Archive for Saturday, April 28, 2012

Foreign Levi’s

April 28, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

I have purchased Levi’s jeans since I was about 12 years old. I remember buying them for $5 a pair when Hal Keltz had the Lawrence Surplus store in downtown Lawrence. I was looking at the labels of some that I have now and was very surprised to find that they were made in Egypt, Bangladesh, China, Lesotho (a country within the Republic of South Africa) and even Cambodia! And these were purchased here in Lawrence. No wonder that the unemployment rate is as high as it is.

Comments

riverdrifter 3 years, 3 months ago

Yep. I just bought my last batch of Levis. Sad to say it but they're trash. No more.

Clint Church 3 years, 3 months ago

If you really want American made jeans go to All American jeans or Diamond Gussett. They are both excellent jeans and made by Americans. I don't think even Carhartts are made in the US anymore.

hujiko 3 years, 3 months ago

Sounds likes somebody has a case of the globalization blues.

RoeDapple 3 years, 3 months ago

Ummm . . . Levi closed their last US plant in '04. My experience has been that depending on country of manufacture they all fit differently . . . and none of them fit right.

For USA made jeans I have found Carhartt to have the most consistant fit.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

Not many Carhartt are made in USA... most are made in Mexico. Unionlabel.com stopped selling Carhartt because they would no longer separate out the US made from the foreign made jeans. I really like the Unionlabel jeans. They fit comfortably and at $40 a pair, they are a great value considering they have lasted twice as long as any other jeans I have bought in the past.

tolawdjk 3 years, 3 months ago

Translation: " I love my American Liberty, but you can offshore the rest."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

Two things could address this situation.

Implement a "minimum wage" for the workers who toil in places like China or elsewhere. If they don't receive such wages in their paychecks, levy a tariff that would represent the amount of unpaid wages, and use it for economic development and/or paying down the deficit here.

Carbon fee and dividend-- this would accomplish a number of things, but in particular it would remove the subsidies for shipping widgets (and Levys) willy nilly across the planet.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

How would China, or other countries respond to the implementation of tariffs?

Kirk Larson 3 years, 3 months ago

Well, if they raised their prices for consumer goods it might make it more cost effective to make them in the US. Hmm.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

If that's what they chose to do. What if they imposed a tariff on some U.S. goods entering their country. That would probably lower production here, costing jobs.
The point is, imposing tariffs is the start of a trade war. The likely results won't be a minimum wage in China or increased production here.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

So they'll increase the tariffs. Or impose new ones. Maybe they'll flood our market with counterfeit products. Or de-value their currency at a time when we are desperately trying to get them to raise it. Point is that if it's a trade war we want, they are certainly capable of holding their own.

deec 3 years, 3 months ago

"Some estimates by economists say 8% of China's GDP comes from the sales of counterfeit goods, from software to designer clothing." http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/03/14/the-10-most-counterfeited-products-sold-in-america/

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

China doesn't buy anything from us that they can produce themselves. So adding tariffs would have little or no effect on their purchase of US products.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

China buys dollars from us. Essentially, they're our banker. I really don't think it's prudent to get into a pissing match with them. While I have no problem with encouraging China to raise it's minimum wage, or to improve working conditions, it's the same line of thinking as when we try to encourage other countries to adopt our values. Most times, it's a bad fit for them, even though we feel they are best for us.
Instead of imposing things on them, a strategy doomed to failure, negotiations with them would be a more effective way.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

They don't buy dollars, they lend us money.

And, if we're dependent on them for that, then we're in a rather poor negotiating position.

Instead of accepting that scenario, why not stop borrowing from them, and establish certain conditions for trading with us?

They sell a lot of stuff to us, so they have a vested interest in trading with us.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

Sure, stop borrowing from them. What else, clean the environment yesterday. End poverty. End hatred. Anything else. World peace. Sure, let's do it.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

So, it's your considered opinion that we can't stop borrowing money from China?

What stops us exactly?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

The real world, exactly. And I don't think we can clean the environment, yesterday. Nor stop hatred or hunger. All good things. But ain't gonna happen. Really, Jafs, every politician we've elected in the past few decades knows this isn't a good thing, yet they've been unable to stop it. You think a couple of posters on a LJW chat room can? Get real. Do you really think Obama if re-elected will stop it? Will Romney? Get real. This Congress? The next? Fix what you can fix. Have the wisdom to know what you can fix and what you can't. But if you can enlighten me, tell me how, exactly we can stop borrowing from China. That's a 15 trillion dollar deficit. How about we shut down all government activity at all levels for a decade or so. That'll do it.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

The question isn't whether or not they "will" stop borrowing from them, but whether or not they "can".

In my view, we can stop borrowing money from China whenever we want to do so - through a combination of lowering spending and raising tax revenue.

During the entire Clinton administration, we saw decreasing deficits, followed by increasing surpluses, and he left office with a surplus for Bush.

Bush, of course, immediately decided to give it back in the form of tax cuts.

What's lacking is not the ability, but the will, to do something serious about our deficits and debt. One major problem is that many R legislators have signed the "Norquist" pledge, promising to never vote for a tax increase. And, if they go against that, Norquist and his organization mount a determined campaign to remove them from office.

On the D side, there is a reluctance to decrease spending, although there was a good proposal of a $1/$10 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts, which the R wouldn't go for.

If we are in fact unable to stop borrowing money, then we're doomed, and it won't take very long before we meet our fate.

I think we have the ability as a nation to make better choices than that, and that we should make those better choices.

Not sure why you like to talk about cleaning up the environment "yesterday" - we can and should start doing that "today".

You seem to lack the distinction between debts and deficits, as many people do - we have a large debt, but that doesn't mean we have to incur budget deficits each year, and increase that debt.

In fact, if we stopped doing that, and had some surpluses, as Clinton did, one of the things we could do with it would be to reduce our debt, which would also be a very good thing.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

I think the problem you fail to recognize is that events on the ground change. Bill Clinton, for all the good he did, also was lucky enough to have served during a time of a rapidly expanding economy. But there was a bubble on the horizon. Whether or not that's the dot com bubble or the housing bubble, it was going to happen. The economy goes in cycles. I've mentioned in the past that I don't necessarily give much credit nor blame to whomever occupies the White House at any particular time. Then you add in events such as 9/11, events far beyond anything that anyone can do. In my opinion, Clinton deserves as much credit for the bubble bursting as he does credit for the expansion during the rise up to the bubble. Be clear, it's little credit and little blame. The economy expands and contracts as a normal cycle, regardless of who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. There will come a time when the economy turns around. Will it be during a second Obama administration? During a Romney presidency? I don't know. And there might come a time when our debt and our deficit can be reduced or eliminated by a growing economy. Of course, it might happen as the result of the next bubble and then that will collapse when that bubble bursts. But we've gone a bit off from Bozo's suggestion that we simply put tariffs on Chinese products to put pressure on them to raise their minimum wage. U.S./Chinese relations are very different from say U.S./Granada relations. China has spent the better part of the last two thousands years as the world's most powerful economic power. We in the west don't think of it in those terms. For the last very short period of time, the U.S. has passed China, but that may be a very temporary matter. The U.S. would do well to deal with China as an equal power and not try to dictate terms to them, as Bozo's post implies.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

But if we're dependent on their lending us money, we can't negotiate as equals, we're one down, which is a poor place to be negotiating from.

And, I don't believe that the economy is completely separate from, and unaffected by government policies.

Other countries use tariffs, and they seem to work pretty well to encourage buying from one's own country - Ecuador imposes a 30-35% tax on anything imported.

Ecuador isn't a big power player on the world stage as far as I know.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

"While I have no problem with encouraging China to raise it's minimum wage, or to improve working conditions,"

Imposing tariffs does exactly that. They don't require them to do anything. They merely remove or reduce the competitive advantage they get for bad behavior.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 3 months ago

I don't know if you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis. But when the U.S. threatened to invade Cuba, the Soviet response was to let it be known that West Berlin might be invaded. Countries don't always respond tit for tat. They respond in lots of unpredictable ways. So China might respond by arming Sudan in it's escalating conflict with south Sudan. (Sudan is a major supplier of oil to China). Or they may block action in the U.N. when we try to get Syria to behave in a certain manner.
Who knows how China might respond. The point is that they are a major world power with many options. Before we try to bully them into behaving in a certain manner, we might want to consider the many responses China has at it's disposal.

imastinker 3 years, 3 months ago

Bozo, I could support your tarriff idea. It's not practical though until Washington cuts spending. We can't keep borrowing money from the people that we'll be ticking off with out policies.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

Oh, do let us dictate to other countries as bozo suggests. It will be such jolly fun!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

There would be no "dictating" involved. They're free to produce what they want, however they want, and screw their workers however they want. They just won't be able to get a competitive advantage for it in this country.

JayhawksandHerd 3 years, 3 months ago

I agree with bozo. If the market works as efficiently as many claim, China and/or other countries could simply take their business elsewhere if they don't want to pay.

Kirk Larson 3 years, 3 months ago

I agree. Most Favored Nation trading status (which we hand out far too easily) should be contingent on a minimal level of labor and environmental protections.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 3 months ago

Well, not all of them. But certainly more than the plutocrats currently in charge will ever solve.

cowboy 3 years, 3 months ago

pretty simple , buy usa goods , call out us companies like apple who suck out the dollars but don't invest in jobs

woodscolt 3 years, 3 months ago

Amusing how all the wingers are all about jobs (at least since obama) but they still buy everything chinese to save themselves money. When this is pointed out, you get comments like

"Oh, do let us dictate to other countries as bozo suggests. It will be such jolly fun!" snaps snap

Thats why snap buys chinese goods and not american, patriotism is trumped because he doesn't want to tell china what to do.

RoeDapple 3 years, 3 months ago

USA made Carhartts retail several dollars less than Levis

RoeDapple 3 years, 3 months ago

USA made Carhartt brand is higher quality, lower priced AND union made.

JayhawksandHerd 3 years, 3 months ago

Outside of buying a pair for three bucks from the Salvation Army, I wouldn't touch Levi's these days. I haven't found a decent pair in decades.

Eric Rice 3 years, 3 months ago

I went to Carhartt jeans for the same reason plus they fit well.

Budgets_Smudgets 3 years, 3 months ago

We've done a good job exporting 80-hour work weeks and child labor. Workplace suicides too.

I hope all you smug Iphone and Ipad owners understand this.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

In the link, that's described as the "theory" of competitive advantage, not the "law".

We benefit in some ways, in some cases, but we also suffer as well, in some ways and cases from our trade with other nations.

If you grew your own food, etc. you wouldn't need much money.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

Since producers are the ones who "create jobs" - if they suffer, then jobs are lost.

That's a downside to the picture.

Consumers get cheap and plentiful goods, but jobs become scarcer.

I didn't say we shouldn't have trade at all - I simply commented that if one were more self sufficient, one wouldn't need more money, since it's a cheaper way to live. So not having a lot of money wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

Everything has positive and negative aspects, as far as I can tell.

You can call it a "law" if you want, but your link describes it (more accurately, I would say) as a "theory".

bad_dog 3 years, 3 months ago

Law? There is a reason hard sciences refer to Economics as 'the dismal science"...

bad_dog 3 years, 3 months ago

"Wow, ignorance on parade." Good to see you acknowledge you're the joker that's out of step.

You spout your economic "theories" as absolute truths then ridicule the term "hard sciences". It's pretty obvious who is struggling and doesn't recognize where a term comes from or means. LOL indeed.

bad_dog 3 years, 3 months ago

Wow, let's all bow to the self-appointed smartest person in the room. Your ongoing usage of the term "LOL" reflects a lot about your maturity level, or lack thereof. The content & tone of your posts say a lot about your true intellectual level.

As for the definition of "dismal science", the term was coined by Thomas Carlyle; reportedly in response to (as you note above) Malthus' predictions regarding population growth outstripping food supply. There is debate however, regarding whether the term was intended rather as a response to Mill. I made the comment in a "tongue in cheek" fashion as a contrast to your 24/7/365 absolutist statements about deregulation and laissez faire policies. Usage in this fashion isn't novel to me; it's the same way my Econ professors used the term. It was a somewhat self-deprecating wag at their own profession. Hard to believe someone purportedly as bright as you profess to be didn't get it although humility doesn't seem to be a theme you're familiar with.

Ta, ta for now.

bad_dog 3 years, 3 months ago

LOL (in deference to you and your apparent love affair with the acronym), you can always tell when L_O knows L_O looks bad because L_O comes back with the verbal diarrrhea, trying to prove how smart L_O is. Yes, you now know where the term originated, after you looked it up to determine its meaning.

On top of that you try to say that self-deprecating, tongue in cheek usage by economics professors far more qualified to discuss the topic than you, just doesn't make sense to L_O.

Let me spell it out so you can better digest it: Our Econ professors in the context of discussing economics in general as well as Malthus & others specifically, on occasion remarked that the hard sciences perceived economics as "the dismal science" and they certainly could understand why. Funny how everyone one in the class got it... Apparently you and your rigidified perspectives do not. I guess they just didn't believe Malthus or Carlyle had exclusive domain over definition and usage of the term, particularly almost 2 centuries later. How arrogant of them! Sorry their pitiful attempts at a lighthearted application offend your delicate sensibilities. but I guess you'll just have to tough it.

Here's a link to help you better understand usage in this context: http://www.economicshelp.org/essays/the_dismal_science.html

Again, ta, ta for now.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

Read your own link - the first one.

You will find a number of economists who disagree with the "theory", and a number of arguments against it's validity.

I've already provided an example of how trade may hurt, rather than help our economy, by reducing jobs.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

And, specialization, while useful and helpful in some ways, has negative aspects as well.

Since that's part of the idea of comparative advantage, it's not without a downside.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

Ok.

Since you say so, it must be true, regardless of your own link on the subject.

I thought it was the "Law of Comparative Advantage" - have you demoted it to lower class letters now?

We import a lot more than we export, so we have a trade imbalance - that means we have lost jobs to other countries.

jafs 3 years, 3 months ago

Over the long run, we're all dead.

We buy stuff, a lot of stuff, from other countries. Even if they wanted to stop taking dollars, we could just convert currencies and continue buying a lot of stuff from them.

It's true, as the value of the dollar declines, our buying power will decrease.

And, then what? If we stop buying so much from other countries, will we then buy it from American companies? Or, will we just see a steady decline in our economy, as people buy less, fewer jobs are created, etc.?

The generally accepted reason that we buy so much from other countries is that they can supply us with cheaper goods - American made goods are more expensive.

So, if we don't buy a lot of American made goods, and we can't export them because they're more expensive, it seems very possible that we'll just see a steadily declining economy.

Doesn't sound like a great outcome to me.

Of course, it may wind up being a more balanced trade situation - but I'm not sure that's worth much, really.

tomatogrower 3 years, 3 months ago

Please, it's all about the people at the top making more profit. They could care less if their workers live or die. Even a good little libertarian like you knows your type of capitalism is all about greed. And, no, I don't believe that mankind is only into greed. I'm not cynical enough to be part of your weird libertarian fantasy world.

tomatogrower 3 years, 3 months ago

I don't have the time to do the math, but looking at the cost of jeans compared to what they cost in the 60's, is it really cheaper? Unless you buy them at the Salvation Army or find them on sale, you are going to pay $50 for a pair, regardless of where they came from. Yet, not manufacturing them here in the US has created major problems, unemployment, welfare state.

So people like LO don't care if people in the US have jobs, but they whine about taxes they pay from the profits they are making off their slave labor in other countries, so that the jobless here won't starve do death. LO, what do you think these people will do when they have had enough with uncaring, greedy people like you? So far you and cronies have been successful in convincing them that they should pity all the rich people, but if the wealth doesn't start trickling down with jobs and/or straight out welfare, hungry people are going to start looking at who really is to blame, and it's not going to be Obama or Bush. The 1% can only hide behind that curtain for so long.

esteshawk 3 years, 3 months ago

So we can never move beyond 200 year old economic theories and look for ways to improve it? In case you haven't noticed, this 'trickle up' concept of concentrating wealth at the top isn't working very well (and it never has).

esteshawk 3 years, 3 months ago

Living standards are not my issue; equality is. I assume the "connections to power" you mention are the same connections to power you advocate for, that being corporations? Your support of laissez-fair economics does not in any way diminish the role of government, only helps take power from the voters and concetrate it in the hands of the wealthy. Sure, people can avoid buying from this company or that, but bottom line is that as long as corporations provide a wall of separation and protection to those who own them, money wins out and inequality reigns (along with allthe social ills that brings). Government exists because about 4000 years ago humans figured out that laissez-faire didnt work.

RoeDapple 3 years, 3 months ago

Carhartt Men's Relaxed Fit Straight Leg Jeans - Suggested retail $39.95 Levi’s Men’s 501 Straight Leg Jeans - - - - - - - - Suggested retail $45.00

Did I mention I like Carhartt?

tomatogrower 3 years, 3 months ago

Thank you, Roe. LO thinks all those Americans making Carhartt's jeans and getting paid for their labor are inefficient fools. He'll probably come in to tell us how much more profit Levi makes for their investors. It would be interesting to know the ratio between worker and executive pay (including bonuses) of these 2 companies.

In the conservative world, if the executives aren't celebrities making 7 figures, and the profits don't double every year, then the company is a failure. Just ask Romney. He got rich putting moderately successful businesses in bankruptcy, not because they were unprofitable, but because they weren't making enough profit. Then his company walked away with a huge profit after producing nothing. Just like the futures traders. They produce nothing, but get rich.

A friend of mine used to say he wanted a working boss. Not someone who was afraid to leave their office and get their hands dirty, unlike those GM executives who ran the company into the ground. Apparently LO thinks that a working boss is a fool. They are more efficient and make more money because they can convince people that they have a "vision" magically given to them because they have an MBA. Yet they haven't a clue what really happens in their company.

tomatogrower 3 years, 3 months ago

Better made, less expensive jeans made in the US? Poorly fitting expensive jeans made many other places? People buy the Levi's because the advertising makes them sound better. They buy them in WalMart, because supposedly WalMart is cheaper, which isn't really true. People think Carhartt, they think farmers, not sexy (apologies to farmers, some of you are sexy). I do know how things work. Advertise to make people think they are buying a cheaper, better product, but screw them. Use advertising to make people think they can't live without it, or they aren't "cool" if they don't own it. Sounds pretty high school, but it still works on adults.

I am not against foreign good. I drive a Toyota. Mostly because of the quality. Checked a Ford hybrid, but there wasn't as much leg room in the back. I look for quality. I have driven Fords before, and except for the Pinto, was pleased. This time I was more pleased with the Toyota. As for GM, they used to have a quality car until they hired a bunch of lazy, snobby MBA's who couldn't even take an elevator with the "help". I haven't looked at some of their new products, but hopefully they are trying to give people what they really want, instead of trying to make people think they want it.

windjammer 3 years, 3 months ago

Don't go to Lee jeans they are now the same crap. Thinner and color is gone after 2 or 3 washes.

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 3 months ago

If Levi Strauss had stuck to making jeans and work clothes, they could still manufacture in the US and make a profit.

The problem is they expanded, started making all sorts of clothing lines and competing in markets that they could not effectively compete in.

They had to offset these losses somehow, so exporting jeans manufacturing jobs for cheap labor became the way.

CLARKKENT 3 years, 3 months ago

i quit buying levi's several years ago. i to had been wearing them since the 60's. went to lee, they were good for awhile, so carhartt, here i come. i will always try to buy "made in the u.s.a.

Mike Ford 3 years, 3 months ago

thank the gop.....they want american workers to work for nothing with next to no benefits while daddy romney warbucks profits....remember the mentally adjusted?? clown in There Will Be Blood?

Joe Hyde 3 years, 3 months ago

I can relate to Chris' LTE and I appreciate RoeDapple's comments regarding Carhartt jeans. I used to buy clothes and hunting boots at Lawrence Surplus. What a great store, and Mr. Keltz was a really cool guy.

My big gripe about men's pants in general has to do with the fact that so many manufacturers stopped outfitting their pants with 7 belt loops. Nowadays most men's pants have just 5 belt loops -- two in the front, one on each hip, one centered in the back. This creates an unsupported area at the 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock position that lets the pants get pulled out from underneath the belt you're wearing.

Which is why I switched a couple of years ago to buying Lee bluejeans: they have 7 loops. But...the denim in those Lee jeans is very thin (perhaps an indication they were made overseas in one of the counties Chris mentions; without the stapled-on factory label I can't check to find out).

Next time I'm in a store that carries them I'll look to see if union-made Carhartts have 7 belt loops, and if the fabric feels as durable as those old Levi's I once bought at Lawrence Surplus. If they pass muster I'm giving Carhartts a shot.

But that don't mean y'all gonna start seein' me 'round town with a big wad 'o snuff stashed 'tween my cheek and gum. You can forget that.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

Unionlabel jeans at unionlabel.com. $40 per pair (cheaper if you buy them in threes), long lasting so they are a great value, and fit very comfortably. They are union made and I highly recommend them.

George_Braziller 3 years, 3 months ago

I've been getting my jeans from Land's End ever since I got my first pair as a Christmas present. They're about the same price as Levi's but they're better made and last forever.

livinginlawrence 3 years, 3 months ago

I'll second this.

Land's End makes quality products, at least as far as my own experiences have informed me. Not all of their products are entirely made in the US, but they do offer many items that are.

windjammer 3 years, 3 months ago

Lands End is another company that has cheapened their clothes. Wore their tshirts for years. Collars cheap, material cheap and they shrink. Went to LLBean but it probably won't be long for them but as for now ok.

labmonkey 3 years, 3 months ago

Unionlabel jeans are American made and they cost $40 per pair. They last forever, are union made and are the most comfortable jeans I have ever worn. There is no question where they are made compared to Carhartt, who make more jeans in Mexico than they do in the US.

unionlabel.com

tolawdjk 3 years, 3 months ago

You bought stock in a company selling $350 jeans?

Do you expecit it to rise much more than $3?

Lawrence Morgan 3 years, 3 months ago

Take a look at this article in today's New York Times.

And read the comments.

And then think about all the taxes that are lost in this country because of antiquated labor tax laws:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html

esteshawk 3 years, 3 months ago

You claim to be all-knowing about the economy, but you don't seem to even understand what the government is for. It is there because your precious free-market does not work as well as you pretend. It is there to build roads. It is there to ensure your free-market heros do not dump toxic waste into rivers. It is there to provide courts of law. It is there to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves (no, not everyone is created equal). It is there because society wants it and needs it, and the libertarians of the world are outnumbered.

kernal 3 years, 3 months ago

Went through my closet this afternoon to see if I still have any clothing made in the USA. Found one sweater vest from 1980 or so. Interesting that the best made items are from the '80's and '90's and made in Hong Kong, Pakistan and Macao. LL Bean has gone down hill that past two years as their clothing is now being made in China by child labor and slaves as is much of the clothing sold in the U.S today. Makes one wonder how the garment workers who made a living making all those clothes for us the past thirty years in Pakistan, Macao, Honduras, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Thailand and Turkey are making a living now?

And RoaD, my Levi's were made in Mexico.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 3 months ago

Levi was one of the best USA companies ever and had several USA manufacturing centers paying good wages and benefits.

Then Wal-Mart came along. Thank Wal-Mart. Yep they pulled a fast on the Levi company as they did with several USA manufacturers. Wal-Mart wanted Levi's in their stores so they brought them in. Levi then beefed up production with new equipment and such to keep up with projected new demand. All was going good for awhile.

Okay now Wal-Mart comes back to the drawing board after Levi spent a bunch of money on production. Walk-Mart says yes we like the Levi product butttttttttttttt we will only pay this much for the Levi product. This much = Wal-Mart price and screw the the Levi company.

Levi discovered they could no longer afford to keep USA people working or they would go bankrupt sooooo were initially forced into the arms of Wal-Mart and the communist Chinese government. Notice the cost of Levi jeans did not decrease.

All American Clothing and Duluth Trading Company appear to offer USA made jeans.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 3 months ago

Everything is Wal-Mart's fault, isn't it, but? BTW, Duluth Trading company lists 7 models of men's jeans. 6 of them are imported. You need to look closer before going off the rails.

esteshawk 3 years, 3 months ago

Because monies paid to American workers (those inside the US regardless of immigration status) are then spent on US soil, which helps the entire US economy. They go to lunch and the restaurant workers get paid, and they in turn go to the grocery store, and those workers get paid, and they spend money on rent, and the landlord then spends to money for a new roof, etc etc ect (one dollar gets cycled through an economy about 7 times!).

jonas_opines 3 years, 3 months ago

Do you have any statistics to support that? Offshoring certain aspects of production, and getting some of our staple goods produced by cheaper labor abroad has been going on for a really long time. Taiwan before China, Japan before Taiwan.

I'm not being antagonistic, there is the possibility that the scale of it has grown over the years along with the tech that has made it easier to do. But let's not really assume without reason that back in the good ol' days things were all made here, and everybody only bought American.

Matthew Herbert 3 years, 3 months ago

My personal favorite are the American flag t-shirts sold at Kohl's. I've yet to find a single one made in the USA. Last batch I looked at were Honduras.

Carol Bowen 3 years, 3 months ago

It's difficult to buy something that is not made in China. I try to buy items not made in China as often as I can. I'm saving a lot of money. It's impossible.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.