The Failure of Modern Decency™ : Saks Global takes the Fall?

i. What happened

Valentine’s Day 2025- WSJ runs an article entitled,” Saks Warns Suppliers They Will Have to Wait for Payments: Luxury retailer moves to reassure vendors after merger with Neiman Marcus (WSJ 2/14/2025 byline Lauren Thomas

Which tells of a promise (?) to pay bills for new orders within 90 days and past due payments to be paid in 12 installments  starting in July  . That means that vendors who are owed money February 2025 (however old the debt) cannot expect to be repaid until July 2026.

What was not stated was the original due date of these orders. According to other news sources including the Wall Street Journal state that these problems have gone back at least more than 2 years. That journal cites an Australian company named Luna Bronze that shipped 5 orders between July and October 2023, and got paid for none of them.

The same article also states that:

 “Reports of Saks stiffing suppliers surfaced last year. The retailer had been conserving cash as it negotiated to buy rival Neiman Marcus. The $2.65 billion acquisition, announced in early July, is awaiting approval from the Federal Trade Commission. 

The deal irked vendors to whom Saks still owes payment. ‘You have the money to do an acquisition, but you can’t pay the people that you owe?’ Shnitzer-Bartocci said. ‘They sold the merchandise we’ve given them. They’ve made money on it, and yet they still haven’t paid us back.’” 

Saks response to inquiries: 

“The Saks spokeswoman said funds that support operations or vendor payables wouldn’t be used to finance its Neiman Marcus acquisition." 

Does that statement make the problem better or worse?

Not paying vendors on time (or at all), whether it is Saks or anyone else, is a selfish and reprehensible practice, no doubt. Think about it: If Saks’ customer didn’t pay their bills, and told Saks that they were just going to have to wait and would pay over 12 months (without interest, I assume), would Saks accept that? Especially after the customer has taken possession of the item and used it?

I am going to assume that Saks did not pay a deposit of any sort to their vendors when they placed their order. Let’s assume they ordered some apparel from a foreign country. The vendor should pay for all the materials, labor, packaging and at least preparation for shipping on their own nickel. If we assume a processing time of 90 days and shipment of 30 days, plus Saks proposed 90 days from receipt term, even on time payments will be 210 days, or 7 months, for the vendor to bear. IF paid on time.

Saks is calling attention to itself, after the much-glorified merger, but it is by no means alone in not paying its vendors on time or at all. To Saks’ credit, at least they are addressing the problem. Further investigation would be pointless, but I would like to hear from the retailers that are actually paying on time. That could be a deafening silence.

ii. What is the problem?

So, what’s the problem? Answer: The Failure of Modern Decency™.

First, what is Modern Decency™? It is a term I coined, and later incorporated into my university Playbook (non-textbook learning), The Way of the Unicorn(C), to signify an attitude and best practices which are the opposite of Modern Slavery:

Modern Decency™ is: Running your business and living your life in a manner that considers all people in all countries as the same as you: deserving of respect, fair compensation, and a living wage; they, as you, have the desire and the right to preserve our planet for future generations. 

Modern Slavery is defined as: “when an individual is exploited by others, for personal or commercial gain. Whether tricked, coerced, or forced, they lose their freedom. 

Wait. Isn’t it a bit extreme to accuse Saks and others who either pay their vendors late or don’t pay of Modern Slavery?

You decide. If someone orders something and doesn’t pay for it or doesn’t pay as agreed, is this not exploitation?

As I said before, it is not just Saks. If anything, their (eventual) transparency sets them above those who just don’t pay and, if confronted, lie about the outcome. What is wrong is the selfish and greedy mindset that considers the factory or supplier something on a level lower than the buyer. 

This mindset has become institutionalized. Let’s look at some internet definitions of Global Sourcing:

* Global sourcing is the act of searching for a domestic or foreign manufacturer to produce a product. 

* Global sourcing refers to a procurement strategy that a business uses to find the most cost-effective location for manufacturing one or more of its products (Upcounsel.com)

* it is the process of sourcing goods and services from the international market across geopolitical boundaries. It aims to exploit global efficiencies such as lower cost skilled labor, cheaper raw materials and other economic factors like tax breaks and low trade tariffs. (Purchasing Procurement Center)

* Global sourcing refers to buying the raw materials, components, or services from companies outside the home country. In a flat world, raw materials are sourced from wherever they can be obtained for the cheapest price (including transportation costs) and the highest comparable quality. (saylordotorg)

a. What’s the problem with these definitions?

1. Cost-effective. That’s it? Just cost?

2. Exploit? OMG. Cheaper? So exploitation to achieve a cheaper price is the goal? Yeah, it says global efficiencies but that is a BS term that legitimizes taking advantage of low wages and bad working conditions.

3. Cheapest price and highest comparable quality? First, price and quality almost always have a linear relationship; second, compared to what? And which wins, price or quality? 

What is my definition of Global Sourcing?

• The practice of planning, developing, manufacturing, and shipping products from the location(s) that are optimal according to Comparative Advantage;

• Developing partners who can work with you over the long term for mutual benefit of workers, employees, and customers;

• The solemn responsibility of providing beneficial work to peoples in other countries for a fair price and wage;

• The even more solemn responsibility of making sure these workers are treated fairly and not abused in any way, and that local and global laws and social standards are obeyed.

iii. Why the current situation sucks and needs to change

How many times have I heard buyers refer to the supplier as “the factory” as if it is an inanimate object, not a group of people working to make something for a fair wage? Too many.

Are factories not of a level that they can expect the simple quid pro quo: You buy. I sell. You pay. You get. 

Because they are a supplier and not a buyer, are they somehow lower order of being? 

If I give you something before you pay, I trust you to pay later. If you don’t, I lose trust. (So what, right? There is always another factory that will accept my order and doesn’t know my history of paying)

What makes the situation worse is when sellers continue to take orders despite already being owed past due debts. They are afraid to lose the customer, but is a customer who doesn’t pay really worth having? Financially, Dignity-wise, the answer is no. But in doing so, they reward the buyer's behavior.

Here’s the worst part: Do you think that those business owners who got stiffed on their payments will pay their workers what they are owed, on time? After all, they did what they were hired to do, right? So now buyer mistreatment works its way into the kitchen.

We have always paid a deposit, usually 30%, when our orders are placed. This gives us skin in the game, and vendors know it. It also strengthens our negotiation position on future orders.

Why does it need to change? There are plenty of factories out there, right? Am I being too soft? 

If we are in business for the long term, our success as retailers, wholesalers etc. depends on the same factors as those of our final customers: Trust, loyalty, integrity, quality, dependability. The quality of those factors add up to CLV (Customer Lifetime Value), which is everyone’s goal. 

We can also say that Sustainable Value Creation is the goal of every investor. Stiffing vendors or causing them problems that result in workers getting F**ed, will be a route to buying from the vendors who are looking for one-order stands and don’t care too much about relationships or their workers. Those vendors who care about relationships and profitable business over the long term will not be willing partners until the above relationship factors are built.

Finally, no matter whether our vendors are in a foreign country or our own, they deserve to be treated decently with the same standards we would apply to our company and family. Why? Because that is the DECENT way to do business. 

As I said in my definition of Global Sourcing, suppliers need to be treated as equals, deserving of the same respect as buyers want. Not paying is a sign of disrespect. Ordering more when you can’t pay is the same.

I believe that the only difference between those who do and don’t pay, be it Saks or another buyer, is mindset. Paying their suppliers should be priority one for a retailer, because without suppliers their shelves and floors are empty. Fair play cannot be discarded temporarily. Either you are an honest businessperson, or you aren’t.

That and terribly poor merchandising.(if you buy something, or a lot of somethings, that don’t sell, it’s you who made the bad choices, not your supplier). But that’s another story.

(C)Michael Serwetz 2025

Lotus: My Year of Flowers: a video

 

This video chronicles a full year of flowers in our garden. Each of the flowers (more than 50) shown was nurtured by us using only cow manure, water and love. 

Can you count them?

As always, we wear Lotus & Michael clothing to do--everything.
The poem Lotus is calligraphing and translates to English in the video is called "The Burial of Fallen Flowers" which echoes our sadness at losing the flowers' beauty until next year. But now, with Spring on the horizon, we are happy to anticipate, rebirth, regrowth, recycle and natural beauty that is new every year.

Give us your feedback- which flower do you like the best?

Lotus is wearing our modern use for an ancient flower as our statement in fabric that is 100% from plants and free of toxins: our chrysanthemum-embroidered, plant-dyed CPO shirt, "Captain Chrysanthemum"
https://www.lotusandmichael.com/products/captain-chrysanthemum-lotus-cpo-shirt

As always, kindred styles for men and women. Multifunctional. Sustainable. Original design and artisanal quality.

Read our modern tale about the origins of chrysanthemum in our blog: “Persistence of Chrysanthemums":
https://www.lotusandmichael.com/blogs/news/persistence-of-chrysanthemums

Like our videos? Our life, our garments! Real and authentic. Subscribe!
Visit our YouTube Channel-- www.youtube.com/@lotusandmichael

Big Name Luxury brands vs. Lululemon: Is Lululemon a Luxury Brand?

VS.

Big Name Luxury brands vs. Lululemon: Is Lululemon a Luxury Brand?

Sometimes, when you are mindlessly (not really, just your reasoning mind) attracted or addicted to something, it takes a strong jolt to change.

Neuromarketers tell us that the brain establishes associations based on images and memories which allows it to have kneejerk reactions to stimuli. For example, if I have been buying and drinking the same bourbon for years because my father drank it and the memories of him led me to adopt it as well, what is it going to take for me to change?

Some kind of kick in the ass. What has it been that is leading people to think twice about or stop buying big name luxury brands?

We know that during and after the pandemic luxury brand sales soared, led by China. Then the China economy slowed drastically, led by the real estate collapse, while the US and other Advanced economies were hit by inflation, which saw prices soaring and wealth shrinking.

So what did many luxury brands do? The opposite of what they should have done. Rather than hold their position in an inflationary universe, signaling that they were a good investment after all, they raised prices while not maintaining quality standards.

That was the kick in the ass. Think about it: you are a customer in China who felt free to spend lavishly on luxury brands (maybe you even took a trip to Hong Kong to save duty), now your investments, including your apartment (which was the sign of having arrived or soon to be arriving in China) have crashed. Maybe you graduated from university and you can’t find a job at all, not just the job you hoped for but any job? In order to work, you may have to “lie flat” by taking a job that you would never have considered in the past. What’s your position on buying luxury goods (that you don’t need) now?

Or, you are a customer in the US or Europe who are having to pay multiple times what you did for basic items; it seems nothing is holding price. Even if you are aflluent or a HENRY (High Earner Not Rich Yet), you cannot help but notice what is going on because it affects every part of your life. The worst part is that you have no control over how high the inflation will be or how long it will last; this is complicated by the fact that brands will hold on to high prices after inflation subsides because a. they can and b. they are not in control of it either.

In the midst of all this, some companies brilliantly take advantage of global inflation by creating marketplaces for crap at ridiculous prices. Of course we are talking about Temu and Shein. This not only lowers the floor, but also sends an irresistible signal to everyone that price is the key factor for competition. Now, we are in a 70% off world.

So what do the big luxury brands do in the face of these megatrends? They raise prices and let quality slip.

 Now you are a customer and can’t help but think WTF, what am I doing buying stuff I don’t need for double the price when my eggs also doubled? The growth of Real Real and Vinted shows that there is still a market for these types of goods, but its real value price is lower.

So what happens then? Neurologically, your automatic memory association is broken, and what used to be automatic becomes a serious matter for consideration, and the lizard-brain images are overruled by the cortex, saying nonono not so fast.

Is price and discounting the answer? Certainly raising price is counterintuitive, but how do you keep the memory associations going and avoid becoming irrelevant (the last nail in the coffin for all brands)?

Let’s look at Lululemon for the answer to that question. What? Lululemon? How can I speak of this brand in the same breath as Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Hermes etc.

For the few of you who may not know, Lululemon Athletica was founded in 1998 in Vancouver, BC, Canada by Chip Wilson, who sought to find comfortable athletic wear for women by using better materials, emphasizing quality and functionality. Soon after it entrance into the US market in 2003, the brand took on an iconic image and women started to wear it outside the gym. So a limited-use item gained a tremendous boost in functionality.

The Wall Street Journal reports in January 2025 “that it now expects revenue to be between $3.56 billion and $3.58 billion, representing a growth of between 11% and 12% over the fourth quarter of fiscal 2023.” i

Nice. Compared to anything in 2024. But why?

According to Google’s AI overview in response to the query ‘Lululemon comparative pricing,’ “Lululemon's pricing strategy is to position itself as a premium brand with higher prices than many of its competitors. Lululemon's prices are based on the value that customers place on the quality and functionality of its products.”

Further, in response to the same query, Google reports that, compared to competitors:

• Discounts

Lululemon rarely lowers its base prices by more than 20 or 30%, while its competitors often promote discounts of at least 40%. 

• Price consistency

Lululemon's core products, like leggings and sports bras, have remained at average price points since 2017. 

• Similar products

Other brands, like Nike, Under Armour, Gymshark, and Adidas, have made similar leggings to Lululemon. 

Lululemon's competitive advantages 

• Exclusive materials: Lululemon uses exclusive clothing materials in its products.

• Innovation and research: Lululemon has innovation and research hubs in Vancouver, Canada, and New York, United States, where it develops unique fabric and clothing designs.

And what about Quality? An August, 2024 article by the website Eightception states:

“What Makes lululemon Unique?

In a word? Quality. Their products are born out of rigorous research, innovation, and a relentless focus on meeting customer needs. Stylish? Check. Comfortable? You bet. And these aren’t just for fitness fanatics. You’ll see people rocking lululemon at meetings, grocery stores, even on dates.” ii

Do you smell a formula here? Premium quality. Affordable luxury (there are lots of other similar products on the market buy Lululemon holds serve). Multifunctionality. Honest pricing. 

Can Lululemon be considered a luxury brand it its market? Yes, because it is not necessary to buy Lululemon product in its genre, including from Shein and Temu. But it has customer trust and prestige for what it is. It is not and never will be a Chanel, but it doesn’t need to be. Without compromise, it continues to stand on top of its category. If Lululemon pulled the shenanigans that the luxury brands have, it too would be spurned. 

Customer trust is the key to loyalty.

So what’s the point here? After I brazenly compared Chanel et. al. to Lululemon, how does this portend for the future of luxury and the luxury customer? 

Simple. The basic elements of luxury marketing don’t change: In the luxury market, a good’s price is determined by its value (in the minds of consumers), not the other way around (value determined by price). 

Think about it: Customers who are treasure-hinting at TJX have the same mentality as those who are buying Chanel these days, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. The TJX customer is motivated by how cheap they can find a treasure for, while the Chanel customer figures that because not many people can afford it, an item’s inflated price adds value. Do both of these make sense to you?

The Future and the Hope.

Clear-eyed customers will see what determines value is NOT necessarily price, but all the positive qualities a Lululemon has— the very same as those that we have built Lotus & Michael with.

It’s your future. Your money. What will you spend it on?

 i Wall Street Journal 1/13/2025, “Lululemon Raises Quarterly Revenue, Profit Targets,” https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/lululemon-raises-4q-revenue-profit-targets-45737582?mod=WTRN_pos2&cx_testId=3&cx_testVariant=cx_166&cx_artPos=1

  ii Eightception.com 8/19/2024, “Lululemon’s Competitive Advantages and Strategy,” https://eightception.com/lululemon-competitive-advantages-and-strategy/

 

Luxury Brands Today- In a "Death Spiral?" The quality of luxury and the luxury of quality- Are we wasting our money on a value system that doesn't deserve it?

Luxury brands today- In a “Death Spiral?”

The quality of luxury and the luxury of quality- Are we wasting our money on a value system that doesn't deserve it?

First, some food for thought from a New York Times Opinion Essay entitled: “Obscene Prices, Declining Quality: Luxury Is in a Death Spiral.” By Katherine K. Zarrella

First paragraph: “The holiday shopping season is hitting its apex. And do you know what I, a longtime fashion editor, will not be buying my loved ones this year? Big-name luxury fashion. I'd sooner set my eyebrows on fire. Why? Because prices increased wildly and quality declined at the same time."

Commenter named “Reason:” To learn the true cost of any item, divide the purchase price by the number of times you will use it or by the number of years you will actively take advantage of owning it. A guide: For every $1,000 of price for an item “used” for 5 years is $200 per year. So $5,000 is $1,000 per year! Making $100,000/year? This is about 1.25% of your income after taxes. Used 10 times- you paid $500 dollars to carry that purse for the evening. Does this make sense for overall spend for a night out? Do the math….

 The same article reports: "From October 2019 to April 2024, the cost of Prada's popular Galleria Saffiano bag increased 111 percent. In the same period, the cost of Louis Vuitton's canvas Speedy bag doubled, and Gucci's Marmont small matelassé shoulder bag went up by 75 percent. Chanel is particularly notorious: Its iconic medium 2.55 leather flap bag, which cost $5,800 in 2019, will now set you back $10,800 — and is increasingly the subject of quality complaints.”

Two fundamental issues cover the mindset of the luxury consumer who purchased and purchases these items:

1. The aspirational nature of the purchase. Price is determined by the value of owning something iconic that would give yourself and those who see you the impression that you can afford to own something you don't need (the accepted definition of luxury) and Forego the opportunity to buy other items with that money;

2. Quality- There is no doubt that quality is a must-have with luxury purchases. What is the ROI in paying $1000 for a shirt when you could have a perfectly beautiful and well-made alternative for $200? IF it does not satisfy $1000 worth of quality in your mind, it crushes the aspirations.

What is not thought through often enough is what Reason points out above: Functionality.

If you buy a Birkin bag and use it only once because you are afraid to take it out of your home, it is furniture, not apparel. And, it is a bad investment. Two sleeves on a shirt, two legs on pants, are there for function. And the better it functions, as well its occasionality, the better your ROI.

And how about originality? I can still clearly remember the day when everyone and their sister carried an LV bag. Does that mean to demonstrate that you, too, can afford that item (which I thought was particularly ugly)? Maybe. But the satisfaction has to diminish when you come across 10 or 20 people carrying the same bag, right?

Using Reason's metric above, it also trashes the justification of buying cheap Crap from Shein or Temu. If I buy something for $10 and wear it even 3 times, it cost $3.33 per wearing. If, on the other hand, I buy something for $200 and wear it twice a month for 3 years, it cost $1.67/wearing. More, if time is money, how much time is spent over the course of shopping that could be used for more productive endeavors?

Does that mean that clothing which is multifunctional and great quality has to be boring? Not at all. What it entails is that acceptance of classic fashion, enhanced by new colors, fabrics, embroidery and more is a good investment because it can be beautiful and functional for a long time. Just like a beautiful flower; does it lose appeal because it blooms every year with the same face? Not at all.

And, if others' perception is important to your mindset, how do you explain, other than price, why you bought this crap? Those who accept your explanation are probably buying the same crap!

Next excuse to discard is the justification of buying second-hand fashion because of the savings involved. Does this mean you couldn't afford to buy new so you chose to buy a hand-me-down? In this case, we have to debunk the “recycling” explanation.

So where does that leave us? Let's go back where we started so we can move forward. Regardless of your income, if you spend the increasing price for branded “luxury” goods AND its quality does not absolutely match its price, you are pissing away money, throwing good money after a bad product. In that case your investment, according to Reason's logic, is bad. And nobody, regardless of how rich they are, likes a bad investment.

So where does that leave us?

According to Zarrella, it leaves us with a lot to think about regarding how we live:

“Today, instant gratification, profit and appearances are more desirable than substance, depth or intrinsic worth. And while the decline of “luxury” might not seem like the end of the world (especially with so many apocalypse-adjacent events unfolding), its fall represents a deeper decay that's gnawing at so much of our existence — from education, media and literature to interpersonal relationships and quality of life."

So some introspection is called for, especially every time you take out that credit card to buy something you really don't need and maybe can't afford.

What should we do if we realize the importance of originality and quality in our lives (not just fashion)?

Again, Zarrella: "But back to shopping. Now is the perfect time to seek skilled, independent craftspeople and designers who remain uncompromised by the luxury conglomerates' production quotas and politics." Something unique, something beautiful, and something which will look and function as well next year.

Her advice: "If something is obviously awful and obscenely expensive, don't buy it."

IF you agree, it requires a reassessment of your concept of Value. 

And, one more important factor that Zarrella didn't cover—What I call Modern Decency.

How something is created and executed should be part of your decision process. The fact that luxury brands have been caught making goods in sweatshops, the fact that profit is more important than sustainability (or the BS they give you about it). The bottom line is this:

If you buy something that was made in a sweatshop, where workers were exploited and not paid fairly so they and their families could live a secure existence, YOU share responsibility with the brand that made that choice in the first place. 

Fashion is always a matter of choice; most of us don't actually NEED clothes.

Article NYT 12/19/2024, Opinion: “Obscene Prices, Declining Quality: Luxury Is in a Death Spiral.” By Katherine K. Zarrella https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/19/opinion/vuitton- chanel-burberry-lvmh-hermes.html

Great thanks for the title, which is originally from a 2018 article, 

 “The Quality of Luxury versus the Luxury of Quality” 

Stanciu Anca Cristina 

Condrea Elena 

Ovidius University of Constanta, Faculty of Economic Studies

Want to see original, wearable, artisanal value? Visit Lotus & Michael, www.lotusandmichael.com

Multifunctionality in action: www.youtube.com/@lotusandmichael

If this delicate beauty disappears, will it be YOUR fault?

   

If this delicate beauty disappears, will it be YOUR fault?

This chrysanthemum is one of nature’s gifts. Delicate, beautiful, colorful, strong yet gentle. We call it “Nature’s Fingers.”

In China, the origin country, it is renowned as one of the Four Gentlemen:

“The four most important flowers in Chinese culture are the plum blossom, orchid, bamboo, and chrysanthemum, which are collectively known as the Four Gentlemen or Four Noble Ones: 

• Plum blossom: Represents winter and symbolizes noble and modest qualities 

• Orchid: Represents spring 

• Bamboo: Represents summer 

• Chrysanthemum: Represents autumn and symbolizes endurance and vitality 

These flowers are often depicted in Chinese art, especially in bird-and-flower paintings and ink wash paintings. They are also a popular motif in traditional Chinese arts like textiles, porcelain, lacquerware, and wood carving. 

The Four Gentlemen are a symbol of traditional Chinese virtues like uprightness, purity, humility, and perseverance. The plants are thought to have natural characteristics that are similar to human virtues.” (source)

Endurance and vitality- we all need that. More so than ever. So shouldn’t this flower be part of your life?

Chinese tradition has it that on “double 9” (9/9) families should go to the mountain and watch the chrysanthemum bloom, which will give them strength to face all the world’s ills successfully.

Wouldn’t you want that?

IF you don’t f**k it up, maybe we will continue to be blessed with its unique beauty.  (that is why we chose this flower as one of our main embroideries in our plant dye collection)

Who, me? What am I doing to cause this beauty to disappear?

Well, what is your answer to these questions?

• How many polyester garments do you own?

• How full is your closet?

• Do you buy stuff because it’s cute or cheap or both?

• How many times do you wear your garments on average?

• For how many different occasions can you wear your typical garment? How many do you?

• What do you do with the stuff you don’t want to wear anymore?

And more about your lifestyle:

• On average, how many full-size garbage bags do you fill per week?

• What percentage of your weekly diet is packaged—in boxes, bags, cans?

• What percentage of your food preparation comes from the microwave or automatic oven?

• What percentage of your food purchases are fresh? (meat, fish, vegetables, fruit—not including prepared items like peeled garlic, cut fruit etc.)?

• What percentage of your kitchenware and dishware are disposable or plastic?

• Do you always use a dishwasher? What percentage of the time do you hand wash?

Wait- so what’s the problem? How am I harming nature? I am not cutting down flowers or trees.

Let’s just talk about the main topics:

1. WASTE- We all have seen the numbers on clothing as a major waste component. See our blog article for more.

2. OVERCONSUMPTION, OVERPRODUCTION- Which is a cause of the incredible amount of waste.

3. TOO MUCH CLOTHING- same

4. INCREASED USE OF ENERGY, NATURAL AND PHYSICAL- Every garment requires energy to produce (material and construction), ship and deliver. More garments=more energy used.

5. NONCOMPOSTABLE OR TOXIC RESIDUE- Polyester and oil-based apparel and other tools cannot decompose for 200 years. Toxic dyestuffs will remain toxic dyestuffs, In your laundry water and in their final resting place.

6. MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CONTAINERS FROM PREPARED FOOD IN TRASH AND LANDFILLS

There’s more. But check yourself from the list above and feel guilty. 

WAIT- There are still lots of flowers and trees around. So what difference is all of the above bullsh*t making?  QUESTION: If you could come back 50 years from now and see your children’s and grandchildren’s world, would you bet on that the above makes little or no difference?

It will. So what should you do?

One thing that is NOT an answer is to buy only secondhand clothing. OVERCONSUMPTION IS OVERCONSUMPTION. Buying only secondhand clothing is a stay of execution, not a reprieve. Sooner or later, those garments will end up in the shit pile.

What can I do to reverse this trend, on my end?

1. Buy less, buy better. Say no to the cheaper the better mentality.

2. Buy clothing that is multifunctional and can be worn on many occasions.

3. QUALITY, quality, quality. Leads to longer life.

4. Don’t use a goddamned dryer—it ruins your clothes, pollutes the air and consumes lots of energy—let nature dry your clothes.

5. Be choosier about what you buy- If it makes you feel good, happy and better when you first wear it, that should continue for well- years.

There are lots of textile producers and brands, including Lotus & Michael, who are committed to environmentally positive processes and products. You should not buy from any brand until they are transparent about their sustainability practices, not for one or two groups or items, but about EVERYTHING  they do. As a consumer, you should demand that before purchase.

As for the rest of your practices including food consumption:

• DON’T use the excuse of being busy as an excuse for poor consumption; I can make a fresh salad in the time you cook your frozen pizza. You should avoid the frozen and packaged aisles as if they don’t exist. For us, they don’t.

• Throw out your microwave and dishwasher—they use a lot of energy and give you another excuse. Washing dishes takes less time than the dishwasher and you can heat your leftovers in pots and pans.

• Eliminate plastic from your life- it is poisoning the environment on the way in and on the way out.

VISUALIZE- Your view from your window is not of the beautiful chrysanthemum or other flowers, but all of the contents of your garbage can that are continuing to pile up daily.

I think the vision should shake you out of your comfortable and destructive life.  Below is not a future fantasy; it is reality today.

Join us at Lotus & Michael—People, Planet, Product.

This, not that- enjoy nature with our plant dyed sportswear featuring—what else?- chrysanthemum embroidery. 

Show your support! Make your statement! Buy now! www.lotusandmichael.com

  

 

Is Recycling the answer to the Textile Climate Catastrophe? Nice, but no.

  

(source)

Is Recycling the answer to the Textile Climate Catastrophe? Nice, but no.

(Mainly Facts and Inescapable Conclusions-Let’s solve the problem together!)

First, the facts:

What is the extent of the problem?

According to businesswaste.co.uk (source):

• 100 billion new garments are produced annually around the world

• The worldwide fashion industry is responsible for 10% of all greenhouse gas emissions

• The UN Environment Programme estimates that today people buy 60% more clothes and wear them for half as long

• Around 20% of worldwide industrial wastewater pollution is from the fashion industry

• It takes around 2,700 litres of water to make one cotton shirt

• Of all the clothing thrown away across the world 57% is sent to landfill

• 25% of global clothing waste is incinerated

• Clothes made using synthetic fibres such as polyester and acrylic are responsible for more than 60% of global apparel purchases

• Synthetic fibres take 80 to 800 times longer to decompose than natural fibres like cotton

The solution to the problem, if we want to face it, lies within the above facts.

Not done yet. There’s more:

• About 5% of landfill space is taken up by textile waste

• Textile production releases 2 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere annually

• Producing textiles creates 42 million tonnes of plastic waste each year

• 10% of microplastics that enter the ocean every year are from textiles

• Around 15% of fabric used to manufacture garments is wasted

• Less than 13% of textile waste is recycled in the European Union (EU)

• 72% of bedding ends up in landfill

• Textiles are the third largest category of waste in landfill sites across India

• Natural fibres break down fastest – cotton takes around three months to decompose, linen takes a few weeks, and silk takes one to two years

• Synthetic textile waste takes much longer to decompose – polyester can take between 20 and 200 years to break down, nylon takes anywhere from 30 to 40 years, and rubber takes 50 to 80 years

And how about fast fashion? It is atop the most unwanted list:

• How many times an item of clothing is worn before being discarded has fallen by 36% in the last 15 years

• Fast fashion brands produce 50% more items today compared to the year 2000

• An average American throws out 37kg of clothes every year

• Buying a single white cotton shirt produces the same emissions as driving 35 miles in a car

• Extending clothing life by nine months would reduce carbon, water, and waste footprints by 20 to 30%

• Using clothes for an extra nine months would also save £5 billion in resources used to supply, launder, and dispose of clothes

Now, let’s look at fiber production:

• Global fiber production per person has increased from 8.3 kilograms in 1975 to 14.6 kilograms per person in 2022.

• Polyester production volumes increased from 61 million tonnes in 2021 to 63 million tonnes in 2022. Polyester continues to be the most widely produced fiber, making up 54% of the global market in 2022.

• Recycled textiles’ market share slightly decreased from around 8.5% in 2021 to 7.9% in 2022. Pre- and post-consumer recycled textiles accounted for less than 1% of the total global fiber market in 2022. (source)

So, is recycling the answer? Let’s see. More facts:

“Textiles collected via clothing containers consist of 55% reusable textiles and an average of 37% suitable for recycling (Boer Group figures). But how much of this is actually recycled? In reality, only 1% of all post-consumer textiles are recycled into new clothing. 12% is downcycled into something of lesser value and 87% of textile waste is pure loss. The amount of clothes that is recycled is thus much lower than the marketing campaigns of the big fast fashion chains would suggest.” (source)

Recycling is not the “magic bullet” for textile environmental erosion. Here are some more facts (source):

• Recycled clothes are recycled mechanically and chemically. Those with more than one fiber are recycled chemically, with one of the fibers being lost in the process

• Even clothes that are 100 percent polyester can’t be recycled forever. There are two ways to recycle PET: mechanically and chemically. Mechanical recycling is taking a plastic bottle, washing it, shredding it and then turning it back into a polyester chip, which then goes through the traditional fibre making process. 

• The polyester chips generated by mechanical recycling can vary in colour: some turn out crispy white, while others are creamy yellow, making colour consistency difficult to achieve. Some dyers find it hard to get a white, so they’re using chlorine-based bleaches to whiten the base, inconsistency of dye uptake makes it hard to get good batch-to-batch colour consistency and this can lead to high levels of re-dyeing, which requires high water, energy and chemical use.

• According to a study by a team from Plymouth University, in the UK, each cycle of a washing machine could release more than 700,000 plastic fibres into the environment. To help prevent microplastic pollution when washing items you can place them in a filter washing bag to prevent shedding during the wash.

So it seems that recycling synthetics like polyester, which the above said were 54% of global production, may be causing more harm than good.

How about donating my old clothes? Is that the answer?

Sadly, no. Only a small percentage of those gently used clothes that you donate actually get worn by those who need them. More facts: (source)

• Consider: only between 10 and 30 percent of second-hand donations to charity shops are actually resold in store. The rest disappears into a machine you don’t see: a vast sorting apparatus in which donated goods are graded and then resold on to commercial partners, often for export to the Global South.

• The problem is that, with the onslaught of fast fashion, these donations are too often now another means of trash disposal—and the system can’t cope. Consider: around 62 million tons of clothing is manufactured worldwide every year, amounting to somewhere between 80 and 150 billion garments to clothe 8 billion people.

• The only way that donating is a solution is for you to give unwanted garments DIRECTLY to someone who needs them, or find an organization who does so.

Above I have presented the facts. Now what should we do and not do (my conclusions)?

• DON’T stop recycling your old clothes by sending to a reputable recycler. It is better than throwing them away. BUT it is not the solution to the problem.

• DON’T think that selling your clothes to a secondhand shop or web store is resolving the problem. You may be making money, but in the end you are transferring the problem to someone else.

• DON’T BUY SYNTHETICS- NONE, NEVER, EVER, NO MATTER WHAT THE AD OR THE COMPANY SAYS. They are a ticket to nowhere.

• DON’T be swayed by the promise of discounts and unbelievably cheap prices. Losing your planet will be expensive.

• DO face the facts. You may be only one person, but you ARE part of the problem, unless you:

• DO buy less and buy better- Practice Wabisabi as your lifestyle

• DO Buy only what you need. ONLY buy clothes you can use for many occasions (multifunctional) and that are sustainable once they do die.

• DO stop buying crap because its “cute” or “so cheap” or both.

• DO look at your closet and take a serious inventory of what you can wear where and when. DO stop buying until you’ve figured that out.

One Amsterdam company, Cosh! Has a “Wear for Life” pledge on their website. It  looks like this:

 (source)

Will you take this pledge?

OK, here comes the commercial part, stay with me. Rectifying the situation laid out for you above is the founding mission of Lotus & Michael. “People, Planet, Product”—

• We want to make people so happy with their clothes that they want to wear them all the time;

• Nothing we do harms our planet- NO plastic in any phase of our supply chain; Plant dye fabrics to eliminate chemical pollution;

• If we make Product you love, and is of high enough quality to last, we have contributed to a solution for a catastrophic issue.

•

Still have doubts? Google it for yourself. If you find disputing evidence, send it to us. If not, join us—we have a lot of work to do!

Join us at Lotus & Michael. Your purchase is your statement. www.lotusandmichael.com

11/19/2024

Lotus & Michael: A Natural Love Story: A natural lifestyle gives birth to a brand

 

Lotus & Michael: A Natural Love Story

Our journey began not in a boardroom, but in a tea shop in Shanghai. Michael, then living in Hong Kong, was on a business trip with his partner Pierre. They had some time to spare and decided to explore a tea shop nearby, one that specialized in Taiwan High Mountain Tea.

There, Michael met Lotus—a young woman with a warm smile and a passion for tea. She was different from anyone he had ever met. Over the following months, Lotus and Michael stayed in touch, and when Michael returned to Shanghai in the spring , they began a relationship. Their bond grew strong, rooted in shared values ​​and a commitment to a simpler, more meaningful lifestyle.

Building a Life Together

For six years, Lotus and Michael lived together in Shanghai, enduring the ups and downs of life, but always saving and planning for the future. In 2017, they made the move to the United States, where they eventually married and settled. However, Michael found it difficult to find work in his field due to age bias. Meanwhile, Lotus quickly found a job leveraging her expertise in sourcing and product development.

This setback became the catalyst for something bigger. With their combined knowledge of fashion and sustainable living, they launched a brand: **Lotus & Michael**.

Our Approach to Sustainable Fashion

From the beginning, we knew our brand would reflect our values. We weren't interested in following fast fashion trends or creating disposable clothing. Instead, we committed to crafting high-quality, sustainable pieces that were built to last.

Here's how we approach sustainable fashion:

• No Synthetics

  We avoid synthetic fabrics that can take up to 200 years to decompose. Not only do they contribute to landfill waste, but they also release harmful chemicals into our bodies and water systems when washed.

• High-Quality, Multifunctional Clothing 

  Our pieces are designed to be versatile and durable, so consumers can buy less and wear longer. This reduces waste and promotes a mindful approach to fashion.

• Plant-Dyed Fabrics 

  We plan to use only natural, plant-based dyes to color our fabrics wherever we can, develop where we can't. Synthetic dyes are toxic and prevent natural fibers from breaking down. By using plant dyes, we ensure our products are fully biodegradable, from fiber to dye.

A Lifestyle Rooted in Sustainability

Our commitment to sustainability isn't just for show—it's how we live every day. In our home, you won't find plastic, processed foods, or any disposable conveniences. We shop local, grow our own herbs, and focus on living in harmony with nature.

Our lifestyle even extends to how we manage waste. While most of our neighbors put out several garbage bags each week, we typically have just one. By reducing our consumption and focusing on sustainable practices, we aim to minimize our impact on the planet.

Reimagining the Future of Fashion

As we looked around, we noticed a gap in the fashion market. Few brands offered clothing that was both sustainable and stylish. So we decided to take a stand. Our clothes feature classic designs with elegant embroidery—whether it's a tiger symbolizing strength or a delicate flower represents nature's beauty, each piece tells a story. 

Our mission is to make sustainable fashion accessible to everyone, so that each purchase supports a cleaner, greener future.

Join Us in Our Journey

At Lotus & Michael, we believe in leading by example. We know our path isn't the easiest, but it's the one that aligns with our values. We're on a mission to transform the fashion industry, one sustainable garment at a time . 

If you share our vision, we invite you to join us in this journey. Together, we can create a future where quality, craftsmanship, and respect for nature define the way we dress.

Are you ready to make a difference?

Visit us at www.lotusandmichael.com

See us in action at our Youtube channel www.youtube.com/@lotusandmichael

---