Hacker News Reader

Comment by digiown | Hacker News Reader

As the recipient of that donation, why would I actually destroy it when I can sell it?

Selling clothes is hard and annoying and most people can't be bothered. I've had to dispose of a number of clothes, and not once have I sold them; I think a slight majority ended up in the garbage, with a few turning into rags and a decent number landing in a donation bin when I lived in a building with one.

A few years ago a family member passed away and I tried to donate their clothes to a charity store. We threw away the worn out ones, so these were just good quality and most of them were good brands or at least looked high end. They took maybe 20% and said the rest we should just throw away.

Individual used pieces of clothes are not nearly the same as unsold or returned (~new) available in bulk quantities.

They aren't, but the problem is even worse for bulk quantities. A local charity operation or thrifty individual might find a use for a couple random articles of clothing; a pallet carrying 2,000 copies of the same unpopular skirt is worth less than zero to anyone but a large clothing distributor.

Because that's what you agreed to, that's why they donated it to you.

Then that's not a donation, just some shenanigans to bypass the law, which regulators presumably understands could happen.

Welcome to Planet Earth in 2026 :)

If the manufacturer can't sell their product, why would someone else be able to?

It's not that the manufacturer can't sell their product, it's that they don't want to do so. They want to get rid of last season's perfectly good product to make room for next season's lineup.

They could sell old stock ay reduced prices and still make profits, but they want to maintain their vain exclusive image, so they inflate their prices by destroying stock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com