Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

How many time do you wear jeans before washing them?


j2sgam

Recommended Posts

I was reading this article on LinkedIn, which got me to a conversation with a co-worker, which, in turn, got me to start this thread. The CEO of Levi's says we can make a significant difference in water & energy consumption by wearing jeans 10 times before we wash them instead of the usual 2 times, which is what I do. 

 

How many times do you wear them befoer washing them? Just wondering what my go-to general consensus that is teh Huddle says....

 

 

 

 

 

It’s no surprise that the manufacture of jeans is a water intensive process, but the 2007 Lifecycle Assessment we conducted (and updated this year) detailed just how big a part of the water and climate problem we are. The latest study showed that on average a single pair of 501 jeans consumes nearly 3,800 liters of water and produces 33 kg of carbon emissions throughout its lifetime.

That data galvanized us and pushed us to rethink how we make our jeans – and how we could become part of the solution. It led to the creation of the Levi’s® Water<Less™ process and implementation of the apparel industry’s first standard for 100% water recycling and reuse. Our push to curb water use across our operations has -- so far -- saved more than one billion liters of water globally since 2011. It’s also given us the credibility to challenge our customers to embrace more sustainable practices.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be the weird one here.  I wash them even after one wear.

 

 

Same here but I also shower twice a day which apparently most people don't do. Now if i wear jeans to a movie or dinner and only have them on for a couple hours then I will hang them back up but all day...they are going in the wash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...