One of those interesting questions - is this a statement of the utmost moronity?
At times it is incredibly hard to be optimistic about the fashion industry, with its £1 bikinis and £0 boots.
By one set of standards, yes, yes it is a statement of the utmost moronity. Human beings like clothes. Sure, the specific shape of them changes over time, birds these days seem to show bits on the street only their gynaecologists would ever have seen in times past but yes, chicks like clothes.
Chicks are now able to have more clothes, cheaper. This is good. We all have to expend less effort to gain access to the things that we like - this is the very definition of becoming richer. So, in these days that it’s possible to earn a bikini in the time it takes to ask “You want fries with that?” then we’re all richer. Which is good, you know?
The aim of having an economy, hell of a civilization, is that we all gain more of what we want for less effort.
So, at this level of Econ 101 then clearly and obviously all this fast fashion is a good thing. Even, a Good Thing.
This is closely matched for stupidity by this question:
It is taking fast fashion to ever faster and ever cheaper extremes, and making billions from it. Why is the whole world shopping at Shein?
The stupidity being that the bird answers her own question in her first paragraph:
For another five hours and 47 minutes, I can buy a Royal Blue Twist Front Cloak Sleeve Slit Back Dress for $5.90, a Striped Pattern High Neck Drop Shoulder Split Hem Sweater for $8.50, or a Solid Sweetheart Neck Crop Tube Top for $1.90. When today’s 90%-off sale ends at 8pm, the crop top will revert to its original price: $4. There are 895 items on flash sale. On today’s “New In” page, there are 8,640 items (yesterday there were 8,760). The most expensive dress of the nearly 9,000 new arrivals – a floor-length, long-sleeved, fully sequinned plus-size gown, available in five sparkly colours – is $67. The cheapest – a short, tight piece of polyester with spaghetti straps, a cowl neckline and an all-over print of Renaissance-style flowers and cherubs – is $7.
Chicks are getting more of what chicks want for less effort from chicks. This is a good thing - even a Good Thing.
But that’s only the Econ 101 answer and as we know there’s more to the subject than just that. Second and third year economics goes on to point out when that first year, possibly glib, answer isn’t correct.
The claim here is this:
Fashion is the world’s second-largest industrial polluter, accounting for 10% of carbon emissions. Microscopic fibres from synthetic clothing are now found in waterways and food chains, while piles of unwanted clothing dumped in countries such as Ghana are so big they can be seen from space. Despite all this, the cycle of newness and shopping continues.
Externalities. The big thing these days and possibly sensibly as that’s at the heart of whatever problem we might have over climate change (yes, yes, I’m a bit odd for right wingers in being perfectly prepared to believe there is a problem, even if it’s a chronic one and fairly easy to solve). So, claim externalities and thereby insist that a change of shorts for chicks to hang their cheeks out of is a bad idea, possibly even a Bad Thing.
But that’s just Econ 201, we need to get the Econ 301 to really get to the heart of the matter.
Which is, not what is clothing about, but what is fashion about? Exclusivity, of course - Torstein Veblen’s conspicuous consumption and all that. Entirely toss all to do with whatever the shape or material of the clothes actually are and entirely to do with being in the know enough - and rich enough - to have this week’s essentials instead of being that droob still in the foolishness of three weeks back.
The problem with this as a business model - and that really is the business model of fashion - is that if all clothes now become cheap and quickly delivered then having this week’s is no longer a marker of being with it, in the know or even rich.
And that’s the problem with Shein and Temu and Boohoo and all the rest of them. £1 hotpants destroys the entire industry upon which £100 hotpants is built. Therefore everyone in that fashion industry is going to be terribly down on the idea that mere proles can gain this week’s fashion for the effort of mere minutes at their minimum wage jobs.
We also have more complex words and descriptions of this sort of elitism - sumptuary laws for example. We must control what the plebs may wear otherwise how would people recognise that we’re not plebs through what we wear?
That is, it’s all just self-interest. Carefully calculated self-interest. The moronity here is from anyone stupid enough to believe what the fashion industry is telling them. Which is, when we get right down to it, “Yes, of course you must wear the correct and new clothing but only our expensive correct and new clothing. Don’t you realise we’ve Lambos to pay for?”
Sumptuary laws: I'm going to start using that. It's what all these degrowth people are asking for, after all.