On a more serious note, if I didn’t know you’re probably not making a billionaire’s salary at the CTC Vista Project, I would say that your threads on this one day of 365 shows you’re quite the spender. But because I do, I think it’s a pretty good example of Americans’ tendency to be conspicuous spenders.
Probably the best we could do as Americans to address poverty while also feeding consumption is really just to research the companies we go to. My theory as to why even the most conscientious of us don’t is that more often than not, we bargain so much of ourselves (staking out personality, status, economic wealth) with brands rather than quality or craftsmanship. We project and equivocate meaning with brands, and researching our producers limits our expression. If given a choice, we’d rather that our companies had ethical business practices (i.e.: Banana Republic’s green collection, bullshit of course), but otherwise the whole thing reminds me of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” There’s a suspicion that so many companies don’t have ethical business practices that researching and making personal decisions about companies takes on the same weight as seriously considering religion.
I recently heard that when visiting a nonprofit’s page asking for donations, Americans are more likely to donate if the picture and caption is of one person instead of thousands. Why? Because Americans relate to individuals rather than masses. It’s an interesting idea to project into clothing and global poverty: Maybe the reason we don’t wonder about how our choices affect poverty is because we find it easier to relate to and relay ourselves through clothes than the tailors behind all our brands.
To end, I do wonder if that whole “they would have done the same” argument would fly if we were the impoverished country and a more community-based country were the superpower.