The cost of buying cheap...

Graham_Devon

Conrad wrote: »

One of my hot buttons is regularly triggered when I read people on here calling for the Gov't to increase wages and yet on another thread bragging about thier bargain hunting that effectively keeps wages lower.

This is why I said you can't really blame the consumer in the UK.

Paying lower wages allows the companies to get richer. Companies (especially those people at the top) have got very rich over the last 2 or 3 decades, as evidenced .....well, by everything.

A lot of this excess wealth has been "earnt" on the back of cheap labour. That's not only in other countries, but it could be claimed that labour is cheap in the UK too. Certainly it's cheaper than it would be without the benefit systems top ups. There was a study out a week or two back which showed that companies paid less into the system here than the average over europe.

The welfare system essentially gives top ups to wages in this country to bring people up to a living wage. Companies at the very same time just keep getting richer.

What I'm saying here is, you can't really blame the consumers...they are not the ones getting richer on the bargain hunting. Every which way you look, it's the companies getting ever richer.

princeofpounds

Actually I don't think the fact that we are buying clothes from them is part of the problem.

Yes, the sewing machinist doesn't have a great life, but it's not as if the seasonal farmhand they were previously was having a better life. Yes, they got more fresh air, but clearly people see attractions in moving to cities and taking sweatshop job over working the land. It beats potential starvation.

The thing that really helps out people like this is *more* buying cheap clothes in Primark.

The more demand places like this can supply, the more they employ people and the higher the scarcity of workers. That drives wages and re-investment in productivity (which includes upskilling workers and better conditions).

Eventually it gets to a point where the sweatshops move on to a cheaper destination, but in their place you have a richer and more skilled population that is economically competitive in its own right.

Google the 'Lewis Turning Point'.

Let's take Bangladesh as an example.

Wages are up (in real terms) some 26-44% (urban-rural) from 2000-2010.

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/rising-wages-bangladesh

In fact if you read the link above there is even a case study of a sweater factory on page 10, probably not that different to the one in the news. Employees have been getting fantastic pay rises (although from a fantastically low starting point I'm sure).

Various other studies I googled around show that starvation has basically been conquered in the country in the last 20 years thanks to development, that healthcare spending (again in real terms and per capita) has doubled in the past decade, consumer spending is up over 4 times in the last 8 years alone! etc etc.

All this in one of the most terribly-managed countries in the world politics-wise.

Globalisation and Capitalism has lifted probably a couple of billion people out of abject poverty (depending on your definitions) in the last century or so.

That's probably far more than charity has ever achieved. Not that I would claim it always does it in a 'nice' way or with any altrusitic motivations driving it.

grizzly1911

princeofpounds wrote: »

The thing that really helps out people like this is *more* buying cheap clothes in Primark.

Primark are the tip of the iceberg, I believe they confirmed they took prurchasesform this supplier, but I would expect many premium premium brands and retailers to be sourcing from similar sources.

OffGridLiving

A sad example of why we have such strong and rigid building controls and planning permissions in this country.

Generali

FWIW, I think rich consumers in the UK and Aus should hold companies to account for abuses in the supply chain.

Companies like Apple, Gap and Nike do a very good job of sourcing ethically. As far as I'm concerned, if you buy from Primark after this you have blood on your hands.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

FWIW, I think rich consumers in the UK and Aus should hold companies to account for abuses in the supply chain.

Companies like Apple, Gap and Nike do a very good job of sourcing ethically. As far as I'm concerned, if you buy from Primark after this you have blood on your hands.

It is an interesting question isn't it. I know it is generaly the unions in the US who push this one but is it right that domestic workers are undercut not just by lower pay rates in foreign countries but also as a result of environmental and health and safety standards not only below our 'gold plated' level but actually far below anythig we would consider acceptable?

The H&S we see only when a big disaster strikes but no doubt there are lots more cases of small scale effects and long term injuries and who knows when the enviromental degredagtion might come back and effect us all directly?

A final issue is the offshoring of our carbon footprint as part of the reason the UK and Europe have controlled their CO2 in the last decades is that lots of the most energy intentsive manufacturing now takes place elsewhere - if we still consume the final product have we really reduced our CO2?

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

FWIW, I think rich consumers in the UK and Aus should hold companies to account for abuses in the supply chain.

Companies like Apple, Gap and Nike do a very good job of sourcing ethically. As far as I'm concerned, if you buy from Primark after this you have blood on your hands.

Haven't Foxconn had issues? Probably greatly exaggerated but smoke and fire?

I am sure the worker conditions in Vietnamese running shoe manufacturers are really nice;) At least they are new shoes.

Lots of stuff, not just budget brands, in the UK is sourced from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the like. I doubt mainstream shopping could be done without touching them.

grizzly1911

michaels wrote: »

A final issue is the offshoring of our carbon footprint as part of the reason the UK and Europe have controlled their CO2 in the last decades is that lots of the most energy intentsive manufacturing now takes place elsewhere - if we still consume the final product have we really reduced our CO2?

Beat me to it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22267231

UK CO2 emissions rising, government advisers warn

This is because the UK is importing goods that produce CO2 in other countries.
The UK has been cutting emissions at home, but it has been importing more goods from other countries, pushing up CO2 emissions there.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Haven't Foxconn had issues ? Probably greatly exaggerated but smoke and fire?

I am sure the worker conditions in Vietnamese running shoe manufacturers are really nice;) At least they are new shoes.

A lot of issues with Foxconn I think stem from them not being up to US code while exceeding Chinese code by some way (wages are a lot higher than in equivalent factories supplying other firms AIUI).

None of this takes away from the basic moral responsibility I think we all have. If you buy from companies that do bad things you are complicit in their bad deeds. The blood is on your hands.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

None of this takes away from the basic moral responsibility I think we all have. If you buy from companies that do bad things you are complicit in their bad deeds. The blood is on your hands.

Many people don't really have a choice if they need to feed and clothe a family on limited income.

Give people in those countries a chance to earn a relatively decent income could be seen as offering them opportunity. Perhaps their governments need to legislate to outlaw dangerous working practices.

We have a dichotomy where in the west we are trying to suppress pay and conditions and in the developed world we need to raise pay and conditions. just think what we can convince them they need to consume, a new market.

Shouldn't free markets sort this out?