Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[flagged]



You're being downvoted but i find their message really weird. Their technical gear sucks and have been crap for a long time now (not just my opinion). They charge arcteryx prices for north face quality. And even if they were positioning themselves as a brand for climbers and hardcore skiers those aren't exactly the environment-friendly crowd (even if they think of themselves that way) and thousands spent on heliski trips are receipts for that. Now that leaves basically college kids and yuppies sporting their $500 700-down jackets on bay area hiking trails, half of which they are now alienating with their anti-yuppie stance. I'm having a hard time figuring out who this brand is really for?


I’d disagree about your assessment of Patagonia quality and point out that most industry players where I live (Coast Mountains BC) don’t agree either. At least that’s been my experience working in the outdoor industry for two decades.

This is Arc’teryx country for sure but Patagonia is very highly regarded and is known to have quite low return/warranty rates.

You’re entitled to your opinion of course but don’t present it as anything other than that.


Why would it matter where they are being made? So long as those companies are good partners that align with Patagonia.

Many reasons not to be manufacturing in America and at the end of the day Patagonia afaik does not own much of any manufacturing themselves, it all happens through partners.


Depending on how you do accounting, employing an American with their carbon footprint is probably more environmentally damaging than employing someone from Vietnam and shipping the product across the Pacific...


Yeah you can manipulate the accounting to get whatever conclusion you want, this is true for pretty much everything complicated.


That's not an example of "manipulating the accounting" though, it's just an unavoidable consequence of manufacturing in high cost-of-living and carbon-per-capita locations.


Do you believe workers who aren't hired in a high carbon-per-capita location just die? Or do they just fade into nothingness as you stop thinking of them?


Every time this comes up, I’m always amazed at how cynical some people can be towards Patagonia. It’s weird to me. It’s like the one person in your friend group who actively discourages others from improving their own lives because they are unhappy in their own.

I mean “Weasels”? Really? Come on. Say something insightful/interesting or don’t say anything at all. Calling them names is low effort and childish.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: