| |
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
|
|
| |
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, 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
|
|
| |
| |
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.
|
|
|
