This is a grossly selfish argument for banning Shein, Temu etc
The essential argument being made here is that everyone should pay high prices for everything so that I get the high priced goods that I want. Which is, when you think about it, something of a selfish argument:
Yet for all the protests, fines and resistance, there’s a reason Société des Grands Magasins (BHV’s owner) has leased its retail space to Shein: it knows Shein’s shoddy, ultracheap and unethical clothes will sell. Shein is the fifth-largest clothing retailer by volume in France, celebrated as an accessible retailer for trendy fashion. Behind the rows of protesters on Wednesday carrying signs reading “SHAME ON SHEIN” stood hundreds of Parisians, waiting patiently in line to enter Shein’s new, permanent, super-cheap emporium. They left carrying bulging shopping bags of polyester sweaters and shimmering going-out tops, muted pastel workwear and plastic, faux-leather winter coats. Most likely, they felt they had scored a bargain.
People protesting against what other people clearly desire in large volume. What is the justification for this protest?
The presence of Shein in France is more than an economic affront – it’s a cultural one, too. Shein stands in direct opposition to values the French stereotypically hold dear: artistry and durability, sustainability and chicness. BHV Marais staff, bolstered by support from the major French trade unions, have staged numerous strikes and demonstrations in recent weeks, and several independent retailers have pulled their products from the department store in protest. More than 100,000 French citizens have signed an online petition opposing Shein’s presence in the city. And on opening day, protesters with anti-Shein signs were forcibly removed from the store by police. The French fear Shein’s impact on the economy and labour markets, but also what the brand stands for: dirt-cheap clothing, at the expense of ethics.
The complaint is that if the proles get cheap clothes then the proles won’t buy expensive clothes. Which reduces the volume of the expensive clothes business and thus makes them even more expensive for the beau monde who distinguish themselves by wearing expensive clothes. That is, the proles must be forced to pay high prices to subsidise the haute bourgeoisie.
Which is not, we think, the way things should work. We’ve made this point before about opposition to supermarkets. There are those who insist that one not be allowed to open because it will kill off - say - the High Street butcher. Which might well be true but why would it be true? Because those who do not wish to pay £25 a lb for sausages are now able to pay £5 a lb for them. Thus sucking some of the trade away from the more expensive operation and making it uneconomic. Thus the demand is that there be no supermarket and the would be £5 buyers have to continue to pay the £25 in order to subsidise those who want to pay £25.
Demanding that the new and cheap not be allowed to preserve the old and expensive is that - grossly selfish. For it is to insist that everyone pay the high prices to support the desires of only the few.
A pox on ‘em, frankly. That a teenage girl buys a £5 miniskirt to glam up for the school disco might disturb a protective father but that’s the only person it should concern - and they get put back in their box soon enough too.
Tim Worstall