Quote:
Originally Posted by idnami
Slava, Thanks. I'm kinda getting used to being unpopular!
I've spent the last six weeks listening, reading, spell checking and publishing the many messages to the point where I am actually able to break it down to one thing. It's a quite big thing really so it's no wonder the message seems confused and lost on many people. But this is it in a nutshell: Human rights are suffering monstrous abuse due to an undue focus on profit motive.
Many people think we are saying corporations are bad, money is bad, having to work is bad, banks are bad... well some people do think that. I don't. What I think is that we really, REALLY need to think harder about what we are supporting with our hard work and money. Because some of the things we are supporting are killing people... and hurting us. You buy a pair of sneakers at Wal-Mart, you get a good deal, right? But the people who made those sneakers were in all likelihood paid incredibly poorly, so their quality of life suffers. YOU get a crappy pair of sneakers, so your quality of life suffers. Thanks to everyone wanting to save a buck or two, the independent shoe store owner down the street went out of business, so his quality of life and that of his family suffers. Then he has to go work at Wal-Mart because his business tanked and he hates it so the customers suffer!
This is one example. My feeling is that what this is all about is admitting to ourselves that we are participating in a system that is stacked against nearly everyone in some way. And then find ways to withdraw support for that system. I read today that if the "Occupy Christmas" movement succeeded in curtailing the xmas spending frenzy it would cause global economic disaster! I think it's a little scary that so much depends on this season's spendaholicism that the economy would bottom out without it. What do you think?
|
Well thanks for the response. At least its not as crazy as I might have expected. Frankly though the "issue" is so broad that its impossible to have any tangible impact or results.
Specifically regarding the example of Wal-Mart, its a bad choice. The OWS movement seems to imply that they've uncovered these issues like this and no one pays attention...but the reality is that no one pays attention because its a problem that doesn't need fixing! Here, lets talk about Wal-Mart and their current status.
First of all did you know that Wal-Mart (WMT) has a supply chain code of conduct that specifically works to support workers rights, wages, no child labour, labour conditions, etc.? Probably not. Oh, and that supply chain code of conduct doesn't only apply to Wal-Mart and their employees; its actually two levels deep. That means its suppliers suppliers. This has more positive impact in the developing world than anyone camping in a public park ever will. Workers in these countries want to work for WMT because the conditions are better, the wages are better, and it affords a better standard of living as a result. This forces other employers to move to a similar style of employer-employee relation because if they want to keep employees they must follow this lead.
Second, I'll address the issues of the "local" or "independent" business. Firstly, they don't exist. I have no idea where you would go to buy shoes that are made anywhere near here. Lets consider Forzanis though. Good local corporation with Calgary roots and not the evil WMT that can't shake the child labour/sweat shop stigma. Well its the exact opposite problem. Forzanis was pressed through socially responsible investors for years to implement a supply chain code of conduct and refused to do so, or promised to do it and year after year failed to meet the standard. Is that the type of local business you would prefer?
There seems to be a romantic notion of small business being good and big business bad. Well here is a consideration: small business does everything it can to become big business! Thats the point. I also laugh because where do you draw the line between small and big business? If a guy works hard and expands to two cities is he "off the list"? Its a silly idea. Tim Hortons would likely be a bad company now, but when it started it would've been fine...even though its still selling coffee and doughnuts.
Lastly, the independent shoe retailer in your example wasn't run out of business by WMT. He closed because he wasn't making enough money. His customers felt his prices exceeded his value. Thats just economics 101. If you have a business and compete on price it better be the best price around. If you aren't competing in price you better have something else to offer to justify the higher prices, or go work for someone who does.