Likewise, although 21 and 24 - just last week I placed six large "bin liner" bags at our front gate for collection - gone in literally ten minutes by the clothes fairies, and that was at the least the second clearout of clothing they've had this year, in the meantime the BooHoo wagon rarely misses a day when he doesn't deliver to our house.

Me, I mostly shop in charity shops

You [imight[/i be a discerning customer.

But there's an equal chance that you're a mug who just pays £800 for the feeling of being discerning.

The fact that your daughters have YOU taking their old clothes to the charity shop points to you being a mug. Is their time just so much more valuable than yours? Have you just got nothing better to do with your time than do their menial chores for them?

It would get Britain back to work and would also help tackle our trade deficit.

Please don't tell me that you honestly believe the retailers were simply responding to a demand from consumers that they produce thinly-veiled, knock-off copies of runway couture for a tenner a throw?

All parents are mugs when it comes to their children. However, They don't ask me to do it, I do it voluntarily because I'd rather they were spending their time having fun and enjoying life while they're young.

Yes I do, because that's what retailers do. They have to sell what the consumer wants to buy at a price they are happy to pay. If they don't they go under. Marks & Spencer are a prime example - a few years ago they were in serious difficulty because they hadn't moved with the times and were selling old fashioned items at high prices. They brought in new management who modernised their lines but reduced the quality and price. Sales improved massively. To do that they moved lots of manufacturing contracts abroad, as it was the only way they could be competitive on price. I'm not saying its ideal or preferable, just that its what happens.

Particularly because the section of the market that has disposable income is the 18-30 year olds who are pre-mortgage, pre-everything-that-needs-to-be-paid-before-you-spend-it-on-yourself, they are the ones who can buy clothing in a frivolous manner, clothes that you know you are only going to wear once or twice and then never look at again.

If my 24 year old thought that M&S were now stocking ranges of clothing that she really liked I think she'd die of embarassment, but her, and her sister too spend their wages on clothing and accessories that they like but are ultimately guided by a combination of manufacturer, retailer and particularly magazine publisher into whatever is chosen as that seasons must-have, my youngest actually studied the art of fashion design and retailing, she learned how to promote "a look", how to arrange and dress a display and the college took over an empty unit in Leeds City Centre for several weeks and retailed second hand clothing using the promotion techniques, and they worked - and yet she still falls for all the tricks herself.

Its a female thing.

what a shame you and your kids get their values from expenditure and not expereiences.

What on earth makes you think that that is what they wrote ?

because "I buy my childrens affection" is fairly obvious....?

Perhaps you could point out where, in anything I wrote, I mentioned buying things for my children ? Go on Mr Knowitall, where ? The only thing I said I did for them was take their bags of old clothes to the charity shop. If that's your idea of buying affection then you have problems.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't.
Also unsurprisingly, you seem to have missed the point that the ethics and morality of cheap manufacture is what the thread is about.

I thought this was a wind-up until I saw your further response lower down.
So, are you are saying (because it certainly sounds like it) that when we see people being killed in unsafe buildings abroad to provide us with disposable clothing, the appropriate response is to do the same here in order to compete on price?
Please tell me you were being ironic.

trolling? the fact you don't like people pointing out you're posting nonsense or just plain hypocritical e is you're problem, not mine. if it bugs you that much run off and tell the teacher.

you should read what i actually wrote in response to what was posted as opposed to just making up stuff.

it's not a question of morals or ethics, people want/have to work. before there was these sweatshops people weren't driving to the fields in rolls royces.

Of course it is that is the whole basis of the first post.




And that means we in the West should exploit them to feed our cheap retail society?
I have no doubt that even with this work they are driving to work, nevermind in a Roller.

He very kindly reposted a comment that I had made, in general, on another thread.

You have a choice.

Learn from it. Or you're history.

It's entirely up to you.

no, the first post is the usual 5 minute reaction to something that happened. next week it'll be something else. lets not pretend we give a toss, otherwise we wouldn't fill our cars with fuel from those lovely places in the middle east or use mobile phones with that ethically mined coltan.
and then there's apple, [urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supply[/url, "demonising" children to build pretty computers, but hey, it's their "industry standard" and everyone uses 'em.


absolutely. because no matter how crap the conditions seem to us they're better than what they were doing before, which was mainly starving. in time, things will improve.

oh bless. you think i should just roll over and have my belly tickled because i don't agree with you? below seems to be all you're capable of when people don't just do that.

Without pressure things will never improve, it is naive in the extreme to think the retailers and manufacturers would seek to improve pay & conditions (and as a direct consequence, costs), without pressure from consumers.

It's not that long ago that virtually every egg and chicken sold in the UK came from battery farms, if you wanted free range, you had to buy from farm gates. Now the vast majority of eggs sold are free range and sales of free-range poultry are growing. This was a direct result of consumer pressure, following high-profile campaigning from groups with an interest in animal welfare. I can't recall the last time I heard anyone moaning about the price of eggs or chicken.

Wearing fur is now a great taboo, sweat-shop produced rags could easily go the same way. All that is required is a will and consumer pressure

Bye.

Fantastic.
Because it's "better then what they were doing before" let's use people working in conditions that we have gradually outlawed in our own country since Victorian times.
You seem to think that because you can present other examples of unethical trading that one more doesn't make any difference ... it does.
Are morals just an irrelevant nuisance to you?

What retailers do is maximise profit. M&S are still not a cheap place to buy clothes yet they did move a lot of manufacture abroad as you say. One of my sisters-in-law worked at a place called SR Gents near Barnsley that lost business as a result. My view is in some ways that contributed to their problems of a few years ago as people knew this had happened and were wondering why they should pay M&S prices for goods manufactured alongside those of Primark? I think this is still the case. There is always the suspicion that £15 polo shirt cost them a £1.

I also know the ethos of M&S as an employer is not what it was (a relative works for them as does a neighbour). It has gone in the opposite direction to John Lewis. Results at M&S are still lacklustre and only the other week made the news for being so.

Primark and its cheap prices has certainly done well because they [iare[/i cheap but at least everyone knows why. What is going to be interesting is to see if this disaster has and kind of "Starbucks Effect" but I doubt it will as clothes are a more basic commodity. In an ideal world there should be a law that forces companies like Primark to ensure the factories that make their goods are not just at a minimum standard but at a good standard. If there was then maybe costs would be such that the attraction of overseas manufacture would not be so great. Never happen of course but not just because people want cheap clothes. The overriding motive will businesses such as M&S and Primark maximising profit.

M&S ' clothes are generally rubbish in my opinion rubbish now they source abroad. They sell clothes that in my opinion and experience are of very poor quality compared with their stuff of yesteryear and at the same time sell less stylish basics than their major competitors for a higher price. In short they are a business that will die unless they change something in a major way. I have been saying this for years so fars as mens clothes are concerned. Mrs Dally now takes the same view on womens clothes after previously maintaining the womens clothes were OK.

The fact that the polo shirt in your example costs £1 to make is not the full story though as the retailer has to factor in all of his overheads into the selling price such as shop rents and running costs, staff wages, transport and distribution, advertising, VAT etc etc

Just about every major clothing brand you can think of has their goods manufactured cheaply in places where labour is cheap. The brother of a friend of mine has a factory in Mauritius producing clothing for major brands. He produces for Hugo Boss, Hilfiger, Next and New Look amongst others. All in the same place, with the same labour and often with the same materials. I once asked him what the difference was between a pair of Hugo Boss jeans and pair of Next jeans and he simply said "the label". He earns hardly anything extra from producing a jumper for Hilfiger that they will knock out for £150 than he does from a jumper for New Look which will retail at £20, the difference in price paid by the retailer is quite negligible.

In an ideal world the retailer would pay the manufacturer a better rate for the products, enabling the manufacturer to pay better wages. But of course the knock-on effect would be much higher prices on the High Street which would cause inflation and probably cost jobs in this country.

While a few people on here might get worked up about it the truth is that 99% of consumers do not think about/consider/care about the ethical issues in the supply chain. Their over-riding focus is paying as little as possible for what they want to buy. Fairtrade is a good example, its something that's been around for quite some time now and yet only accounts for 0.2% of the UK's grocery sales - people would rather buy a jar of Nescafe for £5 than pay £5.50 for a Fairtrade brand of coffee in the Co-op.