Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    Former MSE Lawrence
    Do sweat shops make good cheap product?
    • #1
    • 24th Apr 07, 11:09 AM
    Do sweat shops make good cheap product? 24th Apr 07 at 11:09 AM
    Poll Started 24 April 2007. Do sweat shops make good cheap product? You love shopping in your favourite cut-price clothing retailer or supermarket, but a verified report comes out that the reason it's so cheap is because it's paying 10 to 14 year olds only £1 a day in the developing world to make the goods. Which of the following is closest to your attitude?

    A. I'd immediately stop buying there regardless.
    B. I'd try to find a viable alternative that didn't cost too much more.
    C. I'd keep shopping there, but write demanding the company change its suppliers.
    D. I wouldn't feel good about it, but I can't afford to pay more.
    E. If it saves me money, that's what counts.

    Click here to vote, or click reply to discuss below.



    Last edited by Former MSE Dan; 24-04-2007 at 7:29 PM.
Page 2
  • Wiggly_Worm
    Why should I tolerate people (including children) working in appalling, unsafe conditions, for an absolute pittance, to supply me with cheap clothing? All this guff about the world market, isn't it better they work in sweat shops than not at all, etc, is head-in-the-sand nonsense. Nobody, NOBODY, in this country is anywhere near as poor as eg. garment makers in Bangladesh. Cheap clothes? How about no clothes? How about we try wearing the same clothes every day until they fall off us because we can't afford to buy food, let alone a new T-shirt?

    Yeah, we're not exactly flush for cash, but I occasionally treat myself to a new top or some troos - from a charity shop. Contrary to popular belief we do not need several new outfits every week, how about that.

    And no, just boycotting sweatshop goods is not the answer - you think Primark cares I don't shop there? No, they don't even notice. But they noticed when I wrote a letter asking about their ethical policy. If we all did that, you can bet your tush they'd take notice.

    Come on, make an effort people.
    Proud to be dealing with my debts
  • Daisies
    I think buying fair trade (which I do) needs a shift in attitudes to fashion. Instead of buying a whole new wardrobe each season made cheaply- which falls apart in a year or so, you can buy classic items that last for years, and top up with a few new pieces each season to keep you current.

    I think that's much more money-saving: you save on landfill, get a better product, and you help other people get out of poverty. It isn't cheaper if it's badly made and you need to replace it often.
    It's worth bearing in mind that if market forces (i.e. what we buy) demand cheap labour how long before it spreads to the whole world? It's bad enough where it is.

    I don't think saving money means compromising on principles or forcing other people into terrible situations: it is only fashion, after all.
    And yes, I'm strapped for cash, so I only buy a few peices, but I wear them for years!

    Hope this info helps!
    Sally
    Originally posted by sallybeaumont
    Thanks Sally, some links on there to stores I hadn't heard of! Most of the fair trade stores (the ones I've used anyway like People Tree and Natural Collection) have clothing priced on a par with M & S - so, yes, more expensive than Primark and the supermarkets but not ridiculously so. And many have very good reductions at sale time - I shop at Howies when the sale email comes through and get some lovely clothing that will last for years for a low price. I also get stuff at charity shops.

    But thank you to the other poster too - I should write to the cheap shops and ask about their ethical policies, instead of just avoiding them, otherwise they won't know!
  • benood
    Interesting debate, there's nothing wrong with fairtrade, however, I can understand the "pro" sweatshop side of the debate - they're a necessary evil as part of the rapid development of former 3rd world economies. Fairtrade works for part of the market but if China, for instance, is to grow as fast as possible and drag its population out of relative poverty it cannot just supply those wealthy enough to choose fairtrade.

    As long as the workers in the sweatshops are free to stop and aren't slaves then in my opinion in the long run more people will be better off sooner, much as we are better off now than our antecedents during the industrial revolution.
  • Wiggly_Worm
    As long as the workers in the sweatshops are free to stop and aren't slaves then in my opinion in the long run more people will be better off sooner, much as we are better off now than our antecedents during the industrial revolution.
    Originally posted by benood
    The ends, IMHO, do not justify the means. And I think we're all smart enough about money on this forum to understand someone being a slave to poverty.

    What saddens me about this kind of thing is not the people who know nothing about sweatshops, and do nothing, but the people who know only too well, and still do nothing.

    (climbs down reluctantly from high horse - I'll stop now :rolleyes: )
    Proud to be dealing with my debts
  • panlane
    I come out in the "pro-sweatshop" brigade. Consider the horrific working conditions of Victorian London and then consider how rapidly the standards of living improved from there. The idea that one can just legislate a problem away is naive. The surrouding economy must be sufficiently diverse and strong to support such legislation, a measure which much of the Third-World falls far short of.

    Additionally, it is relatively meaningless to talk in absolute terms of money here. £1 a day will take you nowhere in the UK but somewhere in the developing world. The key issue is Purchasing Power Parity but we aren't given the specifics for that in this example. Personally, I find most discussions that concern the developing world reveal people's ignorance of economics, e.g. the constant flawed comparisons of the wealthy West's assets with the poor East's incomes.

    Furthermore, those that buy fairtrade should consider what they are hoping to achieve. The classic example is coffee. A few major retailers get lambasted because of the behaviour of producers that are trying to judge a market that is notoriously slow to respond to change because of the 3-year lag between planting and cropping. Thousands of individual farmers plant too many trees, produce too much coffee and the accompanying price crash. It's utterly ignored that it is the developing nations of Brazil and Vietnam that are driving less-efficient Central American producers to the wall. Somehow it's Starbuck's fault and it should make recompense by buying from less-productive family farms because...errrr...they are less efficient? Basically the system traps people in a state of low-productivity. Those that are productive, such as the Brazilians, suffer the implicit criticism that they are doing something wrong and/or being exploited and the purchase of their product diminishes. Quite simply fairtrade is a waste of time, though obviously its intentions are noble. If people want to save the world, they have to recognise that the majority of purchasers are concerned with price and quality, be it in coffee or clothes. The market will reward the producers that strike the best balance between the two and the resultant wealth will in time reach the workers and provide an incentive for other producers to do likewise. It isn't instant or perfect, but then nothing is. Done right, however, you can turn a developing country to a developed one in 30years.
    • ringo_24601
    • By ringo_24601 27th Apr 07, 9:01 AM
    • 16,719 Posts
    • 27,097 Thanks
    ringo_24601
    Would the quality of 'sweatshop' clothes improve if we paid them more? That stuff from Primart is crap
  • Daisies
    I come out in the "pro-sweatshop" brigade. Consider the horrific working conditions of Victorian London and then consider how rapidly the standards of living improved from there. The idea that one can just legislate a problem away is naive. The surrouding economy must be sufficiently diverse and strong to support such legislation, a measure which much of the Third-World falls far short of.

    Additionally, it is relatively meaningless to talk in absolute terms of money here. £1 a day will take you nowhere in the UK but somewhere in the developing world. The key issue is Purchasing Power Parity but we aren't given the specifics for that in this example. Personally, I find most discussions that concern the developing world reveal people's ignorance of economics, e.g. the constant flawed comparisons of the wealthy West's assets with the poor East's incomes.
    Originally posted by panlane

    Hmm, yes, we did have appalling working conditions here during the industrial revolution, but then we also had slavery until around about the same time - both would not be tolerated here today, so why should we expect people in other countries to work in awful conditions?

    I don't have a problem with people earning £1 or £2 a day in a developing country, if that is a realistic living wage for them, of course it is reasonable to expect garments to be manufactured there and it provides important work opportunities and money. But I do have a problem with people being exploited and forced to work in dangerous conditions, all because the price of clothing has been forced down and down by the cheaper clothes retailers. It is the same with the farmers who grow cotton, for instance, who get trapped in a cycle of having to pay for pesticides (which damage their health) to keep up yields and end up in debt to buy more pesticides. Which is why I'd prefer to buy from companies that work with growers and manufacturers to make conditions safer - I wouldn't choose to buy from a more expensive high street retailer unless I knew their clothing was also certified fair trade.

    Also, many of the countries in the developing world are already disadvantaged by having to make enormous debt repayments to the developed world (debts that wouldn't exist to the same extent if the developed world had been a bit more responsible).
    http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/?lid=2649
    So Western countries are often expecting these countries to make debt repayments (to the detriment of education, healthcare etc), as well as providing a cheap and exploitable labour force.
    http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/?lid=1665
    • silkcutblue
    • By silkcutblue 27th Apr 07, 1:29 PM
    • 612 Posts
    • 362 Thanks
    silkcutblue
    I work in a sweat shop. I am taking my 9 minutes a week break time to come and plead with you. Please keep buying the tee-shirts that my factory make! I know my wage of approx. £1 a day seems very little to you, but with that, over the course of 1year, I can buy a yacht - because in my country, prices are cheap.

    If I get sacked then I will have to go and work as a house helper for Gary Glitter and I don't like the way he watches me make tea.

    ----------

    Although I am joking, in all seriousness, stop comparing our factories, our pay, and our lifestyles with those of developing countries.

    As for those who refuse to buy stuff from the supermarkets - unless you live in a cave in the outer hebrides (sp. nnng) then I'm glad you are not afraid of heights, from the pedestal on which you sit.
  • panlane
    Hmm, yes, we did have appalling working conditions here during the industrial revolution, but then we also had slavery until around about the same time - both would not be tolerated here today, so why should we expect people in other countries to work in awful conditions?
    Originally posted by Daisies
    You missed my point entirely. The point isn't that we expect them to work in terrible conditions, the point is that there is no alternative. There simply are not the resources available to lift the working conditions of all labourers in the developing world up to the standards of the developed world. It took us centuries to get where we are, they will manage it in a few decades if we don't mess it up for them with initiatives such as Fairtrade (quite how anti-globalisationist can argue against the CAP as a trading bloc and for fairtrade simulaneously baffles me). The global debt that you speak of was in part caused by just that sort of meddling: the now-thankfully-outdated notion that you could throw money at countries with pitiful economic records and have them reform and use it appropriately as a result. Quite simply, economies take time to develop the resources needed to improve themselves, there is no quick-fix. The only way in which they can identify how best to acquire those resources is by listening to the market, rather than government or NGO dictat.

    The real problem with initiatives such as fairtrade is that they fail to recognise that they are and always will be a niche enterprise. If we are interested in elevating the conditions of all workers worldwide, we have to move beyond such schemes and work with the market rather than against it. I'm not arguing that your conscience shouldn't guide choice, but rather that reason should guide your conscience.

    On a final note, nobody is arguing for slavery. Slavery is the very anti-thesis of the free market. Besides, it is incorrect to conflate the concepts of sweatshops and slavery. Slavery is easily solved by legislating against it - free choice requires no resources to acquire - poverty on the otherhand cannot be solved simply by law.
    • theonlyrick
    • By theonlyrick 28th Apr 07, 2:45 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    theonlyrick
    The free market won't help enslaved workers. Guns will...
    Your basic starting point is, "there is no alternative".
    Others take the more positive starting point of, "there *must* be an alternative".


    There simply are not the resources available to lift the working conditions of all labourers in the developing world up to the standards of the developed world.
    Originally posted by panlane
    Maybe correct, but you're arguing against a position that no-one has supported. We're talking about sweatshops, not everyone having two cars, two TVs and two DVD players.


    The only way in which they can identify how best to acquire those resources is by listening to the market, rather than government or NGO dictat.
    Originally posted by panlane
    I wouldn't say it's the only way, (economies have frequently jump-started themselves out of recession through high government spending) but the long-term economic health of a population need some free-market principles. (But to make it a country that people actually want to live in, you also need other principles as well.)

    Also, don't put all this faith that the free market will distribute all this lovely money equitably, or - dare I say it - fairly.

    In the 90s fisherman in Peru would sell their fish to the highest bidder. Unfortunately the highest bidder weren't the local Peruvians, (who were poor and hungry). The highest bidder was companies like Whiskas - so while the locals starved, Western cats were being pampered....... All hail the free market!


    The real problem with initiatives such as fairtrade is that they fail to recognise that they are and always will be a niche enterprise.
    Originally posted by panlane
    I don't see:

    a) in what sense FairTrade is a niche enterprise. There seems to be a fair amount of it in my local supermarket.

    b) at what point it would stop being niche

    c) why it matters (even if it is niche). Sure, less Fairtrade means less effect, but even if it was only 5% of the market, that is still improving the lives of 1000's of people who spend most of their lives not knowing if they'll be ableto afford food in a week's time.


    If we are interested in elevating the conditions of all workers worldwide, we have to move beyond such schemes and work with the market rather than against it.
    Originally posted by panlane
    FairTrade is working 'with the market'. It's supply and demand. FairTrade is able to put the price up because (some) people are happy to pay a bit more for it.

    Please explain why it's working 'against the market'.

    It's a bit like when Kenco charges more for a more expensive range of coffee. The difference is that FairTrade pays the extra money to the farmer whereas Kenco pays the extra money to an advertising firm. (Interestingly the Kenco advert gives us a very false impression of what life is like for farmers trying to bargain with powerful multinationals. Apparently coffee growers are educated men who walk around in linen suits. Kenco want you to think they hold a position of power and are confident enough to patronise the little white man who visits them on work experience.)


    I'm not arguing that your conscience shouldn't guide choice, but rather that reason should guide your conscience.
    Originally posted by panlane
    I think reason does guide my concsience.


    On a final note, nobody is arguing for slavery. Slavery is the very anti-thesis of the free market.
    Originally posted by panlane
    The free market is a crock, particularly when the people in charge of companies threaten workers with death. Sweatshops *are* slavery - the only difference is the spelling. (At some sweatshops you will face imprisonment if the factory fire you.) What the f do you think it is? A 9 to 5?

    Read a few lines of this, and tell me that this isn't describing slavery http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/sweatshops.html: "A 20/20 investigation in Saipan sweatshops discovered that pregnant employees were forced to have abortions in order to keep their jobs)."
    Last edited by theonlyrick; 28-04-2007 at 10:58 AM.
    If less is more, think how much "more" more would be.
    • theonlyrick
    • By theonlyrick 28th Apr 07, 11:04 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    theonlyrick
    This is going slightly OT, but this article from The Torygraph has an interesting article on the power imbalance between the sellers and buyers of coffee: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/11/wfair11.xml

    Quote: Farmers in Sidamo and Harar regions sell their beans at just 60p per pound to western firms who grind them, pack them in foil and sell at up to £14 a pound in Britain.


    And again: All Hail the Free Market - It provideth for all!
    If less is more, think how much "more" more would be.
  • Daisies

    The real problem with initiatives such as fairtrade is that they fail to recognise that they are and always will be a niche enterprise.
    Originally posted by panlane
    If it is such a niche enterprise how come the Coop, which tends to have shops in poorer areas, is such a strong supporter of fair trade? All of their own brand coffee and chocolate are now fair trade. This is their answer:
    http://www.co-opfairtrade.co.uk/pages/why2.asp
    How come a "niche enterprise" now has clothing in high street stores such as M & S and Top Shop?

    I was trying to remember when the supermarkets first started selling clothes and when Primark, New Look etc first came on the scene. I'm now 27, and I can remember first shopping in New Look when I was about 18/19. So, where did everyone shop before these stores came into existence - people still managed to clothe themselves and their families?! Yesterday I was wearing an M & S jumper which I can remember saving up for when I was about 16/17 (it must have been about £25, which took me a while to save up when I was in sixth form I remember!), so it's over 10 years old now and still going strong.

    Also, the quality of the garments from cheaper stores isn't as good - I doubt I'd still be wearing something from Primark/New Look etc 10 years later, and the cut of the clothes is often skimpy and poor with poor quality fabric that doesn't wash well. And I have bought clothing in charity shops that originally came from M & S, Monsoon etc, but I don't think I can recall ever seeing any clothing from a cheaper shop in a charity shop, probably because it won't have worn so well so isn't resaleable. My SIL has said the same thing about baby and children's clothing - she gets good quality stuff from nearly new sales etc, which she finds is better value than buying from the supermarkets/Primark.
  • Daisies
    I was trying to find out if the cheaper stores were trying to do anything about ethics when they source/manufacture their clothing. Instead I found this article:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/retail/story/0,,1971712,00.html
  • Tabby_Kitten
    [QUOTE=Gingernutmeg;4995236]I absolutely refuse to buy clothes from Primark, Adsa, Tesco, most designer labels etc. As far as possible, I'll seek out an ethical alternative or I'll go without.

    I agree with this and try to do the same, just wondered if you'd buy these labels from chairy shops? I buy ALL of my clothes from the local chairy shop.
  • Shytalker
    I also agree with Mr Ringo about the sweatshops. It comes down to relative poverty. £1 to them might be equivalent to (say) 30 to us and will buy more. Also, they won't fritter away their earnings on the frivolities of life that we do.

    I see a small parallel here. We hear on the news that 'ethnic minorities' in the UK are poorer than the 'white' population (as though the word 'ethnic' refers to skin colour rather than country of origin) when in many cases they come from poor countries and don't have the same expectations that we might do as regards the luxuries of life.

    No, I think that the sweatshops are a step removed from abject poverty and might help towards steadily improved conditions. We would not be doing them a favour by removing their income but there are ways of putting pressure on improving their conditions, such as the Nike campaign a few years ago.
  • Gingernutmeg
    [QUOTE=Tabby_Kitten;5037439]
    I absolutely refuse to buy clothes from Primark, Adsa, Tesco, most designer labels etc. As far as possible, I'll seek out an ethical alternative or I'll go without.

    I agree with this and try to do the same, just wondered if you'd buy these labels from chairy shops? I buy ALL of my clothes from the local chairy shop.
    Originally posted by Gingernutmeg
    I do buy from charity shops and ebay, but as far as possible I try to steer clear from stuff that I know isn't produced ethically - it's not a snob thing, but having studied human rights and in particular the working conditions of the women who make up the vast majority of garment workers, I really don't feel comfortable in clothes that have been made there. (Although my choice is made easier by the fact that I'm built for comfort, not for speed lol and there generally isn't much in my size ) Also, to me it's a bit like the fur argument ... you can buy fake fur but to me, wearing that shows there's still a market for fur anyway ... so wearing second hand Asda/Primark stuff shows you're ok with buying it (not a brilliant example but hopefully you get my point).

    I don't do this to 'look down on people from my pedestal' ... if people ask me about my choices in clothing I'll explain why I won't shop in a certain place, and hopefully they'll think a bit more about their choices, but I certainly don't rant and rave at people. To me, it just seems odd that we've managed for hundreds (if not thousands) of years with a few, well made items of clothing, yet now we're seen as odd if we're not buying loads of new cheap stuff every week ...
    Last edited by Gingernutmeg; 30-04-2007 at 7:09 PM.

    • udydudy
    • By udydudy 30th Apr 07, 11:23 PM
    • 551 Posts
    • 188 Thanks
    udydudy
    I am from a developing country, though I do not believe it is a third world country dependiong on what one wants to describe as third world!!!

    yes I have not worked for £1 a day...am I glad and thankful for that!!! But I would like to thank a few MSites and jog a few (NOTHANKS) MSites out of their so called ethical stance... Here goes
    Thanks to Rictic +++++,Silkcutblue++++,ringo_24601, andrewsunday885, rdwarr, Idiophreak, mh1923,panlane

    NO THANKS to Theonlyrick++++, Gingernutmeg, Daisies, Wiggly_Worm

    The +++ means extra thanks or extra no thanks.

    The reason for this... Like a lot of the people who I have thanked and who seem to know the situation there. Firstly it is not a £1 it is Rs 85 in my country. If the father and mother worked and two kids worked(i.e if the family stops at 2 kids!) This feeds & clothes the fanily and also keeps them in a house and keeps them away from debt sharks...

    If the kids were to go to school the parents wud need to borrow from the debt sharks who charge anything from 100% a month. Then when the kids become earning age, i.e if they live that long they will be sold to these debt sharks and will work all their life to pay only the interest.

    if the UK NHS and the government is so starved of cash and is unable to meet the health care and benefits demands of a population of 50 million or so, how does one expect a country of over 1 billion to sustain its population ...so the kids work and sustain themselves.

    so all you NO THANKS guys, take your custom elsewhere and keep your ethical minds at ease knowing that you have starved one more kid to death because you did not buy the clothes he made that would have fed him and maybe his little kid sister.... I would love to know how many of you guys would pay into a fund that takes care of these guys schooling, clothing and food until they are of working age!!! I would say none because they are busy paying most of these big name stores (who also buy their clothes from India & China as well) and fair trade...is it really fair?? then how come their products are so costly??? Production costs arent so high in India or China and cheaper so in other countries!!!

    I always buy from places like primark and so. I know the quality aint so good and the clothes need to be replaced every 4-6 months. but it gives me pleasure that atleast some kid somewhere in one of these countries has had his meal....I am not so bothered about the people who are making the money in between because most of them are multinational conglomerates who are being fed by these No thanks guys anyways!!!

    I have tried not to name any stores(for legal reasons) here as many big stores buy from China and India where in turn these are made by sweat shops because both countries(and other countries) majority workforce works in sweatshops. But then the ones who make the most money are the multinationals who then claim they do not know anything!!

    God save these no thanks ethical guys..who love to stay in their terraced houses and in the comfort of their benefit parachute knowing very well that if they lose their jobs their government will take care of them. Try staying in a third world country where if you do not earn you do not eat. Better still try staying hungry for one day...no food...no water(many places drinking water is also not available...) then talk of your ethics...

  • Gingernutmeg
    Udydudy - I find your post offensive and aggressive, and I'd like, if I may, to answer a few of the points you raise.

    Point 1 - I do pay into a fund that supports a child in a developing country. Through a charitable organisation, I support a child so they can stay in school and not be a burden on their family by doing so. I feel that giving a child an education is more important than forcing them to work in a factory making Nike shoes or Primark t-shirts. Call me idealistic. May I ask, do you support such a charity too?

    Point 2 - I do not live in a terraced house, nor do I claim any benefits, and nor do I expect the government to support me should I be unable to work. That is why I study, work and save hard. Your generalisations are offensive.

    Point 3 - Fair trade is more costly because a greater proportion of the cost goes to the producers. Of course, the compaines who ship, pack and sell the goods still want to make a similar amount as they do from non-fair trade products, pushing the price up.

    Point 4 - you seem to be missing the point that many of these sweatshops workers do not earn a FAIR WAGE. The argument is not that they don't earn any money, of course they do, but in a global market why should they be exploited? Many have to pay the factory owners for their food and accommodation, which is often totally insufficient, and many of the (mainly female) sweatshop workers have to turn to prostitution in order to gain a living wage. Many are held in what is in effect bonded labour, and the women especially are treated appalingly - forced to take contraception, forced to have abortions to keep their jobs. I do not want to support that, and I show that I don't by refusing to buy clothes that are produced in those conditions.

    Point 5 - I personally try to avoid supporting large MNCs as far as I can. Obviously, to a certain extent this is unavoidable in the West, but I deliberately choose the most ethical alternative I can. I find it offensive that you assume that I pick and choose what to be ethical about - I don't. My life would be a lot easier if I did lol.

    You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. But please, get your facts straight before you insult people.

  • Daisies
    Udydudy - I think you have missed the point about fair trade, the reason it costs more is because the fair trade companies work with the people in the developing countries - providing them with expertise and training so they can increase the range of things they can manufacture or grow, providing them with clean water facilities, healthcare and education and investing in their communities - something that definitely doesn't happen with sweat shop labour. So no one then has to go to a loan shark to get money for education or healthcare or to purchase more seeds or fertiliser or whatever.

    Fair trade is also growing - so more and more people have access to these things.

    I do find your assumptions offensive - as talking to my ex-housemates, several of whom are from developing countries, they all try to buy fair trade as often as possible and are planning to work in this area when they return home. - because they know what a difference it can make in terms of health, education and wealth.

    Like Gingernutmeg I've been sponsoring a child for the last 6 years (4 of those whilst I was on a very low income myself) and that money goes into the whole of the local community so there is now a school and a clinic and a well. I also try and keep up with what is going on in his country and what the conditions are like as I like to know the facts and reality of things like sweat shops and fair trade.
    • MSE Archna
    • By MSE Archna 1st May 07, 12:19 PM
    • 1,872 Posts
    • 5,996 Thanks
    MSE Archna
    Poll Results
    Poll Title: Poll Started 24 April 2007. Do sweat shops make good cheap product? You love shopping in your favourite cut-price clothing retailer or supermarket, but a verified report comes out that the reason it's so cheap is because it's paying 10 to 14 year olds only £1 a day in the developing world to make the goods. Which of the following is closest to your attitude?

    B. I'd try to find a viable alternative that didn't cost too much more.
    34.5% (1563 Votes)
    A. I'd immediately stop buying there regardless.
    28.4% (1287 Votes)
    D. I wouldn't feel good about it, but I can't afford to pay more.
    21.6% (980 Votes)
    E. If it saves me money, that's what counts.
    12.6% (571 Votes)
    C. I'd keep shopping there, but write demanding the company change its suppliers.
    2.7% (125 Votes)

    Total Votes: 4527

    Last edited by Former MSE Natasha; 01-05-2007 at 6:14 PM.
    Report inappropriate posts: forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com




Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,306Posts Today

7,955Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • A year of fighting to break the link between mental illness and money problems... https://t.co/LXgjxdv36O

  • Today's twitter poll: Is Conservative pact with DUP necessary for stable govt during the crucial Brexit time, or should it've stayed alone?

  • RT @thisismoney: First cash machine was used 50 years ago today: 50 facts you never knew about ATMs https://t.co/nh5kqb5Ml5

  • Follow Martin