Economist Writing Every Day

I’m writing an article about fast-fashion, so I’m reading Fashionopolis by Dana Thomas. 

This paragraph is from the intro chapter:

Since the invention of the mechanical loom nearly two and a half centuries ago, fashion has been a dirty, unscrupulous business that has exploited humans and Earth alike to harvest bountiful profits. Slavery, child labor, and prison labor have all been integral parts of the supply chain at one time or another – including today. On occasion, society righted the wrongs, through legislation or labor union pressure. But trade deals, globalization, and greed have undercut those good works.

She invokes religion with “good works.” Thomas and I are of different opinions concerning globalization and “greed” and legislation. My instinct is to rip this paragraph apart. Has legislation never been motivated by greed? Has globalization not improved the lives of children? Has the mechanical loom not improved the lives of women who used to spend hours spinning and weaving by hand?

I am also reading pastor Tim Keller’s biography right now, so I’m having a What Would TK Do moment.

With his gifts (smart, funny, articulate…), Keller could have made a fortune by taking a side. He could have picked the Right or the Left. He could have expertly appealed to a Side, convincing them that they were good-smart and the Other is evil-stupid. Instead, Keller relentlessly stayed in the center. One of his books is actually called Center Church.

Keller would find every bit of common ground he had with someone and emphasize it. He affirmed the common human desire for purpose and fulfillment, even if he disagreed with the way most people try to achieve it.

Part of what I’m going to do in my article about fashion is defend globalization from detractors such as Dana Thomas. She has a line on page 9 implying that life is unequivocally better when Americans “knew those who cut and sewed their clothes.” I disagree. There are huge tradeoffs involved here. When given the choice, people would rather get most of their clothes made cheaply at economies of scale somewhere else.

Where can I meet her in the middle? Slavery is very bad, and globalization has not eliminated it from the world. We should all be against slavery and find ways to put economic pressure on the bad guys. Price signals at the store, alone, will not tell me if my purchase is subsidizing a slave holder.

Littering is bad, too. Some apparel, made in great quantities through a global supply chain, ends up polluting the ocean. In a more ideal world, the fashion industry would not harm the environment as much as it currently does.

Thomas and I are both idealists. I will probably end up refuting her in my article, but I’ll look for common ground, too.

I think of this line from a podcast with Amia Srinivasan, when it comes to engaging opposing ideas:

COWEN: Now, I’m a utopian of a sort myself, though maybe different than the way you’re a utopian.

Not everyone is a utopian, but those of us who are can disagree on a lot.

Most of Thomas’s book is anecdotes which, I would argue, mostly serve to disprove her own opening statements. She tells one optimistic story of a new “hyperlocal” garment maker in England. Local entrepreneurs renovated a building that used to house an old-fashioned textile mill and “refitted it with the latest technology”. They can do many stages of production on site, even spinning their own yarn. But is globalization still behind this dream come true? (“They didn’t want to reshore the old milling model with its Dickensian horrors.” (pg 114)) The raw cotton comes from the US and Caribbean, and what about the computers? The trick to making this new business a source of high-paying local jobs is that a few humans are minding sophisticated automated machines. Computers need chips, which are mostly made in Taiwan, on the other side of the world. So, “globalization” is not undercutting the “good works.” The “good works” would not be remotely possible without international trade in goods and ideas.

So, where is that common ground? The locals in England are happy about a new company that has brought a larger proportion of the production process home. It’s good that, as far as we know, there is no coerced labor involved, hopefully even as far back as the agriculture step. Thomas has done a lot of work to illustrate what a new textile industry could look like that is more integrated into its community of customers. Local-er smaller-batch production might end up being less wasteful with less negative impacts on the environment, which is good. It’s great to see clothes get made without Dickensian horrors!