To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

Duluth trading rant...

digdug18

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Danville, PA
I love their products, but why must some companies make 100% of their clothing overseas. I'm looking to buy some new pants for work, I've used them in the past, they have an excellent guarantee, workmanship, etc. But why can they not be made in the USA?

Thoughts?
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

RAYJAY

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
2,638
Location
UNION DALE PA
i love their products, but why must some companies make 100% of their clothing overseas. I'm looking to buy some new pants for work, i've used them in the past, they have an excellent guarantee, workmanship, etc. But why can they not be made in the usa?

Thoughts?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$
profit
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 

hcs1947

Active member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
44
Location
East Tennessee
Because the American consumer is addicted to sales and coupons and won't pay the price that would enable a retailer to make a profit on American made goods, particularly in the clothing category. I say this as a 35-year veteran of retail industry. Plus, there are very few factories left in the USA that can make anything of quality. One could place the blame on the unions, which drove up the cost of labor to the point that manufacturers were forced to seek production overseas; or not, depending on how you feel about unions. Most of the textile and clothing factories, of which there used to be a lot in the south, are long gone and I guess unions weren't too much of a factor there. But for a retailer, it's hard to argue with Chinese production, both from a quality standpoint and cost. They can market with coupons and sales and still make a profit.
 

Bill Crowell

Banned
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
167
All the other clothing manufacturers against whom they are competing have their products made overseas. If Duluth were to make theirs in the U.S., they would have higher wage and benefit costs and would make less profit, or else they would have to sell theirs at a higher price in order to maintain their profit margin. Either way would be the kiss of death for the company's present management because the stockholders' dividends and the stock price would decrease. Then the stockholders would boot the present management out and replace them with management who WOULD have the clothing manufactured overseas.
 

Trucky

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
1,747
Buy from someone else who makes them here.

We all know the reason why companies take production overseas. Answer them by not buying their stuff. It's about all you can do.
 

Jononon

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
1,636
Deindustrialisation in Northern England led to the wholesale transfer of assets and technology to India and China from the 1960s onwards. The companies in India and China have grown and prospered, enabling them to win contracts throughout the world. Although real terms wage growth in US manufacturing has been flat for decades (largely negating the idea that the unions did it*), Chinese seamstresses in 'good' factories earn $15 a day.

*there's a lot more to say about the political factors, but I'll let someone else get the thread locked :(
 
OP
D

digdug18

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Danville, PA
Problem is their one key feature that I love on their shorts I cannot find on any other, the gusseted crotch, otherwise if I step up high without pulling my pants up first I rip the crotch right out. I've only found one other company that makes jeans, but not shorts with this feature. That company being rangler, but only 1 of their lines, riggs workwear.
 

hcs1947

Active member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
44
Location
East Tennessee
I seem to remember seeing in a motorcycle magazine some gusseted jeans, but don't remember who made them or how long ago it was. You might do some research in that area. Seems like they were costly though, maybe $90 or so.
 

jeffk14

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
1,631
Location
GA
Deindustrialisation in Northern England led to the wholesale transfer of assets and technology to India and China from the 1960s onwards. The companies in India and China have grown and prospered, enabling them to win contracts throughout the world. Although real terms wage growth in US manufacturing has been flat for decades (largely negating the idea that the unions did it*), Chinese seamstresses in 'good' factories earn $15 a day.

*there's a lot more to say about the political factors, but I'll let someone else get the thread locked :(
X100,000!!!

Minimum wage is, what, $7.25 an hour? Add approximately another 13% to that as the cost of employing a worker (SS, workman's comp, unemployment ins.) and you come up with a total cost of about $8.19 an hour. That's $65.52 for an 8 hour shift. That's the ABSOLUTE LOWEST POSSIBLE MINIMUM that you could theoretically get a day's work for in this country.

How in the HELL can the American worker compete with people in third-world/emerging economies where wages may be no more that 5 or 6 dollars a day? Unions had NOTHING to do with the current situation. I grew up in the rural south in the 1960's and 1970's. There were quite a few textile plants all over the south back then. NONE of them were union. They're all empty/gone now.

That doesn't stop the radio talk show hosts or their idiot listeners from crowing on and on about how unions destroyed American manufacturing, though.:mad:

Part of the problem is us. Myself included. We want "stuff" and we don't want to pay a lot for that stuff. At the same time, we want to earn a decent wage.
 
Last edited:

Sokoloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
400
Location
Cambridge, MA
Well said jeffk, but just imagine the uproar were a politician to suggest something as sensible and pro-employment as reducing or repealing the minimum wage.

People just can't think though logical conclusions. Make labor in the US more expensive and some labor-intensive jobs will move to where there's cheaper labor. When a smart person suggests something to stem that tide, they are seen as anti-labor somehow.

If the best thing a person can do is only "worth" $5 an hour, then they're bound to be unemployed forever in a US with high unemployment and a $7+ minimum wage. They need to find something more valuable and learn how to do it, move someplace with low unemployment and hope to get a little lucky, or hope that the minimum wage can fall to $5 or less, so that someone can employ them and still make a profit.

(I tried to keep any politics content down, to avoid thread lock.)
 

jeffk14

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
1,631
Location
GA
Well said jeffk, but just imagine the uproar were a politician to suggest something as sensible and pro-employment as reducing or repealing the minimum wage.

People just can't think though logical conclusions. Make labor in the US more expensive and some labor-intensive jobs will move to where there's cheaper labor. When a smart person suggests something to stem that tide, they are seen as anti-labor somehow.

If the best thing a person can do is only "worth" $5 an hour, then they're bound to be unemployed forever in a US with high unemployment and a $7+ minimum wage. They need to find something more valuable and learn how to do it, move someplace with low unemployment and hope to get a little lucky, or hope that the minimum wage can fall to $5 or less, so that someone can employ them and still make a profit.

(I tried to keep any politics content down, to avoid thread lock.)

Well, don't assume that I'm for doing away with the minimum wage. I don't think that that would really solve anything. With that said, if there were no minimum wage, I don't think that businesses would have a whole lot of luck getting people to work for too much less than what the minimum wage is now anyway.

The point I was trying to make is that there has always been a very large part of the population who are not going to be doctors, lawyers, MBA's, engineers or even skilled tradesmen. In the past, American manufacturing jobs provided a means for many of these people to be self-sufficient. With that largely gone, we're in a pickle these days. Hell, I'm just a glorified grease monkey. I don't HAVE any answers. I just don't see our situation as being sustainable.
 

Sokoloff

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
400
Location
Cambridge, MA
I didn't assume you were, nor am I even sure how much I think it would help overall, but I'm anti-minimum wage on general principles ("the government that governs least is the best"). I doubt it would hurt much, and it would allow businesses to hire more people, people that can't be profitably hired today. Anyway, it's not going to happen, so...
 

jake00

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
2,645
Location
illinois -- NW Burbs
People as a whole are driven by the price of a product over the quality of a product.

I see this every day
Jake - (an American manufacturer)
 

toxicz28

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
738
Location
NY
One could place the blame on the unions, which drove up the cost of labor to the point that manufacturers were forced to seek production overseas; or not,

That's pretty funny, because the price tag on my American/ union made Carhart jacket was the same as the overseas made Carhart jacket. Try again, your argument is flawed.
 

Jackfre

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
4,406
Location
N CA
I, too, love their products. Their Force 9 jacket is the best work coat I've ever had. They have been a quality vendor with quality products.
 

Charles (in GA)

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
12,489
Location
50 mi south of Atlanta
The point I was trying to make is that there has always been a very large part of the population who are not going to be doctors, lawyers, MBA's, engineers or even skilled tradesmen. In the past, American manufacturing jobs provided a means for many of these people to be self-sufficient. With that largely gone, we're in a pickle these days. Hell, I'm just a glorified grease monkey. I don't HAVE any answers. I just don't see our situation as being sustainable.

And the education system will not or is afraid to suggest that little Johnny isn't college material, but would be excellent at a skilled trade or factory worker job. Rather they have two kinds of kids in schools, college prep'ed kids and dropouts. Vocational schools are about gone, everyone is pushed into the "go to college" mindset, and then they try and fail at college, and at that point are not properly prepared for the real world.

Schools are also afraid to teach stuff like how to balance a checkbook, how credit cards work and the pitfalls of them, how credit in general works and simply how to budget and manage money.

End of rant.

Charles
 

Carl B

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
525
Location
Clearwater, Florida USA
Because the American consumer is addicted to sales and coupons and won't pay the price that would enable a retailer to make a profit on American made goods, particularly in the clothing category.

Americans have always believed in COMPETITION. Let everyone compete and the consumer will pick the winners and let the losers die off. Most Americans work hard for their money - and they demand VALUE for it when they spend it. This is as it should be... the Customer defines "Quality"

It is unreasonable to expect Americans to artificially support non-competitive industries by paying more for non-competitive products. A higher price from a non-competitive company - doesn't convert to higher quality. Nor does a lower price convert to lower quality.

Exactly why America has lost it's competitive position in manufacturing over the past 60 years - has to do with a great number of factors - no single one of which can be blamed - but the combination of which have had a devastating effect.

Because of automation and improved manufacturing processes through the 20th century, on average the cost of labor in the manufacturing sector is about 11% of the total cost of goods. Government Regulations and Taxes at all levels averages about 18% of the cost of goods.

If anyone here believes that manufacturing has been moved to China for cheap labor - I suggest they do some serious research and quite drinking the political kool-aid. There are very few labor intensive products in todays world.

Most Multi-National Corporations go to China today for several reasons. First - the Total Cost Of Production is far less expensive there. China has cheap power, supplied by the Communist Government via massive hydroelectric power dams and/or massive coal fired power stations. None of which were stopped by an EPA, none of which are owned by private stock holders. Public Utilities in China are still built and owned by "the public" - they aren't there to make money for private stock holders - they are there to support and build China's Industrial Base.

China doesn't have EEOC goals, nor State, County, City taxes. China doesn't have SSI, Medicare nor Workmen'ss Comp. China doesn't have Product Liability law suites either. With cheap energy China can produce high grade steel at less than half the cost of production in the US. While the cost savings of cheap labor - is offset by the additional cost of transportation to our Open and all but Free markets here.

Additionally - all these Multi-National Corporations have moved into China because that is where they see the highest potential for their growth in the future. China's "middle class" is growing...presently estimated by most as 250 million strong - that leaves a Billion potential future consumers to sell goods too.

When I hear people say "cheap labor", I know that they don't really have a clue what our own Government has done to us ever so gradually over the past 60 years. As long as the same Professional Politicians of both Parties keep getting re-elected time after time - don't expect anything to change for the better.


FWIW,
Carl B.
 
OP
D

digdug18

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Danville, PA
Funny I just saw abc news report that alot of companies are moving production back to the USA because they believe by 2015, we will be at the same price of production as china. They stated that the cost to import an item and the chinese wages going up will negate the cost of using american workers, and that american workers have been found to produce more items per hour then a chinese worker as well. It was in a story about mars chocolate moving back.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

kartracer23

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
1,455
Location
New Castle, IN
I sell both US made and imported clothing. Apples to apples for quality, you'll pay anywhere from 30%-50% more for US Made. And the more hand labor involved (pockets, linings, zippers, etc.) the bigger the difference.

Most clothing manufacturers will tell you that one of the biggest issues they face is material supply. They just can't get US Made fabric. So, they might be able to make a shirt, jacket, etc. here in the US - but of imported fabric. Depending on the garment (and there are all kinds of rules & regs), it might have to be labeled as 'Assembled in the USA from internationally sourced materials.' So they lose the whole 'USA' thing.
 

Carl B

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
525
Location
Clearwater, Florida USA
This isn't terribly accurate in general, but it's particularly untrue where garment manufacture is concerned.

I would agree that garment manufacture is more labor intensive than average. Nonetheless garment workers in the Southern States were never paid anything close to the Union Wages in the North. Even with relatively low wages - the industry was still exported to China and SEA. As was the furniture industry in the South.

My point being that it isn't cheap labor in china, nor relatively expensive labor in the US - it is the total cost of production that is far different.. The largest difference is between the cost of Governments in China/India vs the U.S.

FWIW,
Carl B.
 

denis4x4

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
508
Location
Durango CO
And the education system will not or is afraid to suggest that little Johnny isn't college material, but would be excellent at a skilled trade or factory worker job. Rather they have two kinds of kids in schools, college prep'ed kids and dropouts. Vocational schools are about gone, everyone is pushed into the "go to college" mindset, and then they try and fail at college, and at that point are not properly prepared for the real world.

Schools are also afraid to teach stuff like how to balance a checkbook, how credit cards work and the pitfalls of them, how credit in general works and simply how to budget and manage money.

End of rant.

Charles

I belonged to a Rotary Club in an elite ski town and came up with a fundraiser that produced enough money that we could set up a scholarship foundation. I also put in the rules and regulations that for every dollar for an academic scholarship that was given out, fifty cents had to be spent on a vocational scholarship. The school system went bonkers. One counselor told me that "vocational school" was a dirty word. After reviewing the scholarship applications, I now understand why 40% of college freshmen need to take high school English and composition all over again. Over the years, our money created dental techs, beauty school graduates, plumbers, electricians, diesel mechanics and vet techs.

One of the best things we can do to cut spending is fire Arne Duncan and shut down the Department of Education and turn it back over to locals.
 

Carl B

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
525
Location
Clearwater, Florida USA
I
Most clothing manufacturers will tell you that one of the biggest issues they face is material supply. They just can't get US Made fabric.

Exactly - it is a cascading of events over decades that has us in the position we are in today.

One of Nissan Motor Co. Ltd's industries was the development and sales of Water Jet Looms - that is one thing that feed the basis for foreign fabric industries. With these new machines production could be doubled at a lower cost. The problem was - should the Corporations invest the capital for new plants and equipment here in the US or go overseas? You have seen the answer to that...

I worked for a major corporation that needed to build a new 500,000 sq foot facility circa 1990 - it would have employed about 5,000 people in upper middle class positions. I was one of 12 members of a Sight Selection Committee - that reviewed four possible sights here in the US. The bottom line was that if land had been purchased - it would be at least two and more likely three years before building could start. Federal, State and County governments were all involved - EPA studies were required on a 100 acre site, local Zoning, Utilities and Traffic studies were required - and all had to work their way up though huge bureaucracies that delayed everything for months and months. Legal fees were also huge because our lawyers had to argue with government lawyers over every detail of regulations and impositions. All things considered -the new plant was not built - at least not in the US.

In the period before - the US made it far easier for Corporations to invest in other countries - and they made it far less expensive from a Tax perspective - so no reason to build here - when our markets remaind open and all but free access was given.

FWIW,
Carl B
 

RAYJAY

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
2,638
Location
UNION DALE PA
And the education system will not or is afraid to suggest that little Johnny isn't college material, but would be excellent at a skilled trade or factory worker job. Rather they have two kinds of kids in schools, college prep'ed kids and dropouts. Vocational schools are about gone, everyone is pushed into the "go to college" mindset, and then they try and fail at college, and at that point are not properly prepared for the real world.

Schools are also afraid to teach stuff like how to balance a checkbook, how credit cards work and the pitfalls of them, how credit in general works and simply how to budget and manage money.

End of rant.

Charles


Charles x100000 on this nobody want to get dirty any more..... just sit at a desk and collect a paycheck,
 

timgr

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
544
Location
Medford, MA USA
Most of your views on this topic are very myopic.

Any free exchange of goods and services benefits both parties. US consumers benefit by receiving clothing and textiles for a cheap price. The clothing producers benefit by selling their products to customers who want them and can afford them.

This is the whole point of modern monetary-exchange based commerce. It allows producers to focus on what they can best do for low cost and at high volume. It makes the earnings of workers worth more, by providing goods and services at prices they can afford.

Industries, processes and products eventually become non-competitive in the larger market - like the US textile and clothing industries. Schumpeter borrowed the term "creative destruction" (from Marx) for this process. It's the natural dynamism of markets. CD may cause hardship for individuals in the short term, but in the long term and on a grander scale, it's what improves our lives and raises our standard of living.

So this whole "buy USA" impulse, whether applied voluntarily to Chinese clothing or involuntarily through trade tariffs on a wide range of products, will only serve to make us, and the Chinese, poorer. It's an unthoughtful and emotional response to a non-problem.

If you want to make US businesses more competitive, don't embargo foreign goods. Instead, lower the corporate capital gains tax, and make corporate taxes flatter and fairer. Then reduce the compliance costs for businesses for both taxes and regulations. This, not an embargo, will most benefit corporate competitiveness, and will put money in the pockets of workers.
 

denis4x4

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
508
Location
Durango CO
tmger said:

"So this whole "buy USA" impulse, whether applied voluntarily to Chinese clothing or involuntarily through trade tariffs on a wide range of products, will only serve to make us, and the Chinese, poorer. It's an unthoughtful and emotional response to a non-problem."

There is a certain segment of society that is willing to pay the price for quality goods made in the USA. As I see it, more and more manufacturers are going for the lowest common denominator. I do see it as a problem.
 

timgr

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
544
Location
Medford, MA USA
There is a certain segment of society that is willing to pay the price for quality goods made in the USA. As I see it, more and more manufacturers are going for the lowest common denominator. I do see it as a problem.

Producers only produce goods to the level of quality that their consumers desire. If one or the other is not happy with the product or profit, then the production and/or sale will not happen.

To me, it seems a little wrong-headed to try and impose my ideas of quality on the market. I'm free to buy the quality of products that I like, and spend as much as I want to get that quality. I vote with my pocketbook. But I don't have the right to impose my notion of what sufficient quality is on the market - that's between the buyers and the sellers - that's their vote.
 

Jononon

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
1,636
Any free exchange of goods and services benefits both parties. US consumers benefit by receiving clothing and textiles for a cheap price. The clothing producers benefit by selling their products to customers who want them and can afford them.

This is the whole point of modern monetary-exchange based commerce. It allows producers to focus on what they can best do for low cost and at high volume. It makes the earnings of workers worth more, by providing goods and services at prices they can afford.

Flat wage growth for workers for three decades, massively increased wealth disparity, a trade gap that has mired the entire western world in stagflation and unsustainable levels of debt...
 

grog

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
68
Location
DENVER
Here's something to think about. I recently bought a t-shirt from american apparel, that was made in the US. Made me feel good, till a friend mentioned who do you think sews these clothes here in the U.S. most likely illegals. So keep jobs in the U.S. by bying clothes made in Mexico?
Grog
 

timgr

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
544
Location
Medford, MA USA
Flat wage growth for workers for three decades, massively increased wealth disparity, a trade gap that has mired the entire western world in stagflation and unsustainable levels of debt...

This sounds to me like a list of reasons for more economic liberty, not less.
 

timgr

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
544
Location
Medford, MA USA
If what you're doing is demonstrably not working, do more of it?

So you are claiming that we have lots of economic liberty now? And you're also claiming that the economic liberty that we have now caused the issues you listed? If anything the current trend is away from economic liberty, not toward it. If there is a correlation, it's backwards from what you are implying.
 

denis4x4

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
508
Location
Durango CO
Producers only produce goods to the level of quality that their consumers desire. If one or the other is not happy with the product or profit, then the production and/or sale will not happen.

To me, it seems a little wrong-headed to try and impose my ideas of quality on the market. I'm free to buy the quality of products that I like, and spend as much as I want to get that quality. I vote with my pocketbook. But I don't have the right to impose my notion of what sufficient quality is on the market - that's between the buyers and the sellers - that's their vote.

You missed the point. There are more products that are no longer even available due to manufacturers that cater to the lowest denominator. In other words, I can't vote with my wallet if there is nothing to vote on.
 

timgr

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
544
Location
Medford, MA USA
Mmm.

You don't understand - the producers vote too. For any sale to take place, there must be two parties - the buyer and the seller. This is the way the market works. The producers have not stopped producing the high-quality goods that you yearn for simply to spite a small fraction of the market. Instead they have found a better market in less expensive goods that a larger number of buyers want.

I think your complaint is that more buyers do not agree with you on the value equation, not that manufacturers are not willing to produce these goods.

Nearly every product is available at the right price. If you can get enough buyers together that are willing to pay the premium for what you judge are higher quality goods, then you can buy them. You've heard the expression "the customer is always right"? - this is what it means. The sellers do not drive the market - the buyers do. The buyers control the money, which is 100% liquid, but the sellers goods are not. So the sellers have to provide the goods that the customers want. Change the demand and you'll get different goods.
 

denis4x4

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
508
Location
Durango CO
timgr said:


"I think your complaint is that more buyers do not agree with you on the value equation, not that manufacturers are not willing to produce these goods."

I finally almost agree with something you said! Bottom line is that the world is full of cheap SOB's!

For the record, I spend my adult working life marketing high performance products and because of the small market, high quality products were always available and in demand by consumers Even though the market still exits, the MBA's that now run many of the performance manufacturing conglomerates lack the passion for the hobby and look only at the bottom line, thus catering to the lowest common denominator; the above mentioned SOB's.

There is an upside to this situation as the void in the market for quality products has created a cottage industry that can use the internet to spread the word that quality products are available to those that want to pay.

Quite frankly, my ideas of "value equation" have met with success over the years as they relate to certain market segments!
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Top Bottom