# How important is country of manufacture to you ?



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I know we have touched on this subject before, but I am curious to gauge the range of feeling on the forum about how important the country of manufacture is in your decision about whether or not to buy something.

I ask because it recently occurred to me that, for me, it has probably become _the most important criterion_ and I think that's probably irrational!

These days when I am looking at something, even if its exactly what I want, and I find out it is made in China, Bangladesh, Romania, Turkey etc. etc. I immediately move on. In addition, if the product is made by a 'traditional' American or European supplier such as Brooks Brothers, Ralph Lauren, Mulberry or Gieves and Hawkes I move on with considerable irritation. I was incensed to discover a few years back that my 'Grenson England' shoes were actually made in India and have never bought, and would never buy, anything from Grenson again. I recently tried to replace my Christy made in England towels and was sad to see they seem to be all now made in Pakistan (but still trading as Christy towels).

To be clear, I don't have any ill will to the people of China or other nations. I could certainly be convinced that the quality level of Chinese goods can match the very best that Europe can have to offer. I don't have the same feelings about products that are clearly offered by Chinese companies (although I still worry about the labour conditions) But I suppose like a lot of people I have become disillusioned by international corporations off-shoring their manufacturing to countries with inadequate labour laws, and yet still trading off their tradition and heritage, and yet charging the same or higher prices and pocketing the difference. Using marketing phrases like 'Designed in Savile Row, Made in Mauritius' just seems to emphasise the duplicity and sleight-of-hand, to me anyway.

I acknowledge that goods made in the USA, UK, Italy etc. are (sometimes) more expensive - unless we are talking branded goods. I am also aware that 'made in Italy' might mean the product is actually made in China and the buttons sewn on in Italy, and various other permutations, so buyer beware.

Am I some kind of extremist? How important is country of manufacture to you ?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I myself prefer to buy items that are produced in the country of origin. There'd be no use trying out clothing styles from Italy, England, France, etc. if it's all coming from China anyways. With very few exceptions (such as a couple pairs of jeans made in Eastern Europe) my waredrobe is exclusively Italian company-Italian production. English Company-English production, etc. I enjoyed Eton shirts when they were made in Sweden. There was just something different to having a Swedish shirt. Now that they're made in Hungary, they don't really have anything to differentiate them from the thousands of other brands that outsource as well. 

I do also prefer to support markets closer to home. Unemployed Brits, Italians, & French have a bigger impact on me than whatever they're doing in China.

I agree that the mentioned marketing ploys are no less than deceiving & if I ever found out that the companies I use participated in such practices I would take my business elsewhere. It's a bit Sad that governments cater to businesses & allow companies to do such. It doesn't seem to really promote that the society is being honest in protecting its citizens from fraud. I guess it's time to implement the AOC standards for clothing as well.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I think I have an unspoken Venn diagram that allow half the decision to be by origin, half by quality/style, and a third half by price/value. This basically means that I can cave if the item is perfect and the price is right.
However, I take 'cheap labor' origins to be a major caveat and automatically apply harsher inspection. And those attempts to hide the true provenance (like the attempts to hide/mislead on content) are egregious insults that immediately halt any consideration.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Agree with all of above.
Gurdon


----------



## Massimiliano (Aug 19, 2011)

justonemore said:


> I myself prefer to buy items that are produced in the country of origin. There'd be no use trying out clothing styles from Italy, England, France, etc. if it's all coming from China anyways. With very few exceptions (such as a couple pairs of jeans made in Eastern Europe) my waredrobe is exclusively Italian company-Italian production. English Company-English production, etc. I enjoyed Eton shirts when they were made in Sweden. There was just something different to having a Swedish shirt. Now that they're made in Hungary, they don't really have anything to differentiate them from the thousands of other brands that outsource as well.
> 
> I do also prefer to support markets closer to home. Unemployed Brits, Italians, & French have a bigger impact on me than whatever they're doing in China.
> 
> I agree that the mentioned marketing ploys are no less than deceiving & if I ever found out that the companies I use participated in such practices I would take my business elsewhere. It's a bit Sad that governments cater to businesses & allow companies to do such. It doesn't seem to really promote that the society is being honest in protecting its citizens from fraud. I guess it's time to implement the AOC standards for clothing as well.


I might be biased as I own and manage a store of exclusively Made in Italy products that come directly from the producer (in Italy!), but must agree 100% with you.

For example, buying from Italy (products that have been entirely manufactured in Italy), doesn't mean only quality but also respect for human rights. Italy might not be the biggest economic power in the world, but workers have rights that are protected, unlike countries in Asia like China, India, Pakistan and so on, where they work not only often underage, but also in indecent conditions. And although it is difficult these days to escape the "made in China" label, keep this in mind when shopping clothing and everything else.

Cheers

Max

Modainstyle.com (proud AAAC sponsor for over 2 years!)


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

On the one hand, I own an American manufacturing plant and am biased to American products. On the other hand I export around the world.

I guess what it comes down to is the perception quality purchased for dollars expended more than country of origin.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

I think I tend to be more like the OP, especially with Brooks Brothers stuff. On eBay particularly I will not buy made in China, Italy, Mexico, etc. USA because it's probably Southwick.


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

To me, country of origin does not matter that much as I actually live in a Southeast Asia country where a lot of the stuff the OP mentioned is manufactured. 
However, it does irks me when vendors try to misled customers. Some of the fast fashion chains here try to push the idea that they sell "imported" clothes. You check the stuff and they're all made in Malaysia or Vietnam or one of the other neighbouring countries. Okay, fair enough. They're still imported. But if you go to Thailand or Malaysia, the stuff they sell there is made in Indonesia. Which means they just move the goods around the neighbouring countries just to maintain the image that they are "imported" goods. I just find it ridiculous.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Country of origin may inform my assessment of value, but it isn't in and of itself a criterion of paramount importance.


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

I avoid shoes made in Brazil, India and China. But if they're for the beach, boat, or essentially disposable I don't mind compromising. Other wise everything is American, English or Italian.

I had a hefty collection of chinos, polos, and sport shirts (mostly PRL made in the Orient) before I knew what good quality was (aka joining AAAC) so I'm going to wear them out before I start buying good quality stuff. It will probably be a few years, but I'm okay with it.

Most of my slacks, jackets, and suits are from the past year or two. I go for USA, English, or Italian made. Since I'm building the foundation I've been especially picky in this area.


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

I do my best to support American businesses, but I don't lose sleep over it. In some cases, it's impossible or impractical to support American businesses.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> I avoid shoes made in Brazil, India and China. But if they're for the beach, boat, or essentially disposable I don't mind compromising. Other wise everything is American, English or Italian.
> 
> I had a hefty collection of chinos, polos, and sport shirts (mostly PRL made in the Orient) before I knew what good quality was (aka joining AAAC) so I'm going to wear them out before I start buying good quality stuff. It will probably be a few years, but I'm okay with it.
> 
> Most of my slacks, jackets, and suits are from the past year or two. I go for USA, English, or Italian made. Since I'm building the foundation I've been especially picky in this area.


For casual dress wear, dress wear and formal wear (where compromising is a drag), you should also buy European made that is neither English nor Italian made as well as Japanese and Russian made in addition to buying American, English and Italian made, Dieu et les Dames. That is what I (and I'm sure plenty of other people) would do if I (and, again, I'm sure plenty of other people) had the money to do so. All of these places have the same exact quality of manufacture for casual dress wear, dress wear and formal wear (which, to say, is first rate).

Accessories, clothing and shoes for the beach, boat and other essentially disposable items, yes, compromising is okay (or, shall I say, not a drag, but certainly not good, either).


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

Since I'm a big guy with oddly small feet (6'1" 238lbs, 10D), I tend to stick with American-made and -styled shoes. Anything sleek makes me feel a little self-conscious.


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

Audi S5 TC said:


> For casual dress wear, dress wear and formal wear (where compromising is a drag), you should also buy European made that is neither English nor Italian made as well as Japanese and Russian made in addition to buying American, English and Italian made, Dieu et les Dames. That is what I (and I'm sure plenty of other people) would do if I (and, again, I'm sure plenty of other people) had the money to do so. All of these places have the same exact quality of manufacture for casual dress wear, dress wear and formal wear (which, to say, is first rate).
> 
> Accessories, clothing and shoes for the beach, boat and other essentially disposable items, yes, compromising is okay (or, shall I say, not a drag, but certainly not good, either).


I left Russia out of my BRIC purposely, because I don't have a single item in my closet made in Russia and I don't believe I've ever even seen anything. I do however have a few Japanese made silk PS's. And a couple of the nicer shirts in my closet are made in Hong Kong. But I really just don't see much made by other European countries.

I swear I'm not against purchasing goods made in other European countries not specifically mentioned, but I just don't see any of their merchandise on the shelves.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

I am with you, Haffman. I have caved in situations where there is no alternative. I'm typing this from an ipad, after all. But I do try to "vote with my dollar" as Milton Friedman would say. But the multitude of votes coming from the culture of disposability obviously outnumber mine.

Even when (or perhaps especially when) the good comes from a third world sweatshop, I do try to stretch things as far as they will go. Moore's Law doesn't apply to clothing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Takai (Jun 2, 2013)

Having worked for an American, family owned, factory for a number of years, and witnessing the quality of our workmanship vs the overseas competition's, I am definitely biased. If Im buying something to keep, and want to last, regardless of how much I am paying for it, I will buy from a company, and country known for that particular product. If it's disposable, I care less, but it also makes my price cap for the item significantly drop. (e.g. I was looking for a brick red sweater recently, and had my choice of either a Robert Graham made in china for 20$, or a JPress Shaggy Dog made in the UK for 60$)


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

I would buy all English and Italian-made clothing if I could afford to. Most of my dress and work clothing is, though most of my casual clothing isn't. I have some American-made clothing, but it's mostly older clothes. When thrifting I come across a lot of American-made clothing and the majority of it is indistinguishable from Chinese-made clothing. I really don't like American shoes. I've been moving toward Hong Kong-made custom shirts, and the shirts I've been getting are very well made.


----------



## nibo (Jan 17, 2014)

On clothing I've honestly never cared but shoes I do. 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

For me when I purchase something it is first and foremost price then country of manufacture. This is of course after deciding on fit. If it does not fit I do not buy it. Then I decide if I like the price then I look at country of manufacture. If I believe it to be a good enough deal to overlook country of manufacture I will purchase it. Just yesterday I visited a BB outlet store, and purchased a peach supima button down collar that I paid 20 bucks for, but was manufactured in Malaysia. I made the mistake of reading the label wrong, all though it is a 17x34 and on the tag it says "classic" It is actually the ESF which is much to slim fit for me. I am still kicking myself for that purchase.


----------



## StylinLa (Feb 15, 2009)

At this point, I have only locked I to those standards for shoes. AE and Alden for made is US. Other than those two, only English shoes if I can ever find a pair that fit me.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

With all the different countries involved in the manufacturing of a single pair of shoes, i.e tannery one place, lasts another, assembly somewhere else, how do you determine the true origin? Except for good old AE and Alden.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

momsdoc said:


> With all the different countries involved in the manufacturing of a single pair of shoes, i.e tannery one place, lasts another, assembly somewhere else, how do you determine the true origin? Except for good old AE and Alden.


The companies that aren't ashamed of their production process shouldn't have a problem explaining what is done where and why.


----------



## H&W (Aug 25, 2013)

I must say that this is a particularly passionate issue on my part! As a university student, I am forced to prioritise particular segments of my life as worthy of the expense, but I will admit that provenance does imbue me with a certain private pride. My shampoo, body wash, deoderant, shaving soap, aftershave, razor, badger brush, lip balm, toothbrush, and toothpaste are all Made in England. This is something reserved for myself; to proselytise about that passion in public would strike me as undignified. The profound feeling of Quality in a Johnstons jumper, Albert Thurston braces, or Cordings tweed trousers is reward enough.

Modern life and financial realities necessitate, of course, that my bin liners are made wherever such things are made. I reserve my discretion for the personal realm, ie seeking out British clothing, grooming items, shoes, and personal accessories. 

(I have nothing against products from other nations with traditions of manufacturing excellence, and am even slowly coming to terms with my new Derek Rose housecoat: Made in the Czech Republic. :crazy: )


----------



## romeo (Apr 1, 2013)

I personally don't believe if the country of manufacture does matter to me as long as the quality is decent and is within my range of spending I will go for it just as suggested above from senior and honorary members.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I guess that when I buy a shoe, I want to buy a shoe from a company that knows how to make the best shoes & specializes in the product versus someone that specializes in business and contracts out to a manufacturing plant. I'll take Tony Gaziano & Dean Girling any day over some corporation that starts Alistairs Finest English Shoes & then purchases a bunch of shoes out of some plant in China.


----------



## Enrique Shockwave (Jan 17, 2014)

When buying online, I insist on countries that I can trust to have good workmanship, like the USA, England, or Italy. However, if I can see in person that the quality matches up to my standards, then any country of origin is fine. Still prefer the aforementioned three, though.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Thanks for the replies. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that sees country of manufacture as important in and of itself.

There are reasons for hope. I have noticed Brooks Brothers are offering (slightly) more made in the USA produce and it was gratifying to see the embarrassment Ralph Lauren rightly felt for dressing the American Olympic team in Chinese manufactured clothes. Even Apple are returning some manufacturing to America. Meanwhile in this country initiatives like the Marks & Spencer 'Best of British' collection show that you can get home manufactured clothes at a reasonable price. I was happy to support this collection - and I haven't bought clothes from M&S in years...


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

I would buy American if the price and quality were comparable, but they seldom are--even if you can find something made in America, the fabric may be from God-knows-where. The question of not buying because of the economics in a third-world country is not that difficult for me. I have to assume that a low-wage job is better than no job at all and starvation is not a good option. The shirt is made and I can see pressuring the company to upgrade pay and working conditions for those who make next year's. I applaud supporting companies that do. But if my not buying that shirt (formaldehyde and all) leads to a factory being shuttered and a few thousands laid off, have I done a good thing?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

cdavant said:


> I would buy American if the price and quality were comparable, but they seldom are--even if you can find something made in America, the fabric may be from God-knows-where. The question of not buying because of the economics in a third-world country is not that difficult for me. I have to assume that a low-wage job is better than no job at all and starvation is not a good option. The shirt is made and I can see pressuring the company to upgrade pay and working conditions for those who make next year's. I applaud supporting companies that do. But if my not buying that shirt (formaldehyde and all) leads to a factory being shuttered and a few thousands laid off, have I done a good thing?


Indeed. Although I simply prefer to keep my collection to items coming from the country of company origin there are quite a few pros and cons concerning this issue.

By not patronizing these places we will have to deal with the possible closure of the plant and many people being put out of work. Some will argue that this is better than the labour conditions in China and India but I Wonder if the anyone included in the high percentages of unemployed youths 16-25 in Europe would agree. Is it not better to accept low wages and long work hours if it means that your family can eat and live somewhere? How many conservative republicans out of the U.S. actually suggest just that? "If you work 2 part time jobs at $3 an hour you can afford to live (just don't go on welfare)".

A lot of these "problems" have been highlighted by competing companies. Nike goes down from pressure for overseas production and is now the champion of proper work conditions (read that as nike doesn't want the competition to have the same advantage nike used to have).

If a 12 year old can work a few hours to help the family so what? How many farmer's kids in the States, England, etc. hack out 20-40 hours a week to help support the family farm (perhaps we should boycott foods not certified as being grown/raised by legal adults only?)? If sending your kid to work allows the family to eat and keep the house/tin shack/etc. then why the heck not? How many kids had paper routes? McDonalds used to hire in the Chicago area starting around 14 or 15. Don't many parents have their kids do tasks around the house for an allowance? Heck one of the things I miss about home ownership is being able to send the kids out to the yard to dig dandelions at a penny a piece. Perhaps if we send the kids off to work at an early age we can collect taxes from them versus actually having to shell out cash for their education. I'd certainly hate for the elite and their puppet politicians to be denied any type of pleasure over the comfort of some indian or chinese child.

While I wholeheartedly agree with education, I find it a bit odd that western countries that have poor educational systems (I'm looking at you U.S. of A.) demand that other's educational/social sytems become better. Hey. Put some of that energy into your own kids for goodness sakes. Instead of tossing missles at a few million a piece in order to placate the oïl industry perhaps you could offer a quality education at a reasonable price.

Speaking of labour issues. I believe the U.S. is one of the only (if not the only) countries that guarantees no time off for public holidays nor does it guarantee any length of mandatory vacation for it's workers.

These countries will continue to abuse the system as long as there is a call for cheap goods. What motivation does India have in decent work conditions and proper pay when they'll lose the overseas business that is driving their economy and end up outsourcing themselves to China?

What will the consumer think when those walmart t-shirts go up to $20 from $5? What will the politicians do when they have enough people that can no longer afford walmart t-shirts?

It's not such an easy answer to such topics. Should we feel obligated to sleep with a woman because the brothel might close and put a hundred or so people out of work? Are we taking advantage of other people's poverty? I suppose we are but other people take advantage of my relative poverty. That's business & capitalism.

Where do we start the boycott? It seems that the real answer would be "everywhere".The U.S. has killed numerous women and children in their drone campaigns. Perhaps all U.S. goods should be off limits? The U.K. is indeed a little lap dog for U.S. Policy and has allowed U.S. flights to come and go while doing the whole "extraordinary rendition" thing against international law. Italy? Racist football teams and sex addicted leaders. France? Too French and they kick out the poor gypseys (oh. and sex addicted leaders). . Germany? Well there was that whole Hitler thing 70 years ago. Sweden? Well according to the BBC one of the political parties doesn't agree with muslim immigration (although this seems no different from the U.K. & the U.S.).

The funny thing is that many of the people that are human rights campaigners for Asia would be against minimum wage laws in their own countries. What? A shoe maker who earns $10 an hour and is capable of affording the minimum standards of U.S. and Western living?? No. No. That goes against capitalism. Give him $6, If the guy can't afford to feed his family that's his problem. He should get different work. Just as long as he doesn't go on welfare and use a dime of my tax money. Nope... Those poor people in India.

Choice is yours. Do you want a $5 pair of walmart shoes that someone like the Kock brothers imported for $1 or will you pay a neighbor $50 for shoes including materials and labour?

Do anyone involved in the mainstream garment manufacturing process make decent money anywhere in the world? I would guess they are some of the lowest wage earners in any society & this is therefore reflected in their housing/other living conditions.

I guess a covered a few areas of the debate. What else is there for and against the purchase of foreign made goods? We can argue them all until the cows come home but most people will care more about putting food on their own table before worrying about conditions in a place they're not likely to ever visit. Outside of this forum Walmart is number one in the U.S. for a reason.

I sometimes Wonder how much cheaper made in china is.... Brooks Brothers outsources the manufacturing of their Duffle coat to China but it still costs the end consumer $800 to purchase the item. Add into this that they stopped using premium wool. Can anyone remind me why I am supposed to choose this American company over any other company offering a made in china non-premium material duffel coat? Other than brand name and brand reputation of course.

All that being said...If I could find an Indian or Chinese company that specialized in high quality shoes that were comparative to the European makes, I would happily try the product.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Aew we discussing quality of third world manufactured products, or the morality of labor/child abuse. The quality can be dictated by the company in charge of production, i.e. Apple, Costco etc. The question of labor practices is trickier. Is having a child work 60 hour weeks preferable to starving to death? Does forced labor of prisoners allow the prison to view them as valuable commodities and feed them and shelter them? 

First world children may indeed work, but the type of work they are allowed to perform, and the hours are limited. Yet here in the US the labor laws are different for farm children, who toil almost as many hours as city adults, legally. Where do raw materials for your plasma screen TV come from? Mostly Chinese mines, even if made in "enlightened countries like Japan or Korea. 


I'm not advocating slave labor, or child workhouses, I abhor them. But until a way is found to feed, house, and educate the poorest of people, these practices will continue. We in the developed world will continue to turn a blind eye as long as we can get cheap consumer goods. Those who claim they are concerned about quality,have no way of knowing how many tiny half starved hands were involved in some part of the production chain. And as for a concern over the well being of those poor unfortunate children, Ha. How many here would support a tax raise to feed, house, clothe, rehabilitate, educate the tens of millions of Americans living asubsistance life. Just watch any political debate, especially from the two radical extremes, MSNBC and Fox. 

Demand to buy quality,OK. But if your going on a humanitarian rant, you better check out every step in the supply chain first. Then put your money where your mouth is and buy quality products that can withstand the scrutiny of where all their parts, dyes, boxes, etc. come from. Then open your wallets to a reputable NGO charity, pull the voting lever for an honest polititian (good luck finding one) who really wants to help the disenfranchised. I would venture that in general this forum represents the top 1% of Americans disprportionatly, who else can afford these clothes? Now your social concience is bothering you? 

You have the answer to the worlds economic ills? Do something about it besides buying your clothes, TVs, cars etc. from compainies you think share your values, Make sure to do your research, you don't want to inadvertantly put bread on the table of some poor Bangladeshi orphan whose mother is still buried in the rubble of Rana Plaza. If you can accomplish this, there is a prize waiting for you in Oslo.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

momsdoc said:


> Aew we discussing quality of third world manufactured products, or the morality of labor/child abuse. The quality can be dictated by the company in charge of production, i.e. Apple, Costco etc. The question of labor practices is trickier. Is having a child work 60 hour weeks preferable to starving to death? Does forced labor of prisoners allow the prison to view them as valuable commodities and feed them and shelter them?
> 
> First world children may indeed work, but the type of work they are allowed to perform, and the hours are limited. Yet here in the US the labor laws are different for farm children, who toil almost as many hours as city adults, legally. Where do raw materials for your plasma screen TV come from? Mostly Chinese mines, even if made in "enlightened countries like Japan or Korea.
> 
> ...


Momsdoc, I love you my friend, but if you think any of the 1% are hanging out on this site I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. We may have a few millionaires here but millionaires are no where near the 1%. What do we have? A few Doctors & Lawyers? I'd guess there are very few doctors and lawers in the top 1% and that some of us here (not most)might reach upper middle-class to lower upper-class status and not really beyond. From what I remember in the states most of the middle-class could afford to have a hobby or two. I had a highschool Buddy whose father was an auto mechanic and had a firearm collection that cost more than my clothing collection. Another friend's parents had a pair of Harley Touring bikes. This in addition to having a house, cars, boats, etc. This was standard middle class surburbia, not New York glitz and Glamour. 
Sorry. Late edit......Of course I could be wrong. I suppose the Koch brothers could be discussing the advantages of Kiton versus Brioni, while Buffet is discussing a group MTM from EG on the shoe forum. Bill Gates probably wants to know about technological advances in the clothing industry and Carlos Slim is wondering what clothing best suits the portly man. I admit that being online all this it could be true, By golly, as far as I know you could actually be Carlos Slim while Armancio Ortega is writing under the name of Eagle.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

justonemore said:


> Momsdoc, I love you my friend, but if you think any of the 1% are hanging out on this site I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. We may have a few of millionaires but millionaires are no where near the 1%. What do we have? A few Doctors & Lawyers? I'd guess there are very few doctors and lawers in the top 1% and that some of us here (not most)might reach upper middle-class to lower upper-class status and not really beyond. From what I remember in the states most of the middle-class could afford to have a hobby or two. I had a highschool Buddy whose father was an auto mechanic and had a firearm collection that cost more than my clothing collection. Another friend's parents had a pair of Harley Touring bikes. This in addition to having a house, cars, boats, etc. This was standard middle class surburbia, not New York glitz and Glamour.


A bit of hyperbole, I was late getting up and rushed my response. But surely the member here do not reflect the economic demographics of the US and England. This isn't the K-Mart forum after all.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> I left Russia out of my BRIC purposely, because I don't have a single item in my closet made in Russia and I don't believe I've ever even seen anything. I do however have a few Japanese made silk PS's. And a couple of the nicer shirts in my closet are made in Hong Kong. But I really just don't see much made by other European countries.
> 
> I swear I'm not against purchasing goods made in other European countries not specifically mentioned, but I just don't see any of their merchandise on the shelves.


You have a point, Dieu et les Dames. In European countries other than England and Italy as well as Japan and Russia, the only casual dress wear, dress wear and formal wear worth buying is bespoke because non-bespoke (if they have it) ranges from a little bit less to a lot more expensive than bespoke. Not to mention, bespoke is far superior to non-bespoke in every way.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

I prefer to buy items made in the USA and will pay a premium for them. Otherwise, I am concerned with quality, not country of origin. I do not judge the social or economic circumstances of countries of which I am not a citizen, whose languages I do not speak and whose culture I do not understand. Attempts by those in the West to apply their practices or impose their values on the rest of the world do not have a good track record. My observation is that these attempts emerge from self-awarded moral superiority rather than from any deep understanding of the places they are trying to "improve."


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Audi S5 TC said:


> You have a point, Dieu et les Dames. In European countries other than England and Italy as well as Japan and Russia, the only casual dress wear, dress wear and formal wear worth buying is bespoke because non-bespoke (if they have it) ranges from a little bit less to a lot more expensive than bespoke. Not to mention, bespoke is far superior to non-bespoke in every way.


What? What other European countries are these? I know very few Dutch, German, Swiss, Belgian, etc. people that buy bespoke versus OTR. In addition, bespoke is no where near the same price as quality OTR merchandise. Last time I checked most European countries had a clothing industry. Not only this but we can easily import clothing from one European country to another. Italian & English clothes are going for about the same here as they are in the U.S. You're paying $1'500-2'000 for a Canali suit and so are we. I can purchase Hitl pants out of Germany. Eduord Dressler also out of Germany does a decent job as well. Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria & Hungary all offer respected names in shoemaking, heck I have 2 Swiss branded shoe stores right here in Lausanne. Switzerland offers top line underwear in Zimmerli but the majority of people here most likely don't buy 80chf underwear nor do they order it bespoke. We have Eton out of Sweden. Einhorn is German. Michaelis is Dutch. (G star raw is Dutch too). A 1 minute Google search gave me the names of 25 clothing manufacturers in Austria alone. Wikepedia links to 35 German "Fashion Designers" with 33 more listed for the Netherlands, 20 for Spain, 16 for Belgium and 6 in Switzerland. Does Paris as the fashion capital of the world ring a bell? I'm within a 2-3 hour train ride to 4 major European fashion hubs from my location alone (Paris, London, Milan, Berlin). It's even quicker by catching a flight. The European countries I've been to all seem to have the same hierarchy of stores as the states. Anything from the $5 pair of jeans at the discount store to $3'000 Zegna suits at the Bon Genie (high end department store) to he local specialty store carrying all the high end names you can think of (kiton, brioni, eton, burburry, kenzo, etc). I can get quality shirts out of many of these places and none of them are reaching the $350 pricetag that the bespoke shirt place just down the street is asking.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

I have not reviewed all posts in this thread (I will soon), but I can say this. At this point in my life, I refuse to buy anything that is not made in the UK, the USA, France, Canada (country of my birth and which has some amazing men's manufacturing) & Spain or Italy. I put Italy last because American stores are saturated with Italian made goods, to the dearth of anything else. Time for that to stop.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Who has any trouble finding an "honest politician?" Lots easier than "made in the USA." An "honest politician" is a politician that stays bought...


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

justonemore said:


> What? What other European countries are these? I know very few Dutch, German, Swiss, Belgian, etc. people that buy bespoke versus OTR. In addition, bespoke is no where near the same price as quality OTR merchandise. Last time I checked most European countries had a clothing industry. Not only this but we can easily import clothing from one European country to another. Italian & English clothes are going for about the same here as they are in the U.S. You're paying $1'500-2'000 for a Canali suit and so are we. I can purchase Hitl pants out of Germany. Eduord Dressler also out of Germany does a decent job as well. Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria & Hungary all offer respected names in shoemaking, heck I have 2 Swiss branded shoe stores right here in Lausanne. Switzerland offers top line underwear in Zimmerli but the majority of people here most likely don't buy 80chf underwear nor do they order it bespoke. We have Eton out of Sweden. Einhorn is German. Michaelis is Dutch. (G star raw is Dutch too). A 1 minute Google search gave me the names of 25 clothing manufacturers in Austria alone. Wikepedia links to 35 German "Fashion Designers" with 33 more listed for the Netherlands, 20 for Spain, 16 for Belgium and 6 in Switzerland. Does Paris as the fashion capital of the world ring a bell? I'm within a 2-3 hour train ride to 4 major European fashion hubs from my location alone (Paris, London, Milan, Berlin). It's even quicker by catching a flight. The European countries I've been to all seem to have the same hierarchy of stores as the states. Anything from the $5 pair of jeans at the discount store to $3'000 Zegna suits at the Bon Genie (high end department store) to he local specialty store carrying all the high end names you can think of (kiton, brioni, eton, burburry, kenzo, etc). I can get quality shirts out of many of these places and none of them are reaching the $350 pricetag that the bespoke shirt place just down the street is asking.


IME, most quality non-bespoke (RTW, MTO and MTM) merchandise ranges from a little less to a lot more expensive than bespoke merchandise (which, in every way, is far better than all quality non-bespoke merchandise).

For example:

In France, a bespoke suit can be had for as little as 2,500 Euros in Paris, as little as 1,500 Euros is Marseillie and as little as 1,000 Euros in Lyon. In Italy, a bespoke suit can be had for as little as 1,000 Euros in the southern part of the country, as little as 1,500 Euros in the center part of the country and as little as 2,000 Euros in the northern part of the country.

In England, a bespoke suit can be had for as little as 900 Pounds from Non-Savile Row tailors and as little as 1,800 Pounds from Savile Row tailors.

That makes most quality non-bespoke merchandise a gargantuan waste of money unless it goes on sale at a minimum of 20-40% (depending on the brand) off the retail price. Even then, brands such as Brioni and Kiton are still a waste of money.

I know nothing about Eton and Kenzo but Canali on sale is, in fact, a decent value as long as the discount is a minimum of 40% off the retail price. Otherwise, why bother?


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

Don't really care too much; however, it can often speak volumes about the item's quality. I have 3-4 pairs of US made shoes and equally as many china-made. I wear them all depending on how I'm feeling that day. My rotation usually keeps the cheaper shoes from falling apart _too_ quickly.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Audi S5 TC said:


> IME, most quality non-bespoke (RTW, MTO and MTM) merchandise ranges from a little less to a lot more expensive than bespoke merchandise (which, in every way, is far better than all quality non-bespoke merchandise).
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


ok. But a fully canvased Canali made of quality material & tailored at 1'500 is 1'000 less than what? basic bespoke in Paris? Are these fused bespoke suits? made out of material of equal or lesser quality? I can't say I've ever seen what you mention. Bespoke clothiers here are few & far between but OTR stores are numerous. If what you were saying was fact, then the opposite should be true. Again. I can get shirts from Canali, Zileri, Zegna, etc. for a fraction of the bespoke place. I also have a hard time believing that a bespoke suit would cost only 1-2'500 when shirts here start at 300 but if you give me some names and addresses I'd be more than happy to check them out.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

justonemore said:


> ok. But a fully canvased Canali made of quality material & tailored at 1'500 is 1'000 less than what? basic bespoke in Paris? Are these fused bespoke suits? made out of material of equal or lesser quality? I can't say I've ever seen what you mention. Bespoke clothiers here are few & far between but OTR stores are numerous. If what you were saying was fact, then the opposite should be true. Again. I can get shirts from Canali, Zileri, Zegna, etc. for a fraction of the bespoke place. I also have a hard time believing that a bespoke suit would cost only 1-2'500 when shirts here start at 300 but if you give me some names and addresses I'd be more than happy to check them out.


All English, French and Italian bespoke suits are fully canvassed. Also, all English, French and Italian bespoke suits and all other bespoke merchandise is far better than all non-bespoke suits and all other non-bespoke merchandise in every conceivable way (including material quality, quality of handwork and machine work and higher quantity of handwork).

You should google bespoke accessory makers, shirt makers, shoe makers and tailors in England, France and Italy to get the information you want.

Also, the startng prices I listed for bespoke suits in England, France and Italy are minimum starting prices.

The maximum starting price for a bespoke suit in France is 1,500 Euros in Lyon, 2,500 Euros in Marseillie and 7,500 Euros in Paris. The maximum starting price for a bespoke suit in Italy is 5,000 Euros (for Rubinacci; 3,000 Euros if you exclude Rubinacci) in the southern part of the country, 4,500 Euros in the center part of the country and 6,000 Euros in the Northern part of the country.

In England, the maximum starting price for a bespoke suit is 2,500 Pounds from a Non-Savile Row tailor and 5,000 Pounds from a Savile Row tailor.

All top bespoke merchandise prices are 2 to 4 times that of all starting bespoke merchandise prices.

The combined number of bespoke accessory, clothing and shoe makers is 50-100 in England, 50-100 in France and 400-1,200 in Italy.


----------



## Ephman (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't begrudge corporations who need to hit Wal-Mart price points from manufacturing in China or Sri Lanka or wherever.

What is irritating is when "big name" purveyors of very pricey, high unit margin merchandise elect to save a few bucks by sourcing in low-cost countries. I think we all understand that cut-and-sew operations are a huge percentage of the cost of a jacket that shows up for $20 at a mass discounter ... but a much more minor percentage of the costs of goods that sell for multiple hundreds at Brooks or Ralph Lauren, where most of the dollars go into the marketing and the retail operation itself. If I'm paying up, I expect that developed world/heritage manufacturing is part of what I'm paying for.

Even worse are the attempts to hide the obvious. At this point, we all know that "Designed in France" or "Designed in Italy" or "Designed in California" is a breathy way of saying "Made in China." Likewise, just about anything with "American" in the brand title (almost inevitably with bold stars and stripes all over the packaging) or "English" in the title (with Union Jacks on the labels and lining) is 99% more likely to hail from Bangladesh than from either the UK or USA, and far _more _likely to come from the Far East than an honestly understated garment. Gitman and Oxxford don't need to SHOUT. Likewise, any brand that features a British or Italian or American WASP-y sounding name that you can't quite place and a prominent place that you can (e.g., Alastair Chippenbottom - London or Enrico Mozzarella - Milano, or Charles Slackjaw - Nantucket) is obviously made in China or points East. Likewise, if you can't find the tag at all. Several of the so-called Italian big names are notorious for this ... the "Made in China" tag is buried somewhere deep in a difficult-to-reach interior accessory pocket ... not that you really need to look for it, since the huge "Designed in Italy" and "Fabric Made in Italy" labels slapped prominently in triplicate all over these garments give up the game to anyone with a clue. Barbour deserves a particular shout-out in this regard ... as their logos get louder and louder, a smaller and smaller proportion of their wares are actually made in South Shields, they seem to be putting all of their limited creative energies into burying the "Made in Lithuania" or "Made in Bulgaria" tags in ever more obscure places. Can't say I've seen the prices move much, though. Even when the label is where it should be, e.g., near the collar or on a bottom side seam of shirts marketed in the USA, the trend increasingly is toward a transparent, easily-detached label in two point font that makes a mockery of the country of origin label law.

In all these cases, it's clear that the manufacturers are embarrassed by the truth. And the one core principle of my sartorial philosophy is not to wear the garments of purveyors that obviously have no pride in what they sell. I could get behind a coat with a label that proudly read, "Yu Li Fung - Shanghai - Made in China." But if you can't own it, I won't own it.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

This is an epic first post. I agree from start to finish.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

Like Cole Haan which used to say where the shoe was made in a prominent location on the shoe. Now it's stated on the underneath of the tongue in a size font that takes a magnifying glass to read.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

I will say that I am sick and tired of anything made in China. I'm so sick of it that I'm happy when an item is made* anywhere* other then China.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Tempest said:


> This is an epic first post. I agree from start to finish.


I, too, admire the post and agree with it. The website of Pendleton, a formerly fine, traditional company, goes to ridiculous extremes to avoid stating clearly that its shirts are now "Made in Mexico." Much of their market is in the West and Southwest, where that can be a touchy issue, but trying to hide the truth is doomed both to fail and to offend the (now former) customers Pendleton is trying to fool.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

127.72 MHz said:


> I will say that I am sick and tired of anything made in China. I'm so sick of it that I'm happy when an item is made* anywhere* other then China.


I could not agree more.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

Let's not forget the Armani labeling, which used to (on the shirts) say, proudly, MADE IN ITALY.

Now, hidden underneath the size tag is another little tag that says, usually, MADE IN TUNISIA. I enjoyed my visit to Tunisia and Morocco in 2000, not enough to pay $400.00 for a shirt made there.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Haffman said:


> I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that sees country of manufacture as important in and of itself.


I do. With certain goods, such as those we tend to be concerned with on this forum, a lot can be lost in translation when delicate design and manufacturing operations are moved offshore - I believe these operations need to take place where there is a clear cultural understanding of the customer's needs, and ideally as close to the market as possible.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

It's important to the degree it influences the decision to make the best product possible vs. the most cost-effective product possible. There are certain places which are known to make "the best" of certain items, and when I see items from elsewhere, I know that typically that was a cost-saving measure. Some examples:

Leather goods - Italy or France
Suits - Italy, UK, USA
Denim - USA, Japan
Watches - Switzerland, Germany, Japan (Seiko)
Shoes - Italy, UK, USA
Ties - Italy, France
Electronics - Asia

However, just because one place is good at one thing doesn't mean it's good at everything. For example, I'd pretty much only buy a Swiss watch. However, I know that the Zegna suits made in Switzerland are made there to save costs.

If I'm paying a premium for materials alone, then it doesn't matter. If I'm paying a premium for materials and craftsmanship, then it does. In general, the nicest items will be produced in the country where the brand originated.


----------



## FalconLorenzo (Aug 14, 2013)

I certainly prefer some sort of the manufacturing process to happen in America. I've found that even if something is manufactured here that the company offsets cost by using imported fabric. Visa versa with Brooks brothers, my must iron OCBDs are made here of imported fabric and my non-iron ocbd is made abroad of American cotton.

i much prefer things made here but I'm not a super stickler for it, mainly because I'm a university student working an unpaid internship and, often times, I just cannot afford the luxury of a good peace of mind


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

justonemore said:


> Momsdoc, I love you my friend, but if you think any of the 1% are hanging out on this site I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. We may have a few millionaires here but millionaires are no where near the 1%. What do we have? A few Doctors & Lawyers? I'd guess there are very few doctors and lawers in the top 1% and that some of us here (not most)might reach upper middle-class to lower upper-class status and not really beyond. From what I remember in the states most of the middle-class could afford to have a hobby or two. I had a highschool Buddy whose father was an auto mechanic and had a firearm collection that cost more than my clothing collection. Another friend's parents had a pair of Harley Touring bikes. This in addition to having a house, cars, boats, etc. This was standard middle class surburbia, not New York glitz and Glamour.
> Sorry. Late edit......Of course I could be wrong. I suppose the Koch brothers could be discussing the advantages of Kiton versus Brioni, while Buffet is discussing a group MTM from EG on the shoe forum. Bill Gates probably wants to know about technological advances in the clothing industry and Carlos Slim is wondering what clothing best suits the portly man. I admit that being online all this it could be true, By golly, as far as I know you could actually be Carlos Slim while Armancio Ortega is writing under the name of Eagle.


I didn't read much past this post, so someone may have already pointed this out... I'm not sure what you think the 1% is, but specific to the more recent political rhetoric in the US(/Occupy Wall Street), the top 1% is households earning a minimum of around $300,000/year.


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

In the end, we vote with our purchase/dollars and the sellers are responsible for the quality of the goods.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Tempest said:


> This is an epic first post. I agree from start to finish.


Likewise. Ephman done the business, as they say in Blighty.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Tilton said:


> I didn't read much past this post, so someone may have already pointed this out... I'm not sure what you think the 1% is, but specific to the more recent political rhetoric in the US(/Occupy Wall Street), the top 1% is households earning a minimum of around $300,000/year.


Actually, the top 1% households currently earn a minimum of $450K/year in gross pay and $225K/year in net pay.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Tilton said:


> I didn't read much past this post, so someone may have already pointed this out... I'm not sure what you think the 1% is, but specific to the more recent political rhetoric in the US(/Occupy Wall Street), the top 1% is households earning a minimum of around $300,000/year.


Really? $300'000 sounds rather low to me. A couple consisting of 2 regular old doctors, lawyers or engineers would hit $300'000 and I don't normally think of these types of households as being among the wealthiest in the U.S. (certainly not globally). I was thinking more as to those that make several million a year... I mean there are plenty of business men specializing in all types of things such as technology,oïl, military weapon systems, alcohol, firearms, tobacco, aviation (airlines and manufacturing), farming, etc. Of course we can't forget bankers, politicians, wallstreeters, Hollywood, insurance, etc. etc. Perhaps I'm mistaken and thinking of the top .001


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Audi S5 TC said:


> Actually, the top 1% households currently earn a minimum of $450K/year in gross pay and $225K/year in net pay.


That may be nationally. Location matters. Here in NJ Christie believes 200K is rich and imposes an extra tax above the basic 8% income tax rate. Then there is 6.5% sales tax if you want to spend any money you have left over. Pretty pathetic when we have one of the highest costs of living and taxes in the country. Average property taxes on a middle class home and utilities are greater than the largest Social Security check. If you try to leave then Trenton adds an exit tax to the sale of your house. And this with a Republican Governor.

The only saving grace is that clothes are exempt from sales tax. We have a sartorially inclined legislature.


----------



## ce6596 (Jan 15, 2014)

Country of manufacture is very important to me. To me, the things I buy are an expression of my personal values. I prefer to buy products that are made in America because it is an assurance that the product has been made in a way that is transparent, humane, and which supports other people who share with me in the American dream.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

momsdoc said:


> That may be nationally. Location matters. Here in NJ Christie believes 200K is rich and imposes an extra tax above the basic 8% income tax rate. Then there is 6.5% sales tax if you want to spend any money you have left over. Pretty pathetic when we have one of the highest costs of living and taxes in the country. Average property taxes on a middle class home and utilities are greater than the largest Social Security check. If you try to leave then Trenton adds an exit tax to the sale of your house. And this with a Republican Governor.
> 
> The only saving grace is that clothes are exempt from sales tax. We have a sartorially inclined legislature.


Wow. I had no idea that was the definition as to the 1% nowadays. It seems almost like a conspiracy. The super rich place blame on the educated lower-upper class making 200'000 a year as being too rich and not paying their share, the politicians who are paid off by the super rich agree to push the issue and raise taxes on the lower-upper class which placates the middle class and the upper-upper class still enjoys their loopholes and taxcuts.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

@haffman, I'm in the same boat but I tend to look at the product I'm buying before weighing in on the pros and cons of buying foreign made goods.

For example, for higher priced goods I tend to only buy those items which are from their country of origin, like canada, the US or England. But, for lower priced goods like socks, shirts, etc., I have no preference other than these items be inexpensive. I also dislike the idea of companies off shoring their goods because of cheaper labor but when we're talking about mass produced items like t-shirts or underwear it makes sense. This is why I like companies like Alden because they employ union workers and pay them good wages. Why? Because the shoe craft is a lost art and they recognize this. To my knowledge AE is not union and if my memory serves me correctly they donated money to Scott Walkers campaign, a known union buster.

But I digress. People are free to spend their money as they choose but I'm personally selective about where my dollars go. If I were to boycott every company out there who made their product overseas I wouldn't own much


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I really dislike buying expensive items from sources like China. That's the case with a lot of "designer" items. For instance, imagine $500 for a parka, made in China. It might be really well made, but I imagine that the markup is GIGANTIC, whereas if it's sourced from the US, the EU, etc., I imagine that there's less markup and perhaps more of my money's going to the people who made the thing.

Moreover, when I can I prefer to buy US-made in order to support US jobs. I can't always afford to, but I try, and I'm conscious of the US-made content of my wardrobe. It's easy with shoes (AE, Rancourts), and underwear (Ribbed, Flint and Tinder), and sometimes suits (Brooks). Shirts are a problem. I can't afford US-made shirts, not in the numbers I require for a good shirt rotation.

My watches at this point are almost entirely Japanese. I wish I could afford a US-made RGM!


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Audi S5 TC said:


> Actually, the top 1% households currently earn a minimum of $450K/year in gross pay and $225K/year in net pay.


Yes, by the numbers, I think it is something like $445,000 for 2013, but I was referring more to the colloquial 1%, and they seemed to focus on $250,000 or $300,000, depending on who you're asking. Either way, though, neither sum is particularly extraordinary - a good living, but you're not buying your own island or jet at that price, which is how most of the non-politicians using the term imagine the 1%. Of course, that's ridiculous - 1 in every 100 Americans owning a yacht, island, jet, or all three. Ha.



justonemore said:


> Wow. I had no idea that was the definition as to the 1% nowadays. It seems almost like a conspiracy. The super rich place blame on the educated lower-upper class making 200'000 a year as being too rich and not paying their share, the politicians who are paid off by the super rich agree to push the issue and raise taxes on the lower-upper class which placates the middle class and the upper-upper class still enjoys their loopholes and taxcuts.




Yeah, since 2011/OWS, 1% has become a rhetorical device and is largely employed to rile the troops far lower in the income spectrum, who see $400,000 as lavishly rich. Folks who buy the 1% rhetoric also probably see The Cheesecake Factory as the epitome of lavish 1% hangouts. Another thing I'd point out is that, through the lens of Purchasing Power Parity, earning US$39,000/yr puts a household in the top 1% globally and earning US$161,000/yr puts you in the top 5% in the US.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Ephman's post spelled out the truth that I have never verbalized. The offensiveness is the dishonesty, the hoodwink. And it would be one thing it they proudly announced that better methods, or even lower costs, could be had by moving production. In fact, way back when, Lands' End boasted of their shirts being made in Hong Kong. Somewhere I recall seeing items tagged as being made in some specific province or section of China. 
But by and large it is this sneaky tail-between-the-legs switcheroo where they hope the buyer won't notice. I do, and I don't like the cost-cutting (as costs cut in labor tend to go hand-in-hand with material costs, quality construction, etc. dipping too) or the attempt to disguise it. You don't get one over on me like this often, and regardless, it loses me as a customer almost every time.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I try to avoid employing any form of ideology when purchasing consumer goods other than acquiring the best quality possible for my dollar, in styles that suit my aesthetic.

Purchasing "humanely" or "patriotically" opens many cans of worms that I don't care to see slithering around my desk.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Those making the political/economic arguments should realize that unions can be very problematic for business, particularly in trying to monopolize labor and create artificially high wages. In addition, those defending minimum wage ought to be aware that such artifices serve to increase unemployment, as well as put strain on business growth and survival. (Just curious - do any of you support minimum prices that can be charged by business?) Finally, rather than simply blame "greed", has anyone mentioned that the business environment in the U.S. has very high corporate taxes, onerous rules and regulations, and an artificially high cost for labor (see above)? Sounds like a recipe for outsourcing...

I'm not looking to pick a fight; simply want to point out that the argument is more complex than what some have inferred. There are two sides to this (maybe more?), and perhaps the Interchange is the best place to discuss this aspect of the thread...


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> Those making the political/economic arguments should realize that unions can be very problematic for business, particularly in trying to monopolize labor and create artificially high wages. In addition, those defending minimum wage ought to be aware that such artifices serve to increase unemployment, as well as put strain on business growth and survival. (Just curious - do any of you support minimum prices that can be charged by business?) Finally, rather than simply blame "greed", has anyone mentioned that the business environment in the U.S. has very high corporate taxes, onerous rules and regulations, and an artificially high cost for labor (see above)? Sounds like a recipe for outsourcing...
> 
> I'm not looking to pick a fight; simply want to point out that the argument is more complex than what some have inferred. There are two sides to this (maybe more?), and perhaps the Interchange is the best place to discuss this aspect of the thread...


It's those rules and regulations and artificially high cost of labor which make American made good attractive. And China gains is comparative advantage not only with policies that negatively affect it's own population, but also impose negative externalities on the rest of the world, including the US. Roughly 25% of the air pollution on the west coast is a direct result of Chinese manufacturing. If that isn't a case for tariffs on Chinese imports, I don't know what is.

And plenty of manufacturers are able to comply with labor and environmental regulations, pay union wages, treat their workers like human beings and still charge a reasonable price for their goods. Southwick and Jack Victor sell their goods at competitive prices. Hampden watches makes decent, attractive quartz watches at roughly the same price point as Timex. King Louie and Union Line sell quality goods at a price that, while higher than Wal Mart, is perfectly affordable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> I try to avoid employing any form of ideology when purchasing consumer goods other than acquiring the best quality possible for my dollar, in styles that suit my aesthetic.
> 
> Purchasing "humanely" or "patriotically" opens many cans of worms that I don't care to see slithering around my desk.


There are other philosophical components to this. At least some of us subscribe to the idea that, when a style of clothing is made in an area with a strong tradition of making such clothing, that the likelihood of said clothing being made by a master craftsman is substantially increased. For example, hand sewers have been making moccasins in Maine for nearly a century. Many of the folks who work at Rancourt have been making these sorts of shoes for decades and grew up in the trade. Even the ones who haven't have at least had the benefit of being trained by a hand sewer with decades of experience. I am willing to bet that they will make a better loafer than someone in A Chinese factory with high turnover.

Some of us also subscribe to the notion that a worker, who is treated with respect, will take more pride in their work than a disposable drone who is working 16 hour shifts. This translates to better quality, better attention to detail, etc.

Finally, there is an economic argument for buying brands where the majority of the price represents an investment in labor, rather than shipping, tariffs, bribes to the economic zone's minister of commerce, etc. it's not a guarantee, but when a larger component of the price accounts for manufacturing costs, there is a greater likelihood of quality manufacturing.

The last argument is, of course, also an argument in favor of buying manufacturer direct. I don't necessarily always oppose buying cheap goods from third world countries, but I firmly believe if you're buying cheaply made goods, you shouldn't pay a lot of money for them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

ce6596 said:


> Country of manufacture is very important to me. To me, the things I buy are an expression of my personal values. I prefer to buy products that are made in America because it is an assurance that the product has been made in a way that is transparent, humane, and which supports other people who share with me in the American dream.


BINGO. Everyone on this thread needs to hear my early 60's Fisher KX200 tubed amp, made in America. You can't get near sound like that today even with a 5 figure budget.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Those making the political/economic arguments should realize that unions can be very problematic for business, particularly in trying to monopolize labor and create artificially high wages. In addition, those defending minimum wage ought to be aware that such artifices serve to increase unemployment, as well as put strain on business growth and survival. (Just curious - do any of you support minimum prices that can be charged by business?) Finally, rather than simply blame "greed", has anyone mentioned that the business environment in the U.S. has very high corporate taxes, onerous rules and regulations, and an artificially high cost for labor (see above)? Sounds like a recipe for outsourcing...I'm not looking to pick a fight; simply want to point out that the argument is more complex than what some have inferred. There are two sides to this (maybe more?), and perhaps the Interchange is the best place to discuss this aspect of the thread...


While no great fan of government intervention, I do Wonder if it's not a bit too late to worry about such. In 2010 I believe there were over 200'000 new laws enacted in the U.S.

I was under the impression that government control of pricing & supply is already in place. I would point out farming as an example. In order to prevent saturation of the market of a particular crop, the government will give tax dollars to farmers not to grow that crop. This keeps the supply low and the price artificially high (minimum pricing). It also guarantees that each taxpayer contributes a minimum price for such free market interference whether they desire to use that item or not.

Government use of taxes also controls the consumption of many items & can set artifically high minimal pricing. a $10 tax on cigarettes means that the minimum price you will pay is $10, add $5 for the company and the government's desire to reduce smoking now means financial penalties for those that now take up the habit or those who became addicted when smoking was still heavily promoted in society. The lower demand for the Tobacco in turn affects the farmers & the communities in the surrounding areas that rely heavily on the industry. Flights are the same way. I often pay more in taxes than I do for the flight itself.

By setting a maximum price, one could argue that the government is setting the minimum prices as well. "You can only charge a maximum of $5 per pill" most likely means that they will be charging you the full $5 a pill. This will last until they spend enough money on lobbying to get the law changed (due to "High R&D costs", marketing, inflation, etc.) It'll go up to $8, then to $10, sooner or later it's $20. Whenever the patent expires the market gets flooded with generics and the price reverts back to $5 a pill. That's the way the system seems to work. If you have 150 million people that need a medication to be healthy and capable of participating in society, those people need to able to afford the medication without unduly injuring other family budgets. It must be a pretty sh**ty to have to make a choice between feeding your kids or buying a pill that will keep you alive. Wouldn't it save a whole lot of energy, effort, time and money if it were stated that life saving or enhancing médications should be available at a cost that doesn't have a major adverse affect on a indivual/family's Financial situation. If the drug companies aren't capable of regualting such themselves and the consumer can't protest through not purchasing/purchasing elsewhere, then the only real choice is for government intervention. Many governments do actually control the cost of drugs and healthcare to larger extents than the U.S. and it seems to have proven effective. Where do you put the priority? In the health of your populace or the supposed "free market"?

Oil and gold supply/price is controled by various governments through hoarding.

Governments also require some purchases. Have a car? I bet the government is telling you the minimum amount of insurance that you have to buy, and is therefore telling you that you have a minimum amount that you have to spend in order to drive a car (add gas taxes, plates, registration, possible import duties, control of foreign supplied parts, etc).

Here in Lausanne we have city issued garbage bags at $2.20 a piece. By doing so the governement has directly set a "minimum" price.

I wouldn't have a problem a problem with minimum quality standards = minimum pricing. If you told me we could prevent outsourcing of shoes to China, keep 1'000s of Americans working, and have a product made to x quality standards, with x quality materials, and it would that would cost $20 versus the $10 for the same thing from China, I would perhaps argue that it's better to make people pay the $20 for shoes versus having 1'000s of people that can't even afford the $10 chinese pair because they're out of work.

High corporate taxes? Wasn't there just a huge controvery over GE getting a tax refund versus paying anything into the system that made it extremly wealthy? If GE can afford the lawyers and accountants to exploit all the loopholes then I have to assume that it's a common practice and that low tax rates for corporations are not particularly rare. Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought that with the American economy as it is, many communities and states were offering all types of incentives for companies to come in. Pretty serious long term offers too. 20-30 years of no taxes. 0% loans. Cheap property. etc.

Compared to the older European zone (consisting of the wealthier Western countries), labor in the U.S. is quite cheap. Labor laws in Europe also tend to be much more stringent.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> People are free to spend their money as they choose but I'm personally selective about where my dollars go. If I were to boycott every company out there who made their product overseas I wouldn't own much


This is what I would like to do - boycott the companies who use sleight-of-hand to trade on a heritage while surruptitiously using second- or third-world production plants and labour laws, and pocketing the difference. However, I haven't yet had the courage to adopt this policy as I still buy from Brooks Brothers, Gieves and Hawkes, Ralph Lauren, Ede and Ravenscroft etc. who are I think are all guilty of this to some degree or other.

So for now I just content myself to try and buy all my clothing goods from UK, USA, Italy, Switzerland. Even underwear and socks. But it's not easy and it can be expensive and in my younger days it would have been beyond my reasonable means to do this.

There are a few brands that I have parted company with permanently because of their off-shoring of manufacturing - including Burberry, Sunspel, Grenson, Mulberry, T.Pink, Armani, Tumi.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Tiger said:


> Those making the political/economic arguments should realize that unions can be very problematic for business, particularly in trying to monopolize labor and create artificially high wages.
> 
> I'm not looking to pick a fight; simply want to point out that the argument is more complex than what some have inferred. There are two sides to this (maybe more?), and perhaps the Interchange is the best place to discuss this aspect of the thread...


Point taken but...I suppose it's like democracy - it's the worst form of government, except for all the other ones. We live in an imperfect world. I have less issues, although still some important reservations, about buying from countries with inadequate labour laws when I know clearly what I am doing. It's the sleight-of-hand of western companies trading as heritage labels while secretively peddling off-shored goods that bothers me most.

As for the Interchange, while the issues are complex, this topic is clearly about choices in fashionable clothing - as that is where the sleight-of-hand is particularly prominent.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> Some of us also subscribe to the notion that a worker, who is treated with respect, will take more pride in their work than a disposable drone who is working 16 hour shifts. This translates to better quality, better attention to detail, etc.
> 
> Finally, there is an economic argument for buying brands where the majority of the price represents an investment in labor, rather than shipping, tariffs, bribes to the economic zone's minister of commerce, etc. it's not a guarantee, but when a larger component of the price accounts for manufacturing costs, there is a greater likelihood of quality manufacturing.


Well said.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Could you guys cut out the talks about politics and economics? I came here to read about clothes.

I prefer clothes from certain countries mainly the U.S., UK and Italy. These countries are known to produce some of the finest garments in the world. We all know that England makes the best shoes, the finest shirts and the best bespoke suits. They make beautifully printed ties and Scottish wool products are very well respected. They have been excelling at making these things for a very long time.

Italians are known for their beautiful styles, fine fabrics and exquisite tailoring. The Italians make stylish shoes, outstanding suits and incredible silk and leather accessories.

As for the U.S., American products of all kinds have always been known for being the standard of quality for many years. American manufactures have earned a reputation of giving a great deal of attention to detail. Who could deny the reliable construction and timeless style of Hickey Freeman suits, Bill's Khakis, Allen Edmonds, Alden, Gitman Bros. shirts, Schott jackets and other well-regarded American brands?

If I was buying perfume or a silk scarf, I would look for something French. If I'm getting chocolates for a Special lady, I'll look for some Swiss ones. You may have to pay more for something from these countries, but that's largely due to quality and prestige rather than origin.

I don't know what garments or accessories China, India or Guatemala are renown for making. By the same token, I don't know how I'd feel about a shirt made in Germany or a suit made in Norway. So really, it has nothing to do with First World or Third World. It's all about quality and style.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

triklops55 said:


> So really, it has nothing to do with First World or Third World. It's all about quality and style.


Yet all the examples you cite are First World nations.... Also surely you do not think that making shoes and clothes is part of the English genetic makeup? If the work previously done by skilled craftsmen is instead sent over to generic manufacturing plants overseas then presumably the skills will be lost and the centre of excellence extinguished? England also used to be known for ceramics but it isn't anymore - 'our' porcelain is now made in Thailand and the workers in these industries have had to look elsewhere for employment.

Obviously it's fine to not wish to talk about economics, society etc. on a clothes forum and you can skip the posts which lack interest. But I don't think it would be correct to assert that these issues are not relevant to clothes even if they are not relevant to your clothing choices.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Frankly it seems increasingly difficult to cleanly separate politics and social realities from the production of, lo the endless litany of items we find it necessary to purchase. Considerations that guide or perhaps cloud my purchasing decisions include product quality, political and social realities of where and under what conditions the products were made, and lastly price....or perhaps price comes first because if I cannot afford the product version that is of the quality I desire and was produced under the conditions with which I can live and sold at a price I can afford, the item is summarily crossed off my purchasing list! The fact is I am concerned about the masses that work in Third World sweatshops, under unconscionable conditions and I am just as concerned over the damage so many of these locations are doing to this wonderfully forgiving planet we live on. Countries such as India and China have created and maintain some of the most catastrophically contaminated manufacturing environments known to the world community, so bad that such environmental pollution is now affecting living conditions many thousands of miles distant! If we do not become sensitive to such realities soon, we will find it necessary to wear respirators in combination with all that beloved finery we find it necessary to purchase!


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

peterc said:


> BINGO. Everyone on this thread needs to hear my early 60's Fisher KX200 tubed amp, made in America. You can't get near sound like that today even with a 5 figure budget.


Hells yeah. I have a fisher built in console that I inherited from my grandmother. It sounds phenomenal. Or rather, it used to sound phenomenal, but I really need to re-cap it. I'm not looking forward to dealing with the point to point spaghetti mess of wires inside.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

> Those making the political/economic arguments should realize that unions can be very problematic for business, particularly in trying to monopolize labor and create artificially high wages.


 I sit on the fence with unions only because I see the good and bad. The good being that union members make a livable wage for their labor, fight for worker's rights and workplace safety. The bad being that there seem to be no repurcussions for those who don't perform their jobs. I'm probably making generalizations but I can't help but think of the NFL season not too long ago when there were contract negotiations for the union referees. The NFL sent in a bunch of inexperienced refs who managed to botch so many calls as to completely change the outcome of the games, in a bad way. This is the NFL, a non-profit organization, that makes money hand over fist and they're complaining about paying their union refs a decent salary while NFL players earn millions?



> In addition, those defending minimum wage ought to be aware that such artifices serve to increase unemployment, as well as put strain on business growth and survival. (Just curious - do any of you support minimum prices that can be charged by business?)


 Is this some sort of conservative meme? Walmart employees earn minimum wage and they rely on social programs like food stamps to get by, so taxpayers end up footing the bill. So much for less government. If you raise the minimum wage you give employees spending power and cut down on unemployment. Sorry but paying wages is the cost of doing business. Unfortunately, businesses like Walmart would prefer workers become indentured servants while the Walton family continue to line their pockets. I'm not against success, I'm against stepping on the backs of your workers to achieve success. The CEO of Costco is one of the few business leaders who is doing it correctly - the average hourly wage of a Costco employee is around $17/hr if i'm not mistaken. Now compare that to a McDonald's or a Walmart worker who makes less than half that amount. Costco are doing just fine.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

gaseousclay said:


> I sit on the fence with unions only because I see the good and bad. The good being that union members make a livable wage for their labor, fight for worker's rights and workplace safety. The bad being that there seem to be no repurcussions for those who don't perform their jobs. I'm probably making generalizations but I can't help but think of the NFL season not too long ago when there were contract negotiations for the union referees. The NFL sent in a bunch of inexperienced refs who managed to botch so many calls as to completely change the outcome of the games, in a bad way. This is the NFL, a non-profit organization, that makes money hand over fist and they're complaining about paying their union refs a decent salary while NFL players earn millions?
> 
> Is this some sort of conservative meme? Walmart employees earn minimum wage and they rely on social programs like food stamps to get by, so taxpayers end up footing the bill. So much for less government. If you raise the minimum wage you give employees spending power and cut down on unemployment. Sorry but paying wages is the cost of doing business. Unfortunately, businesses like Walmart would prefer workers become indentured servants while the Walton family continue to line their pockets. I'm not against success, I'm against stepping on the backs of your workers to achieve success. The CEO of Costco is one of the few business leaders who is doing it correctly - the average hourly wage of a Costco employee is around $17/hr if i'm not mistaken. Now compare that to a McDonald's or a Walmart worker who makes less than half that amount. Costco are doing just fine.


It's an Austrian/Chicaco school meme that is often misunderstood. Milton Friedman popularized it years ago, but then again, Milton Friedman also spoke of it inconjunction with a negative income tax. And that's a discussion that I really will reserve for the interchange.

Costco are doing it right. The experience of shopping at Costco is mindblowingly different than the experience of shopping at a Sam's Club. Political/Economic/Ethical arguments aside, I would recommend that anyone who enjoys good customer service get themselves a membership to Costco.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Since the issue of Walmart treating employees so poorly was touched on, I thought this might be interesting to some: https://washingtonexaminer.com/surp...-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670

It certainly doesn't mean Walmart is a good employer, but it is very interesting given the recent rhetoric against ol' Wallyworld.


----------



## johwal (Apr 21, 2010)

Haffman represents my sentiments well: I harbor no ill will toward the peoples of China, Bulgaria etc..., but I do tend to devalue clothing emanating from countries such as these.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

There are a lot of good points made in this thread. However, at the end of the day, each of us is going to have decide what is important to each of us. For me, I think it is bad business for a country or a society to so substantially lose its manufacturing base. It is not, and has never been, a good road to travel.


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

peterc said:


> BINGO. Everyone on this thread needs to hear my early 60's Fisher KX200 tubed amp, made in America. You can't get near sound like that today even with a 5 figure budget.


Try a $250 Quin Pu tubed amp. Sold on Amazon, 16 watts RMS/channel, needs to burn in, but sounds great through a set of vintage air suspension speakers (mine are original large Advents). Oh, the amp is a Chinese made item.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Haffman said:


> Yet all the examples you cite are First World nations.... Also surely you do not think that making shoes and clothes is part of the English genetic makeup? If the work previously done by skilled craftsmen is instead sent over to generic manufacturing plants overseas then presumably the skills will be lost and the centre of excellence extinguished? England also used to be known for ceramics but it isn't anymore - 'our' porcelain is now made in Thailand and the workers in these industries have had to look elsewhere for employment.
> 
> Obviously it's fine to not wish to talk about economics, society etc. on a clothes forum and you can skip the posts which lack interest. But I don't think it would be correct to assert that these issues are not relevant to clothes even if they are not relevant to your clothing choices.


There are a lot of posts here where the main topic is politics, who one percenters are, and one even bashes unions. That's got nothing to do with clothes or quality. Sure, someone can say that fair wages and good worker conditions, etc. lead to higher costs or better quality. But that's where it should end.

I didn't say that making anything is part of anyone's genetic makeup. However, if a country is known for excelling at making something, and the top-level brands of these items are manufactured in these countries, then there is something to be said about that, don't you think? Everyone knows Edward Green makes some of the best shoes in the world. They are made in England. Savile Row is in England. Turnbull & Asser is in England. Brioni makes some of the best suits. They are made in Italy. Get it?

I've never known England made the finest porcelain. I thought that China and Japan made the best porcelain, since they've been doing it for centuries. I would also much rather a woven rug from Afganistan, Iran or Pakistan than one from Switzerland. Those aren't first-world countries.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

peterc said:


> BINGO. Everyone on this thread needs to hear my early 60's Fisher KX200 tubed amp, made in America. You can't get near sound like that today even with a 5 figure budget.


So you like listening to rock/jazz, then, and enjoy the rich sound you get from the even harmonics in the distorted output - as indeed many people do.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> If you raise the minimum wage you give employees spending power and cut down on unemployment. Sorry but paying wages is the cost of doing business.


Your first sentence is absolutely false, and utterly unsupportable. But if you insist that you're correct, why not raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour? or $50 per hour? Let me know about all of the "job creation" _that _will spur...

Paying wages _is_ a cost of doing business - and salaries are a price that a business must pay. This price should be determined by buyers and sellers (employers and employees), not government. Again, what other prices do you want government to determine a minimum price for - your shoes? Sport coats? Maybe a governmental ban on all price reductions on clothing?

Some people want to buy products/services at the lowest possible prices, but wish to deny businesses that same right...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> It's an Austrian/Chicaco school meme that is often misunderstood. Milton Friedman popularized it years ago, but then again, Milton Friedman also spoke of it inconjunction with a negative income tax. And that's a discussion that I really will reserve for the interchange.


It's pure classical/free market economics, not Friedman's monetarism or its offshoots. And yes, such classical concepts have been misunderstood, with this thread serving as poster child.

Again, the Interchange is the place for those who wish to persist in the political and economics discussion...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> And plenty of manufacturers are able to comply with labor and environmental regulations, pay union wages, treat their workers like human beings and still charge a reasonable price for their goods. Southwick and Jack Victor sell their goods at competitive prices.


The average American cannot and will not spend what Southwick charges for a suit or sport coat. If you are intimating that Southwick - quality aside, of course - is price competitive with JAB, Men's Wearhouse, et al., then I'm stunned.

Hell, many of the posters here wouldn't buy Southwick on sale, let alone at full price. But they'll brag about their latest thrift score, and then scold me about holding classically laissez-faire economic positions.


----------



## jc1305us (Jan 13, 2009)

Boy I thought I was the only lunatic who checked the labels for country of manufacture! Lol I religiously try to avoid Made in China (funny you can buy anything you anything you want made in China but can't buy a Cuban cigar!) anyway, if I can't get made in the USA or Europe, I at least try to get made in a democratic country. Failing that, I throw my hands up and resign myself to the fact that I tried!


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tilton said:


> Since the issue of Walmart treating employees so poorly was touched on, I thought this might be interesting to some: https://washingtonexaminer.com/surp...-more-coverage-than-obamacare/article/2541670
> 
> It certainly doesn't mean Walmart is a good employer, but it is very interesting given the recent rhetoric against ol' Wallyworld.


That article is somewhat disingenuous. "Obamacare" isn't a healthcare plan, it's a regulatory scheme that establishes minimums for coverage. The exchanges are administered primarily at the state level and plans vary from location to location. It's not a monolithic public option, as much as I wish it were.

Second, pointing out the existence of high deductible plans on the obamacare exchanges doesn't mean anything. Yes, there are plans with deductibles as high as $12k. Those are paired with flexible spending accounts and operate in a manner that most people wouldn't recognize as conventional health insurance. I work for the Federal Government, which has some of the best employee's benefits around, and those plans are available to me as well.

At any rate, it's good to see that years of negative publicity and a large regulatory scheme have finally forced Wal Mart to provide some form of basic health insurance for their employees. Costco employees still get paid significantly more, have other benefits (like paid Holidays), and are, in my experience, much more pleasant and helpful than Sam's Club employees.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> The average American cannot and will not spend what Southwick charges for a suit or sport coat. If you are intimating that Southwick - quality aside, of course - is price competitive with JAB, Men's Wearhouse, et al., then I'm stunned.
> 
> Hell, many of the posters here wouldn't buy Southwick on sale, let alone at full price. But they'll brag about their latest thrift score, and then scold me about holding classically laissez-faire economic positions.


Southwick suits run about $800, which is certainly competitive with Asian-made luxury brands.

Hardwick is price competitive with JAB and Men's Wearhouse. Fancy that.

And JV and S. Cohen both have lines that are reasonably priced, if slightly more expensive than JAB, but still available for about $300-$400 a suit. JV is even sold at some Men's Wearhouses.

So I don't see your point.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

triklops55 said:


> I've never known England made the finest porcelain. I thought that China and Japan made the best porcelain, since they've been doing it for centuries. I would also much rather a woven rug from Afganistan, Iran or Pakistan than one from Switzerland. Those aren't first-world countries.


 I think most of the folks here who consider country of origin out at least some stake in whether the country has a long tradition of producing that particular good. As I said before, I would rather buy something made in a factory filled with craftsmen who have been making that good for decades (or even centuries) and take some pride in their work, rather than a disposable drone working in a factory with high turnaround.

I make a big distinction between Madras fabric produced in India and suits produced in India, for example.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

L-feld said:


> That article is somewhat disingenuous. "Obamacare" isn't a healthcare plan, it's a regulatory scheme that establishes minimums for coverage. The exchanges are administered primarily at the state level and plans vary from location to location. It's not a monolithic public option, as much as I wish it were.
> 
> Second, pointing out the existence of high deductible plans on the obamacare exchanges doesn't mean anything. Yes, there are plans with deductibles as high as $12k. Those are paired with flexible spending accounts and operate in a manner that most people wouldn't recognize as conventional health insurance. I work for the Federal Government, which has some of the best employee's benefits around, and those plans are available to me as well.


Well, no, the article wasn't just pointing out high deductible plans on the exchanges, it was comparing the lowest-cost plans available to individuals shopping the exchanges (averages and in Chicago specifically) versus working at Walmart. Also, that receiving comparable packages from each means paying significantly more to buy off the exchange and not from Walmart. It also notes that most academic hospitals and "prestige" hospitals (Mayo, Cleveland are named) are not available to exchange shoppers. Worth noting, I thought, was the fact that employees and dependents can receive free heart and spinal surgery and knee and hip replacements free of charge at certain hospitals.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tilton said:


> Well, no, the article wasn't just pointing out high deductible plans on the exchanges, it was comparing the lowest-cost plans available to individuals shopping the exchanges (averages and in Chicago specifically) versus working at Walmart. Also, that receiving comparable packages from each means paying significantly more to buy off the exchange and not from Walmart. It also notes that most academic hospitals and "prestige" hospitals (Mayo, Cleveland are named) are not available to exchange shoppers. Worth noting, I thought, was the fact that employees and dependents can receive free heart and spinal surgery and knee and hip replacements free of charge at certain hospitals.


Right, but it's comparing apples to oranges. The prices on the exchange are unsubsidized and don't necessarily reflect various tax incentives and whatnot. And this is only Chicago, so who knows what it's like throughout the country.

At any rate, like I said, it's great to see that WalMart is going above the bare minimum that is now required by law. It took a lot of public outrage and regulation to get them there. If they took the same attitude with regards to wages, they might have costco-level customer service.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> Southwick suits run about $800, which is certainly competitive with Asian-made luxury brands...So I don't see your point.


Southwick suits on the O'Connell's website are priced between $1,000 and $1,200. Anyone paying that much for an Asian-made suit might not be making a wise purchase. However, there are plentiful foreign-made suits of good quality at far less than that price point...


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> Southwick suits on the O'Connell's website are priced between $1,000 and $1,200. Anyone paying that much for an Asian-made suit might not be making a wise purchase. However, there are plentiful foreign-made suits of good quality at far less than that price point...


Well, feel free to dispute that with folks buying Burberry or whatever suits.

Or you can buy a half canvassed Hardwick suit for $250. I'm pretty sure that's about the going rate for JAB Sig Gold.

Also, thank you for selectively editing my comment.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## FalconLorenzo (Aug 14, 2013)

This thread really escalated quickly.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Tiger said:


> Again, what other prices do you want government to determine a minimum price for - your shoes? Sport coats? Maybe a governmental ban on all price reductions on clothing?
> 
> Some people want to buy products/services at the lowest possible prices, but wish to deny businesses that same right...


Funny, I never hear anyone complaining that the government sets my prices. And reduces them year after year.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

L-feld said:


> Well, feel free to dispute that with folks buying Burberry or whatever suits.
> 
> Or you can buy a half canvassed Hardwick suit for $250. I'm pretty sure that's about the going rate for JAB Sig Gold.
> 
> ...


Actually, I've been informed that Burberry suits are made in Italy, so let's just use persona non grata Hugo Boss, whose suits are listed as "imported" and retail for $900.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

triklops55 said:


> There are a lot of posts here where the main topic is politics, who one percenters are, and one even bashes unions. That's got nothing to do with clothes or quality. Sure, someone can say that fair wages and good worker conditions, etc. lead to higher costs or better quality. But that's where it should end.
> 
> I didn't say that making anything is part of anyone's genetic makeup. However, if a country is known for excelling at making something, and the top-level brands of these items are manufactured in these countries, then there is something to be said about that, don't you think? Everyone knows Edward Green makes some of the best shoes in the world. They are made in England. Savile Row is in England. Turnbull & Asser is in England. Brioni makes some of the best suits. They are made in Italy. Get it?
> 
> I've never known England made the finest porcelain. I thought that China and Japan made the best porcelain, since they've been doing it for centuries. I would also much rather a woven rug from Afganistan, Iran or Pakistan than one from Switzerland. Those aren't first-world countries.


Fair enough. I don't really think we disagree that much since we both see country of manufacture as very important, if only for slightly different but related reasons.

Where we seem to differ is on the importance of socio-economics to this debate and how robust the originator/'best of class' nations can be to off-shoring by their own corporations. You are right about the resilience of Asian rugs. American denim and American computers (just thinking about these in terms of examples of 'originator/ best in class') don't seem to have been as resilient for some reason -- I would struggle to get either product proudly made in the USA these days, whereas in my youth the USA was the clear leader for both.

Porcelain -- as a matter of fact I would contend that the finest porcelain is made for centuries in Germany rather than Japan or the 'originator' China. I didn't in fact say that England made 'the finest' as this would be a matter of opinion, but it certainly had an international famous and thriving industry in porcelain which has now been disbanded and off-shored. Wedgewood was founded in 1759, Royal Doulton in 1815. These companies are just shells these days used to peddle mass produced Thai goods which anyone who cared about the product wouldn't touch with a barge pole. Thinking of Chinese porcelain, I wonder to what extent the craftsman of these goods have been tainted by the ubiquity of the 'made in China' label --- these days, if you wanted to buy some fine new porcelain, would you really go to China?


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

As I feel I have done rather a lot of unintentional China-bashing in my posts, I would like to make an additional point in support of our Chinese friends. 

The salvation of the UK, Italian and American clothing industry may ironically lie with the Chinese consumer. I am given to understand that the Chinese middle-class consumer has become (or is becoming) more discriminating that his Western counterpart, in that he is not willing to accept Gieves & Hawkes suits that are not made in England, Church's shoes that are not made in Northampton and so on. The Chinese consumer has become particularly sensitive to the sleight-of-hand of European prestige labels being used to peddle home-made Chinese goods. The traditional homelands of these goods have a status and quality attached to them which the Chinese consumer now demands. Although this has admittedly made my Scotch more expensive, it has also revived the moribund cloth/textiles industry in my homeland and given UK clothing manufacturers a new lease of life. Perhaps one day Burberry will regret its decision to transfer its rainwear production expertise to Turkey ?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> Well, feel free to dispute that with folks buying Burberry or whatever suits...Also, thank you for selectively editing my comment. 2


Would _*never*_ intentionally do so; I apologize if you think that anything you wrote was misrepresented in any way. I certainly know how _that_ feels - it happened to me repeatedly during a political and economics debate on the Interchange a few months ago. You might remember, as you were a part of the political discussion...

In any event, I was simply pointing out that Southwick clothing is very expensive relative to most clothing choices. If your point is that it is possible to be competitive without outsourcing, you may very well be correct. It would require a lot more "hands on" research by me to know if that is so...


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Haffman said:


> As I feel I have done rather a lot of unintentional China-bashing in my posts, I would like to make an additional point in support of our Chinese friends.
> 
> The salvation of the UK, Italian and American clothing industry may ironically lie with the Chinese consumer. I am given to understand that the Chinese middle-class consumer has become (or is becoming) more discriminating that his Western counterpart, in that he is not willing to accept Gieves & Hawkes suits that are not made in England, Church's shoes that are not made in Northampton and so on. The Chinese consumer has become particularly sensitive to the sleight-of-hand of European prestige labels being used to peddle home-made Chinese goods. The traditional homelands of these goods have a status and quality attached to them which the Chinese consumer now demands. Although this has admittedly made my Scotch more expensive, it has also revived the moribund cloth/textiles industry in my homeland and given UK clothing manufacturers a new lease of life. Perhaps one day Burberry will regret its decision to transfer its rainwear production expertise to Turkey ?


Not the case at all. TheChinese consumer is far from sophisticated and solely deals on the brand. If they want that brand they buy it. It's funny seeing them in Hong Kong. You can always tell a person from mainland china by the lack of any social grace and how poorly they are dressed.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Would _*never*_ intentionally do so; I apologize if you think that anything you wrote was misrepresented in any way. I certainly know how _that_ feels - it happened to me repeatedly during a political and economics debate on the Interchange a few months ago. You might remember, as you were a part of the political discussion...
> 
> In any event, I was simply pointing out that Southwick clothing is very expensive relative to most clothing choices. If your point is that it is possible to be competitive without outsourcing, you may very well be correct. It would require a lot more "hands on" research by me to know if that is so...


Southwick is not really that expensive. Most quality clothes aren't cheap. A good OCBD is well over 100 these days. Most people could buy it, they just don't want to invest in quality. They relentlessly chase the favored and comfortable norm when they could invest for the long term.

The thrifter comment was spot on. The Trad had a hilarious comment on thrifted clothing not too long ago...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Fatman (May 7, 2013)

Haffman said:


> I know we have touched on this subject before, but I am curious to gauge the range of feeling on the forum about how important the country of manufacture is in your decision about whether or not to buy something.
> 
> I ask because it recently occurred to me that, for me, it has probably become _the most important criterion_ and I think that's probably irrational!
> 
> ...


A great thread!

We must remember something about deception:

The one who deceives knows he has a *need* to be deceptive. This tips his hand. 
Sales has a need to persuade, and the more persuasion needed, the more discriminating the buyer must be. But it is in the "slight of hand" mentioned about country of origin, there is, presupposed, the need to use slight of hand that we should focus upon.

Like others, I am concerned about labor conditions, quality control issues, and I care about intellectual theft. Martin Guitars are quality instruments, made in the USA, but Martin Guitars was impotent in getting any satisfaction from either our government or the government in China on the manufacturing and sale of imitation Martins. Whereas they may age certain woods for 15 years, the imitation is fresh cut, and uses the Martin logo, and advertises with impunity. It is sold openly, with the Martin logo across the store fronts and factories.

This is not how a "trading partner" should behave.

As to quality assurance, even Canada Goose warns that what is stuffed inside the china-made knockoffs could prove hazardous to one's health. As the local managers are under fierce competition to produce the absolute cheapest product, I use my imagination to guess what might be put into certain products.

A purchase of Church's shoes, from England, is a life long investment, while stopping by Payless is like the old disposable cameras purchases.

To the original poster: you've provided us with great discussion; thank you.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> Would _*never*_ intentionally do so; I apologize if you think that anything you wrote was misrepresented in any way. I certainly know how _that_ feels - it happened to me repeatedly during a political and economics debate on the Interchange a few months ago. You might remember, as you were a part of the political discussion...
> 
> In any event, I was simply pointing out that Southwick clothing is very expensive relative to most clothing choices. If your point is that it is possible to be competitive without outsourcing, you may very well be correct. It would require a lot more "hands on" research by me to know if that is so...


Are you're referring to the thread where you were arguing that judicial review by the courts is unconstitutional?

At any rate. of course Southwick is very expensive relative to most clothing choices. Southwick produces high quality luxury items. Comparing them to JAB gets us nowhere. You have to compare apples to apples.

And I don't know what kind of hands on research you need to do. Presumably you are on this forum because, to some extent, you value the opinions of forum members. I think (and please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong) that a good number of members here have experience with Hardwick and will testify that their suits are of at least equal quality to (and I would argue better than) JAB Sig Gold. And they can routinely be purchased for roughly $250, which, to my experience, is the average price for a JAB Sig Gold or a Ralph Lauren Green label.

My ultimate point is, as I've stated a number of times above, I feel I get a better deal on my suits when the majority of the $250 I'm shelling out for a suit goes into manufacturing costs, rather than shipping, tariffs, aggressive marketing, greasing provincial party leaders, etc. This, in my experience, produces better quality and sufficiently justifies the purchase of good made in North America versus those made in Asia.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

L-feld said:


> Are you're referring to the thread where you were arguing that judicial review by the courts is unconstitutional?
> 
> At any rate. of course Southwick is very expensive relative to most clothing choices. Southwick produces high quality luxury items. Comparing them to JAB gets us nowhere. You have to compare apples to apples.
> 
> ...


Also, I would argue that a Hardwick suit is probably the bare minimum for what I would consider a servicable suit. If one can't afford that, I do agree that thrifting is a better options.

Even Jeffrey Tucker agrees with me.

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker38.html

"_Suits are trickier. You can get them at thrift stores, but they are harder to come by. You can also see Ebay, which has an amazing selection of suits that you can buy for $20 and up. If this doesn't work, you have to go retail, and here you have to spend $450 and up for a decent suit. The worst thing to do is go to a department store and buy a $200 suit from the likes of JC Penny. These look horrible and they will fall apart. If you can't go thrift or Ebay, prepare to spend."

"On shoes, there are only two brands that qualify as quality shoes: and . All others are junk. Good shoes are expensive. Prepare to pay."_


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

The tortuous arguments being lobbed back and forth here underscore my earlier comment: I don't attach any consideration to country of origin of my purchased goods beyond the simple questions of quality and value. If those are there, I care not whether the stuff has been made in the USA, England, Spain, China, Vietnam or Cuba. 

I don't criticize anyone else for making whatever value judgments they care to make in their purchases, from animal welfare to manufacturers' treatment of their workers to the military aspirations of the nations from where the goods originate. Just don't ask me to share in those considerations, as I consider international trade to be one of the greatest forces we have for good and for universal betterment of the human condition.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> The tortuous arguments being lobbed back and forth here underscore my earlier comment: I don't attach any consideration to country of origin of my purchased goods beyond the simple questions of quality and value. If those are there, I care not whether the stuff has been made in the USA, England, Spain, China, Vietnam or Cuba.
> 
> I don't criticize anyone else for making whatever value judgments they care to make in their purchases, from animal welfare to manufacturers' treatment of their workers to the military aspirations of the nations from where the goods originate. Just don't ask me to share in those considerations, as I consider international trade to be one of the greatest forces we have for good and for universal betterment of the human condition.


Indeed, we simply must be less parochial.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

I once read that Brooks Brothers makes no profit on their American-made ocbd. After visiting the BB outlet in Garland, NC, I shake my head in disgust. Garland Shirt Company has no union, so labor costs are low (the nearest city, Lumberton/Pembroke, is one of the poorest regions in the country). If the plant lost Brooks Brothers, they would shutter their doors; I can't imagine the town surviving.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> Are you're referring to the thread where you were arguing that judicial review by the courts is unconstitutional?...And I don't know what kind of hands on research you need to do...


Yes, L-feld, when the federal government exercises a power that is not granted to it, we call it "unconstitutional." In addition, those of us who prefer liberty to autocracy become concerned when the federal government gets to determine its own powers...

Re: research - I prefer to comment on clothing that I've purchased and worn, and many of the brands you've mentioned (JV, JAB, MW, RL) don't meet that criterion. Forum posters have mixed views of many products; there certainly is not anything remotely approaching universality of opinion, including on the brands you mentioned.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> Yes, L-feld, when the federal government exercises a power that is not granted to it, we call it "unconstitutional." In addition, those of us who prefer liberty to autocracy become concerned when the federal government gets to determine its own powers...
> 
> Re: research - I prefer to comment on clothing that I've purchased and worn, and many of the brands you've mentioned (JV, JAB, MW, RL) don't meet that criterion. Forum posters have mixed views of many products; there certainly is not anything remotely approaching universality of opinion, including on the brands you mentioned.


So tell us about these high quality Asian-made brands that we should investigate. I've given my examples, now you give yours. Who is making a quality, full canvas, traditionally styled suit for less than $800? Who is making a quality, half canvas, traditionally styled suit for less than $250? (I'm not asking rhetorically, please give examples).


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

L-feld said:


> So tell us about these high quality Asian-made brands that we should investigate. I've given my examples, now you give yours. Who is making a quality, full canvas, traditionally styled suit for less than $800? Who is making a quality, half canvas, traditionally styled suit for less than $250? (I'm not asking rhetorically, please give examples).


It looks to me as though one can purchase a half-canvas suit at Joe Bank for less than $200, at least occasionally. I know from personal experience that one could recently obtain a full-canvas Hickey Freeman suit at LS Menswear in Manhattan for (a very small bit) less than $800, before tax. Your modifying adjective "quality" is not really objective, so I'll leave it to others to judge compliance.

I don't know where the Bank suits are made, but the Hickey was ostensibly a USA product.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> So tell us about these high quality Asian-made brands that we should investigate. I've given my examples, now you give yours. Who is making a quality, full canvas, traditionally styled suit for less than $800? Who is making a quality, half canvas, traditionally styled suit for less than $250? (I'm not asking rhetorically, please give examples).


Did you misread my post? What high quality Asian-made brands are you talking about? Please stop putting words in my mouth! (And you criticized me for "selective quoting"?)

Seems like you're arguing simply to be argumentative...


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

StephenRG said:


> So you like listening to rock/jazz, then, and enjoy the rich sound you get from the even harmonics in the distorted output - as indeed many people do.


I am truly not sure of what you are saying, but yes, I enjoy the sound of my Fisher and so does everyone else who has heard it. It is a magnificent piece of equipment.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> It looks to me as though one can purchase a half-canvas suit at Joe Bank for less than $200, at least occasionally. I know from personal experience that one could recently obtain a full-canvas Hickey Freeman suit at LS Menswear in Manhattan for (a very small bit) less than $800, before tax. Your modifying adjective "quality" is not really objective, so I'll leave it to others to judge compliance.
> 
> I don't know where the Bank suits are made, but the Hickey was ostensibly a USA product.


I'm perfectly happy to use HF as my baseline instead of Southwick...

Isn't there a sort of agreed-upon basic minimum for quality around these parts? 100% wool fabric, study stitching, two piece waistband, extra fabric in pant seat/thighs and rear/side seams of jacket to allow for minor alterations, unfinished pant legs, bemberg (or similar rayon) lining, felt under collar, availability of a range of sizes and lengths, etc.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

L-feld said:


> I'm perfectly happy to use HF as my baseline instead of Southwick...
> 
> Isn't there a sort of agreed-upon basic minimum for quality around these parts? 100% wool fabric, study stitching, two piece waistband, extra fabric in pant seat/thighs and rear/side seams of jacket to allow for minor alterations, unfinished pant legs, bemberg (or similar rayon) lining, felt under collar, availability of a range of sizes and lengths, etc.


Using those criteria, I think the Bank "Signature Gold" suit would probably qualify. For all I know, the full-canvas Bank Signature Platinum suits are a good deal also (they, too, are I believe occasionally available under $800), but I've never known anyone who has purchased one. Nor do I know where the Platinum line is manufactured.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> Southwick suits on the O'Connell's website are priced between $1,000 and $1,200. Anyone paying that much for an Asian-made suit might not be making a wise purchase. However, there are plentiful foreign-made suits of good quality at far less than that price point...


Okay, sorry. I mis-spoke. When I said "Asian" I should have said "foreign-made" where obviously "foreign-made" means not North American, European or Japanese.

So... examples, please. What is your preferred brand of suit?


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Are all of you COO snobs the same way with produce? I'm not trying to stir the pot, but having previously worked in social work for migrants and trafficking victims, I can tell you that the working conditions for harvesters are typically much worse and much more prone to human trafficking than those in the garment industry. The most ethical thing to do is join a CSA because even produce from the US is often tainted by incredibly low wages, trafficked workers, and exceedingly poor working conditions. It seems hypocritical to insist on not buying shirts made in Bangladesh on principle while eating a banana from Honduras and drinking a cup of coffee with sugar, both from the DR (which is notorious in my world for forced labor of Haitians) every morning.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

MaxBuck said:


> I care not whether the stuff has been made in the USA, England, Spain, China, Vietnam or Cuba.I don't criticize anyone else for making whatever value judgments they care to make in their purchases, from animal welfare to manufacturers' treatment of their workers to the military aspirations of the nations from where the goods originate. Just don't ask me to share in those considerations, as I consider international trade to be one of the greatest forces we have for good and for universal betterment of the human condition.





Shaver said:


> Indeed, we simply must be less parochial.


A trade deficit of $34252m for the USA and $3238m for the UK recorded in November 2013 suggests that concerns for the future of international trade and for 'parochialism' are misplaced! Soon the UK will have the worst relative balance of trade deficit in the industrial world, so we must be the least parochial country on Earth...


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Tilton said:


> *Are all of you COO snobs the same way with produce?* I'm not trying to stir the pot, but having previously worked in social work for migrants and trafficking victims, I can tell you that the working conditions for harvesters are typically much worse and much more prone to human trafficking than those in the garment industry. The most ethical thing to do is join a CSA because even produce from the US is often tainted by incredibly low wages, trafficked workers, and exceedingly poor working conditions. It seems hypocritical to insist on not buying shirts made in Bangladesh on principle while eating a banana from Honduras and drinking a cup of coffee with sugar, both from the DR (which is notorious in my world for forced labor of Haitians) every morning.


The short answer is yes. I'm trying to apply the same principles to everything I purchase and I agree that to do otherwise wouldn't make much sense.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Fatman said:


> A great thread!
> 
> To the original poster: you've provided us with great discussion; thank you.


Thank you Fatman- and I appreciate all the great replies. It's great to have a forum like this to freely discuss ideas and to have a 'reality check' on possibly wacky notions !


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

MaxBuck said:


> Using those criteria, I think the Bank "Signature Gold" suit would probably qualify. For all I know, the full-canvas Bank Signature Platinum suits are a good deal also (they, too, are I believe occasionally available under $800), but I've never known anyone who has purchased one. Nor do I know where the Platinum line is manufactured.


At the moment, Sig Gold's seem to be retailing at "75% off" for around $350. I'm going to assume that is the standard price, but then again, you need a degree in economics to understand the standard price of anything at JAB. One of the Hardwick premium fabric suits (not the normal solid color 100% wool) is $272 after the "15%" off, which is the standard price.

That being said, there are a couple of JAB signatures (which don't appear to be half canvas, but might otherwise fulfill the criteria of being servicable) on clearance for $150. I suppose that is a fair deal if one of those suits fits you and fills your needs. But I would still imagine a Hardwick suit is a better investment.

The Platinum line appears to be made in Italy.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tilton said:


> Are all of you COO snobs the same way with produce? I'm not trying to stir the pot, but having previously worked in social work for migrants and trafficking victims, I can tell you that the working conditions for harvesters are typically much worse and much more prone to human trafficking than those in the garment industry. The most ethical thing to do is join a CSA because even produce from the US is often tainted by incredibly low wages, trafficked workers, and exceedingly poor working conditions. It seems hypocritical to insist on not buying shirts made in Bangladesh on principle while eating a banana from Honduras and drinking a cup of coffee with sugar, both from the DR (which is notorious in my world for forced labor of Haitians) every morning.


Yes, but also for reasons of freshness. I try to buy directly from local farms. I also do buy some meat from Costco, but tend to stick to USDA certified products, which, more than likely are domestically produced, as the USDA only certifies about 2% of imported foods. It's not failsafe, but, like I said before, there are occasional compromises that have to be made in order to avoid being a complete luddite.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> Okay, sorry. I mis-spoke. When I said "Asian" I should have said "foreign-made" where obviously "foreign-made" means not North American, European or Japanese. So... examples, please. What is your preferred brand of suit?


I own Samuelsohn (Canada), Southwick (USA), and a couple of Lands' End (inexpensive, Mexican or Indian made, and pretty darn good!).

What point are you tying to make? I really have no idea what you're talking about, but the bulldog has the bone in his mouth, and won't let go. Maybe you should simply re-read whatever post it was that has made you so obnoxiously argumentative?

I'm perplexed...


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> Finally, rather than simply blame "greed", has anyone mentioned that the business environment in the U.S. has very high corporate taxes, onerous rules and regulations, and an artificially high cost for labor (see above)? Sounds like a recipe for outsourcing...





L-feld said:


> And plenty of manufacturers are able to comply with labor and environmental regulations, pay union wages, treat their workers like human beings and still charge a reasonable price for their goods. Southwick and Jack Victor sell their goods at competitive prices. Hampden watches makes decent, attractive quartz watches at roughly the same price point as Timex. King Louie and Union Line sell quality goods at a price that, while higher than Wal Mart, is perfectly affordable.


Just to reiterate.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> Just to reiterate.


I stand by my posts, and nothing you've written - despite the gyrations and faulty comparisons - changes that. The cost to manufacture domestically is far greater than to do so overseas; otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

_https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-insourcing-boom/309166/_

_"Harry Moser, an MIT-trained engineer, spent decades running a business that made machine tools. After retiring, he started an organization called the Reshoring Initiative in 2010, to help companies assess where to make their products. "The way we see it," says Moser, "about 60 percent of the companies that offshored manufacturing didn't really do the math. They looked only at the labor rate-they didn't look at the hidden costs." Moser believes that about a quarter of what's made outside the U.S. could be more profitably made at home."There was a herd mentality to the offshoring," says John Shook, a manufacturing expert and the CEO of the Lean Enterprise Institute, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "And there was some bullshit. But it was also the inability to see the total costs-the engineers in the U.S. and factory managers in China who can't talk to each other; the management hours and money flying to Asia to find out why the quality they wanted wasn't being delivered. The cost of all that is huge."

_


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

And perhaps ironically:

https://www.economist.com/node/21549956

_"GE did open a new plant in Vietnam to make wind turbines, but Mr Rice insists that talent was the lure, not cheap labour. Thanks to a big government shipyard nearby, his plant was able to hire world-class welders. Except in commodity businesses, "competence will always trump cost," he says."_


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> _https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-insourcing-boom/309166/_
> 
> _"Harry Moser, an MIT-trained engineer, spent decades running a business that made machine tools. After retiring, he started an organization called the Reshoring Initiative in 2010, to help companies assess where to make their products. "The way we see it," says Moser, "about 60 percent of the companies that offshored manufacturing didn't really do the math. They looked only at the labor rate-they didn't look at the hidden costs." *Moser believes that about a quarter of what's made outside the U.S. could be more profitably made at home*._


Superb post, L-feld. Of course, it also means that about 75% of what is offshored is done so more profitably than domestically.

Look, I want to buy domestically, too. Sometimes it isn't possible, while other times the quality/cost ratio simply isn't worth it. Again, there's many reasons why so many legendary American companies have outsourced. Some have focused on "greed", while I mentioned more pragmatic reasons, just to point out that the issue is far more complex than ostensible executive character flaws.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...-apparel-manufacturing-returns-to-us/2454075/

_"Small labels, though, are already seeing big benefits. A few years ago, School House, which designs and sells high-end university-licensed clothing, began routinely receiving shipments from a Sri Lanka factory one to three months late, says Rachel Weeks, CEO of the Durham, N.C.-based company. Since School House placed small orders, "We were getting put on the back burner," she says. "That kind of thing can put you out of business."__In 2011, Weeks moved all manufacturing to U.S. contractors. Besides eliminating late deliveries, she says she's saving $5,000 a month on staff to oversee production in Sri Lanka. And when neon T-shirts were suddenly in vogue last February, Weeks says she rushed more of them to university bookstore shelves within days. Although labor costs are still lower in Sri Lanka, she says profit margins are now 35% to 40%, vs. about 22% when the work was offshored."_


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> Superb post, L-feld. Of course, it also means that about 75% of what is offshored is done so more profitably than domestically.
> 
> Look, I want to buy domestically, too. Sometimes it isn't possible, while other times the quality/cost ratio simply isn't worth it. Again, there's many reasons why so many legendary American companies have outsourced. Some have focused on "greed", while I mentioned more pragmatic reasons, just to point out that the issue is far more complex than ostensible executive character flaws.


How is a desire to avoid corporate taxes, pay lower wages, or circumvent environmental regulations different from greed? It's a desire for the manufacturer to make more profit.

It's fine if you want to defend greed, just be straightforward about it.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> How is a desire to avoid corporate taxes, pay lower wages, or circumvent environmental regulations different from greed? It's a desire for the manufacturer to make more profit. It's fine if you want to defend greed, just be straightforward about it.


I've always been "straightforward"; you just don't like my perspective.

"Greed" is perjorative; businesses exist to make profits (that's a nice word!). Without profits, there are no businesses, and no jobs either. "More profit", rather than "greed", is created by greater productivity/efficiency, which in the long run benefits all of us - producers and consumers. I trust that further explanation here would be unnecessary.

I thought you eschewed being a Luddite, L-feld?


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> I've always been "straightforward"; you just don't like my perspective.
> 
> "Greed" is perjorative; businesses exist to make profits (that's a nice word!). Without profits, there are no businesses, and no jobs either. "More profit", rather than "greed", is created by greater productivity/efficiency, which in the long run benefits all of us - producers and consumers. I trust that further explanation here would be unnecessary.
> 
> I thought you eschewed being a Luddite, L-feld?


No, no, I only eschewed being a _complete_ Luddite insofar as is necessary to interact with contemporary society. I grasp the fleeting past with as much vigor as Charlton Heston grasped his guns. As I'm sure Charlton Heston, clinging to his guns with his cold, dead hands may he be, he would surely leave his rifle in the car upon visiting Toby Keith's I Love this Bar, so do I give into periodically using cell phones made in China because, I'm a lawyer and I've gotta eat too.

Had I the skills, I would consider starting my own farming and tailoring business, but, like Lewis Black, I am one of the percentage of American Jews who was born with no motor skills whatsoever.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

One other thing - just because a label says, "Made in the U.S.A." doesn't necessarily mean it was done so entirely. Or, more problematic perhaps, that it was made by American "craftsmen." The product could've been made by new immigrants (legal or not!) with limited ability in some dirty little sweatshop somewhere in the United States...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> No, no, I only eschewed being a _complete_ Luddite insofar as is necessary to interact with contemporary society. I grasp the fleeting past with as much vigor as Charlton Heston grasped his guns. As I'm sure Charlton Heston, clinging to his guns with his cold, dead hands may he be, he would surely leave his rifle in the car upon visiting Toby Keith's I Love this Bar, so do I give into periodically using cell phones made in China because, I'm a lawyer and I've gotta eat too.
> 
> Had I the skills, I would consider starting my own farming and tailoring business, but, like Lewis Black, I am one of the percentage of American Jews who was born with no motor skills whatsoever.


An attorney who makes a profit, I would imagine.

I won't pick on the Luddites, as they and their acolytes have proven themselves pitiable for their ludicrous economic notions, and have been justly ridiculed throughout history for them.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> An attorney who makes a profit, I would imagine.
> 
> I won't pick on the Luddites, as they and their acolytes have proven themselves pitiable for their ludicrous economic notions, and have been justly ridiculed throughout history for them.


Well, depends on your definition of profit. I work for your arch nemesis, the Federal Government. I suppose the taxpayers make profit and I just leech off of them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> One other thing - just because a label says, "Made in the U.S.A." doesn't necessarily mean it was done so entirely. Or, more problematic perhaps, that it was made by American "craftsmen." The product could've been made by new immigrants (legal or not!) with limited ability in some dirty little sweatshop somewhere in the United States...


This may have more to do with specific factories, than the US in general, but Southwick, Hardwick, Allen Edmonds, New England **** Co, Etc have been in continuous existence for close to a century. The towns are built around the factories and plenty of the workers have been there for 20 or 30 years. Even if there are noobs working in the factory, they have the benefit of working under the supervision of skilled craftsmen.

Maybe in 20 years, I will have the same confidence in the Corbin factory in Chile or the Berle factory in Mexico.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> One other thing - just because a label says, "Made in the U.S.A." doesn't necessarily mean it was done so entirely. Or, more problematic perhaps, that it was made by American "craftsmen." The product could've been made by new immigrants (legal or not!) with limited ability in some dirty little sweatshop somewhere in the United States...


Or not even in the actual USA. https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/18/...-special-report-saipan-sweatshops-are-no.html


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

StephenRG said:


> Or not even in the actual USA. https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/18/...-special-report-saipan-sweatshops-are-no.html


Jack Abramoff lost that battle.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> Well, depends on your definition of profit. I work for your arch nemesis, the Federal Government. I suppose the taxpayers make profit and I just leech off of them.


Oh my, how surprising! :redface: Your honesty and humor was very refreshing...thank you.

The federal government is not my "arch nemesis" - I simply recognize that what was supposed to have been created in 1787 and 1788 was quickly distorted, and then incrementally so until today, with a few huge shifts along the way (Lincoln Administration, Roosevelt Administration). Sadly, most of it was done (predictably, as per the Anti-Federalists) extra-constitutionally, making a mockery of the entire concept...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> A trade deficit of $34252m for the USA and $3238m for the UK recorded in November 2013 suggests that concerns for the future of international trade and for 'parochialism' are misplaced! Soon the UK will have the worst relative balance of trade deficit in the industrial world, so we must be the least parochial country on Earth...


This, perhaps, presumes that I was addressing the citizens of the UK.

Funnily enough, I was directly addressing the members of the AAAC forum.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

L-feld said:


> How is a desire to avoid corporate taxes, pay lower wages, or circumvent environmental regulations different from greed? It's a desire for the manufacturer to make more profit.
> 
> It's fine if you want to defend greed, just be straightforward about it.


You are equating the desire for profit with greed, which seems a bit unfair. Manufacturers are operating in a very competitive global market. They must minimize costs in order to earn returns for their shareholders and to remain in business. The off-shoring phenomenon has been going on for decades, and the net result has been concentrated more in reduced consumer prices for manufactured products than enhanced returns for shareholders in manufacturing companies.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

L-feld said:


> Well, depends on your definition of profit. I work for your arch nemesis, the Federal Government. I suppose the taxpayers make profit and I just leech off of them.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


I have vast experience with government lawyers, and some are leeches and some are not. In the private sector the leeches usually are weeded out. Less so in your neck of the woods.


----------



## ckgs (Apr 13, 2013)

For me, it's more important that I know so I can make an informed choice. I really hate this recent trend of just saying "Imported". From where!? Brooks Brothers and many others are now doing this and it feels like slight of hand.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> You are equating the desire for profit with greed, which seems a bit unfair. Manufacturers are operating in a very competitive global market. They must minimize costs in order to earn returns for their shareholders and to remain in business. The off-shoring phenomenon has been going on for decades, and the net result has been concentrated more in reduced consumer prices for manufactured products than enhanced returns for shareholders in manufacturing companies.


And amongst the shareholders - through mutual funds, pension plans, ETFs, and sometimes by owning small quantities of a company's stock directly - are many middle and lower-middle class people trying to save for retirement or other financial goal. Having worked in finance for three decades, I've always been amazed at how many (not all) people think - or at least imply that they think - that only the CEOs and other very wealthy people benefit from the profits a company earns. Not that there is anything wrong with a CEO or wealthy person making money, but the assumption that they are the only ones is wrong.

I have seem investors of very modest means try to save and then invest $500 or a $1000 a year in a mutual fund to plan for their kid's education or their own retirement - and I know that it was a struggle for them to save this much. While some of the largest investors in the world are teachers pensions, the owners of those investments (via their pensions) are many teachers who rely on their pensions to retire. I do not have the percentages at hand, but indirectly (through those aforementioned mutual funds, pensions, ETFs, etc.) the shareholders of companies include many, many middle and lower-middle class people saving and investing for many of life's basic needs.

This doesn't justify a company doing anything it can for its shareholders, but it does bring another angle to the whole "greed / profit" discussion.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Highly profitable companies in whom one owns stock are "well-managed." Those in whom one does not own stock are "greedy."


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> This, perhaps, presumes that I was addressing the citizens of the UK.
> 
> Funnily enough, I was directly addressing the members of the AAAC forum.


That would be a rather surprising assumption on my part. Perhaps I presumed you were addressing a forum dominated by denizens from the USA and UK and were a denizen of one of those nations yourself ?

I must say you have been uncharacteristically reticent in this discussion. Perhaps it is not to your taste, but I am surprised. As someone who ascribes morality to all life's choices, I thought it might appeal more. After all, we have issues of worker's rights, globalisation, heritage, the lifting from poverty of peoples of certain countries, the fall into poverty of peoples from other countries, the rise of industry, the decline of craftsmanship, the cynical manipulation of worker's conditions by the owners of capital, the role of marketing and advertising, consumer's rights, widespread commodity fetishism enabled by third world labour costs....... I would think of all the possible moral justification for a purchasing decision the avoidance of 'a limited outlook focusing on a local area' would be one of the most insipid ? :icon_scratch:

Especially for a resident of the once proud manufacturing heartland of Manchester ! ('belly and guts of the nation!)


----------



## movie.buff216 (Jan 4, 2014)

I buy my suits, dress shoes and sport coats based on 3 criteria: quality, fit and country of manufacture. I am loyal to certain brands and so when it is time to buy a new suit or sport coat I start with those brands first. I do look at other comparable brands as well. As so many others have mentioned I want the truth in manufacture. I stay away from "Designed in the USA, England Italy" etc. The brands I buy from are based in the US, UK and Italy. 

As for casual clothes I do not focus as much on country of origin but I am loyal to certain brands.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Fading Fast said:


> And amongst the shareholders - through mutual funds, pension plans, ETFs, and sometimes by owning small quantities of a company's stock directly - are many middle and lower-middle class people trying to save for retirement or other financial goal. Having worked in finance for three decades, I've always been amazed at how many (not all) people think - or at least imply that they think - that only the CEOs and other very wealthy people benefit from the profits a company earns. Not that there is anything wrong with a CEO or wealthy person making money, but the assumption that they are the only ones is wrong.
> 
> I have seem investors of very modest means try to save and then invest $500 or a $1000 a year in a mutual fund to plan for their kid's education or their own retirement - and I know that it was a struggle for them to save this much. While some of the largest investors in the world are teachers pensions, the owners of those investments (via their pensions) are many teachers who rely on their pensions to retire. I do not have the percentages at hand, but indirectly (through those aforementioned mutual funds, pensions, ETFs, etc.) the shareholders of companies include many, many middle and lower-middle class people saving and investing for many of life's basic needs.
> 
> This doesn't justify a company doing anything it can for its shareholders, but it does bring another angle to the whole "greed / profit" discussion.


But under classical liberal ideology, aren't business corporations coldly rational entities whose only purpose is to maximize profit? Their whole raison d'être is to do anything they can for their shareholders.

And besides, as a rational consumer, why should I care about the shareholders? I want to get the most useful product for the least amount of money. When Barbour cuts their manufacturing costs, but doesn't pass the savings onto the consumer, should I just get a warm fuzzy feeling inside knowing that somewhere, some pension fund's value increased marginally?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> But under classical liberal ideology, aren't business corporations coldly rational entities whose only purpose is to maximize profit? Their whole raison d'être is to do anything they can for their shareholders. And besides, as a rational consumer, why should I care about the shareholders? I want to get the most useful product for the least amount of money. When Barbour cuts their manufacturing costs, but doesn't pass the savings onto the consumer, should I just get a warm fuzzy feeling inside knowing that somewhere, some pension fund's value increased marginally?


As a consumer, you _*should *_be looking out for _*you*_. Producers should be looking out for *you*, too - that's how they make profits in the first place. Businesses that don't pass along savings/efficiencies to their customers will soon find that those people (especially the intelligent/savvy ones) are customers of someone else, and such businesses (being non-competitive) will soon be extinct.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> As a consumer, you _*should *_be looking out for _*you*_. Producers should be looking out for *you*, too - that's how they make profits in the first place. Businesses that don't pass along savings/efficiencies to their customers will soon find that those people (especially the intelligent/savvy ones) are customers of someone else, and such businesses (being non-competitive) will soon be extinct.


But there's the rub. Barbour and Brooks and all the others have raised prices even as they outsource. Which leads me to believe that consumers must not be very savvy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

L-feld said:


> But there's the rub. Barbour and Brooks and all the others have raised prices even as they outsource. Which leads me to believe that consumers must not be very savvy.


Certainly, that's one possibility - and a strong one. Another is that consumers still prefer the offerings of BB and Barbour to their competitors, at least for now (that might change). For the record, I find much of Brooks Brothers' product line to be very overpriced...


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

L-feld said:


> And besides, as a rational consumer, why should I care about the shareholders? I want to get the most useful product for the least amount of money.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


Your are right, which is why businesses know that paying people more for doing less will drive them into insolvency, and that is true even if those people happen to be Americans.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tiger said:


> For the record, I find much of Brooks Brothers' product line to be very overpriced...


Finally, something we can agree on.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> That would be a rather surprising assumption on my part. Perhaps I presumed you were addressing a forum dominated by denizens from the USA and UK and were a denizen of one of those nations yourself ?
> 
> I must say you have been uncharacteristically reticent in this discussion. Perhaps it is not to your taste, but I am surprised. As someone who ascribes morality to all life's choices, I thought it might appeal more. After all, we have issues of worker's rights, globalisation, heritage, the lifting from poverty of peoples of certain countries, the fall into poverty of peoples from other countries, the rise of industry, the decline of craftsmanship, the cynical manipulation of worker's conditions by the owners of capital, the role of marketing and advertising, consumer's rights, widespread commodity fetishism enabled by third world labour costs....... I would think of all the possible moral justification for a purchasing decision the avoidance of 'a limited outlook focusing on a local area' would be one of the most insipid ? :icon_scratch:
> 
> Especially for a resident of the once proud manufacturing heartland of Manchester ! ('belly and guts of the nation!)


First rate, as ever, Mr H.

The items that I purchase most frequently, by some considerable margin, are comestibles. I always choose the premium option (denn du bist, was du isst) and locally grown or reared if at all possible.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

L-feld said:


> But under classical liberal ideology, aren't business corporations coldly rational entities whose only purpose is to maximize profit? Their whole raison d'être is to do anything they can for their shareholders.
> 
> And besides, as a rational consumer, why should I care about the shareholders? I want to get the most useful product for the least amount of money. When Barbour cuts their manufacturing costs, but doesn't pass the savings onto the consumer, should I just get a warm fuzzy feeling inside knowing that somewhere, some pension fund's value increased marginally?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


A profit maximizing company, might or might not act rationally (economics is a social science not a hard science) and it might or might not make good long-term decisions. It might, as Tiger says, pass cost savings on to consumers to maintain its competitive position. Also, a company (and having worked for many for years I know this happens) might absorb short-term losses that don't maximize short-term profits in order to, hopefully, keep customers happy and - in theory - make more money from these customers in the long run. Other times, I've seen companies make decisions to grab as much revenue as they can now even if it hurts the long run.

Nothing is perfect. No theory on paper reflects the massive number of decisions a company makes - in real time and under intense pressures - amidst changing market tastes, changing cost factors, changing labor markets and changing government regulations and taxes. My only point in my first post in this thread was that companies are owned directly and indirectly by a lot of middle and lower-middle class people who have scrimped and saved to, try, to provide for their futures; hence, while some (not all) think of companies as maximizing profits for a bunch of already rich people, the truth is much different.

But since we are already deep in it, I'll add that I think it is hard for public companies (owned by large numbers of shareholders / required to answer to a board of directors / with quarterly reports vigorously scrutinized by Wall Street analysts) to maintain long-term product quality, consistency and customer loyalty in niche, heritage-type products the way that private companies can as private companies can ignore short-term results with much less scrutiny, can be willing to sacrifice return on equity for the intangible rewards of being a beloved company and, many times, has a single family that owns it and - as long as it makes enough money for the family to live as it wants - greatly values those intangibles.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Fading Fast said:


> A profit maximizing company, might or might not act rationally (economics is a social science not a hard science) and it might or might not make good long-term decisions. It might, as Tiger says, pass cost savings on to consumers to maintain its competitive position. Also, a company (and having worked for many for years I know this happens) might absorb short-term losses that don't maximize short-term profits in order to, hopefully, keep customers happy and - in theory - make more money from these customers in the long run. Other times, I've seen companies make decisions to grab as much revenue as they can now even if it hurts the long run.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. No theory on paper reflects the massive number of decisions a company makes - in real time and under intense pressures - amidst changing market tastes, changing cost factors, changing labor markets and changing government regulations and taxes. My only point in my first post in this thread was that companies are owned directly and indirectly by a lot of middle and lower-middle class people who have scrimped and saved to, try, to provide for their futures; hence, while some (not all) think of companies as maximizing profits for a bunch of already rich people, the truth is much different.
> 
> But since we are already deep in it, I'll add that I think it is hard for public companies (owned by large numbers of shareholders / required to answer to a board of directors / with quarterly reports vigorously scrutinized by Wall Street analysts) to maintain long-term product quality, consistency and customer loyalty in niche, heritage-type products the way that private companies can as private companies can ignore short-term results with much less scrutiny, can be willing to sacrifice return on equity for the intangible rewards of being a beloved company and, many times, has a single family that owns it and - as long as it makes enough money for the family to live as it wants - greatly values those intangibles.


Very well said.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

justonemore said:


> Indeed. Although I simply prefer to keep my collection to items coming from the country of company origin there are quite a few pros and cons concerning this issue.
> 
> By not patronizing these places we will have to deal with the possible closure of the plant and many people being put out of work. Some will argue that this is better than the labour conditions in China and India but I Wonder if the anyone included in the high percentages of unemployed youths 16-25 in Europe would agree. Is it not better to accept low wages and long work hours if it means that your family can eat and live somewhere? How many conservative republicans out of the U.S. actually suggest just that? "If you work 2 part time jobs at $3 an hour you can afford to live (just don't go on welfare)".
> 
> ...


I am surprised that thread has not been moved to The Interchange yet.

However, people will tend to buy as cheap as possible. That is human nature.

On the Free Trade issue I am inclined to agree with the American Pat Buchanan. It benefits owners of capital and impoverishes the other citizens in prosperous countries like the US and various European nations.

Older individuals who have established careers or are retired are OK, but their offspring suffer. 'The Race to The Bottom' etc.

Globalisation is here and it will be difficult to reverse.

I admire Switzerland's ruthless self interest though. They do not allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to get citizenship. The German gastarbeiter notion was good, but they failed to kick out those people when they had no further use for them.

George Carlin sums up the situation in the US well. Politicians do not give a damn. www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q‎

The same applies in the UK which as you point out is largely run from the US anyway. They are welcome to spy on UK citizens any time they wish.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Fading Fast said:


> A profit maximizing company, might or might not act rationally (economics is a social science not a hard science) and it might or might not make good long-term decisions. It might, as Tiger says, pass cost savings on to consumers to maintain its competitive position. Also, a company (and having worked for many for years I know this happens) might absorb short-term losses that don't maximize short-term profits in order to, hopefully, keep customers happy and - in theory - make more money from these customers in the long run. Other times, I've seen companies make decisions to grab as much revenue as they can now even if it hurts the long run.
> 
> Nothing is perfect. No theory on paper reflects the massive number of decisions a company makes - in real time and under intense pressures - amidst changing market tastes, changing cost factors, changing labor markets and changing government regulations and taxes. My only point in my first post in this thread was that companies are owned directly and indirectly by a lot of middle and lower-middle class people who have scrimped and saved to, try, to provide for their futures; hence, while some (not all) think of companies as maximizing profits for a bunch of already rich people, the truth is much different.
> 
> But since we are already deep in it, I'll add that I think it is hard for public companies (owned by large numbers of shareholders / required to answer to a board of directors / with quarterly reports vigorously scrutinized by Wall Street analysts) to maintain long-term product quality, consistency and customer loyalty in niche, heritage-type products the way that private companies can as private companies can ignore short-term results with much less scrutiny, can be willing to sacrifice return on equity for the intangible rewards of being a beloved company and, many times, has a single family that owns it and - as long as it makes enough money for the family to live as it wants - greatly values those intangibles.


Superbly written and explicated, Fading Fast!


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Fading Fast said:


> A profit maximizing company, might or might not act rationally (economics is a social science not a hard science) and it might or might not make good long-term decisions.


Wow, I don't think I've heard anyone from your side of the aisle ever admit that. The very possibility that the market could in any way be fallible seems verboten in many sectors.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

L-feld said:


> Wow, I don't think I've heard anyone from your side of the aisle ever admit that. The very possibility that the market could in any way be fallible seems verboten in many sectors.


The market isn't fallible, but participants in it most certainly are. :cool2:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

L-feld said:


> Wow, I don't think I've heard anyone from your side of the aisle ever admit that. The very possibility that the market could in any way be fallible seems verboten in many sectors.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


I'm both a conservative and a Republican. Very few of the folks on my side of the aisle think that markets operate perfectly. We understand that perfect markets require perfect information and perfect rational behavior (MaxBuck is right), each of which exists only in the abstract. We just think that in general free markets, however imperfect, operate much better than an economy commanded by bureaucrats.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> We just think that in general free markets, however imperfect, operate much better than an economy commanded by bureaucrats.


Somewhere in heaven, Henry Hazlitt is smiling...and so am I!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Somewhere in heaven, Henry Hazlitt is smiling...and so am I!


And somewhere else Cecil Rhodes is laughing so hard that he wets himself.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> And somewhere else Cecil Rhodes is laughing so hard that he wets himself.


No question. The very idea of free markets would have made Rhodes wet himself.


----------



## David A. (Mar 8, 2006)

I happen to work at a conservative think tank in Washington DC, but I would rather ask some practical questions that help me dress better rather than engaging in a political debate.

First, from experience, I find there are some brands who seem to have mastered the art of producing very high quality goods in China or similar markets. Tumi is the example that comes to mind. I have a beautiful yet indestructible travel kit from Tumi, as well as a winter coat, both made in China. While I do prefer to buy American, or British or Italian, I would prefer to take a more detailed approach that differentiates between brands which produce quality goods outside the OECD and those that don't. Moving away from luxury goods, I recently bought two pair of Rockport shoes made in China, because they are so comfortable and seem to be holding up well.

So, do any of the participants in this conversation have advice for identifying quality goods from low-wage countries? If we were all tailors, of course, we could judge the quality of the product independent of where it was made. But to some extent we rely on country of origin and brand-name as proxies for our lack of expertise.

Similarly, I would be interested in knowing which companies producing in low wage markets seek to do well by their workers and by the natural environment. My natural inclination is to assume that there is considerable diversity in such practices.

Finally, are there any rules of thumb regarding which low-wage countries are better in terms of both quality and ethical concerns? For example, I tend to have much more confidence in Mexico than in Bangladesh, or Thailand as opposed to Sri Lanka. Is there evidence to balk that up, or is it all just guesswork?


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

David, you make some wise observations. I have 2 DKNY sportcoats, bought at Macy's in about 2010, one charcoal herringbone, the other brown, made in China. They are constructed impeccably: felled (some call it "topstitched") lapels); the same "felling" or "topstiching" down the sleeves and the center back seam of the jacket. They fit beautifully, look wonderful, have great fabric and look like I traveled back to 1964 to buy them. I have gotten many, many compliments on them.

Now, most Banana Republic made in China (or wherever its made) - well, I can't even talk about that.


----------



## Uncle Bill (May 4, 2010)

Interesting thread. I live in Canada, outside of Samulsolhn suits, there's not a lot here domestically that turns me on. I prefer what I term Anglo-American classics call it preppy, trad whatever, loved it when Brooks Brothers came to Toronto. Unfortunately those still in the clothing business here Canada making menswear are selling stuff that's too Hugo Boss wannabe for my taste. Don't even get me started with shoe selection, there is none outside of Downtown Toronto. Here's the deal, I shop for quality and what I like, period. In this era of global supply chain, even with automobiles, country of origin is at best muddy let alone go down the rabbit hole that is menswear.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

Where something is made is the most important factor in what I buy. No one ever moves manufacturing to China to boost the quality. And I don't want to buy from places where people are killing themselves because they have to go to work. (That's a big part of the reason I find the whole I'm-so-cool-because-I-buy-Apple-stuff vibe pathetic and disgusting.)

Truly the only things in my possession made in China are some Wilson tennis rackets. There was no alternative. Now Head is introducing a program for Austrian-made customized rackets, so I am going to switch.

Garrett Hardin's 1968 "Tragedy of the Commons" is easily one of the most important essays ever written. It explains essentially all poor individual and collective (corporate) behavior.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

L-feld said:


> But there's the rub. Barbour and Brooks and all the others have raised prices even as they outsource. Which leads me to believe that consumers must not be very savvy.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free


This is sad, but too true. We should speak with our pocket book. You outsource? No money from me.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

peterc said:


> This is sad, but too true. We should speak with our pocket book. You outsource? No money from me.


von Hayek figured out how information is transmitted throughout the economy: by price. Or speaking with our pocket book.


----------

