It was not an argument about the minimum technical specifications of donated goods. Nor was it an argument about donated goods needing to be brand new.
That "Only donate what you would buy" dictum is just as misguided.
I did buy it once. I just don't need it anymore. Maybe someone else can find some use for it.
―"There are things that are not even usable. We can't sell it in the store."[2]
―"We want saleable donations only," a Red Cross spokeswoman said[3]
―"What people take out of our store, we would actually wear ourself."[4]
―“Every Monday, we waste time sorting other people’s rubbish instead of preparing clothing and furniture for sale for people in need,” Mrs Barrett said.[5]
―"A good donation is something which is unbroken, complete, clean and sellable."[6]
―“If people are trying to get rid of stuff, use the tip; we only take items that are in good condition and that people can use.”[7]
―Barbara Cunningham, Sails Outlet's volunteer manager, said people dump unusable items at the thrift store two to three times a week. Recently, they found a queen-size mattress tossed outside the door.[8]
―McLellan suggests donors ask themselves, “would I buy this?”[9]
―“They wouldn’t buy it themselves, but they think other people will.”[9]
―“The appliances and that kind of thing, we want them working. We don’t them to come in without a cord, or a broken anything. There are standards — you can’t sell things that aren’t in good order.”[9]
―“These are things that should be taken to the dump,” said Thrift Store Manager Sheila Combs. “Who wants half a pool table — and a broken one to boot?”[10]
―“We couldn’t get rid of the TVs if we slapped a $2 sticker on them,” Combs said Wednesday. “As for these computer things… we don’t even have a computer so we don’t know if they work.”[10]
[1] http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/26/Greater-Vancouver-Food-Ban...
[2] http://www.sunjournal.com/node/100881
[3] http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/charities-report-incre...
[4] http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/05/11/18135666.html
[5] http://www.portnews.com.au/news/local/news/general/tip-fees-...
[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/sep/06/charities.volu...
[7] http://www.westernadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/tr...
[8] http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/09/22/1650943/tri-city-th...
[9] http://www.rosslandnews.com/news/121669949.html
[10] http://www.revelstokecurrent.com/2011/05/25/thoughtless-peop...
I would like clarification: Are you advocating we shouldn't donate used items to charity, or that we shouldn't donate unusable items to charity?
If the former, then how do you propose those less fortunate purchase items outside of their budget? I've gone to thrift and goodwill stores; many of the electronics and clothing there are perfectly usable.
If the latter, I completely agree, though am not sure why this is pertinent to the discussion. Broken junk isn't generally sellable except as scrap.
No, I probably wouldn't dress a baby in “highly flammable second-hand sleepwear” but the critical part of that phrase is “highly flammable”, not “second-hand”. It's ridiculous to suggest that because clothing isn't good-as-new to automatically assume it's a “highly flammable” health hazard.
> What makes it acceptable to purchase a brand new electrical appliance and dispose of the old, worn and unsafe one to the less fortunate? What message does it send?
I use old appliances all the time. Sometimes I do replace them. But just the act of buying something new does not make the old any less usable. What message does it send that those old appliances are good enough for me, but they are below the standards of people who can't afford to buy their own?