Made in Downtown LA

[nfotxn]

I really like the concept that is American Apparel. However personally I can't afford the right to thwart the class oppression resulting from the fashion industry myself. Is it worth my money to pay for garmet workers to make $5CAD more an hour (at their base pay) to make the t-shirt on my back? It's better in the pockets of the service underclass in Los Angeles than the Gap or Old Navy. However the whole company seems like an aesthetic solution to a much larger and nearly insurmountable problem.

Comments

[soul-spider.livejournal.com]

CalCru makes shirts in America, presumably sweat-shop free, but I don't know if they're marketing to individuals like AA. I know some bands that use them to mass-produce their t-shirts.

Once a company starts using sexy models in their advertisements, their products instantly become more expensive than they need to be. Half of me thinks of AA, "wow, that's pretty cool" and the other half thinks, "gross."

[anthony808.livejournal.com]

The CalCru website is atrocious!

[http://users.livejournal.com/speedy_/]

You are right! I almost puke after having a quick peek at it !

[colin.livejournal.com]

Those are some nice shirts, though.

[fredneckteddy.livejournal.com]

I love that show "Press Your Luck" with Peter Tamarkin! NO WHAMMIES!

[umkinda.livejournal.com]

Why is it an aesthetic solution? If they're running the business sans-sweatshops, isn't that called "doing their part?"

[brianmn.livejournal.com]

I agree with Vin, I don't think it's just an "aesthetic solution". I think it's a viable option in the clothing-retail landscape. I look at it like this: the decision to purchase anything is a balance between priorities and means. If your priorities are to not put $$ in the hands of Old Navy and to not support sweatshop labor and etc., but you don't have the means (financial or otherwise) to do so, then AA's probably not for you. Get your clothes at a thrift store or something. Or if you do have the means but don't really give a crap about where/how your clothes come about, then just go to Walmart!

I try to think of every purchase I make is like a little vote - ultimately these economic votes are probably more effective than any vote I'll cast for president or other elected official. Let's see... today I can vote for riding my bike, or public transportation, or I can vote for driving myself around. I can vote for McDonalds for lunch, or I can go the my local food co-op and vote for organic foods. I can vote for Starbucks, or I can vote for my neighborhood coffeeshop serving fair-trade coffee. It's not easy to make the "right vote" all the time, but I think having the options, like American Apparel, at least puts it "on the ballot".

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Free market capitalism is awfully hunky dory when you have a lot of money. However living aesthetically when you have less money ("votes") is difficult. Ironically free markets, a tenant of the American identity, are the anti-thesis of democratic. And that's why, culturally speaking, the niche price point and lifestyle that AA occupies is severely limiting and mainly aesthetic not political. I only say this because they market on these tenants with this type of conscious neo-hippie marketing speak:

"While apparel is a universal necessity that transcends almost all cultural and socioeconomic boundaries, most garments are made in exploitative settings. We hope to break this paradigm."

They're simply not doing that.

[brianmn.livejournal.com]

If it's the faux-revolutionary message of their tone you find unappealing, that I can appreciate. I also hate the faux-revolutionary tone of Nike and many other businesses, but that's just the marketer in me balking at what's at best a lame cliche and at worst a lie. But if the way they do business encourages 1) more businesses to do businesses in a socially concious way and 2) people to think about where their shit comes from, then I think that's a good thing. Ultimately the market will decide if they'll survive. Maybe they'll fail. Maybe Oprah will do a show and give her audience some AA apprarel and make the world go apeshit for sweatshop-free clothing. But either way I think what they're doing is political and valuable in that they're raising an issue that isn't addressed in the mainstream as much as it should be.

AA is so close.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

It's important to understand what they're selling, which is the luxury of owning sweatshop free clothing around the same price range as The Gap. That's a very honourable and aesthetically pleasing thing but they're not hitting the price point where I would imagine most of the slave labour is employed. Sure every little bit helps and the willingness of people to pay for people to have livelihoods is heartening. But the incentive for the market to follow suite isn't there at all.

Sure it's a minor point in light of the good they do. But economically speaking it's a pretty huge. People like me who are employed in shitty minimum wage jobs can't afford AA even if we'd like to because the goods come at a premium which is too large to get entirely behind as a consumer. In that respect AA has a lot more work to do. However I don't see them going in that direction given all the PR and high style locations in hip neighbourhoods they're paying for.

Re: AA is so close.

[umkinda.livejournal.com]

You're kinda "damning them if they do, damning them if they don't," aren't you? Sure it's expensive... but as the market becomes large, prices come down. It's the way of capitalism -- or in the case of AA, socialism. It's only aesthetic if it doesn't actually affect anyone -- and in the case of AA, they're at least giving people benefits and honest pay that were used to working in sweatshops for at least half the money...

Re: AA is so close.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

I'm not damning them at all. Please don't try to polarize the discussion, it makes things really boring.

It's just as the company exists right now they're not following through on their mission statement. People with money can afford all sorts of things. They are not providing any sort of "revolution" for consumers. But granted they are mostly an industrial revolution. That's great but I'm not impressed that they occupy another hip minimalist modern storefront on Queen St. W and sell goods that are out of my practical price point.

Re: AA is so close.

[umkinda.livejournal.com]

I don't think the revolution is cheaper prices -- if that's the case, then Old Navy has done a coup. It's simply about a company acting socially conscious about the products that they produce, in the same way that Tom's toothpaste is more environmentally conscious.

But to me, it's like you're saying "Tom's has failed in their efforts towards the environment because they still have to use metal tubes to put toothpaste in, which is still wasting resources." OK, sure, then they've failed, and they're more expensive, so they've doubly failed. So go buy Crest. It's super-cheap and it cleans your teeth just awesome. Same with AA -- if you don't like 'em, if they're too expensive, then don't buy them. They're *not* the cheapest... but they do great bulk deals, which is why 80% of the concert tees I've seen recently have been done on AA shirts. Either way, it's about a choice. And I think instead of nitpicking someone who's actually *trying* to do things better, shouldn't we, I dunno, support them?

Or at least focus efforts on the companies that deserve to be slammed for their mentality -- *cough* Nike *cough*

Re: AA is so close.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

Constructive criticism is some of the best support I can provide.

Re: AA is so close.

[umkinda.livejournal.com]

But that's the thing -- *everyone's* a critic. Everyone has an opinion on how everything on this earth isn't quite good enough, and why it could be a little better. But it's the people that *do* something that change stuff. So if you don't like AA's prices, then why not write them a letter and get their response on the subject? Tell them how you feel... cos' unless you're pals with them (or maybe they just love your hot mixes), they ain't reading your journal to hear this.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_janie_jones_/]

as reported by THIS magazine and also from inside sources of mine, apparently the owner of American Apparel has also made comments about how he doesn't make larger sizes in his clothing because he doesn't want fat people to wear his clothes because who wants to see a fat person in a tight t-shirt.

[callingzero.livejournal.com]

It's unfortunate that it's actually a luxury for those few of us who are:
1) aware of various issues surrounding exploitation of labour
2) aware of various issues around "loss-leader"-style business, where a Wal-Mart (for instance) can afford to lose money selling a product for less than another store that will be put out of business because most people's priority is to find the item as cheaply as possible

3)fortunate enough to have the option to spend more money to support a more sustainable business ethic.

Until the poor can actually have the same options (or even certain knowledge), "sustainable" practices really just cater to make the elite feel better about themselves, in a way.

[bleepkeeper.livejournal.com]

Why is an aesthetic solution bad? Aesthetic shift could decree that it's now cooler to own fewer things (shirts, cars, computers, whatever) manufactured in a responsible fashion than to own more things manufactured irresponsibly. Boom, insurmountable problem solved. I don't really see any other way to solve it (other than legislation, which probably wouldn't work anyway).