|
|
|
|
|
by dbul
4967 days ago
|
|
The focus seems to be on pricing, and understandably so considering the nature of people. The implied ethics behind the manufacturing is something I appreciate: I've bought clothing from only countries with better than not labor laws for the past several years. Recently, Burberry has retired their UK-made products in favor of more dubious manufacturing locations; so I've stopped buying Burberry. I hope this becomes a mainstream designer brand. American Apparel had their own target audience. But I just couldn't understand why no one was able to develop aesthetically pleasing clothing made in the US on par with other designers you may find in Saks. |
|
This has the effect of giving employees who already make, say, $100 / day more options as to where to work, while refusing to give those who make $10/day (or $1/day) workers oversees choices like this.
I find this effect to be stunningly at odds with most of the stated political goals that usually correlate with this opinion.
If redistribution from the $100/day person to the $50/day person is good, why is redistributing employment options from a $10/day person to a $100/day person a good thing?