The cost of buying cheap...

ash28

CLAPTON wrote: »

There was an outcry when it was discovered that Nike trainers were being made by children in, I think India (but it was quite a time ago now.)
Nike withdraw from the factories and transferred their business eslewhere.

The BBC did a piece on the consequences 12 months after. The outcomes were quite variable but it was alleged that many of the children had become prostitutes as that was the only other option.

Many people feel strongly about many things; but that doesn't make them right.

As I've said already, the problem is corruption and poor governence in the countries concerned.

We, too, can do our bit but withdrawing our trade may well have unintended consequences even if it makes us feel virtuous.




The BBC

I agree withdrawing trade would be catastrophic for the garment workers in Bangladesh.

Unfortunately Bangladesh is one of, if not the most corrupt country in the world...politics, government, business....

Here is an article written by Sir Fazle Hasan Abed founder and chairman of the antipoverty organization BRAC, formerly the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee.

It makes very interesting reading....this is an extract from the article.

http://www.shahidulnews.com/bangladesh-needs-strong-unions-not-outside-pressure#more-15116

What, then, is the solution? The changes must come first from Bangladesh itself. My country will require new political will to hold accountable those who willingly put human lives at such grave risk. It will also require the support of factory owners; civil society organizations, including my own; and the private sector, including Western buyers.
The solutions start with the workers themselves; they must be allowed by their employers to unionize, so they can engage in collective bargaining and hold their employers responsible for basic standards of pay and safety. Their organized power is the only thing that can stand up to the otherwise unaccountable nexus of business owners and politicians, who are often one and the same.


Western buyers, instead of squeezing factory owners on price, should finance better safety standards. The point needs to be made in the marketplace overseas that safety improvements are not so expensive that they can be used as an excuse for raising prices to the consumer. And consumers who are shocked by the working conditions need to realize that a playing field where the price tag is the only standard for a purchase is not a level one when workers’ lives are at stake.
At the same time, the owners themselves cannot be let off the hook, for there is no excuse for criminal negligence. But they cannot be trusted to voluntarily do all that they might. In a country with 100,000 factories in and near the capital, and three million workers in its garment industry, an inspection force numbering 18 people only invites unconscionable lapses on the part of unscrupulous employers. The inspection force must be increased drastically, and it must vigorously enforce safety standards.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I can't really debate this calmly so I'm leaving the thread for a while but you and I are both culpable for the deaths. Anything else is a lie to appease your conscience.

Maybe.

But maybe the other side of the coin is that people are also buying goods which gives them employment.

I don't know.... what would life be like for these babies with no employment at all? More harmful? Less harmful? The same?

All I know is it's certainly not my fault for buying a shirt in Tesco's.

The power I have to change the situation is absolutely miniscule over the power that governments, retailers, but most importantly, parent coroporate companies have.

There are so many differing problems which lead to the end result of this that it's unfair to blame someone for buying a pair of knickers in Asda. They play a part, but probably the smallest part in the chain of events.

For instance, just why is it so cost prohibitive to manufacture in this country? If that was tackled in whatever way it can be tackled, it would start (just start) making a difference as more people could afford to buy (and manufacture) clothes in this country.

At the end of the day, from my experience, if we all started buying our clothes from M&S, M&S themselves would start looking to change the way they do business. It's happened in every other scenario that I can think of. As soon as we change our behaviour, companies force a change upon us again and suddenly we find capitalism has won the race to the bottom all over again. Innocent is one company that I can throw in. Started off as high priced, high quality, british goods. The more people started to buy it the more it expanded, and now it's literally just another company advertising false promises.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I know is it's certainly not my fault for buying a shirt in Tesco's.

The power I have to change the situation is absolutely miniscule over the power that governments, retailers, but most importantly, parent coroporate companies have.

There are so many differing problems which lead to the end result of this that it's unfair to blame someone for buying a pair of knickers in Asda. They play a part, but probably the smallest part in the chain of events.

'Fault' and 'Blame' are the wrong words. However, if you buy a shirt made by a nine year old in China then you've decided, knowingly or not, that that's acceptable. You've effectively purchased direct - everyone else in the chain has just helped with the transaction and taken a cut.

All the power of governments and retailers cannot force you to pick that product off the shelf.

I salve my conscience when buying clothing by believing (or hoping maybe) that in return for my low cost purchase the producers are getting an opportunity that otherwise wouldn't exist.

I think consumers do have power. I won't buy Argentinian wine (even on an Asda 3 for £10!), I'll only buy English apples and British strawberries, I won't buy imported bottled water or Chinese honey - all small beer but does it make a difference - yes I think so.

grizzly1911

ash28 wrote: »

I agree withdrawing trade would be catastrophic for the garment workers in Bangladesh.

Unfortunately Bangladesh is one of, if not the most corrupt country in the world...politics, government, business....


http://www.shahidulnews.com/bangladesh-needs-strong-unions-not-outside-pressure#more-15116

From that article.


The solutions start with the workers themselves; they must be allowed by their employers to unionize, so they can engage in collective bargaining and hold their employers responsible for basic standards of pay and safety. Their organized power is the only thing that can stand up to the otherwise unaccountable nexus of business owners and politicians, who are often one and the same.

That is the only way it will change.

It is the only way unscrupulous employers , poor pay and working practices were countered here, including child labour. It went to far into militancy with communist influence. The workers need to stand up for themselves. Only they know their issues and what is and isn't important to them.

Trying to stand on the sidelines, pontificating, won't help them.

M&S have been sourcing outside the UK for years, decades. That is is when the quality fell out of their product.

I_luv_cats

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4575903

What I said on the above thread.....

Price is an indicator BUT NOT ALWAYS.


I paid over £50 recently for a sale jacket (RRP £160) which was made in India!

Even M&S are globally produced (I've Bangladesh/Mauritius garments just to name two)


Can you always trust the label anyway? I've bought M&S footwear and struggled to find the country of origin.


It is annoying when I spend more cash it could still mean it's made cheaply and probably in sweat shops too. (though better quality)

fc123

Generali wrote: »

TBH I think it is fair.

If people were prepared to pay more for their clothes they would be made in factories that conform to what we consider to be C21st norms. If everyone wants to buy as cheaply as possibly then standards will necessarily be driven down once you hit a certain price point.

You're in the trade and I bet you couldn't make a pair of baby jeans to retail for the price of a loaf of bread yet in Sept 2005, Mr Tesco sold me a pair of same for 75p. Does that even get you enough time at the minimum wage to sew them and put them on a hanger? Let alone getting them to the store, profit, materials, returns and 'shrinkage' (theft).

We have choices and are responsible for the things that we buy. M&S held out with their 90% UK made or whatever it was for quite a while but people stopped buying there. Almost everyone can afford to pay £3 for a pair of trousers rather than 75p but they choose not to and this is the result.

It's exactly the same as a 99p lasagne having horse meat in it. It's a necessary consequence of current mass retail.

By 'a bit unfair' what I meant was that when the price deflation in clothing really started to hit (about 1999/2000 from memory) and prices started to drop, with an acceleration after 2005) customers got used to the low prices.
New consumers in my sector aged 20 in 2005 had no idea that 10 years before a pair of jeans could cost the equivalent of a weeks wages. The prices they saw were just normal to them.

My age group suddenly noticed that things were costing less and I remember a point in our store when I could retail amazing dresses for £40 that would have sold @ £80 a decade before.

I think I wrote before about Primark setting a benchmark on price on the High St so that people would see a £12 primark item and wonder why other 'similar' items were more expensive.

The thing that has come home to roost now are the higher shop rents as mark up in the 50's to 70's was about x 2.2. A garment cost £10 to make and retailed @ £22.

As the costs reduced mark ups increased and it is normal now for mark up to be x 12 from ex factory cost. £10 factory cost (fabric, make, trim) = £120 retail price (incl VAT). This enabled the chains to expand and outdo each other in the shopping centres during the late 90's/ early noughties, chasing space.

Rents rose and pension funds invested in the malls.

And now it's all changing again.

Problem is no-one can afford to own or rent enough living space to house all the cheap stuff so I still believe that is the main driver that will change consumption habits in the future.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

For instance, just why is it so cost prohibitive to manufacture in this country? If that was tackled in whatever way it can be tackled, it would start (just start) making a difference as more people could afford to buy (and manufacture) clothes in this country..

Clothing manufacturing is still a very human labour intensive job.
Although there are many wizzy machines that do all sorts of clever processes, they all need a person to operate them. The principle of putting a garment together hasn't changed much for centuries, like a jigsaw and no machine can place one piece against another and stitch it together.

Costings are done on time and 80% of the making cost is human labour paid per hour.

You just have to tot up the cost of of UK labour per hour against overseas labour costs per hour to see the issue.

grizzly1911 wrote: »

M&S have been sourcing outside the UK for years, decades. That is is when the quality fell out of their product.

Many top quality UK brands (now called 'heritage brands') used to do contract work for M+S secretly. I know John Smedley used to make their merino wool knitwear many years ago and rumours that a certain famous mac label did the same. It was simple volume production that brought in bread and butter cash so they could concentrate on the more developed products.

What does annoy me is a well known quilted coat brand (beginning with boasts about it's UK factory (which is tiny) when they only make 15% of their product here, the rest comes out of Bulgaria. I used the same factory for a while.

....PS Gen, don't leave the thread

fc123

I know this is a serious thread but the sentence below did the rounds a few years back.

Primark, where an entire outfit costs £10...and still looks like it cost less.

It was sort of funny back then but now it kind of sticks in the throat a bit.

Well, a lot of the low cost store chains are jumping in but part of feels it's just PR stunt.
Bon Marche are donating to the fund. LINK
From trade so quoted

1 May 2013 | By Catherine Neilan
Value retailer Bonmarche has become the latest retailer to commit to offer assistance to victims of the Bangladesh factory disaster.


Bonmarche was among those to have used suppliers based at the Rana Plaza factory that collapsed last week, killing more than 380 people and injuring a further 1,000.

This morning it released a statement saying: ““We are deeply concerned about the events which took place in Dhaka and at this time we are still gathering the necessary information from Bangladesh in order to make an informed decision on how we can best provide both practical and financial assistance to those affected.”

The retailer had previously pledged to review its supply chain “to ensure our customers can have absolute confidence that the clothes we sell are produced without risk to those making them”.

Primark and Matalan – which was not using the factory at the time it collapsed - have both already said they would provide compensation to those affected by the tragedy.
Meanwhile the European Union has waded into the issue, releasing a statement that said it was “very concerned” about working conditions in Bangladesh.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and trade commissioner Karel de Gucht published a joint statement saying they were considering “appropriate action” to “incentivise responsible management of supply chains involving developing countries

Going4TheDream

fc123 wrote: »

On the radio today it seems the general consensus is that it's the consumers fault for ever demanding cheap stuff but I think that's a bit unfair.

I am inclined to agree with this to a point- when you see mid range and high range products being made in the same factories as the low range budget products, this is about PROFIT.

We have had 200 years or more to get our act together than the developing nations who are now making this stuff.

Lets not forget it is only about 135 years ago education was made compulsory for children in the UK and we actually stopped sending children up chimneys. It was only in 1913 that the school leaving age was increased from 12 to 14 and it was only in 1964 (less than 50 years ago) that the school leaving age was taken to 16.

It was only 85 years ago that all women got the vote in the UK, as between 1918 and 28 they had to meet certain criteria.

I am not a fan of the Unions today in their current form but historically they changed our country from a dangerous hell hole into the safe(r) working environment we see today, fighting for better conditions, pay, rights and safety. All of these things came at a cost, higher wages, safety checks etc which meant higher productions costs so on so on and that started off shoring.

Changes take time to implement, and attitudes take time to change. Once places like India, Bangladesh and such like reach the standards that we feel are satisfactory, they too will become more expensive to do business with and the suppliers will have moved on and taken their business elsewhere...we are already seeing some places moving into Africa...

Of course the bottom line is whether people actually care enough to vote with their feet and avoid the retailers that put profit before people

CLAPTON

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I
Changes take time to implement, and attitudes take time to change. Once places like India, Bangladesh and such like reach the standards that we feel are satisfactory, they too will become more expensive to do business with and the suppliers will have moved on and taken their business elsewhere...we are already seeing some places moving into Africa...

Of course the bottom line is whether people actually care enough to vote with their feet and avoid the retailers that put profit before people

You are absolutely sure that putting 100 of thousands of people out of work in SE Asia is to their advantage?

Going4TheDream

CLAPTON wrote: »

You are absolutely sure that putting 100 of thousands of people out of work in SE Asia is to their advantage?

From the suppliers view, they are not overly concerned in which country their clothes (products) are made.

They will go to the place where the price suits their business model to enable them to be competitive and make profit, and once the living standard goes up in these countries and the cost of associated labour with that then they will move somewhere cheaper

We saw this when M&S started shipping their underwear manufacturing overseas. It was cheaper to cut the patterns/cloth in the UK and ship by truck to Romania to have them made up and ship back, than it was to have them stitched in the UK.

They werent overly concerned about making British workers redundant when they did this

At the end of the day labour is a commodity, a very expensive one and one that companies will look to cut.

Which business today can we say that hasnt done the same

Dyson, BT, 3 mobile are just three I can think of whilst typing this. I am sure there are many many more. I am not saying I agree but that is how it is.