[HN Gopher] No One Wants Used Clothes Anymore (2018)
___________________________________________________________________
No One Wants Used Clothes Anymore (2018)
Author : singhkays
Score : 60 points
Date : 2020-12-04 18:00 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| adolfojp wrote:
| It might be a cultural thing or lack a wealth thing but I've
| never fully understood the concept of second hand clothes. I
| mean, who gives away used clothes that are still in good
| conditions?
|
| And I'm not passing judgement. I just don't get it.
|
| I wear my nicer clothes to go out.
|
| When they're no longer nice I wear them around the house.
|
| When they get holes or stains in them I wear them to do yard
| work.
|
| After that they either become rags or they go into the garbage.
|
| At no point have I ever said "I no longer want to wear this, I'll
| sell it for a buck and buy something new".
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Neckties used to be a thing. I haven't worn any of mine for
| about ten years. Since retiring I haven't worn most of my
| collared shirts or smart trousers. None of those things are
| remotely wearable in my new volunteering role which involves
| physical work outdoors in the cold and rain. Those things would
| be recycled tomorrow if COVID hadn't made my local recycling
| facility inaccessible.
| asdff wrote:
| Sometimes you change waist size. Sometimes you get a new job
| and no longer need four blazers in your closet.
| dkarl wrote:
| _At no point have I ever said "I no longer want to wear this,
| I'll sell it for a buck and buy something new"._
|
| Me either, but I do get to the point where my closet and
| dresser are full, and I have clothes in them that I haven't
| worn in years. The pipeline starts to get clogged right after
| the "nice enough for going out and/or work" stage, because
| everything lasts so much longer in the "comfy in the house"
| stage than it does in the "nice" stage. Plus things change from
| year to year: how nicely I dress at work, how often I go out,
| where I go when I go out. Some people have changes in location
| and climate or in their body size. And sometimes you just look
| at something and realize it isn't you anymore. Am I ever again
| going to wear the barn jacket my parents bought me twenty years
| ago? Maybe, under circumstances I can't foresee right now, but
| in the meantime it's warm and has a ton of life left in it, so
| why not pass it on?
| profunctor wrote:
| People use fashion as a means of expression and art. They might
| only want to wear an expensive piece my Prada a handful of
| times before they have gotten all of their enjoyment out of it.
| Or they may not be able to afford all the types of clothes they
| want to try and so they sell their nice pieces so they can wear
| others. It's not about having nice, presentable clothing. It's
| about experimenting, having fun and expressing yourself. I feel
| like most of the stuff that goes up on depop is sold by
| teenagers for whom the 5 euro they get or whatever is a
| significant amount but lots of adults use trailed because they
| tried out the Haider Ackerman jacket and it was fine but it
| costs hundreds and now they want to try something else.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Some things aren't useful for gardening though. I'm not going
| to garden in a tuxedo that has become a bit scruffy but someone
| else could make use of, for example.
| adolfojp wrote:
| That's a solid good point. But that still doesn't explain how
| you end up with t-shirts and shorts at the goodwill.
| dkarl wrote:
| I used to need a number of pairs of "nice" shorts to bike
| to work in. Then I switched jobs and there was a shower at
| work, so most of those shorts no longer had a role. I could
| have put them in storage in case I end up biking to a
| workplace without a shower again, but I figured they would
| do more good at the Goodwill.
| vassast wrote:
| > It might be a cultural thing or lack a wealth thing but I've
| never fully understood the concept of second hand clothes. I
| mean, who gives away used clothes that are still in good
| conditions?
|
| > When they're no longer nice I wear them around the house.
|
| > When they get holes or stains in them I wear them to do yard
| work.
|
| Well that's if you have a yard and have space to store old
| clothes. I think most people (at least young people) live in
| small apartments and can't afford that.
| adolfojp wrote:
| They become "yard work" clothes when they're too bad to give
| away, with holes and stains like I mentioned above.
|
| And I used "yard work" as code for "any kind of work that
| would ruin nice clothes" but I think that you can visualize
| non wealthy people who live in semi rural or rural areas.
|
| Also, if I didn't have the space to store old clothes, which
| can be a $5 plastic box in a closet, they would go in the
| garbage bin, not to the goodwill, because like I said before
| I stop wearing my clothes when they've become too worn to
| give away.
| cawlin wrote:
| > who gives away used clothes that are still in good conditions
|
| In North America I think most people do. Charity/Thrift shops
| are packed to the brim with used clothing not to mention
| organizations that very specifically bring used clothing items
| to those in need.
|
| I believe most people do not keep all their clothing items
| until they are entirely worn out. Changes in taste, body
| changes, getting rid of unused items, moving to a location with
| a different climate etc.
| fossuser wrote:
| I'd guess the simplest reason for most people is losing/gaining
| weight.
|
| If stuff doesn't fit anymore, but it's in good condition then
| it's nice to donate.
|
| The other reason I could think of would be fashion, but I'm not
| particularly fashionable so that doesn't affect me. I could
| imagine it being a reason for people though.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _It might be a cultural thing or lack a wealth thing but I
| 've never fully understood the concept of second hand clothes.
| I mean, who gives away used clothes that are still in good
| conditions?_
|
| Well, if you have a "lack of wealth thing", then you should
| immediately be able to grasp some advantages of this:
|
| (1) second hand clothes are cheaper to buy (or free in some
| cases).
|
| (2) second hand clothes means you make some money selling your
| old clothes, instead of throwing them away.
|
| If what's alien to you is how would anyone "throw clothes
| away", that still seems like a strange question.
|
| Unless we're talking about some developing country, tons of
| people in the West and elsewhere get new clothes and stop
| wearing old ones, which can then give away. Women
| sterotypically (and statistically) more so, following seasonal
| fashion, but also tons of men.
|
| You don't need to have "wealth" to do so. Even people living
| with average wages do stop wearing old clothes all the time.
|
| And of course some do so by necessitity too, because their kids
| outgrow their clothes sizes, or because they themselves got
| fatter/skinner and their old clothes wont do them anymore.
|
| > _At no point have I ever said "I no longer want to wear this,
| I'll sell it for a buck and buy something new"._
|
| Well, did you ever consider that you're in the minority here?
| I've myself never considered to do some things millions of
| people do, but I do know that most others do them....
| prutschman wrote:
| > Ways to [support a market for longer-lasting clothing] include
| offering warranties on clothing and making tags that inform
| consumers of a product's expected lifespan.
|
| Yes, please!
| gambiting wrote:
| I mean, we run a medium sized(100+ employees) second hand clothes
| business in Poland, with few stores bigger than most local
| supermarkets. Covid hit us hard, but I wouldn't say that "no one
| wants used clothes anymore". Quite the contrary - in recessions,
| like the one we're about to enter, second hand clothes are
| usually booming.
| smm11 wrote:
| I can't throw a rock without hitting a vintage clothing store.
| Jeans, concert T-shirts, hipster-ish stuff is like gold. No One
| Wants SOME Used Clothes Anymore, at least in 2018, I think.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| Among many other things, COVID is changing this industry rapidly.
| Fashion brands have been pummeled and are looking for looking for
| alternative revenue sources.
|
| A friend of mine started ReCircled (https://recircled.com) to
| offer a 360-degree solution to fashion brands to help them get a
| garment recommerce solution implemented quickly.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| This is why I try my best to wear organic fibers. If I can't
| donate them at least they'll quickly decay in a landfill. A quick
| google search revealed that synthetic fibers, polyester, spandex,
| nylon, take 20 to 200 years to decompose.
| elindbe2 wrote:
| That also means you can wear them forever though. You could
| probably wear out 3 cotton items for every one synthetic.
| cultus wrote:
| Synthetic clothes shed microplastic particles in the wash.
| It's actually a significant source of plastic pollution.
| Cotton is kind of crap fabric and takes enormous amounts of
| water to grow, but wool and linen are both much more durable.
| pochamago wrote:
| It's funny to me that this is framed through such a negative
| lens, when they're basically just saying that ever more people
| are being lifted out of poverty, to the point where our trash is
| no longer of value to them. I struggle to believe that old
| clothes will ever be a top ten most important environmental
| issue.
| barbs wrote:
| > _the textile industry accounts for more greenhouse-gas
| emissions than all international flights and maritime shipping
| combined; as recycling markets break down, its contribution
| could soar._
|
| This doesn't bother you?
| asdff wrote:
| What's more environmentally friendly: clear cutting land and
| irrigating it to growing cotton, spooling it and making it into
| textile, dying it, screen printing it cheaply with underpaid
| labor, and shipping it across the ocean, or buying that $5
| shirt in your size that already exists in that goodwill in your
| neighborhood?
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| New clothes support sweatshops
|
| ... contain toxic dyes and conditioners
|
| ... are a huge source of pollution
|
| ... are of lower quality year by year (what I've been told by
| people who are into the scene)
|
| See also sibling comment.
| SoSoRoCoCo wrote:
| > top ten most important environmental issue.
|
| There are other issues, for instance: child labor makes most
| clothes in Asian countries. The labor is hidden behind opaque
| international sub-contracting agreements, making it impossible
| to audit the supply chain.
|
| Ethical clothes are expensive to make. Go to US Target store
| and you can buy a three-pack of "Fruit of the Loom" T-Shirts
| for about $10, go do Everlane, who explicitly states their
| profit, cost, and logistics chain, and T-shirts are $20/each.
|
| It is still running rampant in the past decade:
|
| [1] https://www.panaprium.com/blogs/i/fashion-brands-that-
| still-... [2] https://phys.org/news/2017-06-tackling-child-
| labour-fashion-...
| vrperson wrote:
| Child labor is probably not caused by the demand for clothes,
| though. On the contrary, without those jobs, the situation of
| those families would be even more perilous.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Perhaps we can institute a tax in higher income/wealthier
| countries and transfer that straight to the poorer
| countries.
| vrperson wrote:
| That would be idiotic. We are well off because we can
| make cheap things (including food). To make things
| arbitrarily more expensive would make everybody worse
| off.
|
| Likewise clinging to inefficient means of production. The
| poor countries in Africa are poor because they can not
| produce as efficiently as other countries. Not because
| other countries give them cheap stuff.
|
| I mean we would be making things more expensive via
| taxes, and give the tax money to Africa so that they can
| buy things more cheaply. Why not just sell them cheaply
| to Africa to begin with? Cut out the middle (tax) man.
| mellavora wrote:
| Is HN being invaded by trolls? I see more comments like the
| above than I used to.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I only want used clothes.
|
| Not only is it better karmically, but new clothes are full of
| offgassing dyes and other synthchems, not great for a human's
| health.
|
| Many I know are going this way too.
| [deleted]
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| > Now that cycle is breaking down. Fashion trends are
| accelerating, new clothes are becoming as cheap as used ones, and
| poor countries are turning their backs on the secondhand trade.
|
| New clothing isn't cheap, there's an appreciable gap between new
| and used prices that allows an intermediary market to thrive. A
| t-shirt that's $35 new could be found at Goodwill for $5.
| dang wrote:
| Discussed at the time:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16168410
| [deleted]
| ryanmerket wrote:
| At Goodfair (disclosure: I run Product & Eng), we are based out
| of the used clothing capital of America -- Port of Houston, TX.
| It's our mission to rescue these clothes from being sold to
| international distributors / before they leave our shores, and
| sell them in thrift/vintage bundles.
|
| Our model is a bit unique. We purchase the same 100lb and 500lb
| bales the international distributors do. We have a team that
| processes the bales, categorizes the clothes, and then merch/list
| them in a marketable and fun way on the site.
|
| Textile waste is the 2nd largest polluter behind oil & gas. If we
| can help create a culture of buying second-hand first, we think
| there's a massive opportunity to put a dent in climate change.
|
| We just got some of our first press yesterday. :)
| https://www.houstonchronicle.com/techburger/amp/Houston-dres...
|
| tl;dr WE WILL TAKE ALL YOUR CLOTHES. :)
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| This is a great idea! When I walk into goodwill it's a tsunami
| of clothing that I have to go through to look for a diamond. If
| there was an already curated site I would use that.
| elindbe2 wrote:
| Curious what percentage of the clothes you buy actually sell?
| Anyways, nice website, I might try it out next time I'm looking
| for clothes.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > Curious what percentage of the clothes you buy actually
| sell
|
| I mean, I guess if it doesn't sell, they just bale it up
| again and off it goes to its original destination.
|
| Their only cost is the initial sifting and warehousing.
|
| And even then, they might be able to sell their pre-sifted
| inventory at higher prices baled-up for export.
|
| Books aren't too different:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/business/23shortcuts.html
| DeepYogurt wrote:
| > tl;dr WE WILL TAKE ALL YOUR CLOTHES. :)
|
| Tell me more. Can I mail you a box?
| ryanmerket wrote:
| We're rolling out donations >> Goodfair soon. That's a large
| logistical step, but we're well on our way!
| singhkays wrote:
| +1. I've been dropping my used clothes in donation boxes but
| would love to know more and how I can contribute to
| sustainable causes.
| ineedasername wrote:
| When they are sold to international distributors instead, do
| they still make it to end users? Or do they land in some sort
| of recycling process for feed stock back into raw materials for
| new clothing?
|
| I ask because, as much as I think US consumers can benefit from
| them, my greater concern is that they simply don't go to waste.
|
| Either way, it's the first I've heard of your service, and it
| sounds fantastic. How do I get you my old clothes? Or is it
| aggregated and sold on to you through the network of goodwill
| stores and other thrift shops?
|
| This is the sort of problem I love to hear being solved by tech
| & advanced logistics, rather than the latest startup that hopes
| to catch a piece of the advertising pie.
| seanalexander wrote:
| The clothes end up in third world countries where they are
| sold, hurting local industries.
| marktangotango wrote:
| How much do these bales cost usually? How would an individual
| buy them? I've visited one of the "ropa" stores in south Texas,
| the ones where they have massive piles of clothes you literally
| climb over to dig through, it was a real surprise those exist!
| gumby wrote:
| > it was a real surprise those exist!
|
| There used to be a store like that in Cambridge next to MIT
| where real estate was essentially free. We used to go to one
| where you just filed a plastic bag; the bag was weighed and
| you paid $1/lb. Great for parties and amazing finds.
| sbrother wrote:
| Oh, I remember doing this - the Garment District? Looks
| like they are still around.
| gumby wrote:
| Oh yeah, _that_ was their real name! I couldn't remember
| as we always called it "dollar a pound"
| tartoran wrote:
| As far as I've seen thriftstores and vintage boutiques are
| actually thriving. My naive theory is that clothes are designed
| to break faster and faster and some older clothes have a quality
| you can't find anymore, hence vintage has an aura of good quality
| old stuff. The other end of the theory is that the increasing
| povery forced people to rummage through thriftstores.
| asdff wrote:
| On of my friends hunts for vintage Levis. The new ones are not
| built nearly as well as even the ones 10 years ago which were
| commonly selvedge denim too (now levis wants >$100 for that).
| naravara wrote:
| Yes. Vintage clothing (and even more current but high quality
| clothing) does well in thrift stores. But most of the clothes
| people are junking is low quality and doesn't actually stand up
| well enough to being reused OR it's got some sort of gimmick or
| pattern that falls out of fashion too quickly rather than
| seeming timeless. Some of it might be cool again in 20 or 30
| years, but probably not and that's longer than the cycle time
| for people to dispose of clothes besides.
|
| But the article isn't really about that. The article is about
| how making stuff new nowadays is so cheap that there is barely
| any cost savings over making stuff out of recycled material.
| This is partly because our standards for new stuff have slipped
| to where good quality fabrics and material are no longer
| valued. But it's also because a lot of the costs of making
| stuff new are so externalized that nobody's paying them. Also,
| people are so accustomed to the cheap stuff that most people
| wouldn't even know how to differentiate between good quality
| and bad. They've outsourced that discrimination to brands but
| the brands have wised up and there isn't as much of a
| relationship between the brand equity/prestige of a luxury
| brand and quality as there used to be.
| tartoran wrote:
| But doesn't that imply that more cheaper clothes would
| eventually end up filling thrifstores? The reality is that
| not everyone can afford to buy new and that segment of the
| popularion is unfortunately growing. Also, even if clothes
| cost little to make does not mean that retailers don't add a
| mark up that renders them unaffordable to many. My main point
| is that poverty will make these thifstores more frequented by
| many, until things get better poverywise.
| naravara wrote:
| > But doesn't that imply that more cheaper clothes would
| eventually end up filling thrifstores?
|
| Not really because the fast fashion types of clothes don't
| hold up well over time.
|
| > The reality is that not everyone can afford to buy new
| and that segment of the popularion is unfortunately
| growing.
|
| The trends leading to this are because people can afford to
| buy new. The clothes are cheaper and don't last as long.
| They're _so_ cheap that it ends up being cheaper to buy new
| ones and throw them away than to bother trying to recycle
| them (because thrifting and recycling have their own supply
| chain costs).
| bobthepanda wrote:
| At least where I've lived the trend for thrifting has
| mostly made thrift stores just as expensive, if not more,
| than going to your local fast fashion store and buying a
| $5-10 thing that will disintegrate after a year of laundry.
| In the same way that quinoa used to be a very cheap staple
| food but has been gentrified into an expensive health food.
|
| There is also a floor for how cheap thrift stores can sell
| things, because it requires labor to sort through clothing
| donations and figure out what is actually still in
| resalable condition, and stores need staff as well.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| It's true, I heard this from multiple people who stopped buying
| new. Most stores dropped the quality of stock, even the "high
| end" ones, while others went out of business.
| dylan604 wrote:
| While designed obsolesce is probably a thing, don't forget the
| main thing about vintage clothing is the style is what people
| are looking for when specifically shopping vintage. Thrift
| stores are different than vintage.
| tartoran wrote:
| Thrifstores are different nowadays, I agree. People who owned
| vintage stores used to run through thrifstores and buy
| whatever was better quality, I know some cases like that in
| NYC. Now they have a separate triage process so no better
| quality item can end up in thrifstores.
| free2OSS wrote:
| I think people forget that "quality" stuff survives, but there
| was always a cheap alternative to "quality".
|
| The olden days were not better. Obligatory-"survivorship bias"
| tartoran wrote:
| That is true but now even more expensive clothes are designed
| to break faster, back in the day expensive stuff was good
| durable stuff. For example theres a new trend for shoes in
| which soles wear out faster because of the material used.
| I've seen myself throwing out shoes that were in perfect
| condition or still very wearable if it wasnt for the hole in
| the heel. A lot of classic shoes that one used to be able to
| take to a shoe repair shop are now unfixable for this reason
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > For example theres a new trend for shoes in which soles
| wear out faster because of the material used.
|
| Don't buy shoes with EVA/foam soles, problem solved. All my
| shoes have leather, vibram (rubber), or dainite soles. All
| of them can be resoled as well.
|
| A few brands to get you started, prices range from
| $200-$500ish but mostly $200-$350
|
| Shoes: Grant Stone, Allen Edmonds, Meermin, Carmina
|
| Boots: Red Wing, Wesco, White's, Thorogood, Chippewa
| tartoran wrote:
| Thanks, I'll take note of these brands.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Buy a tube of Shoe-Goo. Inspect your shoes for wear and
| build up the areas that need it. You can keep a set of
| soles forever if you do this periodically before holes grow
| too big.
| tartoran wrote:
| I like that, I'll give it a try. Thanks for the tip
| free2OSS wrote:
| Be careful not to confuse expensive brands for durable
| stuff.
| tartoran wrote:
| Don't worry, I don't. Maybe when I was younger Id make
| that mistake but luckily never bought expensive clothes
| in label only. If I had the money to throw around I'd
| have probably fallen into that trap.
|
| But Im having more and more difficulty finding that real
| good classic shor that is well made and is
| maintainable/fixable and which is a good fit and could be
| happy with for a couple of years. I live in NYC and the
| market here is innundated in low quality crap. Even an
| expensive brand such as Prada doesn't have well made
| shoes, they're made to not last very long
| convolvatron wrote:
| https://builder.wescoboots.com. I still have a pair that
| I bought 20 years ago that I have worn for a large part
| of that time (with yearly resoling). They have a deal
| where you can return a pair of boots and they will
| rebuild them (keeping only the uppers) for half the cost
| of new.
|
| they are not stylish. they will last forever. you send
| them your measurements and they make a form (last) which
| they keep and you can order against again. that first
| pair had some minor fit issues, I sent corrections and
| the second pair was a perfect fit.
| tartoran wrote:
| Thank you!!
| dr_orpheus wrote:
| When these discussions come up, there often tend to be
| suggestions durable brands for "big ticket" items like
| shoes, boots and outerwear (as other comments have
| suggested).
|
| Does anyone have recommendations for longer lasting every
| day clothes? I feel like I often have dress shirts and
| pants/jeans that wear out more quickly than they should.
| Dress shirts tend to have holes wear in the elbow area and
| pants tend to wear in the pockets where I have phone/keys.
| mmastrac wrote:
| In the distant past, old clothes used to be gathered and turned
| into rag paper [1]. It's a shame that we use so many synthetics
| now as that probably drastically reduces the re-usability.
|
| Perhaps we could add the funguses that decompose plastics into
| the mix and create a full-circle clothing-to-paper or fabric
| process.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rag-and-bone_man
| fakedang wrote:
| Old clothes are still used to make paper in many developing
| countries.
| dhosek wrote:
| Cloth-based paper is in nearly every respect superior to wood
| pulp-based paper. The big challenge with rags for paper is
| the die in the cloth.
| solarmist wrote:
| Thanks for this!
|
| This makes the song[1] by the White stripes make so much more
| sense. I didn't realize rag and bone man was a particular
| thing, I thought it was just something similar to what was
| called a gypsie lifestyle or similar in the past.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epHneMeLyis
| [deleted]
| basseq wrote:
| Original thread from 2018 on this article:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16168410
| ogre_codes wrote:
| The average age of my clothing[1] is probably 5-10 years with
| some items well over 10 years old. Some of my clothes are legal
| to drink.
|
| The idea of buying clothes then donate them after 6-12 months has
| always been broken. With growing kids (or if you gain/ lose a
| bunch of weight) you don't have a ton of choice. For most adults,
| the only way you can really ensure you have an environmentally
| friendly wardrobe is by purchasing carefully and keeping clothes
| until they genuinely wear out. For jeans and good quality
| jackets, that can be decades.
|
| When you donate clothes to St Vinny's (Goodwill/ Salvation Army/
| whatever), they keep the best/ resealable clothes and dispose of
| the rest. A bunch gets dumpstered. The only reason they accept
| used clothing is because of the small percentage they can
| actually resell.
|
| [1] Excluding underwear and socks!
| elindbe2 wrote:
| I've found synthetic workout clothes last pretty much forever.
| I have a pair of 15 year old basketball shorts that look about
| the same as they did brand new whereas the cotton stuff I've
| bought all would have holes and have faded in color by now.
| puranjay wrote:
| Same. I have a workout shirt from when I was 15 (I'm in my
| 30s now) that has seen literally hundreds, even a thousand+
| workouts.
|
| However the cotton fabric used in most off the shelf clothing
| is also not what it used to be. My dad, who doesn't like to
| throw things away, still has his old clothes from when he was
| in his 30s (he is in his late 70s now). They've retained
| their shape far better than my 3 year old clothes.
| redisman wrote:
| Most modern clothes take all the possible shortcuts from
| material to assembly they possibly can to deliver a $30
| sweater that holds up until you pay at the checkout. If you
| want a long lasting one, they're available from specialty
| manufacturers but the price will be over $200
| ip26 wrote:
| Only problem is, if you sweat heavily in them, the funk can
| gradually become unbearable despite all the vinegar and soap
| in the world.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Doesn't matter how much you sweat, it matters what you do
| with them after the workout. If you wash them or even just
| let them air out after use, it's not a problem. I have 15+
| year old synthetic shirts which have been on dozens of 5+
| hour mountain bike rides in 80-90 degree weather and they
| don't have any scent at all.
| r00fus wrote:
| This is good for adults, but kids grow out of stuff - we use
| the local no-buy groups to trade, or just donate/trade/receive
| with friends/family.
|
| Amused by family pics where I recognize a garment that's older
| than my oldest kid being worn by the new toddler.
| Yizahi wrote:
| This amazes me every time I think about it. I have a few
| t-shirts with prints that are 15 years old and are still okay-
| ish, at least for home use, and the prints are still almost
| undamaged. Or winter boots that just don't break in 10 years or
| so, I only replace shoelaces every few years. Or a winter
| jacket which is also good looking at 7 or 8 years old. All that
| is after daily use during season. Every time I'm like "wow,
| it's possible to endure for so long".
| TuringNYC wrote:
| Fun exercise - we look thru old photos (5yrs, 10yrs, 20yrs) and
| see if we can find any of the same clothing, then, do a new
| family photo. Same clothes, same pose, similar setting,
| different year.
| starfallg wrote:
| In my experience, the charities usually don't throw those away.
|
| Over here in the UK and much of Europe, the charities sell them
| by the ton to traders that ship them to Africa or other
| developing countries.
|
| Some charities don't even handle them, they enter into a
| contract with a third party that specialises in the trade that
| collects the clothes and then pays the charity a fixed amount
| of money per ton. The whole service is branded, so you would
| think that you're donating to the charity directly when in fact
| they are paid by the trader by weight.
| corty wrote:
| Usually clothes don't get shipped to developing countries to
| be used as clothes. They get shredded and used as a source of
| cotton and other fibres after sorting, e.g. to create
| stuffing, insulation or paper.
|
| Donated stuff is treated the same way, and just the proceeds
| used as a donation to help the third world. Read the fine
| print on the used-clothes-bin.
| Nursie wrote:
| My partner is the manager of a red cross shop here in the UK,
| and it's exactly this - anything not of resale quality (or
| just too 'personal', like used underwear) goes for 'rag' and
| they get paid by weight by the rag company. The rag clothes
| are shredded, IIRC, not sure what for.
|
| They also have a book company who have a similar arrangement,
| they pay a few pence per book, though IIRC they do make use
| of the books as-is rather than shredding.
| convolvatron wrote:
| alot of workshops (metal, wood) buy rags for finishing
| work, etc. At $2/lb it adds up pretty fast.
| fakedang wrote:
| Rags can be used to make paper or some forms of packaging.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| This article is basically about how that entire part of the
| recycling chain is shutting down because it's cheaper to just
| manufacture new.
|
| Regardless, even when they were shipping them out, the
| environmental cost of shipping and repurposing was always
| higher than the cost of just using what you had.
| neogodless wrote:
| I need to figure out where people buy jeans that last! I'm
| certainly hard on clothes, though jeans don't usually end up
| being part of cutting up trees and splitting firewood until
| after the knee holes form... but that still often happens
| within 2-3 years of purchase.
|
| What's the secret?!
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| My next jeans have been fine for a decade.
|
| https://www.nextdirect.com/CountrySelect
|
| They do look worn, but I don't care.
| mellavora wrote:
| Surprised no-one has mentioned Vollebak. Their clothes are
| (claimed to be) pretty indestructible. Ceramic t-shirts,
| kevlar hoodies, dynema jackets, ...
| cgriswald wrote:
| Bonus: At $~500 for a hoodie, you're likely to make sure
| you stay in a shape that will fit into the hoodie.
| 29083011397778 wrote:
| I love my raw denim jeans, and assume they're likely better
| at holding up - certainly moreso than general brands.
|
| For work (if style is less of a concern), Duluth Trading
| makes pants that last an order of magnitude longer than
| carhartt.
|
| A word to the wise though; while my raw denim jeans are
| several years old now and in good condition, you sounds like
| you're dramatically harder on your clothes than myself.
| cgriswald wrote:
| Knee holes are a nice failure mode. My last three pairs of
| jeans have split open completely in the back while I was in
| public. (And I'm neither overweight nor particularly large in
| that region.)
| caeril wrote:
| Sugarcane dungarees are your best bet, here.
| grecy wrote:
| > _When you donate clothes to St Vinny 's (Goodwill/ Salvation
| Army/ whatever), they keep the best/ resealable clothes and
| dispose of the rest_
|
| By _dispose_ , what you mean is send them to Africa or other
| undeveloped regions. In virtually all of the 35 African
| countries I spent time in I would see clothes for sale in local
| markets that still had (St Vinny's/Goodwill/ Salvation Army)
| tags on them.
| [deleted]
| qq4 wrote:
| Are you me? Every article of clothing that has persisted is
| still in pretty good shape, maybe a little faded at the worst.
| If anything, over the years I've started to pay more attention
| to what materials my clothes are made of so they do last. For
| example I stopped buying any kind of stretchy t-shirt as all of
| the necks become ribbons within a few months. I have cotton
| shirts that are 8 years old that look great. Everything wool
| looks just as good, too; if anything they're more comfortable.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Yeah, I discovered a while ago that spending more for good
| clothing that lasts a long time saves money over the long
| term versus buying cheaper clothes. I can get 10 years out of
| a nice Columbia or Carhart flannel, something I pick up on
| Amazon might be half the cost but it'll be less comfortable
| and last one season.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Spending a little more, maybe 2x or 3x. After that, the
| quality to price ratio is no longer worth it (in my
| opinion).
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Yeah, and some brands just charge a premium for the name
| and the "Fashion". There is definitely more than just
| "Pay more".
| orblivion wrote:
| I've tried repairing old clothing (usually paying professionals
| to do it) and they just keep falling apart eventually.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| I've had good luck with shoe repair, salvaged a $120 pair of
| hiking boots for $25 at the shoe doctor. Often shirts and
| pants fare less well.
| quercusa wrote:
| I have a Lick Observatory 100th Anniversary (1988) t-shirt my
| wife would very much like to get rid of. Not happening.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| Did you hug it during the fires?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I have old concert t-shirts that I'll never wear, but still
| want to keep even if they are taking up space. A friend of
| mine suggested having them made into a quilt. This would get
| them out of the closet/drawer/box, and actually visible.
| leppr wrote:
| It's doable: https://youtu.be/F_Uiy40vEj8?t=412
| ogre_codes wrote:
| "Have them made into a quilt"
|
| Usually this means getting them all together, calling
| around to find how much it costs to actually make a quilt,
| then putting them back in storage.
|
| Takes a lot more time and effort to make a quilt than
| people think.
| ISL wrote:
| My wife had a professional put together a T-shirt quilt.
| It is awesome.
|
| It was made before we met, so I don't have a sense for
| the cost. As a functional swaddle of memories, it is
| worth far more than a blanket from the store.
|
| One thought for those considering it -- the shirts can't
| be completely worn out. A threadbare shirt will make a
| threadbare quilt.
| beamatronic wrote:
| >> Takes a lot more time and effort to make a quilt than
| people think.
|
| I think you found the next YC business idea
| klodolph wrote:
| Right, I think the alternatives are "I have made a quilt
| before and I'll do it myself," or "I'm just going to
| throw these away or keep them in storage."
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| Could always make the quilt yourself, it's not that hard
| to make a simple one with big blocks from the shirts.
| Rotten194 wrote:
| The long-arm sewing machines to do the actual quilting
| (where the top gets sewed to the backing over the whole
| face of the quilt) are pretty expensive and not really
| the domain of typical hobbyist, though. You'd have to
| find someone in your area who's willing to quilt it for
| you for a fee, which can be hard if you're a newcomer and
| not in any classes or forums. Or, you could hand quilt
| it, but that takes forever, especially for a beginner.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Let me introduce you to the needle and thread. People
| have been making quilts for a lot longer than this long-
| arm sewing machine you speak of. I mean, I guess my
| grandmother's arms were long, and she could reach all the
| way to the other side of the table she quilted from.
| Don't think she'd take too kindly to being referred to as
| the sewing machine though.
|
| T-shirts already have a front and back. You just need
| some long running stitches to join two shirts together.
| Shove them with the amount of batting you want, and then
| another running stitch to seal them up.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| People just want to turn a bag full of old concert Tees
| into a nice wall hanging. Few are interested in picking
| up a new hobby to do it.
|
| Hand sewing a quilt is a big effort. If you love doing
| it, it's awesome. If you don't, it's just massively
| frustrating and time consuming.
| ghaff wrote:
| I have a bag full of "quilt t-shirts." One of the
| problems is that I don't actually want a t-shirt I like
| _and_ is comfortable to wear and in reasonable condition
| to be converted like that. It 's on my project list and
| should probably revisit this winter. (There are companies
| that do this but they aren't cheap.)
| alleyshack wrote:
| I love this idea! I've kept around a lot of old sentimental
| value shirts with a similar, albeit more vague, idea of
| putting them together in some form that makes them visible.
| Keeps the memories and lets you actually look at/revisit
| them.
| s1mon wrote:
| I find it's much easier to part with such shirts if I take
| a photo of each of them. The main reason for keeping them
| (after they're worn out, shrunk too much, stained, etc.) is
| really just to remind myself of the event or band. A photo
| takes no real space.
| yibg wrote:
| I keep roughly the same amount of clothes and get new articles
| if the existing ones get worn or no longer fits. Typically I'd
| purchase a few tshirts, socks and underwear at the half a year
| or a year mark to replace ones I've gotten rid of.
|
| Lately though this hasn't been going as well. I think partly
| due to Covid lock downs I've gained some weight around the
| middle and some jeans no longer fit. I'm resisting buying
| replacement jeans hoping to lose the weight instead. Not going
| well so far.
| ebg13 wrote:
| I do want used clothes, but the average man who donates used
| clothing in the US is much fatter than I am so nothing ever fits.
| vfclists wrote:
| Secondhand clothes are not good for the development of African
| countries. There were strong industries in many African countries
| before globalization kicked in.
|
| You have this strange situation where Westerners donate free
| clothes which are sold in Africa and undermine development of
| local industries. So called NGOs simply do the dirty work of
| Western corporate interests.
|
| The Dirty Business of Old Clothes (Youtube) -
| https://bit.ly/3g9IuG8
|
| The U.S. Is Fighting Rwanda Over Trading Used Clothes -
| https://bit.ly/3op1BPp
|
| It is even worse with tomatoes -
|
| Tomatoes and greed - the exodus of Ghana's farmers -
| https://bit.ly/3qsLbHG
| vrperson wrote:
| Maybe they should try other lines of business then?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| The article mostly doesn't talk about this; according to this,
| the price of new clothing has dropped so substantially that
| even reprocessing secondhand clothes into new textiles is
| largely a dying business. With all the environmental issues
| that entails.
| anonAndOn wrote:
| There is at least one viable alternative for some second-hand
| fabrics, insulation. I wouldn't use fabric insulation for all
| applications, but its noise dampening properties make it well
| suited for interior wall use.
| r00fus wrote:
| Are they fire-retardant as well?
| anonAndOn wrote:
| Yes, they're typically treated with a borate flame
| retardant.
| free2OSS wrote:
| I have an even lower cost industry,
| Programming/coding/mechanical turk.
|
| You can do this on a rpi3.
|
| No need for machines, a supply chain, logistics.
|
| Sure traditionally this was true, but it's a saturated
| developed market.
|
| Had to take issue with the overly simplified economics here.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| A lot of charity in other countries can have the effect of
| undermining local institutions and make the receivers off
| worse.
| corty wrote:
| Charity always creates such vicious circles. While donating
| for desaster relief is usually good and well, charity needs
| to be viewed with a lot more suspicion.
|
| Teach a man to fish, he will build an economy. Give him his
| daily free fish, he will be your dependent forever.
| biggestdummy wrote:
| This is a fallacy. Most people enjoy
| creating/building/earning if they are given a path to doing
| so. Helping unfortunate, poor, disabled, and even the
| occasional lazy person is no vice.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| True. Giving for-profit organisations charitable
| donations however, is a bad idea, unless those
| organisations are the intended recipients of the charity.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| > Most people enjoy creating/building/earning...
|
| That's kind of the issue though. At a large enough scale,
| donations can undermine the value of creation / earning.
| A new show shop might not have much value in an economy
| that has a large enough supply of donated shoes
| constantly thrown into it. Since it's not valuable to
| build these shoe suppliers, they do not get built. The
| population becomes dependent on the donations, as
| existing infrastructure does not exist to support them if
| the donations suddenly stopped.
|
| I believe this is why the original comment separated
| disaster relief from charity. Giving people their first
| pair of shoes for free from an external economy may not
| be necessarily bad, but subsequent pairs hinders growth
| of a local shoe economy.
|
| DISCLAIMER: Shoes are pure example. If you disagree with
| the idea of this comment, please do not focus on the
| shoes.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I guess it's not quite obvious to me what is wrong with
| this. as long as people are giving stuff away, why not
| take it and focus on producing things you can't get for
| free? it's hard to imagine how the supply of second-hand
| shoes/tshirts/whatever could crash overnight. if people
| in rich countries stopped replacing perfectly serviceable
| goods, they would probably do it slowly enough for the
| former beneficiaries to start domestic production.
|
| purely monetary aid seems like a substantially greater
| risk. politics could turn off that faucet in an instant.
| rleigh wrote:
| It's not about "enjoyment", it's about charity
| undercutting local economies and preventing the
| development of local business and industry to service
| local needs. "Charity" can play a part in keeping
| communities in poverty because accepting the handouts
| kills the business opportunities which would allow for
| local economic development.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-12-04 23:00 UTC)