Ethical Shopping Means More than Comparing Price

[Devils'Advocate]

I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this yet.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...angladesh.html

So to do my research I went to the underwear section of the Bay.

The first ones I looked at were Calvin Kleins, two pairs for $30, or $15 a piece. They were made in Cambodia, the 186th richest country on earth out of the 229 recognized by the CIA Factbook. People in Cambodia make about $2,300 a year. They are only marginally richer than the people in Bangladesh. Tommy Hilfigers,at $17.50 a pair, were made in Indonesia, 157th richest on the list, where people earn about $5,000 a year. The most expensive ones I saw were branded Diesel at $40 a pair. They were made in India, 166th on the list, average income per person of $3,900 — less than Indonesia, but about twice the per capita income of Bangladesh.

Polo Ralph Lauren (Indonesia and China), Hugo Boss (Egypt), Jockey (Costa Rica), Joe Boxer (with Canadian flags; made in Thailand), were all manufactured in poor countries. Most importantly, there was no clear relationship between price and the poverty of the country where they were made. Nor was there any obvious correlation in quality. The strange exception in my little informal survey was the section I visited last.

Stanfield's underwear were the cheapest of them all at $30 for a pack of three, or 10 bucks each. Their label said they were made in Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada, which has an average income $41,500 per person, 27th richest on the planet.

I have been trying my damnedest to purchase everything that I can within Canada. So, yes, my underwear draw is full of Stanfields. Some of the Kodiak jeans at Marks are made in Canada. Some of Hanes socks are made in Canada. My New Balance sneakers are made in the U.S.. My winter jacket was made in Quebec and my spring jacket here in Ontario. Most, but not all are a little more expensive. And it's not that I don't agree with buying things from other countries. It's just that with buying things from Bangladesh or other impoverished country, you just don't know if about the safety conditions, the hiring practices of the company (ie child labour), or if they are paying slave wages.

But it reminded me of when I was talking to someone from Health Canada who said that Campbells Soup had asked HC to make some regulation regarding salt content in soup. Campbells wanted to do the right thing and reduce their salt content, but they were afraid that they would lose market share to other soup companies that were not willing to make the change. Few companies are willing to change to ethical practices unless forced to by law because they have to compete with companies that won't be inclined to change their behaviours.

[peter12]

Oh brother.

[Resolute 14]

Well, good thing you have Canadian health care, in case you should strain your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

At any rate, since when did "ethical shopping" ever mean comparing the price? I thought it was always about either not buying things from "those countries", or of buying only from companies who paid workers in "those countries" a decent wage?

[peter12]

Sweatshops are excellent things for the poor. Buy more goods from overseas, you protectionist xenophobe.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sweatshops are excellent things for the poor. Buy more goods from overseas, you protectionist xenophobe.

You studied political science from a conservative lens didn't you. Just like sweatshops were good things at turn of the industrial revolution. I think there is a middleground between profit and wages. Sweatshops are expolitative, but as long as countries allow them work will flow there.

It would take a international minimum wage or corporations to reduce profits from the goodness of their heart. Both almost entirely impossible in the current state.

[Regulator75]

Peter is just angry that his $1200.00 loafers cost a few cents more to be manufactured, as a pair of Wal-Mart knock off Crocs (I think they're called Dawgs or something).

[Northendzone]

My boys need a house, so I now roll in saxx.

[JohnnyB]

While low wages manufacturing in developing countries is good for a lot of people in those countries globalization means there is a lot more competition in all sorts of job markets to take away the privileged position of Western workers who have benefited from the strong economic and political positions of their governments internationally. When it comes to the middle and lower classes, globalization has meant that one group is fed at the expense of the other internationally. That seems to me a better ethical reason to buy locally, because sweat shops are economically advantageous for lots of poorer people who are nonetheless competition (not partners) in the manufacturing and exportable service job market.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I have been trying my damnedest to purchase everything that I can within Canada. So, yes, my underwear draw is full of Stanfields. Some of the Kodiak jeans at Marks are made in Canada.

I have one of those too.

[Boblobla]

So where are prodige (sp?) boxer briefs made? I have been wearing them for years. Costco ftw.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bonded

You studied political science from a conservative lens didn't you. Just like sweatshops were good things at turn of the industrial revolution. I think there is a middleground between profit and wages. Sweatshops are expolitative, but as long as countries allow them work will flow there.

It would take a international minimum wage or corporations to reduce profits from the goodness of their heart. Both almost entirely impossible in the current state.

Actually a very liberal perspective. I am not a conservative in any shape or form.

[Zarley]

I had no idea CBC's "business" section was this poorly written. Comparing the average income in these countries is worthless without adjusting for purchasing power.

[bizaro86]

How do you have that much time to shop for underwear?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Yeah I'm sure the kids in Bangladesh will be ecstatic when they're out of work back in the city dumpster.

Note to OP, not everyone has a cushy government (read: taxpayer funded) job.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by peter12

Actually a very liberal perspective. I am not a conservative in any shape or form.

Classical liberal? Unless you think that sweatshops will start the ball rolling on upward mobility in these countries or something along those lines.

Please elaborate, haven't had a good poli sci discussion in a while.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Note to OP, not everyone has a cushy government (read: taxpayer funded) job.

Neither do most Canadians, hence the buying of cheaper underwear. But, really the question is should these companies be allowed to exploit labour for increased profit margins. Technically, it does not have to be a zero sum game, wages could increased and profi margins eroded a bit.

[agulati]

I get the thought process behind not wanting to buy products manufactured in countries with low income. A case has to be made with incorporating cost parity in different countries. A litre of milk does not cost anywhere close to the same in Canada as it would in Bangladesh or Indonesia.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Neither do most Canadians, hence the buying of cheaper underwear. But, really the question is should these companies be allowed to exploit labour for increased profit margins. Technically, it does not have to be a zero sum game, wages could increased and profi margins eroded a bit.

But why should firms erase their margins when they could sell more product, and employ more people?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bonded

Classical liberal? Unless you think that sweatshops will start the ball rolling on upward mobility in these countries or something along those lines.

Please elaborate, haven't had a good poli sci discussion in a while.

Yes, classical liberal or libertarian. I was even a hallowed student of the infamous Tom Flanagan at an early point in my career. I have since ditched academica, but clung on ever fiercely to my liberalism.

The fact is, the OP can feel good about his underwear choices (yes, it is and should be laughable) but it doesn't change the fact that he is choosing to support unionized workers that are able to leverage their income into far greater opportunities than unemployed sweatshop workers ever will. Better to have these people employed (they wouldn't take the jobs if there were better alternatives) and allow them to use the surplus to send their kids to school (a phenomenon frequently observed in the developing world).

We also shouldn't be buying goods that we aren't good at producing. Ie. underwear, strawberries, sneakers, cars etc...

[SebC]

Ultimately the way to improve quality of life, globally, is to increase production, also globally. Efficient allocation of resources, including labour, achieves that, whereas inefficient allocation of labour, such as having Canadians making underwear, is a setback to the global economy.