Disqus Doodlings – Treehugger is so upset we buy clothes for ourselves….Part 1

Sorry, but I’m no candidate for the “Naked and Afraid” reality show where guys and gals go gallivanting in the wilds buck naked and are expected to survive like our Stone Age ancestors. Thank you, but no thank you; I’ll keep my clothes on.  But it seems that Treehugger is PO’d, once again, that we Normals have the temerity to want to buy clothes.  This time, they take on the brand “H&M” and berate it, sorta, for its failure because it can’t keep up with what is known as “fast fashion” (unable to keep up with competitors’ abilities to turn over their inventory and bring in fresher, newer styles.  And then they berate the “Internet Onlys” because those folks have put themselves beyond these anti-consumerist hacks like Treehugger denizens (emphasis mine):

Meanwhile, brick-and-mortar stores are being shuttered everywhere, which Cline fears will result in a loss of accountability, not to mention the death of our main streets and suburbs (who knew we’d ever lament that?):

One advantage for activists has been that H&M’s huge brick-and-mortar empire made their efforts to hold it accountable on labor and environmental issues highly visible. As fast fashion moves online, bad actors will become harder to pin down and bad behavior more hidden from view.

So, it looks like we’re headed down a path to a worse place than we’re currently at. Consumption shows no signs of slowing; the amount of clothing waste generated in the U.S. has doubled in the past 15 years; and in 2015, “greenhouse gas emissions from global textile production outstripped those of all international flights.” It’s a dismal prediction for a situation that’s already bad to begin with, and, really, the only thing that can change it is consumers’ attitudes. We need to stop buying so much stuff, and we probably shouldn’t be buying it online.

True to form – they’re upset that Normals want to buy stuff and ignore this other side of hectoring.  I thought that rather amusing as an observation – and pointed out the obvious:

“One advantage for activists has been that H&M’s huge brick-and-mortar empire made their efforts to hold it accountable on labor and environmental issues highly visible. ”

Perhaps that has led to part of its business problem in raising its cost of doing business? And the complaints about “bad actors” and the inability to hold them accountable – do you think they saw what activists were doing to the brick and mortars and figured out how to avoid such hectoring? Yep – the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

Yep, if outsiders are going to arbitrarily raise the cost of doing business as a brick and mortar, why be a brick and mortar? Who needs the hassle of activists protesting, showing up at stockholder meetings, parading about in stores, or outright suing their butts off.  I never went into business with the expectation that I’d enjoy dealing with busybodies all day long – and I bet H&M doesn’t either.  The time spent in defending oneself against those that are economic cowards (e.g., put your money where your mouths are, you brats, and open your own stores and put your ideals on the cash register yourselves!).

I personally have a harder time buying online as I do like to try things on and feel the texture of the materials that make things up especially with clothing.  Thus, I don’t have much of a dog in this fight until I figure out which online retailers I can trust (e.g., L.L. Bean and Lands’ End, for instance – I’m no fashion maven and stick with real basic stuff that may not always be “in style” but never really goes “out of style” either) and then I’ll buy sight unseen.

But these kinds of people, to satisfy their own inner ideologue, have no problem in raising the price of someone else’s goods by these actions to make it more expensive for the rest of us.  Case in point: minimum wage “advocates” who don’t care that in gaining their “Fight for $15” (instead of letting the marketplace do it), they force prices up for the rest of us and then give an economic lesson, good and hard, to their collateral damage of those who are experiencing the real minimum wage -> $0/hour.

So these hacks are upset that H&M is in a death spiral but I see no signs that they assign any blame to themselves even in the smallest way.