Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-09-2007, 12:06 PM   #21
Burninator
Franchise Player
 
Burninator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07 View Post
Proof please.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...t=oprah+secret
Burninator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 12:53 PM   #22
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Oprah is all about the cash. Of course she's going to defend sweatshops.

I saw the owner of American Apparel on Charlie Rose once and while I don't think he said "I'm making money faster than I can count it", that was the impression I got. He charges more, but the quality is better. It's a fair trade-off as far as I'm concerned. They don't have to make something in Bangladesh in order to make money, they do it because of greed.

I do enjoy the whole "they are helping these people out" nobility of the operation though. And I know when they find a group of people that will work for even lower wages and under less stringent guidelines, they will nobly put a lock on the factory door and walk away.

Bla bla bla. I wonder if all the "formaldehyde in the baby blanket" and the "Lead Paint Squad Action Figures" stories will wake us up. I doubt it.
__________________

RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 12:58 PM   #23
Devils'Advocate
#1 Goaltender
 
Devils'Advocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07
It's lazy and naive to simply blame the producer. The customers demand a lower price above all else, what else can the producer do? it's like people here saying in one breath they hate oil companies for for the business they are in, and they hate oil companies because gasoline is so expensive ... naive and lazy.
I'll absolutely agree that it is western consumers that are to blame for these people living in poverty. For every dollar we save on tube socks is another child that will go hungry tonight.

-=-=-=-=-

As for the workers in these countries need to stand up for their rights, we all know what happens to anyone that tries to organize a union. How about the Phillipines where Bush is pumping millions into their military... and in the last 5 years they have executed 64 union leaders on the basis that "union leaders terrorize factory owners".
Devils'Advocate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 01:04 PM   #24
CaramonLS
Franchise Player
 
CaramonLS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07 View Post
and customers won't pay the higher price and allow the company to be your definition of ethical.

It's lazy and naive to simply blame the producer. The customers demand a lower price above all else, what else can the producer do? it's like people here saying in one breath they hate oil companies for for the business they are in, and they hate oil companies because gasoline is so expensive ... naive and lazy.
Yeah, because ever since Nike started outsourcing labor to developing world countries, consumers have really felt the discount in their shoe prices.

No - the truth of the matter is that these companies are going to charge $100-$150 for a pair of shoes whether or not it costs $2 to make a pair or $50, because that is what supply/demand dictates. The discount isn't getting passed on to consumers.
__________________
CaramonLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 01:10 PM   #25
flip
Lifetime Suspension
 
flip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sec 216
Exp:
Default

is anyone else concerned that major corporations are intentionally inhibiting the progression of these third world countries because if they move past the manufacturing stage of their economic evolution that they will no longer provide cheap labour?

the natural progression of a pre-industrialized economy is that they start with simple manufacturing then they eventually move on to an economy based more upon the funding of manufacturing. If anyone remembers junior high their are 4 sectors, primary (which is the raw goods) then secondary (the manufacturing of said goods) and tertiary (the selling of said goods). I believe the fourth sector includes teachers, research and development etc. the ideal spot to be in is the seller of said goods because it is the most profitable.

the natural progression is that a country starts with manufacturing and as the economy grows richer they move into the selling of said goods. i believe that major corporations in NA and europe are intentionally making sure that third world countries never make the progression from just making the goods to actually owning the companies that sell said goods.

is anyone taking economics in university who can explain it more accurately or am i just making this all up?
flip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 01:29 PM   #26
FireFly
Franchise Player
 
FireFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flip View Post
is anyone else concerned that major corporations are intentionally inhibiting the progression of these third world countries because if they move past the manufacturing stage of their economic evolution that they will no longer provide cheap labour?

the natural progression of a pre-industrialized economy is that they start with simple manufacturing then they eventually move on to an economy based more upon the funding of manufacturing. If anyone remembers junior high their are 4 sectors, primary (which is the raw goods) then secondary (the manufacturing of said goods) and tertiary (the selling of said goods). I believe the fourth sector includes teachers, research and development etc. the ideal spot to be in is the seller of said goods because it is the most profitable.

the natural progression is that a country starts with manufacturing and as the economy grows richer they move into the selling of said goods. i believe that major corporations in NA and europe are intentionally making sure that third world countries never make the progression from just making the goods to actually owning the companies that sell said goods.

is anyone taking economics in university who can explain it more accurately or am i just making this all up?
It's not just the companies, governments are involved as well. The reason for Canada disrupting elections in Haiti, (at the behest of the US government as well as Canadian companies) was to ensure there would be no further progress in that state economically. Wages had doubled in a short amount of time and US and Canadian companies were getting worried.
FireFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 01:34 PM   #27
CaramonLS
Franchise Player
 
CaramonLS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flip View Post
is anyone else concerned that major corporations are intentionally inhibiting the progression of these third world countries because if they move past the manufacturing stage of their economic evolution that they will no longer provide cheap labour?

the natural progression of a pre-industrialized economy is that they start with simple manufacturing then they eventually move on to an economy based more upon the funding of manufacturing. If anyone remembers junior high their are 4 sectors, primary (which is the raw goods) then secondary (the manufacturing of said goods) and tertiary (the selling of said goods). I believe the fourth sector includes teachers, research and development etc. the ideal spot to be in is the seller of said goods because it is the most profitable.

the natural progression is that a country starts with manufacturing and as the economy grows richer they move into the selling of said goods. i believe that major corporations in NA and europe are intentionally making sure that third world countries never make the progression from just making the goods to actually owning the companies that sell said goods.

is anyone taking economics in university who can explain it more accurately or am i just making this all up?
I think the academic term for this is NeoColonialism. However, when the term is used, it isn't necessarily just referring to MNCs who are exploiting the relationships, whenever I've come across the term in most academic texts, it implies that it is state-supported as well. Both the state and the Multi-National benefit from the unequal relationship, and hope to keep it that way. At least that is the basic outline of the theory.
__________________
CaramonLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 03:02 PM   #28
Vulcan
Franchise Player
 
Vulcan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4 View Post
I hope you can tell me honestly that you don't own anything made in china or india. Or for that matter, pretty much all of asia, save japan. And I think mexico too.
Go check the tags in your tightie whities and your jeans and your shirts. Any of them made in asia? Then you're just as "sickening" as the rest of us.

Hey, anyone have a flames jersey handy? What's the tag say?
Probably 99% of my clothing is made in a third world country. I don't have the choice unless I want to walk around naked. When I was young, 99% of my belongings were made in NA. Something saying Made in Japan was held out for ridicule. The difference between Japan and these third world countries is that Japan owned their own factories. Later and for a long time I would search for Canadian or else US made products and was willing to pay the premium as they were of better quality as well as supporting our economy. I also made an effort to buy NA made cars but that's getting harder also. Lately I would find a Canadian product with Canadian labels until I'd run across a label hidden in the sleeve saying made in Bangladesh. I've pretty much given up although I just found a Penman's t-shirt saying Made In Canada.

And thanks Devils' Advocate for walking some of these posters through the seeming minefield of logic and morals but I've come to believe that most won't learn anything, and then it's probably temporary, unless they are hit over the head with a disaster such as the Iraq War.
__________________

Vulcan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 04:22 PM   #29
octothorp
Franchise Player
 
octothorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: not lurking
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flip View Post
is anyone else concerned that major corporations are intentionally inhibiting the progression of these third world countries because if they move past the manufacturing stage of their economic evolution that they will no longer provide cheap labour?

the natural progression of a pre-industrialized economy is that they start with simple manufacturing then they eventually move on to an economy based more upon the funding of manufacturing. If anyone remembers junior high their are 4 sectors, primary (which is the raw goods) then secondary (the manufacturing of said goods) and tertiary (the selling of said goods). I believe the fourth sector includes teachers, research and development etc. the ideal spot to be in is the seller of said goods because it is the most profitable.

the natural progression is that a country starts with manufacturing and as the economy grows richer they move into the selling of said goods. i believe that major corporations in NA and europe are intentionally making sure that third world countries never make the progression from just making the goods to actually owning the companies that sell said goods.

is anyone taking economics in university who can explain it more accurately or am i just making this all up?
Very true. This is why there are rumours that the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister of Malaysia at a New York fashion event a while back was the result of a consortium of clothing industry who have been trying to maintain the child-labour status-quo in Malaysia and other countries.
octothorp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 04:35 PM   #30
Tron_fdc
Has My Daddy Syndrome
 
Tron_fdc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Trying to test icicles
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp View Post
Very true. This is why there are rumours that the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister of Malaysia at a New York fashion event a while back was the result of a consortium of clothing industry who have been trying to maintain the child-labour status-quo in Malaysia and other countries.
Was that at the "Derelict" show?
__________________
"thereís one other guy I believe in hockey today, that is still working in the game, that has won more Stanley Cups than me, so I think I know a little bit about winning if thatís ever a concern." - Kevin Lowe
Tron_fdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 04:48 PM   #31
Devils'Advocate
#1 Goaltender
 
Devils'Advocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
Probably 99% of my clothing is made in a third world country. I don't have the choice unless I want to walk around naked.
That is not true at all. I'd guestimate that 90% of my clothing is not made in the third world.

I order U.S. made sneakers from New Balance.
My jeans are Canadian Dakota's from Mark's Work Warehouse.
My dress shirts are also made in Canada ... got them at Moores.
I got Canadian made tube socks at Zellers of all places.
Mark's also had some Canadian made Denver Hayes T-shirts and underwear.

Where things really fall down is I can't find a Canadian manufacturer of New Jersey Devils winter jackets.
Devils'Advocate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 04:53 PM   #32
octothorp
Franchise Player
 
octothorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: not lurking
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tron_fdc View Post
Was that at the "Derelict" show?
Yup, thank goodness for Magnum.
octothorp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 05:32 PM   #33
Vulcan
Franchise Player
 
Vulcan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sunshine Coast
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate View Post
That is not true at all. I'd guestimate that 90% of my clothing is not made in the third world.

I order U.S. made sneakers from New Balance.
My jeans are Canadian Dakota's from Mark's Work Warehouse.
My dress shirts are also made in Canada ... got them at Moores.
I got Canadian made tube socks at Zellers of all places.
Mark's also had some Canadian made Denver Hayes T-shirts and underwear.

Where things really fall down is I can't find a Canadian manufacturer of New Jersey Devils winter jackets.
I guess I need to renew my efforts. In this town we have a WallMart and the local mens casual wear store for choices. I was talking to this owner a couple of years ago and he said he had a hard time finding Canadian made clothes. The only work shoe manufacturer left was in Newfoundland. Mark's just came to town [hey, we're moving on up] and I got some Denver Hayes sandals [doesn't say where they were made], so I'll be checking the labels out again.
__________________

Vulcan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 06:57 PM   #34
flip
Lifetime Suspension
 
flip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sec 216
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp View Post
Very true. This is why there are rumours that the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister of Malaysia at a New York fashion event a while back was the result of a consortium of clothing industry who have been trying to maintain the child-labour status-quo in Malaysia and other countries.

ha ha ha. very funny. thank god i have blue steel and magnum on my side. (right?)
flip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:02 PM   #35
Flames in 07
#1 Goaltender
 
Flames in 07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS View Post
Yeah, because ever since Nike started outsourcing labor to developing world countries, consumers have really felt the discount in their shoe prices.

No - the truth of the matter is that these companies are going to charge $100-$150 for a pair of shoes whether or not it costs $2 to make a pair or $50, because that is what supply/demand dictates. The discount isn't getting passed on to consumers.
Nike is a premium product that sells higher quality (wether real or precieved) than competition, customers select nike for their product not their price.

There's no need for a producer to pass on a discount if the customer doesn't demand it. Besides nike's cost base isn't around production, it's around advertising and spokespeople. Look at it this way, they need the cheaper production to pay for their marketing. You can choose to like it or not, but it won't change that its reality.

You cherry picked one premium brand, and twisted an arguement together, but it doesn't really make much sense. Rereading your post, are suggesting that the producer is obligated to pass on any cost advantage to the customers?
Flames in 07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:05 PM   #36
Flames in 07
#1 Goaltender
 
Flames in 07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate View Post
That is not true at all. I'd guestimate that 90% of my clothing is not made in the third world.

I order U.S. made sneakers from New Balance.
My jeans are Canadian Dakota's from Mark's Work Warehouse.
My dress shirts are also made in Canada ... got them at Moores.
I got Canadian made tube socks at Zellers of all places.
Mark's also had some Canadian made Denver Hayes T-shirts and underwear.

Where things really fall down is I can't find a Canadian manufacturer of New Jersey Devils winter jackets.
just another perspective for you, you and anyone who behaves like you are putting 3rd world workers out of work. You may not like the hours or wages they make but through your ethical actions they could go out of work and be in a situation worse than the one everyone is looking down their nose at.
Flames in 07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:10 PM   #37
Flames in 07
#1 Goaltender
 
Flames in 07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulcan View Post
Probably 99% of my clothing is made in a third world country. I don't have the choice unless I want to walk around naked. When I was young, 99% of my belongings were made in NA. Something saying Made in Japan was held out for ridicule. The difference between Japan and these third world countries is that Japan owned their own factories. Later and for a long time I would search for Canadian or else US made products and was willing to pay the premium as they were of better quality as well as supporting our economy. I also made an effort to buy NA made cars but that's getting harder also. Lately I would find a Canadian product with Canadian labels until I'd run across a label hidden in the sleeve saying made in Bangladesh. I've pretty much given up although I just found a Penman's t-shirt saying Made In Canada.

And thanks Devils' Advocate for walking some of these posters through the seeming minefield of logic and morals but I've come to believe that most won't learn anything, and then it's probably temporary, unless they are hit over the head with a disaster such as the Iraq War.
Wow, unlike the extreme left to think that anyone who doesn't think like them will never learn anything.


Just out of curiosity, given your undeniably impressive set of morals, what exactly have you done to improve this situation? Buying local doesn't do squat. I probably don't have to repeat because you are such a good learner, but buying local products won't help 3rd world nations in any way whatsoever. There's a big gap between how the world and economics work, and how you believe them to work.
Flames in 07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:14 PM   #38
Flames in 07
#1 Goaltender
 
Flames in 07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate View Post
As for the workers in these countries need to stand up for their rights, we all know what happens to anyone that tries to organize a union. How about the Phillipines where Bush is pumping millions into their military... and in the last 5 years they have executed 64 union leaders on the basis that "union leaders terrorize factory owners".
Of course nobody supports things like this, things like union leaders terrorizing factory workers and companies outsourcing labour are two different issues.

Union leaders terrorizing factory workers was not the initial topic here.
Flames in 07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:45 PM   #39
CaramonLS
Franchise Player
 
CaramonLS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07 View Post
You cherry picked one premium brand, and twisted an arguement together, but it doesn't really make much sense. Rereading your post, are suggesting that the producer is obligated to pass on any cost advantage to the customers?
Not at all, I'm simply saying that the market sets the price, not the cost of production.

You were the one who mentioned that consumers would have to pay the higher cost for "ethical" business practises, but in reality, the only thing that would be really affected from a company like Nike moving away from exploiting developing countries to paying decent wages in developed countries or even wages which people can use to get ahead in the developing world - would be their own bottom line.
__________________
CaramonLS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2007, 07:49 PM   #40
Flames in 07
#1 Goaltender
 
Flames in 07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS View Post
Not at all, I'm simply saying that the market sets the price, not the cost of production.

You were the one who mentioned that consumers would have to pay the higher cost for "ethical" business practises, but in reality, the only thing that would be really affected from a company like Nike moving away from exploiting developing countries to paying decent wages in developed countries or even wages which people can use to get ahead in the developing world - would be their own bottom line.
OK, but are you familiar with Nike's cost structure? maybe those shoes would be $220 all else being equal if they were manufactured in Canada?

edit: btw, the 'market' as you refer, which I presume translates into the buyers willingness to pay sets the price in certain markets, in markets that are mature and/or highly compeditive the cost of production is a good guage for price setting. IE simple no frills shoes that lebron james has not heard of, will be more a function of thecost to bring to market vs shoes like Nike+ that link up to a nano.

Last edited by Flames in 07; 09-09-2007 at 07:54 PM.
Flames in 07 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:17 PM.

Calgary Flames
2014-15
CP Chat!

CPRadio

2014-15 Regular Season:





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2009