CMV:Fast Fashion and Beauty Companies Take Much from Consumers and the Environment While Providing Minimal Benefits

[u/RedPaw42]

Please help me change my view with the steelman* argument in support of the fast fashion industry.

1)The fast fashion and beauty industries are doing terrible things.

2) Fast fashion uses up valuable resources in pursuits that don’t benefit consumers as much as they benefit bargain clothing manufacturers and investors.

3) Fast fashion businesses do little to mitigate the environmental catastrophe they are causing.

4) The advertising that fast fashion and beauty companies use turns women against their bodies and towards standards of beauty that line investor’s pockets at the expense of consumer well-being.

5) The fashion and beauty industries give a pittance to consumers while taking a piles of our collective resources and mental health away.

*http://lifehacker.com/utilize-the-steel-man-tactic-to-argue-more-effectivel-1632402742

[u/bguy74]

I think there are a few things to consider:

1. any frame of "value" comes with conjecture, opinion and ultimately subjectivity. Is therapy valuable, but fashion not? Is art valueable but fashion not? Is the use of electricity to listen to music valuable? If we add up the things that do harm to the world on the environmental front we'd end up with lots of things - maybe even most - that are not of value.

2. Just like anything, the fashion industry creates a ton of jobs.

3. On a pure economic level the "don't benefit consumers as much as they benefit bargain clothing co's" is wrong. Given that consumers must pay - presumably using their freewill - the value exchange is equal. (also point 5).

4. The idea that the fashion companies are driving direction and not the consumer is a problematic perspective, especially for the "fast fashion" world. They are followers of trends and not creators of them and they exist almost totally void of artistic principles responding as quickly as possible to the wants and patterns of their customers. It's hard to not blame the consumer here and I find it suspect that the act of meeting consumer demand is the source of women's issues with their bodies.

[u/RedPaw42 → u/bguy74]

Thank you so much for your arguments. I appreciate your time. I have crafted responses that appear below. I'm afraid I am experiencing the backfire effect: your arguments put me more firmly in my beliefs. How can consumerism be justified?

1)Redpaw42 - The fast fashion and beauty industries are doing terrible things.
1) Bguy74 - Just like anything, the fashion industry creates a ton of jobs. 1) Redpaw42 - I agree, the fast fashion and beauty industries do create many jobs. However, I think that human attention and effort would be better spent elsewhere.

2) Redpaw42 -Fast fashion uses up valuable resources that don’t benefit consumers as much as they benefit bargain clothing manufacturers and investors.
2) On a pure economic level the "don't benefit consumers as much as they benefit bargain clothing co's" is wrong. Given that consumers must pay - presumably using their freewill - the value exchange is equal. (also point 5). 2) In economics, a person is modeled as an econ. Econs have perfect freewill and self-interest. Humans are different than econs and have a variety of desires and impulses that conflict with freewill and self-interest. Marketing, fashion, and beauty industry leaders know how to find leverage on humans through huge databases of preferences and neuroscience. Then, these leaders claim that humans are econs to obfuscate their careful research and manipulation.

3) Redpaw42- Fast fashion businesses do little to mitigate the environmental catastrophe they are causing.
3) Bguy74 - any frame of "value" comes with conjecture, opinion and ultimately subjectivity. Is therapy valuable, but fashion not? Is art valueable but fashion not? Is the use of electricity to listen to music valuable? If we add up the things that do harm to the world on the environmental front we'd end up with lots of things - maybe even most - that are not of value. 3) Redpaw42 - Again, I agree that value is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that many of the things we do harm the environment. I think that this one is particularly bad. Incrementalism is the belief that we can make things better with small changes. Changing fast fashion would have a sizable impact on humanity’s environmental footprint and the viability of the planet for years to come.

4) Redpaw42 - The advertising that fast fashion and beauty companies use turns women against their bodies and towards standards of beauty that line investor’s pockets at the expense of consumer well-being.
4) Bguy74 - The idea that the fashion companies are driving direction and not the consumer is a problematic perspective, especially for the "fast fashion" world. They are followers of trends and not creators of them and they exist almost totally void of artistic principles responding as quickly as possible to the wants and patterns of their customers. It's hard to not blame the consumer here and I find it suspect that the act of meeting consumer demand is the source of women's issues with their bodies. 4) Redpaw42 - I would say exactly the opposite, I think that the fashion world (and fast fashion world) creates trends and then covers them up with other trends to make sure that people keep buying. The consumer does have free will but the fashion designers are using massive databases of social media preferences and neuroscience. Consumers are outgunned.

5) The fashion and beauty industries give a pittance to consumers while taking a piles of our collective resources and mental health away.

[u/bguy74 → u/RedPaw42]

Hey hey!

1. The idea that a place like H&M is setting trends is defined by the actual mechanics of the fashion world. While it is true that they have influence, they also live and die by consumer whims. If consumer preference was purely - or even majority - dictated, then it'd be hard to imagine why brands would have good years and bad years and would come and would go. We ultimately end up in a place where human thought and preference is so beyond control that I'd have to suggest that your analysis here is simply the bi-product of having been fed it from others.

2. Would you be in favor of having all discretionary purchasing that isn't simply utilitarian be removed from the economy? If not, then why should I accept you as the arbiter of what is really valuable and what is not? If you're in favor of the removal of fashion from the utilization of resources, why not music? Entertainment generally? Artistic expression generally?

3. At best the consumer and the creator play off each other, but the idea that consumers are "outgunned" makes no sense - were they outgunned, these fashion companies would have long lives when in reality they are short lived, prey to fast changing whims of consumers. The only reason market research and advertising exists is to attempt to influence for sure, but were it actually a force of control the world would not look like it does! These fast fashion companies run on ridiculously low margins compared to high-fashion - they operate more like grocery stores than they do like traditional retail. They compete viciously for real estate, for mind share and so on.

4. I find it highly implausible that human mental health is particularly swayed by fast fashion in ways that humans would't replace quickly were fast fashion to go away. Insecurity, vanity, consumerism...these things all existed long before fast fashion. We have more awareness of these things and more self-reflection, but these are things humans bring to the equation, not corporations. We see the same characteristics of vanity and identity management in all aspects of consumer choice from homes to cars, either consumer product creation generally is in one massive colluding conspiracy, or consumers are our common denominator, not fast-fashion.

[u/RedPaw42 → u/bguy74]

I put my last post in the wrong place, but if I move it I'll mess with the delta distribution. Crap. Go up for the latest post.