> Today, the average American buys 68 new items of clothing per year.
> “You wonder, do people in America have so much money that they can just wear things once and then throw them away?”
I uh… I too would like to know. What scares me is that the use of whatever demographic is causing that average has to be way higher than the actual average, but this feels like it has to be bimodal.
And there are lots of these numbers in the news. The "average American" produces an obscene amount of food waste too, far beyond what I feel I actually produce, as best as I can estimate it.
Living with my girlfriend really opened my eyes to how many clothes women go through. She even tries to be responsible about it and sell items to second hand markets, but I still think it’s a bit crazy.
- Women’s fashion cycles much faster then men’s. Office wear is a bit more stable but anything aimed as social settings like weddings may only provide a few opportunities to wear it before it’s out of style. Men can reliably wear a suit for years, but most dresses get only one or two wears.
- Women’s clothes have a much narrower size range. I can gain/lose up to 20lbs and still be in a similar size range. 10lbs for a women means most of her wardrobe no longer fits. Most mens clothes come in 4, maybe 5 sizes. Most womens have at least 6, maybe 8 or even 10 subdivisions. Most sizes are even numbers, so you might find an 8 or a 10, but at smaller sizes you may find 3s and 5s.
- Womens cloths just seem to be flimsier. Delicate fabricates and stitching mean they tear easier. Jeans have high elastic content so they wear our faster. Leggings rip easily. Knits are harder to care for than fleece or sweats.
I’m not trying to justify it, but I think many men, especially those who frequent this forum, probably have closets full of clothes that are 5 or 10 years old. Guys can wear a shirt for years to the point it’s vintage. If a woman does that, she will very often get judged by her peers.
The answer is "yes". This is part of what makes America (and the rest of the world) so rich compared to the past. A while ago I was looking to buy a small knife for the kitchen and I found a whole pack of them. The average cost of each knife was 60 cents. The meal you prepare with that knife is going to cost more than the knife itself. That just blew me away. Imagine showing this kind of wealth to somebody from the medieval period.
Food waste is fine though. It's a side effect of food being incredibly abundant. It is the only realistic mechanism to fight hunger. You want food to be so cheap and so readily available that people are willing to easily write it off.
I'm curious what the source is as well. My growth these days amounts to growing wider and then thinner and I'm old enough to have clothes from both periods so there's no need to get more. So on one hand, 68 articles of is only imaginable if new socks are counted in the equation.
As someone with children, however, it actually seems low. Really young children will grow a couple sizes a year. Then you only cycle through an entire wardrobe (summer, fall, winter, spring, bathing suits etc) once every year or two. Eventually they get older but then there's activities, sports uniforms, girl scout uniforms, the latest sports star's jersey or ball cap, and otherwise start to care what they're wearing and want to be part of that decision making process.
So yes, while it's fun to paint Americans as waste engines who throw away clothes because they can't be bothered to wash them or wouldn't dare to be caught dead in something that's already been worn, I think the truth may be a little less sensational than that.
A lot of food waste happens in the supply chain before you ever get the chance to buy it which then gets attributed to the whole population.
I think there are quite a lot larger sources of waste than food or clothing in our economy where things could be engineered to last a lot longer and be more repairable but aren't so they will be purchased more often. (think heavy things: appliances, vehicles, tools, etc)
The most environmentally friendly thing I do is delaying replacing my totaled 12 year old car.
Some of my female relatives truly believe that no outfit should be worn twice, even for men. A piece might be worn a few times with different things, but never the same thing twice.
They have even criticized me for wearing the same tie two says in a row or not refreshing my t-shirt colours regularly. And I should have two suits in case I go to a two day event.
I don’t believe that the average American buys 68 pieces of clothing a year. I’d like them to share the source of that. The author doesn’t offer one that I saw.
TBC, I think wearing something 3-4 times and discarding it is horrible.
I recognized that ecommerce makes life "easier" and can make people shopping addiction. I can tell it's amazon. It's so easy to buy , it's so easy to return thing I don't like, it's so easy to find cheap things...
There is a voice inside my mind, "hey you can buy this doesn't cost much and let's save up later." Well I'm not an addiction but that voice actually came up in my mind, and I spent a bulk of $
I can't tell you what I bought. The good news is that I still use some clothes I bought 3 or 4 years ago. I feel guilty but I know they have been my best friends...
I think people should really talk about mass market fashion vs luxury fashion. Many people seem to think that buying LVMH clothes or other luxury brands is somehow more ethical when those brands can be even worse. Those brands just sell far fewer items so it's not the same amount. If 99.9% of clothes are fast fashion than 99.9% of left over clothes should also be fast fashion, it's actually more like 100% as luxury brands will just destroy unsold merchandise usually to prevent damage to the brand.
I'm a guy so clearly things don't change as much but almost every piece of clothing I own is "fast fashion" that I'll wear until it's ruined. Consumers are told constantly by the media, social media and brands that they need to continuously change or be out of fashion and "cringe" or "cheugy". I think fast fashion companies in general are one of the least to blame for these trends, they seem to just copy quickly what is deemed as good but others.
Kmart in Australia is a good example. Most stores sell crappy out of date stuff so you have to shop online but Kmart has heaps of good cheap stuff under the Anko brand. From $3.70 t-shirts with a good fit, to $50.00 air fryers to nice containers to store stuff in. IMO it's a big win for most people to have cheap good stuff to buy. If it wasn't for Kmart it would be far harder to not be "cringe" while being poor. If the coolness industrial complex decides that this stuff is not good then Kmart would need to get rid of stock to replace it with new cool stuff. Is that Kmarts fault? I don't think so.
They should try the Disney vault model where they keep unsold goods in a warehouse for an ultra pricey limited release. The difference is that there would be actual scarcity, but yeah maybe warehouse costs would offset any profit. It would be nice to see the experiment though.
In Ghana, imported secondhand clothes are called obroni wawu, dead white man’s clothes. In Malawi, they are kaunjika — literally “clothes sold in a heap.” In Mozambique, they are known as calamidade, calamity, for their historical association with disaster relief aid.
Fascinating article if only for such an interesting glimpse into Africa and African culture and how it is being shaped by its relationship to the larger world.
Hopefully the climate change issue could motivate to change this. Even if this stuff is piling up in a place sight unseen from the origin, it's still coming back to that origin in ways which we don't well understand.
Just as the pandemic accelerated global cooperation and change, so could the climate issue. If the US wanted to shut down this problem, regulators could find the key spot to put a bullet into. Ideally the US would take the responsibility that comes with globalism after nuking the world with trash.
Trash is how I view everything I buy. I'm walking into a store to buy trash. It doesn't matter that I still wear a belt daily which I have had for 15 years and much of my clothes are seriously straining from overuse. It still goes to trash eventually. If I take it to my grave, then I'm trash wrapped in trash. When I first stayed in a developing country, there was no trash service for much of the region. If you wanted to get rid of something, you burned it. Today I do all my shopping considering what it would be like to burn it. Car shopping would be so much fun.
Don't think it matters what we do individually. This needs to be an urgent thing taken at levels where people actually have power to change things.
Also, I think the issue is that this is essentially a scheme to cheaply get rid of trash. You could probably pay these importers to take the trash and it would still be worth it. "You mean, you'll pay us to take our trash?! Thank you so much for solving that nightmare of a problem for us. This was looking REALLY expensive for us to deal with in our own country."
Clothes are a small source of CO2 emissions compared to transportation and electricity.
> Just as the pandemic accelerated global cooperation and change
No, cooperation has gotten worse. Look at how many countries want to repatriate industries so they're not dependent on others.
> Today I do all my shopping considering what it would be like to burn it. Car shopping would be so much fun.
I'll just leave that one there.
> I think the issue is that this is essentially a scheme to cheaply get rid of trash.
Trash isn't that expensive to get rid of, and, at least the US, isn't running short on places to store it. I have no idea why clothes in poor condition are still worth shipping to developing countries unless charities just feel really committed to doing something.
What I've anecdotally seem is that it makes these fast fashion "green brands" pop up who claim to plant trees or use "organic" materials instead of common sense reuse, recycle point of view.
The whole commercial system is so full of perverse incentives. It is absolutely horrible what we do to your planet but there is so much momentum behind this. Someone near me loves to throw things away. I kid you not. Mountains of disposables, perfectly good stuff gets replaced just to get something new. And let's not get started about the amount of food that goes into the waste bin even though there is nothing wrong with it other than that an expiry sticker says it is now one day over time.
Personal status report: articles of clothing bought in the last year: 0. Articles of clothing bought in the last three years: still 0. And I don't think I'll be buying any for the next year either and then likely I'll buy some underwear and socks.
But for my kids (who are growing quite rapidly) it is a completely different story and I suspect that that is one factor that pushes up that average.
Once an item of clothing wears out too much to wear in public, I wear it around the house or sleep in it. During the pandemic I've rarely had to wear `decent' clothes. On video calls I just temporarily put on a non-worn-out top over whatever I'm wearing.
Unfortunately I do have to buy replacement footwear quite regularly (50+ miles on foot per week). But a worn out pair of shoes does for working in the garden, and worn socks as slippers round the house.
So, eventually, my clothes end up in UK landfill, once they are too worn out even for me (which can be after decades).
I'm the same. My girlfriend is constantly wanting to throw out some of my clothing items, and I'm thinking "I could probably still wear that for another 10 years!"
I have started buying clothes from USA _because_ they are of higher quality. Even though they are made in my India, they are usually not available for sale here. The quality and variety available for exports is drastically different from what is available for the local market. Mine have lasted at least 2-3 years before I buy a new set of clothes.
I wonder why there is a huge churn in USA to keep buying new clothes. Is it just more affordable/cheaper to buy than to mend your clothes? Easier access that makes it binge buy quickly? Too many special occasions? I am confused cos I feel they haven't seen inferior quality of clothing that they don't keep their belongings longer.
I'm an American that doesn't buy new clothes often, but I want to provide my view. My clothes last a lot longer than 2-3 years. To get to the point that they're ragged or faded takes a long time for most of them. (The very cheapest t-shirts from online sites are the exception. I don't buy those any more.)
On the other hand, my wife gets great pleasure from getting new clothing. She has a lot more than I do, and still she buys more. She is genuinely excited about wearing and showing off the new clothes she bought. When she gets a compliment about them, she is very, very happy.
Strangers aren't likely to give those compliments, and friends aren't going to compliment the same clothes again. To get those feelings, she needs new clothes.
All that said, she doesn't buy as many clothes as many of the vapid women/girls that I've met over the years. She's responsible with her money and doesn't buy excessively. But watching her emotions about the ones she does buy informs me a lot about the less responsible women out there.
I don't know any men like that, but I have seen them on TV (especially "reality" shows), so I'm sure they exist, too.
Having had my sleep interrupted by a toddler bed wetting situation, I just spent 2 hours typing a novel about the human condition on my phone rather than sleeping, and then slipped and accidently swiped "refresh". Long story short, the reason why Americans buy excessive amounts of consumer goods is because they can and have for 3 or 4 generations and it's culturally normal. There's fleeting happiness from the small reward of dopamine in your brain from spending money, and an economy optimized for it built on top of unprecedented abundance since the late 1940's.
A lot of Americans are uninformed about quality, and are well enough off not to need to be. As an extreme example, a few weeks ago my young nephews were really excited because a "$400" drone was "on sale" for only $100 in limited quantities! "Daaaadddd we HAVE to buy it. We'll use our own money!" Luckily I was there and, as their uncle, have no problem crushing their hopes and dreams. I work on autonomous aircraft professionally, so it was pretty easy to explain thoroughly and painfully (for them) why it was junk. I made it a point for them to understand that despite the fact that they had the money, they couldn't really afford to buy it. If they did, they would have fun for about 90 seconds until it crashed and broke, and then they would have a pile of e-waste and no money.
Adults are generally wiser than children, but still frequently irrational (not to imply that that's a bad thing). My wife orders and returns clothes often times as a way to cope with stress and anxiety. It's several orders of magnitude cheaper and easier than therapy (which is a rather unfortunate state for our society), and her experiences as a child led to her developing a scarcity mindset. She also hates clutter, and will tend to either pack things away never to be seen again or readily throw things away on a daily basis.
I'm fairly opposite. I rarely buy clothes; the average age of any item of clothing I own is probably 10 years. I'll hand sew holes to keep my favorite shorts on life support. My experiences as a child lead to developing an abundance mindset. I appreciate order but don't mind clutter, and like to know I can find something within 10 minutes of looking, even if it's been a few years, because it's exactly where I left it. I don't throw things away without some premeditation, because I bought it with some premeditation.
> Is it just more affordable/cheaper to buy than to mend your clothes?
I'm not from the US (EU instead) but mending clothes is almost never cost-effective for me, because it's hard to do well, and would cost more than most garments (either in time, or in paying somebody to do it).
> If you live in the West, chances are at some point you have stuffed your used clothes into a garbage bag and hauled them off to a Goodwill or the Salvation Army.
Please don't let this article put you off donating clothes to good causes. I know that (for instance) in the UK the Red Cross sells as much as it can, and only the unsellable stuff (ripped, stained etc) goes out to 'rag' with the recyclers. Clothing is even cycled through different shops if one can't sell it. So I'm really not sure that 10-20% figure holds up globally.
Something this article glossses over is that this stuff is not just being dumped - it's being bought. I think it's wrong that (for instance, in the article) the US interfered in law-making in various places to veto restrictions on the trade, of course. But fundamentally, the countries need to get a handle on dumping and start factoring that into the price of doing business.
Yes, westerners could buy less crap, and they could also do more shopping for used stuff themselves. But that's only part of hte picture.
Everything that gets produced eventually lands in a dump. The moral justification for shipping stuff your nation has no use for anymore, i.e. your garbage, off to Africa needs to be discussed. Some of that stuff will find second use, which is good in some ways and bad in other ways, but whether that happens or not, everything that gets shipped to Africa will end up in a dump in Africa sooner or later - unless it gets shipped away again somewhere else.
Growing up, it was completely normal to look at my older brothers clothes and pick which I wanted 2 years before it was handed down to me.
Then we got MTV. When our mother travelled on business, we would make print outs of shoes and clothing that we wanted. God forbid someone caught you with an off-brand shoe at school now that the poorest kid under the hot sun of Saudi Arabia was fashion aware. It was wasteful, it was expensive, it was less than 5 items each a year.
I can't even imagine what it's like to buy 68 article of clothing a year. But then again a wise author once said: "Ending is better than mending."
That's conspicuous consumption gone mad, it seems to me too many people have far too much disposable income.
What is it about people that they cannot be content with their clothes in that they have to change them long before they're worn out? This is fashion gone mad.
I never throw out clothes, and I can keep the same items for many years - I've still got jeans, BD dungarees, etc. that I bought over 20 years ago. When they eventually become threadbare I tear them up for cleaning rags.
What the hell is wrong with these people that they can be so wasteful?
Much of this isn’t conspicuous consumption it’s a lack of reuse inside of developed nations. Low quality clothing is so cheap it’s hard to fathom, making buying new simply easier and just as affordable.
“In 2019, American families spent on average about 2% of their income on clothing.” It’s vastly more affordable than “In the 1950s, the average American family spent about 10% of its income on clothing, and that money bought them just a few sturdy garments a year.”
Thrift shops went from a way to save real money at the cost of time to a fashion statement.
A lot of the super cheap stuff from Shein is so utter shit quality it won't last more than a few wears.
And it's almost all plastic.
I can't stand synthetic fabrics I feel like if people were exposed to real materials they would learn it feels better and last longer. And is fashionable. Real wool, nice cotton, silk. It lasts a long time if it's constructed & woven well.
I don't know if it's actually better in terms of co2 but sustainable livestock and cotton seem better than plastic.
I would bet a lot of the typic HN 'dude engineers' don't even know their shirts are plastic.
The weird part of this isn’t that fast fashion generates a lot of trash. Almost every part of the American lifestyle generates tons of waste. The strange part is that the US strong arms African countries into buying the “donated” garments from textile recyclers. I’ll be throwing my used garments directly into the landfill in the future.
Sound more like the US government won’t allow African governments to maintain tariff-free and trade-barrier-free access to US markets without the African governments reciprocating. It’s the African customers choosing to pay the American recyclers, not the US government.
Clearly African governments think its in their interests to maintain that trade deal - that’s probably why they agreed to it in the first place.
The recycling industrial complex is a total mess in general. American recycling also gets dumped on South East Asia (mainly China if memory serves) where much of it is just waste.
There's a reason recycling is the third R, and it should primarily take the form of other people reusing your stuff anyway - not throwing items in a specifically coloured bin and calling it a day.
One of the great talking points of capitalism is that competition breeds efficiency, so no: the complete decoupling of production from demand is at least A weird part.
I'm in e-commerce, and reading through this thread I think many people have the misconception that people make purchases to solve problems and want that solution to last as long as possible.
In reality, and this is something I spent a long time coming to terms with, much shopping is done because it's fun. Spending money isn't a cost - it's the whole point of the exercise.
Did shopping become fun because fast-fashion clothes were cheap, or did clothes become cheap because shopping is fun?
I'm also e-commerce-adjacent, but I believe fast-fashion (especially synthetics) is bad for humanity. Sure, people are making loads of money[1], but it's an ecological disaster in the making.
1. Me included, but only getting a little. Shein is getting ALL the money.
It's possible for both to be true. People make purchases that are fun, and they'd like said purchases to solve some problem (and preferably with decent quality).
Like, when I make silly gadget purchases, yes it's fun to acquire the gadgets, but I'd like them to be good products that last too.
I think some shopping is ‘security’ and ‘self-sufficiency’ impulses. However, at some point this tendency is exploited (leveraged) by industry and augmented by the tendency to peer pressure. Kids made fun of other kids who wore the same clothes over and over, for example. Not all groups succumbed to this, of course. The ‘punk’ and ‘metal’ kids didn’t get into that as much as others (though they each had their own ‘uniforms’) but they tended to be more static and you wore what you had… you didn’t need the latest Nikes (or these days Canada Goose) or what have you.
I'm in the minority then, I hate shopping it only brings me stress and not joy. I think I haven't bought new clothes (except underwear) in the past two years.
I refuse to fault fast fashion for these issues when the amount of trash free t-shirts given away for free at any conference could probably build a mountain on its own.
The article describes a world of affluence, reaching deep into the poorest parts of Africa. Gone are the days when people would have to be naked when they washed the only piece of clothing they owned.
Somehow this eradication of third world poverty is bad. Because everything is bad if you want to think of it that way.
Just one point: Clothing ending up in landfills are a form of carbon sequestration.
I've taken to buying almost all my clothes second hand recently, both for this reason and I find the selection and styles far better than what fast fashion provides. Thrift stores like Goodwill provide some gems, but the best shopping comes from we-buy-your-clothes type places like Buffalo Exchange and Crossroads, and the prices are better too!
[+] [-] deathanatos|4 years ago|reply
> “You wonder, do people in America have so much money that they can just wear things once and then throw them away?”
I uh… I too would like to know. What scares me is that the use of whatever demographic is causing that average has to be way higher than the actual average, but this feels like it has to be bimodal.
And there are lots of these numbers in the news. The "average American" produces an obscene amount of food waste too, far beyond what I feel I actually produce, as best as I can estimate it.
[+] [-] dexwiz|4 years ago|reply
- Women’s fashion cycles much faster then men’s. Office wear is a bit more stable but anything aimed as social settings like weddings may only provide a few opportunities to wear it before it’s out of style. Men can reliably wear a suit for years, but most dresses get only one or two wears.
- Women’s clothes have a much narrower size range. I can gain/lose up to 20lbs and still be in a similar size range. 10lbs for a women means most of her wardrobe no longer fits. Most mens clothes come in 4, maybe 5 sizes. Most womens have at least 6, maybe 8 or even 10 subdivisions. Most sizes are even numbers, so you might find an 8 or a 10, but at smaller sizes you may find 3s and 5s.
- Womens cloths just seem to be flimsier. Delicate fabricates and stitching mean they tear easier. Jeans have high elastic content so they wear our faster. Leggings rip easily. Knits are harder to care for than fleece or sweats.
I’m not trying to justify it, but I think many men, especially those who frequent this forum, probably have closets full of clothes that are 5 or 10 years old. Guys can wear a shirt for years to the point it’s vintage. If a woman does that, she will very often get judged by her peers.
[+] [-] Aerroon|4 years ago|reply
Food waste is fine though. It's a side effect of food being incredibly abundant. It is the only realistic mechanism to fight hunger. You want food to be so cheap and so readily available that people are willing to easily write it off.
[+] [-] johncessna|4 years ago|reply
As someone with children, however, it actually seems low. Really young children will grow a couple sizes a year. Then you only cycle through an entire wardrobe (summer, fall, winter, spring, bathing suits etc) once every year or two. Eventually they get older but then there's activities, sports uniforms, girl scout uniforms, the latest sports star's jersey or ball cap, and otherwise start to care what they're wearing and want to be part of that decision making process.
So yes, while it's fun to paint Americans as waste engines who throw away clothes because they can't be bothered to wash them or wouldn't dare to be caught dead in something that's already been worn, I think the truth may be a little less sensational than that.
[+] [-] colechristensen|4 years ago|reply
I think there are quite a lot larger sources of waste than food or clothing in our economy where things could be engineered to last a lot longer and be more repairable but aren't so they will be purchased more often. (think heavy things: appliances, vehicles, tools, etc)
The most environmentally friendly thing I do is delaying replacing my totaled 12 year old car.
[+] [-] MattGaiser|4 years ago|reply
They have even criticized me for wearing the same tie two says in a row or not refreshing my t-shirt colours regularly. And I should have two suits in case I go to a two day event.
[+] [-] HFguy|4 years ago|reply
TBC, I think wearing something 3-4 times and discarding it is horrible.
[+] [-] bryanp2021|4 years ago|reply
There is a voice inside my mind, "hey you can buy this doesn't cost much and let's save up later." Well I'm not an addiction but that voice actually came up in my mind, and I spent a bulk of $
I can't tell you what I bought. The good news is that I still use some clothes I bought 3 or 4 years ago. I feel guilty but I know they have been my best friends...
[+] [-] t8y|4 years ago|reply
I'm a guy so clearly things don't change as much but almost every piece of clothing I own is "fast fashion" that I'll wear until it's ruined. Consumers are told constantly by the media, social media and brands that they need to continuously change or be out of fashion and "cringe" or "cheugy". I think fast fashion companies in general are one of the least to blame for these trends, they seem to just copy quickly what is deemed as good but others.
Kmart in Australia is a good example. Most stores sell crappy out of date stuff so you have to shop online but Kmart has heaps of good cheap stuff under the Anko brand. From $3.70 t-shirts with a good fit, to $50.00 air fryers to nice containers to store stuff in. IMO it's a big win for most people to have cheap good stuff to buy. If it wasn't for Kmart it would be far harder to not be "cringe" while being poor. If the coolness industrial complex decides that this stuff is not good then Kmart would need to get rid of stock to replace it with new cool stuff. Is that Kmarts fault? I don't think so.
[+] [-] chaostheory|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattGaiser|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x3iv130f|4 years ago|reply
Buying luxury off the rack at a well known store is almost always a bad financial decision.
I stick primarily to lesser known brands that still maintain good quality. I almost always buy used with just a few exceptions.
For some reason it is hard for me to find good pants used or with any sort of discount.
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|4 years ago|reply
Fascinating article if only for such an interesting glimpse into Africa and African culture and how it is being shaped by its relationship to the larger world.
[+] [-] gexla|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a0-prw|4 years ago|reply
This also happened with "cheap" milk powder from the EU to (iirc) Ghana.
Ghana was helping to finance the EU's overproduction of milk.
[+] [-] gexla|4 years ago|reply
Just as the pandemic accelerated global cooperation and change, so could the climate issue. If the US wanted to shut down this problem, regulators could find the key spot to put a bullet into. Ideally the US would take the responsibility that comes with globalism after nuking the world with trash.
Trash is how I view everything I buy. I'm walking into a store to buy trash. It doesn't matter that I still wear a belt daily which I have had for 15 years and much of my clothes are seriously straining from overuse. It still goes to trash eventually. If I take it to my grave, then I'm trash wrapped in trash. When I first stayed in a developing country, there was no trash service for much of the region. If you wanted to get rid of something, you burned it. Today I do all my shopping considering what it would be like to burn it. Car shopping would be so much fun.
Don't think it matters what we do individually. This needs to be an urgent thing taken at levels where people actually have power to change things.
Also, I think the issue is that this is essentially a scheme to cheaply get rid of trash. You could probably pay these importers to take the trash and it would still be worth it. "You mean, you'll pay us to take our trash?! Thank you so much for solving that nightmare of a problem for us. This was looking REALLY expensive for us to deal with in our own country."
[+] [-] dehrmann|4 years ago|reply
> Just as the pandemic accelerated global cooperation and change
No, cooperation has gotten worse. Look at how many countries want to repatriate industries so they're not dependent on others.
> Today I do all my shopping considering what it would be like to burn it. Car shopping would be so much fun.
I'll just leave that one there.
> I think the issue is that this is essentially a scheme to cheaply get rid of trash.
Trash isn't that expensive to get rid of, and, at least the US, isn't running short on places to store it. I have no idea why clothes in poor condition are still worth shipping to developing countries unless charities just feel really committed to doing something.
[+] [-] bamboozled|4 years ago|reply
Not to be negative but how did the pandemic do anything but prove we’re pretty bad at cooperation ?
[+] [-] Dma54rhs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|4 years ago|reply
Personal status report: articles of clothing bought in the last year: 0. Articles of clothing bought in the last three years: still 0. And I don't think I'll be buying any for the next year either and then likely I'll buy some underwear and socks.
But for my kids (who are growing quite rapidly) it is a completely different story and I suspect that that is one factor that pushes up that average.
[+] [-] imtringued|4 years ago|reply
The borrower must pay sooner than later. Investors will not be satisfied with companies that perform worse than the interest rate.
[+] [-] parenthesis|4 years ago|reply
Unfortunately I do have to buy replacement footwear quite regularly (50+ miles on foot per week). But a worn out pair of shoes does for working in the garden, and worn socks as slippers round the house.
So, eventually, my clothes end up in UK landfill, once they are too worn out even for me (which can be after decades).
[+] [-] regularjack|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8589934591|4 years ago|reply
I wonder why there is a huge churn in USA to keep buying new clothes. Is it just more affordable/cheaper to buy than to mend your clothes? Easier access that makes it binge buy quickly? Too many special occasions? I am confused cos I feel they haven't seen inferior quality of clothing that they don't keep their belongings longer.
[+] [-] wccrawford|4 years ago|reply
On the other hand, my wife gets great pleasure from getting new clothing. She has a lot more than I do, and still she buys more. She is genuinely excited about wearing and showing off the new clothes she bought. When she gets a compliment about them, she is very, very happy.
Strangers aren't likely to give those compliments, and friends aren't going to compliment the same clothes again. To get those feelings, she needs new clothes.
All that said, she doesn't buy as many clothes as many of the vapid women/girls that I've met over the years. She's responsible with her money and doesn't buy excessively. But watching her emotions about the ones she does buy informs me a lot about the less responsible women out there.
I don't know any men like that, but I have seen them on TV (especially "reality" shows), so I'm sure they exist, too.
[+] [-] sgtnoodle|4 years ago|reply
A lot of Americans are uninformed about quality, and are well enough off not to need to be. As an extreme example, a few weeks ago my young nephews were really excited because a "$400" drone was "on sale" for only $100 in limited quantities! "Daaaadddd we HAVE to buy it. We'll use our own money!" Luckily I was there and, as their uncle, have no problem crushing their hopes and dreams. I work on autonomous aircraft professionally, so it was pretty easy to explain thoroughly and painfully (for them) why it was junk. I made it a point for them to understand that despite the fact that they had the money, they couldn't really afford to buy it. If they did, they would have fun for about 90 seconds until it crashed and broke, and then they would have a pile of e-waste and no money.
Adults are generally wiser than children, but still frequently irrational (not to imply that that's a bad thing). My wife orders and returns clothes often times as a way to cope with stress and anxiety. It's several orders of magnitude cheaper and easier than therapy (which is a rather unfortunate state for our society), and her experiences as a child led to her developing a scarcity mindset. She also hates clutter, and will tend to either pack things away never to be seen again or readily throw things away on a daily basis.
I'm fairly opposite. I rarely buy clothes; the average age of any item of clothing I own is probably 10 years. I'll hand sew holes to keep my favorite shorts on life support. My experiences as a child lead to developing an abundance mindset. I appreciate order but don't mind clutter, and like to know I can find something within 10 minutes of looking, even if it's been a few years, because it's exactly where I left it. I don't throw things away without some premeditation, because I bought it with some premeditation.
We have fun together!
[+] [-] pasabagi|4 years ago|reply
I'm not from the US (EU instead) but mending clothes is almost never cost-effective for me, because it's hard to do well, and would cost more than most garments (either in time, or in paying somebody to do it).
I still sometimes mend my clothes for fun.
[+] [-] rootsudo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nursie|4 years ago|reply
Please don't let this article put you off donating clothes to good causes. I know that (for instance) in the UK the Red Cross sells as much as it can, and only the unsellable stuff (ripped, stained etc) goes out to 'rag' with the recyclers. Clothing is even cycled through different shops if one can't sell it. So I'm really not sure that 10-20% figure holds up globally.
Something this article glossses over is that this stuff is not just being dumped - it's being bought. I think it's wrong that (for instance, in the article) the US interfered in law-making in various places to veto restrictions on the trade, of course. But fundamentally, the countries need to get a handle on dumping and start factoring that into the price of doing business.
Yes, westerners could buy less crap, and they could also do more shopping for used stuff themselves. But that's only part of hte picture.
[+] [-] kleiba|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foxfired|4 years ago|reply
Then we got MTV. When our mother travelled on business, we would make print outs of shoes and clothing that we wanted. God forbid someone caught you with an off-brand shoe at school now that the poorest kid under the hot sun of Saudi Arabia was fashion aware. It was wasteful, it was expensive, it was less than 5 items each a year.
I can't even imagine what it's like to buy 68 article of clothing a year. But then again a wise author once said: "Ending is better than mending."
[+] [-] hilbert42|4 years ago|reply
What is it about people that they cannot be content with their clothes in that they have to change them long before they're worn out? This is fashion gone mad.
I never throw out clothes, and I can keep the same items for many years - I've still got jeans, BD dungarees, etc. that I bought over 20 years ago. When they eventually become threadbare I tear them up for cleaning rags.
What the hell is wrong with these people that they can be so wasteful?
[+] [-] Retric|4 years ago|reply
“In 2019, American families spent on average about 2% of their income on clothing.” It’s vastly more affordable than “In the 1950s, the average American family spent about 10% of its income on clothing, and that money bought them just a few sturdy garments a year.”
Thrift shops went from a way to save real money at the cost of time to a fashion statement.
[+] [-] dillondoyle|4 years ago|reply
And it's almost all plastic.
I can't stand synthetic fabrics I feel like if people were exposed to real materials they would learn it feels better and last longer. And is fashionable. Real wool, nice cotton, silk. It lasts a long time if it's constructed & woven well.
I don't know if it's actually better in terms of co2 but sustainable livestock and cotton seem better than plastic.
I would bet a lot of the typic HN 'dude engineers' don't even know their shirts are plastic.
[+] [-] esarbe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] halpert|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghufran_syed|4 years ago|reply
Clearly African governments think its in their interests to maintain that trade deal - that’s probably why they agreed to it in the first place.
[+] [-] beaconstudios|4 years ago|reply
There's a reason recycling is the third R, and it should primarily take the form of other people reusing your stuff anyway - not throwing items in a specifically coloured bin and calling it a day.
[+] [-] Avshalom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reddog|4 years ago|reply
I’d have thought that was a positive thing but from the articles moral panicky tone, I guess it’s just another thing we need to feel guilty about.
[+] [-] AussieWog93|4 years ago|reply
In reality, and this is something I spent a long time coming to terms with, much shopping is done because it's fun. Spending money isn't a cost - it's the whole point of the exercise.
[+] [-] sangnoir|4 years ago|reply
I'm also e-commerce-adjacent, but I believe fast-fashion (especially synthetics) is bad for humanity. Sure, people are making loads of money[1], but it's an ecological disaster in the making.
1. Me included, but only getting a little. Shein is getting ALL the money.
[+] [-] TulliusCicero|4 years ago|reply
Like, when I make silly gadget purchases, yes it's fun to acquire the gadgets, but I'd like them to be good products that last too.
[+] [-] mc32|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tiborsaas|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NikolaeVarius|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway888abc|4 years ago|reply
Chile’s desert dumping ground for fast fashion leftovers
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29155488 [1] https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2021/11/8/chiles-desert-du...
[+] [-] BurningFrog|4 years ago|reply
Somehow this eradication of third world poverty is bad. Because everything is bad if you want to think of it that way.
Just one point: Clothing ending up in landfills are a form of carbon sequestration.
[+] [-] betaby|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rileyphone|4 years ago|reply