- cross-posted to:
- california
- cross-posted to:
- california
You must log in or register to comment.
It would also be good to reduce the amount of plastic clothing.
Means used clothes will rise in cost?
Not really. A massive amount of clothes people buy go completely unused or often worn only once. Most people don’t bother to donate their used clothes and even a large portion that is donated is often thrown away due to excess or wear and tear
Climate Town did a couple of videos that go into a lot of detail: https://youtu.be/8CkgCYPe68Q?si=cO7ZhYFto_Op9s0B
And then there’s all the stuff that’s sent to Africa and other parts of the developing world and why you see impoverished children in Mali wearing shirts for the Tuscaloosa West High School Woodchucks or whatever.
All the stuff mentioned above
“Consumers should not be affected by price increases”… Gavin Newsom is delusional or stupid. This would be the first time in human history where regulatory business costs are not passed on to the customer. Want he just saying “businesses will pass on the price increase from tariffs to the customer”? He know this for a fact because everytime he passes regulations that increase prices for a business in California they just pass it on to the consumer.
I believe there are some fallacies in your statement that someone smarter than myself could probably point out.
Just as a thought experiment, let’s look at the following scenario. It is entirely possible that we are already paying for this as consumers. Most municipal services, such as waste management/recycling services, are subsidized by local governments to reduce costs for their residents. In addition, companies that donate clothes to other countries ( countries that really don’t need our clothes ) most likely would be non-profit companies. Their tax exempt status costs us more. Granted, this is all just hypothetical.
My assumption, because I trust my government for the most part, is that someone who has greater knowledge of these topics/costs, has calculated how much it actually costs the taxpayers. It is entirely possible that these textile manufacturers could inadvertently be subsidized by the government (your money).
This hypothesis could probably be further strengthened by examining the markup prices from clothing industry, since quality and price do not seem to be correlated in that industry, at least in my experience.
Expensive brands will probably continue to market to people with more money and budget target/walmart brands will do what they do best, and market to lower income consumers.
(Edited for clarity and punctuation)
