The Industrial World Should Take Advantage Of Countries With Economic...

» Home » Business

The Industrial World Should Take Advantage Of Countries With Economic Misbalance

After all, to make money in this world of industry you have to take advantage of whatever you can. Even if this includes extremely low wages for employees. That is the way industry works. Obviously coming from a business point of view the company wants to make as much gross profit as it can, in the shortest amount of time possible. In the end both sides benefit from the transaction the company and the workers who have volunteered to work under the terms accepted. Here i am acting upon the code called Ethical Trading Initiative.

jordibro1

10 Apr 2008 22:16

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Bringing industry to poor countries is a good idea as long as both the company and the employees benefit from it.

conor

30 Apr 2008 23:32

Add a Comment

You're characterising this in the wrong way. The operations you speak about should be mutually beneficial as long as everything is conducted on a voluntary basis. If the people in the poor countries you speak of choose to work in these factories, then that option must be more appealing to them than any other they have available, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

So both the companies from the industrialised world and the citizens of the developing world should benefit from the transaction.

Hidell

11 Apr 2008 07:45

14 Comments

They are not fair or mutually beneficial and are being imposed on developing countries through the IMF, World Bank and trade agreements to prop up private business while making everyday people suffer more than they did before the imposition of business on their respective countries.

openurmind

11 Apr 2008 18:17

Comment

The Army and Airforce Exchange Service (AAFES), a part of the U.S. Department of Defense, is itself one of the largest retailers in the world with $7.3 billion in annual sales, even sporting its own private labels, including Ponytails and Royal Manor.  The AAFES operates over 1,400 retail outlets on military bases around the world.  The AAFES is subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

Shipping documents show that in just one recent three-month period--July, August, September, 2000--the Army and Airforce Exchange Service imported 64 tons of blue jeans made at the Chentex/Nien Hsing plants in Nicaragua.

Internal company production documents smuggled out of the Chentex factory show that there are 38 sewing operations required to complete a full-length pair of five-pocket blue jeans carrying the U.S. military’s private Ponytails and Royal Manor labels (style numbers 5402 and 5432)

The company assigns a piece rate value to each specific operation, breaking these pay rates down to the thousandth of a cent.  Totaling the piece rates paid for all 38 operations, the workers in Nicaragua are paid 2.2755 cordobas, or just 18 cents for each pair of jeans they sew. ($1.00 = 12.9 cordobas.)

These wages would amount to less than one percent of the retail price of the jeans sold at military PXes around the world.

In 1998, the AAFES recorded a $342.1 million profit.

Comment

Many SAPs require changes in labor laws, such as eliminating collective bargaining laws and lowering wages in order to provide conditions favorable to attracting foreign investors. The IMF's mantra of "labor flexibility" permits corporations to fire at whim and move where wages are cheapest. According to the 1995 UN Trade and Development Report, employers are using this extra "flexibility" in labor laws to shed workers, rather than create jobs. In Haiti, the government was told to eliminate a statute in their labor code that mandated increases in the minimum wage when inflation exceeded 10%. By the end of 1997, Haiti's minimum wage was only $2.40 a day, just one-fifth of the minimum wage in 1971 in real terms. Workers in the U.S. are also hurt by IMF policies by having to compete with cheap, exploited labor. Two years ago, the IMF¹s mismanagement of the Asian financial crisis plunged South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and other countries into deep depression that led to the creation of 200 million "newly poor." The IMF advised countries to "export their way out of the crisis." Consequently, the dumping of Asian steel in U.S. markets resulted in the layoffs of over 12,000 steelworkers.

Comment

Today capitalism and the free market are prescribed by the industrialized countries and international lending agencies as miracle cures for the planet's ills--whether in South Central Los Angeles, South Africa, or the former Soviet Union. "Opening up," "marketizing," and "privatizing" are the watchwords of this global offensive.

Some 70 Third World countries are undergoing IMF/World Bank-dictated stabilization and structural adjustment programs, and $300 billion worth of state-owned industries have been sold off in 50 different countries over the past decade, but few countries have swallowed this medicine more quickly and massively than Peru. "Fujishock"--the IMF stabilization program implemented by Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori in 1990 was so harsh it was called surgery without anesthesia. Now the regime has embarked on a massive selloff of Peru's land, resources, industry, and labor.

All of Peru's state-owned industries--some 220 total--have been put on the auction block, many at firesale prices. Included are Centromin, the country's leading producer of silver, zinc, and lead; PetroPeru, the state run oil monopoly; and Pesca Peru, producer of 40 percent of Peru's fishmeal. The government is selling off major banks, utilities, copper mines, and cement companies. Agricultural land is up for sale, and millions of acres of Peruvian highland and jungle are being opened up for mineral exploration. Peru's national airline, telephone companies and a number of other concerns have already been sold.

The list of interested buyers reads like a who's who of multinationals and banks from the U.S., Japan and Western Europe--Exxon, Nabisco, Owens-Illinois, Mobil, Phelps Dodge, Mitsubishi, and Colgate Palmolive to name a few--along with companies from China, Spain, Mexico, Chile and South Africa.

Comment

My first attempt at addressing these questions was asking Nike for a job in one of their contractor's factories. Not surprisingly, they declined. So, I knew I had to create some kind of action that would allow people here to not only understand what the men and women working in Nike's factories in places like Indonesia are going through, but action that would also outrage them to the point of taking immediate action. A fellow activist who wanted to create some kind of online project that would bridge the gap between the workers in developing countries and consumers here in the USA planted an idea in my mind that eventually blossomed into the Olympic Living Wage Project.

I knew that there was almost 10 years of research that was most condemning to Nike's operations in developing countries. The campaign that focused around these studies had some impact, but it was glacial at best. How could we get American consumers to relate to the suffering of "those people" who make the shoes and clothes they wear?

Since Nike would not allow me to work in the factory, I would do the next best thing. I would go live on the wages and in the conditions of the workers and document the whole thing on the Internet and with the latest digital technology. That was the plan. So, I organized some of my closest friends and initiated the Olympic Living Wage Project.

The team was set and on a shoestring budget of a few thousand dollars of private donations and far too many charges on my credit cards we were off to Tangerang, Indonesia.

Indonesia, about as far from the familiarity of the east coast that we could get. The reality of the volatility of Indonesia set in on our second day in Jakarta when we were two blocks away from a bomb blast that killed two people and injured dozens. What the hell had I gotten us into?!

We eventually made our way to Tangerang, an industrial suburb that is home to the factories that produce for Nike, Adidas, Reebok, Fila, Lotto, Old Navy, the Gap, Levis, Ralph Lauren, etc. You name the major brand - they are producing in Tangerang. We set up shop in a 9x9 cement box, with a shelf-paper lined floor and two thin mats to sleep. We would call this home for the next thirty days. Home. In a neighborhood lined with putrid open sewers, riddle with piles of burning garbage, and pollution you could cut through, we would spend the next month trying to survive on a $1.25 a day.

We needed to do just that, survive. A $1.25 a day... it is a starvation wage, I know, we starved on it, we spent most of the month exhausted and painfully hungry and lost 25 pounds.

Although we set out with a focus on Nike, we quickly came to realize that most if not all of the sporting goods multinationals producing in Indonesia, including industry giants Nike, Adidas, and Reebok, are exploiting their workers. Given the first hand experience of the human impact of these companies' labor practices I can tell you that we will continue to work to bring the stories of these workers to the world. They are not just 'factory workers', they are fellow human beings, our brothers and sisters. We will strive to give them a voice to let the world know that they are suffering and in need of justice.

Comment

By doing that they are helping the countries economy. Good for every one but the good old US of A.

wasup

11 Apr 2008 06:07

3 Comments

How exactly are they helping said countries?

sceptic101

12 Apr 2008 22:02

Comment

I want to sit back and give some thought to a detailed and considered response. This debate and the text supporting the debate title are absolutely and inexcusably outrageous. Does the proposer really believe this or is it a desire to be provocative?

"...the workers who have volunteered to work under the terms accepted....."

What an absolutely outrageous statement. I feel as though I will respond more later as I cannot believe these views. Well I can. I know there are people in the world with these views, it is just seeing it in print and being able to read and re read it. I am gobsmacked and disgusted... More later.

pallan281

07 May 2008 17:44

Add a Comment

What you are encouraging is an immoral outlook on business, that we should promote materialistic priorities, and a nihilistic and post-modern viewpoint on life.

I for one am thoroughly against endorsing such an idea.

sceptic101

12 Apr 2008 20:24

8 Comments

In response to your comment, i must say that both sides actually benefit from the transaction. The point which you state about it being immoral i do disagree with as the employees are working on a voluntary basis. Most major business firms now follow the code called Ethical Trading Iniative, when searching abroad for workplaces. This ensures that the workers are in safe conditions and receive a pay that is above the minimum wage nationally accepted. The world of industry is very materialistic i agree, however, so it should be. The objective of industry is to make money whilst abiding by a set of RULES. These rules are followed, and that is what my debate is about, should these rules be enforced in the world of industry which allow us to take advantage of countries with economic misbalance. And my view on that is yes mainly because of the voluntary code.

jordibro1

17 Apr 2008 20:43

Comment

We are in the middle of the greatest cancer epidemic in the world because of principals that you set forth in this debate. The idea that money is the only form of wealth is an economists dream. Is clean air and water not a form of wealth, what about good health?

In my first sentence I am referring to the introduction of man made Chemicals starting in the 1940's. The 40's began a new industry of creating products and chemicals that have never existed on Earth before. Not knowing the ramifications of introducing these chemicals into our ground water and air was never addressed at the time because these companies were very profitable. These same companies that created this cancer epidemic are now profiting off of the drugs it sells to treat cancer. This is the perfect capitalist business model as the company that created the problem is now making money to treat it. This would be like the Tobacco companies treating lung cancer while still selling cigarettes.

Profits are not t the only measure of wealth and until the people start realizing it, industry will continue to pass its externalities on the people.

openurmind

11 Apr 2008 18:06

7 Comments

Reason of erasing information:
Duplicate content is not allowed on forandagainst. Your last paragraph is copied from other sites, You can give a link instead, and we'll appreciate if you can understand.

deepsheep

13 Apr 2008 09:53

Comment

The Causes
What has happened to cause this enormous explosion in the incidence of cancer? From the 1890s until the 1940s, organic chemicals were produced by the fractional distillation of coal and tar. No new chemicals were produced, only those already present in coal and tar were isolated. The petrochemical era was born in the 1940s. In 1940, by using new technology, synthetic chemicals were created which had never existed before. With the advent of thermal cracking and catalytic cracking, it became possible to take petroleum, fractionate it, isolate particular chemicals and then, with a process of molecular splicing and recombination, to produce any chemical you wanted to produce. In 1940, we produced about one billion pounds of new synthetic chemicals.

By 1950, the figure had reached fifty billion pounds, and by the late 1980s, it became 500 billion pounds, including a wide range of toxic, carcinogenic, neurotoxic and other chemicals. Most of these chemicals have never been tested for toxic, carcinogenic or environmental effects. We have been able to identify around 600 of these chemicals which are carcinogenic in animals and, although one can say that is just in animals, and they are not proven to be carcinogenic in humans, the fact is, without exception, all chemicals which are carcinogenic in humans are carcinogenic in animals. The probability of the reverse being true is extremely high. No exception has ever been proven.

In cases of chemicals now known to be carcinogenic for humans, the carcinogenicity in animals was known as long as four decades prior to the establishment of proof of human carcinogenicity. We cannot afford the luxury of waiting for proof of human carcinogenicity after animal carcinogenicity has been proven, and yet that is what is happening. We are subjected daily to a host of chemicals of known carcinogenicity in animals. It took over three decades and thirty million dollars in research to prove the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. This was a huge number of people, as high as fifty percent of the population at one time, exposed to the same source of carcinogens.

When you are dealing with smaller numbers of people and large numbers of carcinogens, it becomes practically impossible to prove a human cancer linkage beyond a scientific doubt. ACS, the American Cancer Society and NCI, the National Cancer Institute, imply in their literature and public statements that tobacco is the only cause of the increase in cancer. This is nonsense.

Since 1950, if you subtract lung cancer, the increase in overall cancer is more than seventy percent, and this in the face of the fact that smoking has decreased from around fifty percent to around twenty-five percent since 1950. The nonsmoking attributable lung cancers are about thirty percent, most due to occupational hazards and urban air pollution. For example, the incidence of lung cancers has more than doubled in recent decades despite the fact that people are smoking less, not more. These cancers must be caused by other factors.

Comment

What kind of statement is that?! Just because it would make make money doesn't make it right.

the_atom

11 Apr 2008 01:09

Add a Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?