TED Conversations

Jah Kable

Thinker ready to be unleashed upon the world,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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.

+6
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.