Are you as appalled as I am?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eden

Dangerous and abusive companies in developing nations sound more than less like the exception....

---

But is it really the rule? We say crime is rampant, but only 2% of the population has a felonious record...but crime seems the rule in some places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eden

The owner actually once bragged about working some of the guys over there for two days straight and into the wee hours of the morning....

---

It honestly sounds like my minimum wage job at Mr. Gatti's Pizza at the Eastwood Mall in Birmingham Alabama in 1979.

I respect that all of you feel sincere in your concern on this issue...I really do. But back to my original question...would these people be better off (if so, how???)if they had no work at all and had to fend for themselves or starve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Silver

But back to my original question...would these people be better off (if so, how???)if they had no work at all and had to fend for themselves or starve?

---

Interestingly, the very same argument was used to discourage the idea of freeing black slaves during the 1800's here in America. That they were 'better off' working as slaves and would not be able to fend for themselves and would therefore starve without their kind masters 'providing' for them.

No, these low wage workers would not be better off if they were starving and had no work at all.
But they WOULD be better off if their working conditions and hours were improved and they were paid/treated more fairly, as other workers are treated in other parts of the world. The truth is their working conditions and pay could be vastly improved and still leave plenty of room for all the business owners and middle men, all the way to the consumers, to profit. I would much rather pay 30-60% more for an item if I could be sure it was produced under decent and fair working conditions.

Unfortunately, if labor/humanitarian laws are not being enforced, then people in power usually try to get away with as much as they possibly can at the expense of those under them who are powerless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Silver

I respect that all of you feel sincere in your concern on this issue...I really do. But back to my original question...would these people be better off (if so, how???)if they had no work at all and had to fend for themselves or starve?

---

I guess I see it as not having to be an all or nothing situation. It should be more than possible to make the lives of workers in other countries at very least humane (not even asking for luxurious here - just at least a living wage, and the things we expect in this country, like a reasonable work day/week, safe work environment) and still have a very fine standard of living in richer nations. It might mean sacrificing being a multi-million/billionaire for some people...... and probably higher prices for goods many people, but mostly the sacrifice of making the very few millions.... Personally I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I made money like that on the backs of poor people..

Just consider that Nike paid Michael Jordan $20 million to endorse their shoes.... that was more money than they paid their entire 35,000 member workforce that year to produce them... They also have annual profits in the billions... Is it unreasonable to expect them to not squeeze the workers so badly?

So, the problem is not our patronage, but the conditions. This is something we can agree on.

But the comparison to slavery is loose at best when you compare employing indigenous people to enslaving kidnapped people.

I guess it does get down to making choices..of what goods/from where such goods originate, that we buy or if not, if we really wanted to be more ethical..do our own gardening, sewing (latter, I did lots for many years, but got lazy after cycling passion), etc. At least I don't support the auto industry, by not having any car. :o

And even when we rent one, like we did, last Sunday, my partner is fuming away because he is fighting his sleep disorder in order to stay awake behind the steering wheel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Silver

So, the problem is not our patronage, but the conditions. This is something we can agree on.

---

The two are closely linked. The widespread conditions would certainly not exist on such a grand scale if we were not eagerly buying up the unimaginably vast quantities of product as fast as they can produce them. Our abundant money and grotesquely engorged level of insatiable consumerism is fueling and perpetuating the system just as as it is. The rich keep getting richer and more powerful on the backs of the poor, and the poor keep getting poorer and more powerless.

Quote:

---

But the comparison to slavery is loose at best when you compare employing indigenous people to enslaving kidnapped people.

---

Not so loose a comparison as one might think. Just as coal miners were virtually permanent indentured servants before labor unions came into being, who really had no choice but to work under severe and unsafe conditions until they sickened and died, the system being carefully arranged so that they would never be able to pay off their debts to the bosses, so it is that these people (including, not so accidentally, actual prisoners) laboring under slave-like and dangerous conditions are all virtual prisoners of this modern unjust and inhumane system. They may not be kidnapped people (no need to kidnap them from other countries since the available labor force was there already), but are nonetheless no better off than permanent indentured servants, who in order to survive have little choice but to labor their entire lives from childhood to old age under abominable conditions. The system is laid out in such a way as to ensure they can never advance, get out of debt, or improve their situation in life, or even hope to provide their children with a life any less hopeless than their own.

Quote:

---

One half to two thirds of all immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants. At times, as many as 75% of the population of some colonies were under terms of indenture. Even on the frontier, according to the 1790 U.S. Census, 6% of the Kentucky population was indentured.
This was a labor system, not a system of apprenticeship. (Galenson, 6) The historic basis for indenture grew out of English agricultural servitude and began because of labor shortages in England and in the colonies. It developed at a time when England had a great number of people being displaced from farming. This led to an early growth of the indentured labor system.
The importation of white servants under contracts known as indentures proved more profitable as a short-term labor source than enslaving Indians or using free labor. Eventually, the final attempt to ease labor shortages was enslavement of Africans. Wherever you find slavery, you first find indentures.

---

I'm not going to get into the argument, but anyone who thinks that the people producing cheap goods for america are "better off" should check out this film: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...94596195828118

And be sure to watch this award winning documentary on the subject as well:
http://www.freespeech.org/videodb/in...10826&browse=1

oh give me a break. I am embarrassed that people in China are melting the lead from our used TV monitors over a portable burner in their lap and their kids are out playing in the effluent. I am embarrassed that children are working in the fields to produce OUR coffee and OUR chocolate. I have read about the work conditions for factory workers making clothing for our name brand stores. Major corporations are getting rich on this slavery, yes, it's slavery. And no, I don't think they are better off. In a rush to make it rich, the rainforests are being denuded with slash burning and get rich quick agriculture which leaves the indigenous people no choice but to go into the city and take the sh*t jobs offered to them.
No, I don't think we and our consumer society are doing the people in poorer countries any great favors.

Corporate America and it's consumers aren't' 100% bad: Starbucks is doubling its purchases of fair trade coffee to some 40 millions pounds of organic, fair trade cofee in 2009.
http://sustainablog.org/2008/10/29/s...offee-in-2009/

now, I don't shop Starbucks for other reasons, but I thought this was hopeful.

there are some positives, absolutely, but human nature has a tenet that I rarely see NOT followed. Power corrupts. Money Corrupts. If I can use those ignorant savages, I'm going to. And I'll even give them little tidbits so they think they're doing good. And then I'll go home and eat cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biciclista

No, I don't think we and our consumer society are doing the people in poorer countries any great favors.

---

I don't doubt that the bad stuff is true, but it's legitimate to question what people would do without the work. Are other options worse, or nonexistent? I have no idea of the answer, but I do wonder when this topic comes up.

Pam

I don't think anyone is suggesting that jobs for those people would just go away... I doubt this country even has the workforce or the infrastructure to start manufacturing everything we buy ourselves..... Just think about clothing and shoes. If we relied only on very few brands that are still produced here, most of us would have to sew our own or go naked and barefoot.

It's not like the big corporations cannot afford to treat and pay their workers better... Nike, Walmart, Target, have profits in the billions. They could double the amount they pay and it would be a teensy percentage of what they make.

Biciclista, I'm sorry that you are embarassed by these things. But, for me, I accept that there are some things that I simply can't control. I believe that China is China's problem...I didn't choose to send that TV to China, someone in China chose to buy that TV and do something with it. It's not that we shouldn't care about these situations elsewhere, but I choose to devote my attention and energy to things that I can observe first hand (through direct interaction, not distant observation) and impact today in my own backyard.

This is a complicated topic. I also think that in the end, we, as individuals, are not really going to have an influence on how China treats its workers...
I try to buy local, especially with food. I am driving much less than ever, only filling my car up once every two weeks or so. I will never be doing my grocery shopping by bike, but I have changed my life style. I buy clothes based on if they fit; given my shortness, I am limited to 2-3 brands. Frankly, I don't think about anything else except that.
I have personal experience with part of this topic. My family owned a shoe factory in NH when I was growing up. Eventually, because of the cheap labor in Asia, it went out of business. Since then, my parents had to move to 3 different states, my dad was unemployed a lot, and my brother, who is 11 years younger than me, got quite a different life style than I did. It wasn't good for my family at all, but after all of these years, I don't really think about it. I decided to work hard and get a good education, and in the end I was able to give my kids pretty much the same type of life I had growing up.
I have a lot of other things I could say on this topic, but I won't.

Hey, now we know why there are still many who still want to immigrate to North America --despite China's growing economy and Communists loosening up on economic privatization.


But then they get here and some end up in sweat shops. Yea, well several of my cousins who immigrated to Toronto in 1980's, did factory clothing piecework ..in their homes at times. I would drop over to visit and find their work/set-up. But now the garmet industry in Toronto and elsewhere in Canada, has shifted to China.

No wonder why their children go gangbusters at university and try to scale the professional worlds here.

A person sees too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shootingstar

But now the garmet industry in Toronto and elsewhere in Canada, has shifted to China.

No wonder why their children go gangbusters at university and try to scale the professional worlds here.

A person sees too much.

---

well said.

I think they should have ads for some sexy, versatile bicycles! :D

I'm not at all appalled. Many, many years ago my Dad (who was a Jaguar mechanic, now retired) needed a new car and after much research he picked out a Toyota Celica, but they didn't buy right away. My mom surprised him with it for Christmas. It wasn't a gift from a rich wife to her rich husband on a fluke. It was a planned purchase that she made a little early. When someone gets a car for Christmas there may be backstory that you don't know, so don't be so quick to judge.

Two additional points:

Not everyone is hurting this year. I haven't had a job since July, so I can't say we're loaded right now, but I have plenty of friends that really haven't been affected by what's going on. They own their homes and aren't trying to sell, they have a long way to retirement and thus aren't concerned about the market dip, and they have stable jobs in industries that aren't under a huge amount of pressure right now.

There are plenty of people in the auto industry that are being laid off. If I go out and buy a car, and others do too, I may save quite a few people their jobs this year. That's a heck of a lot better than volunteering in a soup kitchen.

I have for years found the ads stupid but funny. I can't afford to buy a car for anyone, never got a drool worthy car as a gift either. The only one I got as a gift was a 1986 Cutlass on my 16th Birthday in 1997. Most people made fun of it but had no miles and got me around. So yeah, for a lower middle class child I find those commercials the stupidest thing on the planet because in my world cars aren't and will never be gifts. At least not the type they advertise.

I absolutely hate the diamond commercials. For years it was enough to set off a huge rant in my house. My parents were married 27 years before my mom got a diamond. Even then it was "tiny" by these ads standards. I don't think my dad loves her less than my husband loves me just because my husband gave me a diamond engagement ring. My husband's mom had one and his parents got divorced, so I find those ads laughable at best.

Flur- Good point, in my area the economy is still relatively stable. We aren't seeing nearly as much, just tightening the purse strings because it makes sense.

Poor people feel the painful effects of a recession first. They are not millionaires who can shrug over losing a few hundred thousand here and there. They lose their jobs and their homes. Then it begins to trickle up.
Many people who aren't worried now will be directly effected as the economic situation worsens, and just about all the expects agree that it is going to continue to worsen before it starts to get better.

Buying a car 'better' than volunteering in a soup kitchen? I find that logic to be debatable, but yes both acts can help our world in their own ways. Unfortunately not all people can afford to buy new cars anymore...or even used cars for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleeckerSt_Girl

Unfortunately not all people can afford to buy new cars anymore...or even used cars for that matter.

---

That has ALWAYS been true, and there is a much larger set of poverty issues.

Still the last two posters have made some good points. I too find the car ads stupid but funny since I can't quite envision ever being able to buy someone a car as a gift. But neither do I feel that thinking ill of people who can is necessarily correct.

not appalled and not shocked. what do you expect? they are trying to make money like the rest of us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleeckerSt_Girl

Buying a car 'better' than volunteering in a soup kitchen? ... but yes both acts can help our world in their own ways. Unfortunately not all people can afford to buy new cars anymore...or even used cars for that matter.

---

Back to my original post on this very complex and emotional matter:

• People who can and do acquire goods (they don't have to be expensive) fuel the economy that employs people. Don't resent what people buy and don't assume that people who own expensive items are appalling (and to be frank, this is the emotionally charged word that triggered my original response...but I think I took it much more emotionally than it was intended)
• Selfishness is often not determined by what you own, but by your attitude, especially toward others. Many with resources are generous with their time and money and are INCONSPICUOUS in their giving (and IMHO inconspicuous giving and a willingness to get involved at street level is the antithesis of appalling behavior)
  
  I appreciate the lively debate. Frankly, it's challenged my perspective on some things in a good way. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Silver. In my world, there are a lot of people who might buy a car as a present. If I look at the crowds in Concord center, I might wonder what all this stuff on the news is. People are tightening their belts, but I don't see empty restaurants or stores. Our housing market hasn't burst as much as in the Sunbelt. I recently read home prices have gone down 5% here, as opposed to 32% in AZ. I was literally shocked when I saw all of the foreclosure signs when I was out there in September.
Back to what Mr. Silver said... many of those people buying what some consider to be appalling cars are also giving "appalling" amounts of money to various causes.

I don't think it's the money, spending money (if you have it) is great for the economy...it's the ads that come across as crass and insensitive during these times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pax

I don't think it's the money, spending money (if you have it) is great for the economy...it's the ads that come across as crass and insensitive during these times.

---

It is possible that they could be targeting the demographic that will always have money to throw around...

One of these ads came on last night and I engaged DH in discussion of it. He was raised like me albeit even slightly lower middle class and views them as dumb. Offensive or appalling? Not really but he can't imagine any can give a car. He got his Grandpas old 1985 GMC with no AC for his 16th birthday in 1996. I still remember the grandpa-esque bumper stickers like plumbing union and "If you don't like the way I drive get off the side walk!"

Funny thing is he has a relative that is a self made millionaire, literally she has that much in cash in the bank then real estate worth as much. The woman is extremely frugal her husband and her made that money through smart investments and living on a depression era mindset. She has two vehicles, both purchased with cash before her husband died in 1999. A suburban and a Z71 Farm Truck, neither with any more bells and whistles than power windows.

At Christmas she gives both her children $10k or maybe it is $20k. BUT she expects her daughter to take her to all her appointments and run errands plus her husband does some small handy work. Her son is expected to move cattle, repair fences, plumbing and take cattle to auction or slaughter. So my husband still doesn't get it since they work for her generosity. :p She could afford to buy every child and grandchild a Lexus and have money in the bank but she never would. She might if we earned it by hauling cattle and goats plus fixing things on her ranch.

I too have always found those diamond ads offensive. That's probably why I made it very clear to my DH that he was to never buy me one. I think they're ugly and the labor that produces them is pretty brutal and offensive too.

On the other hand, we DID go to the foodbank last saturday for our joint birthday party and we each bagged over 1/2 ton of frozen carrots. THAT was fun.

The only thing I think about one of the new car ads is the one where the woman gets a used BMW and complains that her son "took a 29,000 mile joy ride." They make her look dumb enough to think that her car was a new car. I might write an email. The last time I did this, I wrote to Toyota because they had an ad that said something about a father enjoying seeing his son graduate from college and his daughter get married! I think it worked, because the ad disappeared shortly after I sent the email.
Or, I could go down to my BMW dealer and tell them I refuse to buy another one because I am too dumb to know the difference between new and used...
But I won't do it today, because my car is there for service.

Well I love my diamonds, hate to think what might have gone into mining them but I like them. They sparkle, only flashy jewelry I really wear. Still HATE those ads. I am pretty sure men who cannot afford to buy diamonds (or chose not to) love their spouses just as strongly as those who do buy them. Make me want to get on the soapbox everytime I see one.

Crankin- I think that ad is funny but why does it have to be a woman that is so stupid? My mom has a hopelessly clueless man friend I could see wondering why his new car had 29k on it. The guy is just gullible and a little dim witted.

I think "appalled" is a very harsh word. I think the commercial is in poor taste, but I also know that some of the things I buy are considered extremely extravagant (i.e. spending $10k on bikes in the last calendar year). To each his own.

But I do think that particular commercial is bad/silly/misguided strictly from a marketing POV. Commercials are often made more for brandings sake than for selling individual product. In a time of deep recession, a (any) company would not be wise to shove images of extravagance into peoples faces, esp when the overall climate in the country is one of fear for their livelihoods. Many of those struggling may end up with a windfall later in life, and you don't want to leave negative feelings associated with your product. Plus, a Lexus owner is not necessarily the same tax bracket as a Bentley or RR owner – they are in the same middle class that is scared poopless about their economic future.

(Of course, it may just be that Lexus is recycling an ad made in better years and greenlighted it for distribution long before the stock market collapsed.)

It was not the most appropriate ad, but there are worse things to fret about than a TV commercial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biciclista

I too have always found those diamond ads offensive. That's probably why I made it very clear to my DH that he was to never buy me one. I think they're ugly and the labor that produces them is pretty brutal and offensive too.

On the other hand, we DID go to the foodbank last saturday for our joint birthday party and we each bagged over 1/2 ton of frozen carrots. THAT was fun.

---

So you wound up with a lot of "carats" on your birthday anyway! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BleeckerSt_Girl

Many people who aren't worried now will be directly effected as the economic situation worsens, and just about all the expects agree that it is going to continue to worsen before it starts to get better.

Buying a car 'better' than volunteering in a soup kitchen? I find that logic to be debatable, but yes both acts can help our world in their own ways. Unfortunately not all people can afford to buy new cars anymore...or even used cars for that matter.

---

What keeps the economy going is spending. For example, if a bunch of people shop at Target this year, Target will have a good year, won't have to lay anyone off. This keeps jobs. People who have jobs are more likely to spend and continue the cycle. So every time someone with the means to do so spends money, they are helping to ward off further economic downturn.

The "experts" are actually fueling the economic downturn, by telling people it's going to get worse. This causes people to hold their money, which means less spending and more layoffs.

So, yeah, spending money allows people to keep their jobs, which allows them to keep their homes, which keeps them from becoming homeless and needing to go to soup kitchens. Which would you rather have, a job or a bowl of soup?

OK, so to this point most of my comments have been more directed at over consumption..... I don't think just having money or even being wealthy is any kind of a sin. It does bother me that are the few people who have so much money that they don't even have clue about all of the stuff that they have and couldn't possibly even use/enjoy it all... (like not having two cars or even 3, but having a garage full of 30....Like not even knowing how many houses you own...) Personally I wouldn't ever want that much...

I am also bothered by exploiting other people for cheap goods, and that goes for everyone, not just the overly wealthy.

In any case back to the car commercials. I've just now seen two of them for the first time. The Acura commercial wasn't particularly offensive. The Lexus commercial was pretty disgusting... Acura just suggested that getting a car for Christmas would be fun. Lexus definitely suggested that you'd be better than your friends if you had one - blech! Sorry, I have a 10 year old Saturn, when I drive at all, and I feel no jealousy what so ever towards drivers of Lexi...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pax

I don't think it's the money, spending money (if you have it) is great for the economy...it's the ads that come across as crass and insensitive during these times.

---

"December to Remember" in the Baltimore Sun

I thought of this thread while I was talking to my Mom over the weekend.

Somewhere along the way in the conversation, Christmas gifts came up, and she asked what I thought about the idea of giving each other donations to charity - with the economy being what it is, and that she doesn't actually need anything. I told her I liked the idea, but she left it up to me on who to sponsor for her. Mummy Dearest lives in Austin, TX, so I'd like to sponsor something over there - any ideas?

a spending economy? I'm supposed to keep spending to keep Walmart afloat?
and you don't see anything wrong with that idea?
the spending economy doesn't work. There have been less skilled jobs every year in the USA for about 20 years now. Lots of jobs in retail, yeah, THAT's a great career for someone.
Do you know that saving used to be considered virtuous? that PRESIDENTS used to tell us to save money?
The proof of how artificial this idea can be seen easily. At the slightest scare, we quit spending.
why? because we don't need that stuff. People are still buying essentials. If you take a look you'll see that grocery stores aren't laying folks off.
But maybe we're not buying that third pair of shoes, that extra sweater, all those toys those kids aren't going to want after they take them out of the package?
It's all STUFF that we don't need. Look, I'm as guilty as the next person, I have more bikes, shoes, sweaters, books, and even cars than I need!

Don't spend. Save.

Beth- These are all local to Austin. They get a lot of community shout outs from radio/fun runs but still do a lot of good and everyone needs donations.

Caritas of Austin is a good all around organization that helps those who need it.

Our local Meals on Wheels can always use a helping hand or penny, they are constantly needing volunteers and money. The gas prices last summer really had them worried if they could help those who needed a meal.

There is HAMM they provide health care/insurance to our thriving music scene.

In high school my local bowling organization always adopted a family from Any Baby Can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zen

"December to Remember" in the Baltimore Sun

---

wow, thanks, Zen, that article says it all!