Are clothes simply too cheap?

[80sMum]

I was just reading this article about the clothing industry and am shocked by the statistics. Most of us are buying and discarding clothes without a thought for the environmental impact, it seems.

Not so very long ago, we used to darn socks; put patches over threadbare elbows; add a strip of fabric to the hems of skirts and trousers when children grew too tall for them; make new clothes out of old ones etc.

Clothes used to be
a) much more expensive, relative to income
b) much higher quality
c) easier to mend, alter and repair

Everyone used to have far fewer clothes and kept them for several years. We need to try to return to that.

I think it will be very difficult to persuade people to buy fewer clothes, unless the government introduces measures to incentivise it. Some possibilities are a tax on clothes (similar to that on motor fuel, cigarettes and alcohol) and/or a tax on manufacturing of clothes. Both of these would increase the cost of buying clothes and might reduce consumption. Neither would be popular!

I really don't think that the majority of people shopping in Primark etc are looking for something to wear once and then throw away. Where I live it's normal people buying normal clothes to wear every day. They aren't choosing not to spend £150 on a jumper just so that they can bin it a week later and buy a new one, they literally don't have that kind of money!

Threads like this are the reason environmental policy is still a fringe issue. No one is going to vote for someone who says "clothes are going to be more expensive but don't worry, you can have hand me downs from your betters."

How about instead cracking down on dodgy manufacturing practices abroad (such as the polluted water being released straight back into the river as in that Stacey Dooley documentary)? And trying to effect some sort of cultural change so that it's no longer shameful (outside the middle class) to buy your clothes from charity shops?

We could also do something about overly rigid workplace dress codes (which mean buying new outfits a lot if you're temping or jumping between zero hours jobs). And tiny housing/short term tenancies meaning it's difficult to store out of season clothing until next year.

you need to have as few clothes as possible

Right, and the kids who didn’t have uniform tended to have more clothes, as well as a larger variety (we needed formal wear for concerts/events, for example, while the kids at private just wore their uniforms). IME anyway.

Uniform was expensive though, so cost-wise might not make any difference or be more expensive.

But surely with too few clothes you'd be doing loads more washing cycles rather than saving it up and doing fewer big loads?

Also, something I noticed too is where I grew up, there was always massive back-to-school clothing deals/spring season sales, etc for kids clothes. Kids were always sporting new styles and the like, especially the more fashion forward, I’d guess you’d say. Everyone that could afford it would have new stuff for the new season.

Then, when I started working in a country that had strict uniform, there were no big sales or promotions like that ..... because what’s the point? You aren’t going to make that many sales when there’s way less demand for street clothes!

I’ve lived in non uniform countries as both a child and a parent and people spend far less on children’s clothing in non uniform countries. The statistics are there!

I think that school uniform is a huge con supported by a clothing industry that sends out all sorts of totally disproven messages about uniform’s benefits!

people spend far less on children’s clothing in non uniform countries

Lower cost does not equal less impact on the environment though. Something can be cheaper and absolutely have an adverse impact. I think that’s partially how we ended up here in the first place, as many PPs pointed out.

People are buying fewer items of clothing in non uniform countries. There are two main drivers of ecological best practice: fewer items of clothing purchased and ecologically sound supply chain.

Not to mention the nasty chemicals the clothes are treated with. Do a search and you would be shocked (like I did recently).
Organic cotton can be misleading too unless it has a GOTS certification I wouldn't trust it.
Second hand natural materials seems to be a good choice?

Tbh, yes, they are too cheap, but, yes, if the price were higher it would hit the poorest hardest. So rather than taxing clothes, we need some "polluter pays" incentives. Tax on carbon emissions during production, with rebates for clothes made from materials from countries with good controls on pesticides. And measures to put a price on waste disposal -it doesn't make sense that I could fill my bin to the gunnels every couple of weeks and not have to pay a penny more. Then money raised from those taxes could be spent on subsidising children's clothes (since you're always having to get more of them). Just some ideas.

Taxing clothes more is not an incentive for people to buy less - there are very few cases where taxation makes a difference, unless it becomes unreasonably high.

What should happen - but is not in the interest of the economy - is that young people need to be taught the basics of home crafts again. Basic sewing, knitting, woodwork, metal work, cooking - if more people knew how to mend (that doesn't mean patches - you can mend many clothes in a stylish way if you know how to) and make do, we would throw a lot less away as a society.

That and an end to the snobbery around second-hand. We had a massive stash of baby and toddler clothes - all excellent quality - but of the 5 people I asked only one was not hell-bent on buying new. Same with prams, furniture, toys etc. - second hand seems to be a massive no-no.

Many of the items we own are second-hand - partly, because we like the style and with children's clothes, because they get dirty at nursery anyway. But the look on some people's faces when we openly admit to it is priceless. Just because we can afford to buy new doesn't mean we need to.

I'm not remotely hard up and I only wear really expensive good high street and 'designer' clothing.

That I buy on eBay for £30 or less

In that last week I've bought Jimmy Choo sandals (£25 - original price £200 plus), joules Breton top (£4 new, original price £25), a Longchamp bag (£8, original £40)

I spend about £200 a month on eBay - and if it doesn't fit or I don't love it I give it away, resell, charity shop it.

In the last year I've bought 4 new dresses from an online shop (in the sale, EKO ones - they're lovely) and that's it.

I can really recommend Facebook selling sites for your favourite brands. I love Seasalt and now get all my dresses from there second hand. Got a fab coat for Christmas second hand with not a mark on it.

In my group of friends we pass bags of our kids' clothes around as they grow out of them and as people have new babies. I don't think I bought a single item of clothing for my younger son. We also have a bag of maternity clothes that has been passed from person to person

It is a really big issue clothing waste I actually got given a leaflet last weekend in the street by a baby company doing something about it. Seems like a good idea bur doesn't launch until Jan apparently www.babyeo.co.uk

There’s a thread about new clothes for Xmas day. One person says that everyone in the family gets new pyjamas, slippers and dressing gowns on Xmas eve.
I think some people think that the environmental crisis is everyone else’s problem and not theirs.

Err.....old money rich people would wear handed down clothes and use handed down furniture, carpets and curtains in their handed down house. PG Wodehouse has references to Earls being mistaken for gardeners (or pigmen). Last century, women aspired to wearing a coat made from farmed mink, but their daugthers would have been ashamed to wear fur, after (mainly) a campaign supported by top models. Scandinavian countries have a word for flight-shame, (such as Greta would have felt if she hadn't sailed the Atlantic instead of using a plane).

There is and needs to be a feeling of revulsion and disgrace, if someone has a yacht and a plane and takes overseas holidays. Or, if someone consumes or wastes in any way. Buying new clothes is almost invariably going to be worse for our planet than finding something second hand, or something which can be altered. Attenborough suggests eating less meat, having fewer children, avoiding oil (as plastic or fuel or the damnable palm oil, which is in so many products) and leaving the fish in the sea (90% are close to extinction, with some countries subsidising fleets even though there's virtually nothing left to catch). Sustainable organic farming actually produces more food than pouring chemical poison does. Nobody would still eat factory farmed animals if they saw what goes on, and it simply isn't necessary.

The best thing is New Zealand, where the (woman) prime minister has declared the country's wellbeing is not to be measured by the g.d.p. This false idol is worshipped elsewhere, with Sunak explaining everything must be done to get peopwle spend spend spending, because british g.d.p. is uniquely dependent on consumerism [i.e. personal ruinous debt doesn't matter, even if to sustain gambling (casinos are exempt from covid closure). Covid doesn't matter (merely seeing citizens dying matter less than ordering office workers to commute to work in order to sustain sandwich shops, and permitting the hideously costly Whitehall and Westminster buildings to remain open, when debating and voting can be and has been done from their homes) ] 'The Economy' is worshipped, just as Easter Islanders made themselves extinct by chopping down the last trees, but it measures nothing sensible. Buying and wasting is good for it, but caring unpaid for others is not.