My post last week delved into the dichotomous world of "paying money for things that should last" vs. "buying lots of things so it doesn't really matter when things break- there's always a backup". A good friend of mine called me out on this concept by saying, "well, what about poor people? Don't they need pants too?"
And we launched into what I afterwards considered to a be a relatively decent debate revolving around the facts, errors, and misconceptions of poverty, consumption, and personal choice. It was the first time in a long while that I had such a spirited conversation. And the concepts espoused within that conversation have been haunting me for the past few days.
What ABOUT the poor? Few people in the world can have the luxury of being able to afford $100 for a pair of pants. What guarantees do we as wealthy consumers have that the pants will last? what really makes them worth $100? Did the people who manufactured them ACTUALLY get paid a fair wage for their labors? Am I just another asshole with too much disposable income?
And then I started thinking...I have purchased multiple pairs of jeans in the past year. It's not out of compulsion, but rather out of necessity - after leaving my last job (working with a general contractor), every pair of jeans I owned was completely thrashed from work - stains, tears, frayed edges, inexplicable patches of "goo" stuck in various places...not exactly my Sunday best. So I bought several new pairs. And those pairs, after washing for 6 months, began to fray and rip and tear and break down. So I bought replacements for THEM. All in all, I have probably spent $150 on pairs of jeans in the past year and a half. All so that I can have a rotating stock of 2-3 pairs at my fingertips. Now why do we do such ridiculous things as buy new pants when the old ones start to go bad? Simple - because it's cheaper, easier, and less time-consuming to do so.
A pair of $25 jeans at Target is very easily replaceable. Once they get frayed or torn or stained, just go buy a new pair. What's the alternative? Mend a pair of jeans? Yeah, maybe. At what cost? Pay a tailor to do it, and you're looking at a minimum of $20. and then you've got mended pants. not new ones. and you've only saved $5. The opportunity cost is negligible. You could mend the pants yourself...but that requires a skill set that has long-since fallen by the wayside of American know-how...all in the name of modernity and progress.
We buy new stuff when the old stuff wears out because we can. Because the cost to replace is cheaper than or equal to the cost to fix. That's an economic system built to collapse. Maybe not today or tomorrow...but it certainly is unsustainable.
Clearly we're not breaking new ground on the front of economic analysis here. This situation has been well-known by economists and Marketing firms for decades. but, strangely, though the consumer knows that it is an economic wash to replace, not repair, we blindly accept the fact that this is the way it should be. We buy cheap consumable goods because we know we can also replace them cheaply when they (inevitably) break or fall apart. Few companies exist these days that make equipment or goods built to be repaired, mended, or altered. The companies that do this have been hedged into the "luxury brand" tier, a misnomer that companies willingly perpetuate just to survive.
Think about all of the different things you have in your house - kitchen appliances, knives, blankets, clothing, towels, rugs, etc. Think about how many of those things you'd be willing to pay money to repair if they were to break, tear, or otherwise malfunction. It would be far too easy to simply buy a new one, throw the old one away (or foist it upon the good folks at the Salvation Army or Goodwill store and let them take their chances on fixing it) and be done with the situation.
A solution seems to be to care for your items as if they were priceless heirlooms. But a $40 steam iron does not an heirloom make. Neither does a Pier 1 braided 3'x5' rug. Few of the things we own today have any significance (sentimental, financial, or erstwhile) attached to them. And yet we continue to be consumed by our neverending, ravenous consumption habits.
We don't give a damn about a single thing we own, and yet we can't seem to live without any of it.
I don't know how we've managed to wedge ourselves into this paradox, but I'm all for suggestions on how the hell we get ourselves out of this mess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Albers-
Glad to see you dropping word bombs on the internet(s) again. You make several important points here.
1. FACT: Poor people need pants.
2. A $100 dollar price tag does not guarantee quality. What it does do is allow us to spend our piles of green paper to buy temporarily satisfying items and allow others to see these items, thereby enforcing the fact that we are better, because we make more money. And, some say, it also makes your ass look better.
3. The manufacture of inferior quality goods results in an increased use of non-renewable resources as these goods break down and are replaced.
4. Cost/benefit analysis does not seem to drive a lot of our purchasing decisions. This takes time, which people don't have. They do have money. And they don't give a shit about fair working conditions or the environment.
Proposed solution:
Create reasonably priced, high quality goods, and pay people a fair wage to do this.
There are companies that cover the wage part (eg American Apparel), and while I cannot vouch for quality there, I can say that it is a small step in the right direction. However, American Apparel clothes are somewhat expensive (due to the increased labor costs, presumably). This prevents people with less money to purchase these fairly made, high quality (we're going to operate on this assumption) garments. In order to counter this disparity between price, quality, and fair labor, why don't we have the homeless make the clothes?
When you toss these kids from their 14 cent/hour jobs, how do you then propose that their family buys bread for the week? I have a solution for the sweat shops: air conditioning -- or at least a decent fan.
Also, Rory, if the homeless made clothes, they wouldn't have time to engage in the "Survivor-esque" competition that seems to occur every afternoon on the small island at the intersection of New York, Delaware, and Mass Ave that keeps me from doing my real work -- suing Aurora Dairy (Colo.) for selling "organic" milk that comes from cows that are hooked up to IVs, ten to a pen. The irony is killing me.
Post a Comment