CNN is opining about the collapse of a textile factory in Bangladesh, impugning US consumers who buy cheap clothes. I agree with the basic premise, that Americans buying cheap clothes aren't appreciative of the actual cost of their savings. Where the CNN piece goes wrong is when it identifies collapsed factories as the only hidden cost.
I'm all for paying higher prices for better working conditions for textile laborers. I buy a lot of my clothes from American Apparel. I don't agree with all the politics behind the firm, but it's nice to know my t shirts are made in LA. Even better, the quality of American Apparel is consistently higher than the stuff I get from Bangladesh. I would pay more-- double, probably; triple, maybe-- to get all of my clothes from the States.
For me, it's not about human rights in Asia. I'm not pleased people died making socks in Dhaka, but I understand vesting authority in the UN or some national government to regulate wages and working conditions will inevitably result in misallocations, a slowed economy, and an infinitely more harm than we'd experience with a true free market. What troubles me is the quality of my shirts. The fact is most of the clothes I buy today-- which are mostly made in the developing world-- fall apart faster than clothes I bought years ago.
I still have shirts from twenty years ago. Those shirts were made in America and while they have faded, they're still holding up. But low end shirts from China, Malawi, and Haiti are simply not as well made. This is not an indictment of foreign craftsmanship, it's the reality of a marketplace that balances price and quality.
Americans have driven quality lower by demanding lower prices. And I think that trend is increasing.
My instinct tells me this started because people wanted nice stuff cheaply. A natural thought. When manufacturers started to move offshore (I try and avoid the term "globalization;" haven't we been "globalized" since the 15th century?) they found they could make the same products abroad for cheaper than they did in the US. There was some sacrifice of quality, but generally standards were similar. But as Americans became more enamored with wearing brand names (a never-ending fad that's been parabolic since I appeared in the world) the demand for quality names outstripped the pace of quality clothes. Corners were cut.
The real slide came as the USD weakened in the early 2000s. In the decade since then I have observed a significant decrease in the quality of imported clothes. The only way manufactures can keep prices low enough to sell their items, in light of a weakening dollar and wounded American consumer, is to keep cutting costs. Cheaper materials, less skilled workers, inferior oversight-- that's what's drives me crazy about our addiction to cheap clothes.
I'm sorry those people in Bangladesh died. But the solution to that problem will come about as workers demand better protections and employers find a still-profitable solution. There's no need to interject an intermediary there-- they will work it out.
My problem is that it's tough to find a decent sweater. That sounds petty relative to loss of life, but my point is that the issues are not connected. The solution in Bangladesh is that absent outside interference-- the market will work this out. But the solution for American consumers is to be more discerning. As it is today you either pay $900 for a high-end sweater from a New York fashion house or you pay $19 at Marshals. Isn't there a place for $150 sweaters? That might sound expensive, but what if you knew it was of good quality? And made in America-- would you pay the premium? I would.