Sweatpants Forever. By Irina Aleksander Even before the pandemic, the whole fashion industry had started to unravel. What happens now that no one has a reason to dress up? "As it happened, it was the giants who would fall first. Over the next few months, J. Crew, Neiman Marcus, Brooks Brothers and J.C. Penney filed for bankruptcy. Gap Inc. couldn’t pay rent on its 2,785 North American stores. By July, Diane von Furstenberg announced she would lay off 300 employees and close 18 of her 19 stores. The impending damage to small businesses was inconceivable." "For years, Sternberg had been saying that the fashion industry was a giant bubble heading toward collapse. Now the pandemic was just speeding up the inevitable. In fact, it had already begun. An incredible surplus of clothing was presently sitting in warehouses and in stores, some of which might never reopen. “That whole channel is dead,” Sternberg said. “And there’s no sign of when it’s turning on again.” "In April, clothing sales fell 79 percent in the United States, the largest dive on record. Purchases of sweatpants, though, were up 80 percent. Entireworld was like the rare life form that survives the apocalypse. By betting that the luxury market would fail, Sternberg had evaded the very forces that were bringing down the rest of the industry. “Because you could see the writing on the wall,” he said. “The Neimans writing on the wall, the Barneys. ... Listen, Barneys? That was not a shock to anyone.” "Fashion week is where those entities meet. The reason spring collections are shown in the fall (and vice versa) is so they can be ordered, reviewed and produced in time for the actual season. As with most things, this system was upended by the internet. Once normal people could view collections online — which, confusingly, they couldn’t buy until six months later — everything began to accelerate. Now stores needed deliveries earlier to fill demand, and two deliveries simply weren’t enough. Suddenly midseason collections — mainly, pre-fall and resort (also known as cruise) — became the norm, even for smaller designers whose customers were not necessarily among the small subset of people who jet off to Capri or St.-Tropez for the winter months." "R.T.V. stands for “return to vendor,” which is what it sounds like: If a collection — the one that the store has asked you to pad out with novelty and exclusives — doesn’t sell, the retailer can return it and ask for its money back. According to Nutter, as stores struggled, the terms of this deal got worse. In some cases, stores asked designers to sell on consignment or to share costs if a certain percentage of the collection didn’t sell at full price. So let’s say a store decided to mark the collection down early: You now owed it for those losses. “Even as I’m telling you this,” Nutter said, “I’m like, Isn’t that crazy?” It is. It is crazy. And here’s where it got even crazier: In order to protect exclusivity, stores had to commit to even larger buys, ordering more clothes than they could possibly sell. Then, when they couldn’t move the stuff, they’d return it. Thanks to the rise of fast fashion and the luxury market’s simultaneous attempt to keep up with its impossible pace, it all started to feel disposable. So detrimental was the cycle of overproduction and discounting to luxury goods that in 2018, Burberry, the British label, revealed that it had been burning — not metaphorically but literally: burning — $37 million of worth of merchandise per year to maintain “brand value.”

This is because of corona Virus, all of industries have been too much damaged. And that is not much good for whole world.

Hi [@richandhappy](/user/profile/richandhappy) . I understand your concern but this is simply not the case. First of all, it is not forbidden to post the same article in different communities. In fact, it is expected that most users will only participate in the communities that interest them, rather than scanning content across all channels. If an article is Relevant to a community it is posted in, it will do well. As for admins having articles in the Relevant section - this makes sense! Admins are usually the founders of community networks, and tend to have expertise and/or better understandings of the type of content that is Relevant to their given community. This is the whole point of Relevant! It’s an app __that shows us valuable content__ not simply what is popular according to engagement algorithms.

Nuanced response to your concern: First, there is nothing prohibiting an article from being posted in multiple communities. In fact, as the number of communities increases, it is likely that this will happen. It is also likely that some articles will receive very different treatment in differing communities. Imagine a well-written article, but one with a very obvious political perspective/bias. Now this article is posted in the hypothetical communities "Super Duper Alt Right" and "Somewhere Way Left of Che Guevara." We can imagine that if one of these communities Up Votes it a great deal the other one will probably Down Vote it a great deal. Same article, two differing community contexts with regard to values and functional definition of "relevance." I can tell you that Slava has been thinking about this for a long time (probably from inception). Second, there is (to me) a pretty big difference between posting the same article multiple times in the same community and posting the same article in differing communities. The former is spammy, the latter is potentially adding value. There is also a VERY big difference (to me) between posting in two different communities with two distinct sets of commentary customized for the community context and just copy/pasting what someone else did in another community into a new one without modification. Third, reputation matters. Informal reputation matters in that I will treat someone differently that has been around for a year than I will a brand new member (both in terms of higher expectations AND more likely to assume acting in good faith). Someone that has been around for a year is probably an actual human with an interest in the project beyond just money. An account that looks like "Joey12345678" and has their first 3 posts all copy/pastes of someone else WILL NOT get much of a benefit of the doubt with me. Seriously, anyone with 8 digits in their name is immediately suspect in my book. Formal REP matters in that it is the quantitative outcome of past actions. Fourth, regarding the post above, I actually down voted it. I did not down vote because it is a bad article (it isn't). I did not down vote it because it is cross posted (though it is). I down voted it because it seems less of a good fit for ALT WOKE than other communities (again my personal take). This points out that "relevance" is a bit of an amorphous concept and the system is predicated on the notion that in the long run the "wisdom of the crowd" will result in better calibration than "black box" algorithms. Fifth, [@richandhappy](/user/profile/richandhappy) I down voted your reply because this kind of question is better addressed in the Introductions community. You are also complaining about someone that has been here a long time. While tenure is not everything, the reason they have so many REL is because they were contributing when REL was worth absolutely 0. Sixth, as to whether this cross-post was a good strategy/good community fit, we will see. Maybe this community will love it. Maybe this community will be unimpressed. We will see, and in the interim we all get a vote in determining which way it will go.