used clothes
I am forwarding this piece from the NY Times. It says something about our economy and maybe globalization, but I am puzzled whether its 'good' or 'bad' or 'both'. arthur cordell = Monday, July 19, 1999 Prosperity Builds Mounds of Cast-Off Clothes The New York Times Publication Date: Monday July 19, 1999 National Desk; Section A; Page 1, Column 1 PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Hour by hour, cars and trucks back up to the Salvation Army's warehouse loading dock on the edge of the prosperous East Side here and disgorge clothing. Skirts and parkas, neckties and tank tops, sweat pants and socks, a polychromatic mountain of clothes is left each week, some with price tags still attached. Inside the warehouse, workers cull the clean and undamaged clothes, roughly 1 piece in 5, to give to the poor or to sell at thrift shops. They feed the rest -- as much as four million pounds a year -- into mighty machines that bind them into 1,100-pound, 5-foot-long bales. Rag dealers buy the bales for 5 cents a pound and ship them off to countries like Yemen and Senegal. Nearly a decade of rising prosperity has changed the ways that Americans view and use clothing, so much so that cast-off clothes have become the flotsam of turn-of-the-century affluence. Americans bought 17.2 billion articles of clothing in 1998 -- a 16 percent increase over 1993, according to the NPG Group, a market research concern in Port Washington, N.Y. -- and gave the Salvation Army alone several hundred million pieces, well over 100,000 tons. And because so few people make or mend their clothes anymore, among the changes has been this one, in 1998: The Bureau of Labor Statistics moved sewing machines from the ''apparel and upkeep'' category of consumer spending to ''recreation.'' The clothing glut is a boon to the many charities like the Salvation Army that sort and sell old clothes. ''You choke on sweaters,'' said Capt. Thomas E. Taylor, administrator of the Salvation Army's Providence center, one of the three or four busiest of the organization's 119 across the country. No one in the United States, Captain Taylor said, need ever go without being properly dressed. At the warehouse, Judy Keegan was unloading a cargo of dresses, jeans and shirts. ''I do this regularly,'' Ms. Keegan, who has four children, ages 6 to 15, said of giving away family clothing. ''I grew up with hand-me-downs, but if they need something, we go buy it.'' Joanna Wood, a social worker who was choking on linens, brought in a blanket and comforter. ''The frightening thing,'' Ms. Wood said, ''is I'm a nonshopper.'' Beyond clearing their closets, donors have a monetary incentive for giving away clothes here. They can claim a tax deduction if they ask for a form when they pull in. Ms. Keegan took one, Ms. Wood did not. ''The majority don't,'' Captain Taylor said. ''The majority of people just give.'' Clothing is easier than ever to buy, not only because incomes have gone up and unemployment has gone down, but also because clothes are getting relatively cheaper. Clothing prices have risen just 13 percent in a decade, while the average for all consumer goods rose 34 percent. Prices of women's clothes are lower now than six years ago. But the greatest boon to shopping and shedding may be the fast-changing fashion styles, and not only for women. Few children settle for their older siblings' outdated Starter jackets and baggy jeans. Elementary school principals routinely complain of overflowing lost-and-found departments. These phenomena have swept across the spectrum of the retail economy, from boutique shoppers to bargain hunters. Conservatively attired in beige, Susan Brenneman, a 30-year-old software executive, seemed a model of reserve, moderation and thrift. Then she popped open the trunk of her Volvo sedan. From Nieman Marcus, Banana Republic and Lord Taylor shopping bags, she plucked 6 suits, 8 pairs of shoes, 10 pairs of pants, 5 blouses, 10 belts, 2 sweaters and a raincoat. The clothes, all spotless and neat, were up to two years old. Ms. Brenneman said her company's shift to more casual wear put an end to the suits. Still, wincing at the size of her load, Ms. Brenneman said she was revising her priorities. ''More quality and less volume,'' she said.In buying and scrapping clothes, Ms. Brenneman had nothing on a 42-year-old woman who was rifling through the racks at the 18,500-square-foot Salvation Army thrift store next to the warehouse. She was wearing last week's acquisition, a shimmering Navy blue tank top embroidered with the Wilson sportswear logo, which had cost her $1. ''Clothes, I go through them like water,'' said the woman, who identified herself only as Casey. ''I change my outfits all the time.'' The tank top, like everything else she buys, is eventually destined for donation, she said. ''But why pay $25,
Re: War, Confucious and the CBD
Ray Evans Harrell: It is inconceivable to one who has ridden the "can" down 800 feet into the cold earth never knowing when a stone would come loose from the cribbing and meet your head leaving you dead before work even began, that this work would be glorified. It is inconceivable that there is the glory in the hard monotony and danger of the factory Hi Ray, I won't comment on Marx or Keynes except to say that your library book has wronged them both. However, I can't seem to above two sentences out of my mind. They capture or suggest something essential, but I'm not sure of what it is. I keep thinking of Stalin's Stakanovites (sp?), workers who were totally committed to production, risking everything so that they could exceed quotas which the state had set for them. They were glorified, made the subjects of speeches and songs and given medals. In retrospect, we see this as a cynical and false glory, but at the time and place, ever so many miners and factory workers believed that building socialism was the right thing to do, so glorifying the pace-setters does not seem so strange. I think too of the generations of people who did work long hours, indeed lifetimes, in mines and factories simply because they had to. There was no other way of making a living. Many of these people died accidentally or of occupational diseases, leaving wives and children to fend as best they could in a system without much social support. I agree that there was no glory in it, but there was something very much tougher -- an acceptance and gritty perseverance, and a recognition that there was no other way. Eventually, this grittiness and toughness led to the formation of powerful unions, an improvement in working conditions, and the passage of widely beneficial social legislation. As well, with the passage of time, older technologies were replaced by newer and more efficient ones. Both because of unions and the achievement of higher levels of productivity, incomes rose and ordinary people could afford to go see movies and plays. Entertainment became popularized. It was no longer the preserve of the rich. Perhaps, if one views it this way, there was some glory in it. We are the descendants and beneficiaries of the people who spent their lives sweating in the mines and factories. Yet not many of us would even give this a passing thought. We are much too busy zipping around in our minivans, chattering on our cell phones or playing with whatever other gadget fate seems to have thrust into our hands. Where all of this came from is not something we are very much bothered about. Ed Weick
Re: Durability as a means of conservation...
Thomas: Again, I find these comments having something to say that relates to Arthur's Posting on used clothes. -- From: tom abeles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Durability is an interesting idea, let me puzzle on it and get your thoughts First, non-durability or a short half-life seems to be a very recent invention along with the idea of the "modern". Probably starting in the late 30's along with the 1939 World's Fair as discussed so brilliantly by David Gelernter in his book, 1939, The Lost World of the Fair. We were to be blessed with technology to cure all our ills and bring utopia. Only utopia never came. But like the carrot tied to the milk horse, there was always the promise that the next version would be the final solution...and the next... and the next where most "nexts" were more cosmetic than actual changes... and still utopia eludes is Thomas: It seems from the above paragraph, we are in some science fiction timeline in which the reason why we keep doing what we are doing has been forgotten and no one has the time to think about it, we just have to keep replicating the formula - next, and next, and next till we collapse. Sort of like mice on a treadmill in a laboratory experiment. Tom Non durability is the Myth of the eternal hope that humans with technology can find the optimum solution Thomas: The optimum solution - the final solution - the mind wanders in this maze of what if... Tom: Durability is a smooke screen and a misdirection from the larger issue and the hard questions Thomas: I can see the insight in your statement. The solution of durability requires more definition - such as value of items - need, equity and future responsibility. And though Barry has mentioned these, they perhaps need to be emphasized even more. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde thoughts? tom abeles
Re: Charles Leadbetter
-- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think we need also to add the enormous entropy of the obsolescence of knowledge. This is sometimes stated more "positively" as a shortening "half-life" of knowledge, so that by the time an engineer has been out of college 10 years, 50% of what (s)he learned is no longer current (or whatever the exact numbers are in each case). (The especial affront of this is that it is not a consequence of "natural processes" outside human control, but of human symbolizing activity.) Thomas: I had just finished my reply to Arthur's Posting re used clothing and was rereading some of the Posts when your comments jumped off the screen. The problem as you have noted is greater even than just material goods, or waste. It is also within our knowledge base. Just recently, I was reading a posting about all the early computer tapes, discs, hard drives, etc that we are losing for two reasons, one the storage devices are deteriotating and two we are losing the disk drives, operating systems, formats, in which this knowledge was stored. Why is this happening? Like material goods, it seems to be a by product of capitalism and continual growth. We may very well become in a position of an advanced society in which there is very little knowledge of how we got there and should there ever be a discontinuity - such as an atomic war, plague or other catasrophe, we may have destroyed the very resources and knowledge we would need to regain our then current position. There is also the problem, as you pointed out of continual learning. It sounds great, but it ain't easy and as you get a little older, the idea is not to keep learning as it is to take what is learned and act wisely from it. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: Rifkin - some final words
-- From: "Cordell, Arthur: DPP" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Much of my thinking and angst is to develop ways in which the broad middle class can continue to be a broad middle class. Thomas: I would reference my answer here to todays posting on used clothing from you. The fact that the conditions of the article exist - result largely from your broad middle class. If the results of having that class are the conditions of waste and surplus described, then I would question whether a middle class is a good thing. What could go in it's place? Perhaps a much more equilitarian class so that there was no poor at the bottom, no rich at the top and the middle class became - at whatever level sustainable - the class. Arthur: It seems to be an admission of failure to turn to citizens in other, less developed, countries for lessons in life skills. Thomas: Previous to our colonization of much of the world, there were many societies that existed for long periods of time using life skills that allowed them to exist within their enviroment and find happiness, peace and personal growth. That most of our society does not have those things, might indicate that our society is the aberrant one - not theirs. Arthur: This, it seems, is something we wish to avoid. A middle class, replete with careers, etc. has been a core element in creating and maintaining social cohesion. Thomas: I would question this assumption. I would not think our society could be held up as one having social cohesion. First, it has existed for a very short period of time. Second, within our society are a great many stresses and strains which we do not seem to have solutions for. Arthur: A lot of workers gave up a lot so that citizens in the developed countries could have many aspects of universality. Sure, with globalization there will be continuing pressures to harmonize downward. I would question these pressures and argue that gloabalization is really about trying to get others to move upaward: in environmental laws, health and workplace safety, potable water, univeral literacy, etc. etc. etc. Thomas: To just give one small example of the negative effects of globalization, which I'm sure you are aware off. We buy agricultural products from Third World Countries at prices that make them use their land for export income at the expense of food for their own population. The high ideals you postulate just do not happen at the level of the marketplace - in my opinion. Arthur: There is a certain fatalism in Ed's posting, a certain feeling that market forces have brought us here and the same forces will bring some sort of resolution. If we know that a problem is developing, one for which there may be a menu of possible remedies, it is , I believe, incumbent on policy analysts to develop and maintain such remedies ready for thoughtful hearing and analysis when conditions are appropriate and when the political voice has identified the appropriate time and mustered sufficient courage. Thomas: While the learned gentleman, supping well and having an after dinner drink of fine wine, discuss the world, some mother in a third world country is watching her baby die from diarehha. This could be prevented with a saline solution, a sterile needle and a plastic bag. The problems are immediate, urgent, desperate and the answers are mostly available. We don't have a shortage of food, we have a rotten distribution system. And on and on. The courage you speak of - in my mind - exists in those who suffer and continually try, not in someone who is afraid to speak up because it may affect his career. A classic example of misdirection of resources has just happened this week with JFK Jr. Think of the resources that have been expended to find this young man's body so it can be buried. The airspace and TV time, the wages to reporters and anchormen, the learned pundits brought forth to wax sadly about the Kennedy family. Then think of all those Americans with Gulf War Syndrome, who cannot even get their own government to recognize their pain. Excuse my rant Arthur, it is not directed at you, but I think we have to stop being nice about injustice and incompetence. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde arthur cordell
Re: used clothes
Thomas: I thought I would immediately judge this as bad, given my predeliction towards simplicty. However, as I read it through, I found myself with conflicting pro's and con's. On the one hand, it is a classical example of Reagan's trickle down theory, in that somewhere down the line of excessive consumption, the poor actually benefit by having access to clothes that they could never afford. And if there was not this surplus, those lives would be more difficult and impoverished. On the other hand, one must question a system of production, advertising, distribution that is obviously so wasteful. At some level, my mind is stunned by these images the article described, even though I use second hand clothes. The only other image I can think of that has impacted me so strongly is waste disposal. In which pictures of barges filled with garbage are towed out to sea and dumped or semi trailers are taking garbage from New York to Virgina and filling massive landfills. In a recent book I was reading, there were graphic depictions of animal farms in Georgia and North Carolina in which animals are raised by the thousands and effluent ponds are so large and smelly that whole counties literally reek from the smell. In the concept of markets, being the best mechanism for supplying goods and services, one wonders were we leave the sane and responsible and enter into the netherlands of excessive and destructive. If this is happening in 1999, one has to ask what the situation might be like in 2030 or 2100? At some point there must be a place where intelligent planning is more effective than market forces. The question is; "How do we get from here to there?" Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: "Cordell, Arthur: DPP" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Futurework [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: used clothes Date: Thu, Jul 22, 1999, 2:50 PM I am forwarding this piece from the NY Times. It says something about our economy and maybe globalization, but I am puzzled whether its 'good' or 'bad' or 'both'. arthur cordell = Monday, July 19, 1999 Prosperity Builds Mounds of Cast-Off Clothes The New York Times Publication Date: Monday July 19, 1999 National Desk; Section A; Page 1, Column 1 PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Hour by hour, cars and trucks back up to the Salvation Army's warehouse loading dock on the edge of the prosperous East Side here and disgorge clothing. Skirts and parkas, neckties and tank tops, sweat pants and socks, a polychromatic mountain of clothes is left each week, some with price tags still attached. Inside the warehouse, workers cull the clean and undamaged clothes, roughly 1 piece in 5, to give to the poor or to sell at thrift shops. They feed the rest -- as much as four million pounds a year -- into mighty machines that bind them into 1,100-pound, 5-foot-long bales. Rag dealers buy the bales for 5 cents a pound and ship them off to countries like Yemen and Senegal. Nearly a decade of rising prosperity has changed the ways that Americans view and use clothing, so much so that cast-off clothes have become the flotsam of turn-of-the-century affluence. Americans bought 17.2 billion articles of clothing in 1998 -- a 16 percent increase over 1993, according to the NPG Group, a market research concern in Port Washington, N.Y. -- and gave the Salvation Army alone several hundred million pieces, well over 100,000 tons. And because so few people make or mend their clothes anymore, among the changes has been this one, in 1998: The Bureau of Labor Statistics moved sewing machines from the ''apparel and upkeep'' category of consumer spending to ''recreation.'' The clothing glut is a boon to the many charities like the Salvation Army that sort and sell old clothes. ''You choke on sweaters,'' said Capt. Thomas E. Taylor, administrator of the Salvation Army's Providence center, one of the three or four busiest of the organization's 119 across the country. No one in the United States, Captain Taylor said, need ever go without being properly dressed. At the warehouse, Judy Keegan was unloading a cargo of dresses, jeans and shirts. ''I do this regularly,'' Ms. Keegan, who has four children, ages 6 to 15, said of giving away family clothing. ''I grew up with hand-me-downs, but if they need something, we go buy it.'' Joanna Wood, a social worker who was choking on linens, brought in a blanket and comforter. ''The frightening thing,'' Ms. Wood said, ''is I'm a nonshopper.'' Beyond clearing their closets, donors have a monetary incentive for giving away clothes here. They can claim a tax deduction if they ask for a form when they pull in. Ms. Keegan took one, Ms. Wood did not. ''The majority don't,'' Captain Taylor said. ''The majority of people just give.'' Clothing is easier than ever to buy, not only because incomes have gone up and unemployment has
Re: War, Confucious and the CBD
And I would guess that in xxx years from now people will look back on the commuters, subway riders and busy busy people and say what? You mean people went into a Kafka/Mondrian environment and parroted the party line just to get paid. No wonder there is so little incentive to break the work/income nexus. arthur -- From: Ed Weick To: Ray E. Harrell Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: War, Confucious and the CBD Date: Thursday, July 22, 1999 1:09PM Ray Evans Harrell: It is inconceivable to one who has ridden the "can" down 800 feet into the cold earth never knowing when a stone would come loose from the cribbing and meet your head leaving you dead before work even began, that this work would be glorified. It is inconceivable that there is the glory in the hard monotony and danger of the factory Hi Ray, I won't comment on Marx or Keynes except to say that your library book has wronged them both. However, I can't seem to above two sentences out of my mind. They capture or suggest something essential, but I'm not sure of what it is. I keep thinking of Stalin's Stakanovites (sp?), workers who were totally committed to production, risking everything so that they could exceed quotas which the state had set for them. They were glorified, made the subjects of speeches and songs and given medals. In retrospect, we see this as a cynical and false glory, but at the time and place, ever so many miners and factory workers believed that building socialism was the right thing to do, so glorifying the pace-setters does not seem so strange. I think too of the generations of people who did work long hours, indeed lifetimes, in mines and factories simply because they had to. There was no other way of making a living. Many of these people died accidentally or of occupational diseases, leaving wives and children to fend as best they could in a system without much social support. I agree that there was no glory in it, but there was something very much tougher -- an acceptance and gritty perseverance, and a recognition that there was no other way. Eventually, this grittiness and toughness led to the formation of powerful unions, an improvement in working conditions, and the passage of widely beneficial social legislation. As well, with the passage of time, older technologies were replaced by newer and more efficient ones. Both because of unions and the achievement of higher levels of productivity, incomes rose and ordinary people could afford to go see movies and plays. Entertainment became popularized. It was no longer the preserve of the rich. Perhaps, if one views it this way, there was some glory in it. We are the descendants and beneficiaries of the people who spent their lives sweating in the mines and factories. Yet not many of us would even give this a passing thought. We are much too busy zipping around in our minivans, chattering on our cell phones or playing with whatever other gadget fate seems to have thrust into our hands. Where all of this came from is not something we are very much bothered about. Ed Weick
