FW: a better question..
Here is another question I want to throw out there. Personally, I wear what I think looks good, whether it is designer label, no label, or produced as a result of child labor.
From: Morgan
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:11 PM
Subject: a better question..
Hi,
So here's another question that doesn't involve being ridiculously cold and will hopefully be helpful to both genders. I would like to steer away from big brand names that exploit cheap labor in foreign countries and exhaust our earth's resources. Do you know any environment-friendly and economically beneficial clothing brands that will help Mother Earth and keep me looking good?
Thanks!
Chic Tree Lover
posted by MITFashion @ 23:47
4 comments
4 Comments:
First of all, there is no such a thing as "exploiting" cheap labor. You can't trick people into taking a job that pays under market value (temporarily maybe but not for an extended period of time).
The reason that the labor cost may seem cheap and exploitative to you is that the cost of living differs between the US and third world countries.
It's really simple. If there are equivalent jobs in those countries that pays higher than what the evil big companies are willing to pay, nobody would be working for the evil big companies.
If those evil big companies pull out of those third world countries, two things will happen. 1. Things will cost more in the US. 2. People in third world countries will lose the supply of those job opportunities hence shifting the market value wage even lower.
Or if those evil big companies incrases the wage of third world country labor, two things will happen also. 1. Things will cost more in the US. 2. You create a market value spike in one sector of those third world countries' economy but since you have limited influence in other sections, you are going to fuck up those countries economy completely (eg. unpredictable inflation, nobody is going to be doctors because it pays more to be working in the sweatshops, etc).
Tree huggers and hippies, as compassionate as they may be toward their fellow human being, are not realistic with their solutions often time. Just think operation human sheild. While I agree that particular war is stupid and a waste of my tax money, standing in the middle of a battlefield and thinking that'll stop the war is rather naively idealistic.
Anyway, back to your original question. The least environmentally exhausting and labor exploiting clothes (from your incorrect point of view, that is) is this brand called Emporer's New Clothes. That's right, since you hippies don't shave and groom, no clothes [sic] can make you looking good.
I don't get what this guy's trying to accomplish here; in trying to show us how big his nuts are, I feel he has really added no value to this discussion.
To turn things in the right direction, take a look at American Apparel (www.americanapparel.net): sweatshop-free clothing based right here in the US (Los Angeles).
Wow, a company that uses the less than fortunate conditions in third world countries as its main marketing tool (love the pictures). No exploitation there at all. How many third world country families can the wage of LA workers support? Yeah, take away those job opportunities from people in third world countries, that's going to make their lives so much better.
The point of my first post is simple. Similar (but in less diplomatic terms) to what Jameel said, wear what looks good. Picking clothes based on brands or any particular political idealism is stupid.
Your last sentence is short and sweet and I completely agree.
Post a Comment
<< Home