Great...more sweatshop production - I already feel incredibly guilty and pretty shite about owning a couple of outdoor garments produced in sweatshops.
I guess I won't be buying a Minaret after all.
Personally, I prefer to pay more if it means people are getting a fair wage for producing stuff.
I wonder how much benefit the consumer will get from this move - I'd question how far Berghaus, for example, have passed on savings to customers when they're happy to charge £25 for a T-Shirt.
Why should you assume that products made in Asia are made in sweatshop factories. Have you any idea how demeaning that is? The economies in these countries are developing and the wage costs are much lower, but that doesn't mean that all workers in all factories in Asia are being exploited. Japan? Hong Kong? Taiwan? the 'Asian Tiger?
In a hypothetical situation put the boot on the other foot and start paying UK prices for goods and services when you're off being a 'world traveller' in your gap year.
It doesn't really matter if products are made in Asian sweetshops or Northumbrian sweatshops.
Point is, whoever benefits from the cost savings of shifting production to other countries, it doesn't always seem to be the consumer or the newly redundant worker. Shipping companies nust be doing well out of it, though.
Well thats a different issue and one I sympathise with, but I don't see what we can do about it, this is a continuing trend. Eventually of course their economies will catch up and they will find themselves in the same position, China will be the next boom economy they reckon. However the products are still being made and we will be able to buy them. Jobs are still there its just that Asian people will benefit not New Zealanders.
Erm, no mate. It's not a demeaning comment, but the fact that people work in sweatshops IS demeaning. The fact is, companies move production to Asia because it's cheap labour. Do you seriously think that production would move to a factory in Japan - a country who's economy, and wages are as strong as those in the West?
The people working in Sweatshops certainly don't benefit from low wages, and nor does the country's econemy. The number of times I've heard the old "but at least they have jobs" argument is laughable, and I'm sorry to say this, but just plain ignorant. The "what can I do about it" line is equally annoying.
Companies who move production to Asia contract to factories in free trade zones in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and so on and so forth - simply because the staff are paid next to sod all (they also don't have benefits, unions, they're forced to work long hours etc.), and thus save the company who has moved production a hell of a lot of money.
I'm not saying that this (moving production) shouldn't happen, I'm saying that the companies who do this - especially the larger corporations such as Nike, Reebok, Adidas and so on - should pay the companies they contract for production a fair price, and should force the contractors to pay their employees a fair wage, and treat them as people.
If the larger companies start, then the others will have to follow suit.
Unfortunately, I haven't got much time to give you the facts at the moment, as I'm at work, but I'll try and post some more in depth information over the weekend about sweatshop production.
Oi ignorant one. The wages paid in factories where European or Western companies have relocated are not by definition low. They are lower (than European wage costs). They might be low to you living in a western economy but in comparison with the average wage in those countries they are high. So they are lower than here but not low or exploitative. Do you get it?
To compare them to western wages is disingenuous, for want of a better word, and pointless. Of course the wages are low by our standards. But even in the context of their own economy, the wages are incredibly low. A majority of the wages paid in factories in FTZs are below the 'poverty line', so that in fact, the workers can barely afford to live. They can work shifts up to, and over 20 hours per day, are subject to beatings, and live in conditions worse than you or I can possibly comprehend (for example, 7 or 8 people sharing a small concrete room, with no beds and so on). Armed guards are common in and around the factories, to keep order, and the H&S standards are appaling at best. As I said, I'll happily post some decent information when I get the time.
On reading my previous post, it does come accross as a little patronising, for which I appologise - I'm trying to type in haste, and posting in forums can often give the wrong impression of emotion etc. I mean no intentional offence :)
Anyway, I digress. I've done a little research, and found that Macpac will contract a factory in the Phillipines to produce their backpacks, and a factory in China for their clothes. Unfortunately, both countries guilty of having sweatshops.
Ok, I am not unaware of some of the appalling conditions which exist in some of the countries to which western companies relocate. However, unless the information you are about to post applies directly to Macpac and their intended relocation then the point I wanted to make is still valid. It is, that not all factories in Asian economies are sweatshops, not all employers in Asian economies exploit an maltreat their employees and not all wages and living conditions in Asian economies are as appaling as you describe. To assume that they are is demeaning to the people of that country as it alludes to a stereotype. I want to add something here about the nature of economic development. Economies develop most quickly when there is inward investment in them. Not to invest in developing economies condemns the people of those countries to a downward spiral of poverty and an ever widening gap between themselves and the developed economies of the world. Further I want to say that the response of the developed world in the post-war period has been to offer aid to these countries as a sop to their conscience and as part of the political games played. If it turns out that Asian countries are able to develop their economies through inward investment attracted by lower production costs, and that in so doing this finally begins to close the gap between the developed and developeing economies of the world then I for one feel it cannot come soon enough; and the irony of the mechanism of captalism is not lost on me.
Fair point mate - while it may be true that not all factories in Asia are sweatshops, a vast majority are (in China, Vietnam, the Pillippines, etc.), since they are operating in FTZs (where many labour laws are essentially ignored), and companies generally outsource production to these factories precisly because of the cheap labour/rapid production ratio.
However, I'll try and find out which factories/companies Macpac have outsourced to. At the moment, it's speculation, but I would think that Macpac will use many of the same factories that Nike et al outsource to, since most factories contract for many different western companies at once.
I'm in no way against investing in foreign economies - quite the opposite. The point I'm trying to put accross (admitedly probably not articulated in the best possible way), is that we should be investing fairly. Whilst paying "western wages" defeats the point of outsourcing (although I'm a huge believer in social/economic/ethnic/racial/sexual/etc. etc. etc. equality throughout the world, regardless of country, economy and so on, and am equally repulsed by the behemoth western/developing countries poverty gap, and the fact that we exploit developing countries to feed our own repugnant avarice), I don't think that they [companies] should take advantage of the situation and exploit, but should, at the very least, fight for fair wages relative to the country's economy, along with all the workers rights we are entitled to in 'the west'.
I find it pretty disgraceful that companies (and we, indirectly, since we buy the products) find this kind of exploitation acceptable, or at least turn a blind eye to it.
We seem to have a middle ground here, and I too share all your concerns regarding western companies exploiting workers in their factories. I do feel though that we are able to exert more influence over these companies to change their practices and I am sure there is evidence to support this out there. I am in favour of (or more accurately , not against) more companies relocating to developing countries because I feel that this is the way for developing economies to develop most quickly. Alex mate, I think it does although in this imperfect world as Oi Hodge is pointing out this utopian model of development is not exactly the norm' and a fair bit of pocket lining is going on. When all goods are made abroad the prices will fall. Its only while the discrepancy exists between production costs that companies can make large profits.
I wuz going to post, but then realised Philip has already said everything I was going to, especially the bit about that Far Eastern countries are just further down the development ladder when we are (they are we where shortly after the industrial revolution), and relocations like this help them develop, not hinder. I'm sure they'll reach our standards of living one day.
Oh, hold on, I have just said it again :(
Anywayz, tenner says you also read The Economist, Philip ;)
Relocations will help the development of the countries' economies, only if relocations are carried out fairly, and properly. In fact, the original idea behind defining FTZs in developing countries was precisely for this - to aid the growth of the econmy, and so on.
However, they have been realised so increadibly poorly that not only have corporations found many loop-holes to exploit, but the countries in question have also wavered several laws to attract the business (tax wavers/havens - which damages the country's economy, voluntary compliance to employee rights/laws etc.). They are currently more of a hinderence to the economy than a help - which is my main point. As I said, I'm not against relocation in principle, per say, more the way it is, and has been implemented. There is a lot of competition in FTZs, with many factories/contractors to choose from, and the corporations don't care - as long as they get cheaper production, increase profits, and placate the shareholders, they'll turn a blind eye to the attrocious conditions in which these people have to work (which, to me, is far more demeaning than the suggestion that most Asian factories are sweatshops).
I have read many accounts of the conditions of factories not only in Asia, but in South/Central America and eastern Europe etc. (people beaten for falling asleep after a 20 hour shift; a pregnant girl fired on the spot for, well, being pregnant - unfortunately, this kind of situation is not particularly rare), all of which are heinous.
I would assume that the Economist is slightly bias towards business interests, and is therefore in favour/OKs sweatshops (or at least doesn't think they're all that bad), but having never read it, I'm probably being rather presumptuous.
