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, rlhttps://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supplyrl, "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