this makes me sick:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregi...ss&emc=rss
Walmart and H&M (like a UK version of Target, ish) have been caught not only throwing away perfectly good clothing, but purposely DESTROYING it so that no one can possibly use it.
This is why I have a problem with publicly traded corporations. The almighty buck above everything else. I don't care WHAT your shareholders think, anyone that considers themselves a christian (or just a moral person) cannot be ok with such a policy.
I am boycotting walmart, of course... I'm sure they'll really miss the $25 I was going to spend there.
In case that is not enough, there is also the Border's (and other booksellers) policy of destroying books instead of donating them if they are unsold:
http://environment.change.org/blog/view/...k_dumpster
(yeah they sort of caved, but the practice is still widespread...)
(I'm not much of a Christian, and whether ot not I am a moral person usually depends on the defintion of "moral person" of the person I am talking to. By my own definition I am cetainly a good, moral person, but all may not agree.)
I would just like to point out that the worship of the almighty dollar is not limited to publicly traded corporation, but also applies to a lot of privately held corporations, parnerships, joint ventures, trusts, sole proprietorships, and individuals working for a living. Even those organizations and individuals who do make an effort to do charitable things will do so only to a point, and that point is usuallywell before taking a net loss. The rich person or company who gives away everything is rare indeed, so everybody has a limit. Sure, some reach that limit more quickly than others.
Centainly in any capitalistic venture there will be profit/sales repercussions in giving away one's stock, but I think the problem is more one of logistics than intent. For example, a lot of those clothes (not all of course - what Haitian needs a parka?) could be shipped to Haiti. The logistics of getting, sorting, and shipping extra stuff from thousands of stores are staggering, and i am sure the occasional snowsuit or fancy shoes that slipped through would be on CNN as an example of the uncaring attitude of corporations. It is not as simple as us stuffing some shirts into a bag and taking them to the Mission.
I don't mean that greed and disregard for the needs of others is solely an attribute of corporations, just that it seems particularly encouraged in those businesses by the way they are set up. And they typically make no apology for it, because $$ is a reason in itself for anything to these people.
Actively having an employee take the time to cut up or rip apart perfectly good clothing is a cost in itself -- clearly less than the cost of your "logistics" for sending them to Haiti, agreed. Doesn't make it any less wrong. There are also people in every major city in need - how hard is it to send that clothing to your local women's or homeless shelter, or to contact local churches and synagogues and have them pick up the clothing (I'll bet at least some of them would) for their own supplies?
At least some of this seems to have to do with creating artificial scarcity -- how else do you explain wanton destruction of material goods?
(02-02-2010 04:05 PM)emmiesix Wrote: [ -> ]I don't mean that greed and disregard for the needs of others is solely an attribute of corporations, just that it seems particularly encouraged in those businesses by the way they are set up. And they typically make no apology for it, because $$ is a reason in itself for anything to these people.
Actively having an employee take the time to cut up or rip apart perfectly good clothing is a cost in itself -- clearly less than the cost of your "logistics" for sending them to Haiti, agreed. Doesn't make it any less wrong. There are also people in every major city in need - how hard is it to send that clothing to your local women's or homeless shelter, or to contact local churches and synagogues and have them pick up the clothing (I'll bet at least some of them would) for their own supplies?
At least some of this seems to have to do with creating artificial scarcity -- how else do you explain wanton destruction of material goods?
Good idea, having each store work with local charities. Much more doable, I would think. Plus, and i know you will hate this, more cost effective. Try writing them with this idea.
As for the wanton destruction of material goods - happens all the time. Farmers burn fields of edible foods because it costs more to harvest than they will receive. Dairymen pour milk on the ground.
It not just material goods that get this treatment. Some people will not sell their labor below a given price, even if the customer needs it. Try crossing a strike line as a scab. Or a customer.
Still comes to this (I know, you will hate this too) the bottom line - everybody, individual or collectively has a point at which they will donate no more, whether in time, money, or goods. We can move this point by making the donating easier, cheaper (tax breaks, e.g.), or more rewarding (publicity), but there will always be a point. Some people/businesses will do more than others, and those that do more will look down on those that do less.
I give a substantial amount of money in ways the IRS calls charitable contributions, and I also give lots of money to individuals in ways that are not tax-deductible, but I don't volunteer a single minute of my time. My niece doesn't give a penny away, but she does volunteer for Meals on Wheels. Which of us is the more evil/more good? There are other ways in which many corporations can and do good things besides donating extra merchandise. Maybe they are more evil/more good overall that we think on the basis of this one action. If you judge me solely on the basis of time volunteered, I guess I am a pretty mean-spirited person, just as my niece would be deemed selfish if she were judged solely on cash gifts. I don't know, but I would not be surprised to learn Wal-Mart does some good things in other ways.
This post is based upon my experience, which includes 40 years in acounting, finance, and law, split just about 50-50 between governmental organizations (when you include consultation work I have done for such organizations) and private industry. My own experience is that greed is not confined to corporations, nor even to the private sector. In fact, I have seen far more examples of actions that I would attribute to nothing but pure, unadulterated greed on the part of governmental actors (not just politicians, although they are certainly not to be excluded, but also civil servants) than I have ever seen in any part of the private sector.
I am fairly certain that Wal-Mart has done more good, and less harm, for more people, than just about any governmental agency that I know of. I mean this as a very serious comment.
The Nike sweat shops that so many complain about in places like Thailand and Malaysia have done more to upgrade the standard of living of the people in those countries than all the foreign aid we have dispensed to them through our government and multi-national organizations.
The much-maligned profit motive is actually a strong disciplinarian. Maybe you can do unethical things in the short-run, but in a competitive market those catch up with you in a hurry. Governmental agencies have no such disciplinarian. Don't give me the bit about the ballot box every 2, 4, or 6 years. Civil servants don't give a damn who wins the election. They are so well insulated that they have little or no accountability in any case. And even elected politicians aren't subject to much scrutiny--how do things like Mark Foley, Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, and Barney Frank happen (sorry for weighting heavly toward dems, there are as many republicans, just having a hard time coming up with names because the dems are more in view right now)? They would not get away with those things in the private sector nearly as long as they have in the public sector.
You may not agree, and that is your right. My experience may not hold universally. But it is my experience, and there's no little amount of experience on either side. And the conclusions are pretty solidly in one corner on this issue.
That's one reason (not the only one) why I favor smaller government and generally look unfavorably upon government solutions. There's this solution in many areas (like health insurance) that the private sector is only interested in gouging people, whereas a government-run operation would put the needs of the citizens first. In my experience, that's 180 degrees away from reality.
I wonder how many of the "alternative print" Super Bowl T shirts will make it to Haiti?
(02-02-2010 04:05 PM)emmiesix Wrote: [ -> ]I don't mean that greed and disregard for the needs of others is solely an attribute of corporations, just that it seems particularly encouraged in those businesses by the way they are set up. And they typically make no apology for it, because $$ is a reason in itself for anything to these people.
Yes, the purpose of business organizations is to make money -- just as the purpose of governments is to govern; of fraternal organizations is to fraternize; of charitable organizations is to be charitable.
An organization may have ancillary purposes as well (businesses give to charity; fraternal organizations have fundraisers; Lord knows governments do all kinds of things that are pretty tangential to governing). But if greed is defined as having the purpose of making money, then the statement "businesses are greedy" is a tautology, albeit a popular one.
Of course, people who don't want money are free to dissociate themselves from businesses as much as they want. That's not a popular choice, because it turns out that people actually do want money (but of course one's own desire for money is necessarily "moderate" -- by definition only other people are "greedy"). But it is an available choice.
(02-02-2010 04:05 PM)emmiesix Wrote: [ -> ]Actively having an employee take the time to cut up or rip apart perfectly good clothing is a cost in itself -- clearly less than the cost of your "logistics" for sending them to Haiti, agreed.
I'm not sure the relative cost is "clear" at all. Sorting, packaging, and shipping are actually pretty time-consuming processes. (In fact, that's one reason that local food banks would much rather have your money than your canned goods. A chief reason is that for the same money you spend on a can of beans to give to the food drive, they can buy a a whole case of cans from their suppliers. But another reason is that processing small batches of stuff is surprisingly costly -- whether cost is measured in hours or dollars.)
(02-02-2010 04:05 PM)emmiesix Wrote: [ -> ]how hard is it to send that clothing to your local women's or homeless shelter, or to contact local churches and synagogues and have them pick up the clothing (I'll bet at least some of them would) for their own supplies?
I don't much about H&M, but it sounds like the Wal-Mart has a process for doing just that, but this case slipped through the cracks. Given that Wal-Mart is (one of?) the largest employers in the U.S., I am not sure the whole company should be tarred just because some employees in one location dropped the ball. And to revert to the food bank example, remember that one-time, odd-lot donations are far less cost effective -- to the business AND to the charity, in money AND in time -- than most people realize.
(02-02-2010 04:05 PM)emmiesix Wrote: [ -> ]At least some of this seems to have to do with creating artificial scarcity -- how else do you explain wanton destruction of material goods?
Sometimes goods are legally required to be destroyed:
-- intellectual property protection: the goods ripoff a trademark/patent/copyright.
-- contractual rights: the goods were made under an agreement that they would only be available for a certain time.
-- other legal prohibitions: goods made in violation of child labor laws.
At the margin, these may seem like examples of "artificial scarcity"; but no serious economist or historian would doubt that enforcement of IP and contractual rights, far from causing scarcity, is in fact an essential foundation for alleviating scarcity.
Maybe in the Wal-Mart case, the goods were supposed to go to a charity but got mistakenly mixed up with goods that were tagged for destruction because they were made by underage trademark pirates. And maybe the clerk who normally catches such errors was out that day serving at a soup kitchen -- or maybe he was at the dentist, or his kid's play, or hungover, or just blew it.
(02-02-2010 03:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]By my own definition I am cetainly a good, moral person
What a coincidence -- the same is true for me!
(02-04-2010 10:49 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2010 03:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]By my own definition I am cetainly a good, moral person
What a coincidence -- the same is true for me!
True, I'm sure, for a lot of people with vastly differing moral standards. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (of the mirror) and neither beauty nor moral strength is an objective measure.
I'm sure that preacher in Kansas who pickets funerals thinks he is a moral person, as does Warren Jeffs.
BTW, George, judging from your writings, I would agree with you about you.
After thinking on this some more, I have come to the conclusion that any of us - Wal-mart, me, my niece, just about everybody and every corporation in the world, can be condemned for not doing more and/or not doing differently, regardless of what they are doing. You gave $1000 to Haitian relief? Why not $5000? How about those old clothes and the tent in your garage? And don't forget the orphans in India, the Sudan, and the American Heart Association. You gave to Muscular Dystrophy? Fine, but but why did you ignore Goodwill?
You can't please everybody.
I just saw an article on a couple who sold everything to help out in Haiti. I guess we are all pikers compared to them.
A lot of you are taking this more personally than I intended -- indeed it almost comes off as defensive. Perhaps that was my fault by starting out with such an outraged tone. I certainly don't mean to imply that any of you are failing to do some minimum contribution to society (nor would I even if I thought so :)). In other words, you all are somewhat missing the point. It's not that H&M didn't donate $5000 to charity, it's the shear WASTE of goods that disturbs me. It's rare in life that you get a black and white choice. I agree with people asking how you can know when you have done enough - who knows??
But I do know it's wrong to throw away a perfectly good sandwich when there's a homeless guy down the street that you know you could give it to. That's the thing -- it's not hard to say, "hey employee #13459, instead of cutting holes in perfectly good clothing this afternoon, do you mind calling around to see which shelters/charities/church's would be willing to take them? Then leave them by the curb. Thanks."
(02-02-2010 11:39 AM)emmiesix Wrote: [ -> ]I am boycotting walmart, of course... I'm sure they'll really miss the $25 I was going to spend there.
You could, I guess, buy their clothes and then give them away. That would not only help the poor people, but also the people who work for WalMart and/or own Walmart stock, which is in a lot of retirement plans, No need to depend on Walmart to distribute the clothes, we can do it ourselves.
I'll put in my $25 if you will. In my community, Goodwill is right across the street from WalMart,so I can take the clothes directly.
I won't even take the charitable deduction, so that eliminates the almighty dollar.
Who knows, maybe we can get something started here.
AUSTIN, Texas -- Nearly $300,000 worth of clothing ready for sale if Texas had won the BCS championship over Alabama will be sent to Haiti as earthquake relief.
University Co-op spokeswoman Casey Ellis says the 13,000 shirts and 1,000 caps were to be shipped Friday.
Ellis told The Associated Press that the items, printed to hail a UT victory, were made a day or two before the Jan. 7 game in which Alabama beat the Longhorns 37-21.
Ellis says the shirts retail for $20 each, while the cap price was $22.
She says the University Co-op is working with charitable groups to have the donated apparel transported from Austin and distributed in Haiti, which was devastated in the Jan. 12 quake.
The co-op is the main distributor of UT Longhorn merchandise and apparel.
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/02/about_30...win_b.html
(02-06-2010 07:07 PM)emmiesix Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of you are taking this more personally than I intended -- indeed it almost comes off as defensive. Perhaps that was my fault by starting out with such an outraged tone. I certainly don't mean to imply that any of you are failing to do some minimum contribution to society (nor would I even if I thought so :)). In other words, you all are somewhat missing the point. It's not that H&M didn't donate $5000 to charity, it's the shear WASTE of goods that disturbs me. It's rare in life that you get a black and white choice. I agree with people asking how you can know when you have done enough - who knows??
But I do know it's wrong to throw away a perfectly good sandwich when there's a homeless guy down the street that you know you could give it to. That's the thing -- it's not hard to say, "hey employee #13459, instead of cutting holes in perfectly good clothing this afternoon, do you mind calling around to see which shelters/charities/church's would be willing to take them? Then leave them by the curb. Thanks."
I didn't take personal offense. But I do think you may have started from an article written from a very one-sided point of view, without determining what was the other side of the story. I have this sneaking suspicion that if all the facts were truly known, you might reach a different conclusion. But then, I don't think that making all the facts known was the intent of the author of the article.
To clarify, I mean this more as criticism of the author than you. I think you may have leaped quickly to a conclusion that may not be warranted. But I think that is precisely what the author intended. Your motivations are idealistic; the author's are not.
(02-06-2010 11:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2010 11:39 AM)emmiesix Wrote: [ -> ]I am boycotting walmart, of course... I'm sure they'll really miss the $25 I was going to spend there.
You could, I guess, buy their clothes and then give them away. That would not only help the poor people, but also the people who work for WalMart and/or own Walmart stock, which is in a lot of retirement plans, No need to depend on Walmart to distribute the clothes, we can do it ourselves.
I'll put in my $25 if you will. In my community, Goodwill is right across the street from WalMart,so I can take the clothes directly.
I won't even take the charitable deduction, so that eliminates the almighty dollar.
Who knows, maybe we can get something started here.
Well, on second thought, this plan won't work. All Goodwill would do with the $25 worth of clothes is put them on sale for $5, and about $3 of that would be used to help the poor. I could do as well giving $3 to the guy with the cardboard sign on the intersection.
But it occurs to me that both of us may have been missing an important point. The clothes are being destroyed because they are going out of season, and room must be made on the shelves for the upcoming season's clothes. So if the clothes were to donated, they would be useless for six months or so.
Say you are the director of a homeless shelter and your assistant says "there is an 18-wheeler outside from Walmart full of summer clothes", and it is October, are you happy? A treuckload of swinsuits, shorts, short sleeved ***** and sundresses might not be welcome in October. Where will you store them for six months? In March, the donation would consist of snowsuits, heavy coats, sweaters and furlined boots. Same problem. In truth, this sounds more like Walmart dumping its problems on the charity, not a donation.
Nobody is tearing up year-round items, like underwear and socks, anymore than they are tossing out toasters - all those things will move eventually. It is just seasonal stuff that is going out of season. Might as well be donating Christmas ornaments in January.
I guess some small percentage would be immediately useful, but I think that most charities with limited storage and limited resources would just pass most of it on to the dump.
Maybe some big international charity like the Red Cross, but still that just multiplies the problem of storage 1000fold. The problem is always one of distribution. How to get goods and food from areas of plenty to areas of need. People starve in the Sudan while fields are burned in Nebraska.
I think that the profit motive (read: almighty dollar), like anything else, can be carried to an unhealthy extreme, but it an important part of our capitalistic system, and it is a part of the motivatiion of every man, women, child, and economic enterprise, not limited to publicly traded corporations. Even the family that sold their house prudently didn't give it all away, but retained some to buy a smaller house.
"But it occurs to me that both of us may have been missing an important point. The clothes are being destroyed because they are going out of season, and room must be made on the shelves for the upcoming season's clothes. So if the clothes were to donated, they would be useless for six months or so."
Not likely that this season's clothes wouldn't be useful for a while, particularly in NY where it will be cold for quite some time. Next season's clothes go out much earlier than the weather actually changes.
Emmie, this forum is not likely to provide the response you're looking for, and instead you've found reactions that range from challenging you to a give off to suggesting that you're misguided by someone's else's agenda, etc. For what it's worth, I agree it seems wasteful and shameful. Hopefully, the publicity will serve as a call to action leading to a less wasteful and reasonably efficient solution for those who find that they have more than they need or want in their stores.
(02-08-2010 11:46 AM)kinderowl Wrote: [ -> ]"But it occurs to me that both of us may have been missing an important point. The clothes are being destroyed because they are going out of season, and room must be made on the shelves for the upcoming season's clothes. So if the clothes were to donated, they would be useless for six months or so."
Not likely that this season's clothes wouldn't be useful for a while, particularly in NY where it will be cold for quite some time. Next season's clothes go out much earlier than the weather actually changes.
Emmie, this forum is not likely to provide the response you're looking for, and instead you've found reactions that range from challenging you to a give off to suggesting that you're misguided by someone's else's agenda, etc. For what it's worth, I agree it seems wasteful and shameful. Hopefully, the publicity will serve as a call to action leading to a less wasteful and reasonably efficient solution for those who find that they have more than they need or want in their stores.
True, there would be a small overlap, and it would vary from climate to climate. Anywhere from 2 weeks to maybe 2 months. I did say "some small percentage" might be immediately useful. I guess you could extrapolate that to "100% would be useful for a very short time". I didn't realize that Emmie's indignation was limited to new york, either - i thought it might extend to stores all across the country, in Reno, Miami, Dallas, Iowa City, etc. I presume Wal-mart policy is the same everywhere.
It seems wasteful, I agree. My parents told me it was wasteful for me not to clean off my plate when there were starving children in Asia, and if i could have donated my green beans, i would have. Couldn't figure out how to do that. I am not convinced that there is a less wasteful and reasonably efficient solution, but it seems to me that if there was one, it would have been found by now. I don't think the clothes are being shredded at extra cost just to be mean. Emmie blamed it on the "almighty dollar", intimating that it was just the cheapest solution, but a donation would be even cheaper, saving labor and disposal costs and creating a tax deduction and goodwill. It seems to me that the situation is not as simple as it appears on the surface. We see examples of wastefullness all the time - farmers let fields lie idle in Kansas when people are hungry in Colombia, or farmers grow corn to sell to inefficient ethanol plants while people are hungry in Mexico. Emmie also indicated the problem was with publicly held corporations, but we have seen this type of wastefulness at all levels of our capitalistic society from mom-and-pop operations to individuals to small businesses. We see it in communistic and socialistic societies also - think Soviet Union. So wastefullness is not confined to public corporations chasing the almighty dollar. You might see more of a $$ motive at the smallest levels - think of the person who throws out a couple of shirts instead of driving across town to the Goodwill because of the cost of gas (a green decision as well!).
I agree this forum is not going to provide the response she's looking for, if by that you mean a cheering crowd of yesmen. I thought this was a discussion forum,, for an exchange of ideas and viewpoints, and I have presented both some ideas and my viewpoint. If the desired response was to automatically condemn, sorry. First i want to figure out why this is being done this way. Maybe later.
I don't have any better ideas about how to dispose of out-of-season clothes on a general and continuing basis. Anyone that does should present those ideas to the proper people and see if those ideas will work, and if not, why not. I have presented my opinions on why companies might be shredding clothes instead of giving them away. So far the response has just been to say that I am wrong, but with no explanation of why.
This has provoked thought, even if some think i am just a coporate lackey presenting a kneejerk defense of anything that makes a buck. What happens to the produce that is unsold by grocery stores or goods that reach their sell-by date? Could they (should they) be donated to programs that feed the homeless? What about tires that still have tread but have been traded in? I am sure some people could use them on their vehicles. Lots of questions about what should be done with various goods in our bountiful and regulated society.
Sorry, but I don't see where anyone has mentioned this quote from the article:
Quote:A Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Melissa Hill, said the company normally donates all its unworn goods to charities, and would have to investigate why the items found on 35th Street were discarded.
It also seems to me that this discussion has inferred a lot that is not said in the article. I would guess that the employees at Walmart regularly ruin clothing just out of carelessness when opening boxes. That could be all that is happening here with regard to them.
(02-09-2010 09:09 AM)I45owl Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, but I don't see where anyone has mentioned this quote from the article:
Quote:A Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Melissa Hill, said the company normally donates all its unworn goods to charities, and would have to investigate why the items found on 35th Street were discarded.
It also seems to me that this discussion has inferred a lot that is not said in the article. I would guess that the employees at Walmart regularly ruin clothing just out of carelessness when opening boxes. That could be all that is happening here with regard to them.
This was my point in post #15 above. An earlier post said that Wal-Mart had been "caught in the act" of destroying otherwise useful clothing. That simply is not true, or at least not what is described in the article.
The article actually states that the disposal of clothing in this manner is a much more common occurrence at H&M than at Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart is one of the left's favorite whipping boys, so this turns into a "let's hate Wal-Mart" article and discussion.
I don't know whether Wal-Mart is entirely innocent in this case, or is guilty of some wrongdoing. But there are multiple scenarios consistent with the facts given under which Wal-Mart (and H&M) have done absolutely nothing wrong. Let's know what actually happened rather than jump to unwarranted conclusions.
Did the author of the article tell the whole truth? Obviously not. Was the author of the article disingenuous? I believe so. But then again, I don't believe that being totally honest was ever on the author's radar screen.