(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.

Yep, I missed that. Could have saved a lot of the debate. I just assumed that the accusations were accurate. What do I know about retail clothing?

I am of the opinion that that the profit motive provides a lot of incentive to do things the most efficient way, and is then modified further by the desire by individuals to do good. The almighty dollar mixed with the milk of human kindness - they are not mutually exclusive, but like milk and eggs they can be combined to produce something good.

I read the article and did not miss that line, which is why my comment was limited to finding a less wasteful and reasonably efficient solution for those who find that they have more than they need or want and not directed at all Wal-Mart's.

Will nbow resist urge to carry on about Wal-Mart and the shift in US to importing all junky plastic things made in China with goodness only knows what taint in them . . .

Good-I thought the Chronicle had a story before the game about they were having the shirts printed by a College Station company and the shirts would be destroyed if Texas did not win.

Also, I thought taxable entities could get a deduction if they donoted marchandise to charity.

I see pre-packaged bags in Kroger about donote food to food pantries, but it appears to be an attempt to sell the canned goods that did not move well at full price. It would seem to make more sense to give money directly to the food pantry since there is a big storehouse which provides the goods at reduced costs to the indivdual food pantries.

The waste that the National Recovery Act engaged in during the Depression turned my great-grandmother against Roosevelt. Animals were killed and the carcasses buried and crops plowed under to raise farm prices when people were going hungry.

(02-06-2010 11:44 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  


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

(02-02-2010 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?

(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.

Something that is missed from this, though emmie alludes to it...

The reason something often cost $25 instead of $10 has little to do with the materials or workmanship... but the scarcity and "perception" of value. If you could actually buy things for what they were worth, that would be one thing. But people often pay more than something is worth due to advertising etc... In order to maintian the price point, you can't "give away" the clothes. Not pretending to know the specific math, it makes empirical sense to me that the profit derived from selling a $10 shirt for $25 makes it possible for the company to donate $3 to buy/make a functionally identical shirt (a polo, vesus a "Polo") and still earn a profit. If they made the shirts available and diminished the brand value, they might not be able to sell them for $25. Financially, and perhaps legally (in an effort by the vendors to similarly control their brand pricing) it may not make sense to do as seems logical.

I used to cook dozens of briskets before home football games and sometimes had a bunch left over. I was not allowed to "give" this food to a shelter and was told that handing it out to the homeless myself without a license was an issue. Seemed stupid to me... but I certainly didn't want to pay a $500 fine for giving away food. I'd rather throw out the food and make a $500 donation.

In other words... It isn't always as obvious as it seems... though I have no doubt it sometimes happens.

I agree with you 100% in principle, but I've experienced first hand how difficult it sometimes is to do the right thing.... and how offering something at the lowest cost isn't always as "good for mankind" as offering it for what the market will bear and then making a larger donation.

Consider it a "luxury tax".

(02-14-2010 10:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I used to cook dozens of briskets before home football games and sometimes had a bunch left over. I was not allowed to "give" this food to a shelter and was told that handing it out to the homeless myself without a license was an issue. Seemed stupid to me... but I certainly didn't want to pay a $500 fine for giving away food. I'd rather throw out the food and make a $500 donation.

You didn't give these out to students??????

We need to start another thread...