| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Harvey Henkelman wrote:
| |
I for one, would like to see the LEGO Group fail miserably, possibly even go
out of business.
|
Look, you are entitled to your own opinion, sunshine, but really. That is
about the stupidest comment I’ve read on LUGNET in a while. That is, unless
you are trolling, to which I say, “good one”, because you got me to bite.
JOHN
|
I wouldn’t call the comment stupid. I think it comes from a fan who feels let
down and now questions his support of the company that made the decision that
led to his disappontment.
I feel let down too. I don’t want to buy the Lego “brand” by buying bricks
actually made by some other company - really, what would be the difference
between that and buying any other clone brand?
I am sad that Lego is phasing out manufacutring and outsourcing more and more.
I hate the idea of poor people living in sub-standard conditions making a
product for the wealthy living in luxury. I think we tried that experiment
before and it was called slavery then.
So, although I don’t wish Lego to fail, I am no longer going to support their
business model by buying “their”/Flextronics’ products.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@charter.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Main wrote:
| |
I feel let down too. I don’t want to buy the Lego “brand” by buying bricks
actually made by some other company - really, what would be the difference
between that and buying any other clone brand?
|
The difference, of course, is that the facade of brand-purism would be torn
down, and fans would finally have to determine whether they’re purists because
it’s LEGO or because it’s made in Enfield. There may be a legitimate issue of
quality involved; if the new made-in-China bricks happen to be of lesser
quality, then purists may contend that there really is no difference between
LEGO and a clone. But if there’s no resulting differnce in quality, then the
notion of brand-purism becomes all the sillier.
Heck, aside from the brand name and the place of manufacture, there’s very
little difference between LEGO and some clones as it is!
| |
I am sad that Lego is phasing out manufacutring and outsourcing more and
more. I hate the idea of poor people living in sub-standard conditions making
a product for the wealthy living in luxury.
|
Isn’t TLG a privately-held company? If so, then what can be the possible
motivation for this move, other than greed? It’s not like they have to bow to
the wishes of their million public shareholders, after all!
| |
I think we tried that experiment
before and it was called slavery then.
|
Well, that might be expanding the argument beyond the current job-cuts, but if
you want to argue that wage-slavery is not, at its root, fundamentally different
from actual slavery, I’m happy to hear your argument (though some here might
accuse you of inciting class warfare).
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Main wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Harvey Henkelman wrote:
| |
I for one, would like to see the LEGO Group fail miserably, possibly even
go out of business.
|
Look, you are entitled to your own opinion, sunshine, but really. That is
about the stupidest comment I’ve read on LUGNET in a while. That is, unless
you are trolling, to which I say, “good one”, because you got me to bite.
JOHN
|
I wouldn’t call the comment stupid. I think it comes from a fan who feels
let down and now questions his support of the company that made the decision
that led to his disappontment.
I feel let down too. I don’t want to buy the Lego “brand” by buying bricks
actually made by some other company - really, what would be the difference
between that and buying any other clone brand?
I am sad that Lego is phasing out manufacutring and outsourcing more and
more. I hate the idea of poor people living in sub-standard conditions making
a product for the wealthy living in luxury. I think we tried that experiment
before and it was called slavery then.
So, although I don’t wish Lego to fail, I am no longer going to support their
business model by buying “their”/Flextronics’ products.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@charter.net
|
I’m sick to death of this equation of manufacturing in poor countries being
eqivalent to slavery/evil/whatever. It is quite possible for a company to employ
people at a good local income in a country where the cost of living is lower and
still save money. There are various reasons why the local costs may be lower
including undervalued currency or other more complex reasons. This isn’t to say
that China does not use wage-slave labour and other policies abhorrent to many
but it isn’t to say that the only reason it is cheaper because of this. In the
case of the Czech Republic any sort of wageslavery would be ILLEGAL and ENFORCED
by European Union law (yes, they are a member) so the argument is total rubbish.
To take an example of how cost saving can be achieved without resulting in
wageslavery consider the farming out of film industry labour to Australia and
New Zealand. No-one would ever argue that either of these countries employs
slave labour (in fact poor Australians and NZers enjoy a better standard of
living than poor USAmericans), particularly not in their film industries and yet
Hollywood could save significant amounts of money by using Aus or NZ workers for
their productions. Why is this? For one thing the Australian and NZ dollars are
typically undervalued due to their susceptibility to the underperforming Asian
marketplace. For another thing the cost of living in both countries is cheap due
to small populations, abundant natural resources and general natural wealth.
Thus they are cheaper.
As I have stated before this immediate jump that China=slave labour is plain and
simple nationalism and protectionism (with a touch of racism thrown in) dressed
up in nice clothing for those who like to think they are otherwise. I call bs.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Main wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Harvey Henkelman wrote:
| |
I for one, would like to see the LEGO Group fail miserably, possibly even
go out of business.
|
Look, you are entitled to your own opinion, sunshine, but really. That is
about the stupidest comment I’ve read on LUGNET in a while. That is, unless
you are trolling, to which I say, “good one”, because you got me to bite.
JOHN
|
I wouldn’t call the comment stupid. I think it comes from a fan who feels
let down and now questions his support of the company that made the decision
that led to his disappontment.
|
The bottom line is that TLG is a business, and they are doing whatever they feel
necessary to remain in business. Some bad business decisions? Perhaps, but to
blame TLG for not having perfect market vision is a little harsh. TLG is an old
school business; unique, in fact. There aren’t any “right answers” to advancing
their business model into the 21st century, except in hindsight. It is too easy
to post in a fangroup as armchair CEOs and criticize-- certainly most of the
pertinent facts are not at our disposal. Rants should be for expressing
frustration out of love for the brick, not out of malice. To me that’s
ignorant, stupid, whatever.
| |
I feel let down too. I don’t want to buy the Lego “brand” by buying bricks
actually made by some other company - really, what would be the difference
between that and buying any other clone brand?
|
I understand that the both of you feel let down. But that is a far cry from
wishing economic disaster upon literally 1,000s of (more) people. I noticed
that you didn’t agree with him; why not;-)
| |
I am sad that Lego is phasing out manufacutring and outsourcing more and
more. I hate the idea of poor people living in sub-standard conditions making
a product for the wealthy living in luxury. I think we tried that experiment
before and it was called slavery then.
|
No, the converse was tried numerous times and it failed (communism). The
current experiment is called capitalism and it is the most successful system
around.
Would you prefer poor people living in sub-standard conditions not working?
Yeah, multi-millionaires live a life of luxury. And they sail around in yachts.
But the fact is that 1,000,000s of people make a decent living
building/serving/catoring to these people.
| |
So, although I don’t wish Lego to fail, I am no longer going to support their
business model by buying “their”/Flextronics’ products.
|
That’s your perogative, and that’s fine by me. But wishing them failure is IMO
malicious and that for which is uncalled;-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
This recent article on Sweden seemed relevant, though Denmark is compared
somewhat favorably, I still wonder about the jobs numbers.
http://tinyurl.com/h48je
Quotes:
Sweden retained the world’s highest taxes, generous social security systems and
a heavily regulated labor market, which split the economy: Sweden is very good
at producing goods, but not at producing jobs.... Economic growth in Sweden in
the last 25 years has had no correlation at all with labor-market participation.
(In contrast, 1 percent of growth increases the number of jobs by 0.25 percent
in Denmark, 0.5 percent in the United States and 0.6 percent in Spain.)
Amazingly, not a single net job has been created in the private sector in Sweden
since 1950.
...
Johan Norberg is a Swedish writer and a senior fellow at the Centre for the New
Europe, a Brussels-based think-tank. He is the author of several books,
including In Defense of Global Capitalism (2003).
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Main wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal wrote:
|
|
| |
| |
I am sad that Lego is phasing out manufacutring and outsourcing more and
more. I hate the idea of poor people living in sub-standard conditions
making a product for the wealthy living in luxury. I think we tried that
experiment before and it was called slavery then.
|
No, the converse was tried numerous times and it failed (communism). The
current experiment is called capitalism and it is the most successful system
around.
Would you prefer poor people living in sub-standard conditions not working?
Yeah, multi-millionaires live a life of luxury. And they sail around in
yachts. But the fact is that 1,000,000s of people make a decent living
building/serving/catoring to these people.
|
Actually, I am glad that they have work, but I would prefer it not processing
raw materials for a foreign company so that people can have toys. There are
other ways they could be productive -- farming, for instance. Or producing
goods that could be utilized within their own economy. Just cheaply processing
goods that move out of their country has no long term gain.
Lego, as well as being a company concerned with improving profits also has a
value system that used to do them proud. Part of that value system led them to
build up their small hometown in Denmark and create an economy for it (not to
mention propelling the economy of their small country as a whole). They seem to
be abandoning those founding values.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@charter.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Main wrote:
I’m sick to death of this equation of manufacturing in poor countries being
eqivalent to slavery/evil/whatever. It is quite possible for a company to
employ people at a good local income in a country where the cost of living is
lower and still save money. There are various reasons why the local costs may
be lower including undervalued currency or other more complex reasons. This
isn’t to say that China does not use wage-slave labour and other policies
abhorrent to many but it isn’t to say that the only reason it is cheaper
because of this. In the case of the Czech Republic any sort of wageslavery
would be ILLEGAL and ENFORCED by European Union law (yes, they are a member)
so the argument is total rubbish.
|
Fair enough - cost savings can be achieved. If all this new work resulted in
standards of living increasing in the countries the jobs were farmed out to -
wouldn’t the wages then have to rise to compensate? Then what would be the
long-term benefit of a company doing this? Or, more likely, the jobs do not
improve the local economies because the finished product has no relevance to the
place that makes it. It is simply a processing place.
| |
To take an example of how cost saving can be achieved without resulting in
wageslavery consider the farming out of film industry labour to Australia and
New Zealand. No-one would ever argue that either of these countries employs
slave labour (in fact poor Australians and NZers enjoy a better standard of
living than poor USAmericans), particularly not in their film industries and
yet Hollywood could save significant amounts of money by using Aus or NZ
workers for their productions. Why is this? For one thing the Australian and
NZ dollars are typically undervalued due to their susceptibility to the
underperforming Asian marketplace. For another thing the cost of living in
both countries is cheap due to small populations, abundant natural resources
and general natural wealth. Thus they are cheaper.
|
I think there is a moral difference here -- films and toys are luxury
industries. They are farmed out to places where they can be made more cheaply,
but those places already have a subsistence economy without those industries.
Taking people away from the farm or their suffering local economies to make
something for someone else exploits the local workforce while at the same time
keeping them from working for their own subsistence.
| |
As I have stated before this immediate jump that China=slave labour is plain
and simple nationalism and protectionism (with a touch of racism thrown in)
dressed up in nice clothing for those who like to think they are otherwise. I
call bs.
|
The situation in China is bad. There are tons of agricultural workers being
drawn to cities to eek out a living. There is a tiny upper class and the
workers, but virtually no middle class. A middle class is crucial for a
manufacturing economy -- the people making the goods also need to be able to buy
the goods and grow their own economies -- not just process junk for foreign
investing companies (who have no ineterest in the local conditions, after all).
I am sad that Lego is going this route. I am also sad that they are basically
slowly giving up their own manufacturing in favor of outsourcing production. I
just don’t believe a company that doesn’t make anything is worth as much as a
company that does (this goes for countries too -- every country should have some
ag, some manufacturing, and some information tech). Balance.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@charter.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Main wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Main wrote:
I’m sick to death of this equation of manufacturing in poor countries being
eqivalent to slavery/evil/whatever. It is quite possible for a company to
employ people at a good local income in a country where the cost of living
is lower and still save money. There are various reasons why the local costs
may be lower including undervalued currency or other more complex reasons.
This isn’t to say that China does not use wage-slave labour and other
policies abhorrent to many but it isn’t to say that the only reason it is
cheaper because of this. In the case of the Czech Republic any sort of
wageslavery would be ILLEGAL and ENFORCED by European Union law (yes, they
are a member) so the argument is total rubbish.
|
Fair enough - cost savings can be achieved. If all this new work resulted in
standards of living increasing in the countries the jobs were farmed out to -
wouldn’t the wages then have to rise to compensate? Then what would be the
long-term benefit of a company doing this? Or, more likely, the jobs do not
improve the local economies because the finished product has no relevance to
the place that makes it. It is simply a processing place.
|
Yes the wages and costs would rise with time. The extra money generated in the
meanwhile can be used for internal job creation and raising of standards. If the
business costs become too high then the business can move to a new lower cost
location or choose to stay where it is if the increased sales from a globally
improving economy allow it.
| |
| |
To take an example of how cost saving can be achieved without resulting in
wageslavery consider the farming out of film industry labour to Australia
and New Zealand.
|
I think there is a moral difference here -- films and toys are luxury
industries. They are farmed out to places where they can be made more
cheaply, but those places already have a subsistence economy without those
industries. Taking people away from the farm or their suffering local
economies to make something for someone else exploits the local workforce
while at the same time keeping them from working for their own subsistence.
|
I don’t consider it moral to force people into agriculture or subsistence
living. The average quality of life in China is improving. The average quality
of life in the Czech Republic is improving. The reason it is improving is that
there is investment in the countries creating employment and income for the
country and the people within the country.
Furthermore if you are really concerned about damage to the agricultural economy
I would suggest lobbying to have farm subsidies removed in the USA and EU which
do far more harm to developing countries than the jobs created in manufacturing
and industry.
| |
| |
As I have stated before this immediate jump that China=slave labour is plain
and simple nationalism and protectionism (with a touch of racism thrown in)
dressed up in nice clothing for those who like to think they are otherwise.
I call bs.
|
The situation in China is bad. There are tons of agricultural workers being
drawn to cities to eek out a living. There is a tiny upper class and the
workers, but virtually no middle class. A middle class is crucial for a
manufacturing economy -- the people making the goods also need to be able to
buy the goods and grow their own economies -- not just process junk for
foreign investing companies (who have no ineterest in the local conditions,
after all).
|
I don’t know where you get this information but I think you’ll find that there
is a large (and growing) middle class in China. Who do you think internet
companies like Google and mobile telecom companies are targetting? They rely on
a large middle class population to survive. The ultrarich aren’t certainly
keeping Google afloat.
| |
I am sad that Lego is going this route. I am also sad that they are
basically slowly giving up their own manufacturing in favor of outsourcing
production. I just don’t believe a company that doesn’t make anything is
worth as much as a company that does (this goes for countries too -- every
country should have some ag, some manufacturing, and some information tech).
Balance.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@charter.net
|
Balance is easy to talk about coming from a country with abundant land and raw
materials. Try balancing in Finland or Switzerland or China. It is sad the
American and Danish people are losing their jobs but I’d rather the money go to
someone who needs it more in China or the Czech Republic.
Tim
|
|
| |
Re: LEGO migrating production to Singapore
Harvey Henkelman wrote:
| |
In China, as well as other third world countries, it’s always easier to deal
with
|
Thomas Main wrote:
| |
I hate the idea of poor people living in sub-standard conditions making
a product for the wealthy living in luxury.
|
I’d just like to toss in that Singapore is a first world country, not a third
world country. It’s more urbanized than Tokyo, a heck of a lot cleaner than New
York (where I live), and it has one of the
highest
per capita GDPs in the world. Go visit! It’s a nice place.
Sean
- - -
Sean Kenney
(Very sad to see his friends at TLG go, although glad Jorgen Vig is looking long
term.)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Main wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Main wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal wrote:
|
|
| |
| |
I am sad that Lego is phasing out manufacutring and outsourcing more and
more. I hate the idea of poor people living in sub-standard conditions
making a product for the wealthy living in luxury. I think we tried that
experiment before and it was called slavery then.
|
|
|
There’s a difference: no one is forcing workers in China to go work for these
factories. In fact, the hierarchy in China as far as desirable places to work:
American company
European company
Japan/Korean company (a perceived step down to this level)
Taiwan company
(Mainland) Chinese company
| |
| |
Would you prefer poor people living in sub-standard conditions not
working? Yeah, multi-millionaires live a life of luxury. And they sail
around in yachts. But the fact is that 1,000,000s of people make a decent
living building/serving/catoring to these people.
|
Actually, I am glad that they have work, but I would prefer it not processing
raw materials for a foreign company so that people can have toys. There are
other ways they could be productive -- farming, for instance.
|
Mankind has spent its existence making activities, especially farming, more
efficient. When the USA came into existence over 200 years ago, the majority of
the residents were farmers. Today, less than 3% are, yet those 3% can supply
enough food to feed the other 97%. That frees up people to do other things,
like make goods for themselves and others.
The reason farmers in China flock to the big cities looking for work, is the
same as in the US 100 years ago: working in a factory is a better job than being
a farmer. Maybe it’s pay, maybe it’s working conditions, but it’s a better job.
| |
Or producing
goods that could be utilized within their own economy. Just cheaply
processing goods that move out of their country has no long term gain.
|
China has large tariffs on foreign goods. Foreign-made products cost 25-50%
more. Lego, for example: when I was living in China and needed a Lego fix, I
had to pay 25-40% more over the cost of the US price of a set. I remember a
foreign-made box of breakfast cereal was also about 50% higher.
The way around that is to have a facility in China that employs Chinese workers.
It keeps in China a certain percentage of the money you get from a sale, so the
government doesn’t make you pay the tariffs. (If I remember correctly, the same
thing happened here in the US with import car manufacturers, which is why Honda,
Toyota, BMW, etc. have plants here.) Not only that, but because you aren’t
paying transportation costs to import, the product is cheaper inside China.
When I was in China, Best-Lock products were dirt-cheap, much cheaper than here,
because they are made in China. Many companies that are relocating part of
their manufacturing to China, aren’t doing it wholly for cost; they are doing it
to gain wider access (through cheaper prices) to the largest market,
population-wise, in the world.
By working for a higher-paying foreign-run factory, the Chinese worker has more
money to spend; because these products are being made in China, the price is
cheaper. So they ARE producing goods that are utilized within their own
country.
(And because the goods come from a foreign company, the Chinese perceive the
quality to be better; if they can afford to spend money on it, they will. So
while Lego products are currently prohibitively expensive for all but the rich,
with this change, they will become more accessible to the middle-class Chinese.
And yes, there is a middle class in China...not to the extent there is in the US
or Europe yet, but give them time, they’ll get there.)
One more thing I’ve seen people complaining about is a possible lack of quality
by outsourcing. That’s totally up to TLG. There’s a perception that things
made in China are cheap, just because they are made in China; the fact is, you
can get a quality product there if you want it. The problem is that people who
move there for lower-cost manufacturing may also cut costs other ways, by
lowering their tolerances for an acceptable product. If TLG maintains its
standard of quality (probably the main thing that really sets them apart from a
clone), we won’t notice.
(As an example, I had an American co-worker in China who was trying to swing a
deal for his dad’s company. He hooked up with a rep for a factory in China that
sold drill and router bits. The company could supply various qualities of bits.
Top quality was what they supplied to a big-name American tool manufacturer that
usually made their products in America. Next was what they sold to off-brand
American tool companies. The next grade was what they sold domestically. The
differences in grade were based on how tight they set their tolerances on their
manufacturing equipment.)
The bigger concern, in my mind, is what Jim Hughes theorized: that this
outsourcing is a precursor to Kjeld selling off TLG. He indicated at last
year’s Brickfest that Lego would remain in private hands, so we’ll see.
Doug
|
|
| |
| |
I don’t know where you get this information but I think you’ll find that
there is a large (and growing) middle class in China. Who do you think
internet companies like Google and mobile telecom companies are targetting?
They rely on a large middle class population to survive. The ultrarich aren’t
certainly keeping Google afloat.
|
Definitely China has a massive and booming middle class. the current generation
of children are called the spoiled ones, because parents in the big cities (by
law) are having only one child and giving them everything they didn’t have while
growing up in the cultural revolution. Summer condos, hang gliding clubs, Tony
Romas are everywhere. the deliberately devalued RMB (their currency) keeps
saleries low and buying power unbelievably high. It is probably a short time
before more lego and mB products are sold in China than any other country.
|
|
|
