[ExI] they're everywhere (thrift shops)
hkhenson
hkhenson at rogers.com
Mon Jan 19 22:29:51 UTC 2009
At 11:15 PM 1/18/2009, you wrote:
>On 1/18/09, hkhenson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>At 04:32 PM 1/18/2009, Kevin wrote:
>
>snip
>
>There's no decision made that doesn't benefit some people while
>detrimenting others, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that
>another law is going to harm the interests of many people, the
>question is what is best for the nation as a whole.
>
>
>This was a poorly thought out law. It's not a big burden when you
>test a lot from China for Walmart. That's what they were thinking about.
>
>
>I think where I'm coming from is either these safety standards are
>important and need to be followed, or they do not. I mean, are you
>proposing that we single out China, or Walmart, or mass production,
>and allege that products from smaller or native businesses are
>"safe"? Is it only certain *kinds* of products?
>
>I don't know a whole lot about the issues involved and, after
>reading the original post, I'm not much more informed. These are
>the kinds of questions I ask myself whenever I hear something like
>this on some political proposal or another, but usually keep quiet
>about. It just surprises me that not everyone thinks this way.
>
>I understand if you guys are saying that the law is overextended to
>products that we don't have to be concerned about safety. For
>instance, do we really have to worry about getting toxins from our
>clothes? But, in the cases where we *do* have to be concerned about
>safety like children's toys, it doesn't make any sense that we'll
>require safety standards only if it isn't a great burden to the
>manufacturer. If we are at all concerned about safety, then we
>should be concerned whether or not the product comes from a large
>business or a small business, or from a foreign business or a native business.
Native businesses in the US don't use lead paint. In fact, I don't
think it's been possible to buy that kind of pant in the US for a
number of decades.
>One of the effects of this law is to slam poor people who tend to
>buy clothes for their kids at thrift shops--Goodwill, Salvation Army
>and the like. There is no possible way a thrift shop can test
>clothing, the cost is hundreds of times the value of the item.
>
>
>I don't have any answers. How can it be that expensive to test
>whether or not your products are safe?
I don't think you have the concept "thrift shop" in US terms. It's a
charity place that takes donations of all kinds of stuff, but
particularly clothing and sells the used clothing at a small fraction
of new cost. They don't produce clothing so you can't say they have
products. And the cost to test a piece of clothing for lead down
into the parts per million is not low. It most likely involves the
total destruction of a sample.
Virtually every item in one of those stores is unique.
Keith
>The potential harm is hard to quantify, but it seems to me to be
>very small, particularly with clothes. The cost to the very limited
>resources of the poor is substantial.
>
>
>I think so too.
>
>Kevin
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list