To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 27861
27860  |  27862
Subject: 
Re: Massive Layoffs At Lego (in Enfield, CT)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:55:27 GMT
Viewed: 
3273 times
  
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



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Massive Layoffs At Lego (in Enfield, CT)
 
(...) 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 (...) (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'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 (...) (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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR