Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arachno-capitalist]

As a cost minimizing, profit maximizing entity, they cut costs (labor) assuming they have already found the optimal price point. There is no accounting method to recognize lost potential revenue because of moral objections to their production methods. This is an observable phenomenon, not a philosophical question. Studies have found that in cases where protests and political pressures succeed in closing these factories, the result is decreased wages, increased unemployment, and increased prostitution.
Its just one of those things where we all wish we were in a world where this was not the case, pressures to close swatshops are from people wishing to do good, but instead have negative effects.

[Doc]

A business will lower prices because consumers won't buy their products, effectively in that case the consumer is saying 'No I won't buy this because it is too expensive'. I don't see why it shouldn't able to work in the other direction with consumers saying 'I won't buy this because it isn't expensive enough and that extra money should be going to your employees.' I admit that's a much more complicated equation to balance since not all customers are willing to pay more for a moral issue and you'd have to figure out which group is more profitable to satisfy but I can't understand why one way is the way business works and the other isn't since it just seems like the same force going in different directions to me.

[theinevitable]

there's only one solution I can see:

MASSIVE, OVERARCHING GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

[Arachno-capitalist]

... you'd have to figure out which group is more profitable to satisfy

They already have.

... but I can't understand why one way is the way business works and the other isn't since it just seems like the same force going in different directions to me.

Ive heard this suggestion before, you essentially want to tip the worker to help them out. A supply chain is a series of costs that terminate at the consumer. Its not set up where you can push money from the consumer up the chain to the factory worker. Like you can tip a waitress for good service, but not a farmer for growing a really good salad you had at the restaurant.

[Doc]

Ive heard this suggestion before, you essentially want to tip the worker to help them out. A supply chain is a series of costs that terminate at the consumer. Its not set up where you can push money from the consumer up the chain to the factory worker. Like you can tip a waitress for good service, but not a farmer for growing a really good salad you had at the restaurant.

But businesses will change their model if they think it will be more profitable. I don't know about over there but, as a big example, McDonalds over here makes a big deal in all it's advertising that they use '100% Australian Beef', that's something they do to appeal to a certain part of their consumer base which they've obviously decided will generate them more profit than sourcing their beef elsewhere. I don't see how that's fundamentally different to some company advertising as 'All employees paid a socially responsible wage' or some other nonsense. They're both choosing to incur a greater expense at one end of the chain because they have decided it will ultimately net them greater profits.
I'm not saying it's practical on a large scale since I don't think that many people base their shopping on social responsibility or whatever but there are certainly smaller operations that  do it, all those 'free trade' brands for example. Basically I don't see what is invalid about a consumer saying 'I don't wish to deal with you because I don't like this about your product.' The fact that what they like is an aspect of the manufacturing process and not inherent to the product itself doesn't seem relevant, it's just a matter of there being enough people who want a particular thing to make it worthwhile for the business to change their practice.

[theinevitable]

see also: American Apparel. sweatshop free.

also: contest to find america's best hipster ass.

[Doc]

They already have.

I guess this is the real point, the 'socially responsible' demographic isn't profitable at this point, which is fine. I'm just arguing that the flaw is in lack of numbers, not a fundamental flaw in the idea of boycotting a place which is just a way of trying to artificially create market pressure (is that the right term?).

[theinevitable]

also:

when people don't buy products because they think the product is shitty, don't companies figure out how to improve those products?

what do the companies do after they shut down these sweatshops due to political pressure? have no factories, or open non-sweatshop factories?

[Toaster]

also: contest to find america's best hipster ass.

Oh my gods. OH MY GODS.

You get a can.

FOR THOSE CANS.

[Arachno-capitalist]

TT is now about hipster asses.

[Toaster]

I know girls who have nice asses! And they are hipsters. Maybe they will do this?

#ifeeldirtyandilikeit

[AugustWest]

see also: American Apparel. sweatshop free.

also: contest to find america's best hipster ass.

Best. Link. EVAR.

[Arachno-capitalist]

2 Grand Prize Winners will receive the following:
(i) Roundtrip coach airfare from the major airport nearest the winner's home to Los Angeles, California for a stay of 3 days/2 nights with standard room hotel accommodations (double occupancy) at the Standard Hotel in Downtown Los Angeles (or a similar accommodation) and ground transportation to and from the airport in Los Angeles. All other expenses, including without limitation, local transportation and meals, are the sole obligation of the Grand Prize Winner.
(ii) a photo shoot.
(iii) panty grab bag.

They really went all out on this one. Talk about a sweatshop amirite!

[Doc]

(iii) panty grab bag.

That phrase troubles in a way I can't quite express.

[Toaster]

Wait, if I'm reading this right: There are gonna be two winners, and they are gonna share the same room? Hot!