ultra cheap gear

[wayno]

would you buy ultra cheap gear despite the fact the cheap pricemakes it likely its been made under sweatshop labour conditions?

[Clusterpod]

Poor Labour conditions and low environmental concerns.

[Strider]

It really depends on what I'm buying, most really cheap gear is no good anyway.

[Hallu]

You'd never know if it was made this way, it's not exactly a selling point. But I guess that everybody would like to know more about how and where what we buy is manufactured. Just like meat in Europe : give me the exact location in the producing country. I'd also like to know if the Chinese factory boss is an *&%$#! buying ivory for his wife and Chinese medicine made from tiger parts or rhinoceros horn for his cough, but I guess that would be too much to ask.

[Spartan]

A nice sentiment but perhaps not quite practical when put into service in the real world. As but one example, Bangladesh's economy is extremely fragile and is largely dependent on the 'sweatshop' industry. To do as some have suggested, and boycott products that are manufactured under such conditions, would likely lead to widespread economic collapse, which would then lead to even greater suffering.

By all means lobby for change those companies that employ such labour; for improved conditions and wages for dependent workers. But don't seek to impose a socio-economic 'cure' that would be potentially worse than the current 'disease'.

All the best.

[wayno]

if pepole are willing to pay more for gear then it increases the market for more expensive gear, and bangladesh will be able to make decent gear, make more money and pay more to their workers and have decent working conditions.... its up to those with the money to spend it to help improcve the situation, the third world provides the services that the first world are willing to use....

[colinm]

Australia is not the first world. We exist by mineral extraction alone, and before that by agriculture (until the UK joined the prototype EU.) The first world exists, mainly, by exploiting the third, as you suggest, and by monopolising capital.

Australia was conditioned to accept overpriced goods manufactured in the 1st world in exchange for underpriced raw materials, it was part of the colonial mode of production, and persisted well until the 1970s. What this has meant is that we are conditioned to accept low-quality goods for hugely inflated prices. When the production cost goes down in the country of origin, all that happens is the retail and wholesale margins go up at some point in the supply chain.

I would be prepared to pay more for goods if the increased cost (or any part of it) went to the exploited workers. What you might be measuring with the survey could be called the "Gerry Harvey Effect."

I think one way out of this might be that we (at least around here) will pay for what we perceive as high quality. There's no reason, a priori, that 3rd world production needs to be low quality. I suspect that the reason it is (perceived as) low quality is that the cost of production forms a very small part of the retail price of goods, so that price signal isn't getting to the places producing the goods, it's being swamped as a signal by the supply chain. I'm no economist, though, so I'm just guessing.

[wayno]

the material they are stitching together can be highly variable in quality... people complain about the price of gore tex but you are getting quality, theres a lot of generic materials out there now that try to perform like gore tex, some do don't fall well short and the durability of some also fall well short. so you buy some cheap clothes with an unknown material. then buyer beware

[corvus]

the material they are stitching together can be highly variable in quality... people complain about the price of gore tex but you are getting quality, theres a lot of generic materials out there now that try to perform like gore tex, some do don't fall well short and the durability of some also fall well short. so you buy some cheap clothes with an unknown material. then buyer beware

G'day Wayno,
Do you ever spell check or preview your posts
corvus

[andrewa]

Corvus, the spelling is fine.

I'm not aware that "punctuation check" exists.

A

[Ent]

Back to original post. The older I get the more I care about economic slavery. We should consider what we buy has cost the locals. If companies going after cheap labour are good corporate citizens and add to the development of the workforce then ok. But if it is chasing the cheapest price and they exploit and endanger workers then we have a moral obligation to not buy it.

One thing as an accountant I have found is businesses that work over their suppliers also work over their customers.

Regards

[wayno]

yup, i've worked for bosses like that before,,, thers no place for people like that

[Rico]

In my experience most of the cheap and the super expensive gear are made in the same factories... It all depends on how much the commissioner of the order is willing to pay, but the cheap Kmart stuff is done next to the North Face super fancy gear. Not even one dollar more goes to the workers.

Also I am all about human rights, the Bangladesh work conditions are a shame for all of us, but if you stop buying the "made in Bangladesh" products, you are damaging that country even more.

I always remember an interview to a Chinese politician I read maybe 15-20 years ago. When asked about the sweat shops he answered: our priority is to feed our people, you cannot think about human rights when people are starving. Well, it is sad but it is also true that today, after only few years, there are hundreds of millions of people in China enjoying a life style comparable to ours, a lot still need to be done, but they are working on it. It is sad and horrible, but would you prefer your child to work 12 hours a day in a unsafe factory in Pakistan or to starve to death in Kenya?

So what can we do? Well the secret is giving the third world people a chance to study and to grow. Instruction is the secret. I have a dear Vietnamese friend working as a teacher for a school in central Vietnam where they take orphan teens from the street, put them in a school for six months, teach them the basics of mathematic, writing skills, but also basic social habits like how to eat in public and how to dress in decent way, and after six months they go back in the street. Around 20% of them will eventually find a job in a sweat shop or in a local market selling chickens, the others are back in the street. In my opinion he is saving hundreds of lives sending peoples in sweat shops... What do you think? Would you sponsor a school that is training its best students to work in Central Vietnam factories, and all the others to beg in the street?

I understand that it is a very provocative question, but unfortunately just complaining on the life conditions of the poor kids or giving few dollars to a beggar when on holiday in a five stars hotel in Indonesia is not going to do much to a starving population. He is helping the lowest class going one step higher, I think it is admirable and I support him.

[wayno]

the manufacturing industry is estabilshed in some asian countries. the factory owners are making all the money, if the west who the clothes are made of demand minimum conditions, the factory owners will have to change. the industry isnt just going to evaporate because of higher demands....

[corvus]

Good post Rico I agree with your sentiments.
corvus

[wayno]

do you have any proof that a brand like The North Face makes its clothing in the same factory as the cheap generic brands?. i've heard comments like this before but i've never read anything that gave any proof of this...

[wayno]

according to these links, The North Face does not engage sweatshop factory conditions.
if they are operating in factories paying fair wages how can other brands be manufactured in the same factories and yet be so much cheaper?

http://expeditionsustainability.com/index.php?id=people

http://www.vfc.com/VF/corporation/resou ... ciples.pdf

[Rico]

Wayno, I am not saying that you are wrong, or trying to make a polemic. I thank you for bringing in this forum an ethic issue on the gear we use everyday. I am not saying that TNF is making their gear in sweat shops, I am saying that they use many of the same suppliers other brands use, including inexpensive ones. Workers cost money, to make cheap gear you need to invest big in expensive machines able to do the job of the workers much faster or much better. This means large factories and specialized experienced operators. Of course TNF uses large suppliers able to accomodate their numbers and able to deliver the quality they promise, it just happens that those are the same factories able to buy fabric and components and a cheaper price from their own suppliers because they do huge numbers, and they have the most efficient production, so they are able to deliver decent quality gear at a much cheaper price than the competition.

What I am saying is that the sweat shop factory is part of the process. I met once an Italian business man who used to make socks in Italy. He was just a medium size business owner, and he couldn't manage to compete with the biggest brands, so he decided to move to China 30 years ago. At the time the wages in China were unbelievably cheap, so he set up his company near one of the big ports. After only 3 years the wages became so high that he had to move his factory inland. He spent the following 25 years moving the factory in more and more remote areas of China, always looking for the best compromise between cost of transport and wages. He was the owner of a sweat shop, and they are the first ones opening the doors of businesses in places where no one else want to go. They are horrible places, but they are a necessary evil. What we should focus on is not to boicot the sweat shops, but to help to make the process as quick as possible so that new business people with better values will find convenient to move in the area. But better factories need specialized employees, or at least people that worked in factories before, it is hard for them to employ farmers. This is why I believe that instruction is the key.

It is like after a volcanic eruption... for thousand of years no vegetation can grow on the side of the vulcano, until some lichen starts to make the ground fertile again. Slowly, larger and more evolved form of vegetation start to replace the lichens. The solution is not to poison the lichens, but to help to fertilize the ground.

[wayno]

also comes down to the over population argument, too many people means employers can get away with charging very little, theres no shortage of people wanting jobs and the value of unskilled labour in the market place is next to nothing
after the plague in the middle ages, if you survived you could charge what you liked for your labour, there was a massive shortage of able bodied people

[neilmny]

There are many issues with this debate and there is a large element of damned if you do, damned if you don't as Rico pointed out some posts back.

The theory that if we pay more it will flow back to the workers is rediculous. A person who uses sweat shop labour is only interested in their own profits. What can be done is in the hands of the buyers from the various outlets. They should make the judgement as to whether or not the people making the products are being treated and payed in an appropriate manner. I doubt this will ever happen given that their job is to get as much as possible for as little as possible regardless of the consequences, ask the primary producers in our own country about it.

What needs to happen in those countries is some decent regulation that forces these parasites to either develop better conditions and wages for their workers or suffer severe penalties.

No matter how you look at it, some poor bugger is going to suffer from low or lack of income, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[wayno]

i think china varies a bit in the quality of its factories, but bangladesh, i get the impression its mainly if not all sweatshops, i cant rmember where that high rise factory collapsed whether it was india or bangladesh

[blacksheep]

that recent incident was Bangladesh ( see relevant link here http://www.smh.com.au/business/coles-ac ... 2osnb.html)
Perhaps this thread originates from a comment i made in regard to Aldi clothing? In that instance it is very easy to reverse engineer the pricing and see clearly that prosperity is not being shared. I really dislike buying that is blind to the externalities that result from "a bargain", but I accept to many it neither matters or perhaps occurs to them.

I hate (with passion) retailer groups like chicken feed, crazy clarks etc etc that are all about importing as much landfill as possible, for the lowest price possible and don't give a rats a$$ about the cost of that. I can't reconcile how people who run these types of businesses can feel anything but dirty for the disservice they do to environmental and social well being.

[wayno]

isnt chicken feed owned by jan cameron who now owns a part stake in Macpac?

[blacksheep]

isnt chicken feed owned by jan cameron who now owns a part stake in Macpac?

Yes, that is true. But there are many discount stores out there racing to the bottom, not just the ones Jan owns..

[wayno]

I'll buy a brand i recognise as making quality for the particular type of item i'm after and i'll pay the asking price for it...
i think if they are making top quality i'd like to think they are more likely to care about the conditions in the factory its being made in.
if something is rock bottom price its guaranteed to be made in a sweat shop

[Spartan]

Here's the thing: unless one understands the complete supply chain of a given brand/business, one really has no assurance that said brand/business isn't party to exploitative practices at some point or another along the process, whether by commission or omission. After all, clothing (and equipment) manufacture neither starts nor ends when the material is cut and stitched together, whether that be in Bangladesh, China, or Australia.

All the best.

[David M]

Australia is not the first world.

Australia is, without doubt, a First World country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World

We also do a huge amount more than just export rocks.

[Strider]

I suspect that the reason it is (perceived as) low quality is that the cost of production forms a very small part of the retail price of goods, so that price signal isn't getting to the places producing the goods, it's being swamped as a signal by the supply chain. I'm no economist, though, so I'm just guessing.

You don't need to be an economist for this one - it is the domain of the marketer.

[Rico]

True, the cost of production is around 15-25% of the RRP. This does not mean that someone is pocketing the remaining 85%. Freight, import duties and taxes, insurances, packaging, advertisement and branding, distribution costs, warranty, Quality Control etc are a very large part of the final value of the goods.
This is how economy of scale works: if you make one pair of shoes it will cost you $1000 and days of work between investing in tools, sourcing the material, learn how to do it, etc. If you make a million of pair of shoes, each pair will cost you $5. You will need to create a costly distribution network to sell all those shoes, and the price may arrive to $100 by the time they hit the shops. It doesn't means that the buyer is paying $100 for a $5 item, as the remaining $95 is going to pay the work of hundreds of people forming that distribution chain. Still it costs to the buyer much less than the $1000 he would need to make those same shoes by himself, the buyer is the one doing a bargain. It is the principle behind the industrial revolution of England, and we are using this technique for pretty much anything we produce today. Without it we would be still farming our own tomatoes (of course the system can be abused, but I am talking about the principle, not the exception).

Back to the subject... Even if the price was a sure indication of the provenience of an item, do you think that boycotting the sweat shop products you'd be doing a favour to the people being abused in those places? I mean, the reason why those poor people work in a sweat shop in the first place is because there is nothing else available... You shut down their factory and you make those people to starve... Once again, if you want to get rid of the sweat shop, give people a way to learn how to do a better paid job, and until you do, don't remove from them the only form of income they have.
Buying overpriced gear instead of cheap stuff will not improve the life of those people, not even a tiny bit, actually maybe it's the opposite...

[Strider]

I'm not sure that made sense. Consider this alternative explanation:

It costs $1000 to for everything needed to make one pair of shoes. If you make two pairs, the cost per unit of production reduces to $500 per pair of shoes. If you make 100 pairs, $10 per pair of shoes - and so on. Obviously I am ignoring variable costs here and using fixed costs only in this example.

FYI - Farming our own tomatoes is to do with job specialisation and trade, not economy of scale.