invest a ton in training or wait a long time for enough folks to get the needed skills
(3) safer than most industries
(4) more or less guaranteed domestic market (everyone needs clothes)
(1) relatively low capital to get started due to the relative simplicity of the equipment and the age of the industry and equipment designs
(2) mostly low skilled, meaning that the government doesn’t have to invest a ton in training or wait a long time for enough folks to get the needed skills
(3) safer than most industries
(4) more or less guaranteed domestic market (everyone needs clothes)
Not to mention the potential export market. Textiles are a great example of comparative advantage at work--even if a richer country can manufacture better textiles than a poorer country, importing textiles from the poor countries frees up resources for the rich country to manufacture other goods. There are good reasons Bangladesh is a major player in the textile industry.
True, but you really want to be making textiles for rich countries, not for your local market.
My guess is the idea is to grow the textile industry beyond just making domestic products and to start selling exports. Once you have a homegrown operation, people like Nike are willing to let you make their clothes.
Basically using it as the first step towards industrialization.
Why textiles? Because its the easiest thing to manufacture. Clothing is light. So textiles are often made wherever there is cheap labor. They'd rather get a factory making iPhones, but that isn't happening.
Basically using it as the first step towards industrialization.
Why textiles? Because its the easiest thing to manufacture. Clothing is light. So textiles are often made wherever there is cheap labor. They'd rather get a factory making iPhones, but that isn't happening.
This is a similar dilemma as the one caused by job automation. If you automate all the jobs people can readily do, you do not instantly make them able to perform more complex jobs. They might be unlikely to learn to do anything else in a reasonable amount of time.
This is exactly my thought. If you get clothes by the ton at less than cost because they're used, you don't need a domestic textile industry. Your local fashionistas can still buy the same fabrics and designs as New York or Paris, if they want them.
Besides that, if you stop soaking up the supply by accepting imports, you certainly aren't going to be able to export competitively.
In my opinion, third world countries should be sending their folks to Delaware to study corporate law, and to various island nations to study offshore banking. After they have the principles down, pass legislation that turns the country into a sweatshop/boiler-room for intellectual property lawsuits and tax avoidance schemes.
The current state of the world is that you have to be rich to get rich, so if you pretend to be rich for long enough, you have a decent chance of either making that real or collapsing in a boneless pile of fraud. And if the latter would happen anyway, there's really no point in actually doing anything useful or productive to keep up appearances.
Besides that, if you stop soaking up the supply by accepting imports, you certainly aren't going to be able to export competitively.
In my opinion, third world countries should be sending their folks to Delaware to study corporate law, and to various island nations to study offshore banking. After they have the principles down, pass legislation that turns the country into a sweatshop/boiler-room for intellectual property lawsuits and tax avoidance schemes.
The current state of the world is that you have to be rich to get rich, so if you pretend to be rich for long enough, you have a decent chance of either making that real or collapsing in a boneless pile of fraud. And if the latter would happen anyway, there's really no point in actually doing anything useful or productive to keep up appearances.
Its the ecosystem around it. Textiles were one of the first industrial scale operations for a reason. It generates complimentary business like trucking, chemicals, packaging, mechanical trades, etc.
"If you don't need to produce X you have more energy and workforce available to produce Y."
At some point, the contents of category Y start looking a little thin on the ground.
At some point, the contents of category Y start looking a little thin on the ground.
As the article says, mass production of new items is now so efficient that they are cheaper than recycled items, which have large handling costs.
That's fascinating that it could be profitable, considering that many clothes may make two ocean crossings as they are transformed from raw materials (cotton), weaving into cloth, sewing into garments, and finally, retail sales at the local shopping mall.
Surely it would be cheaper to keep it all local, right? Well, I saw a television program about a North Carolina company that is taking local-grown cotton, dying it with Indigo (also grown in NC), weaving it here, cutting and sewing it into a finished pair of blue jeans. Price? More than $200 per pair.
That $20 pair of cheap jeans at walmart (there are several brands to choose from) looks a lot more attractive to my budget.
Surely it would be cheaper to keep it all local, right? Well, I saw a television program about a North Carolina company that is taking local-grown cotton, dying it with Indigo (also grown in NC), weaving it here, cutting and sewing it into a finished pair of blue jeans. Price? More than $200 per pair.
That $20 pair of cheap jeans at walmart (there are several brands to choose from) looks a lot more attractive to my budget.
If that $200 pair would have perfect fit and last about 5 years of daily wear, I'd be more than happy to buy. Sadly it's more random than that and buying a 30% chance instead of a 20% chance at 10 times the price is just not worth it.
added: What works for me is to get the $200 pairs from the local flea market for basically free.
added: What works for me is to get the $200 pairs from the local flea market for basically free.
That company is going for the premium market. If someone figures out how to automate more it would be cheaper once mass production takes off. But when you have cheap labor and shipping there isn't a lot of profit margin - we would need a much larger world population, or much less poor people who find working for $.50 an hour their best option for life.
Recycle them into fashion items and market them as "upcycled". I'm not even being cynical - I'd buy it.
Great!
But there article is about the current difficulty of finding someone to take things that can't be upcycled---the specific case are mills in India that can no longer evonomically recycle cloth into emergency blankets.
But there article is about the current difficulty of finding someone to take things that can't be upcycled---the specific case are mills in India that can no longer evonomically recycle cloth into emergency blankets.
I live in a kind of trendy area (compared to some other places in the Midwest) and honestly this is the worst trend in resale. There are tons of resale shops near me that will sell a "naked" 1980s vintage coffee table (complete with coffee stains) for $299... if you get there the same day they take possession of the item. Because when the shop closes for the night they apply a layer of chalk paint (then wipe some of it off to make it look aged, of course) and now the price is $499.
It's one of the most amazing rackets I've ever come across, taking $20 items from a yard sale, applying $25 worth of paint and lacquer, and selling it for $500.
It's one of the most amazing rackets I've ever come across, taking $20 items from a yard sale, applying $25 worth of paint and lacquer, and selling it for $500.
I'm not sure it's such a racket. They put in the time and effort to track down these items, and they also have to keep a storefront open, pay employees, etc. Sure, they make plenty of money, too.
I skip the marked-up resale shops and hunt for the stuff myself. It takes forever and a lot of the time the junk you find is truly junk. And that's having it pretty good, with plenty of furniture discarded on the streets of New York City and yard/garage/stoop/estate sales happening constantly.
I skip the marked-up resale shops and hunt for the stuff myself. It takes forever and a lot of the time the junk you find is truly junk. And that's having it pretty good, with plenty of furniture discarded on the streets of New York City and yard/garage/stoop/estate sales happening constantly.
"A thing is worth what another will give for it."
This is pretty common practice. https://commissarystores.com/collections/kostas-seremetis
Patagonia does that, they call it "worn wear".
I see this trend in the U.S. too -- while a used shirt might cost $5 at Goodwill (although it's among the priciest of the thrift stores) a brand-new shirt at Walmart that delints after a few wash cycles might cost $8. OTOH, I have 30-year old Polo shirts that are still in decent shape.
(If we didn't machine-dry our clothes they'd last a lot longer, but that's a different story.)
(If we didn't machine-dry our clothes they'd last a lot longer, but that's a different story.)
As an aside it always grates on me that the marketing meaning of “fleece” as “plastic foam fabric” has wiped out the normal meaning
Around my parts, high quality clothes and goods get donated to the local SPCA, and I shop frequently. Like new $200 pair of leather dress shoes, for $10, was my recent find. However, clearly the article is not about American's buying other American's nice clothes. Its about our bad used clothes still having value overseas.
This title (which most people appear to be responding to) is over-reaching click-bait bullshit, as one might expect. The piece itself is a much narrower and less excitingly relevant to the everyday consumer topic, could be called "The textile recycling industry is in trouble".
I don't think it's that we don't want used clothes anymore. It's that the thrift stores are so greedy that we would barely save any money shopping there. It used to be every shirt that came through was $3 which should've been fine because the stuff is literally handed to places like GoodWill. THEN someone decided they could make more money if they marked up name brand stuff. Now they want $20 for an American Eagle t-shirt when I could go to American eagle and buy it for $25. Screw that. That's the problem it has nothing to do with us not wanting it. I shop there all of the time and I am constantly turning down stuff because it's too expensive now.
True for many kinds of clothes but thrifting for vintage items still has value, especially if you are a bit off-center as a thrifter. For example, men can find nice, high-end blazers and tweed jackets in thrift shops because they haven't caught on in the vintage eBay seller marketplace. High-end consignment sellers have mostly moved to the internet, but you can get real couture for off-the-rack prices. Which is to say: Not cheap, but not astronomical, either.
The secondhand shops in Tokyo were glorious for me. Everything was in good shape and in styles that I like. As a slimmer guy, I found better fits too. Only issue was that things were quite a bit pricier (but the cheap food made up for it). San Francisco thrift shops have also treated me fairly well, but it's harder to find stuff I like\fit.
It would be interesting to visualize and put some numbers to the "cloth cycle". Here in Vancouver, thrift stores are everywhere and quite busy, and it seems like the majority of our used clothes end up in donation bins for them. Some items end up in the garbage, and unknowingly, it seems some make their way to other parts of the world.
The best way to solve this issue at scale is to alter the way people relate to shopping. As a woman, there is a lot of social pressure to show up in new outfits constantly, demand for new styles/designs will remain, and even increase. Millennials these days value access over ownership. We can recirculate high quality fashion with each other, i.e. share our closets at scale, this way, there won't be a need to constantly buy new things from cheap fast fashion stores, as we can simply reuse each others. Awesome new services such as: https://silkroll.com/ is taking a giant leap forward with this emerging and fast growing trend of closet sharing.
Counterpoint: plenty of clothes shoppers in any local Goodwill.
There's always a market for second hand clothes in good condition. My wife buys and sells a significant chunk of her wardrobe online, primarily through marktplaats.nl ("marketplace", a leading Dutch second-hand stuff site acquired by eBay).
Or kid's clothes go either to friends or family with younger kids, or we give them to our cleaner who takes them to an orphanage in Ghana.
But with low manufacturing costs (no doubt driven by sweatshops and child labour), it's possible that recycling has become a lot less relevant than reuse. (Also: don't give away clothes with holes for reuse. Nobody wants that.)
Or kid's clothes go either to friends or family with younger kids, or we give them to our cleaner who takes them to an orphanage in Ghana.
But with low manufacturing costs (no doubt driven by sweatshops and child labour), it's possible that recycling has become a lot less relevant than reuse. (Also: don't give away clothes with holes for reuse. Nobody wants that.)
The thrift stores in my area are as busy as ever, and the online market for used clothing is huge. I get most of my clothes used on eBay or Poshmark. (Aside from swag shirts and underwear, which I buy new.) Sounds like a lot of the people chiming in in this thread are in the same boat.
The article isn't really talking about that market though, it's talking about the market for recycled textiles. If it's as cheap to manufacture new textiles as it is to use recycled material, then it's harder for recyclers to compete. If those recyclers go out of business, then rubbish clothing has nowhere to go but the landfill.
The article isn't really talking about that market though, it's talking about the market for recycled textiles. If it's as cheap to manufacture new textiles as it is to use recycled material, then it's harder for recyclers to compete. If those recyclers go out of business, then rubbish clothing has nowhere to go but the landfill.
The best way to solve this issue at scale is to alter the way people relate to shopping. As a woman, there is a lot of social pressure to show up in new outfits constantly, demand for new styles/designs will remain, and even increase. Millennials these days value access over ownership. We can recirculate high quality fashion with each other, i.e. share our closets at scale, this way, there won't be a need to constantly buy new things from cheap fast fashion stores, as we can simply reuse each others.
I used to drop my used clothes off at Goodwill, but my wife started selling them on ebay. It’s really surprising to see some shirts and pants sell for up to $20 or $30. And they’re easy to ship.
For example: Levi´s jeans sell for 100 dollars here in Uruguay (incredibly high import taxes). A lot of people make a living smuggling clothes.
I couldn't believe the prices in the U.S. when I visited, I knew it was cheap intellectually, but seeing it in person was something else. And I don´t mind at all wearing an in-store return or using an open box or whatever gets me a cheaper price :) ... a lot of refurbished items make their way to Uruguay where they're sold at an U.S. new price...
I couldn't believe the prices in the U.S. when I visited, I knew it was cheap intellectually, but seeing it in person was something else. And I don´t mind at all wearing an in-store return or using an open box or whatever gets me a cheaper price :) ... a lot of refurbished items make their way to Uruguay where they're sold at an U.S. new price...
FYI some might be interested in a book called "Clothing Poverty" by Andrew Brooks, about clothes recycling, and how for-profit companies dump a lot of crap on the developing world.
For upscale brands (vineyard vines, polo, etc) used but excellent condition men’s and women’s clothing is selling online at places like poshmark. I haven’t been a seller but I’ve bought several pieces in the $20-30 range that retail for well over $100. Style Encore is a chain retail store that sells used high end women’s clothing, shoes and handbags.
I'm having a real tough time giving away my "lightly used" Patagonia and North Face clothing said no one ever.
I’m writing this while wearing used t-shirt from local charity store. Boy, is it awesome t-shirt with awesome design. I started to call those charity shops a “museum of human consciousness”. Usually they have awesome stuff which I reckon to be thanks to crowdsourcing nature of their offerings.
Old clothes that are made from natural materials like wool, cotton, and linen can be composted. The trouble is that many times the thread and accessories (buttons, zippers) in the clothes are not natural and the compost needs to be sifted to remove these. Thread is particularly difficult to remove.
Related, my wife and I wanted to ship some used by like new baby clothes to Canada a couple of years back. Her sister had a new baby girl, and she could have used them.
I visited the local Kinkos to try to Fedex them, and I was told that Canada does not allow used clothes.
I visited the local Kinkos to try to Fedex them, and I was told that Canada does not allow used clothes.
Many countries don't :( including mine. Stupid protectionism.
[deleted]
Tell that to my wife! She is dealing my daughters 1T-6T outfits from Well Dressed Wolf, Sweet Honey, etc. on an app called Mercari. It's a little cash on the side for her, and her friends.
[deleted]
So these are the guys responsible for the cruddy fleece blankets that loose 10% of their fibers the first time you wash them and make a persistent mess thereafter.
This is eye opening. Although an opinion, and likely far from the current situation, it lays out a trend in the making.
We will need newer better ways for recycle fabrics.
We will need newer better ways for recycle fabrics.
I was disheartened to discover that in Australia there is basically no way to recycle clothing that isn’t basically brand new and sale-able at a good will. Just landfill.
I do, and I'm not even that poor.
TL;DR keep the 2nd life of your old clothes local to increase their chance of reuse and value.
I do. I actually decided this year would be my year of used clothes.
I do.