Why I feel good buying vintage

[herringbonekid]

i think the 'buying vintage' title of this thread isn't helpful. Christophe Loiron (Mr. Freedom) ... who is quoted ... makes expensive 'vintage inspired'.
really it's about buying from anyone who you think has decent working practices.

and i also agree that things were not good in the past... though you can't really generalize; i could post you a photo of some 1930 UK 'Simpsons' workers who look perfectly happy.

 

[DamianM]

Sorry if it got political

I do agree that it is about buying from anyone with decent working practices.
But I understand that if I buy vintage at least I know it was made here in the United states long ago with companys that made a quality product and treated the workers better then the mess shown, and by doing so I am not supporting these practices which have actually deteriorated more and more.

I recently saw some girl Mall shoes that are made of rubber and cardboard, made overseas and run you $80+ dollars.
For Cardboard! with really insignificant beading!
How much did that cost the company to make?

 

[tonyb]

I listened to Jaron Lanier on the radio going on about how the rapidly expanding growth in automation threatens to gut what remains of our working middle classes here in the long-ago developed world. You know, the jobs that once paid a living wage are being eliminated by robotics, etc. Self-driving cars and trucks will wipe out drivers' jobs, etc.

Lanier is an interesting and very bright fellow whose head and heart both seem to be in the right place, but I wonder if it necessarily follows that eliminating the sorts of jobs that are performed as well (and better, in many cases) by machines will lead to a lesser overall standard of living. Sure, there might not be a need for taxicab drivers, say, or most factory line workers, but new occupations will be created, and they may well be safer and more satisfying. And they'll probably require a higher level of education and training. So yeah, some people will get left behind, and we shouldn't lose sight of that, but more efficient production stands to greatly improve overall living conditions.

As to the unsafe garment factories in Bangladesh ...

Yeah, that's just terrible. Unconscionable.

Still, I'm always left scratching my head when I hear about the wages paid in such places (the equivalent of $38 a month, for cryin' out loud) and then conclude that while bumping up the pay to a level that would be reflected by pennies at most in the price we consumers pay for the finished goods is certainly a price most of us would be willing to shoulder, it's still something of an apples-and-oranges comparison. Really, the average housing costs alone in many American cities exceeds a Bangladeshi garment worker's entire income by something like 30 or 40 fold. People do indeed live there, and they eat, and I hope they have access to decent health care (that's doubtful, perhaps; someone who knows this subject better than I is more than welcome to weigh in here).

 

[Fastuni]

@tonyb

People do indeed live there, and they eat, and I hope they have access to decent health care (that's doubtful, perhaps; someone who knows this subject better than I is more than welcome to weigh in here).

A friend of mine just recently returned from Dhaka, Bangladesh (working for the German Embassy). I take him by his word that overall conditions (nutritional, sanitary, medical, infrastructural, environmental, political, you-name-it) there are absolutely dreadful in every respect to put it very mildly.

@Hudson Hawk

It depends on the circumstances [re.: shareholder-owned companies].

What difference does it make to the low-wage-worker (and in most cases I don't even think they care or know) whether the fruits of their labor are distributed among a bunch of shareholders or go into a "single pocket"? To suggest that a shareholder-owned company is somehow "morally superior", misses the mark... Companies have become obsessed in pleasing (big) shareholders through dividends, instead of consumers through fairly priced quality work and workers through fair wages and working conditions.
Again, you might want to check the development of CEO-to-worker compensation ratio before claiming that things haven't gotten considerably worse.

But I'm not defending current sweatshop practices, only challenging your assertion that things were necessarily significantly better back in the day.

Sorry, but it is staggeringly naïve to think that there are no significant differences between the relative working (not to mention living) conditions and compensation of Unionized American workers or self-employed/family-business European tailors in the 30's and Bangladeshi sweat-shop wage-slaves today. Maybe it's less overestimating the conditions of the first, rather than you underestimating the sordid conditions of the latter.

Only challenging the notion that "buying vintage" somehow has the moral high ground.

As mentioned before, even if produced under ethically doubtful conditions, "buying vintage" still has the moral high ground, because the money spent for it does not benefit the exploiter of yesteryear.

 

[HudsonHawk]

What difference does it make to the low-wage-worker (and in most cases I don't even think they care or know) whether the fruits of their labor are distributed among a bunch of shareholders or go into a "single pocket"? To suggest that a shareholder-owned company is somehow "morally superior", misses the mark... Companies have become obsessed in pleasing (big) shareholders through dividends, instead of consumers through fairly priced quality work and workers through fair wages and working conditions.

Because in many cases those "low-wage workers" are also shareholders, either through pension or government-secured retirement benefits. Furthermore, the idea that the profit of the company is simply tucked into the pockets of a few shareholders is not only laughable on its face, but shows a remarkable misunderstanding of how large companies operate, not to mention the whole notion of capital.

Of course not all workers are in the same boat, it depends on where they are, and no doubt many feel the way you describe, which is why I qualified with "depends". It's not the same everywhere in the world, and generalizing rarely makes your case.

Sorry, but it is staggeringly naïve to think that there are no significant differences between the relative working (not to mention living) conditions and compensation of Unionized American workers or self-employed/family-business European tailors in the 30's and Bangladeshi sweat-shop wage-slaves today. Maybe it's less overestimating the conditions of the first, rather than you underestimating the sordid conditions of the latter.

You completely missed the point. Again....I'm not defeding sweat shop practices of today, nor in any way suggesting that they were necessarily better or worse than previous.

As mentioned before, even if produced under ethically doubtful conditions, "buying vintage" still has the moral high ground, because the money spent for it does not benefit the exploiter of yesteryear.

If "buying vintage" makes you feel better because those who are profiting from your purchase are dead, then knock yourself out. I find such justification to be incredibly lazy thinking.

 

[ButteMT61]

When cars came about, blacksmiths probably has to learn how to change tires and oil for a living.
Guys that shined shoes may have had to try auto detailing.
There's always changes that require the workforce to change as well. But the new changes will require more education for sure - unless we somehow decide to go back to a simpler life (which many have and are).
Outsourcing has not helped either. The "global economy" so many are fond of has gutted the US. I've read comments online from non-US areas thinking "it's your turn" or "its about time you got yours" like we never had gone through this ourselves.
I'm selfish. I believe that those countries and workers need to take care of their own. And so do we. I won't apologize for that.

 

[Fastuni]

@ButteM61

Outsourcing has not helped either. The "global economy" so many are fond of has gutted the US.
[...] I'm selfish. I believe that those countries and workers need to take care of their own. And so do we.

Fair enough - but wouldn't the consequential thing be buying domestic goods first and foremost?

@ Hudson Hawk

Again....I'm not defeding sweat shop practices of today, nor in any way suggesting that they were necessarily better or worse than previous.

Suggesting that there is no significant difference in Bangladeshi sweat-shop work and American Union or European tailor-shop labor (then) is defending the working conditions of today's sweat shops (for whatever reason) or merely ignorance thereof. I strongly suspect the latter.

It's not the same everywhere in the world, and generalizing rarely makes your case.

You didn't pay attention... we were talking about garment workers in Bangladesh (and comparable low-wage countries, if you want).

If "buying vintage" makes you feel better because those who are profiting from your purchase are dead, then knock yourself out. I find such justification to be incredibly lazy thinking.

Almost as lazy as consistently refusing to have a look at how the ratio of worker vs. CEO pay developed throughout the decades.
But if it makes you sleep better... [huh]
Anyway, I enjoy my beautiful vintage quality garments at lower prices - and you do your "thing" (whatever it is) and be happy with it.

 

[ButteMT61]

Fair enough - but wouldn't the consequential thing be buying domestic goods first and foremost?

Of course. But not vintage or used. You'd need to buy new items made by current factories and workers. Tough to find...and the small shops are very expensive. Most wont tolerate that cost.

 

[DamianM]

THANK YOU WALMART^^^ (sarcasm)

 

[HudsonHawk]

Suggesting that there is no significant difference in Bangladeshi sweat-shop work and American Union or European tailor-shop labor (then) is defending the working conditions of today's sweat shops (for whatever reason) or merely ignorance thereof. I strongly suspect the latter.

I'm not suggesting that. That's a complete strawman on your part.

You didn't pay attention... we were talking about garment workers in Bangladesh (and comparable low-wage countries, if you want).

Compared to worker conditions of when vintage clothing was made. Yet you are woefully ignorant of the latter...not only conditions of the garment workers themselves, but the conditions of those who harvested the raw material. Do you have any idea where cotton came from in the 1920's and '30's? What was life life for your average cotton picker in 1920? Here's a hint, it was not discernably different than that of antebellum slaves, coupled with legalized racial discrimination and segregation.

Almost as lazy as consistently refusing to have a look at how the ratio of worker vs. CEO pay developed throughout the decades.
But if it makes you sleep better... [huh]

I'm well aware of the discrepancy between CEO and worker salaries. It's just not in any way relevant to the discussion.

Anyway, I enjoy my beautiful vintage quality garments at lower prices - and you do your "thing" (whatever it is) and be happy with it.

I'm glad you do. I have many vintage things, though not because I feel morally superior for buying them.

 

[DamianM]

I don't feel morally superior about buying them but I do feel like im getting quality as opposed the the mall stuff.
I know i'm being over charged if i buy anything at these places.

[video=youtube_share;bkjmzEEQUlE]http://youtu.be/bkjmzEEQUlE[/video]

 

[herringbonekid]

I know i'm being over charged if i buy anything at these places.

over charged... really ? maybe by the 'designer' brands, but in the UK clothing prices are SO cheap at places like Tesco, Primark, H&M etc (£10 for a shirt) that you wonder how they make any profit at all (after all the overheads). then a building collapses killing 800 people and you think "oh, that's how".

 

[HudsonHawk]

I don't feel morally superior about buying them but I do feel like im getting quality as opposed the the mall stuff.

Which is why I buy certain things as well, "vintage" or not. I use a double edged safety razor, as opposed to disposable cartridges, because I get a better shave and it's considerably less expensive. I use a fountain pen because it's easier on my hand when I write a lot, and I think it has superior functionality and reliability. I wear a hat when I go out because it keeps the sun off of my head. I'm all about the items' use, and sometimes the older items, or at least older designs and materials, are simply superior in form and function.

 

[DamianM]

they where "designed-to function"

And i'm saying overcharged on some of the "higher end brand" who probably have the same quality as H&M or those others.

L