Because a lot is produced and thrown away after one use or two because it’s so cheap. Most things that people spend money on doesn’t waste as much resources and produce as much garbage.
Not many people are buying Dior, or even just Adidas and throwing it away each week.
I’ve bought something from HM , it was the shittiest quality garment I’ve ever worn. Lasted about a week. It looked ok but it was made to fall apart.
Fast fashion is bad for the environment.
It seems like even long standing brands have enshittified to the point where fast fashion doesn’t seem much worse quality-wise.
I don't disagree with this, but I feel it's mostly to do with the volume and consumer demand (by the shopper types) rather than quality.
> It’s lower than quality in most cases. Fast fashion is about shopping for entertainment, and that means it needs to be cheap with a lot of variety. The planned obsolesce is a core part of it.
Quality-wise, not necessarily true -- depends on the purveyors. Yes, Zara (Spanish) and H&M (Swedish) are generally lower quality (Zara is hit or miss, H&M is uniformly lower quality), but Uniqlo (Japanese) clothing are decently high quality and cost slightly more. Most Uniqlo clothing I own have lasted years. The MTBF is about 5-6 years.
It's a bit like saying IKEA is fast-furniture. Yes, people have made fun of IKEA being a vendor of low quality particle board furniture, but my IKEA bookcases have survived > 5 cross-country moves over the last 24 years.
Uniqlo, at least in Japan, isn't the cheaper stuff either.