Our closets are naked - of clothes made in USA
Two percent.
That's how little of clothing purchased by American consumers was made in the U.S., according to the new book, "Overdressed" by political philosopher and journalist Elizabeth Cline. In 1990 that figure was 50 percent.
Most of what's in our closets is Chinese. According to U.S. trade statistics, China was America's leading clothing and textile supplier in 2011, followed in order by Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Honduras, Cambodia and El Salvador.
Consumer demand for low-priced goods keeps rising and, relatively speaking, we like to buy a lot of it. European and Asian closets have much smaller inventories, even among the wealthy; they have a quality over quantity approach, repeating outfits during the same week. How often do you see that here?
Ironically, much of our predominantly foreign-made apparel gets shipped back overseas, after we tire of it. About one third of the clothing donated to charities ends up in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the Guardian newspaper. U.S. International Trade Commission reports show 1,589 tons of used clothing, worth about $1.3 million, was shipped from the U.S. to Uganda between January and October 2012.
The Ugandan clothing market relies on thrift-store surplus exports in part because utility costs are too high to modernize clothing manufacture, according to the Feb. 4 issue of Christian Science Monitor. It's more economical to import used clothing than make it themselves. It's also trendy; local retailers told CSM that Western styles (even what may seem outdated to us) are highly popular in Africa.
U.S. textile and apparel jobs have declined for three decades, with 900,000 jobs lost from 1994 to 2005, according to USDA figures. Both technological improvements (more computers mean fewer workers) and import competition have reduced this segment of the workforce from 2.4 million in 1973 to 650,000 in 2005. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 accelerated this, as has the recession.
Apparel production is still labor-intensive, so wages are a large share of production costs. In the last two centuries, rising U.S. incomes first shifted clothing production from households to factories, then during the 20th century it migrated to foreign countries with lower wages.
So does free trade mean a net job loss? And with laws of supply and demand in a competitively free market - specifically the Wal-Mart prices Americans want to pay - does it matter when push comes to shove in the thinning middle-class wallet?
Not according to a 2012 report by Heritage Foundation researchers, "Trade Freedom: How imports support U.S. jobs." According to the Census Bureau, in 2010 the U.S. imported $382 billion of goods from China in 2010, about one-fifth of our total imports. The Heritage Foundation report states the value added to our economy was $21.67 billion, including half a million American jobs just in clothes (355,000) and toys.
"These jobs are in fields such as transportation, wholesale, retail, construction, and finance, and in myriad other activities that are involved in turning a manufactured product into a good that is ready for use by the average American... Many imports into the U.S. start their lives as American intellectual property or components of goods, which are then modified or assembled overseas," states the report.
Right or wrong, trade is a complex picture (and this column hasn't even touched on sustainability, human rights/labor conditions, and equitable trade laws). In the end it's the almighty dollar which reigns in a capitalist system. Cheaper may not be better, but its cry is deafeningly loud.
Sholeh Patrick is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network with degrees in international studies and law. Contact her at sholehjo@hotmail.com.