The issue is that some of the brands are intentionally destroying unsold clothing so 'the poors' can't end up wearing their brand and I guess diluting the brand's reputation or something.

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They should try making only 100 shirts instead of 1000 where 900 end up not selling fast enough.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

or not making ugly overpriced shit

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago

There are always a few people willing to pay a crazy price for some crazy nonsense garbage. I think it’s ok to make few shirts like that, but you have to make sure you actually sell all of them. Better not manufacture more than you can sell.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Yeah, they might after this

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They could just punch an eye hole in it somewhere and send it to some place that wants/needs clothes.

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure what you mean. They are (currently) explicitly making sure that the clothing never ends anywhere that wants/needs clothes - as in the goal is anti-charity.

Under the new law, I hope they can't take a hole puncher to it. If they are allowed, they'll do as much damage as they legally can.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because you aren't likely to run into someone with a "fake" and they couldn't just ship them back to western countries to resell and undercut. How is that worse then them currently destroying them?

[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Oh, interesting. I wasn't aware of the reselling thing, and from the votes it seems a lot of others weren't either. I guess if it's just punched on something like the label/tag then that would be fine. Or maybe use permanent dye/bleach to blot it out.