Jah Kable

Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,

This conversation is closed.

Why is it OK for corporations to outsource work to countries that violate the corporation's home country labor laws?

Prime Example: Nike and Apple. Paying about 15 bucks a day to KIDS in other countries making their products so they can sell them for a major mark up everywhere. Now If they can make these products for a total of like 5 bucks, why do we pay 100-500 bucks for these things? This just seems greedy to me And seems like it could be a legitimate reason for the recession. GRRRR this is frustrating. They are hoarding so much money they couldn't possibly spend it. Letting this happen is madness. Yet not doing or saying anything is the standard "accepted" action. Like a friend told me "We don't need a revolution because that implies returning to a broken point in the cycle, We need an evolution." Yeah he blew my mind too. :D Keep it clean and friendly everyone. Looking forward to your ideas. Lets get this some traction and change the world.

  • Aug 2 2013: You are right. But what can the customer do about it? It is a clever move of the manufacturers. The relatively high price of our clothes is based on the historic price of manufacturing them here, with high overheads. The manufacturers move overseas they escape all those high overheads which are the reason for the price, have the goods made dirt cheap by exploited labour, and make massive profits. There is a role for govt here, but govt tends to stay sweet with the monied interests. And there is nothing the customer can do to reduce the prices. Perhaps we need more ethical firms - that would introduce customer choice - but most business is run for profit, not for philanthropy. Good comment.
  • Jul 31 2013: Jah, I think it has a lot to do with the definition of the phrase "OK".From a capitalist point of view it is "OK". The manufacturer is maximising the net income. I think it goes against the principles of the World's great religions as well as general philosophical ideals..I feel those who profess belief in such religions, but take advantage of the poor are hypocrates. If we wish to stop such behavior, we must let the world know and stick our necks out. Boycot the stores and tell people why you nare doing so.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2013: Outsourcing for sometimes being considered one of the best way of profit maximization, so the corporations are after it.
  • Aug 1 2013: lets switch you question slightly, should american workers in the US be ruled by the Japanese labor laws if they worked in a Toyota Plant?

    I would say no, hence from a legal point of view no the American Labor laws do not apply in Asia.

    On the moral question, I agree something needs to be done but in some countries, if you fire the child or parent, the entire family would starve. If you gave them the minimum wage from the US, they would be robbed as soon as they left the plant. What is needed on the moral issue is bringing up the entire country.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2013: That may be appropriate in the long term but the short term indicates that many of these people have gone from no food on the table to enough to feed more than one family. So, in some respect, the increase in jobs over there has elevated the status quota. The disproportions that occur between the wealthy and those who labour appear similar to those in a modern country.
      Of course a major concern with labour in any country is "Child Labor Laws": Wikipedia cast some light on the evolution of these laws in a typical modern country like the United States:
      "...It took the Great Depression to end child labor nationwide; adults had become so desperate for jobs that they would work for the same wage as children.[citation needed] In 1938, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor. However, The 1938 labor law giving protections to working children excludes agriculture. As a result approximately 500,000 children pick almost a quarter of the food currently produced in the United States.[4]..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United_States

      Considering the historical dates I read in this article, still, many modern countries are not far removed from the conditions in developing countries, especially in some agricultural industries. The idea of equity in the markets of the world, between those who make the products and those who reap the profits, are still archaic and primitive, to this day, in both modern and developing countries. We are indeed bold to speak of conditions "over there" when our own back yard is in such dire need of landscaping.

      I would suggest that the evolutionary powers associated with labour in developing nations will follow a similar course as those in modern countries. I don't see a speedy solution.
      • Aug 4 2013: agreed the history of the labor movement in the US and other countries is very long and filled with many injustices. How many realize that the 1st recorded strike was in 1648 or the number of strikes at the coal mines and railroads and how many of these strikes were broken by government troops?

        The triangle fire in 1911 that led to some safety labor laws. 146 women died because the doors were locked and they could not get out. News report said some leaped to their death with their clothes and hair on fire. This is similar to the Bangladesh disaster that happened this year.
  • thumb
    Jul 31 2013: I get it.

    The fat kitties felt a rumble in their tummies, and then watched the skinny little mice scamper about, hungry in a different way, a desperate way... until one day, one of fattest cats said, "Hey, why don't we use them to make our cheese? Why, they'll be so thankful to get a crumb they'll work for just about anything; it's a win-win!". Of course, the other felines agreed, and so they threw the rats at home in the alley and made shop in the big, wide, wonderful world outside. It was perfect- go to the trailer parks and sing a song so sweet, with the tiny bits of chedder so fine, that they'll beg for the oppertunitiy; meanwhile, the cheese was being decked out by the tons, and the kitties at home were laughing as the plumb little hampsters nibbled away, slowly but surely, to their eventual fate within the bowls of consumption.


    And you know what?

    It sucks.

    But there is very little to be done unless the mindset of consumers change. It's not the corrporations, it's you. It's me. It's our mamas and our daddys, our brothers and our sisters. If you force laws on business, the buisness will find another way to make money, and it may or may not be for the better. The big boys move across the pond because those laws do not exisit, it saves money, and once agian, it saves money. Model it after America and you will find those jobs disappear, that the companies move elsewhere, and that those poor people you speak of now are without any income, and they starve.

    These countries are not america, and to demand assimilation to american standards is both naive and enthocentric. The people need, and more importantly, intensely desire these jobs. It isn't fair that the income is so low, and that the standard of living falls below ours, but I hate to break it to ya, Life Is Not Fair. Fight agianst child labor, agianst mindless capitalism, but fight a fight that will make positive, realistic change.

    -Cheers
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2013: Large corporations look for a way to avoid having to comply with federal standards. Federal standards are put in place for a couple of reasons, sometimes it's because of safety issues for the employees or consumers, sometimes it's to drive away the competition's ability to produce. Either way it costs money to comply and corporations justify off-shore production by claiming that they are financially unable to comply with the cost of production in America.
    However when you employ Americans and pay them a decent wage they have more buying power and can afford to purchase the merchandise at a marginally higher price. Corporations then claim that they need to be able to cut costs because Americans can't afford to pay the higher prices but they first caused that problem and then continually perpetuate it by moving more and more of our jobs overseas.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2013: "In Nike' s case, the actual production facilities are owned by South Korean and Taiwanese companies that manufacture the products under contract with Nike. The bulk of Nike products are manufactured in China, Thailand, and Indonesia, though some components or products involving more complex technology are manufactured in South Korea or Taiwan. In 1995, a Korean company opened up a major new facility in Vietnam, giving that country also a significant share of Nike' s production."

    China = 0.80 (US) Thailand = $1.20 (US) Indonesia = 0.62 (US)

    The above represents the average hourly wages in those countries ... at $15 per day that would be $1.87 per hour thus exceeding the average wage for non skilled workers.

    Call it greed, smart management, or what ever you want .... the fact remains that the workers are being paid above the national average and want these jobs.

    As for the price of the product .... I cannot explain why someone pays $500 for a pair of Nike's .... but no one is holding a gun on them to do it.

    Be well. Bob.
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: "the fact remains that the workers are being paid above the national average and want these jobs."

      How could they turn the offer down? The power of the currency is not the same or the poor are being taken advantage of (inequality) within that country and now the businesses piggy back on it, "it is not me it's just the way the country is, look they are happy with what they get".

      "I cannot explain why someone pays $500 for a pair of Nike's .... but no one is holding a gun on them to do it."

      Marketing is the explanation. The lack of education in marketing is what controls marketing. It's like going to a magic show or politics and propaganda in comparison.
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2013: Since these were national averages, I would suspect that unskilled factory workers average salary is well below the national average. A CEO makes more that a hamburger flipper .. inequality is everywhere. They make more doing this than they ever have before ... they have raised their earnings. So I guess that I do not understand your point.

        Marketing is all about supply and demand. When there stops being a demand they will market a different product that is "in demand". Peer pressure is the biggest marketer. Take your teenager shopping and they will tell you that they will die without ABC pants and XYZ shoes. That they will be the laughing stock of the school ... no dates ... no friends ... you hate me ... and I hate you .. and so on and so forth. Now that is marketing ... no lack of education there ....

        Go down to the welfare office or juvenile detention ... kids that have been on welfare with their parents or in custody are wearing $300 - $500 shoes, $100 dollar pants, and $100 dollar shirts, in addition to having a new car and a bankroll in their pocket ... it is not about lack of education it is about being somebody .... becoming the man .... being noticed .... buying respect within their group / circle.

        Thanks. Bob.
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: Bob, the point I make is they can't get someone flipping hamburgers from the country you and I live in to do it for that price, it is illegal. We can't put a kid to work (illegal) on top of less than min. wage (illegal). So, it's not OK to do in another country. Pay the adults more, 3X at least, so the kids don't have to work at all. Then the competition really comes back plus there is less profit in unnecessary imports just to make a dishonest buck because of the suppression put on these people. A real company would actually still pay their own min. wage to the people overseas to help the citizens of the world. I see a better solution than this but this is where we are at right now in time.

          Again here too, kids do play a major roll in this, I agree. So if we teach the children better about becoming the man/woman (a good person), being noticed, respect within their peers and what that really means, would this not be good education many would agree with? Another thing... are we, as adults (I assume you are an adult), very far from practicing this or is the "American dream" something totally different?
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: Victor, I do not have time to instruct you in economics or business management. I can LEGALLY do business in country X at 0.62 cents per hour. I do not have the issues brought to the table by unions nor the problems presented by MANY government regulations. Your cost is lower and my profit is higher .... and no one is exploited.

        Steve Jobs said it best to Obama ... I tried to do business in the USA ... government regs .. unions ... and a long waiting period to even begin ... big manpower issues, plus much more. I talked to China .. told them I need 1,400 engineers, two factory floors of approximately 7,000 feet each, 10,000 workers. The only question was ... is two weeks okay and do you want it by the sea or inland.

        As to the other issue. I work in law enforcement, at a prison, in government work. Those kids sell drugs, pimp, steal, take cars, etc .... and live on welfare also. They say we are the stupid ones. They make a thousand dollars on a deal in a few minutes ... with little or no education. They can get caught but in a month they make as much as a small business owner (or more) and no overhead.

        The American dream is dependent upon the dreamer.

        See ya. Bob.
      • Aug 2 2013: We had this problem in Britain 19thcentury, didn't we? If child labour is allowed it undercuts adult labour. children are never paid an adult rate, and adults can't get a job, but it is in their interests to have lots of children to send out to work. Our Western solution was to ban child labour, and it worked. Unless the rulers of 3rd world countries also abolish child labour the situation will continue. But again, the politicians and monied interests are hand in glove. They are the ones making money from this and keeping the general populace subdued. And our Western businesses probably don't want the situation changed for the same reason.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2013: In the long run, it is better than being protectionist.

    The wages in those countries will eventually go up. This implies that in the end, the world will be more equall and the jobs will go back because of transportation costs going up.

    Of course, this doesn't solve current abuse of global production and trade. And it is not the best nor the fastest route to more equality.
    But then again: if a kid can go to a factory instead of slavery or prostitution, the life situation is already improved.
    If labour unions would encourage fair pay across the globe,... would be a good thing.

    As for how multinationals work: it sees goverments as obstacles, and we would need a stronger united nations that can deal with them.

    If you don't want to support Apple or Nike: there are fair phones comming on the market. There is fair footware.
    Don't buy a brand if you don't buy their policies.
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: What controls the transportation cost? How is this fact? If it would go up, how would this help or hurt the people over seas? And the oil field needs more greed? lol
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2013: The energy indeed. Oil is still used most (for shipping, flight and trucks).
        There is also the unpaid cost of oil: the CO2 emmission... and that needs a huge amount of money to get it under control. And there is the cost of the driver/people who handle the shipping.
        The price of the end product will go up when transport cost goes up. When the total product cost is lower in your country, you will produce it in your country (or region).

        It really depends how that helps/hurts. but in the end, a reduction in dirty transportation is beneficial to all.
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: Totally agree Christophe.


      I'd like to add that the current abuses depend on the consumer to fix. When a big stink is raised about safe buildings or child labor or sweat shop wages for one company, many others follow suit and a new higher standard is then set. This consumer pressure can directly affect minimum wage standards for an entire country and it was done without involving the bureaucracy of that country. Change can be effected from the outside. It becomes a unifying and equalising force.

      It depends heavily on ethical consumerism.
  • Jul 29 2013: It is not OK, it is just legal.

    I would suggest spreading this idea with pictures and starting a boycott. Of course, it is not just Nike and Apple, it is now almost everything we buy in the USA. Still, a successful boycott of one large company could make the threat of a boycott very powerful.

    A complete solution of this injustice will require some way to replace the lost income for the families of those children workers.
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: To be successful in this boycott we would have to flash the message just as often as the product is marketed I believe. I could be somewhat off because the word of mouth spreads as well. People know these things already but it stays in the back of their minds and unimportant.
      • Aug 5 2013: Very good point - we could contact our friends & family, let them know we're going to be boycotting so-and-so, 'why,' & 'how'.
        And let them know that every time we see one of their commercials, just send them a quick message about the commercial or product-placemnt.
        Hmm, maybe not a polished idea, but a beginning.

        And to Barry: That reminds me of a recent quote I recently found: "All that is good
        is not embodied in the law;
        and all that is evil
        is not proscribed by the law.
        A well-disciplined society
        needs few laws;
        but it needs strong mores." ~William F. Buckley, Jr.
        (I think that's how it goes.)
  • thumb
    Aug 12 2013: The emergent openness of the crowd will make awareness the primary driver of change, The capacity of the crowd within the cloud to redefine current governmental regulation is nothing short of revolutionary. The commerce of the internet is truly global which suggest labor is global as well. Perhaps there should be a more transparent international labor and trade protocol to allow all people the access and opportunity of global standards of living.
  • Aug 12 2013: The thing is that there will never be law to prevent this (until we all call our selves united states of the world) , the problem is that at the end when you outsource all your jobs abroad to make the profit you will lose your market at home as result of transferring capital to other country.
    And the problem is also in constant demand of profit growth in opposite to constant drop of human values and free time.
  • thumb
    Aug 10 2013: Because it lowers the bottom line and makes the product cheaper for us the consumers to consume. (Can you tell I'm wearing my homemade mask made of jade when I say that?)
    • Aug 12 2013: no it doesn't, it just increases their profit margin. also if there was no labor outsourcing, more people in this country would have jobs, thus there'd be more salaries paid. and people would be able to afford the higher prices.
      • thumb
        Aug 12 2013: Do you not know what a homemade mask of jade is?
  • Aug 10 2013: Jah, it's not that I disagree w/ you, but what you are essentially trying to do is take trillions of dollars out of the pockets of big corporations, who essentially have bought the governments of the world. The only way to improve the situation is to do two basic things: a) buy less of the products / services that these industries sell, which means changing the way we educate young people to think about things like Nike shoes, texting, and Big Macs; and b) fight fire w/ fire by creating industries that sell better products that are meant to last longer, like Apple vs. PC laptops. Apple products are more expensive, but they last longer and are mostly not the target of viruses. I've asked techies why hackers don't attack Apple w/ viruses, who say 'people LIKE Apple....'

    Another thing you are fighting is a world-wide campaign against access to good education for ALL. If governments were to invest in addressing any / all learning barriers K to 6, along w/ rigorous & engaging education then everyone would be able think for, take care of, & respect themselves.

    I work in the Mid. East, where many citizens are not educated enough to know that constantly eating Fast Food is not healthy, & where 70% of citizens are overweight (many of whom suffer from medical problems). We could produce healthier foods for everyone, but the profit margin would be lower....not going to happen...

    Acquiring knowledge & critical thinking skills, and valuing hard work & citizenship are the keys to our future but BIG MONEY & POWER are fighting against this--they want young people to learn to become dependent on mostly unnecessary products and 'services', and simply be too dull to question this system.

    We must learn to fight this by being smarter than those who think we are too stupid to understand what is going on--not that hard, but it means a life style change.

    I teach my college students HOW to think not WHAT..

    Keep thinking, questioning, learning, and getting smart. Prof. Schneider
    • Aug 12 2013: i personally try to buy less from the companies that pull this, but they've done pretty well to make sure there really are no other alternatives. buy from somewhere you think is honest and find they're a subsidiary of a big multi-national, or they don't have the goods you need or don't service your area, and then even if you do find a place the only way you can pay them is thru using the services of a big multi-national who take their cut. also they collectively pay very poor salaries to the majority of their workers, so most people just can't afford to shop somewhere that doesn't exploit, and people can't create industries because first they need funding and no-one's going to give it to them because they'll be working against one of their partners, and even if they do get started they'll be manufacturing at a disadvantage because the big manufacturers have already lobbied for tax breaks that the start up won't get.
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2013: Hey there Jah Kable
    Short answer: It is NOT OK. If you want to know HOW it happens, I think it might be instructive to revisit Bucky Fuller's "Grunch of Giants," or even his "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth." In those books he does suggest ways to evolve or get traction by re-conceptualizing wealth and big picture orientation.

    Since a solution will be situated within the problem, maybe the self-reliant form of the question is: do I want a happy life or a meaningful one? Revenge does not produce either.

    Perhaps compassionately working in the service of humanity is evolutionary enough.
  • thumb
    Aug 8 2013: "Outsource" as used in this question is essentially the same as "ordering," which is essentially the same as "importing," "buying" and "trading." The question really suggests that we should not order, import or buy from, or trade with countries that do not have our labor laws. The result of that policy would be havoc in both worlds.

    Labor laws in some countries include a mandatory paid 5-week vacation for all workers, or a 38-hour work week. There are lots of OSHA safety laws specific to handling, storing, and transporting various materials. In the US, labor laws may vary from state to state. Must a client country copy all these? You probably have in mind certain labor laws, though you don't specify which. You refer to pay, but as for your example ($15 a day), that's more than most people make in many countries. If you offer to hire someone for $15 a day they'd be overjoyed. You also mention KIDS, and that's a serious issue. But the problem isn't that kids work, but the conditions they work under. My father grew up on a small family farm, and all the kids did work as soon as they could carry a shovel. That's how it still is in most places in the world. Kids can help to contribute economically to the family, but only under proper conditions.

    Conditions under which we are willing to trade with another country are specified to a degree in trade agreements. The problem is often that many countries fail to supervise or enforce the agreements. Our commerce department needs to do a better job insisting on enforcement, and I think they're a proper target for protest.

    If you buy food, you're buying from countries with all sorts of lacks in their labor laws. Think about giving it up.

    Outrage over profit margins is misplaced. If I can pick up river rocks for free and sell them as "pet rocks" to fools for $5 apiece, that's great. It circulates unused money. If Nike can sell a sneaker for $500, I can only repeat, "A fool and his money are soon parted." Solution? Fewer fools.
  • thumb
    Aug 8 2013: It's terrible and it never should have been allowed to happen in the first place.
  • Aug 6 2013: I am an insider to outsourcing. I am working in service sector. I’ll try to correlate the scenario from my Industry’s point of view. Consider a scenario where all the Jobs/industries/services are present locally. Means we are not exporting or importing anything from outside. Now consider following outcomes derived from this condition.
    • The cost of same job done in developed world (US/ Western Europe) is approximately 6-7 times (if not more) than the same job done in third world country.
    • Raw material/ resources taken out of these third world countries are at very very low prices (may be 10-15 times cheaper. Don’t get shocked, it is reality).
    • Now If product and services are done locally, cost will increase with same ratio as the cost of labor and raw material. Say cost will increase around 8 times of current cost of importing things/services from third world countries.
    • Sellers cannot increase price by 8 times so they have to sell things at competitive prices. So lets assume they’ll increase the cost of goods by 4 times and reduce their profit margins by 4 times.
    • Now things are costlier by 4 times and profit margin of corporations is decreased by 4 times and salary of workers are as it is currently. (if corporation are not reducing salaries to increase their profit).
    • As cost are increased and profit margin of corporations is decreased, the tax paid to govt will be decreased by 4-6 percent. Say 5 percent.
    • Now assume that currently cost of living is divided into two halves 1.Services/goods currenty produced locally (house/medical/someproducts) and 2. Services/goods imported (most of stuff we buy from super market, services which include software / back office jobs including customer care or tech support :) ).
    • Say these two portions are 50-50%. Local stuff remains at same price but cost of other half will increase by 4 times. Therefore total cost of living will be increased by 2.5 times.

    contd..
    • Aug 9 2013: Let me get this straight, you are saying that manufacturing abroad can increase the corporations profit by 400% and/or reduce the cost of the item. This will significantly increase corporate tax revenue in this country.

      Yet many others are complaining that these corporations are using overseas shell companies to hide profits so that they pay 0% in taxes. How is it that companies that sell billions of dollars of goods imported from overseas to the US pay 0% tax revenue. And, if that is the case then isn't the logical thing to do to put a stop to this practice?

      According to your logic we should support this practice because we will get more tax revenue. If the premise is false the conclusion is false.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: It is unfortunate that there aren't laws in place that prevent American companies from being accountable for the work conditions in the factories that make their products in other countries. This is aggravating as there are many other laws that do apply to American companies and how they conduct business in other nations. Since it is unlikely that our government will be able to swiftly create laws that appeal to this problem as consumers we can make ethical choices and insist that companies ensure the ethical and humane treatment of factory workers. The consumer shares equal blame if they choose to continue buying such products. If you are not part of the solution, you are probably part of the problem. COmpanies like Apple and Nike can improve these working conditions and still earn a strong profit. In the process this is also likely t help with the quality of the products as well. Although I must disagree that this contributed to the recession as these products actually maintain consumer spending. The financial crises is attributable to the banks and that is a separate issue that needs to be addressed as well.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: For our friend John. It seems you are the eternal optimist, fantastic! I like optimists. As a rule,I too am an optimist. I can be a hard nose when it comes to competition, and getting off ones derrière to make a buck when the chips are down. I have to tell you John we've had Nafta, and Cafta for a while now. The only people that have benefited from it, are the multinational conglomerates who have done their best to destroy the sanctity, and security of the American work place. They used it under previous administrations, and todays congresses to destroy unions, pensions, and workers rights across the board. Who would think they would do such a thing huh? They're exercising a deliberate campaign to literally outsource the middle class to death. They have been, and continue to be engaged, in an all out, neofascist effort to destroy unions, and thereby decapitate the remainder of middle class political power. They have used the deliberately orchestrated financial crisis to steal trillions of dollars from Americans citizens, and investors around the globe. I'm not here to push for closed markets. I'm not here to call for protectionism in general. What I am here to say is this. Baby Huey is the (American worker), not the corporate syndicate, the industrial complex that serves only Wall Street. Those guys are doing just fine thank you very much. Corporate profits in the last three years are up by 30+%. Yet we have a supposed progressive president saying he's willing to "make a deal" to cut corporate taxes, when companies like GE get away without paying any income tax with a $30 billion profit? Meanwhile "certain types" want to throw millions of working single mothers off food stamps. (Baby Huey),the (American worker) i'm sorry to say is like a prize fighter who's punch drunk. Eventually, that Baby Huey, is going to realize he's not a chicken, but a big golden goose, and start kicking some corporate butt. I love business. I love competition, but on a level playing field.
  • Aug 4 2013: There are many factors involved in outsourcing. Some times, it is on a borderline of business ethics. In general, outsourcing is about cost arbitrage. It presumes that that this arbitrage is at same living standards and is due to comparative easier availability of necessary resources incl. manpower, material or money. However it is not a reality. Arbitrage is due to poverty, population, governance and such interlinked aspects.

    Choice is difficult. If companies limit the outsourcing, potential improvement in the developing countries will also be affected. At the same time, increasing some price of their products & services will make their boards unhappy. May be taking a combinational stand by the companies - mix of business and really good change - may improve the situation a bit. Not outsourcing all of the business means existing factories continue to work and do not destabilize any economy.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: It's interesting to note, that when a corporation's PR division states they are supportive of elevating the general population in a modern developed country, expanding jobs, education, etc, we see their examples for our future in the developing nations as a different sort of animal.

    PR is just another label for deception and deceit.

    Then again, we must look at the economics of other countries and the cost of living there. If these corporations can pay less and the labourers can still maintain a base level life style, then how bad is it? Why can't we live a similar level of lifestyle in a modern country?

    To truly explore this question, we need much more information.
  • Aug 4 2013: Corporations (at least of the US kind that seem to be spreading everywhere like a wildfire) are culture- and nation-neutral superficial creations. Just dial some history of Byzantium (where war bonds issued by guilds/aka corporations were invented) to see for yourself. Or West Dutch India Company. Or British Indies.

    Shareholders seem to be the major evil, but not only them. It is a complex combination of greed, irresponsibility and ignorance that makes them dangerous not to all, but to themselves as well. Many a corporations folded exactly because they failed to reflect on their past and took steps to align their actions with their surroundings/environment. Essentially, corporations are the modern equivalent of castles, complete with phony overlords, their goons and parasites that live off them. Names and titles are unimportant, actions speak for themselves.

    Is there a better way? Many ways, in fact. First, corporations that lost their self-control should be reined in and shown their proper spot in the society at large - they are part of the foundation of the society and nothing more. Second, ungodly alliance government/corporations should be properly split into profit (corporations) and non-profit (government), just like church has been divorced from the government during the early stages of the US history. Third, society should start working on its asabya, solidarity, which should encompass all the classes regardless of the power they wield. Common goals will mean solid society. Both people and organizations, not only organizations and then maybe some people if organizations allow so.

    But of course, nothing of this will happen any time soon. Given the circumstances, we should consider ourselves lucky if corporations don't force a major world war between classes. Classes, not merely countries. Class war is what they create and like to see going on forever. Shades are unimportant, it could be oil war, could be gold war, could be slavery war, etc.
  • Aug 3 2013: In Australia too many jobs going off shore and now we are rising unemployment. If you lose your job over 50 impossible to get another. A lot of pensioners/students could have done these jobs part time to help meagre pensions.

    That said I speak with my Telco guys in India and they tell me the call centre jobs we have given them have supplied thousands of jobs to the poor classes of Indians making their lives much better. $15 bucks a day is like $80 in their currency so does provide a 'decent' income and they are employing some women.

    Companies must pander to shareholders, who want returns for their superannuation funds to live on when retired is why we pay so much for these things probably ? A vicious circle.

    The collapse of the clothing building in Pakistan was a disgrace and blight on the human race. It is Pakistan who must get tough on outside companies and up the pay and conditions for their people.

    Next ....why is it that people in these countries go to work in such places ? Answer better than starving to death on the streets or being sold as domestic/sexual slaves to the west.

    My view is the world is not infinite and our population is 7 Billion today by 2050 12 billion people. Solution less children being born to suffer poverty, desperation, child gangs, slavery and abuse.
  • thumb
    Jul 31 2013: I appreciate what everyone is posting and love all the ideas but now i realize i have another question. Why are profits more important than a persons rights or the welfare of your country?
    If we didn't outsource so much in the USA we probably wouldn't be in the huge deficit we are in today. Now with that being said please continue the conversation. :D
  • Jul 31 2013: Yes, OK. It is legal, in accord with corporate aims (low costs, bigger business, profit) and customers accept it, apparently. Including profit margin described in question. Corporations are here to satisfy demand and make profit. That´s what they do in this case and that´s why it is OK.

    It does not seem to be OK that some kids must work (for 15 bucks). I don´t believe they wish to. It seems to me that they really need those money. But without Nike and others they would have 15 bucks per hour less...
    • thumb
      Jul 31 2013: " But without Nike and others they would have 15 bucks per hour less..."

      What is this a laughing stock? This is per day...$15/DAY = $1.87 per hour if ...IF this is 8 hours of work per day.

      Please, someone help me find the humanity in people. Maybe it's just the people within my country? I don't know.
      • Jul 31 2013: Sorry, you are right, my fault. I am not from your country and dont know how to help you.

        Our minimum wage is about 2,66USD per hour, average 6,6, just to compare.

        Btw, I found humanity in many including myself. In this case, cannot see anything better than to give people work. Any work for any money they are willing to work for. At te same time, we can feel sorry for working children and talk about it but it will help them less than $1.87 per hour .
      • thumb
        Aug 4 2013: Victor, I can live my everyday life on $15.00 a day. It's not that hard. In fact, as a hippy, I did it on less many years ago. A four day supply of healthy dry beans only cost $1.30. a bag of flour $1.60. Salt and pepper can be found at any restaurant. People are very charitable in the the US, especially religious people. Fish and frogs can be found in many places, along with clams, oysters, crabs, etc along the coastal regions.

        If you don't see that many people dying of hunger and exposure along side the roads you travel, why be concerned?, Why claim there is a problem? How many did you you see yesterday in your travels?
  • Jul 30 2013: Wonderful question. The old time barons started to make money, and finally figured out that if your employees couldn't afford your product, it was a problem. Ford, Hershey, and Kraft are three I will use. My family worked for Kraft for over the entire period that it has existed, and they took care of their employees because it made sense. The product, and the name, meant family, and the business was a baby to the CEO. I remember when my father used to tell me he,[ Mr. Kraft] would say, "the cost doesn't matter, if it tatse's good, they will buy it." That all went out the door sometime in the middle 70's when the bottom line became King. No more real sugar, lets use corn sryup, no more real cream, lets use whey product, and it continued to degrade. The bottom line is all that counts today, the name, or product is no longer thought of as a "Baby" by the CEO's, their profit comes before all else. It totally makes sense if you realise that humans are basically asses, and that they are totally self centered. It Takes true genius to create a product, factory, and look into the future for it's safety and continuation. There are a few still standing, but decline is going to happen, because, money has become king.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2013: Because we live in a corporate neofascist state. There is no longer a functioning democracy. It is a giant staged performance, to placate the peasants, a facade to deceive the world community. The lives, and needs of average citizens, who aren't really citizens anymore, but (disposable corporate resources), have no meaning, little power, and no say, in anything, any more. Capital knows no boundaries, no law, and no longer faces the pains of (moral hazard), a simplistic outdated concept in a world where they control the legislatures, the laws, the courts, the prisons, the military, the intelligence apparatus, and the media. They do it (because they can)! Sadly their plan of defunding public education,ripping off college students on loans, sterilizing the evening news,filling the airways with hateful divisive propaganda, has done it's job. They have successfully buried the American middle class in a desperate survival struggle, and corporate confusion to the point where they're incapable of serious resistance. I hope the young people will think of the men that stormed the beaches of Normandy, and Iwo Jima. That is the depth ,and scope of the battle they have ahead of them, against the forces of neofascism, ignorance, and international cartels. Criminal thugs who will stop at nothing to control, and enslave are in charge now. I believe the analogy popular today is (WhacK A Mole) I hope i'm proven wrong. It isn't pessimism, for I have always been an optimist. It's reality.Napoleon use to tell his men; "don't come to my tent with good news until the battle is won". "If I don't know our weaknesses, and the enemies strengths, I cannot defeat them."
    • Jul 31 2013: While corporations can be made subject to laws, the punishment for violation is usually a negotiated fine. Corporations recognize only one true law. They must make a maximum profit. Fines for dumping poison in streams are merely a cost of business. If more money is saved by dumping than the cost of the fine, plus the cost of approved disposal, then dump they will. To do otherwise will actually lay management open to shareholder lawsuits for failure to maximize profits. They cannot help it, they are just designed that way. You might as well pass a law demanding leopards no attack underage deer. The same application goes to treatment of employees. If the cost of lobying Congress is less than raising minimum wages, then Congress will be lobbied. If there is some other way arround raising wages, they will take it. In the early '70's Cngress took a blind eye to illegal cheep workers from Mexico. Ronald Reagen proposed more "lega; guest workers" who could work for less than min. wage. This was supported by the lobies for the manufacturers. Those same lobbies work for pharmecuticle companies, for-profit Hosp. and Insurance co. It is a simple risk-cost-profit analysis.
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: Sadly my friend this is our current reality. It is an abomination of the highest order. The fines levied against massive multi billion dollar companies that destroy our most precious resources amount to a slap on the wrist,and a slap in the face of the people, and the generations unborn who will deal with the poison legacy of their crimes. There should be an international tribunal to deal with special crimes across borders. Bring justice for environmental crimes specifically, with the power to seize bank accounts, and other assets. You must go after he money or they will continue to destroy, pillage, stall, and divert attention. Another abomination is to paint people like me as anti business, anti free market, leftists. That is an insult beyond description. Most people that I know who share my view are absolutely in favor of free markets, competition, hard work, all the things essential to a healthy economy. Unfortunately the powers that be in today's world, no nothing whatsoever about free markets, but a great deal about monopoly, de' facto monopoly, and bribery.
    • Aug 2 2013: I agree with you, though I think you've got off the thread a bit. If you haven't already read "The Global Class War" by Faux, I think you will enjoy it. Keep your chin up.
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: I certainly will read The Global Class War. I'm not sure we're off thread though Clair. The old saying goes (when your a hammer everything looks like a nail) It refers, of course, to the concept of people not seeing the bigger picture when trying to fix a problem on a smaller scale. It's a problem of perception, and relative understanding. Radical misguided economists have turned theories of laissez faire into fanatical religious devotion. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Free markets are a wonderful concept both on paper, and in reality when and if they actually exist. Most of us have never seen one. What the models in the halls of academia, and think tanks of fools fail to equate is the massive upheavals, and human suffering caused in pursuit of profit by giant multinational entities. They do not suffer the slings, and arrows of (moral Hazard) We are awash in a system of structured systematic (non accountability) That's a fact. Until giant multi billion dollar corporations feel the heat, and are brought to their knees to bend to the will of the democratic societies they operate in, we will continue to face economic, and environmental disaster.
        These entities, and in fact all human beings do not exist in a vacuum. What they do, what they extract, what they leave for waste, all has consequences for the planet, and society. Until we force these giants to share a substantial part of the wealth they generate, we will continue to suffer, and destroy. When an entity becomes so large, so powerful, and so destructive that they become a (de facto corporate nation state) then they must be dealt with far more harshly ,and made to pay handsomely for extraction of resources, pollution, and human capital. There must be a measurement
        system to quantify environmental damage more accurately, and human suffering must be compensated fairly. Today it's a joke. They are raping us blind.
  • Jul 30 2013: I think some of the posters here are missing the point.
    Regardless of what they say, it is all empty rhetoric
    and perhaps trying to sound intelligent.
    The answer to your question is simple.
    It is NOT okay for corporations to do what your topic question asked.
    It is not okay.
    If people (and their comments) cannot begin there, then they have truly lost their sense of moral direction,
    belief, conviction and trust in any kind of truth whatsoever and have given up on all they once believed in.

    Being legal is also not a reason. It is a cop out from morality on the part of those who are involved
    with such things. They change the laws to support whatever it is they wish or decide to do.
    If it isn't clear by now, that the People need to "take away their power", then I guess it never will be.
    There will only be discussions such as those here on Ted, getting nothing done.

    An example in the news today is the U.S. judge who ruled that "proof of harm done" by someone
    suspected or charged with supposed espionage, is not required to enact the Espionage Act!

    Well, one should certainly be able to see where this is leading and that is to not even have to prove someone is guilty
    of a crime in order to then completely destroy their life.
    And that has been happening for sometime now. One no longer needs to be actually guilty of something, but in order
    for their world to be turned upside down and ruined, they only need to become a suspect in a system that spies on
    everyone and makes everyone a suspect by default.

    Good luck with that system.
    Intellectually discussing it is morally approving it.
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: "Regardless of what they say, it is all empty rhetoric"

      o_O
      • Jul 31 2013: What does that mean?
        That thing at the bottom?
        Are they your glasses?
        True, I am nowhere near as smart as you or as most posters here.
        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: actually you tell me what the heck the quote is supposed to mean. in a debate, it is generally advisable to consider what the other party says. dismissing it before the words are even uttered renders the entire discussion useless. i mean, why would i present any thoughts if you already boxed them as "empty rhetoric"?

          this is nothing new though. i see that reverse logic everywhere. some people start with the assumption that they are right. then conclude that any opposition obviously must be false. the only thing in question is how they are false. this attitude is as arrogant as fruitless.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2013: okay, why don't you buy cheap shoes, and donate the difference to some charity organizations?
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: Because he can see the major flaw in capitalism. Nike's are cheap shoes! Just like every shoe is or can be. You just don't get it, do you? Pull the market back together for everyone. Bring in the boundaries if that can even be accomplished anymore.
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2013: in this case, buy nike shoes, and send the difference over to the workers. be a little bit creative, you don't need guidance for everything.
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: That is a very creative idea, lol. Maybe Nike could run that in their marketing ads! "Buy our shoes and please send an additional $200 minimum to the suppressed workers we have overseas making your shoes for the best shoe made just for you". NIKE "just do it"
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2013: have an actual point, or just goofing around? in what sense those workers are suppressed?
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: Totally goofing around here as you are, so...you wouldn't mind being in or trading your shoes for theirs then wouldn't you? Maybe your 6 year old child can help as well and I run the show and you watch how I live. Hey, at least I'm giving you and your child an "opportunity", eh?
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2013: i'm not goofing around, and also don't have time for those that are
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: Dumb Q=Dumb A with explanation added and question. Why would anyone goof around about this? Obviously, I can not get you to understand even if I put you in their shoes! Do you have any kids my friend? If so, would you want them and yourself slaving over $5 shoes to make and $150 (I don't know, what in this hell does a pair of Nike shoes go for?) to be sold in your so called global "free market"? I'll answer this dumb question for you: No, you simply WOULD NOT. These corporations (lol, not people) don't know tenderness from a can of beans.
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: just to make it clear, maybe it will change your mindset, probably not. it is not you that want to make me understand something. i understand how it works, i studied it. it is my attempt to make you understand something. the conversation reopens as soon as you realize that.
        • thumb
          Jul 31 2013: So, you studied humanity? WOW! Apparently it didn't get you anywhere. Maybe an overdose of TV? I'm done here Kris. You take the last word.
  • Jul 29 2013: The corporations do what ever gives more profit and no one blames them for it, I mean we have a free market. Thats okay, the corporations are not the root of the evil, they are just the symptoms.
    To ensure that children and/or adults are not exploited in the process of making that product, we have to forbid importing goods from other countries, which is impossible.
    Or we have to ensure world wide enforcement of western labour laws, which lies in the distant future.
    Or we accept that this is a problem made by the western consumers. Because there are fairtrade seals out there, but now one cares as much about that as about the newest trend. We have to reeducate ourselves and start caring about the effects of our consumer behavior. On a broad scale this will change the society and the world. BUT it is really hard and i feel like a hypocrite for saying that, because I don´t live like that myself.
  • Aug 12 2013: This situation can be changed but it will take collective and intelligent action. Gandhi, for instance, knew that people couldn't just peacefully protest every action of the British because for some situations the British would lose too much face if they backed down. A fact about education, for example, is that you don't need technology at all for children to learn all they need to--really, a house full of good books and supportive parents is all that is necessary. There are many ways around Big Brother, but enough people have to act to make a difference. Big Brother has trained people to WANT so many things they don't NEED; the more people who know this and act upon it, the more things will change.
  • Aug 12 2013: Why would a person immigrate if pay and working conditions where the same as in their home country. Immigration is created by distortion in living standards.

    Yes the corporations will make less profit and yes you will have to pay more for goods, but people would not immigrate because there is no incentive to do so in a world of globally equal pay and conditions.
  • Aug 12 2013: that's a very good point. what's the solution? tax all cross-border transactions at whatever the cost reduction is? no that wouldn't work, they'd just route funds thru a middle country that does have those labor laws.boycotts won't work because people on low and even middle incomes won't be able to buy from honest companies because of the higher price. quite a conundrum...

    what about a law fixing the maximum pay of anyone in the company to say 100x the minimum of anyone working for that company even in another country? they wouldn't be able to get away with paying even $1k a year because the directors wouldn't be able to make more than $100k. would need a clause included contracted work so they couldn't use that as a loophole, though there might be others.
  • thumb
    Aug 10 2013: Let's see, big companies are bribing big governments to exploit the people into low paying jobs.... I think that is what I am understanding... There may be some truth to that, but I am not in a big company and I only see my congressional representative on TV... so I'll take you word for that.... but I see a lot of the poor people are here and awhile back I had the opportunity to go to a part of the world where people are really poor. There is a big difference. So. just who are we talking about ? The poor in LA or those in Legos?
  • Aug 10 2013: A key factor, which all must plead guilty to, is that the immigration policies of the rich nations keep cheap labor trapped to be exploited. Low paid workers accept illegal (by first world standards) working conditions because they a prisoner within the own nation.

    We have a system where corporations can move freely to low cost nations (because they have capital) while their employees in that nation are trapped by immigration laws of the first world nations. Exploitation is derived from this market distortion. Immigration policies are design to contain cheap labor – and it works.
    • Aug 12 2013: how will; bringing the poor to rich countries solve anything? the problems in their home country will still exist and people will keep getting born into poverty. they're not prisoners, just as our ancestors weren't when they formed labour movements to get rights. things like an 8-hour day, sick leave, equal pay for equal work, and no child labour, and workplace safety didn't exist less than 100 years ago anywhere.
      on the contrary, opening the gates would convince those people you believe are trapped that the way to better their lives is to leave, rather than fix their own country.
  • Aug 10 2013: The people from their home country are not violating their local laws.
  • thumb
    Aug 10 2013: Because they increase profits this way. And as this economical rule is sacred, why should they even bother?
  • Aug 9 2013: I would suggest spreading this idea with pictures and starting a boycott. Of course, it is not just Nike and Apple, it is now almost everything we buy in the USA. Still, a successful boycott of one large company could make the threat of a boycott very powerful.
  • Aug 9 2013: This is a great and complex question. It ties to economic theory and application as well as business ethics and morality. Businesses exist for the purpose of profit. If not for that purpose (though not this purpose alone), most businesses would not exist. People tend to demonize executives in businesses as greedy thieves that steal from the poor to enrich themselves. But they too, are people. On a day to day basis, these people are asked by the owners of their companies (now in corporations, shareholders are typically nameless, large groups of people) to build their product cheaper and to sell more of it to maximize profits for the owners of the company. On the face of it, if someone asked you the quesiton, which of the following options would you choose:
    A) pay $6 for a widget
    B) pay $5 for the same widget

    Most people would choose B. I personally believe that businesses (people) have an obligation to understand that those are not your only 2 options. And just as importantly, that isn't enough information to know which of the 2 you should pick. It is easy to look at the question and just choose B, but until we hold people accountable for understanding the ramifications of that choice, there will not be major change. This does require a lot of work, though. And time spent understanding the options further is time not spent working on the next decision or widget.

    Understanding the differences between your choices and intentionally choosing the choice that is better for everyone is the high road that is rarely traveled, and we've never agreed that we would hold poeple legally accountable to.

    A book (or several) could be written on this topic and its undertones and implications. I do sincerely hope for positive conversation on this topic.
  • Aug 9 2013: Yes, I agree. I like your comment. Business is OK. But small businesses need to be encouraged. And big business needs to be curtailed by democracy. The Global Class War in part demonstrates that big business has it too much their own way, and far from being curtailed by democracy, are waging war on democracy to protect their own partisan interests.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 9 2013: it is all about putting as much buzzwords in a sentence as possible
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 9 2013: please do note that i did not say it can not be done. i said it should not be done. US law is not any better than other law. it is supposed to be in effect within the territory of the US. extending its jurisdiction is nothing short of imperialism.

          please also note how did you confuse legal with illegal but impossible to catch. this is a rather serious mistake, be more careful.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 9 2013: did you get lost somewhere? reminder:

          you: why not US law be enforced in piresia?
          me: because US law does not apply in piresia. they have different laws
          you: thailand can't enforce their own law blah blah

          logic? do you care?
  • Aug 9 2013: Nobody else in the US would work for such a low wage.
  • Aug 8 2013: It's okay because it makes things cheap for Americans.
    • Aug 12 2013: why do americans need cheap things? why aren't they paid well enough to be able to afford higher prices?
  • Aug 7 2013: Can you say money, power, influence, profit.....not going away anytime soon....
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2013: That is if we allow it. We can destroy the financial system by working as communities. Cut off their money and they won't know what to do.
  • thumb
    Aug 6 2013: It's not OK at all. People are unemployed in the countries which are outsourcing the work. On the other hand, I know it is very bad when children have to work in these sweatshops producing expensive items at low pay, but, if these children did not have this work they would have nothing. In a lot of cases the children are the only ones who can earn the money for the family or they are actually living on the street with no family at all.

    On the street they are the prey for predators, animal and human. I would like a world where all children had a home and could go to school but that is not possible for everyone.

    Of course the companies are doing it for bigger profits and that is why they don't care about their own people or the people in the poor countries. They close their eyes to anyone else's suffering and just read their monthly bank statements showing the pile of money getting larger and the wage bill getting smaller.
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2013: These countries have their own factories and imports/exports. I don't want to be the guy that says "worry about yourself" but we need to worry about more important things than the bottom line. Imagine the roles were reversed and we were the kids in the sweatshops. Wouldn't you want someone to try to help you or make a change that would benefit the 99% that deal with these kinds of problems. I would rather things get hard then better compared to staying the same and accepting it. We can do more as a species. It's just most people choose not to. It's a shame.
      • thumb
        Aug 9 2013: Naturally, I would want the circumstances to be changed. The problem is that a lot of people say close all the sweatshops down, or stop buying the merchandise, but don't realise that then money would need to be spent to find the children a better existence.

        The answer is not just to stop buying the products. There needs to be some kind of social welfare to help the children and families, or provide well paid jobs for the adults so they can provide for the children.

        It is a big problem and not as easy to eradicate as it would seem.
  • Aug 6 2013: • As govt’s earning will be reduced by 5 times they'll be unable to fund in facilities like school education, law and order, clean water, good road, strong military, strong foreign policy, free food, health care …..
    • As corporations earnings will be reduced by 4 times. They’ll be unable to invest in future technologies, research, high risk markets & products.
    • As common person’s cost of living is increased by 2.5 times, families will be unable to buy good food, eating out, vacations, good houses, entertainment, new gadgets….
    • Quality of life will be further decreased due to lack of security from local and international threats, Lack of new jobs and frustration.
    • After some years, situation in developed world will be similar to current third world countries.
    • There will an impact on third world countries as they will be unable to improve their condition.
    This is based on my raw assumptions. Please correct me.
    • thumb
      Aug 6 2013: no correction here, but just a thing to consider. if someone don't want to take your position, it is easy to say, yeah, but your numbers are arbitrary, what if profit reduces not that much but this much etc. you can debate the numbers all day long, and then you both go to opposite directions without convincing each other.

      a better way to look at things is simply to refer to adam smith and the wealth of nations, and in it, one of the greatest discoveries of all time, the division of labor. as one understands how the division of labor increases the wealth of both parties, outsourcing start to make a huge sense. the more interconnection countries have, the more wealth is created. any countermeasures, like taxes, quotas, tariffs, red tape or subsidies hinder cooperation between countries, and thus reduce wealth. it is really that simple.

      recommended talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex.html
      • Aug 6 2013: Thanks for the recommendation.

        Yes these numbers are very raw. It came into my mind and I just want to share a numerical picture what may happen if we stop outsourcing (or in turn international trade).

        In the recommended talk, the theory is directly based on a fair system (of barter or payment) .But on counter point, what if trade relations are parasitic (as currently happening with third world countries of Africa and in very subtle way with other countries) instead of symbiotic?

        Story of Stuff : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8

        Instead of sharing prosperity by compensating for resources and labor properly, we creating situations and forcing these people to buy stuff which may not help to improve their future like arms, drugs, overpriced product and services using undue political advantages.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2013: parasitic relationship is by definition a relationship that one partner would terminate if it could. it is forced on to that partner. trade is not such a relationship. any citizen of any developing country can at any time refuse to cooperate with nike, and simply don't go to their factory to work there. the very fact that they did go there demonstrates the fact that they prefer this activity to all other possible activities. why would anyone accept horrible working conditions? because otherwise they would have to try to make food on the limited land they have without tools of any description, and it would be even worse. they don't see nike as the evil slaveholder. they see nike as an opportunity to improve their lives. that is the same thing that happened in the 1800's western europe. people en masse moved to cities to work in factories. they were the "proletariat" marx wanted to "free". but they went there on their own, because life in the cities was much better than life on the farms. those conditions look terrible only in retrospect.

          the thing is that we indeed have a parasitic relationship with them, but lies somewhere else. it lies in the rules we force on them, like the arrogant and stupid EU regulation on chinese wind turbines to protect german interest. honestly, i could not care less if Günter in Hamburg can't buy a bigger plasma tv. i care more about the millions of chinese people with no access to healthcare, proper nutrition or housing. nike is not the culprit here. bureaucracies are.
      • Aug 6 2013: Living in part of world where we are physically free and economically free, we may not easily perceive conditions there. Things are forcefully turned in the way that they have no other option. I’ll give you some examples from both perspective as exporter and importer:
        • Can you imagine people working with their free will for $3 a day( i.e. 30 cents a Hour ) without any benefits and know that he/she’ll die after 10 years. It is realty in asbestos factories in these countries. And most of the asbestos is for export. Why they’ll do that ? Because all the law makers in these countries are paid to keep quiet and support exporting firms. In that particular area law makers never allow any other type of job opportunity to come up. Why people are not migrating? Because they cannot afford house in other area than the area where they are living from generation.
        • In African countries, first wars are fueled by giving them free arms. Now when good demand of arms is build up, scarce the supply. Now how’ll they pay for it, by allowing other developed countries to exploit their natural resource without paying proper price for it.
        • Another small example from India. In India, all the local beverages companies are destroyed by two major international companies (you know the name :) ) by force and bribing lawmakers not to protect local companies. Now there is no other major beverage company. Couple of years back a govt. laboratory found out that they are not processing water used in these drinks (to increase profit margin) and there are harmful pesticides are present in these drinks as they are just using ground water. Surprisingly both ruling party and major opposing party came in favor of these companies saying that lab test is wrong and career of Director of that laboratory is over.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2013: we are not responsible for their political systems. alas, it is not always true, US leaders and EU leaders often supported dictators. but it is certainly not my fault, and not nike's.

          to the first question: yes, everyone that has another offer of 2 dollars. in 1800, the average income in the US was 2000 dollars a year, inflation corrected. that is not much more. earning 3 dollars a day was the norm throughout the entire human history, and continues to be the norm in a lot of places. we are the exceptions, we invented the free market and the scientific revolution that lifted us up from that state of being.

          to the second question. if it happened via bribing and forcing lawmakers to do immoral things, it is terrible. it should not happen. but if any brands of beverage wins because people buy it, what is the problem with that?

          about the third question: gold diggers rarely own any gold jewelry. why is that? i remember a guy explained that when he was a kid on the countryside, he never ate beef. they raised cows. they drank milk, ate cheese. but they never ate beef. when they butchered a cow every now and then, they sold the meat and bought stuff instead. how can that be? because in a market economy, it does not matter who produces. what matters is who offers more for it. for a producer, after a certain price it is better to sell his product, because he can buy more useful stuff. probably medicine or better food means a whole lot more than having a piece of paper.
      • Aug 6 2013: • Price of paper (printing paper) it very high in India (more than what we get in US) but still India export paper. How? Corporations from developed countries buy huge forest lands at very cheap price. There are so many laws to protect it, but when it comes to these companies everybody from govt. officials to lawmakers close their eyes.

        so both companies, people and governments from developed countries and who are protecting these companies are culprit here.

        People in third world countries will be better off in long term if this type of trade is not there.
  • Aug 6 2013: Hi,
    Every business will source its materials at the cheapest rates and sell at the highest rates.
    We succumb to buying brands because we let our senses be affected by their advertising.
    Only by buying non-branded good quality goods can we ensure that someone doesn't fleece you.

    Regarding kids working in sweat shops, now that's an issue of the local government.
    Our kids are our future.
    By making them work instead of educating them, our future needn't be predicted.
    Majority of the imbalances are due to currency difference. The emerging economies need the dollars to buy weapons and machinery, so they let their currency get devalued.
  • thumb
    Aug 6 2013: It's a complex world economy, so what is the evolutionary change that will happen?
    So do you want to pay workers in developing countries US wages? If yes then suddenly noone will pay for the product because it will become too expensive and then all those workers would be out of a job anyway.
    Or you want large corporations to cap their profit margin and redistribute that money to the community? How many people are willing to give up a chunk of their income, no matter what their salary is, to give money to others?
    Or is it that you want local laws where the products are being made to be strengthened? that becomes a complex political issue as many of these places are run by corrupt governments taking bribes from these companies just to continue operating there.
    No Evolution will be easy.
  • Aug 6 2013: I think the world's at a much better phase when it comes to this. The response in Bangladesh from the Europeans will produce progress compared to the Wall-Mart commission and they will. BEsides it slows down the replacement of people with machines part of Detroit's problem is there not replacing people with machines fast enough not like Chattanooga but airplanes. Air planes painted entirely by robot the big ticket items that's what you want. Leave the small stuff for the others.
    Jah not talking Turkey after the coup?
  • thumb
    Aug 6 2013: I have read all the comments on how to fix the problems caused by Multi-National Companies doing manufacturing in various countries and selling product at prices that people seem swilling to pay. The fixes are numerous and each is presented as a best solution to the madness.
    Some solutions I find ludicrous and a few humorous.... but the one question that has not been addressed by anyone is...
    In what country are all these solutions going to be implemented? Because if it is the USA and unless the first action to the "cure" is to suspend or vacate the US Constitution.... you all are blowing warm air up each others skirts. Just saying.
    • thumb
      Aug 6 2013: That's the problem with people. Multinationals and lobbies look after their interests and change step by step what needs to be changed, from people beliefs to behaviors or laws, they buy one government after other, politicians and who ever needed. But who looks after people common interests? a global well being? injustice and increasingly inequality? No one. Each by them self, no strength to fight back. Always waiting for things to change from one moment to another, from night to day.. waiting for a mighty hero who's willing to sacrifice all for everyone before anyone even cares to show they would as well...

      Things won't change because you realize the wrongs and accept them impotently... they will change once you start changing at the scale you can, even the smallest things, what you can, day by day, engaging more and more!

      How do you imagine this problem can be fixed? how do you see the evolution on this issue?
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2013: Absolutely I see evolution....
        A few years ago China under Marxist rule and going nowhere had a stroke of economic brilliance and got a deal wilth WalMart to manufacture product at a low price... You may criticize China's child labor and all, but look at China today one of the most powerful economic powers....
        This one example puts all these comments down the hopper.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2013: Uhh... can't see how "This one example puts all these comments down the hopper."...
          The one example you gave is the prime example on how to do what?
          Is it you suggesting people to accept being kind of slave labour force? Downgrade their rights and basic standards? Mobilizing industry to where the people accept to work for the less, until is close to nothing?
          Can't see what your example forms any how a solution to an "evolution" (meaning going forward, into better, on contrary of regression meaning going back, to what use to be before..).
          "You may criticize China's child labor and all, but look at China today one of the most powerful economic powers...." wow... this says something... real pearl...
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2013: Absolutely... that one comment about China...every society ever has had to start from the bottom doing what may be consider morally wrong or cruel or or or, to work it's way up the ladder. No example is found otherwise. .. to think a few well wishes can change this process of humanity is both foolish and naive and you seem to be better then either of those discriptions
  • thumb
    Aug 6 2013: @ Krisztián Pintér

    I don't see the logic in your comment... 1. you are in the position of criticizing an idea and not showing other "solution" 2. your comment is what I call "fireworks", this means starting to talk prepared and cooked answers given just to distract.

    I wrote nothing about solving the problem of poverty.
    I will tell you once again, this is not the ideal idea. This is an idea and what I think it's feasible doing at this moment and time.

    Those arguments you bring just sluggish any debate... "egg and the chicken", "if they don't care", "because if people cared, they would have solved the problem of poverty already. i mean how hard is that?" and finally " because the media is quite eager to deliver the story for those that care".. the last one besides vague as the other is false... media are the armed arms of lobbies, the brainwasher's, the gate keeper's, what comes in media is mostly to distract you..
    • thumb
      Aug 6 2013: 1. it is not a problem, is it? banging your head against the wall is a bad idea even if i don't have better
      2. i'm sorry if you don't understand the point i was making

      i'm also sorry to hear that you don't want to solve the problem of poverty. i was under the impression that the so called "sweatshops" in poor regions are fundamentally connected to poverty. it seems to me now that you don't care that much about those people, you just want nike to get out of there. what happens next, kids die in hunger or whatever, it is not your concern.

      final note: not very good to get offended by different views. it is also not very smart to complain about "sluggish" arguments, and then citing a phrase that was followed by the explanation. you read every 5th or so sentence? or you can remember only the catchy ones?

      back to reading
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2013: You must be really full of your self... and looking for free conflicts, you will not find it with me.

        You comment my comments without any valuable contributions. Just blunt arguments, vague and completely out of context of this topic, inferring values and words from me that are not true or justifiable from what I wrote. Offended? Not caring about the poverty?
        As I could see in your profile it is just what you usually do around TED. Your trend.

        Added after your last comment: one should remember when reading/writing your comments that you are the guy defending somewhere else that F1 should keep running on high polluting fuels instead of going green "on behalf of the Earplug Manufacturers and Traders Society".. and the same guy that is atheist and buddhist at the same time, meanwhile an expert (masters?degree?) in Austrian Economics... it says a lot about you and your thinking...

        Giving alms to people in those countries doesn't mean you are in fact doing something to improve their life's. That argument is in the line of old slave owners "we feed and give shelter to slaves, if we wouldn't do it they would be starving and freezing out in the dark". But it is in fact an argument used by those multinationals.

        Two links so you can open your horizons:
        - Look in youtube for John Perkins - Confessions of an economic assassin
        - http://www.thersa.org/events/rsaanimate/animate/rsa-animate-first-as-tragedy,-then-as-farce
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2013: and not a single argument was given that day. it went downhill real fast. first you pretended to care, but as soon as i questioned what you say, you reverted to personal attacks. not good. you know what? my bad. please continue to live in a dreamworld in which everyone is super cool, except some evil mastermind capitalists and their dogs on leash: the media. you can lament all day how they are creating suffering and misery, and how you are just a poor victim of their tyranny. please continue to hope for a revolution that will make the world wonderful once and for all. and never ever pay attention to any opposing views. thinking is the road to suffering.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: The problems and reasons are already detailed in previous comments here. First and for most maximizing profits.

    The most realistic/feasible solution is a counter attack using consumers power and changing laws.

    A professional firm that would evaluate and analyze multinational firms and businesses moving over certain amount of money. Then exposing them persistently and bluntly to the public using all mainstream communication channels. Organizing "migration" waves of consumption as a form to exclude one company not complying with good standards (being environment, social, labor, governing, nationally or internationally) as a form of punishing.

    Each multinational at each economic area would fear the next exposure... of course people and close relatives working at this analyzing firm would have to accept being stripped from economy privacy..

    Laws are easier to make than to comply with or be punished if not. A simplistic idea is to prohibit firms to transact products produced at countries or nationally but not complying with standards that would pre defined (basic human rights, environment conscious, sustainability).

    This at a global scale would demand better standards and responsibility from those companies. The problem is as usual, people in charge both of the countries and these multinationals couldn't care less about the people. Until people stop waiting for them to care and start caring them self, the paradigm will not change.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: question. if it is a firm, what is its revenue from?
      • thumb
        Aug 5 2013: Honestly as I see it, protecting their people and regulating should be a government function. As this is utopia for most countries... you need a generous movement first with volunteer people to put this up and volunteer donations.

        People would have to understand this firm/organization directions as their shield against what is known to be the macroeconomics wild capitalism..

        As I said above this is the most feasible which doesn't mean it is the one I see as ideal. But it would be a fair counter attack.

        The main problem I see in it is on how to get it to the mainstream to allow people to be informed, once as we know the mainstream communication channels are owned by the lobbies this organization would "attack".

        Imagine something as Ernest&Young, Delloite, Fitch, Moody's but instead of promoting the wild capitalism and economic terrorism, it would analyze the multinationals on a different prism and would not be for use sole benefit of economic groups but instead for the people.
        • thumb
          Aug 5 2013: it is a little bit of a chicken and egg problem. if people support such "fairness rating" agencies, we don't need those agencies, because the media is quite eager to deliver the story for those that care. the problem arises when it turns out that people actually don't care. but if they don't care, rating agencies are impossible to set up, but also would make no difference anyway.

          but it is even more a chicken and egg problem, because if people cared, they would have solved the problem of poverty already. i mean how hard is that? there are countless organizations out there happy to take your money and deliver water and food, offer health care services or install capital goods like plants, factories, etc in developing areas. but no, instead of this, we erect walls and traps to "protect" ourselves from the chinese "trade war" and such nonsense, we support dictators and horrible regimes, we just watch mass murders with mild interest.

          so in short, i don't think that we are missing an organization here.
  • thumb
    Aug 5 2013: IN MY VIEW: The issue is not whether its OK or not to do such task but whether it is necessary or not. It seems we get exploited at several occasion in our own life as well; either by corporation or individuals and many times even by our own friends. Its good to imagine a paradise but the best thing is to start our own effort for creating such a paradise; if we really seek it. So my view is we need to quite complaining or narrating too much and start acting. cheers
  • Aug 5 2013: N O But the big boys do what they want. So I guess that reflects poorly on us all each and everyone.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: Has no one heard of boycott? It's too bad consumers complain but never exercise their power to refrain from patronising the companies that are annoying them.
      We are the puppets of the money merchants and we readily dance to their tune.
      Wishing for a better world achieves nothing.
      I have tried to avoid buying products of sweatshops but as soon as I choose another manufacturer, I find it is also outsourcing.
      Let's face it, we focus on prices rather than morals. And I half accept that some poor people are glad to have the work.
      • Aug 6 2013: Brent Aren't we saying the same thing? There is so much effort to make sure we can't get to the bottom of things.
        • thumb
          Aug 6 2013: Yes we are George. I didn;t intend to usurp your comment.
          Actually, I wasn't really impressed by the topic question. There was little any of us could say except the obvious. Let's hope for more stimulation topics next time.
      • Aug 7 2013: I think Jah's intent is in the right place, and we have expanded it a bit.
  • thumb
    Aug 4 2013: One product made in the USA that cost us tremendously is Security for other nations. We patrol and police the coastal regions of many countries that don't put a dime into the process and benefit the most from the results.

    If we made those countries protect their own borders and sold them the equipment to produce and maintain a standing military force, We could employ more people here at home. That is how England did it and rose to become a rich empire during the European wars. They made the equipment and sold to the highest bidder.

    Saudi Arabia and the Kuwait are examples of nations that need a larger military force. Of course, the biggest problem with this is putting advanced technology in the hands of such nations. It could come back to haunt us, as it has in Afghanistan with the mountain hideouts along the Pakistani borders where both equipment and materials are stored and secured.

    But, nano tech offers a means of rendering such equipment unusable in the event it falls in the wrong hands or is misused. We should quit selling military equipment and start licensing it instead. Africa needs to protect their own coastal regions and quit allowing other nations to do it for them. If they want to be a modern, developed continent, they need to step up to the plate and start managing their own affairs. They have the necessary intellectual resources. The same for Japan -they need some serious upgrades and capital input. Australia also.

    Let's be real, it is the petty criminal element in the smaller countries that is controlling business. The united nations should employ more direct means to deal with these problems and every nation needs to put some capital in the kitty jar.

    Why should civilized nations have to pay tribute money to petty criminals, as Europe did with the Viking raiders? Haven’t' we moved beyond such practices? As a global community, how far have we come.... really?
  • Aug 4 2013: If i live in a town with exepensive commodity price, i would like to do my weekly shopping in another town, simply because it is cheaper and not inconvenient. Same for those MNCs. Beause of the evolution in transportation and information exchange, those MNCs can regard the border between country as town between towns. In this sense," selling jobs" is what we cannot stop,even this behavior is not ethical, but natural.

    I believe that everone with consicence cannot torlerate the existence of exploitive work. But it cannot be the cause to stop it, even under a legal shell. For me, the only hope is from the historical improvement. The working condition in Manchester 145 years ago was far from civilization.If those workers are still alive, the welfare nowadays isbeyond their imagination( not about endless blame for recession). The victory of humanity is steadily going on.

    However, factories in devloping countries plays as a booster for their economy, as MNCs bring jobs and technology for those countries. For those countries, it is a chance for them to make improvement, the only chance i might say, as every exchange is equal.Just considering the unemployment within is subconsciously throw the poor countries to the dump.
  • Aug 3 2013: Legal isn't sensible, forget moral, or ethical. A generation of profit focused folks used the 30% profit margin to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, the American Consumer economy. A company can make a rational profit of 10-12-15% restricting some manufacturing to this country. IN fact, if the business you're in revolves around scientific discoveries given to you by me and other ordinary folks who fund all the research the government does, I feel we should hold all these companies accountable for the use of the technology they were given. The internet was a government sponsored technology given out for free, and then tech guys had to figure out a way to make money out of it. I salute that creativity, but I haven't forgotten that citizens are being punished with job loss by created by folks who were handed all these new technologies for free. 'XXXX you American Consumer,' not even a thank you.

    The law says its ok., right? The Robber Barons of the 1890's put children to work, and said losing fingers in the mills was nothing of consequence. This gen of Robber Barons are techies not industrialists, but its the same game, and it can be changed. But you'll you'll have to pay me to tell you how, just you types who try to find an excuse to hide behind. For everyone the info is free; just ask.
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2013: By law, It's ok to do so.
    • thumb
      Aug 2 2013: Simon,
      I know, there is nothing illegal going on.....
      But none of the arm chair progressives lamenting the terrible situation of global enterprise has a clue about business. Case in point.... If Apple and Nike took all manufacturing jobs from wherever and brought them home
      two things....

      where would the current job holders get new jobs?

      With all the regulations, fees, delays, meetings, documents, impact statements, for local, state and federal offices, then there maybe labor unions to deal with....What business would want to set up shop in America?
      Even if they could turn a profit there would be a big tax bite.

      So, I say, you don't like how Apple or Nike or the Gap gets merchandise.... don't buy their stuff. There are non exploitative sources for products on line... Then you have done your part..
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: :)) very good. :)))) very good indeed, now tell me, what will you sacrifice yourself for the good of other? You got 100 years to live and it looks like you spend at least 20% of that already. How many years would you willing to give away if you can trade that for the lives of a million people?
        • thumb
          Aug 2 2013: None.
          There is nothing to trade for anyone, you or a million others.
          As far as this conversation goes pointing at Apple and Nike....
          I probably will buy another Apple computer, this one is almost 10 years old.
          and I only wear slippers, not Nike... And you missed my age by a factor of 4
          No hits, no runs and all errors....
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: well, they are probably thinking the same thing. Or maybe even better, after they created NIKE, APPLE? wouldn't you consider the possibility of they try to help other in their own way, silently? And what part of NIKE, APPLE are we talking about here, their leader? their employer? or their stock holder? May be some of their employer are working volunteer for TED here. I don't know, what do you think? :)) but then again, why would what you think matter, I have a head too , you know, and so do NIKE and APPLE employers.
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: They are doing a good job. If a great job is what we are talking about here then, let's hope there are some body who would sacrifice some of their life years, may be then we are going to get something amazing :))))))) Just may be.:))))))
  • Aug 2 2013: It is not OK to outsource to laboring children. But if the population buys them at a high price and does not educate themselves about where they come from, or doesn't care where the product comes from....they cycle keeps going. If I told you I would like to buy your phone for a thousand dollars would you sell it to me knowing that it was made overseas?
    • thumb
      Aug 2 2013: I hear that but the people shouldn't have to be the ones to control the business'. The gov't is supposed to regulate business'. If we made the products in our own country and sold them at these prices, we most likely wouldn't be in such a financial crisis. Just my theory though. Think of all the money Americans would make if they made most of the products we use. All that money would go right back into OUR countries economy and it would help solve the unemployment problem. It's not like the corporations don't have enough money, they just don't want to share it.
      • thumb
        Aug 2 2013: There use to be a cartoon character called (Baby Huey) I think it was one of the MGM cartoons. The character was a duck or a goose who was mistakenly hatched in a chickens nest, and therefore thought it was a chicken. he went on through his cartoon adventures acting and thinking just like his tiny little chicken nest mates. He was big, and dumb or so he was portrayed, until finally he would get mad, and realize he was capable of beating up the bad guy. He would get hold of his size advantage and get mad then "POW" the wolf or the coyote would get beat to a pulp. That's how I see the US right now (big, and dumb) We are being taken for a very ugly ride, by NAFTA,CAFTA,and soon the final nail in the coffin, the (Trans Pacific Partnership) being negotiated in top secret style by an administration that says it's for the middle class, and is to stupid apparently to realize they are slitting our throats. Our products are hit with massive tariffs on everything from cars to computers when we ship to foreign markets. The Chinese the European Union, they all have protectionist tariffs on a multitude of goods. It's time for Baby Huey to get mad, and start fighting fire with fire. Sadly our leaders have sold us out. They are lining their pockets,and destroying our economy. They are as we speak turning our economic structural control over to an unelected, international trade council that will have final say on any trade disputes, with no recourse for us. Let's make it clear i'm not a protectionist. I believe in free markets, "when I see one" So far I don't see one. Lets' grow up do our homework and get smart before we find ourselves on the bar room flour big dumb broke Baby Huey
        • thumb
          Aug 4 2013: You don't get to the top slot by being big and dumb, unless you are a fist fighter.

          The ride may be ugly, but at least we are riding instead of walking.

          The Tariff thing is being resolved as we speak in the world court.
      • thumb
        Aug 6 2013: Gov. regulates business, it's supposed to be our job to keep the gov. in check whenever we see them acting in a way that contradicts our moral and ethical code. Problem is gov. has been left unchecked for far too long. People need to care but Americans are over stimulated and too distracted to even realize that there's substantial things they ought to care about.
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2013: I have given this question a lot of thought.... you are absolutely correct... no profits...
    I have no idea how the distribution of profits from the private companies would be made....
    Maybe someone has an idea.....





























    There I go again.... I should be ashamed of myself.
  • Jul 31 2013: More Gossip to spew --

    Detroit is Bankrupt.
    Is it because the Unions blackmailed the auto Manufacturers into finding
    greener pastures in foreign nations? .. When a Janitor can make $125 USD per hour,
    isn't it about time for a smart CEO to pick up his Corporation and leave?

    Were not Unions formed to help prevent child labor abuses?
    Did Unions not morph into something else?
    Who is to blame for Detroit, and the other cities without foresight?
    • Comment deleted

      • Jul 31 2013: Keith, you are right.

        Notice also that they sell the biggest auto-trucks they can get by with.
        Great gas mileage for a couple or three years, then, Oooops!!!

        The oil producers will keep putting soap and steam down the holes until
        they get everything they can. They will use the Tar Sands, Fracking and
        all those terrible people killing toys to extract, extract, extract. Then we
        will run out of oil. Period. Probably about when it gets to $20/gallon.

        Nobody get it.. .

        Nobody except the greedy politicians.
      • Jul 31 2013: Keith I think you are on to something re. the old cars with new chrome. The Japanese car mfg were on to something when, in the early 1970's they begain making smaller cars. I worked in a related industry, the industrial truck manfg companies. Our goal was to control 30% of the market for U.S. built lift trucks, the suscfull goal set by GM. As toyota and other industrial trucks began to overtake our sales, our response was "Toyoty, Honda, etc were not American Industrial Trucks and therefore would not be counted against our 30% goal" Our percentage remained better that 30% of American trucks sold, but overall numbers kept dropping,. When Clark fork Lift went out of business, they still had 30% of the ITA but less than 10% of the total. Likewise, Detroit insisted on making SUV's in the face of Oil shortages. We are now trying to fool ourselves by claiming oil sand and shale will bail us out, but that petroleum is much more damaging than that used in the past. So we will continue to make gas guzellers running on poison. Again our MFG's are living in a false paradise created out of their own lies.
    • Jul 31 2013: Frank Berry: i may have missed a thread, but I am not aware of any janitor making $125 US per hour. Corp's make it a point to hire outside "contract Workers" for whom they are not legally responsible. Those persons are usually stuck at Minimum wages.
      • Aug 1 2013: Arthur Haecker Thanks for catching that...

        It could simply be a metaphor that I had used in order to imply a resemblance
        of the excessive pay and benefits gained to metaphorically minority employees,
        over a number of years, that could never be sustained without those Too Big
        To Fail Beggar-Corporation Bail-Outs. Had congress listened to the little
        accountant type sitting at the far end of the table, when he displayed his charts,
        they would have turned a deaf ear to those Beggars

        But, I believe, if you wish to research, that the number $125/hour is close when
        considering both pay and benefits of every kind.

        Detroit leadership was just stupid for oh so many years.
  • Jul 30 2013: Well, thats a big question. Im sure someone else might have an better answers, but me.
  • Jul 29 2013: We have to set up certain conditions to be able to answer the question.

    Given the relative economic expression of value, is the payment given in country A proportional to that of the payment that would be given in country B? That is to say, is an individual able to acquire the same standard of living within a comparable infrastructure, irrespective of numerical value.

    Assuming that the pay in Country B can enable at the very least clean, healthy standard of living , as an example., are both able to pay for the same living conditions, be able to have the same percentage of disposable income and pay a approximate equal percentage in tax.

    Other questions I think that come from this are;
    Although there is a compatible standard of living available to the employes, is this principally to take advantage of lower labour costs? Is this economically ethical?
    Given the distance resources subsequently need to be transported, is this environmentally ethical?
    Does this maintain/create change in the host economic climate? Is that beneficial in terms of long term prosperity and standard of living for the host country?


    With Genuine Interest

    Paul
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2013: The question begs, Why not.? And i don't know of a law that is being violated.
    Companies manufacture products in a manner that is most economical for them and sell at a profit. That's what they do.
    It is not a morality issue. It's a business issue.If this practice violates your morality and I can see that these practices upset some, there is no law that says you have to purchase their products.
    Think of it this way, Air is still free, you can grow most of your own food and provide most of your own shelter and clothing. There are people doing this today. Those are needs. Most everything else are wants. Including Iphones and flat screen TVs....Don't like the process, don't buy the products. Simple.
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: Mike, we are not talking about a mink coat here not many like because of the fact it is killing an animal. We are talking about really taking advantage of a poverty stricken class of people here where children go to work. There are people that go across the globe trying to save an insect species (nothing wrong here) but this is swept under the rug and "legal", eh? I agree to disagree. Veruca Salt wants an Apple, so does her dad.
      • thumb
        Jul 31 2013: Let's see.... I am not sure where you are going. US companies are taking advantage of poverty stricken class of people? What advantage? Nike and Apple have concentration camps?
        So, some people are globe trotting to save insects... Ok! I didn't know Apple Corp was tryng to sweep insects under "the rug"
        Who is Venuca Salt and who is her Dad? Oh, I want an Apple too. I am saving from my pension a little each month until I can get one. This one is 10 years old and way pass it's life.
        What is it you disagree with?