Ethical shopping in TK Maxx?

[bluestreak]

Think about this shit too much and you end up feeling guilty about eating, wearing or living in anything.

ain't that the truth. we're so entangled in the global capitalist system that it's a total headfuck.

 

[Col_Buendia]

Think about this shit too much and you end up feeling guilty about eating, wearing or living in anything - I'm not interested in being an ascetic.

Indeed! And I didn't want to think about it... that's why I asked you 'orrible lot

 

[catch]

2. dead stock is still stock that is no longer viable - by buying it later you're not playing into the whole fashion bullshit.

Selling that stuff, even at a loss, liquidises assets that are reinvested into the mainstream fashion industry. It directly supports the fashion industry and overproduction.

again, buying from small stores and markets isn't 'hurting' chains, it's simply not participating in the chains' existence.

TK Maxx is a chain isn't it?

3. temps have no power in their job, when they're lucky enough to work. and transient renters such as myself don't have a lot of power in the community.

There've been ideas floated here about setting up a workers' co-op temp agency. Might be a shit idea in practice but you never know. Trying to build structures in workplaces and communities that can include people with transient lifestyles is important (like unionising temps), it certainly doesn't involve writing them off entirely.

I rent and I've also lived within a 5 mile radius for the past four years in three different places - that's a small enough area for a degree of consistency, although I'll be the first to admit that I've not established anything of use myself - just joined existing activity.

but if we act in a the best way that we can within our communities and as individuals, lead by example and with intelligence and integrity we might make spreading the word easier.

That involves pointing out when certain political activities aren't going to achieve very much and proposing alternatives doesn't it?

 

[TeeJay]

Do you even read the websites you link to TeeJay?

That site lists hundreds of products and isn't selling them - it is just linking to them/reviewing them. It endorse them all - just makes comments etc. some of them critical ones.

I didn't bother looking down the whole list of products. Why should I?

 

[bluestreak]

1. Selling that stuff, even at a loss, liquidises assets that are reinvested into the mainstream fashion industry. It directly supports the fashion industry and overproduction.

2. TK Maxx is a chain isn't it?

3. There've been ideas floated here about setting up a workers' co-op temp agency. Might be a shit idea in practice but you never know. Trying to build structures in workplaces and communities that can include people with transient lifestyles is important (like unionising temps), it certainly doesn't involve writing them off entirely.

4. I rent and I've also lived within a 5 mile radius for the past four years in three different places - that's a small enough area for a degree of consistency, although I'll be the first to admit that I've not established anything of use myself - just joined existing activity.



5. That involves pointing out when certain political activities aren't going to achieve very much and proposing alternatives doesn't it?

1. yes, but it's better than spending full price on the latest gear and thus legitimising the consumerist experience! buying from the seconds and olds place is saying, yeah, we'll take the stuff you can't sell at a huge profit but we wont take it otherwise. if it says anything at all!

2. yeah, true enough, though i was thiking the supermarket chains when i made that comment, who move far more stuff around and are a lot more of a threat to community cohesion than tk maxx.

3. that would be a great idea in theory and one i'd certainly sign up to. unionising temps isn't gonna happen easily though. the corporate world will fight tooth and nail to avoid giving any rights to temps sadly.

4. unfortunately i haven't had any consistency in years. i've been involved in community activism whenever there has been community activism to be involved in though. i think that is far more important than lifestyle changes on the whole.

5. but i haven't seen an alternative yet. consumption practices aren't, in themselves, the only thing to do, they're just part of a wider scale of living that involves unionisation, low impact living, activism (community and wider scale), and all sorts of other things. i still think that avoiding the mainstream markets as much as possible is important - not the be all and end all, but an important part nonetheless.

 

[TeeJay]

...Or I could stop eating bananas, and by extension stop eating any food at all...

Why "by extension"? You have a problems with bananas, not with "all food", so why would quitting bananas - a specific product - mean not eating fod at all?

 

[pinkmonkey]

Just to add: TK part of a huuge chain (caled TJ Maxx in the USA). Although they are pretty much the biggest buyer and trader of deadstock out there, the majority of what they sell isn't deadstock at all. It's either cheapo non-branded fodder bought in much the same way any other chain would buy stock in, or MTO - made to order branded goods but designed to a cheaper spec (eg if original garment was emnbroidered the downspec willl be printed) so they can then sell it at a discount.

http://www.tjx.com/employment/

 

[catch]

Why "by extension"? You have a problems with bananas, not with "all food", so why would quitting bananas - a specific product - mean not eating fod at all?

Because there's problems with the production and distribution of nearly all food that's available to eat in London. If I stopped eating anything that didn't fit strict ethical/sustainable criteria, I wouldn't eat. Take this ethical shopping stuff seriously, and you end up withdrawing from society - by relying on a personalistic view of morality it leads to quietism.

 

[TeeJay]

Because there's problems with the production and distribution of nearly all food that's available to eat in London. If I stopped eating anything that didn't fit strict ethical/sustainable criteria, I wouldn't eat. Take this ethical shopping stuff seriously, and you end up withdrawing from society - by relying on a personalistic view of morality it leads to quietism.

You can take ethical shopping seriously and still buy stuff - by adopting the principle of buying the "least worst" product rather than using a strict 'fixed' ethical/sustainable criteria.

I'm not however saying that I believe that "ethical shopping" is the way forward (despite my posting links to various products on this thread). If people have a certain amount of time, effort and money they want to put into doing something I'd prefer they first of all put it into political action and campaigning. Ideally *all* products would be fair-traded and sustainable and the burden and cost wouldn't be placed on individual consumers and end-users, but I doubt that this can be achieved by niche shopping rather than widespread campaigning.

One example is CFCs/aerosols: while people avoiding CFC-containing hairsprays did raise the profile of problem, ultimately it was an internationally agreed world-wide ban that changed things, not the force of people's shopping habits.

Personally I combine a bit of both - supporting political campaigns *and* trying to choose fairtraded/ethical goods where I can (although it is only ever *one* factor in what I choose to buy rather than the sole factor).

 

[catch]

Ideally *all* products would be fair-traded and sustainable and the burden and cost wouldn't be placed on individual consumers and end-users,

Ideally all products would be provided "from each according to ability; to each according to need;" not "fair traded" which ignores the inherent exploitation in capitalism.

Either way "least worst" results in people voting liberal democrat and other bollocks.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It doesn't make a difference to the people who produce the stuff whether you buy Nike or not - it's not like they get paid more for sewing up Nike than Matalan. At source it's all the same. Brand-focussed campaigns like anti-Nike don't make any difference as long as everyone else gets away with the same behaviour - which they do if a campaign focusses on a brand, which it almost always does in effect because that's the simplest message.

Paying less for things is good but it's still money going to support their business practices, and there's the social effect of branded clothing as well.

 

[revol68]

also the cock who said something about not buying into the fashion thing. Fuck you, if i wanna buy shit thats nice i will, nothing wrong with fashion, infact i see it as a form of art, once it is of course removed from the grip of the commodity it will be another sphere of self expression.

 

[kropotkin]

Interesting points from many posts, but I'd like to come back to Kropotkin on the above... not sure why it should have seemed like satire, but that's not so important.

Sorry, that was a bit needlessly cruel, you are right.

I take onboard and to a large degree agree with what you are saying about consumption not being able to change patterns of production, although I think that that position needs to be tempered with a small amount of recognition that public reaction has meant that perhaps some of the more flagrant sweating abuses needed to be beautified...

I just wanted to come back on this quickly.
What happened was that Nike sourced their trainers from incredibly cheap suppliers in South East Asia. They could do this because of their size in terms of capital-command, the export-processing-zones neoliberal capitalism helped create there, and the ease at which they could shift their manufacturing. They saved massive amounts, and managed to use lots of other capital to create a global brand that caught the attention of campaigners.
The massive disparity between the wages of the workers and the cost of the product- the very thing that made the capital employed in the company so profitable- became the hook on which the brand was attacked.

They were forced to institute checks and thus raise the costs of production slightly- this of course was made up for by the concommitant rise of the commodity price etc and will may have had little effect on them. What also happened was that that particular way of producing became more dominant- capital was able to fly from all manufacturig sectors and Nike's mechanism of making a massive company is now used in making most of the clothes [and indeed everything else]. One company may have been harmed [a little], but all the other workers involved in manufacturing now have shittier conditions.

I'll come back on the rest tomorrow- I'm moving at the weekend and am trying to pack [whilst of course having the odd spliff-and-u75-break you understand].

 

[JWH]

It doesn't make a difference to the people who produce the stuff whether you buy Nike or not - it's not like they get paid more for sewing up Nike than Matalan.

But that's not necessarily true. If it is the case that the big brands are having to genuinely make sure that pay and conditions at the factories that make their products are acceptable as a result of the sweatshop campaigns while non-brands don't, then it does make a difference to the workers whether you buy Nike or Matalan.

 

[JWH]

Why is it TK Maxx in the UK and TJ Maxx in the US?

 

[pinkmonkey]

Why is it TK Maxx in the UK and TJ Maxx in the US?

I think someone already trademarked the name over here or it was possibly too similar to another brand name over here, so maybe they weren't allowed to register it

 

[kropotkin]

No, it only makes a difference if the global sales of the commodities in question are actually effected [i.e. if they reduce] for a long period of time.


ah- i see what you mean- that a non-sweated Nike is preferable on a labour-conditions level than a non-branded sweated place?

 

[pinkmonkey]

Sorry, that was a bit needlessly cruel, you are right.



I just wanted to come back on this quickly.
What happened was that Nike sourced their trainers from incredibly cheap suppliers in South East Asia. They could do this because of their size in terms of capital-command, the export-processing-zones neoliberal capitalism helped create there, and the ease at which they could shift their manufacturing. They saved massive amounts, and managed to use lots of other capital to create a global brand that caught the attention of campaigners.
The massive disparity between the wages of the workers and the cost of the product- the very thing that made the capital employed in the company so profitable- became the hook on which the brand was attacked.

They were forced to institute checks and thus raise the costs of production slightly- this of course was made up for by the concommitant rise of the commodity price etc and will may have had little effect on them. What also happened was that that particular way of producing became more dominant- capital was able to fly from all manufacturig sectors and Nike's mechanism of making a massive company is now used in making most of the clothes [and indeed everything else]. One company may have been harmed [a little], but all the other workers involved in manufacturing now have shittier conditions.

I'll come back on the rest tomorrow- I'm moving at the weekend and am trying to pack [whilst of course having the odd spliff-and-u75-break you understand].

Where on earth did you get this info from because it's utter rubbish

 

[butchersapron]

I think someone already trademarked the name over here or it was possibly too similar to another brand name over here, so maybe they weren't allowed to register it

Can you tell us more about 'deadstock' or point me towards something (book/link/article) please?

No worries if you can't.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

But that's not necessarily true. If it is the case that the big brands are having to genuinely make sure that pay and conditions at the factories that make their products are acceptable as a result of the sweatshop campaigns while non-brands don't, then it does make a difference to the workers whether you buy Nike or Matalan.

Is it though? I mean, really. Do they genuinely make sure that pay and conditions are fair, and by what standards?

If you want to work within the system then a genuine campaign against unfair working conditions might work... unless it doesn't. If everyone decides to maintain their profit margin and pay people shit, what do you do? Not buy clothes? (The other answer here is "make your own" or "buy only second hand" of course but those are not popular solutions.)

There is always the point here that people do need clothes.

 

[butchersapron]

The average rate of profit. I said it yesterday i think.

 

[pinkmonkey]

Can you tell us more about 'deadstock' or point me towards something (book/link/article) please?

No worries if you can't.

It's terminology, also referred to off-price or closeout. It's basically old stock that you can't get rid of. The longer it's in your warehouse, the less you can get for it and it starts to cost you in warehousing space so you have to get rid. It can be broken size runs, faulty or colours and styles that you ordered tons of that just didn't sell.

Just about every company I can think of ends up clearing at least some deadstock to TK Maxx at a loss. The alternative is to sell it even more cheaply to clearing companies who then 'debrand' it and sell it in Africa for next to nothing.

They don't call TK the funeral directors for nothing....

Then theres the Clothes Show Live in December. Plenty of companies hire a stand to sell their deadstock and take advantange of the mad feeding frenzy.

Then theres now also eBay. They've started showing at trade shows, encouraging companies to clear their deadstock on there.

 

[butchersapron]

Ta Pm

For kroppers: So it's unrealised surplus value, that's forcing capital to rely on credit (on the basis of future sales) to get the cycle moving quicko and it's blocking circulation. It's been produced - it has to be got rid of - law of value at work, clear as day. Concrete vs abstract labour writ large.

 

[pinkmonkey]

Ta Pm

For kroppers: So it's unrealised surplus value, that's forcing capital to rely on credit (on the basis of future sales) to get the cycle moving quicko and it's blocking circulation. It's been produced - it has to be got rid of - law of value at work, clear as day. Concrete vs abstract labour writ large.

Yup. That's pretty much it.

Although one of my old bosses held onto some stock for so long it actually rotted away and became as one with the warehouse fixtures!

I've also heard of people burning deadstock too........

 

[bluestreak]

also the cock who said something about not buying into the fashion thing. Fuck you, if i wanna buy shit thats nice i will, nothing wrong with fashion, infact i see it as a form of art, once it is of course removed from the grip of the commodity it will be another sphere of self expression.

you explained exactly why i don't buy into the fashion thing in your post, you rude cunt. nice is a value judgement for a start, but having the latest clothes at top whack prices is what makes it a commodity and therefore part of the consumerist system. prick.

and if nice is automatically whatever the latest fashion houses are telling you to pay them for this season then really it's not a form of self-expression at all is it. it's an expression of how you allow a marketing team from a profit-centred company to tell you what to wear.

 

[chegrimandi]

those 'ethical' (hugely expensive) products were fucking disgusting, absolute dross.

TKMaxx on the other hand sells good gear at cheap prices - can't go wrong.....

 

[pinkmonkey]

those 'ethical' (hugely expensive) products were fucking disgusting, absolute dross.

TKMaxx on the other hand sells good gear at cheap prices - can't go wrong.....

I have to say, working in the trade (as I do) the alarm bells always start to ring when I see so-called ethical clothing. Especially when I know where it's made......

Theres really very little difference between all of the brands and own label (i.e. supermarket).

I was somewhere last week where they were making Giorgio Armani and George Asda on the same track!

 

[chegrimandi]

I have to say, working in the trade (as I do) the alarm bells always start to ring when I see so-called ethical clothing. Especially when I know where it's made......

Theres really very little difference between all of the brands and own label (i.e. supermarket).

exactly. Its just highly marketed shite playing on rich liberals social conscience. Its exclusive - due to the price, and highly marketed with heavy brand values , much like Adidas, stone Island etc. Just that they cynically marketed to make the purchaser 'feel good' about themselves.

 

[Leica]

Pinkmonkey, I've been curious about a couple of things and was wondering if you would be able to help:

-- Where does the material used for the clothing originate from? And how is it transported to the factories?

-- Regarding "made in..." labels on clothing - do they do anything more/other than inform of the place of production?

 

[chegrimandi]

Question: So what do you do with the used inner tubes from the 7 million cars in Mexico City? Answer: Use them to create these stylish & functional bags (what else!?) Tough as, well, old tyres; these funky bags will last for ages and serve both you and the environment well.

errr I think we have differing views of what 'funky' is.....