People work in 'sweat shops' because it's their best option. The worst thing you can do is boycott them which makes their available choices even worse.
The best thing you can do is buy their cheap stuff which means more demand for labor which drives up wages. This is all very simple.
This is misguided at best.
If you really want to help the plight of Chinese laborers, buy Chinese.
But what you really want to do is always buy the cheapest product for the value. Because the cheapest product is liable to be made by someone somewhere with the worst working conditions and raising demand for their work is the only sustainable way to help their standard of living.
I disagree. But then I consider intangibles part of any P&L statement, too. Too many people forget that intangibles sell, and that suppliers must heed them. That's one of the reasons Marx, et al, were wrong. ^_^
Nothing to disagree with. If you don't buy their stuff they will be worse off. You may feel better if you don't consider what you're doing.
What intangibles? Do you think the pool of peasants working in worse situations that these 'sweat shop' workers are drawn from aren't considering intangibles as well as tangibles? Do you really want them not to even have the choice of working in that 'sweat shop'? That's all you would accomplish. "Sorry man, you keep working that hoe so I can feel caring!"
I'm pretty sure they would not appreciate your 'sympathy' if you asked them and would probably have something to say about the intelligence of Americans;)
*Nod* It is true that I want to create an economy where a state-run capitalism like Chinese or the old Soviet-style collectives (or their dire enemies, fascist governments where corporations are the senior partners) have to treat their workers better so that they can compete globally. It runs parallel to my desire to encourage altruism.
But then the same would apply in this country, too.
or their dire enemies, fascist governments where corporations are the senior partners
Haha I love satire:D
It runs parallel to my desire to encourage altruism.
The best way to encourage altruism is to be altruistic. In this case that means buying their stuff so one more peasant's standard of living will be improved.
If you don't you're making their progress that much slower. The more they have the more they can buy and the greater the demand for the stuff they make which drives up prices, etc, etc. The way they have more is by making more stuff that people want. If you apply your standards and don't buy Chinese (which is your choice of course) then you're disemploying Chinese and retarding their capital formation. You would be responsible for worsening the very thing you're concerned with.
The other way they can have more is when they figure out we're never going to pay them back and stop giving us money;p
And don't worry about them competing globally. They are doing quite well and will do better, as we will find out.
China can't deliver what I want, though. (And you're right about them globally, they've been buying Africa since the 1980s.)
I want things like these: * Phone that works * Can browse the internet * Stable operating system * Employs well-treated workers who won't go Libya * A robust domestic taxpayer economy that can give me roads and bridges * A robust domestic manufacturing economy that won't leave my military at the mercy of Italian bootmakers Far Eastern electronics.
China can only meet some of those deliverables.
So why in the world would I not want to use capitalist market forces (including consumer tastes and preferences) to get the deliverables I want? I am confuzzled. ^_^
Well you would. And you would do that by buying their stuff. Not buying their stuff is retarding all of those things.
On a larger scale it's like embargoing Cuba because they treat their people poorly. Having created a state where the primary way to wealth is stealing from each other there is no more wealth. The only way they can treat their people better having more resources/wealth to do so and that only happens is by employing market forces and that would be by trading with them.
Castro didn't suffer. He was the chief thief. But our embargo sure as hell made his victims suffer. We Americans sure are caringYour intentions can only be as noble as the actual consequences of your actions, and the consequences of a boycott of Iphones made in China is worse off Chinese
( ... )
I agree that subsidies and tariffs are bad. I much prefer social pressure (e.g., "Buy American"). Anyhow, like I said above, China isn't giving me all that I want -- So it makes sense to not settle for a bare minimum that only meets the "cheapest available" criterion. (Don't worry, we Americans commonly sub to that fallacy, hence why TQM, etc., fought it.)
Think of it like physics: The encouragement to buy here is one of many additive vectors. If the contribution from price, cost, percent of needs met, etc, is far greater in other directions, it's insignificant. But I'm upping the 'strength' of that particular vector.
It's not a binary approach. Hmm... you ever study physics? If not, this analogy may not be effective. :(
I was well into a physics major before I got seduced by computer science.
The analogy isn't apt however.
If you want to spend your money elsewhere you should. But if you want to help Chinese workers you buy Chinese stuff that workers make.
So it makes sense to not settle for a bare minimum that only meets the "cheapest available" criterion.
Reductio. Cheapest available of the stuff that you want. You're implying that I'm saying cheap is the only criteria, which is absurd. Sand is cheap but it's not edible. Only the people that want it know how much they want it.
(Don't worry, we Americans commonly sub to that fallacy, hence why TQM, etc., fought it.)What fallacy and what does TQM have to do with it? Or is this still the same reductio
( ... )
And for the record, both TQM and it's inheritor Six Sigma (and predecessor in Lean) place a premium on "value". Value being a term that can only be defined by the customer (rather than management) and generally being a mixture of (Product Quality*Service)/(Cost*Time) or something like that.
Value is a far better term than cheap. As you pointed out sand is a cheap form of food, but has a non-existant value. Caviar, from the standpoint of the conesseur, has a very high value, but is far from cheap.
Never heard of Lean. I assume that's an acronym? I'll look it up.
Yeah sometimes people get lost in the argument when you talk about the price mechanism and think we're talking 'cheap' for cheap's sake.
I should have included the parenthetical in the following:
If you pay more for something than you could have (for equivalent goods of equivalent quality) then resources are wasted because you have rewarded the less efficient use of resources.
But that can be the other way. If you buy lower quality goods when you could have gotten better quality goods for the same price you are wasting resources.
*Nod* I guess that's what I'm trying to note -- the "value" to me of the goods includes a lot of the factors I listed above, and I'm willing to pay a little more if it gives me more of what I seek.
Lean is not an acronym, nor is it meant to mean "skinny" or "deprived" in the physical sense. Originally it came about as an antonym to the concept of Mass Production.
If Mass Production is leveraging economy of scales to build as much as you can, for in theory a "cheap-cost-per-unit" and then using marketing and massive distribution chains to move product onto consumers. Lean Production is the opposite, building just what is needed, when it is needed, in exactly the way the people want, as close as to where they need it.
There are arguments for both approaches, but take it from me. The Mass Production advocates are wrong. =)
Well from a Machiavellian standpoint, if your expressed intent is to increase the misery and suffering of the Chinese, in hopes of agitating them into a Jeans & Soap of dashed-expectations revolution ala the USSR; then not buying Iphones would actually be the best thing to do.
But I have a feeling that Glas is not invoking Machiavelli here, and if his intents are other than *solely* the welfare of the Chinese workers, those other criteria may weight his selction choice differently. Many vectors to consider rather than one.
Well of course. But that didn't work for Cuba or Iran did it? I might have had a different opinion before we had more evidence that doesn't work than does work. It might because China has similar cultural heterogeneity, but we would still be taking a big risk and causing a lot of suffering in the hopes it might work.
If it's my choice to make I'd go the enrich the people method even though their rulers gain, than impoverish the people method in the hopes they will not bear the suffering. For one reason they will blame us for the latter. And be right to do so.
Cuba certainly not, perhaps because the sanctions leak like a sieve. Iran the sanctions toughened in the two years leading up to the Green Revolution. Coincidence...perhaps but harder to separate.
The trick with all of these is they are all very circumstance dependent, and just one of many possible tricks in the foreign policy bag.
If it's my choice to make I'd go the enrich the people method even though their rulers gain, than impoverish the people method in the hopes they will not bear the suffering. For one reason they will blame us for the latter. And be right to do so.What you prefer is becoming an emerging concept that is buying some credibiltiy. Essentially you *hyper-charge* consumerism in the *hopes* that expectations will rise faster than authoritarian regimes can accomodate them. Where that friction occurs is where revolution will spark
( ... )
The best thing you can do is buy their cheap stuff which means more demand for labor which drives up wages. This is all very simple.
This is misguided at best.
If you really want to help the plight of Chinese laborers, buy Chinese.
But what you really want to do is always buy the cheapest product for the value. Because the cheapest product is liable to be made by someone somewhere with the worst working conditions and raising demand for their work is the only sustainable way to help their standard of living.
Reply
I disagree.
But then I consider intangibles part of any P&L statement, too.
Too many people forget that intangibles sell, and that suppliers must heed them.
That's one of the reasons Marx, et al, were wrong.
^_^
Reply
What intangibles? Do you think the pool of peasants working in worse situations that these 'sweat shop' workers are drawn from aren't considering intangibles as well as tangibles? Do you really want them not to even have the choice of working in that 'sweat shop'? That's all you would accomplish. "Sorry man, you keep working that hoe so I can feel caring!"
I'm pretty sure they would not appreciate your 'sympathy' if you asked them and would probably have something to say about the intelligence of Americans;)
Reply
*Nod*
It is true that I want to create an economy where a state-run capitalism like Chinese or the old Soviet-style collectives (or their dire enemies, fascist governments where corporations are the senior partners) have to treat their workers better so that they can compete globally. It runs parallel to my desire to encourage altruism.
But then the same would apply in this country, too.
Reply
Haha I love satire:D
It runs parallel to my desire to encourage altruism.
The best way to encourage altruism is to be altruistic. In this case that means buying their stuff so one more peasant's standard of living will be improved.
If you don't you're making their progress that much slower. The more they have the more they can buy and the greater the demand for the stuff they make which drives up prices, etc, etc. The way they have more is by making more stuff that people want. If you apply your standards and don't buy Chinese (which is your choice of course) then you're disemploying Chinese and retarding their capital formation. You would be responsible for worsening the very thing you're concerned with.
The other way they can have more is when they figure out we're never going to pay them back and stop giving us money;p
And don't worry about them competing globally. They are doing quite well and will do better, as we will find out.
Reply
China can't deliver what I want, though.
(And you're right about them globally, they've been buying Africa since the 1980s.)
I want things like these:
* Phone that works
* Can browse the internet
* Stable operating system
* Employs well-treated workers who won't go Libya
* A robust domestic taxpayer economy that can give me roads and bridges
* A robust domestic manufacturing economy that won't leave my military at the mercy of Italian bootmakers Far Eastern electronics.
China can only meet some of those deliverables.
So why in the world would I not want to use capitalist market forces (including consumer tastes and preferences) to get the deliverables I want?
I am confuzzled. ^_^
Reply
On a larger scale it's like embargoing Cuba because they treat their people poorly. Having created a state where the primary way to wealth is stealing from each other there is no more wealth. The only way they can treat their people better having more resources/wealth to do so and that only happens is by employing market forces and that would be by trading with them.
Castro didn't suffer. He was the chief thief. But our embargo sure as hell made his victims suffer. We Americans sure are caringYour intentions can only be as noble as the actual consequences of your actions, and the consequences of a boycott of Iphones made in China is worse off Chinese ( ... )
Reply
I agree that subsidies and tariffs are bad.
I much prefer social pressure (e.g., "Buy American").
Anyhow, like I said above, China isn't giving me all that I want --
So it makes sense to not settle for a bare minimum that only meets the "cheapest available" criterion.
(Don't worry, we Americans commonly sub to that fallacy, hence why TQM, etc., fought it.)
Think of it like physics:
The encouragement to buy here is one of many additive vectors.
If the contribution from price, cost, percent of needs met, etc, is far greater in other directions, it's insignificant.
But I'm upping the 'strength' of that particular vector.
It's not a binary approach.
Hmm... you ever study physics?
If not, this analogy may not be effective. :(
Reply
The analogy isn't apt however.
If you want to spend your money elsewhere you should. But if you want to help Chinese workers you buy Chinese stuff that workers make.
So it makes sense to not settle for a bare minimum that only meets the "cheapest available" criterion.
Reductio. Cheapest available of the stuff that you want. You're implying that I'm saying cheap is the only criteria, which is absurd. Sand is cheap but it's not edible. Only the people that want it know how much they want it.
(Don't worry, we Americans commonly sub to that fallacy, hence why TQM, etc., fought it.)What fallacy and what does TQM have to do with it? Or is this still the same reductio ( ... )
Reply
Value is a far better term than cheap. As you pointed out sand is a cheap form of food, but has a non-existant value. Caviar, from the standpoint of the conesseur, has a very high value, but is far from cheap.
Tim C.
Reply
Yeah sometimes people get lost in the argument when you talk about the price mechanism and think we're talking 'cheap' for cheap's sake.
I should have included the parenthetical in the following:
If you pay more for something than you could have (for equivalent goods of equivalent quality) then resources are wasted because you have rewarded the less efficient use of resources.
But that can be the other way. If you buy lower quality goods when you could have gotten better quality goods for the same price you are wasting resources.
Reply
*Nod*
I guess that's what I'm trying to note -- the "value" to me of the goods includes a lot of the factors I listed above, and I'm willing to pay a little more if it gives me more of what I seek.
Reply
If Mass Production is leveraging economy of scales to build as much as you can, for in theory a "cheap-cost-per-unit" and then using marketing and massive distribution chains to move product onto consumers. Lean Production is the opposite, building just what is needed, when it is needed, in exactly the way the people want, as close as to where they need it.
There are arguments for both approaches, but take it from me. The Mass Production advocates are wrong. =)
Tim C.
Reply
But I have a feeling that Glas is not invoking Machiavelli here, and if his intents are other than *solely* the welfare of the Chinese workers, those other criteria may weight his selction choice differently. Many vectors to consider rather than one.
Tim C.
Reply
If it's my choice to make I'd go the enrich the people method even though their rulers gain, than impoverish the people method in the hopes they will not bear the suffering. For one reason they will blame us for the latter. And be right to do so.
Reply
The trick with all of these is they are all very circumstance dependent, and just one of many possible tricks in the foreign policy bag.
If it's my choice to make I'd go the enrich the people method even though their rulers gain, than impoverish the people method in the hopes they will not bear the suffering. For one reason they will blame us for the latter. And be right to do so.What you prefer is becoming an emerging concept that is buying some credibiltiy. Essentially you *hyper-charge* consumerism in the *hopes* that expectations will rise faster than authoritarian regimes can accomodate them. Where that friction occurs is where revolution will spark ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment