Why I feel good buying vintage

[DamianM]

Think.
A deal on every billboard… Offers you can’t refuse on products you don’t need.
Ad campaign from a major apparel retailer? Hundreds of thousands of $.
Monthly paycheck of a garment factory worker in Bangladesh (lowest paid in the World)? $38.00

The death toll rose again yesterday, April 24 2013, because of greed fed by artificially created demand.
Some 228 260 348 530 801 (and counting) workers perished in a multi factory building collapse in Savar, Bangladesh. Some 19 miles from the previous incident in Dhaka we mentioned back in November 2012, claiming the life of 117 workers (mostly women) in a garment factory deadly fire.

Think.
Who really picks up your tab on a clothing bargain? Don’t just buy cheap, it’s not worth it, buy right. Clothes cost money for many reasons. One of them is because real People make them.
Do your research before you purchase anything.

Think.
Don’t buy it and they will stop making it.

THINK, OWN LESS, PAY MORE.

Christophe Loiron

 

[bburtner@moran]

Too,political...

 

[ButteMT61]

Too,political...

Yeah, I'm not sure I need a lecture on the end results of everything I consume to live. Life's rough. But I come here to avoid such topics.

 

[Enough]

The majority of manufacturing jobs will always be in developing countries.

 

[dhermann1]

But he makes a very good point. We can help by not just buying vintage, but by buying the really high quality, built to last clothes that well paid professionals make. I don't think it's political, I think it's sensible and compassionate. Yes, I come here to get away from this kind of thing, too. But I still appreciate this post.

 

[Fastuni]

Think.
Own longer.
Pay less for high quality.
Buy vintage.

I do not just "feel good" - it is right not to support (as much as possible) soulless corporations making enormous profits on exploitation (of both "cheap labor" and of the consumers).

Too,political...

Why?

 

[MarkJohn]

Its a tricky one... listening to BBC Radio4 today they interviewed a young woman who had worked in such places; she now campaigns for better rights and conditions for these workers... she stated the one thing these people don't need is boycotts, as the workers totally rely on these positions to keep themselves and there families alive [there is often nothing else]. What they do need is for people to appeal to companies and governments to provide safer conditions and better pay, and use those companies that do, even if that means us paying more at the till... and it need not be much.

Its not possible for everyone to buy 'vintage' or far more expensive home produced clothing, great if you can, but I know many people who can't shop like that.

Do what you can to make clothes last, use recycling, buying from charity shops, and ethical retailers etc. but, with limited funds its not always possible to do the best for everyone, sadly.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Think.
Own longer.
Pay less for high quality.
Buy vintage.

I do not just "feel good" - it is right not to support (as much as possible) soulless corporations making enormous profits on exploitation (of both "cheap labor" and of the consumers).



Why?

If you think garment factories (or any industrial factory) of yesteryear were run by cheerful benevolence, eschewing profits in favor of helping the common man, then you're not paying attention. Perhaps it makes one feel better today that the worker who sweated to make you clothing is likely dead and not subject to mistreatment, but that doesn't mean your vintage item is squeaky clean either.

And I'm not sure what a "soulless corporation" is, but the days of companies being controlled by one guy, wearing a top hat, lighting his cigar with $100 bills is long gone as well. Most large companies are publicly owned and operated by regular stiffs like you and me.

 

[herringbonekid]

i didn't think this woud be a popular topic for a thread. why ? because people would rather not know.

in the UK people are more concerned about the welfare of the hens that produced the eggs they buy than the workers who produced their t-shirts.

 

[dhermann1]

Good points, all. Yes, they don't need boycotts. How can we help???

 

[Fastuni]

@HudsonHawk

If you think garment factories (or any industrial factory) of yesteryear were run by cheerful benevolence, eschewing profits in favor of helping the common man, then you're not paying attention. Perhaps it makes one feel better today that the worker who sweated to make you clothing is likely dead and not subject to mistreatment, but that doesn't mean your vintage item is squeaky clean either.

Cute, but methinks that both the European (master) Tailors (mostly family-owned handicraft ateliers) and American Union Workers who made my garments in the 30's-50's were indeed working under relatively, if not significantly better conditions and higher wages than your average present-day "low-cost country" sweat-shop laborer.
Plus the added benefit that my vintage clothes are of better quality and longevity as well - thus less waste of my money and this world's resources. What's not to like?

And I'm not sure what a "soulless corporation" is

Corporations that sell you worthless crap (produced under pitiful conditions and wages) instead of durable quality work as companies in the past mostly tried (and usually succeeded) to do. It's not only disingenuous and shameless towards the laborers but also towards the consumers (who mostly don't care).

Most large companies are publicly owned and operated by regular stiffs like you and me.

"Operated" by "regular stiffs" - you bet. But ever heard of CEO-to-worker pay ratio? You might want to have a look at the trend throughout the decades.

Being "publicly owned by shareholders" BTW doesn't mean much to the low-wage laborer.

 

[Feraud]

i didn't think this woud be a popular topic for a thread. why ? because people would rather not know.

in the UK people are more concerned about the welfare of the hens that produced the eggs they buy than the workers who produced their t-shirts.

The U.S. suffers a similar obtuseness. Smoke a cigarette and people will go out of their way to tell you how your smoking is endangering Their Health! Walk down a street smoking weed and it's all cool man, what a person does is their business..

 

[herringbonekid]

How can we help???

sadly, it usually takes a catastrophe such as this before people sit up and say "oh... conditions are actually THAT bad ?"
hopefully consumers will start to demand that companies produce evidence that garments are made in safe environments.
if companies don't produce some sort of 'seal of approval' proof, then people should boycott those companies. if a company is 'shamed' they will swiftly follow the program.

 

[ButteMT61]

When we went through these types of issues during our own industrial revolution, I doubt that the rest of the world cared a rat's arse about the working conditions of the women and children working in sweat shops and factories. Or slaves building our railroads. It's up to the individuals and their governments to make such changes. It comes with a high price as we well know. If you want action, petition your elected officials. But really. I don't want guilt trips posted here. I doubt many can claim to know who/how everything they consume - electronics, food, energy, fuel, Etc are produced. I don't buy much vintage due to what I like and my size. Sorry if I get some RRL shirt that was made in an unsafe environment. I can't stay up nights sweating over every purchase. I tried for years to buy "Made in the USA". Very hard to do a lot of the time.And I'd wager some of your vintage gear was made by underpaid and overworked women and children in some cases. Toss it?

 

[Fastuni]

When we went through these types of issues during our own industrial revolution, I doubt that the rest of the world cared a rat's arse about the working conditions of the women and children working in sweat shops and factories. Or slaves building our railroads.

I guess in this context "the rest of the world" would be the pre-industrial countries and regions... well they had their own (not less severe) issues with their mode of life and state of technology.

Those who should "care" are those consuming and/or profiting from a given mode of production.

.And I'd wager some of your vintage gear was made by underpaid and overworked women and children in some cases. Toss it?

No - use it. At least the exploiter of these potentially underpaid/overworked women and children can't profit from my purchase (from second, third or fourth hand). I do think that this constitutes a difference.

Nonetheless it is perfectly understandable that consumers (with own daily worries) can't put themselves through a "guilt trip" permanently. But one can be conscious about avoiding it where and when one individually deems it possible. Buying quality-made leather-jackets would be one example as well.
To me personally it is easy to avoid the exploiter-junk in the realm of present-day garments... I have no interest in their product in the first place (even if it was well paid). In the field of electronics it is neigh impossible to avoid it.

 

[skyvue]

I'd wager some of your vintage gear was made by underpaid and overworked women and children in some cases. Toss it?

Apples and oranges.

The difference in buying vintage is you're not putting money in the pockets of those who overworked and underpaid their workers -- you're not rewarding the questionable practices cited above.

 

[ButteMT61]

Apples and oranges.The difference in buying vintage is you're not putting money in the pockets of those who overworked and underpaid their workers -- you're not rewarding the questionable practices cited above.

It's merely one aspect of your consumerism. One which I can't spend time doing.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Cute, but methinks that both the European (master) Tailors (mostly family-owned handicraft ateliers) and American Union Workers who made my garments in the 30's-50's were indeed working under relatively, if not significantly better conditions and higher wages than your average present-day "low-cost country" sweat-shop laborer.

I think you overestimate the quality of working conditions (and of life for the laborers) during those times.

Corporations that sell you worthless crap (produced under pitiful conditions and wages) instead of durable quality work as companies in the past mostly tried (and usually succeeded) to do. It's not only disingenuous and shameless towards the laborers but also towards the consumers (who mostly don't care).

Again, painting historical manufacturers as anything but cut-throat businesses that would do pretty much anything to make a profit is disingenous at best.

Being "publicly owned by shareholders" BTW doesn't mean much to the low-wage laborer.

It depends on the circumstances. But I'm not defending current sweatshop practices, only challenging your assertion that things were necessarily significantly better back in the day.

 

[herringbonekid]

... so if it was like that 'back in the day' then just let it go ?

why not use the 'instant media' we currently have to change it for the better ?

 

[HudsonHawk]

... so if it was like that 'back in the day' then just let it go ?

why not use the 'instant media' we currently have to change it for the better ?

I'm not suggesting that. Only challenging the notion that "buying vintage" somehow has the moral high ground. Of course wanting change is a noble cause, worthy of support.