On those who died for your $4.95 tank tops

Earlier, I sat in my office, a half-block or so away from the site of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, and read about the modern-day equivalent. Too horrible to contemplate. I'm not sure what can be done, and can only make naive, obvious points about the need for Western companies to check up on the factories they use abroad.

Maybe - and PG, this one's for you - this is a case where raising consumer awareness could be helpful. But not so much in the sense of shopping with one's dollars at off-the-beaten-path, high-end all-ethical clothing stores as, if it's clear that consumers object to this sort of thing, companies that make a point of checking up on their factories will do better than those that do not. Realistically, this is about reforming how clothing gets produced in the countries currently producing it, not switching to all-Made-in-the-West. There's only so much (US-made) Hanky Panky underwear to go around, and I believe that sample sale has ended.

What this doesn't need to be about is a) the specific greed of the American consumer, or b) the unwillingness of said consumer to pay a fair price. Re: the first, it appears that this factory was partially (primarily?) producing clothes for the European market. Yes, that special, artisanal, can't-get-it-at-home sweater you bought on vacation or study-abroad (and boy do I include myself in this) probably just comes from a chain we don't have in the States, but with the same labor conditions, the same quality construction/material, etc. This isn't about where suburban American Walmart shoppers get their clothes. It's where everyone gets their clothes. It's like I said re: food, but more so: it's not as if there's some significant caste of American or Europeans whose clothes - as in, all of 'em - come from ethically-sound sources. Me personally, I have this one super-artisanal (and not even that expensive!) made-in-France handbag, and a few this-and-that made in the States, and some thrift (a ton if you count hand-me-down) but otherwise? Like the bulk of what I own? Who knows.

Re: the second, I know I repeat myself for a change, but we need to be clear how consumer demand works. In the aggregate, we demand $5 tank tops. But as individual consumers, we have, in our minds, from previous shopping experience, a sense of what's normal for which items to cost. As in, that a cheap tank top is $5, an average one $10-20, and anything above $30, say, had better be special for some reason. We don't know what the true cost of a tank top would be, and more to the point, we have no reason to think that if we opt for the $40 one, the difference goes to labor conditions, as opposed to better-quality materials, better designs, snootier store ambiance. We can't just reveal our willingness to generously pay a bit more, and expect conditions in factories to magically improve.

Oh, and we need to get past the idea that all consumers are hyper-fashion-conscious and getting to Zara ASAP so as not to seem so-five-minutes-ago. What happens is, clothing costs less so we don't care for it as well, plus it may be not-as-well-made, so it falls apart more easily... so we buy more of it. I really doubt if trendiness accounts for all that much waste. More likely - and I back this up with no concrete evidence whatsoever - trendy young girls/women make for an obvious scapegoat.