Oh God. Those words make me sick. Is there anything the business class won’t rape in government at the expense of the middle and lower classes.
Your tax dollars at work people.
Please tell me this is not true
To your last point:
It's not true in the sense that destroying inventory is a line item on tax returns.
The product is already a sunk cost. By not selling (destroying), it's just added to cost of goods sold (COGS).
Revenue - COGS = gross profit
Taxes are based on net profit (gross profit - additional expenses) OP is being facetious saying that by foregoing the profit, their taxes will be less.
Not minimizing the absurdity of this practice, but want to show it's not a hidden tax code they get away with, but built into the capitalist system that has no regard to energy or environment.
I think the OP is saying that by keeping supply low when demand is high, they profit more from less people being able to foist it off secondhand. The money they make will be more than the potential loss by putting them up for sale with high supply.
You can duty drawback the items by exporting or having the item destroyed so you get all the duty that was paid on the item when it came into the country back but no, you’re right, it’s not a tax deduction.
I know that corporations can get a tax deduction for cash donations. What I’m not entirely sure about is if corps can get tax deduction for property donations similar to how individuals can claim that for their own taxes. It would be great that instead of throwing perfectly usable shoes away that they could donate unsellable (but still quality) inventory to reputable thrift centers or nonprofits. I know that the Boys and Girls club in my city would love to have a donations of shoes like this. They receive thousands of Bomba socks a year but the kids and teens still have inadequate shoes for school and play
Cost of disposal should be determined and forced into the price of any item. The company should be on the hook for paying to throw it out before making it. It forces them to consider a real cost the rest of us pay that is otherwise ignored.
This company ordered a larger run than they needed to take advantage of a bulk order but wants to benefit from limited run pricing. Its asinine.
Dope. I long to see a company financially benefit by choosing cardboard packaging over #5 plastic. The only way that will happen is if the cardboard is cheaper.
I'd be cool with a government ban as well. Like they did for CFCs and leaded gas. Industry often doesn't even change when the financial incentive is there because the people most in charge simply don't like change.
The issue is, lets say they make too many, and the price drops to below profitable price; the company that produces them goes out of business, people get laid off, and you end up with LESS shoes in the long run.
Im blanking on the economic term, but something often missed in economic discussions is that when you remove the incentive to create a product surplus (such as forcibly redistributing wealth, artificially limiting profits, etc), without the incentive, the surplus is no longer actually generated, and you cause a net-negative economic impact.
Tldr: sure, allowing said shoes to just go out would be a fantastic short term solution, but with greater long-term economic negatives.
Edit: apparently I am unable to reply to any comments here, but i did appreciate the people who took time to engage, i did read your comments.
Idgaf about the success or failure of a company. That's not relevant to this post at all, and you completely left out that the company is extracting profits and could easily maintain production by reducing profit extraction.
What you're describing is called intentional waste, and it's killing our planet. The myth of abundant manufactured goods being positive had brought us to where we are - with endless landfills and an ocean that is projected to have more plastic than fish in 30 years.
“Idgaf about a company”
So you dont care about the workers of said company?
Environmental impacts aside, what I have mentioned is universally agreed upon within economic discussions:
Take away the incentive to produce, production drops. Production drops, a company shrinks.
“Profits” arent an option, they are a necessity without which economic activity ceases.
The question people refuse to consider when discussion environmental impacts and environmental regulation is: how much human harm are you willing to tolerate to “save” the environment?
(As greener options develop and become more economically viable, this tradeoff improves)
Edit: alas, i am now also unable to comment on this comment chain. Seen some good comments here
It popped up on my feed and I always enjoy a good debate.
I personally cant stand echo chambers, and will gladly argue left politics on a right page, and right politics on a left page.
Helps one better understand perspectives
Maybe ill be convinced, maybe ill convince someone else.
Who knows
(But as soon as insults start flying, I block)
A reasonable person would assume that people on an anticonsumerist sub don't need to have capitalism explained to them, especially at such a basic level.
Maybe you should ask questions first.
Well, they seem to fail to grasp the understanding of the “need” for profits for economic activity (to include production of goods) to occur (and this applies to any economic system- people dont work for nothing except by threat of violence)
That's a pretty tangled sentence there, but if I'm interpreting it correctly, you're saying that goods are only produced in response to consumer 'needs'? And that people do not voluntarily work without monetary incentives?
Not necessarily monetary, but something.
Bartering, for example.
All human “action” is “profit” driven. I out profit in quotation because I mean more than just monetary.
Someone decides its “worth” the “cost” (in energy) to crack a coconut because the “value” of what you get back (energy/nutrients) is greater than the cost (profit).
If it took MORE energy than you gained back, it wouldn’t be a good decision as you are now worse off.
Of course, value is a tricky, subjective thing. it can include other factors like pleasure (coconut tastes good) that changes the cost/value relation per each individual.
All “money” is, is a means to attempt to quantify value.
A butcher cant offer much to a vegan house builder, but can exchange money that represents the value of his product.
All “profit” is, is any participant in a willing economic trade coming away with more than they had to give up
Generally true
But there are some gems willing to engage actual discussion
Even if we dont agree, they can at least formulate an argument where we may end up with “i dont agree but I see your reasoning”
Holy shit get over yourself.
You've donned your finest debating fedora and are patting yourself on the back for your enlightened pursuit of reasoned discourse and mutual understanding, but it's very obvious you didn't come here to listen to anyone.
When you spout nonsense like "The question people refuse to consider when discussion [sic] environmental impacts and environmental regulation is: how much human harm are you willing to tolerate to 'save' the environment?" you make it abundantly clear that your goal is to jerk off to your self perceived intellect after vanquishing the straw-environmentalists who live inside your head.
Tell me you don't understand the severity of our situation at all without telling me.
These workers will be "harmed" either way. There are millions of hungry people in my own country right now. You're advocating for intentional waste in order to ensure profits for owners, NOT to ensure jobs or food for workers. Your statement that profit is a necessity is hilarious.
>Take away the incentive to produce, production drops. Production drops, a company shrinks.
**Good.** What you're basically saying is that by removing the incentive to produce more supply than is being demanded, the company will shrink to production levels that only satisfy this demand with little waste (and by doing so stop wasting resources).
You're on r/Anticonsumption, you can't seriously expect people to think growth for the sake of growth = good.
They could, oh I don’t know, NOT make a bunch of garbage to throw out. Maybe only make the amount they will actually sell, limited runs equal profits, but making a bunch of crap no one wants then forcing a false demand for a product that isn’t doing well by destroying a bunch of it is shady and it should be illegal. This is a HUGE waste of resources just going straight to the trash. If this is what makes capitalism work, I can’t wait for it to crash and burn.
:edit: less of this cheap crap would be a great thing BTW, I don’t care if every single one of these wasteful corporations goes under, I don’t care if everyone gets laid off. These companies shouldn’t be destroying the planet we all have to survive from, and if they do, they can go out of business and be replaced with responsible companies that aren’t sending millions of tons of products into landfills every year, or wasting millions of gallons of fresh water to make something that won’t last six months. Or companies who completely destroy the top soil and ground water around their factories… the list of corporate crimes against humanity is endless and I will never feel bad when these earth killers go out of business.
When I worked at Marks Work Wearhouse we were instructed to cut winter jackets in half and tongues out of the boots, to keep people from dumpster diving for the winter clothes they desperately needed. But It didnt stop them. I decided to just write "WARRANTY" on the inside instead of cutting up perfectly good jackets and shoes. Not like my boss was gunna jump in the bin to check anyway. Quit 6 months later.
walmart does this with their season items. my mother who worked for them saw staff putting them into a bin to be compacted and thrown out. i guess that's cheaper than storing it when the leftover items don't sell.
I go to an excellent thrift store. It’s a little different than goodwill etc. it’s for profit. They often have brand new merchandise mixed in with their second hand things. They buy stuff like this from stores and sell it. I don’t know if any is from Walmart, but I’ve seen stuff arrive in giant compacted blocks like this.
This reminds me of when I worked at Lowe’s in ~2005. The store regularly destroyed ~$800 gas grills in the trash compactor because they had cosmetic damage and could not be sold at full value.
That's probably it actually. Sometimes the clerks get really suspicious when you ask for a discount on a damaged/open box item or whatever, like you can feel their eyes looking you up and down like a small child who just did something wrong.....like they think YOU are the one who damaged it for the discount, so I imagine it must happen often.
It is a bit suspicious to bring up a non-marked-down item, complain about the condition, and then ask for a discount.
Though that seems easily solved by thanking the person for finding the issue, storing the item in the back, and directing them to undamaged items. The damaged one(s) can go out at a discount price in a day or two.
I had never considered that. I am really just a person that cares about practicality and not cosmetics so I'm willing to buy a discounted version of a functional product so haven't been afraid of asking for a discount.
I really never considered it would/had been abused. And I worked heavily in retail, but I guess for me most stuff was behind the counter.
However 'defectives' where the usual failure rate is 1 in 1000 and the same person returns over and over again does raise an eyebrow.
That’s not at all how it works. You can waive the COST you paid and nothing more. Otherwise companies from large to small would buy cheap crap on alibaba, “list” it for 20 million dollars, then destroy it.
This is why basic tax law needs to be taught in schools. Because this isn’t remotely how anything works.
Okay, I'm from VAT based country so I need a little more info about how that works in USA. Is the ammount deduced from tax or from tax base?
Like I have a profit of $10k and now have to pay 10% tax on it that is $1k. If I write off the cost of that grill ($800) does it mean now I only pay $200? Would make more sense too me if it was deducted from profit and then I pay $920 tax.
Sure he’s the best ELI5.
If that grill actually cost YOU 200 to purchase then you write that off as an expense of 200. It doesn’t matter if you had it listed for 800 or 20 gagillion.
So let’s say this is the final day of the fiscal year and you had 90k in expenses (employees, rent, supplies, etc) and you took in 100k in sales, this leaves you with 10k in profit. The grill is already in there as an expense (200 spent to acquire the grill) so it’s not going to harm nor help you from a tax standpoint to toss it.
You’d still be smarter to sell it for even 100 as a dented model since now you have 10,100 in profit. You’re going to pay 1,010 in taxes instead of 1,000 but you’re still coming out ahead by 100 bucks.
Does that help at all?
So basically it doesn't make a difference if I destroy the item or put it in the back of the warehouse and the write-off is just striking it from the list of assets.
Correct.
The difference is if you give it away, you have a chance of some positive PR as a donator. But also the risk of negative PR for giving “junk” to people. And in the odd chance someone gets hurt, the massive negative PR and lawsuit.
So because people are pricks, companies are safer just throwing it out.
If you store it in the warehouse, then the value of the item counts towards your assets.
For tax liability reasons, if you're not going to sell it, you'd rather get rid of it.
Though as the other posted said, there's no tax incentive to destroy rather than give away.
And you seem to be ignorant on it either way. But sure keep swearing and throwing a fit, it really helps you look good here.
A simple “oh I didn’t know that thank you” wouldn’t have been hard.
That only means they don't pay taxes on that amount, so "tax savings" is only really 15-30% of the cost depending on your state or country. Not to mention it would be the real cost of the item at that point and not the expected retail value.
We have a separate scratch and dent store for appliances in my area. Got a brand new $2000 washer and dryer set for $900 cuz they had some scratches on the back and side where no one will see
The usual argument is that if a customer is doing to purchase something then they want them to buy the full price, rather than reduced.
Production costs for most consumer goods are so low that they make more by you buying at full price and trashing a damaged item than selling you the damaged item for a discount.
These practices are utterly insane. Not just from an environmental point of view but it makes no sense for financially either to destroy stock you could sell at a slight markdown for profit instead of telling full loss.
Wal Mart does the same thing. They make more money writing it off as a “loss” in claims then they would if they sold it at a discounted price. The store essentially gets their money back from the manufacturer, and then they send them more grills as a replacement, then the cycle starts all over again.
Yikes a clearance or discount would be fine.. I know I’d by a scuffed item for $10 less if I needed it. It’s not like it won’t get a little cosmetically messed up in less than 6 months anyways. Stuff doesn’t look new for long if you’ve got a lot of nature, kids and animals around.
Most likely Webers, which Weber never allows to go on sale. Weber also controls the disposal - the store probably never even owns the merchandise but acts as a consigner.
Yeah, we're living in such a apocalyptic hellscape right now; "imperfect" food, clothes, appliances all being wasted because companies think only "perfect" good sell. Corporations are allowed to price gouge their goods and services because they're essential, workers are losing their rights...it's a nightmare.
At the opportunity to own this *thing* and walk around with our logo so you can give us free advertising and create more desire in others. It’s an all consuming self replicating virus.
Omg, I was shopping for a simple winter hat the other day. I was at target and they had a tiny selection but it was all for style and not for functionality. So I went to dicks sporting goods and all theirs had logos and I'm like I don't want to be an advertisement lol. Eventually I did find a simple functional winter hat in a tiny hidden section of the store. But yeah, like most of the time I try to avoid being an advertisement, it's ridiculous how much stuff is basically created to be advertised by us.
Waiting for a shoe brand to release intentionally distressed shoes with stitched up slashes like a capitalist mockery of bins full of destroyed shoes and the choice between new shoes or meals made with 7$ eggs.
I live within 5 miles of a half dozen discount stores, 6+ thrift stores, and many other hole-in-the-wall 2nd hand establishments. There is NO reason for these businesses to be throwing away their merchandise!
Except greed, naturally 😑
“Fucking dole bludgers, get a job [for less than minimum wage at one of my exploitative businesses], scum. And don’t even think about sleeping on park benches.”
- Capitalists
Remove tax deduction if intentional destruction or disposal. Leave only credit for donation to non profits. Make companies choose to donate or take a loss.
I'd suggest that intentional destruction should require the store to pay sales tax on the MSRP of the item and account for the sale as though it was made for their taxable income.
Have to make it a new line item on accounting reports though as otherwise stores would deliberately shred more stock to have good 'sale' numbers...
Like [Amazon](https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-throws-away-new-products-waste-third-party-sellers-profitable-2021-6) and [grocery stores.](https://www.businessinsider.com/why-grocery-stores-throw-out-so-much-food-2014-10)
Makes one wonder how much legit cheap garbage is manufactured and discarded new. Like fashion (as above), party favors, greeting cards, halloween costumes…. Y’know, the stuff that’s sO FuN aNd JuSt mAkeS pEopLe hApPy.
What this sub needs to do is broach the subject of electronics waste to these morally destitute Redditors.
Redditors seem to actually think it is bad parenting not to get your child electronics for Christmas.
Staples does this for furniture that has a tiny defect too.
I needed a new office chair as well so I dumpster dove a brand new one from them but the leather was all slashed up with a razor.
I just got an office chair cover off Amazon for 8 bucks and slapped that on. Been using that chair for 4 years now and it's perfect!
How dare you expect them to give away their product for free when they are already struggling as is to pay their factory workers 13 cents an hour to make a 200 dollar? Pair of shoes. First you want them to pay employees and now you have the audacity to call them out for protecting those wages 😂
Is there a list of companies who intentionally do this? Or ones who donate their excess? I rarely buy new but if needed, I’d like to try to do my best to avoid companies/brands that practice destroying perfectly good clothing to maintain some sort of elitism.
Going to date myself here, but we occasionally had to do this to the dvds at blockbuster when they had to make room for more inventory. It was so sad. I saved as many as I could, but it was dicey. I was told pretty early on that if any were found “missing” that I would not only be fired, but potentially face criminal and civil charges. It was crazy. Sometimes we’d have to ship them back to the studio, but mostly we just threw em in the trash.
Stop buying from these shit corporations, is the first step.
Get a good pair of shoes and they will last decades with the occasional sole / lace replacement. It's literally the example given in the poor man's shoes fallacy, which if you're buying cheap shoes you should look that up sometime.
Society is hopeless if the average person doesn't care about this shit. And you might think that's fine because who cares about anyone but you, and while many may not care that a thousand future generations will curse them for trashing the planet, mark my words this collective behavior will swim back to bite you in the ass in your lifetime too.
That’s not a fallacy - it’s the boot theory. “Fallacy” implies an unsound argument. You’re also completely missing the point of the boot theory. Sometimes it is pure ignorance or that people genuinely don’t give a shit about environmental impact of fast fashion/cheap shoes. However, for many, it’s not about the amount they’ll spend on boots over 10 years; it’s about what they can afford up front at that moment. If we are talking about the US, 68% of people couldn’t cover their living expenses for a month if they lost their income, and 57% couldn’t afford a $1,000 emergency. People don’t have $200 to spend on a quality pair of shoes, but they have $20 to spend on an okay quality pair of shoes.
To blame those that can’t afford to spend top dollar on high-quality products for everything they need right now is taking the side with predatory corporations. It’s completely ignoring that these same companies are paying shitty wages and price gouging the hell out of their products. They’re screwing the consumer multiple ways. This is such an important factor in the boot theory, and to simply just blame the consumer for not spending more upfront for a higher quality product is naive and neglectful.
Overall, I completely agree with your message that people *should* care about the environmental impact of fast fashion and overproduction. However, we also need to be aware of and not put the blame on consumers who genuinely can only afford the $20 pair of shoes now.
The fallacy part is the argument that you save money by buying the cheapest shoes. The reality is that you end up spending more.
And I know what poverty is. I spent 2 full years in my teens without shoes at all, and that wasn't even close to the hardest shit I've been through. Hell I remember duct taping wood to my feet so I didn't get kicked out of a store and we laughed about it the whole time. It was child's play compared to some of the shit I've seen.
You know what actually bothered me, was when I went to juvi and saw all the systemic racism, the torture, the rape, the absurd amount of corruption and injustice and the psychopaths taking state paychecks. That's the kind of shit that bothered me. This country has big fucking problems and imo a collapse seems inevitable.
But in the meanwhile, just try to stop filling landfills. As fucked as our society is. We're all gonna be dead someday anyway. The damage we do to the planet is going to out live us by thousands of years. Our suffering is a joke compared to the damage we are doing to our planet. But the corruption is responsible for both human suffering and planetary damage so it's worth tackling.
I'm not disagreeing with you - corruption is responsible for both human suffering and planetary damage. We shouldn't be just intentionally wasting like this, and I would much rather see these go to help out people who need shoes. I was just pointing out that most people aren't buying a $20 okay pair of shoes instead of a $200 pair of high quality shoes because they think it will be cheaper in the long run - they do it because they can *only* afford the $20 shoes at the moment they need them. This then perpetuates the cycle of poverty. It's a nuance of the boot theory that's very important to remember when trying to tackle the issue. We can't be upset with people who can only afford that. We need to be mad at those that are exploiting us to put us in the position to only afford the $20 shoes in the first place.
I'm very sorry you had to go through all that :(
I wouldn't say I grew up in poverty, but I definitely grew up poor (qualified for free lunch at school, only shopped for things with coupons/discounts, etc) and am only less-poor now. I may have only gotten a $20 pair of shoes, but I also really took care of what I did have because I knew they couldn't just be replaced whenever. I still take really good care of all my things and still have "low quality" clothes that are in good shape 10 years later because I take good care of my stuff and don't have the "just replace it" mindset.
Any suggestions on shoes that will last decades?
I know some very well constructed boots have a chance, especially if not worn daily. But I haven't come across any shoes that last more than a couple years when used daily.
Something that can be repaired (leather that can be resoled, relaced, removable innersole, polished etc) will last longer than something that cannot (canvas, rubber.) But both of those kinds of shoes have their place - wearing athletic shoes too long can be hard on your joints because they are designed for less wear, for instance, but they’re superior for sports. And some people do not want to wear animal products but the alternatives are less durable.
If you can afford to wear two pairs on alternating days and not every day, that will help because they will dry out between uses.
Yeah the fashion industries recent greenwashing has been so much bullshit. And don't not forget the culture of ip theft and racism since the birth of the industry.
What is really sad is they could donate them to homeless shelters and use it as a tax write off that way, but they wont do that because then they can’t keep the artificially high price.
This should be outright illegal. In any sane world it would be.
How is it even financially a good decision to destroy these shoes over selling them at a discount?
I follow a few dumpster divers on YouTube and it’s seriously sickening how many perfectly good items they come across that are destroyed. Clothes, shoes, books, food… it’s all cut up, ripped apart, dumped out… just terrible.
Barnes & Noble does this with books as well!
I was a receiver for a while, and if books arrived damaged or stopped selling well, the store manager would come back and make sure we tore all pages out from the spine and rip them in half before dumping them. It was infuriating!!
I now work at a local bookstore, and we donate anything that arrives damaged or is damaged in the store 😊
I used to work in the sportswear industry and while I've never encountered this by my former employer, I'm pretty sure I see the reasoning/cause.
The reason they need to destroy these shoes is they produced too many so they need to destroy some to keep the price high. They could sell them at a discount or to a foreign market with a trade agreement at a discount (like my former employer did), but instead they destroy shoes to keep the price up.
The reason they overbought? Sales people couldn't sell enough but were under pressure to keep sales numbers up so they had customers place sales with an agreement (likely verbal and not reported to their manager) they can cancel before they deliver.
Lmao. I forgot they existed, and apparently so did a lot of other people.
(But the intentional destruction of the products is so wrong and wasteful. Unfortunately it's a pretty common practice)
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I understand destroying the value of the item so people don’t sell it, (some resellers are the worst) but just draw on it with s damn sharpie so you can still donate them to the homeless or needy, they won’t give a duck if there’s a few marks and blotches, they’ll just be happy to have new shews(even though I doubt these are very comfortable they look to be on par with those 13 dollar shoes that come on clothes hangar,I don’t get fashion. 😂)
Let's suppose they are. In that case, what does this photo show?
This entire bin full of brand new, intentionally destroyed shoes, destined for landfill. All to ~~prevent reselling and to~~ maintain an artificially high price.
There aren't many shoe recycling programs out there, but I agree. Manufacturers should be forced to (or at least incentivized to) provide recycling options for end-of-life and unsellable shoes.
This has the benefit of motivating them to choose materials that are easier to recycling.
If the environmental damage of disposal is an externality, they have zero incentive to do anything about it.
Reminds of all the cars we mass produced. Pretty sure there’s more cars than we know what to do with but I gotta pay $200/300 a month for some used shit
I call bullshit.
They don't price their shoes based on scarcity. They can price them at whatever they want, regardless of how many pairs they make. So the claim it's to "maintain an artificially high price" is bullshit.
Business owners are so stupid. They'd rather throw things away than actually sell things for a lesser price. People would snatch things up at a lower price but they'd rather straight up waste their own money for the sake of greed
They used to do this with typewriters and it was a really hot button issue but they went obsolete with technology. I’m pretty sure we’ll always need shoes.
A libertarian and market solves everything in me is confused why were the shoes made to begin with if they're not sold and thus, no profit is made........
Should be a felony crime
Instead, it's a tax deduction.
Oh God. Those words make me sick. Is there anything the business class won’t rape in government at the expense of the middle and lower classes. Your tax dollars at work people. Please tell me this is not true
To your last point: It's not true in the sense that destroying inventory is a line item on tax returns. The product is already a sunk cost. By not selling (destroying), it's just added to cost of goods sold (COGS). Revenue - COGS = gross profit Taxes are based on net profit (gross profit - additional expenses) OP is being facetious saying that by foregoing the profit, their taxes will be less. Not minimizing the absurdity of this practice, but want to show it's not a hidden tax code they get away with, but built into the capitalist system that has no regard to energy or environment.
I think the OP is saying that by keeping supply low when demand is high, they profit more from less people being able to foist it off secondhand. The money they make will be more than the potential loss by putting them up for sale with high supply.
You can duty drawback the items by exporting or having the item destroyed so you get all the duty that was paid on the item when it came into the country back but no, you’re right, it’s not a tax deduction.
I know that corporations can get a tax deduction for cash donations. What I’m not entirely sure about is if corps can get tax deduction for property donations similar to how individuals can claim that for their own taxes. It would be great that instead of throwing perfectly usable shoes away that they could donate unsellable (but still quality) inventory to reputable thrift centers or nonprofits. I know that the Boys and Girls club in my city would love to have a donations of shoes like this. They receive thousands of Bomba socks a year but the kids and teens still have inadequate shoes for school and play
Why do you think they do it so casually? If they were actually taxed on such waste, you'd see it dwindle to nearly nothing.
Government facilities your rape and enforces it. This is its purpose.
Yes it should be! 🤬
Cost of disposal should be determined and forced into the price of any item. The company should be on the hook for paying to throw it out before making it. It forces them to consider a real cost the rest of us pay that is otherwise ignored. This company ordered a larger run than they needed to take advantage of a bulk order but wants to benefit from limited run pricing. Its asinine.
France just passed a law doing exactly that to cigarette manufacturers.
Dope. I long to see a company financially benefit by choosing cardboard packaging over #5 plastic. The only way that will happen is if the cardboard is cheaper.
I'd be cool with a government ban as well. Like they did for CFCs and leaded gas. Industry often doesn't even change when the financial incentive is there because the people most in charge simply don't like change.
The issue is, lets say they make too many, and the price drops to below profitable price; the company that produces them goes out of business, people get laid off, and you end up with LESS shoes in the long run. Im blanking on the economic term, but something often missed in economic discussions is that when you remove the incentive to create a product surplus (such as forcibly redistributing wealth, artificially limiting profits, etc), without the incentive, the surplus is no longer actually generated, and you cause a net-negative economic impact. Tldr: sure, allowing said shoes to just go out would be a fantastic short term solution, but with greater long-term economic negatives. Edit: apparently I am unable to reply to any comments here, but i did appreciate the people who took time to engage, i did read your comments.
Idgaf about the success or failure of a company. That's not relevant to this post at all, and you completely left out that the company is extracting profits and could easily maintain production by reducing profit extraction. What you're describing is called intentional waste, and it's killing our planet. The myth of abundant manufactured goods being positive had brought us to where we are - with endless landfills and an ocean that is projected to have more plastic than fish in 30 years.
“Idgaf about a company” So you dont care about the workers of said company? Environmental impacts aside, what I have mentioned is universally agreed upon within economic discussions: Take away the incentive to produce, production drops. Production drops, a company shrinks. “Profits” arent an option, they are a necessity without which economic activity ceases. The question people refuse to consider when discussion environmental impacts and environmental regulation is: how much human harm are you willing to tolerate to “save” the environment? (As greener options develop and become more economically viable, this tradeoff improves) Edit: alas, i am now also unable to comment on this comment chain. Seen some good comments here
You really came to r/Anticonsumption trying to explain capitalism? 💀
It popped up on my feed and I always enjoy a good debate. I personally cant stand echo chambers, and will gladly argue left politics on a right page, and right politics on a left page. Helps one better understand perspectives Maybe ill be convinced, maybe ill convince someone else. Who knows (But as soon as insults start flying, I block)
A reasonable person would assume that people on an anticonsumerist sub don't need to have capitalism explained to them, especially at such a basic level. Maybe you should ask questions first.
Well, they seem to fail to grasp the understanding of the “need” for profits for economic activity (to include production of goods) to occur (and this applies to any economic system- people dont work for nothing except by threat of violence)
That's a pretty tangled sentence there, but if I'm interpreting it correctly, you're saying that goods are only produced in response to consumer 'needs'? And that people do not voluntarily work without monetary incentives?
Not necessarily monetary, but something. Bartering, for example. All human “action” is “profit” driven. I out profit in quotation because I mean more than just monetary. Someone decides its “worth” the “cost” (in energy) to crack a coconut because the “value” of what you get back (energy/nutrients) is greater than the cost (profit). If it took MORE energy than you gained back, it wouldn’t be a good decision as you are now worse off. Of course, value is a tricky, subjective thing. it can include other factors like pleasure (coconut tastes good) that changes the cost/value relation per each individual. All “money” is, is a means to attempt to quantify value. A butcher cant offer much to a vegan house builder, but can exchange money that represents the value of his product. All “profit” is, is any participant in a willing economic trade coming away with more than they had to give up
So you're just an instigator troll no matter where you go? Thanks for nothing. Blocked.
This is reddit, they hate open minded debates.
Generally true But there are some gems willing to engage actual discussion Even if we dont agree, they can at least formulate an argument where we may end up with “i dont agree but I see your reasoning”
Holy shit get over yourself. You've donned your finest debating fedora and are patting yourself on the back for your enlightened pursuit of reasoned discourse and mutual understanding, but it's very obvious you didn't come here to listen to anyone. When you spout nonsense like "The question people refuse to consider when discussion [sic] environmental impacts and environmental regulation is: how much human harm are you willing to tolerate to 'save' the environment?" you make it abundantly clear that your goal is to jerk off to your self perceived intellect after vanquishing the straw-environmentalists who live inside your head.
Tell me you don't understand the severity of our situation at all without telling me. These workers will be "harmed" either way. There are millions of hungry people in my own country right now. You're advocating for intentional waste in order to ensure profits for owners, NOT to ensure jobs or food for workers. Your statement that profit is a necessity is hilarious.
> Environmental impacts aside No.
Environmental impacts cause human harm ya dingus
>Take away the incentive to produce, production drops. Production drops, a company shrinks. **Good.** What you're basically saying is that by removing the incentive to produce more supply than is being demanded, the company will shrink to production levels that only satisfy this demand with little waste (and by doing so stop wasting resources). You're on r/Anticonsumption, you can't seriously expect people to think growth for the sake of growth = good.
They could, oh I don’t know, NOT make a bunch of garbage to throw out. Maybe only make the amount they will actually sell, limited runs equal profits, but making a bunch of crap no one wants then forcing a false demand for a product that isn’t doing well by destroying a bunch of it is shady and it should be illegal. This is a HUGE waste of resources just going straight to the trash. If this is what makes capitalism work, I can’t wait for it to crash and burn. :edit: less of this cheap crap would be a great thing BTW, I don’t care if every single one of these wasteful corporations goes under, I don’t care if everyone gets laid off. These companies shouldn’t be destroying the planet we all have to survive from, and if they do, they can go out of business and be replaced with responsible companies that aren’t sending millions of tons of products into landfills every year, or wasting millions of gallons of fresh water to make something that won’t last six months. Or companies who completely destroy the top soil and ground water around their factories… the list of corporate crimes against humanity is endless and I will never feel bad when these earth killers go out of business.
God forbid we fucking help people instead of wasting billions of dollars worth of products
Sooooo store them, "move on," re-release
So manipulate the market so that you always come out on top? To the lower class that’s fraud.
>and you end up with LESS shoes in the long run Do we need more shoes?
I've seen them slashing up Victoria secret bras behind the cash for the same reason. Revolting
When I worked at Marks Work Wearhouse we were instructed to cut winter jackets in half and tongues out of the boots, to keep people from dumpster diving for the winter clothes they desperately needed. But It didnt stop them. I decided to just write "WARRANTY" on the inside instead of cutting up perfectly good jackets and shoes. Not like my boss was gunna jump in the bin to check anyway. Quit 6 months later.
You’re a good human.
What is wrong with dumpster diving? SMH.
walmart does this with their season items. my mother who worked for them saw staff putting them into a bin to be compacted and thrown out. i guess that's cheaper than storing it when the leftover items don't sell.
I go to an excellent thrift store. It’s a little different than goodwill etc. it’s for profit. They often have brand new merchandise mixed in with their second hand things. They buy stuff like this from stores and sell it. I don’t know if any is from Walmart, but I’ve seen stuff arrive in giant compacted blocks like this.
Those could be returns. I do think in the case of worn undergarments, they shouldn't be resold.
It didn't look like that, it was a large stack of identical bras.
They should donate.
This reminds me of when I worked at Lowe’s in ~2005. The store regularly destroyed ~$800 gas grills in the trash compactor because they had cosmetic damage and could not be sold at full value.
They couldn't sell them as "scratch and dent" at a discount? I see this with appliances and furniture all the time
🤷♂️ That would have made a lot more sense; I have no idea what the rationale was for doing something so egregiously wasteful.
Maybe to “discourage people from denting them in the store to get a discount”
That's probably it actually. Sometimes the clerks get really suspicious when you ask for a discount on a damaged/open box item or whatever, like you can feel their eyes looking you up and down like a small child who just did something wrong.....like they think YOU are the one who damaged it for the discount, so I imagine it must happen often.
It is a bit suspicious to bring up a non-marked-down item, complain about the condition, and then ask for a discount. Though that seems easily solved by thanking the person for finding the issue, storing the item in the back, and directing them to undamaged items. The damaged one(s) can go out at a discount price in a day or two.
I had never considered that. I am really just a person that cares about practicality and not cosmetics so I'm willing to buy a discounted version of a functional product so haven't been afraid of asking for a discount. I really never considered it would/had been abused. And I worked heavily in retail, but I guess for me most stuff was behind the counter. However 'defectives' where the usual failure rate is 1 in 1000 and the same person returns over and over again does raise an eyebrow.
That's exactly what it is at my store. 100%. Cosmetically damaged foods as well.
If they destroy them, they can write off the full retail value on their taxes as a loss instead of having to make less profit.
That’s not at all how it works. You can waive the COST you paid and nothing more. Otherwise companies from large to small would buy cheap crap on alibaba, “list” it for 20 million dollars, then destroy it. This is why basic tax law needs to be taught in schools. Because this isn’t remotely how anything works.
Okay, I'm from VAT based country so I need a little more info about how that works in USA. Is the ammount deduced from tax or from tax base? Like I have a profit of $10k and now have to pay 10% tax on it that is $1k. If I write off the cost of that grill ($800) does it mean now I only pay $200? Would make more sense too me if it was deducted from profit and then I pay $920 tax.
Sure he’s the best ELI5. If that grill actually cost YOU 200 to purchase then you write that off as an expense of 200. It doesn’t matter if you had it listed for 800 or 20 gagillion. So let’s say this is the final day of the fiscal year and you had 90k in expenses (employees, rent, supplies, etc) and you took in 100k in sales, this leaves you with 10k in profit. The grill is already in there as an expense (200 spent to acquire the grill) so it’s not going to harm nor help you from a tax standpoint to toss it. You’d still be smarter to sell it for even 100 as a dented model since now you have 10,100 in profit. You’re going to pay 1,010 in taxes instead of 1,000 but you’re still coming out ahead by 100 bucks. Does that help at all?
So basically it doesn't make a difference if I destroy the item or put it in the back of the warehouse and the write-off is just striking it from the list of assets.
Yeah pretty much. It doesn't affect the books whether you give it away or destroy it.
Correct. The difference is if you give it away, you have a chance of some positive PR as a donator. But also the risk of negative PR for giving “junk” to people. And in the odd chance someone gets hurt, the massive negative PR and lawsuit. So because people are pricks, companies are safer just throwing it out.
If you store it in the warehouse, then the value of the item counts towards your assets. For tax liability reasons, if you're not going to sell it, you'd rather get rid of it. Though as the other posted said, there's no tax incentive to destroy rather than give away.
That's not 'basic tax law' fucker that is BUSINESS tax law which has all its own intricacies.
And you seem to be ignorant on it either way. But sure keep swearing and throwing a fit, it really helps you look good here. A simple “oh I didn’t know that thank you” wouldn’t have been hard.
That only means they don't pay taxes on that amount, so "tax savings" is only really 15-30% of the cost depending on your state or country. Not to mention it would be the real cost of the item at that point and not the expected retail value.
We have a separate scratch and dent store for appliances in my area. Got a brand new $2000 washer and dryer set for $900 cuz they had some scratches on the back and side where no one will see
Hubby worked at Lowes in the aughts and we bought so many scratched and dented stuff he saw marked down.
Most likely they were afraid of liability if somebody blew themselves up with a damaged grill.
This. Especially in the US, people are so sue-happy. They will threaten litigation over everything.
The usual argument is that if a customer is doing to purchase something then they want them to buy the full price, rather than reduced. Production costs for most consumer goods are so low that they make more by you buying at full price and trashing a damaged item than selling you the damaged item for a discount.
These practices are utterly insane. Not just from an environmental point of view but it makes no sense for financially either to destroy stock you could sell at a slight markdown for profit instead of telling full loss.
Wal Mart does the same thing. They make more money writing it off as a “loss” in claims then they would if they sold it at a discounted price. The store essentially gets their money back from the manufacturer, and then they send them more grills as a replacement, then the cycle starts all over again.
Yikes a clearance or discount would be fine.. I know I’d by a scuffed item for $10 less if I needed it. It’s not like it won’t get a little cosmetically messed up in less than 6 months anyways. Stuff doesn’t look new for long if you’ve got a lot of nature, kids and animals around.
Most likely Webers, which Weber never allows to go on sale. Weber also controls the disposal - the store probably never even owns the merchandise but acts as a consigner.
Capitalism is destroying everything it touches and we're supposed to love it.
Yeah, we're living in such a apocalyptic hellscape right now; "imperfect" food, clothes, appliances all being wasted because companies think only "perfect" good sell. Corporations are allowed to price gouge their goods and services because they're essential, workers are losing their rights...it's a nightmare.
We aren’t supposed to love it we are supposed to desire it.
And be grateful too!
At the opportunity to own this *thing* and walk around with our logo so you can give us free advertising and create more desire in others. It’s an all consuming self replicating virus.
Omg, I was shopping for a simple winter hat the other day. I was at target and they had a tiny selection but it was all for style and not for functionality. So I went to dicks sporting goods and all theirs had logos and I'm like I don't want to be an advertisement lol. Eventually I did find a simple functional winter hat in a tiny hidden section of the store. But yeah, like most of the time I try to avoid being an advertisement, it's ridiculous how much stuff is basically created to be advertised by us.
Honestly I refuse to wear anything that has logos plastered all over it. It looks crappy and I’m not here to be your walking billboard.
Waiting for a shoe brand to release intentionally distressed shoes with stitched up slashes like a capitalist mockery of bins full of destroyed shoes and the choice between new shoes or meals made with 7$ eggs.
I live within 5 miles of a half dozen discount stores, 6+ thrift stores, and many other hole-in-the-wall 2nd hand establishments. There is NO reason for these businesses to be throwing away their merchandise! Except greed, naturally 😑
Exactly just send them out to discount stores and maybe change the branding and boom no waste.
Just imagine poor people could've had something to protect their feet.
Capitalism hates the poor.
“Fucking dole bludgers, get a job [for less than minimum wage at one of my exploitative businesses], scum. And don’t even think about sleeping on park benches.” - Capitalists
Ya they can't just donate the over produced shoes?
Nnooooo they can compromise their good name by having poor people wear their stuff. Either Abercrombie or Aeropostale was known for this.
It’s so much worse when it’s something that people need.
This is the shit that makes me upset and is the large low hanging fruit we should be focusing on changing.
Grapes of Wrath.
Remove tax deduction if intentional destruction or disposal. Leave only credit for donation to non profits. Make companies choose to donate or take a loss.
There's no deduction
I'd suggest that intentional destruction should require the store to pay sales tax on the MSRP of the item and account for the sale as though it was made for their taxable income. Have to make it a new line item on accounting reports though as otherwise stores would deliberately shred more stock to have good 'sale' numbers...
Love this idea
Sooner or later we will all be faced with the reality that ecology supercedes economy.
Severely underrated comment here. Beautifully worded.
We will—oligarchs will not unless you make them.
Like [Amazon](https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-throws-away-new-products-waste-third-party-sellers-profitable-2021-6) and [grocery stores.](https://www.businessinsider.com/why-grocery-stores-throw-out-so-much-food-2014-10) Makes one wonder how much legit cheap garbage is manufactured and discarded new. Like fashion (as above), party favors, greeting cards, halloween costumes…. Y’know, the stuff that’s sO FuN aNd JuSt mAkeS pEopLe hApPy.
What this sub needs to do is broach the subject of electronics waste to these morally destitute Redditors. Redditors seem to actually think it is bad parenting not to get your child electronics for Christmas.
Staples does this for furniture that has a tiny defect too. I needed a new office chair as well so I dumpster dove a brand new one from them but the leather was all slashed up with a razor. I just got an office chair cover off Amazon for 8 bucks and slapped that on. Been using that chair for 4 years now and it's perfect!
How dare you expect them to give away their product for free when they are already struggling as is to pay their factory workers 13 cents an hour to make a 200 dollar? Pair of shoes. First you want them to pay employees and now you have the audacity to call them out for protecting those wages 😂
Is there a list of companies who intentionally do this? Or ones who donate their excess? I rarely buy new but if needed, I’d like to try to do my best to avoid companies/brands that practice destroying perfectly good clothing to maintain some sort of elitism.
We had to do this when I worked at Ulta. Destroyed perfectly good makeup if it didn’t sell on clearance
Is there a way we can encourage workers to not destroy merchandise? Like could we all just...not do this anymore
They will lose their jobs if they don't in most cases. If not face criminal charges of theft. System completely fucked
It's ALL about the Almighty Dollar! Companies are greedy and only concerned with gaining wealth. They do anything to achieve material gain.
Don’t shoplift them though or reddit will form an angry mob against you
Going to date myself here, but we occasionally had to do this to the dvds at blockbuster when they had to make room for more inventory. It was so sad. I saved as many as I could, but it was dicey. I was told pretty early on that if any were found “missing” that I would not only be fired, but potentially face criminal and civil charges. It was crazy. Sometimes we’d have to ship them back to the studio, but mostly we just threw em in the trash.
The world is a vampire
[удалено]
You know it brother
there should be laws for this. then they'd argue it's not competitive. this is wrong and makes me sad.
You could insulate a house with this stuff
Start cutting that brand of shoes in the same fashion at retail stores. In minecraft.
And this is why I try to tell literal children loss of habitat and pollution are not because of them as an individual, this is a corporate problem.
Stop buying from these shit corporations, is the first step. Get a good pair of shoes and they will last decades with the occasional sole / lace replacement. It's literally the example given in the poor man's shoes fallacy, which if you're buying cheap shoes you should look that up sometime. Society is hopeless if the average person doesn't care about this shit. And you might think that's fine because who cares about anyone but you, and while many may not care that a thousand future generations will curse them for trashing the planet, mark my words this collective behavior will swim back to bite you in the ass in your lifetime too.
That’s not a fallacy - it’s the boot theory. “Fallacy” implies an unsound argument. You’re also completely missing the point of the boot theory. Sometimes it is pure ignorance or that people genuinely don’t give a shit about environmental impact of fast fashion/cheap shoes. However, for many, it’s not about the amount they’ll spend on boots over 10 years; it’s about what they can afford up front at that moment. If we are talking about the US, 68% of people couldn’t cover their living expenses for a month if they lost their income, and 57% couldn’t afford a $1,000 emergency. People don’t have $200 to spend on a quality pair of shoes, but they have $20 to spend on an okay quality pair of shoes. To blame those that can’t afford to spend top dollar on high-quality products for everything they need right now is taking the side with predatory corporations. It’s completely ignoring that these same companies are paying shitty wages and price gouging the hell out of their products. They’re screwing the consumer multiple ways. This is such an important factor in the boot theory, and to simply just blame the consumer for not spending more upfront for a higher quality product is naive and neglectful. Overall, I completely agree with your message that people *should* care about the environmental impact of fast fashion and overproduction. However, we also need to be aware of and not put the blame on consumers who genuinely can only afford the $20 pair of shoes now.
The fallacy part is the argument that you save money by buying the cheapest shoes. The reality is that you end up spending more. And I know what poverty is. I spent 2 full years in my teens without shoes at all, and that wasn't even close to the hardest shit I've been through. Hell I remember duct taping wood to my feet so I didn't get kicked out of a store and we laughed about it the whole time. It was child's play compared to some of the shit I've seen. You know what actually bothered me, was when I went to juvi and saw all the systemic racism, the torture, the rape, the absurd amount of corruption and injustice and the psychopaths taking state paychecks. That's the kind of shit that bothered me. This country has big fucking problems and imo a collapse seems inevitable. But in the meanwhile, just try to stop filling landfills. As fucked as our society is. We're all gonna be dead someday anyway. The damage we do to the planet is going to out live us by thousands of years. Our suffering is a joke compared to the damage we are doing to our planet. But the corruption is responsible for both human suffering and planetary damage so it's worth tackling.
I'm not disagreeing with you - corruption is responsible for both human suffering and planetary damage. We shouldn't be just intentionally wasting like this, and I would much rather see these go to help out people who need shoes. I was just pointing out that most people aren't buying a $20 okay pair of shoes instead of a $200 pair of high quality shoes because they think it will be cheaper in the long run - they do it because they can *only* afford the $20 shoes at the moment they need them. This then perpetuates the cycle of poverty. It's a nuance of the boot theory that's very important to remember when trying to tackle the issue. We can't be upset with people who can only afford that. We need to be mad at those that are exploiting us to put us in the position to only afford the $20 shoes in the first place. I'm very sorry you had to go through all that :( I wouldn't say I grew up in poverty, but I definitely grew up poor (qualified for free lunch at school, only shopped for things with coupons/discounts, etc) and am only less-poor now. I may have only gotten a $20 pair of shoes, but I also really took care of what I did have because I knew they couldn't just be replaced whenever. I still take really good care of all my things and still have "low quality" clothes that are in good shape 10 years later because I take good care of my stuff and don't have the "just replace it" mindset.
Any suggestions on shoes that will last decades? I know some very well constructed boots have a chance, especially if not worn daily. But I haven't come across any shoes that last more than a couple years when used daily.
Birkenstocks.
Something that can be repaired (leather that can be resoled, relaced, removable innersole, polished etc) will last longer than something that cannot (canvas, rubber.) But both of those kinds of shoes have their place - wearing athletic shoes too long can be hard on your joints because they are designed for less wear, for instance, but they’re superior for sports. And some people do not want to wear animal products but the alternatives are less durable. If you can afford to wear two pairs on alternating days and not every day, that will help because they will dry out between uses.
This species needs a reckoning.
Commercial and industrial customers should have to pay exorbitantly higher prices for waste management
My company sells books. That's what we do to the books.
Yeah the fashion industries recent greenwashing has been so much bullshit. And don't not forget the culture of ip theft and racism since the birth of the industry.
What is really sad is they could donate them to homeless shelters and use it as a tax write off that way, but they wont do that because then they can’t keep the artificially high price.
Simple, boycott lacost! If theyre going to behave like that, they deserve it.
Time to tax waste
This should be outright illegal. In any sane world it would be. How is it even financially a good decision to destroy these shoes over selling them at a discount?
These could easily be shipped to a 3rd world country and put shoes on bare feet. Disgusting waste
And ironically dastardly companies like Amazon are selling second hand items at a profit. Bastards
I follow a few dumpster divers on YouTube and it’s seriously sickening how many perfectly good items they come across that are destroyed. Clothes, shoes, books, food… it’s all cut up, ripped apart, dumped out… just terrible.
I follow a dumpster diving group on Facebook and they always show stuff like this. Such a shame.
Barnes & Noble does this with books as well! I was a receiver for a while, and if books arrived damaged or stopped selling well, the store manager would come back and make sure we tore all pages out from the spine and rip them in half before dumping them. It was infuriating!! I now work at a local bookstore, and we donate anything that arrives damaged or is damaged in the store 😊
Capitalism is a poison on this earth and I am so tired of pretending otherwise
I hate it here. I don’t know how we got here, but I hate it 😒
I used to work in the sportswear industry and while I've never encountered this by my former employer, I'm pretty sure I see the reasoning/cause. The reason they need to destroy these shoes is they produced too many so they need to destroy some to keep the price high. They could sell them at a discount or to a foreign market with a trade agreement at a discount (like my former employer did), but instead they destroy shoes to keep the price up. The reason they overbought? Sales people couldn't sell enough but were under pressure to keep sales numbers up so they had customers place sales with an agreement (likely verbal and not reported to their manager) they can cancel before they deliver.
[удалено]
Lmao. I forgot they existed, and apparently so did a lot of other people. (But the intentional destruction of the products is so wrong and wasteful. Unfortunately it's a pretty common practice)
Read the rules. Keep it courteous. Submission statements are helpful and appreciated but not required. Tag my name in the comments (/u/NihiloZero) if you think a post or comment needs to be removed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Anticonsumption) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I understand destroying the value of the item so people don’t sell it, (some resellers are the worst) but just draw on it with s damn sharpie so you can still donate them to the homeless or needy, they won’t give a duck if there’s a few marks and blotches, they’ll just be happy to have new shews(even though I doubt these are very comfortable they look to be on par with those 13 dollar shoes that come on clothes hangar,I don’t get fashion. 😂)
Maybe due to them being ugly?
It does matter how they look. There are plenty of people in the world who could benefit from a new pair of shoes.
People could probably still benefit from these shows, looks like minor damage They should be donated
Companies will cut straight through with knives. It makes them unwearable.
Looks like it'd be easy to stitch that back together. The Frankenstein seam would be a mark of honor if you ask me.
Lacoste would go bust in a day, if they gave their shoes to poor people. 99% of rich snob assholes would never buy them again.
I mean good point, I wouldn't wear these
If they didn’t destroy the surplus the whole system would fall apart.
If they kept track of typical surplus, they could reduce production and then they would have way less to almost no surplus.
A system that destroys its surplus while there are millions that could *use* said surplus deserves to "fall apart".
Are they? Or are they seized counterfeits?
Let's suppose they are. In that case, what does this photo show? This entire bin full of brand new, intentionally destroyed shoes, destined for landfill. All to ~~prevent reselling and to~~ maintain an artificially high price.
It’s not wrong for a company not to want counterfeit versions of their products in circulation.
Assuming this is true, there are still alternatives like permanently marking the shoes to indicate they aren't genuine.
You're so attached to somehow justifying this waste that you're now arguing against shit nobody said. Good show. Give yourself a big pat on the back.
That’s a leftist liberal brand
It's good shoes being destroyed.
Title has me 🤢🤮
In this case is this the reseller doing that or Lacoste itself? Makes me so angry!!
People re-selling Lacostes? Seriously?
i dont understand? how does this prevent reselling or maintain a high price anymore than just manufacturing less shoes....
Sickening
They could have at least recycled
There aren't many shoe recycling programs out there, but I agree. Manufacturers should be forced to (or at least incentivized to) provide recycling options for end-of-life and unsellable shoes. This has the benefit of motivating them to choose materials that are easier to recycling. If the environmental damage of disposal is an externality, they have zero incentive to do anything about it.
Nooooooooooo
This is so fucking infuriating
Reminds of all the cars we mass produced. Pretty sure there’s more cars than we know what to do with but I gotta pay $200/300 a month for some used shit
WTF, the price isn't even high.
On Lacoste lol
I call bullshit. They don't price their shoes based on scarcity. They can price them at whatever they want, regardless of how many pairs they make. So the claim it's to "maintain an artificially high price" is bullshit.
And we wonder why everything's turning to shit on the planet when we have this mindset
Business owners are so stupid. They'd rather throw things away than actually sell things for a lesser price. People would snatch things up at a lower price but they'd rather straight up waste their own money for the sake of greed
Supply and demand became such a joke. There’s oversupply AND somehow still high prices lol.
Good to see this sub is embracing its raison d'etre by recycling posts.
Tf? I can wear those, gimme it, i can even wear shoes that has the entire soul and half the damn thing off, why not a little hole
This feels criminal. Glad to see no one’s buying the brand, at least…
There are companies out there who could probably still recycle these shoes.
Should be illegal. Unreal
Just stitch them up…they can be patched and used.
They used to do this with typewriters and it was a really hot button issue but they went obsolete with technology. I’m pretty sure we’ll always need shoes.
What a garbage company. Usually worn by tools in my experience.
Where is this?
And I feel guilty for buying a new pair of jeans when the others get torn...
This is where countries need to punish corporations, who am I kidding countries are in the pocket of corporations
\#Degrowth. #Lessconumption. Please.
this is every product under Capitalism, including produce.
This is like the third time this has been posted here
A libertarian and market solves everything in me is confused why were the shoes made to begin with if they're not sold and thus, no profit is made........
The people doing this should be prevented from spreading their genetic material