Graphic by Anjali Rao-Herel ‘22
By Nina Larbi ’22
Op-Ed Editor
In recent years, the popularity of the shopping app Depop has skyrocketed, and its trendy, Instagram-like approach to shopping has resulted in an explosion of thrift resellers. Many middle- and upper-class individuals with storefronts on the app shop at thrift stores in low-income communities, buy trendy, good-quality pieces in bulk and resell them for three or four times the price. With the right lighting and fashion blog posing, a T-shirt that cost a few dollars from Goodwill warrants a $20 price tag on Depop. Though the mainstream popularity of thrifting is certainly a win for sustainability advocates, thrift reselling for multiple times the original price of an item from a store particularly catered to lower-income communities is unethical and indicative of a flagrant lack of class consciousness in the sustainability movement.
Prior to the early 2010s, thrifting and wearing secondhand clothing was largely stigmatized. The majority of those who bought secondhand did not have the money to purchase new clothing, and thrift shopping was thus deemed for poor people. Children wearing thrifted sweaters to school were made fun of by their peers, and their parents were shamed. However, thrifting became mainstream in the 2010s, perhaps as a reaction to fast fashion, the growth of trendier consignment shops, the rise of sustainability movements and the singular cultural impact Macklemore’s song “Thrift Shop” had on society. The popularity of thrift shopping has been furthered and made trendier by resale websites like Depop because of their social media approach.
Thrifting is important because it reduces waste. Many clothes that are donated still have a lifetime of use in them, and utilizing them to their full extent prevents them from languishing in a landfill despite remaining functional. But going to a Goodwill in a working-class neighborhood, buying all the trendy, good-quality clothes and selling them on Depop for more than the original price actively takes away from what is expressly made available to such communities.
Stores like Goodwill and the Salvation Army are, at least nominally, nonprofits, meant to benefit the communities in which they are located, but prices have been climbing since the mid-2010s. The mainstream thrifting boom is most likely the primary reason, but reselling has become an added factor. Thrift stores are riding the wave of popularity they have received and are going to get every last penny out of it, so it is no surprise prices have gone up and the stores have changed their look.
Goodwill claims that their increased prices are due to their commitment to charity, but the organization is notorious for its discriminatory practices, most notably underpaying disabled workers or, in some cases, not paying them at all, according to Forbes. Price-gouging thrift reselling takes away the few good thrift finds from communities that rely on such stores and contributes to the rise in prices, emboldening companies seeking to increase their profits.
This practice points to a larger issue within consumer sustainability, which is a lack of class consciousness. It’s reassuring to see that fast fashion is rightfully deemed unethical and environmentally destructive and that people are reducing their waste by buying secondhand clothing, but thrift stores in low-income neighborhoods aren’t made for middle- and upper-class individuals to use for their forays into aestheticized extortionist reselling. If sustainability is for all, proponents must recognize differences, including class, race, ability and geography, and look at how they impact the decisions people can make about their own consumption.
Sustainability is a universal goal, but there are no universal rules. Lower-income people cannot afford many environmentally friendly consumer solutions, and thrift shopping is an economic necessity, not a choice. Middle- and upper-class thrift resellers should understand the spaces they are entering into and their role in them rather than slapping a tag of “sustainability” onto a business practice that actively takes away from others.