working for 19cent week right/wrong?

[Ivan]

This could be a touchy subject. Cause what if the Nike factory that brought jobs into a town that didn�t really have any? When the Nike factory might of went in maybe it brought other business to that town. Think of it as what basically happened here around Steel Mills and Coal Mines. As long as the workers are being treated right and not like slaves this subject is hard to give a definite �It�s wrong� or �its right.�

True they are taking jobs from Americans, but if we were to pull out the factory now that town�s economy would crumble. Instead of everyone having a little bit of money they would now have none. You could say they should take up local jobs like fishing or farming instead of working in the factory, but even here in America if you were able to make more money at one job and that job was easier you would take it. Farming and fishing could be harder to do in those countries, so they prefer to take up a job at the factory were they can make more money and they know a bad growing season or fishing season isn�t going to ruin their business.

So I would say it tough to say its right or wrong. It all depends on each circumstance.

[Red October]

Well, like it was stated earlier. It really depends on how much 19 cents is worth. While in college one of our Proffesors was/is an Economic Consultant to the Mexican Government. We (his students) had the opportunity to visit a number of factories just south of the border (FYI, just to head off any NAFTA debate, a number of these factories have been there since the late 60's under the "Maquilladora's Program"). The workers there got free med benefits, free day care and a subsidized lunch program. If I recollect correctly, they were being payed on the average of 7 pesos and hour. I don't know the exchange rate now (and just way to lazy to look it up) I'll just use 10 peso's to the dollar: 7 x 48 hour week = 336 / 10 exchange = $33.60 USD. Not much isn't it? But we were also informed (plus we already knew) that in "non-tourist areas" that could go pretty far. They shop at stores way different than we the tourist are led to AND they are a little more self sufficient. Of course, the standard of living is WAY less than ours. There not living in middle class 1200 sq ft homes. Likewise in Indonesia, they are probally living in huts. But does that make it right? Thats the moral delimma.

But lets take this to a new twist. I recollect reading some studies where wages were increased and turnover went high. This is just an extreme example (but puts it in to perspective). In a case with a British mining company in India (I think?), The citizens were appauled when they found out how much native miners were being paid. So, with the outcry, it was demanded and granted that they would be paid half the wages where a British miner would get. The company couldn't keep the workers. The workers would work 1-6 months and quit. Why? Simply put, the wages were so high in comparison to the standard of living, all they had to do was work for a small period and that amount would take care of them for a very long time (several years). They had no expensive products to buy (since none were sold there) and they were very self sufficient (farm thier "own" lands for food, house built by themselves, etc.). Thus they had to lower the wage in order to keep the workers. One of those weird paradox's in econimics.

My own personal opinion, I think Nike is well aware of the "economics" of the situation and is exploiting it. This is unconfirmed history, but many of the major corporations-monopolies in the depression era purposely conspired to keep wages down in order to keep costs low and profits up. In Indonesia, where anti-trust laws may or may not be on the books or where enforcement is lack or corruption rampant, this could be the case.

[Sputty]

Go away Ogge. No one wants your ignorant comments here

[Ogge]

-delited-

[Everay]

we? now i can understand that my view is immoral in ways IE put people ahead of you, well i am, but im putting americans ahead of other people, is that so wrong? isnt it selfish of you to ask for america to put others ahead of other americans?

[Ogge]

i dident mean you,,, i ment sputty

[SDM]

Originally Posted by Ogge

-delited-

DIE

[Ogge]

i see some people is to stupid answer the question i asked (look at first post) just dont post if you dont have something related to the question


*** im not gone open this thread again so no need to post anymore Ogge hating thinys***

[SDM]

Originally Posted by Ogge

i see some people is to stupid answer the question i asked (look at first post) just dont post if you dont have something related to the question


*** im not gone open this thread again so no need to post anymore Ogge hating thinys***

I is to stupid?

I know where the pol. debate forum is, and am against eating people. Fucknuckle.

[Jennyboo]

Originally Posted by Hamma

I think it sucks because we lose jobs here in the USA.

[Fragmatic]

Originally Posted by Ogge

-delited-

Speel mutch?!"!$

[Fragmatic]

[Ogge]

ohh der f�rer.... :|

[Kikinchikin]

It's completely wrong. Nike is headed by greedy sons of bitches who have absolutely no regard for human life. I have been boycotting Nike for over a year now because of this.

[ZeusCali]

Originally Posted by SDM

I is to stupid?

I know where the pol. debate forum is, and am against eating people. Fucknuckle.

sdm fuck off you know he is not speaking his native language.

Speel mutch?!"!$-frag

see above

Originally Posted by sputty

Go away Ogge. No one wants your ignorant comments here

I Don't want YOUR ignorant comments either, don't assume to think the same as everyone, you cannot use no one as you have made no poll checking the opinion and are just jumping on the kick ogge's ass wagon.


Red October i am glad some of us actually read threads and not just flame them, your post made this thread worth the read. I was starting to think this forum was just full of Brainwashed flamers

Ivan you too came in and left this thread with a good attitude thank you. You have a point.

Personally I agree with Red october when he says, that the economy shapes around the jobs in it:
high wages=high product value(hence why nike can sell at 100$ a shoe)
Low Wages= adjustment of value until life is possible to live
0 wage= life is hard, people have to fall back on the land(which cannot always hold them)

i think nike is taking advantage of a poorer country but at the same time they are making an economy possible, more as a side effect then as a main purpose.

Hamma and those that quoted him, how long would it take you working at their wages to pay for 1 tank of gas? it is not possible for these jobs to be in the US if they had nike would not exist it would be closer to payless' profit margin.