Re: Ordering Sneakers: Nike

[Guest guest]

Rael64 <raelsixty4@...> wrote:

> Is this the lessor of two evils business philosophy? Screw the

> laborers as much as you can, but make sure they understand you are

> exploiting them less than your competition?

You're not " screwing " anyone when you offer them a job, even an

absolutely miserable job. Similarly, you're not " screwing " anyone if

you offer to perform a service, even a useless service for a huge sum

of money.

Would it make everyone happy if Nike simply didn't offer these

terrible jobs?

> They place Corporate profit as priority over the health and

> welfare of people(s), foreign *and* domestic.

The people taking those jobs place personal profit over personal

" health and welfare " too evidently. They're in a very, very bad

position -- they're impoverished people in a " developing " country,

through no fault of Nike's -- and they value the almighty dollar more

than not working in a " sweat shop " too.

Believe it or not, both sides prefer the working arrangement to the

alternative.

> I'm certain there are a number of US laborors that could do with a

> decent job from Nike...if they made their products in the US.

Um, no. An American worker has priced himself out of that market.

He doesn't add $6/hr of value to the final product.

> And the majority of the profit, mind you, goes to upper management,

> not laborers, and then stockholders.

The majority of the profit doesn't exist. These companies are losing

money. If they're not profitable, the stockholders are subsidizing

the employees at their own expense.

> No. Allow them to do such all they want. But tax the blazes out

> of their products once they return to US soil. It's quite simple.

That way we can hurt American consumers rather than highly-visible

American corporations and their employees. Great.

It doesn't take a sophisticated economic analysis to demonstrate that

tariffs hurt the people they hurt more than they help the people they

help. They're inefficient.

Matt Madsen

[Guest guest]

Twas Writ:

>Rael64 <raelsixty4@...> wrote:

>

>> Is this the lessor of two evils business philosophy? Screw the

>> laborers as much as you can, but make sure they understand you are

>> exploiting them less than your competition?

>

>You're not " screwing " anyone when you offer them a job, even an

>absolutely miserable job. Similarly, you're not " screwing " anyone if

>you offer to perform a service, even a useless service for a huge sum

>of money.

Again, and a bit more bluntly...

if one's belief is that any task/activity/ " job " which earns one money is

worthwhile, or " okay " , or generally acceptable, then do not complain when a

guy sells your child cocaine. After all, it's merely his job. Do not be

upset when you see teenage prostitutes because I'm certain they are earning

quite a bit more money than any other regular job would pay them for their

services. Don't take it personally when some guy/gal puts a bullet in your

head and takes your wallet. He/she has simply foung that this " job " pays

far more than most local minimum wage jobs. He's taking advantage of good

economics, no?

One is " screwed " when one is taken advantage of. Granted, the cliche' is

" someone can only take advantage of you if you allow them too " (or

something of that nature) which in principle is quite true. Nonetheless,

when in dire need, people do things they would rather not do.

It's not a question of earning more money, its a question of finding a job,

using a skill, doing it with no shame, and not feeling as if one has to

choose between " bad " and " really bad " . It's not a good feeling, it's not a

good life, even if you are making more money.

>Would it make everyone happy if Nike simply didn't offer these

>terrible jobs?

It would make me extremely happy. Maybe some decent business would arise

from the ashes of the defunct sweatshops.

>> They place Corporate profit as priority over the health and

>> welfare of people(s), foreign *and* domestic.

>

>The people taking those jobs place personal profit over personal

> " health and welfare " too evidently. They're in a very, very bad

>position -- they're impoverished people in a " developing " country,

>through no fault of Nike's -- and they value the almighty dollar more

>than not working in a " sweat shop " too.

Nike perpetuates their destitution. They exploit them. One may be able to

afford a bit more food, but it's nothing that will ease their burden on any

grand scale.

Why is cocaine such a big commodity in Columbia? Because it pays top bucks

to be in the business. And you can rest assured that the individuals

growing and processing the coca aren't getting rich like the drug lords,

but they're making more money than the average citizen down there. Good

jobs indeed!

Exploitation. Better pay for a bad job. Hmmm.

>Believe it or not, both sides prefer the working arrangement to the

>alternative.

I'm sure the workers do prefer more money for a bad job. It's a

no-brainer. But again, the point is the JOB. The working conditions. The

money is not the priority problem. Ask someone working in a sweatshop if

he/she is happy doing what he/she is doing, where they are doing it, hours,

pay, etc., or would they rather a better environment, 40 hour work week,

maybe even a 15 minute coffee break, but the same pay. Wonder which job

they'd choose?

As for Nike, I'm quite certain they prefer cheap contract labor rather than

having to pay decent wages, insist on sanitary and safe working conditions,

and probably cut the pay of top management.

>> I'm certain there are a number of US laborors that could do with a

>> decent job from Nike...if they made their products in the US.

>

>Um, no. An American worker has priced himself out of that market.

>He doesn't add $6/hr of value to the final product.

Don't blame the American worker, my friend. Blame our wonderful economy.

You've got " hyperinflation " of pay in the top management ranks. CEOs

earning millions per year. Top and mid-management earning a hundred

thousand plus. A global economy makes for more mangement, more high paying

jobs. More high rollers means more folks willing to provide services and

products for those who don't mind paying higher prices. It's the snowball

effect. Unfortunately, there this group of folks at the bottom of the heap

who are getting " priced " out of existence, here in the great ole US of A.

And don't forget that fuel prices are skyrocketing because oil companies

want to bleed all they can from the earth rather than consider alternative

fuels that they cannot so easily jack up the prices on. After all, it's

unlikely we'll ever have a " sun shortage " . Where's the profit in selling a

product that runs on free fuel? Business blasphemy!! Food prices go

through the roof because agribusiness' control the markets. The government

does not giving a damn because politics has become a profession, if not a

club where only the rich can play. And people don't vote because it's

obvious that what the people want does not matter. More often than not,

there is NO ONE the people want, but no one will put " None Of The Above " on

the ballot.

>> And the majority of the profit, mind you, goes to upper management,

>> not laborers, and then stockholders.

>

>The majority of the profit doesn't exist. These companies are losing

>money. If they're not profitable, the stockholders are subsidizing

>the employees at their own expense.

Horse kaka if you're speaking in generalities. There are, certainly, some

shoe companies that may be having financial problems. The nature of the

beast though. Life and death. Methinks, we need a great number of

corporations to die off. And soon.

But money does not just disappear. It doesn't fade away. Someone has it.

Amazon.com could go out of business tomorrow and people, *experts*, would

be all over CNN and CNBC, HardBall, you name it, and they'd all be saying

" well, the company never made any money...it was inevitable...labor is

expensive...blahblahblah " and all the while, JP Bezos would be sitting

in one of his houses, smoking a fat cuban, watching I Love Lucy reruns,

thinking about starting another business.

If there wasn't profit, businesses would not exist. And if they are not

making a profit, they are doing something wrong, and most likely deserve

the death that is looming over their corporate heads. Think I learned that

in Econ 201.

>> No. Allow them to do such all they want. But tax the blazes out

>> of their products once they return to US soil. It's quite simple.

>

>

>That way we can hurt American consumers rather than highly-visible

>American corporations and their employees. Great.

No, we'll hurt the companies and then maybe they'll go out of business.

After all, the only American employees they have are upper management who

are making far too much money as it is. American consumers won't suffer if

they don't have 40 shoe companies from which to pick shoes.

>It doesn't take a sophisticated economic analysis to demonstrate that

>tariffs hurt the people they hurt more than they help the people they

>help. They're inefficient.

Fine. You obviously are more enlightened than I about tariffs.

But regardless, exploitation of foreign - or domestic - workers is not

okay. It is not good. It should not be allowed. And it should not be

perpetuated by a country which considers itself, it's people, civilized and

decent. It's a damned shame.

Rael64 / Don Mutchler

[Guest guest]

Rael64 <raelsixty4@...> wrote:

> if one's belief is that any task/activity/ " job " which earns one

> money is worthwhile, or " okay " , or generally acceptable, then do

> not complain when a guy sells your child cocaine. After all, it's

> merely his job. Do not be upset when you see teenage prostitutes

> because I'm certain they are earning quite a bit more money than

> any other regular job would pay them for their services. Don't

> take it personally when some guy/gal puts a bullet in your

> head and takes your wallet. He/she has simply foung that this

> " job " pays far more than most local minimum wage jobs. He's taking

> advantage of good economics, no?

The argument is not that anything at all is fine as long as it's a

job. The argument is that any agreement between two consenting

adults must be beneficial to both parties (in their respective

opinions) or they wouldn't come to that agreement.

If working long hours in a dank, dark room under constant pressure

isn't worth the money to you, don't take a job writing computer

games. If having someone put a ball in a hoop particularly

gracefully earns your franchise millions of dollars, pay the guy to

put balls in hoops for you.

When you give the example of a hired assassin as " good economics " ,

you miss the big, glaring fact that the guy getting killed didn't

consent to be killed. That's a really big " externality " , as we say

in economics. To be consistent, it would have to be a mercy killer

offering sweet release to a terminally ill patient who's suffering

and wants to die. Some of us, many of us, wouldn't want that job,

and we wouldn't take it; others would. Virtually none of us would

hire out for that service (mercy killing); some small fraction of the

world's population would. Only the people involved make the

decision.

> One is " screwed " when one is taken advantage of.

What does that mean? If I'm starving and you offer me bread in

return for washing your car, taking out your trash, cleaning up your

dog's mess, unclogging your drains, etc., I take that job. We're

both better off than if you kept your bread (or peanuts, or

sub-minimum wage) and I didn't work.

> Nonetheless, when in dire need, people do things they would rather

> not do.

Of course. Even when we're not in dire need we do thinks we'd rather

not do. Most of us would rather not sit in an office chair eight

hours a day staring at a computer screen, but plenty of middle-class

North Americans and Europeans do just that.

> >Would it make everyone happy if Nike simply didn't offer these

> >terrible jobs?

>

> It would make me extremely happy. Maybe some decent business would

> arise from the ashes of the defunct sweatshops.

So you'd rather see those former Nike employees starve? You'd like

to fire all of them?

> Nike perpetuates their destitution. They exploit them. One may be

> able to afford a bit more food, but it's nothing that will ease

> their burden on any grand scale.

Are they supposed to feed themselves on your pity? On some sense of

dignity?

> Why is cocaine such a big commodity in Columbia? Because it pays

> top bucks to be in the business. And you can rest assured that the

> individuals growing and processing the coca aren't getting rich

> like the drug lords, but they're making more money than the average

> citizen down there. Good jobs indeed!

And our nation's farmers grew tobacco and distilled alcohol. People

want coffee and chocolate and cigarettes and booze.

> Ask someone working in a sweatshop if he/she is happy doing what

> he/she is doing, where they are doing it, hours, pay, etc., or

> would they rather a better environment, 40 hour work week,

> maybe even a 15 minute coffee break, but the same pay. Wonder

> which job they'd choose?

That's not free. A modern, western factory isn't free. These

countries don't necessarily even have running water and modern

plumbing. If you didn't have running water at home, which would be

more important to you, having running water at work, or getting more

money to care for your family? Which is more important, working just

40 hours a week, or producing more and getting paid more?

In any case where the employer can give the employees something for

nothing, by all means, they should; it's in their own interest.

Wanton cruelty doesn't pay off.

But don't confuse modern " necessities " with true necessities.

> As for Nike, I'm quite certain they prefer cheap contract labor

> rather than having to pay decent wages, insist on sanitary and safe

> working conditions, and probably cut the pay of top management.

You realize what happens when you cut the pay of top management,

don't you? They go away. Then you have no management. Then you

lose money on a grand scale and go away. And so do all the jobs you

used to offer.

> And don't forget that fuel prices are skyrocketing because oil

> companies want to bleed all they can from the earth rather than

> consider alternative fuels that they cannot so easily jack up the

> prices on. After all, it's unlikely we'll ever have a " sun

> shortage " . Where's the profit in selling a product that runs on

> free fuel? Business blasphemy!!

There's plenty of profit in selling a product that runs on free fuel

-- once you can produce that product for less than a fossil-fuel

product and the fuel it burns.

Build it, and they will come.

Solar technology isn't cheap though.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I personally think that it is a modern day version of slavery. I am in no place to comment on it because living in the Western World means that we are at a financial advantage. After Europeans conquered the World and established themselves economically, everyone living in that Western World is profiting from it.

I would like to see the sweatshops abolished or working conditions changed as I am sure everyone would. When the European enslaved Africans, they werent doing them a favour by offering them a boat ride, a place to live, food and a job, they were taking advantage of them. Nike (and others) are not much different, this happens at every level, I dont agree with it, but it is simple economics.

The alternative is establishing social states where we are all equal, but the humans biggest problem is desire (so I guess that will never work either). I believe in socialism and trying to get equality for all, maybe I am just an idealist.

There is no easy answer, I guess we cant all be happy.

Stephon Healey

London UK

[Guest guest]

I personally think that it is a modern day version of slavery. I am in no place to comment on it because living in the Western World means that we are at a financial advantage. After Europeans conquered the World and established themselves economically, everyone living in that Western World is profiting from it.

I would like to see the sweatshops abolished or working conditions changed as I am sure everyone would. When the European enslaved Africans, they werent doing them a favour by offering them a boat ride, a place to live, food and a job, they were taking advantage of them. Nike (and others) are not much different, this happens at every level, I dont agree with it, but it is simple economics.

The alternative is establishing social states where we are all equal, but the humans biggest problem is desire (so I guess that will never work either). I believe in socialism and trying to get equality for all, maybe I am just an idealist.

There is no easy answer, I guess we cant all be happy.

Stephon Healey

London UK

[Guest guest]

Matt Madsen wrote:

>There's plenty of profit in selling a product that

runs on free fuel--once you can produce that product

for less than a fossil-fuel product and the fuel it

burns.

***Good point. Of course, in the present market, we

fossil fuel users externalize the costs of the

pollution we create. Ouch, there's that ol'

externalization & " tragedy of the commons " thing again.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

London wrote,

>I personally think that it is a modern day version of slavery. I am in no

>place to comment on it because living in the Western World means that we are

>at a financial advantage. After Europeans conquered the World and

>established themselves economically, everyone living in that Western World

>is

>profiting from it.

You'll have to tell the Asians, Chinese, Japanese, etc. that you conquered

them. I'm not sure they are aware...

[Guest guest]

The generalities are going crazy around here.

I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest. Since I

currently work in the athletic shoe industry, I have a bit of an inside view of

it. We sit around the cafeteria, from time to time, and wonder what everyone is

talking about. Yes, there are, or have been, factories that treat the workers

badly. The simple fact is that the majors like Nike and Reebok just won't put

up with it when they know about it. In fact Reebok has a very pointed policy

that everyone in the corporate building knows. No workers get mistreated.

(Unless, of course you want to mention the people in Design and Development who

put in extremely long hours.)

If you stop and think about it, Nike is a customer just as much as anyone else.

They order the shoes from a factory. The transaction is not entirely dissimilar

to you walking in the local Kinko's with some artwork and ordering a brochure

printed by the thousands. You don't own the print shop any more than Nike does.

If the print shop decides to contract part of the work out to someone working

out of a garage, it isn't your fault.

Even in the lesser factories, everything is a matter of scale. We cannot gauge

them by Western standards. Yes, they are currently disadvantaged. That is

slowly changing. It can't happen all at once. It won't. It will eventually.

I think that if you ever get the opportunity to tour a factory making Nike's,

you might be a bit surprised. The machinery and conditions would amaze the

average Kinney worker (If they were still around). The factories I saw in Korea

and Thailand were very nice. As a matter of fact, it would be rather difficult

to make a product like a modern athletic shoe in a sweatshop. You need the

infrastructure of a large concern to supply lasts, molds (Insole, midsole,

outsole, lace locks and other gadgets), cutting dies, boxes and on and on. It

is a big job. The larger concerns make it one stop shopping. Quality is better

there too.

One of the most interesting things I have ever seen was in a photo on an office

wall. The photo showed all of the factory workers gathered outside facing a

huge pile of shoes. All the shoes were made badly (very badly). The pile was

doused with kerosene and set on fire. The workers were made to stand there and

consider that the shoes they were watching burn were their jobs if there was a

next time. From the looks on the faces, the point was well made.

This was a factory action, not the label. Slavery? No, harsh reality.

Jeff Gullett,

Lumberton, NC

----- Original Message -----

From: dugster111@...

I personally think that it is a modern day version of slavery. I am in no

place to comment on it because living in the Western World means that we are

at a financial advantage. After Europeans conquered the World and

established themselves economically, everyone living in that Western World is

profiting from it.

I would like to see the sweatshops abolished or working conditions changed as

I am sure everyone would. When the European enslaved Africans, they werent

doing them a favour by offering them a boat ride, a place to live, food and a

job, they were taking advantage of them. Nike (and others) are not much

different, this happens at every level, I dont agree with it, but it is

simple economics.

The alternative is establishing social states where we are all equal, but the

humans biggest problem is desire (so I guess that will never work either). I

believe in socialism and trying to get equality for all, maybe I am just an

idealist.

There is no easy answer, I guess we can't all be happy.

Stephon Healey

London UK