学文网I’m usually pretty good at spotting a trend as it emerges， and I believe one of the hottest trends right now， the fast fashion trend， is finally starting to die. If you’re unfamiliar with what fast fashion is， according to Wikipedia： Fast Fashion is a contemporary term used by fashion retailers to express that designs move from the catwalk quickly in order to capture current fashion trends. These trends are designed and manufactured quickly and cheaply to allow the mainstream consumer to take advantage of current clothing styles at a lower price. Fast fashion has also become associated with disposable fashion because it has delivered designer product to a mass market at relatively low prices.
Basically， fast fashion is the equivalent of fast food.
Last year I interviewed Elizabeth Cline， author of Overdressed： The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion， on my radio show after reading her book and being so grateful to her for bringing this important topic to the forefront. Cline herself was a fast fashion addict， and her moment of realization that her shopping behavior needed to change came when she found herself lugging home seven pairs of identical canvas flats from Kmart （a steal1） at $7 per pair， marked down from $15！）.
As a result of fast fashion， clothes are seen as cheap trash where the quality is measured in how many washes it gets before it falls apart. Americans have become so disconnected to their clothing that they’re no longer caring for it， mending or respecting it. In these days of the fast fashion trend， there is little reason to see clothing as something that should fit well or look particularly good. Why get a $15 pair of pants hemmed2） properly or pay good money for a well-fitting quality wardrobe item when you can get a cheaper one that will do just fine？ Why spend decent money on one sweater when you can get ten from a fast fashion store for the same price？
Yet， despite the savory price tag and hard-to-pass-up prices that come with fast fashion， as Cline told me， the fast fashion trend has caused people to become “deeply unsatisfied with their clothing.” It jam-packs closets in a gluttonous3） manner with cheap purchases because the sale is just too good， with merchandise4） turning over5） in stores at such a rapid pace （a store like Zara can design， produce and deliver a garment to all their stores in as little as two weeks） and it creates the constant impulsivity to want to shop and buy more.
Going back to the comparison of fast fashion trend and fast food， people often live in extremes and it is only after hanging out in one extreme that we start to crave the opposite. Imagine if your diet consisted only of fast food. You would doubtless feel sick， sluggish6） and unsatisfied if that was the only food you ate. It is often this gluttonous and unsatisfied feeling that arises when we first become aware of the fact that what we’re doing isn’t healthy and， soon after， we start to search for alternatives. Like the food movement， where people started to become aware of where their food came from， what it contained and how local or fresh it was， this is exactly what is starting to emerge in fashion right now. With our sick closets， stuffed with cheap， empty buys， we are beginning to crave the alternative. We want to know where our clothes come from， we want to support domestic businesses and we are increasingly willing to spend more money for less clothing of higher quality.
Fast fashion has basically closed down the domestic garment manufacturing industry―only 3% of what Americans wear is actually made on U.S. soil （in 1985 it was 85% and in 1960 is was 100%）. As I read in Cline’s book， the apparel7） industry was named one of the fastest-dying industries in America in the past decade with over 650，000 apparel jobs lost in a ten-year period ending in 2007. The production of clothing has all but moved to overseas countries like China， Bangladesh and the Dominican Republic， to name a few， given the labor-intensive nature of clothing. The cheaper the labor， the cheaper the clothes can be priced.
Yet， we can’t talk about cheap labor without addressing volume， as they go hand in hand. Price is often driven down by huge volume and the only way to do huge volume is to create a retail system where the customer is lured back to the store again and again on a weekly， even daily， basis.
As a result， the attitude of this cheap fast fashion has caused the customer to expect to pay little to nothing for their clothes while getting more. In fact， as Cline told me， people now spend more per year to eat out than they do on their clothes； “We are buying and hoarding8） roughly twenty billion garments per year as a nation.” This is a stark contrast to the way it was years ago. Cline also wrote in her book that， “We pay less for clothes when measured as a share of our income than ever in history” and cited that according to 100 Years of Consumer Spending， a 2006 study by the U.S. Department of Labor， the average American family in 1900 had an income of $750 per year and spent 15% of their earnings on clothing. In 2010， Americans spent an average of about 3% of their yearly income on clothing yet got a lot more―a whole lot more.
Additionally， we’re not only changing our ways for own personal satisfaction and to support domestic businesses， but we’re also changing because of the negative environmental impact that fast fashion is wreaking on our planet. Fast fashion isn’t environmentally sustainable， period. Americans basically see places like the Salvation Army9） as a dumping ground and a lot of the donations are so poorly made that most of it is unusable. In addition to the enormous amount of pollution fast fashion creates， our fiber consumption has gone from 10 million tons of fiber worldwide in 1950 to 82 million tons today with the water needed to produce that much fiber up to 2 trillion gallons per year. Most disturbing is the fact that these large fast fashion corporations that need to show growth every year have already begun to target and open stores in largely populated countries like China. “What happens when a country populated with 1.3 billion people start shopping like Americans？” Cline remarked when I interviewed her.
Yet， like I said， the fast fashion trend is starting to show signs of letting up10） and a July 5th USA Today article confirmed that some apparel manufacturers are starting to “reshore” back to the United States.
我通常很善于发现某种潮流的出现，而且我相信“快时尚”这一眼下最热的潮流之一终于要开始没落了。如果你不熟悉什么是快时尚，维基百科是这样解释的：快时尚是时装零售商使用的一个当代术语，表达的是服装设计快速走下秀场以抢占当前时尚潮流的现象。这些潮流被迅速而廉价地投入设计和生产，以此让主流消费者以较低的价格享受到最新的服装款式。快时尚也和“一次性时尚”联系到了一起，因为它以相对低廉的价格将设计师的作品推向了大众市场。
大致说来，快时尚就等同于快餐。
去年，我读了伊丽莎白・克莱因所写的《过度着装：廉价时装的惊人代价》一书，十分感激她将这个重要的话题推到了前沿。之后，我在自己的广播节目中对她进行了采访。克莱因自己曾沉溺于快时尚，当她发现自己从凯马特超市把七双一模一样的帆布平底鞋（7美元一双的便宜货，原价15美元！）买回家时，她意识到自己的消费行为需要改变了。
因为有了快时尚，衣服被视为廉价的垃圾，衡量衣服质量的方法是看它们被洗过几次之后就不能再穿。美国人已经变得与他们的衣服疏离了，他们不再保养、修补或尊重衣服。在快时尚潮流盛行的日子里，人们几乎没有理由把衣服视为应该很合身或特别好看的东西。如果你可以用更低的价格买到还不错的衣服，为什么还要去买一条15美元的锁边精致的裤子，或是花大价钱去买合体的高品质服装呢？为什么要花不菲的价钱买一件毛衣，而花同样的钱在快时尚商店就可以买十件？
然而，正如克莱因对我所说，尽管快时尚伴随着诱人的价签和令人难以拒绝的低价，但快时尚潮流却让人们变得“对他们的衣服极为不满”。因为销路太好，商店里货品周转的速度如此之快（像Zara这样的商店可以在短短两周的时间内完成服装的设计、生产并运送到各个店铺），快时尚使人们以贪婪的方式将廉价品塞满衣橱，并不断勾起人们逛街和购买更多衣服的冲动。
回想快时尚潮流与快餐的比较，人们常常生活在极端状态中，只有在置身于某种极端之后，我们才会开始渴望相反的状态。想象你的饮食里只有快餐，如果那是你所吃的唯一食物，你一定会觉得恶心、有气无力且得不到满足。当我们第一次意识到所作所为并不健康时，这种贪婪和不满足的感觉通常就会涌上心头，很快，我们就会开始寻求其他选择。在食品运动中，人们开始了解他们的食物产自哪里、有什么成分、是否产自当地以及是否新鲜。同样的情形如今正在时尚界开始显露。我们的衣橱不健康了，塞满了廉价而无用的衣服，于是我们开始渴望别的选择。我们想知道我们的衣服产自哪里，我们想要支持国内企业，我们越来越愿意花更多的钱去买更少但质量更好的衣服。
快时尚已经基本使国内的服装制造业停业了――美国人所穿的衣服仅有3%真正产自美国本土（1985年这一比例是85%，1960年是100%）。我从克莱因的书中获悉，在过去十年中，服装业被视为美国消亡最迅速的产业之一；在截止到2007年的十年间，美国至少有65万个服装相关的岗位消失了。鉴于服装制造业的劳动密集型特征，服装生产已经几乎全部转移到了海外，如中国、孟加拉国和多米尼加共和国等等。劳动力越廉价，衣服的定价就能越便宜。
然而，我们不能只谈廉价劳动力而不谈产量，因为它们是不可分割的。巨大的产量通常能促使价格下降，而进行大量生产的唯一方法就是创建一个零售体系，使顾客可以以每周一次甚至每天一次的频率被反复吸引回商店中。
这种平价快时尚的态度导致的后果是，消费者买衣服时只想花很少的钱或是不花钱，而买的衣服越来越多。事实上，正如克莱因对我所说，现在人们每年花在外出吃饭上的钱要多于花在衣服上的钱；“从全国来看，我们每年要购买并贮藏大约两百亿件衣服”。这与多年前的情况形成了鲜明的对比。克莱因还在她的书中写道：“就其在收入中所占的比例来看，我们花在衣服上的钱是史上最少的。”她引用了美国劳工部在2006年进行的“消费者百年花费”调查结果：1900年，普通美国家庭的年收入是750美元，其中用于衣服的花费占15%。2010年，美国人平均把年收入的3%花费在购买衣服上，却买到了更多的衣服――多得多的衣服。
除此之外，我们改变选购衣服的方式不仅仅是为了使自己满意以及支持国内企业，还因为快时尚对地球环境所造成的负面影响。一句话，快时尚不利于环境的可持续发展。美国人基本都会将救世***之类的机构视为垃圾堆积场，许多捐赠品的生产质量很差，多数都无法使用。除了快时尚产生的大量污染，我们的纤维消费量已经从1950年的全球1000万吨上升到现在的8200万吨，生产如此多的纤维所需要的水多达每年两万亿加仑。最令人不安的现状是，这些大型的快时尚企业需要表现出逐年的增长，它们已经开始以中国这样的人口大国为目标市场，并在那里开设了商店。“当拥有13亿人口的国家开始像美国人一样购物时将会怎样？”在我采访克莱因时，她评论道。
然而，正如我所说，快时尚潮流正在显现出没落的迹象。7月5日（编注：指2013年）刊登在《今日美国》的一篇文章证实，一些服装制造商开始“回归”美国了。
1. steal [sti?l] n. 〈口〉以低廉价格买来的东西，便宜货
2. hem [hem] vt. 给（衣服）缝褶边
3. gluttonous [?l?t（?）n?s] adj. 贪心的，不知足的
4. merchandise
[?m??（r）t?（?）nda?z]
n. 商品；货物
5. turn over：周转 （储存商品）
6. sluggish [?sl???] adj. 无活力的；有气无力的；懒洋洋的
7. apparel [??p?r?l] n. 衣服，服饰
8. hoard [h??（r）d] vt. 聚藏，贮藏
9. Salvation Army：救世***，一个国际性宗教及慈善公益组织，以街头布道、慈善活动和社会服务著称，1865年创立于伦敦。
10. let up：减缓，减弱
转载请注明出处学文网 » The Fast Fashion Trend Is Over … or at Least Starting to Die 快时尚:走向穷途末路