NEXT

[Faust]

Meh, I don't give this view much credit. There always have been business school and liberal arts schools. Liberal arts schools have long been breeding grounds for people who go on to professions such as a lawyer. And, guess who understands best the value of liberal arts schools - Wall Street! And now there is a trend of universities in the US requiring medical students to take liberal arts courses. So, I wouldn't cry wolf yet just because your university blows.

[525252]

okay well the least I could ask for is that you give me credit for that I speak for myself and what I know; and this is how it is for some part of the world. I'll take your word that it isn't all horrible burning destruction everywhere.

Even still, we cannot depend upon education to make change; I mean say "we", the "already educated"- what have we got to give? What are we assuming that education can provide to students other than putting them in our position of knowledge, while the same problems remain? We can teach people about the unsustainable, the unethical, that capitalism is bad etc. but what part of it actually changes anything? How can this be effective without asking too much mental effort on the part of the average student, who happens to be a consumer?

If we hypothesise that an educational effort is futile, the only option left is to subvert convention and paradigms that have caused these issues to materialise. The manufacturing process is one of them, and online/offline retailers are another. Does everyone agree?

N.B Also, thanks for the responses, (though we're disagreeing a lot ha) its all insightful and challenging in a good way, so thanks! and please continue!

[Faust]

/\ I give you full credit, sir!

Another interesting thing and relevant for what's next is who's buying fashion and who is going to buy fashion. Will the Chinese and the Russians, with Indians and Brazilians bringing up the rear, continue to carry the day? Will the affluent young, that have continually been getting more money to play with, continue to spend their parents' trust funds? Who will buy fashion?

This was interesting - American affluent have cut down spending on apparel significantly this year so far (stats from WWD).

"On a year-on-year basis, (American) luxury purchasers’ consumption of apparel and accessories were cut by more than one-half. Luxury apparel purchases averaged $1,376 during the second quarter, 26 percent below the $1,860 tabulated for the first quarter of this year and fully 54.5 percent below the $3,022 spent during the second quarter of 2011. The cutback in apparel was the largest of all classifications of goods and services covered in Unity’s interviews of 1,271 consumers with incomes of $100,000 or more. The second largest decline was in fashion accessories, including footwear, which saw a drop of 51.9 percent to $1,499 from $3,119 a year ago. The sequential decline from the first quarter was 41 percent, from $2,544."

[525252]

I remember reading not long ago about how its become unfashionable to be fashionable in Russia amongst bajillionaires because such displays of wealth are now considered vulgar. I'm sure as the inequities grow, if the poor people are able to see how poor they actually are, this trend will catch on with the other countries. The article was on NYT, if there's any interest I'll dig it up.
So if the affluent are going to be buying luxury, it'll probably be subtle (but really who cares for subtlety, what a waste of money)

[Faust]

Please do, 'cause it certainly doesn't look like it from where I am standing.

[525252]

sorry, Reuters it is

[Faust]

This says nothing like what you wrote above though. One guy example with some unspecified others thrown in.

Here is an article for you.

[the-orb]

Nice article, I think the term they use "look-at-me enthusiasm" is very appropriate. I can tell apart younger Russian female tourists pretty easily when traveling, precisely because of that.

Here is an article for you.

[Faust]

What's next? Higher prices!

[Faust]

Two disheartening news on the next front:

H&M is opening a 57,000 sq foot store in Manhattan on 5th Ave
Uniqlo opening 10 to 20 stores in the US in the next 18 months, on track to become a $50 billion company.

So much for buying less, paying more.

[Ahimsa]

So much for buying less, paying more.

"In 2008, about 80% of all donated clothing was in good enough condition to either be reused as secondhand clothing, baled goods to developing countries, or sold to rag sorters. In 2011 this percentage had fallen to between 60 to 70%. In the same period, the total amount of clothing donated for recycling decreased by about 20%, while the total amount of clothing discarded remained stable or grew."
The article also mentions that since manufacturing is going to cost more(water shortages, raw material costs, etc.), so too will fast fashion. Higher prices for all! Everyone loses except companies!
The interesting thing about that is that it will most likely create an artificial sense of higher quality since people tend to think more money=better.

On a more serious note, the ocean's health is currently rated a 60 out of 100.

[525252]

Higher prices for all! Everyone loses except companies!
The interesting thing about that is that it will most likely create an artificial sense of higher quality since people tend to think more money=better.

Thanks for that great article, I don't see this as bad news though. Fast fashion will make less sense if prices rise for the same crappy/crappier quality, it will become apparent that its products are virtually designed to fail. People can either continue to buy crap and complain about how crap it is or they can pay more for far better stuff. The "but I can buy the same for less" argument is getting old and tired.
(or am I being idealistic? I guess it could take decades to get to that stage)

The author makes a really good point:

"All costs accounted for, producing geographically closer to home suddenly becomes financially more attractive. This increases the ability to exercise tighter control over product manufacturing and at the high end of the apparel and foot wear market this is already happening.

It goes without saying that this comes with challenges. First, textile manufacturing skills and qualified production units have largely disappeared over the past 30 years, and resuscitating or rebuilding such skill is a painstaking, slow, expensive and difficult process. Producing closer to home also means that long forgotten about legal and social issues related to textile manufacturing – such as waste, environmental impact, fair wages and labour conditions – will demand a local solution."


While the current structures are unsustainable and falling apart, it is important that there are new models establishing themselves and streamlining their processes to be effectively independent of that deteriorating structure. And as said in the article these already exist, its just a matter of it becoming developed and prominent enough to allow for a shift.

I'm quite sure buying less and paying more will happen organically over a very long period.

[Faust]

Great article in terms of bringing awareness to fast fashion. But, I am not sure about the claim that rising prices will somehow positively affect consumer conscience. Rising prices as compared to what? The factors the author mentions will affect the price of clothes across the board. I don't think it will drive customers out of H&M and into Banana Republic (let alone Barneys). The only hope, again, is that they will just buy less.

[525252]

Rising prices won't solely or directly improve consumption habits, it was suggested in another article (linked below) that manufacturers rather than retailers would be dealing with the raise, meaning that manufacturers would instead cut expenditure on quality maintenance, worker's pay etc.
I don't want to excessively repeat the author of the article but long story short, this is not sustainable (!!!!!!!!!!!)

The garment industry can rape the shit out of every developing country until it reaches Equatorial Guinea (or some other obscure African nation), and the scummy luxury houses will go on raising prices while all this is happening, and people won't buy less, they'll just be buying shit thats getting shittier.
So my point is that things getting expensive is not going to directly change consumers' world views about fashion, but its all part of a giant unsustainable shitstorm which will leave a massive mess and force habits of consumption and manufacture to change. The good thing is there are plenty of people working in preparation for the clean up/rehab.

But anyway, here are some other articles linked within the one above, for those who missed them:

"Does fashion fuel food shortages?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/cotton-farming-fashion-fuel-food-shortages

"Water: The real fashion victim"

http://environmentalgeographies.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/water-the-real-fashion-victim/

"Bangladesh, With Low Pay, Moves In on China"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/business/global/17textile.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

[sshum88]

Here's an interesting article on the excess goods that are created in China.

There will always be a market for lower priced items targeted to students and others with limited disposable incomes. So buying less, spending more is more like buying less, spending less. Unless you considered to be one of the wealthy, everyone still is looking to maximize every $ they earn.