Subject:
|
Re: Massive Layoffs At Lego (in Enfield, CT)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:36:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3236 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Massive Layoffs At Lego (in Enfield, CT)
|
| This recent article on Sweden seemed relevant, though Denmark is compared somewhat favorably, I still wonder about the jobs numbers. (URL) retained the world's highest taxes, generous social security systems and a heavily regulated labor market, (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Massive Layoffs At Lego (in Enfield, CT)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Massive Layoffs At Lego (in Enfield, CT)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 23-Jun-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
