Hacker News Reader

Comment by jpatokal | Hacker News Reader

H&M, the global benchmark for disposable clothing, also hails from Sweden. And Ikea's cheaper particleboard furniture ranges are also pretty disposable.

View on HN

I've heard the complaint but I can't help but wonder if that complaint is propagated by expensive clothing makers upset their over-priced clothing is not selling.

I've bought clothing from H&M and had zero problems with it. Same with Uniqlo, Zara, and other cheaper/cheapish clothing places.

I feel like there is a big difference between H&M and Flying Tiger. H&M actually sells useful items. Shirts, Pants, Jackets, Jeans, Suits. They all work. I haven't found them to be of poor quality.

Flying Tiger on the other hand seems to sell mostly useless stuff meant to give away at a white elephant gift exchange and then thrown in the trash.

As some economists will argue, being able to by clothing for less allows poorer people to buy clothing and allows all people to spend more money somewhere else (food, shelter, education, entertainment, ...) so it's hard for me to see how H&M is hurting things but maybe I don't have all the facts. I know they do have a recycling program. I suppose you could argue that's part of the problem though.

> They all work. I haven't found them to be of poor quality.

It does works but the quality control is questionable. You will often find poorly done and finished sewing or pieces which are cut approximately. They also often use the cheapest fabric they can get away with. It leads to clothes which really don't age well.

Where I agree with you is that a lot of brands which present themselves as mid range actually don't do much better and are just selling over-priced pieces.

There's a difference between the junk that many countries pay Chinese factories to make and ship, which is garbage almost immediately upon manufacture, and particle board furniture and fast fashion clothing which, while lower quality, is still useful and in the common case gets as much use as the expensive stuff. IKEA is disposable but not quickly disposed of. Considering it uses less and cheaper material, and ships efficiently as flat pack, it's an ecologically sound alternative to heirloom furniture.

Also national stereotypes are weird.

Its only ecologically sound if you throw away your heirloom furniture after 10 years just like you have to throw away the IKEA furniture. If you still use the same table your great-great grandma used the heirloom furniture is better ecologically.

Considering the amount of glues and plastic required to make IKEA furniture I'm not convinced even at the 10 year mark IKEA is better ecologically, but that is a complex question that I wouldn't know how to analyse (if anyone tries I expect a few years latter someone will find a significant factor they didn't account for, and again a few years latter...)

Arguably, hiring a moving truck just to ship my grandmother's dining table across the country every 2-3 years is less ecologically sound than buying a flatpack from Ikea when I arrive and selling the furniture used when I'm ready to leave.

Moving every 2-3 years is not ecologically sound.

Why? I don't have that much stuff to begin with, and I try to buy used when I arrive in a new place. The only added cost is the plane ticket, and I probably fly less than the average vacationer.

Even if you're right, moving frequently is a fact of life for young people who grew up away from the west/east costs. It's the only way for young people who grew up in the midwest to launch a successful career.

Hometown --> college --> internships --> back to college --> grad school --> first job --> second job --> etc.

anyone with particle board furniture that's breaking: get yourself a bottle of polyurethane glue. a dab at the seams and breaking bits and You can easily turn a 3 year lifespan yfurniture into a 10 year life furniture.... assuming you never need to take it apart again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com