The cost of buying cheap...

Honeythief

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm sure that if the British were still ruling the world, corporate and local governence would be immeasurably better.

Such tragedies would be largely avoided as would most famines.

Hmmmm, British rule sure didn't help the Irish avoid famine.


As for the original question, I think that only public pressure will persuade companies to act on cleaning up their factories and practices, and public pressure won't happen while people are so greedy (and I include myself in that). We don't want to live with the austerity measures of our parents and grandparents. We don't want to have two dresses with interchangeable collars and cuffs so it looks like we have lots of different outfits; we want to have lots of different outfits that we can give/throw away when we get bored of them or they wear out. And of course that relentless purchasing comes at a price for people all over the world. It's very sad.

Honeythief

Many people don't really have a choice if they need to feed and clothe a family on limited income.

This is a theme that I've seen again and again on this type of discussion. People DO have a choice. They just don't want to take it, because it makes them feel bad in some way. They don't feel fashionable, or they don't feel wealthy, or they just feel guilty because their kids are nagging at them for the latest trainers. It costs almost no money to stay warm and adequately fed. It just takes money to consistently do it in style.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

None of this takes away from the basic moral responsibility I think we all have. If you buy from companies that do bad things you are complicit in their bad deeds. The blood is on your hands.

Which is OK if you have the choice.

But I fear you are being slightly ignorant of low income budgets here.

As for Apple, it's had so many bad reports about the way it sources it's products, I'm not sure it's a particularly great model to hold up. There was even a UK documentary on the conditions the companies Apple employ impose on their employees. And the push to do so comes directly from Apple.

Graham_Devon

Honeythief wrote: »

This is a theme that I've seen again and again on this type of discussion. People DO have a choice. They just don't want to take it, because it makes them feel bad in some way. They don't feel fashionable, or they don't feel wealthy, or they just feel guilty because their kids are nagging at them for the latest trainers. It costs almost no money to stay warm and adequately fed. It just takes money to consistently do it in style.

Buying from Primark isn't exactly a fashion statement.

Honeythief

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Buying from Primark isn't exactly a fashion statement.

Um, yes it is. Primark is all about disposable fashion.

If a person really doesn't care about fashion, they wear the same clothes for years until they fall apart into rags, and then patch them, and then wear them again. There are lots of clothing options that people can choose if they just want to be covered and warm. If they choose to follow fashions then they're part of that cycle and bear some responsibility. And again, I include myself in this. I don't want to follow my granny's example and wear my practical woollen garments for decades. I want to look nice and to roughly follow current trends, and I don't want to spend much money doing those things. And I have to bear my share of responsibility for where that ends up.

And before anybody says, "Oh but I have to buy new clothes all the time so I look nice for work," that doesn't make any sense. A few well-sewn garments that mix and match well with each other will see anybody through almost every social situation imaginable. In fact most people would be more stylish if they did that rather than buying cheap rubbish that falls apart after half a dozen washes.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which is OK if you have the choice.

But I fear you are being slightly ignorant of low income budgets here.

As for Apple, it's had so many bad reports about the way it sources it's products, I'm not sure it's a particularly great model to hold up. There was even a UK documentary on the conditions the companies Apple employ impose on their employees. And the push to do so comes directly from Apple.

Sorry to say but this is BS. Nobody in the UK starves, everyone can afford meat.

If you want to justify your little luxuries on the back of dead children then so be it. I think it's immoral.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which is OK if you have the choice.

But I fear you are being slightly ignorant of low income budgets here.

Have you ever been outside of Devon?

What you consider a low income in the UK would be seen as fantastical riches by the majority of the world's population.

People on low incomes in the UK have a world of choice compared to the average Bangladeshi.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

If you want to justify your little luxuries on the back of dead children then so be it. I think it's immoral.

All I will say to that is... "ouch".

No need.

CLAPTON

The building didn't fall down because Primark had a factory there.

It fell down because of corruption and bad governance.

neverdespairgirl

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which is OK if you have the choice.

But I fear you are being slightly ignorant of low income budgets here.

I don't agree. It's an excuse, not a reason. Most people buy far more clothes than they actually need, and don't bother to mend them or make their own, both of which would be a lot cheaper than buying cheap and cheerful Primark-type stuff.