The Era of Ultracheap Stuff Is Under Threat (wsj.com) 140
Factories across Asia are struggling to attract young workers, which is bad news for Western consumers accustomed to inexpensive goods. From a report: The workplace features floor-to-ceiling windows and a cafe serving matcha tea, as well as free yoga and dance classes. Every month, workers gather at team-building sessions to drink beer, drive go-karts and go bowling. This isn't Google. It's a garment factory in Vietnam. Asia, the world's factory floor and the source of much of the stuff Americans buy, is running into a big problem: Its young people, by and large, don't want to work in factories.
That's why the garment factory is trying to make its manufacturing floor more enticing, and why alarm bells are ringing at Western companies that rely on the region's inexpensive labor to churn out affordable consumer goods. The twilight of ultracheap Asian factory labor is emerging as the latest test of the globalized manufacturing model, which over the past three decades has delivered a vast array of inexpensively produced goods to consumers around the world. Americans accustomed to bargain-rate fashion and flat-screen TVs might soon be reckoning with higher prices. "There's nowhere left on the planet that's going to be able to give you what you want," said Paul Norriss, the British co-founder of the Vietnam garment factory, UnAvailable, based in Ho Chi Minh City. "People are going to have to change their consumer habits, and so are brands."
That's why the garment factory is trying to make its manufacturing floor more enticing, and why alarm bells are ringing at Western companies that rely on the region's inexpensive labor to churn out affordable consumer goods. The twilight of ultracheap Asian factory labor is emerging as the latest test of the globalized manufacturing model, which over the past three decades has delivered a vast array of inexpensively produced goods to consumers around the world. Americans accustomed to bargain-rate fashion and flat-screen TVs might soon be reckoning with higher prices. "There's nowhere left on the planet that's going to be able to give you what you want," said Paul Norriss, the British co-founder of the Vietnam garment factory, UnAvailable, based in Ho Chi Minh City. "People are going to have to change their consumer habits, and so are brands."
If the quality of the goods go up (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I"m okay with the price increase. If not, and its the same old disposable crap, well then we have a problem.
Re:If the quality of the goods go up (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure, out of the goodness of their hearts, they'll make higher quality merchandise to make up for the increased cost, rather than simply pocket the money themselves. I mean, that would be wrong. Next thing you know they might cause record inflation via price gouging [axios.com] and collusion on rent prices. [propublica.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Oligopolies almost always suck. Maybe they make sense for big, longer-term expensive things, like aerospace; but for most other products they ruin competition & customer service like clock-work.
Re:If the quality of the goods go up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The rich lobby heavily to persuade people that "gov't interference hobbles the Great Job Creators (1%)." The rich have many ways to buy laws and buy politicians. It's sick.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You have this completely backwards: the only politicians that will run for office are those who will take some palm grease from those same companies that don't want to be broken up. It is, quite simply, capitalism in the Capitol, and those that won't play ball don't make the cut.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but voters seem unwilling or unable to vote for politicians who'll break them up. For every one Katie Porter or Liz Warren I can point to three Kirsten Sinemas and a Kevin McCarthy.
This is a direct result of dividing voters based on party denomination... but yeah, go Team Democrat amiright?
Re: (Score:2)
First off, this phenomenon is only going to take money out of the pockets of those "7 companies". Sure they can try to raise prices, but that curtails consumer spending beyond a certain point, especially if quality does not follow.
Secondly, name those "7 companies" that make "virtually everything" we own. If you can't, or won't name them up front, then it should be clear you are being dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can't name 7 companies, but 10 companies make practically everything you put in your mouth (and then some). You will recognize some of them, like General Mills, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Kract, while others like Unilever make a ton more stuff beyond food.
Practically everything you see at the grocery store comes from one of the 10 companie
Re: (Score:1)
I have pretty much everything I want by now....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If the quality of the goods go up (Score:4, Insightful)
Well then we have a problem. There's no reason given to expect a quality increase. The article only discusses labor cost. In fact, you may see a dip in quality if they try to maintain prices.
History history... (Score:2)
In the 1950s Japan was the source of 'disposable crap'. Then it was Hong Kong and then much of China. Then Vietnam entered the fray, as have Bangladesh and Ethiopia. Meanwhile the other countries happily moved up the 'add value' gradient...
If India ever gets its act together and become the new China in this sense, then there will be a prolonged supply of 'disposable crap'...
Re: (Score:3)
Then I"m okay with the price increase. If not, and its the same old disposable crap, well then we have a problem.
In other words you're fine with paying more for better quality materials but not for increasing the workers' wages above slave wages.
days of cheap labor are over! (Score:3)
days of cheap labor are over!
Re:days of cheap labor are over! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not!
South America and Africa are largely untapped.
Re:days of cheap labor are over! (Score:4, Insightful)
South America has corruption and political problems. The politics oscillate from extreme right to extreme left. Neither is good for business.
Africa has corruption, political problems, and education problems. Even factory workers need basic literacy.
Both places have difficulty understanding what attracts businesses. Silly rules about foreign ownership are deal killers. I currently live in the Philippines, where foreign ownership of land is banned, and most businesses require majority Filipino ownership. As a result, the East Asian tech boom has passed over the Philippines. 40 years ago, the Philippines was four times richer than China. Now China is four times richer than the Philippines.
One country with a large population, rapidly rising literacy rates, and a government that "gets" capitalism, is Bangladesh. They already manufacture a lot of textiles and are primed to move up the value chain.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> South America has corruption and political problems. The politics oscillate from extreme right to extreme left. Neither is good for business.
The USA is becoming like this. Not a good sign. Gerrymandering and web conspiracies/lies fuel much of it.
But maybe when money starts flowing in from manufacturing, those countries will settle down, as people who have more wish to avoid revolutions and find compromises. Desperate people are more likely to riot and coup because they having little to lose; people wit
Re: (Score:3)
You'd think, but the US was incredibly prosperous after WWII and still chose to allow the deliberate spread of ignorance and social division, driven by people who felt that was their best chance of successfully maximizing profits from exploiting their fellow citizens. They're still flirting with fascism right now, and everyone at the top level is 100% aware of what they're doing and still playing along because they think that's what's going to be best for their wallets.
If it all falls apart in a generation
Re:days of cheap labor are over! (Score:5, Interesting)
The rich made a focked-up de-facto contract with fundamentalist religions: let us keep our money and we'll let you Talibanize the country. As one example, look how quickly the non-religious Don got "converted" to evangelism.
Most wealthy are more libertarian and ordinarily don't give a shit about regulating panties, but to keep their money, they will.
Correction (Score:1)
I monday'd up the last part. Redo:
Desperate people are more likely to riot and coup because they have little to lose, but people with means want to avoid rocking the boat because the smooth boat got them money.
Re: (Score:2)
and that's a good thing for local business.
those rules are there for a reason. prevent US multinationals pillage.
Re: (Score:2)
South America has corruption and political problems. The politics oscillate from extreme right to extreme left. Neither is good for business.
The other problem is that people in South America won't sit there and be silently abused until they decide to nosedive from the 3rd floor. One of the reasons they have such an extreme left was due to the abject poverty and poor working conditions of the first half of last century (and much of the 2nd half). The Drugs trade can take credit for most of the extreme right.
Also the terrain in South America hinders a lot of industry. If you flew from LA to SF, it's about an hour and a half but only 6 hours to
do they have the power gird for factorys? (Score:2)
do they have the power gird for factorys?
Re: (Score:1)
Solar roofs, F the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me factories powered by solar roofs.
And explain to me what they do when overcast or raining.
Re: (Score:1)
Not!
South America and Africa are largely untapped.
Neither of which has the Asian work ethic. You're not going to see the Asian Tigers phenomena reproduced anywhere else.
Re: days of cheap labor are over! (Score:3)
That trope is as racist now as when it originated in the days of slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
That trope is as racist now as when it originated in the days of slavery.
You can call it racist all you like. Reality doesn't give a shit about your feelings. In 30 years, Asia will still be prosperous, and Africa and South America will still be undeveloped backwaters, largely because of the cultures of the people that live there.
If you had the chance to make huge money... millions even... on a bet about the futures of those two continents, but you had to bet everything... your house, savings, etc.... would you?
Re: (Score:2)
Yikes. Have you even been to these places? I'd love for you to visit Santiago, Chile and tell me with a straight face it's an "undeveloped backwater." None of this has anything to do with my "feelings", but a lot of your bias seems to have some pretty big feels behind it.
I actually do business in Africa (mostly West Africa) and am heading there in a few weeks. You might be surprised to discover modern office towers in cities you've written off as "undeveloped backwaters." There are lots of good reasons why
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
South America and Africa are largely untapped.
An unfortunate development in Africa recently has been governments taking out loans from China, not being able to keep up with interest rates, and China calling in the debts.
A whole lot of African ports of call are now chinese owned, controlling everything that flows through them.
Same with a lot of businesses, including factories.
Africa is slowing becoming Chinas China.
I'm not sure that will bode well for the US.
Re: (Score:2)
South America and Africa are largely untapped.
I suspect the reason for that is that many places there they have people like the Wagner group, cartels, and other warlords that show up at your door with guns and armored vehicles and say, "that's a nice factory you've got there..."
Until they can improve stability, it's not going to be cheaper to manufacture stuff there.
Re: (Score:2)
somehow they seem to prefer the chinese and russians to the americans or europeans these days...
Re: (Score:2)
you haven't been following... looks like South America and Africa are fed up of the west's exploitation tactics...
Re: (Score:2)
South America and Africa are largely untapped.
Historically they aren't. In a modern sense, China is already fetching from that barrel.
Re:days of cheap labor are over! (Score:4, Funny)
You just had to bring Linux into this, didn't you.
Re: (Score:2)
You just had to bring Linux into this, didn't you.
2024 - The year of Linux in the factory...
Re: (Score:2)
You know, this reminded me of when I ruminated on pretty much this same thing, and the "insourcing" currently going on, where manufacturing returns to the USA, because making shit in China is now more expensive.
The example I remember in the old ass article was those fancy heat pump water heaters. Lots of problems trying to make them in China, rising expenses such as labor, etc... So they ended up bringing production back to the USA for it. In the process of setting up manufacturing lines, they discovered
Oh dear God you have misunderstood me (Score:3)
What I'm saying is is that our population grows because we take in immigrants. Now left unspoken but certainly slightly implied is the fact that our entire economy is built and predicated on the f
Re:Oh dear God you have misunderstood me (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it sounds like I understood you perfectly.
The only thing I disagree with you on is that we aren't going to bring manufacturing back to the USA. Now, I'm not going to say that it's going to be universal, but it's a common thing these days:
https://global.hitachi-solutio... [hitachi-solutions.com]
That said, it isn't a huge influx of jobs. Because, well, in closing down a factory that employed 10k workers, they'd outsource to China, and because they'd build a state of the art factory there, they might employ 1k for the same production. Today, they're building the factory in the USA again, but might only employ 100, for the same production again. Because then labor is no longer the dominant factor, robots cost about the same wherever you install them, and by building in the USA, they can run leaner - not needing 30+ days of product on a boat from China. Plus things like responsiveness - if a problem if found with a product made in China, odds are you're going to have to chuck at least a month's worth, because the product in the incoming ships has the problem. But if you're making it in the USA, you might only have a few day's worth in transit. Then add in things like shipping costs(with oil being high priced increasing them), the time differential, taxes and tariffs, etc... It all makes building in the USA more cost competitive.
1. Yes, our population is currently growing pretty much only because of immigration. In much of the rest of the (developed) world, not even immigration is enough to keep their growth positive.
2. Yes, our economy is built upon the preconception of eternal growth. We should probably address that sooner than later, but we'll probably do it a bit past the last possible moment, like usual.
3. Yes, I see Africa as an outsourcing destination as being extremely temporary, between the USA, Europe, China, and others all looking to outsource there. The net result should be that they industrialize fast. And once they're done, you're down to a very small selection of possible countries, all of whom currently have real problems that make them less attractive from an investment standpoint.
4. I do view the above as a positive - it means that more people are living what could be considered "middle class" existences.
You shouldn't have had just the one kid, in other words. Two! Keep the population at least steady.
Re: (Score:2)
days of cheap labor are over!
Except in the West (the customer markets for these cheap goods), where wages have stagnated for decades.
Re:days of cheap labor are over! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wages in the west have stagnated BECAUSE of cheap labor in Asia...
I am looking forward to manufacturing moving back to the West as Asian labor market get more expensive and transport costs increase due to fuel and security costs which remove all the financial benefits of manufacturing in Asia evaporate.
This will leave the Asian labor markets demanding better conditions and manufacturing balanced between East and West. This all strikes me as a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the article is that the cost of labor in Asia is going up.
Therefore: Labor (combined with shipping costs) in the west becomes cheaper compared to Asia.
And they might just skip Africa because the countries there are not particularly stable. If you spend a billion to build a factory then you want it to stay in good shape for a few years...
and, Right back act you, Moron...
Re: (Score:2)
You think that those new factories in the west will be staffed by a richer working class. I think they will be staffed 'workhouse' fashion by demonising a sector of the population as leaches on society and allocating them work so they can pay off their `debt`. I hope you are right.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Africa is the largest land mass on the planet
2. you're not making any sense here, Africa has tons of minerals that haven't been stolen by the west, yet
3. a large amount of fuel comes from africa
4. we'll see about that when the west multinational corps get expelled
Re: (Score:2)
how about
3. we all end up doing communism, because that's what makes sense ?
Why don't firms automate? (Score:2)
Are profit-seeking firms incentivized to just be lazy and raise prices instead of increading efficiency?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a limit to what can be automated. There are certain things which can't even be done by automation (eg. for instance, certain stitches can only be done by hand, and the complexity of simple human interactions with the physical world are still unachievable with machines in many cases).
To be clear, there's little that can be done to rectify this situation from a market perspective. This is an example of companies being able to make cheap shit because they're relying on the (depressed) local economies.
Re: Why don't firms automate? (Score:2)
Was your comment generated by ChatGPT with the prompt: "As a corporate shill, attack automation"?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
It's corporations which want to do things as cheaply as possible. Having people do the work is, by far, the more expensive option.
Automation isn't going to be net-free. It's not software - the automation doesn't run for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly corporations that seek to automate, do not wish for anyone to know that they can (and will) automate.
You left out a word (Score:1)
There are certain things which can't even be done by automation
yet
Re: (Score:2)
What comes to garment industry I think the biggest speed bump is that when ever a factory invents a way to automate something, they keep it as a secret, instead of selling the invention to all the factories. Even new companies that invent automation, decide not to sell the machine, but instead setup a factory and sell products made by the machine, like happened with sewbot that makes t-shirts.
Also many factories are quite low tech, poor education places. It is not like they have an AI team there inventing n
Re: (Score:2)
Take China. Please.
In the past, they had plenty of people to brute-force production. There was no need to industrialize things like farming equipment, textiles, manufacture of toys, etc.
Take the US. Please.
They didn't have nearly enough manual labor, so they mechanized. That's what hurled them to the richest economy in the world so quickly.
In both China and the US, people don't want to work in factories or farms for low wages. The US built machines and China used humans.
As the globe matures, fewer people wa
Re: (Score:3)
The only way that "immigrants" (not to be confused with people that legally immigrate to the United States and adhere to its labor and wage laws) take jobs away from the working class is if their wages don't rise.
Un/low-skill labor has a price ceiling (Score:2, Insightful)
At some point, it will be cheaper to have robots make things than to hire people.
This just in: The 1970s US auto industry just called and said "that's not new."
This just in: The industrial revolution just called and said "ahem *cough*"
Re: (Score:2)
this just in: we've already maxed out bullshit jobs to occupy people, and they've started to notice that what they're doing is useless. this trend may not continue for long
Cheap is relative (Score:2)
So, stuff you got at the dollar store may now be twice as expensive, potentially doubling wages for those manufacture those goods. For most in the US & EU, that won't be a significant problem or concern.
Honestly, I bet 80% of the cost of those ultra-cheap items is tied to transporting and presenting them to customers. So, a $1 item probably costs $0.20 to manufacture. If they double that cost, the end cost only needs to go up $0.20/item. Barely a blip on the radar for most. And since the cost of goods w
Re: (Score:2)
And since the cost of goods would not change, whoever actually makes that product could be paid the majority of that amount.
They COULD be paid the majority of that amount, but they won't. What happens in reality is that the increase in profits is given to shareholders or stock buybacks (if it's a publicly traded company), executive bonuses, larger campuses, or anything else that doesn't amount to paying employees more.
Re: (Score:2)
True. But if they can't get people to work for the amounts they currently pay, I showed its relatively trivial to greatly increase that pay without causing prices to the consumer to raise much.
Action figure collectors are noticing this already (Score:2)
Africa's the next stop on the cheap labor train, with Russia & China moving in hard. The US has a tough time getting a foothold there where the cheap labor is becaus
Re:Action figure collectors are noticing this alre (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a lot of Russian & Chinese propaganda pointing to our less than stellar race relations.
Erh... don't get me wrong, but Russia and China don't exactly have too great a history when it comes to the treatment of minorities either. Let's better not talk about, say, Uyghurs or Chechens.
Re: (Score:3)
Not defending the dick mutilators in anyway, but the Han Chinese never liked anybody who isn't Han Chinese.
Just ask the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Manchus, the Hmongs, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
The Nazis have never liked animal mutilation [wikipedia.org]...
Same braindead argument as the GP's.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed, I tried to buy an Elon action figure to shove up my...
> What's gonna be interesting is why Africa's birth rate goes below sustainability.
A shrinking population is not a bad thing by itself; in fact it's good for environmental sustainability. However, if the existing economic and political systems already "priced in" population increases, then they'll get whacked by shrinkage.
Re: (Score:2)
What, no greased Yoda doll?
Re:Action figure collectors are noticing this alre (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh just let him be racist. It's funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Some black people do, but there is massive inequality.
When comparing countries, you have to look at inequality. The UK is a great example of that. Lots of rich people, 6th wealthiest nation in the world... But due to inequality, there are a lot of poor people, and much of the country is in a state of disrepair and decay.
Local production? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is good for the country where the factory is build, bad for the country where it leaves. And as work is automated, there will be most likely something like 1000 jobs lost in one country for 1 job gained in another (not instantly, but in the long run, because automation is must more likely to happen in western rich countries than it is in countries where labor is cheap). I still think it is a good thing, even it will most likely cause total destruction of some countries, especially in garment industry.
Re: (Score:2)
If people refuse to work in factories in those countries, they nothing of value was lost, now was it? Automation will only start to happen when it's more affordable to do so.
So if Asian countries no longer have a population willing to do factory work, they can hardly be concerned with losing those jobs, now can they?
Funko Pop It Directly Back in the Garbage (TM) (Score:3)
I mean, in the developed world, we have too much stuff anyway. Anything that discourages us from buying frivolous, disposable, imported crap is probably a net positive for our collective well-being.
But of course, the real problem is that it isn't just consumer goods that'll increase in price, but things people actually need to stay alive and healthy.
More more more! (Score:4, Insightful)
The factories are in Asia because! (Score:2)
This is how it's supposed to go (Score:2, Insightful)
Rich people buy cheap stuff from poor people, who use the income to bootstrap themselves out of poverty. This eventually lifts the entire country up economically until everything levels out.
I - most likely along with everyone else reading this - have been living an artificially high standard of living based on the exploitation of poorer nations. This is a levelling out. It was never going to last forever.
A lot of the cheap labour from undeveloped countries will be replaced by robots anyway, so it's not
Re: (Score:2)
It actually still does. They get lured into horrible factory jobs because it's better than selling their children (or themselves) into prostitution or begging on the streets. As they get money, they start buying things. And then some of them start using their savings to build local industry... maybe a shadow of what exploitative foreign mega-corps can drop into their lives, but it's a start.
Eventually they expect compensation that's too high for the tastes of the foreign companies, but by then they've s
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, this is a major problem in capitalist countries like Vietnam and China. If only they would choose socialism or communism!
(and here comes the idiot telling us that China and Vietnam are not really communist or some other nonsense, ugh)
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
That's fine. We don't need so much stuff anyway. Reducing the amount of stuff we have (and increasing its quality) is good for the environment and in the long run, probably better for our happiness too.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously - why is this considered bad? Our cushy lifestyles shouldn't be built on the backs of (essentially) slave laborers.
Garmet Industry Always Seeking Cheap Labor (Score:2)
Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, the garment industry has always chased cheap labor. Most the cost of clothing is the labor that goes into making it. While some things can be automated, there are important steps that are extremely resistant to automation. As countries come up out of poverty, the industry moves onto another poor country. As Jesus is famously quoted as having said "the poor will always be with us."
100 years ago, it was sweatshops manned by immigrant labor in New York city (see Tri
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it moved from the NY metro area to the rural South, along with proximity to cotton.
Creating garbage as entertainment (Score:5, Insightful)
Asia will do what the West did (Score:2)
They'll outsource manufacturing to non-industrialized countries, wherever they can get labor the cheapest. A generation ago that was the West outsourcing to Asia, next it will be Asia outsourcing to Africa and South America.
This is what China's Belt & Road initiative is setting up: economic colonization, before the West ever thinks of doing it.
The era of ultracheap stuff will persist until no more countries remain to exploit for cheap labor.
New competitors rise in their turn (Score:2)
There is no threat, merely change.
paleocon-libertarian, so it might surprise you: (Score:3, Insightful)
"...The twilight of ultracheap Asian factory labor is emerging as the latest test of the globalized manufacturing model..."
I think this is FANTASTIC and will do more to reduce pollution and improve our planet fundamentally than a vast array of other suggestions.
The fact is that the west has been enjoying what is exploitation of people with a much lower and cheaper standard of living, really since the Asian manufacturing move in the 1970s.
Certainly some of this production will move to the 'next' cheaper region, Africa. However, as that region is not nearly as politically stable, it's harder for bean-counters to hand-wave externalities in their calculations.
I'm all for it. We don't need a new phone every 3 years, or a new TV every 4, or a new car every 5. Once the ultracheaps are culled from the production stream, consumers may (I hope) recognize that durability, repairability, and workmanship are now something worth paying for if you're going to keep that formerly-disposable piece of furniture for 40 years instead of 5.
This can only help domestic firms that can get good, skilled workers but formerly had to compete with overseas shops paying a pittance in labor.
No, I see this as the deathknell of the disposable culture, and a long term unalloyed good.
That's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, tho much of why we wanted "stuff that lasts" is because we were too poor to replace it.
[But that's how I grew up, and I still want stuff that lasts, and can be repaired and repurposed when it gets beyond its original use.]
There's another problem, tho... if these young folks no longer want to work in factories, exactly how do they expect to support themselves? Because white collar work doesn't just magically appear without goods to move, and the internet economy of nothing but electrons is basically
Good (Score:3)
Ultra cheap, disposable crap sucks
I will gladly pay a fair price for quality stuff
Re: (Score:2)
Ultra cheap, disposable crap sucks I will gladly pay a fair price for quality stuff
You and many others here seem to think that the alternative to cheap is high quality. It's really not. The alternative to cheap is expensive... but quality won't be appreciably different. If the era of cheap labor ends your standard of living will just go down because your money won't go as far.
More rich a**holes... (Score:2)
Funny (Score:2)
It's funny because if you go watch videos from Chinese social media, the story is completely opposite.
They can't find work at all and are forced out of the cities. The Chinese economy seems to be completely breaking down.
wrong (Score:2)
The era of ULTRA cheap stuff made by fully automated machines is coming.
Goods shouldn't be disposable (Score:2)
Think about a pair of jeans. To make it, you only need two cotton plants - that need 100 times the water it takes to grow the same weight in tomatoes. And a significant amount of pesticide sprayed on them to maximize yields, the runoff of which goes into local drinking water and rivers. The Dyeing, finishing, and distressing process for those jeans requires even more water, and toxic chemicals laden with heavy metals, which is all dumped directly into rivers. Consumers buy on average 4 pairs of these every
Re: (Score:2)
well certainly jeans can last a long time, but they'll be having issues after 15 years or more. I have denim things including shirts that old.
people getting into clothing or a TV for a decade or more would be good enough.
Re: Goods shouldn't be disposable (Score:2)
Cheap goods or fat margins? (Score:2)
The Era of Ultracheap Stuff Is Under Threat (Score:2)
On the one hand, Good. On the other hand, I suspect this is the tipping point where you can no longer trade or barter anything in order to have access to food and shelter.
When I was a kid, you could buy a 27 inch television set for about 3 months worth of rent. Now, you can buy 4 55 inch HDR televisions for less than one month of rent. That sounds great right? Well, no. The price of the television set remained roughly neutral during all of that time however, the price of food and shelter has expanded greatl
Re: (Score:2)
I may not be a fan of the Democrats but I'm becoming even less a fan of the Republicans. The Republicans also seem to be continually finding new ways to piss people off.
The fact that Trump has so many of the Republicans wrapped around his finger is the entire reason the party will indeed probably lose to Biden/Harris.
It's not that Biden/Harris are all that good at their jobs, it's just Trump will likely win the primaries and then soundly lose the general, AGAIN! Outside of half the Republicans, no one likes