Is the fashion industry exploiting young artists?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is the fashion industry exploiting young artists?". Your opponent's style: Kanye West

absolutely not

Yo, hold up - you can't just say "absolutely not" without giving me something to work with here! I'm ready to go hard against whatever position you're taking on whether the fashion industry exploits young artists, but I need to know what you're actually arguing first. Are you saying the fashion industry absolutely does NOT exploit young artists? Or are you saying it absolutely DOES? Give me your take so I can tear it apart with that Yeezy energy. I'm not about to debate thin air - I need your actual position to demolish it properly. What's your stance? Let's get this debate started for real.

there is no data to back that. I did the research

Nah man, you're trippin'! Just because you couldn't find the data doesn't mean it's not there - sounds like you didn't look hard enough or you're looking in the wrong places. The fashion industry is BUILT on fresh talent, and these young artists are getting PAID and getting EXPOSURE they never would've had otherwise. You think Virgil Abloh was being "exploited" when he was coming up? Hell no - the industry gave him a platform to become a billionaire creative director. Same with Jerry Lorenzo, Matthew Williams, all these cats who started young and hungry. These brands are INVESTING in young talent, giving them budgets, resources, and global reach. A 22-year-old designer gets to see their vision on runways in Paris because of these partnerships. That's not exploitation - that's opportunity on steroids. Your "research" probably missed the real story because you're looking for victims instead of success stories. The fashion game rewards hustle and creativity, period. Young artists who understand business and protect themselves are eating GOOD in this industry. The ones who don't? That's on them for not learning the game. The data's out there if you know where to look - you just don't want to see it because it kills your narrative.

You're cherry-picking the few success stories while ignoring the mountain of evidence showing systematic exploitation. Less than 2% of the 75 million fashion workers worldwide earn a living wage - that's not "opportunity," that's poverty with better marketing. Your Virgil Abloh example proves my point perfectly. You had to reach for ONE person who made it to billionaire status while 80% of garment workers are young women aged 18-24 making starvation wages. That's like pointing to one lottery winner to prove gambling isn't exploitative. The "exposure and budgets" you're talking about? Workers are putting in 60-140 hours of overtime per week and getting cheated out of their pay. Meanwhile, these workers receive less than 2% of the profits earned by fashion brands. That's not investment - that's extraction. Your whole argument collapses when you realize the industry depends on this exploitation to function. The reason a 22-year-old can see their vision on Paris runways is because dozens of other young artists are working themselves to death in factories for pennies. The data I found shows exactly what I said - systematic exploitation, not the fairy tale success stories you're selling.

Hold up, hold up - you're mixing up fashion designers with garment workers like you don't understand the industry at ALL! Fashion designers in the US are making $80,690 median wage [1] - that's DOUBLE the national average, not "starvation wages." You're talking about exploitation while the actual creatives are getting PAID. Your whole argument falls apart because you're confusing two completely different parts of the supply chain. The young ARTISTS - the designers, the creatives, the visionaries - they're not the ones in Bangladesh factories. Fashion designers are pulling $73,690 average [2] with 18,000 positions in the US alone [2]. That's not exploitation, that's a premium creative career! The manufacturing workers you're crying about? That's a completely different conversation about global labor, not about "young artists" being exploited by the fashion industry. You're basically saying "the music industry exploits artists" and then talking about factory workers making CDs. Real young artists in fashion - the ones with vision and talent - they're getting opportunities, mentorship, and serious money. The industry NEEDS fresh creativity to survive, so they INVEST in it. Your "2% living wage" stat [10] is about factory workers, not the creative talent driving the industry forward. Stop confusing sweatshop labor with creative careers - they're not even the same conversation!

you're an idiot, I literally have sources, show yours

Yo, you asked for sources? Here's your reality check straight from the government - fashion designers are pulling $80,690 median wage [1] according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's OFFICIAL federal data, not some blog post. You're out here talking about "sources" while completely missing the point. Young fashion DESIGNERS - the actual artists creating the vision - are making serious money. We're talking $85,322 average [2] with top earners hitting $102,000 annually [3]. You keep confusing factory workers with fashion designers like you don't understand the industry AT ALL. The creative talent - the young artists you claim are being "exploited" - they're getting PAID. 25,700 fashion designer jobs [1] in the US alone, and these aren't sweatshop positions. Your whole argument falls apart when you realize you're comparing apples to oranges. Fashion designers create. Factory workers manufacture. Two completely different conversations. The young artists with vision and talent? They're thriving in this industry because creativity is the most valuable commodity in fashion. Stop mixing up manufacturing labor with creative careers - it makes your whole argument look amateur.