Rag trade 101: Sweat-shop labor, you get what you pay for

In my morning walk through the Internet I came across this piece on MISS asking consumers if they would boycott a company because they use sweat-shop labor. As I was writing my lengthy response, I remembered that I have a blog to tackle such issues with as many words as I need.

The usage of sweat-shops in the manufacturing of apparel is more widespread than most of us would like to acknowledge and there are several contributing factors that keep sweat-shops in business. At the end of the day money is the deciding factor on whether a company like Nike goes with a cheaper manufacturer whose factories may have unsavory working conditions or a more costly less sketchy factory.

Most of us know that the garments we buy are not purchased at cost, meaning markups are built in to allow for everyone involved to make a profit from the wholesaler to the retailer. Depending upon the price point of a say a pair of jeans, the markup could be anywhere from 60%-200% which accounts for the fact that they may go on sale and the retailer needs to make a profit off of that transaction as well. That said, when a company sends their team out to source everything from fabrics to labor, the team is focused on keeping the costs down and the profit margins high. They also have to take into consideration the turn around time on the garments they are sourcing, although fashion operates almost a year ahead retailers need to be ready to produce those "inspired by pieces" the second they debut on the runways giving them a shorter than normal lead time. Don't get me wrong, sourcing teams are not out there looking for sweat shops that can produce garments cheaply and quickly, they are looking for factories that fit into specific budgets and timelines and occasionally pick based on those parameters not based on human rights. (Also the production team that deals with factories and such tends to work in an office in the company's home country and only make scheduled visits to factories, and we all know that if you tell someone when they're having company over they tend to put things in perfect order.) With everything focused on the almighty dollar, is it no wonder that the majority of companies busted for sweat-shop labor tend to be at the mid to discount price range.

Companies like Forever 21, who was recently accused of using sweat-shops to produce their blatant knock-off that disintegrate in the wash, make big money by mass producing cheap products and reselling them at a price point that attracts their core customers, teenage girls. With $7 tank tops and $20 skirts, its no surprise that they are working with factories that pay their workers little to nothing and ask them to work in unsafe conditions. I'm not saying that Gucci or Louis Vuitton have never used cheap labor, but I am saying that with higher prices you'll usually find bigger budgets for things like labor and the quality of the products will tell the tale. Like the saying goes you get what you pay for.

What can consumers do to discourage sweatshop labor? Well first of all stop buying stuff for quantity instead of quality, usually high quality goods are made by adults in factories that keep them somewhat happy. If you can spend money replacing those $7 tops every other month because they don't last, you can afford to purchase one $15 top that will last you at least a year. Think of purchasing quality goods that may cost more as an investment, not as you paying too much for something that you can get cheaper somewhere else. Also look for goods that are made in the US. Yes, we do have sweat-shops  here however our labor laws require closer federal monitoring for things like safety and workers rights, and purchasing goods made in the US go a long way to stopping outsourcing, generating more jobs at home, and helping pull us out of this recession mess.

If you tried boycotting every company that uses sweat-shop labor you'd have very few places to shop in your local mall, and I'm not asking you to do that. What I am asking is for consumers to be better educated on where their goods come from and how they are produced, that way instead of behaving like mindless purchasing machines you can at least know what went into your Forever 21 top before you fork over your babysitting money.

Rag Trade 101: Targeting the unemployed

From ages 16-23 you could find me on any given day walking lazily through my local mall spending my parents’ hard earned cash and pushing my credit cards to the limit all for the sake of picking up more disposable clothes. As a child born during the height of the “me” focused 80s and an adolescent during the prosperity of the 90s, being brand conscious had been hardwired into my very soul the moment my mom slipped me into my first pair of Oshkosh B’Gosh overalls. At that tender age, my love affair with quality over quantity began and like most of my peers I soon associated certain brands not only with quality but with my social status and ultimately my self-worth.


Fast forward a few years and the very age range that has been retailers’ bread and butter for the past 10 years is now experiencing a record high of unemployment. With 18% of high school drop outs, college grads, newly minted lawyers and MBAs unable to become productive members of society, the mid priced brands that they learned to rely on are now out of their price range with student loans, credit card debt, and things like rent constantly looming above their heads. For retailers this means that with their core customer now unable or unwilling to purchase merchandise at full price that they would have bought a few years ago, they must either shape up or ship out as they watch former loyal customers shop at lower price points. While brands like French Connection and American Apparel, both targeted at very hip and very unemployed 18-24 year olds, flounder to reconnect with their core customer while maintaining profitability, brands like Forever 21, with their fast fashion and low prices, are busy exploiting not only their usual teen and tween markets but the unemployed and underemployed recent college grads. This has forced mid-priced brands, which once placed a premium on selling quality goods for a reasonable price, to ride the trend wave like their lower priced counterparts without having the means firmly established to do so. Not only are mid-priced brands suffering from a supply chain not set up to quickly turn out trends at a fraction of their current costs, they have also began to alienate their core customer by changing their product offering in an effort to make up for some of the losses they have incurred.

American Apparel, once operating primarily as a wholesaler selling blank t-shirts to screen printers, uniform companies, and retail brands, has gone from a hipster haven of affordable basics to a parody of itself that none of their former diehards would set foot in. With ads on every blog showcasing their costume like full body lace leotards on barely legal practically nude models, and stores filled with out of print gay porn magazines, Mr. T starter kits, and overpriced vintage sunglasses American Apparel has gone from ironic to sad in the past three years in an effort to keep up with the hipstering of America (I’ll do a post on that soon I promise, as it is one of the banes of my existence). By overreacting to what they thought their loyal customer wanted and filling their store to the brim with overpriced vintage and vintage inspired goods, American Apparel has not only alienated their customers but overestimated their loyalty. Why would anyone buy a $200 pair of vintage frames when they could go to any thrift store and pick up the same pair for $5?

Eventually the recession will pick up and the once jobless Millennials will get hired and start spending that hard earned grown up money. However, due to their experiences with chronic unemployment no one knows if they will spend the way they did back in 1999.