# Cheap clothing - slave labour?



## emma42

I wonder what forer@s' experiences of buying cheap imported clothing are?

There has been a fierce and continuous price war going on between the major supermarkets in England for the last few years.  The supermarkets have expanded into all sorts of lines, including electrical and clothing.  The clothing is not bog standard unattractive stuff, but designed by well-respected designers and incredibly cheap.  I know that when I buy this stuff, someone is probably suffering the indignity of low wages and poor working conditions.  I cannot afford to buy Fair Trade clothing.  I often buy secondhand clothing, but not exclusively.  

Is it immoral to buy such clothing and, if so, what can we do about it, apart from stop buying?

What is the situation in other countries?


----------



## Jana337

> I know that when I buy this stuff, someone is probably suffering the indignity of low wages and poor working conditions.


Emma, what do you think happens when you do not buy the stuff?

Jana


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

emma42 said:
			
		

> Is it immoral to buy such clothing and, if so, what can we do about it, apart from stop buying?
> 
> What is the situation in other countries?


Yes, it is immoral! You're a bad girl, a sinner! You should down on your knees and pray! Right now! For at least... 2 secondes! 
And in other countries, as in the whole Europe, we buy those clothes feeling guilty too! 
(except me, as I'm always naked...  )


----------



## panjandrum

One of the unconsidered consequences of this competition is that those who were previously employed in clothing manufacture, before the process was off-shored, are now unemployed.


----------



## emma42

Exactly, Panj.  That's global capitalism for you.


----------



## cuchuflete

The effects on contries and regions like mine, that have lost employment in textiles, shoe manufacture, etc. have been grim.  Over time, those labor forces learned new trades.
I'm not sure if, on balance, they have recovered their former earning levels.

To the original question, I've written the same thing many times in these forums, but some of our newer members have not yet had the displeasure of basic economics instruction.

What you may consider to be unconscionably low wages in a distant country may, in fact, be better than what many people are used to.  The absolute figures, say a dolar or a pound sterling or a euro per hour or per day may seem, by your standards, criminally low.

But what are the available wages in other forms of available employment in those countries?  What is the cost of living?

If you don't know the answers to those questions, it is premature to condemn the pay rates as slave labor.


----------



## emma42

Cuchu.  Firstly, I did not use the term "slave labour" (I realise you did not refer to me directly). 

You make good points.  I am aware that what is a low wage in one country may not be so in another, dollar for dollar, as it were.  I am also aware that extremely low pay in the textile industry in a country does not stand in isolation in terms of social/economic problems.

However, it is a fact, as I am sure you will agree, that there are places where workers live in poverty, sometimes grinding poverty, simply to fill the pockets of their bosses, who may well be able to pay more and still make a profit.

Of course, one matter to consider is the availability of other forms of employment, but does that then mean that we have to wait for a clear change in economic ethics/policy before _anything_ is done?


----------



## cuchuflete

emma42 said:
			
		

> However, it is a fact, as I am sure you will agree, that there are places where workers live in poverty, sometimes grinding poverty, simply to fill the pockets of their bosses, who may well be able to pay more and still make a profit.


  I don't have the strength to address all of these questions, which are complex, and deserve more than a quick or flippant answer.  Thus I've picked just one, and will trust that others will address more.

First, it always delights me to be told by a respected colleague that I will agree to something.  On inspection, it often transpires that my assumed agreement is partial, or not to be found.  Still, it's a gracious way to argue a point, and that is appreciated.

there are places where workers live in poverty, sometimes grinding poverty,   Full agreement.  It's true and it's very depressing.  Even more depressing is the condition of people in those same places who cannot be called 'workers', because they have no employment at all. 


simply to fill the pockets of their bosses,  I've yet to meet a worker who took a job with this in mind.  Generally people take jobs to earn money, and they take the highest paying job they can find, given the local economy and their own marketable skills.  Often times 'their bosses' are badly paid 'workers' as well.  If you meant to say owners, just disregard the last comment, but keep the first in mind.

who may well be able to pay more and still make a profit. 
Well now we have to get into that most dismal science, economics.  In a so-called free market for labor, labor supply and demand, the cost of capital, and opportunities for earnings from investments all come into play.  It's just not as simple as a revolutionary slogan.   

If a factory owner could do as you suggest, and earn a profit, albeit lower, and pay higher wages, then a number of outcomes might occur.  (1)The factory owner might, as a socially "correct" person, do just as you say; (2)the factory owner might decide that the lower profit is not attractive as a return on hard-earned capital, and thus shut down the factory and invest the proceeds in financial instruments abroad.  All workers would find themselves unemployed.  If there is a relative labor shortage, and the workers are organized, higher wages may be negotiated, and then the factory owner either accepts a lower return on invested capital, or chooses option #2. 

Those are a couple of very over-simplified scenarios.  To generalize those outcomes would be as useful as the generality of the question.


----------



## emma42

I am sorry if the original question was too general. I should, probably, have chosen one aspect of the matter.

What about international pressure to institute/enforce workers' rights? Or is this "revolutionary" sloganising with no place in the reality of a global marketplace?

Cuchuflete, I do apologise for saying that I was sure you would agree! Presumptuous.

Edit.  And I have just noticed I used "slave labour" in the title.  sorry again!


----------



## luis masci

Talking about slave labor.... some days ago was discovered in Buenos Aires- Argentina, an illegal textile industry (through a fire) where there were Bolivians working in slave conditions. 
Bolivians in Argentina are seen and treated (if you let me the comparison) like Latinos in USA.
You can see more here (this article is written in Spanish)


----------



## emma42

Thanks, luis masci, that is interesting, but is anecdotal and doesn't really address the whole issue.


----------



## Dandee

luis masci said:
			
		

> Talking about slave labor.... some days ago was discovered in Buenos Aires- Argentina, an illegal textile industry (through a fire) where there were Bolivians working in slave conditions.
> Bolivians in Argentina are seen and treated (if you let me the comparison) like Latinos in USA.
> You can see more here (this article is written in Spanish)


 
More than 20 years ago complete bolivian families (children included) were brought illegally to Argentina to work in hard works, such as onion cultives and almost (as you say) in slave conditions.
Incredible but true. I saw it in the south of Buenos Aires province.

Dandee.


----------



## danielfranco

Over here there's also a bit of a mystery as to how places like Wally World (don't know if I am allowed to say their real brand-name) manage to have such spectacularly low prices in *everything*, not only clothing. In a BBC program I heard in National Public Radio, back when this store wanted to start their own credit card banking scheme, there were questions as to how proper it was for them to get all this merchandise at such low prices an have so much influence in the market worldwide, and not advocate for better working conditions in the countries that do business with them.
I, as a consumer, am a egotistical fool trying to save a buck. You see, I realize that in some country or other somebody might just be exploited at this moment to allow me to save a dollar here and there. Also, I may be contributing to the trade deficit and to unemployment of this country. And all of this because I rather save fifty or a hundred or one dollar every time I shop.
I really should feel more moral obligation, but my personal finances sometimes harden my heart...


----------



## Auryn

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Emma, what do you think happens when you do not buy the stuff?



Well, it's called boycotting something you refuse to condone.


----------



## Jana337

Auryn said:
			
		

> Well, it's called boycotting something you refuse to condone.


A nice reply to a different question. 

Jana


----------



## natasha2000

Dear Emma,

As far as the cheap labor is concerned, then we should stop buying cars, hifi stereos, cd players etc, too, because in some place, somewhere, people are fired because they became too costy for their employers... I'l explain myself better. Not only textile industry, but all industries in this world look for cheap labor. Some twenty years ago, some very well known brands of cars and others brought to Spain their production because they could get the same product for twice as cheaper than in their countries of origin. So, many Spaniards got jobs, and many Xcitizens lost them. The same thing happens nowadays, but with a little bit different roles: now are theSpaniards who loose their jobs because they became too expensive labour for their employees, and the production goes to new EU members, where a good worker can be paid 50% less than a Spaniard, and he will still be very satisfied with his pay. The Spaniards here protest, try not to be fired, but at the end, it will happen as Chuchu said: some of them wirl prequalify and do other thing, some of them will go to aerly pension, some of them will be paid some money... And at the end it will be arranged somehow, but these companies won't put back their production here. This is the law of capitalism, and it is still very human considering how it was done some 150 years ago. It is not fair, yes. But hey, who told you the life is fair?

As far as the"slave labor", such as Bolivians in Argentina, or Latinos in USA or Chinese in Spain.... The sweat shops should be looked for and destroyed by the police. This is the solution, rather than stop buying the things they produce, because they are in a country illegaly, nobody knows they are here, their lives depend on their "masters", usually criminals with no mercy whose business is not only sweat shops, but also prostitution, drugs, etc... So, imagine, what would happen with all those people if their bosses see they don't earn money? They would be destinated to exercise prostitution (as many of them are women), or they will be simply eliminated, with "shoes of cement", as it would say Don Corleone.... (Jana, does this answer to your question?)

And, I also have to agree with Daniel... Very often my finances do not allow me to show more solidarity than I can. Besides, as I already said, I do not believe that stop buying will change anything... And in some cases, it might even worse things for some of those poor people. If I believed in it, maybe I would think in a different manner, but I don't.


----------



## emma42

Thank you, Natasha. Yes, I don't think boycotting is the answer. In this case it would seem to be short-termism and shortsighted and counterproductive unless, perhaps, there were a mass mass boycott. I think that some of those who advocate boycotting in situations like these (take South Africa as it was) are aware of the shortfalls of such action (inaction), but it would be interesting to hear arguments for.


----------



## maxiogee

All commercial enterprises are driven to continually lower their costs.
Fruit of the Loom - well known I imagine to almost all forer@s - recently closed their operation here in Ireland. They had run production down over a number of years. The work being done in the recetn past by the workers in Donegal is now to be done in Morocco. The wages there will be one-seventh of what they were here.
Now, before you tut-tut, let us remember that when they moved to Ireland we were probably a low wage economy to them.
And before the second tut-tut kicks in, let us remember that the Moroccan government probably fought off competition from other countries to win the business.

All capitalism means that someone, somewhere, is being shafted.

A good tactic for those who feel that they cannot afford to buy Fair Trade is to buy fewer clothes, but buy them more conscientiously.


----------



## Etcetera

In 1990s Russia there was a lot of clothes from China - it was cheap, and it was the main reason why people used to buy them, though the quality of this clothes wasn't good. You could wear a Chinese coat for a year or two, and then you had to buy a new one. A vast majority of people just couldn't afford something better. 
Nowadays, the situation has changed to good. People now can afford to buy more expensive and good in quality clothes. 



> A good tactic for those who feel that they cannot afford to buy Fair Trade is to buy fewer clothes, but buy them more conscientiously.


That's what I often do, actually. 
My shopaholism doesn't spread on clothes, so I buy new clothes rather seldom and can afford rather expensive ones. A great advantage of expensive clothes is, in my view, that it's usually of very high quality, so you can wear them for years. And does it really matter if your favourite blouse has gone out of fashion?
We aren't so rich as to buy cheap things, we say.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Over the last 2 or 3 decades, we have seen a version of "globalization" emerge where the corporations are free to move across international borders - but the workers are not.

Every year the obstacles to emigration from a developing country increase.  Simultaneously, to use a local example, every year another business moves from my part of Ontario to a non-union state or to Mexico.  

Back to your original question, Emma.  My personal response is to buy second-hand clothing, fair trade clothing, or locally-made clothing.  I also make sure that my kids and students are very aware of where their clothing is made and who makes it.


----------



## Etcetera

I wish the subject of this discussion weren't so narrow. We could discuss labour-saving devices (washing machines and so on), mobile phones, etc. as well. Or using a video recorder which was made in Taiwan is absolutely OK?


----------



## natasha2000

Etcetera said:
			
		

> I wish the subject of this discussion weren't so narrow. We could discuss labour-saving devices (washing machines and so on), mobile phones, etc. as well. Or using a video recorder which was made in Taiwan is absolutely OK?


 
This is exactly the point. Nowadays you won't find any CD player (VHS is a little bit obsolete technique) made in Germany or made in Japan or in any other "rich" country, but in Taiwan, China, etc...


----------



## Etcetera

You know what, Natasha? This spring, my parents decided to buy me a new mobile phone as a birthday gift. OK, we went to a shop, chose a new phone, and the shop assistant offered us that the shop would take my old phone so we could pay less for a new one. I still remember very well how surprised the shop assistant sounded when he opened my old phone and said, 'Made in Denmark! You know, I've never seen a mobile phone made in Denmark!!!' 
The new phone was made in China.


----------



## natasha2000

Etcetera said:
			
		

> You know what, Natasha? This spring, my parents decided to buy me a new mobile phone as a birthday gift. OK, we went to a shop, chose a new phone, and the shop assistant offered us that the shop would take my old phone so we could pay less for a new one. I still remember very well how surprised the shop assistant sounded when he opened my old phone and said, 'Made in Denmark! You know, I've never seen a mobile phone made in Denmark!!!'
> The new phone was made in China.


 
Right! I think it is better for all of us to accept these changes as a rather imminent and normal, and try to be more practical. Instead of crying over the bad fate of those who stayed without jobs we (as a society, not us,WR foreros) should make quick requalification of those workers and make them independent again as soon as possible. The society will prosper better, and they will be back on their own feet sooner.


----------



## emma42

I think you have understood the English very well, Natasha.  

"Not everything is rosy".


----------



## Etcetera

Frankly, I can't understand why on earth we should buy only home-made clothes. Of course, I can go and buy lace-up boots made in Russia, but what if I want not just boots, but boots by Camelot, for instance? To my knowledge, Camelot has no factories in Russia! 
Besaides, I haven't done any harm to Poland's economy by buying my Camelot boots, have I?


----------



## emma42

Ah, but Camelot are not cheap, are they, etcetera?  They are designer, my friend.

Papalote, as usual, your post was excellent and I salute you, comrade.


----------



## Etcetera

Are not cheap? Well, my boots costed me some 1800 roubles, it's about $60 - I didn't find that expensive. Market shoes may cost more, and their quality is usually lower.


----------



## emma42

OOh, sorry, etcetera.  I gathered from your previous comments that you liked designer gear.  No, £32.60  is not expensive, but it is not dirt cheap either.  People on low wages or state benefits would be hard pushed to find that sort of money for footwear.


----------



## Etcetera

I have no marked preferences in gear. If I see something really good-looking and good in quality at a market, I surely buy it. But if I see this 'something' in a fashion shop, and it's not too expensive (I'm not so rich, after all), I don't buy it at once. I go away from the shop in order to think carefully, and if in a day or two my intention to buy the clothes in question doesn't vanish , - well, I return to the shop and buy it. 
It should be added that I buy any clothes rather seldom...


----------



## emma42

Etcetera, my friend, Post #

"I buy new clothes rather seldom and can afford rather expensive ones...We aren't so rich as to buy cheap things, we say".

I don't want to catch you out, I am just explaining why I said what I said to you!


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> Hi Natasha. Yes, I was disagreeing with you BUT I might have misunderstood you, so lets see.
> 
> As I understood you, you were saying that we had to accept that workers would lose their jobs because there was nothing we could do about it, and that we should retrain them as quickly as possible.
> Yes, but not in a way that I agree with this. We can think this is injust, and yes it is injust, and cruel and everything you say I agree, but THIS IS A FACT and we can do little about it. So, we should look for solutions as quickly as we can, in order to get them back on their feet.
> 
> That is a valid point of view. However, my argument is *why the hell should we accept* that workers should lose their jobs and then have to retrain, probably in something not of their choosing, and then be further subject to the needs of the market with no question of them, as individuals with minds and souls, having any say in it?
> As usual, you're right again, but in this world that is today, this would be rather idealistic point of view. The fight against the capitalism beginning with boycoting cheap clothes would last much longer that the time one unemployed worker can be without any salary. Fight is ok, but in the meantime, these people must eat something, and they must buy some clothes, too. And I am sure that they would buy what is cheaper and not what is righter, too. Simply because they do not have for more.
> 
> And yes, it is also sad but true. They and not only they, but almost every working person depends on work market movements and not on what's right and what's wrong. I would surely die of hunger if I relie on my skills of a translator from Serbian to English (or even Spanish) in Spain. Why? Simply because nobody works with Serbia, so translators from Serbian are not needed, and if there is someone who works with Serbia, English is good enough to do the business.
> 
> This is something at the heart of capitalism. It goes on and on about individual choice and freedom, but...well, do I need to say more?
> 
> Capitalism is bad. It is against freedom. Against compassion (it may pay lip service to it, but by its very nature, profit is its motive - profit of the few by the many). People say, "capitalism works", but it doesn't. Otherwise we woud not have the poverty etc all over the world that we have. It is a rubbish system. It works for a few.
> 
> And no, my alternative is not communism as extant in the former Soviet Union etc.
> 
> And to this, Etcetera already answered. Is there any alternative?


 
So, everything you say is real, is true, but the way you choose to fight is, if I may say, rather idealistic and not the right one, I am afraid.

And one thing more. This is strictly personal opinion, but I will expose it here anyway. I think that capitalism is the right system for human nature. Communism was thought pretty well, but human nature destroyed it in each and every communist country. Why? Because, whether we like it or not, greed is one of the main characteristics of a human being, and if you give him the chance to "take what he needs" as communism offered, he will take not only that he needs, but everything he can. Sad but true.


----------



## emma42

Natasha, I have specifically said that I had not as yet offered any alternatives or proffered any suggestions as to how to fight. I did not say boycotting would be effective.

I am sorry if you think wanting to fight against injustice is idealistic. Is this what the suffragettes said? Manumission? Fight against child labour in England? Right of husband to rape his wife? I could go on.

I do appreciate what you are saying, but I disagree with you.


----------



## Etcetera

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Because, whether we like it or not, greed is one of the main characteristics of a human being, and if you give him the chance to "take what he needs" as communism offered, he will take not only that he needs, but everything he can. Sad but true.


Absolutely true. Let alone that every person has their own idea of what they need!


----------



## emma42

Would he take whatever he could from his child?  His wife?  Her mother?  The neighbour?  The comrade?  Is it human nature or have we been nurtured by the stronger to think this way?


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> Natasha, I have specifically said that I had not as yet offered any alternatives or proffered any suggestions as to how to fight. I did not say boycotting would be effective.
> 
> I am sorry if you think wanting to fight against injustice is idealistic. Is this what the suffragettes said? Manumission? Fight against child labour in England? Right of husband to rape his wife? I could go on.
> 
> I do appreciate what you are saying, but I disagree with you.


 
Oh, Emma... I didn't mean that we shouldn't do anything. I just wanted to say that the first thing that is important is to get those people back on their feet again as soon as possible. But not with boycot. AND I do not say you said the boycont is the right thing to do, I just answer toyour question from your original post where you ask tyourself if we should do it.

And I think that women's rights and domestic violence is the same but different problem. Same because all are big injustices where basic human rights are stepped down. Different in urgency of the problem, because if you as a woman do not vote, you will not die of hunger, but if one does not work, he does not eat, and he will die in a very short period of time. 

And domestic violence and machismo, and each and every injustice that comes from a man towards women and children (wihite slavery, children prostitution, and many other horrible things that do happen in this world, I can go on, too)... This is especially hard and painful subject and I certainly do not think that there's nothing to be done, but this is a completely another subject, very complex and very complicated, too...

What I want to say is: first make them independant, then fight.
Example: We can fight against some dictator in some African country. OK. But what the population of this country in question would appreciate better is aid in food and medicine, clean water and a roof, and after that is to help them to get rid of their dictator...

I don't mean to offend or look down to anyone, but I have to say... Maybe, just maybe Etcetera understands me better than you, because our countries passed and are passing similar economc crysis, which you (I suppose), thanks God, never were forced to experience, at least not in a way we did. We saw how a human being can be geedy and evil, western people didn't. And if they did, it was in much lower number.
Please, do not interpret me wrong. My thoughts are clear and without any second thoughts.


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> Would he take whatever he could from his child? His wife? Her mother? The neighbour? The comrade? Is it human nature or have we been nurtured by the stronger to think this way?


 
From the society.

This is what I meant. 

Taking from the society more than you need because you can, makes that society poorer, which means that this society will not be able to offer help to those who really need it, and the more you take, the less the others will have. This is what happened in all communist societies.

The healthier society, the happier people that live in it.


----------



## GenJen54

If I may remind everyone of Emma's original topic:



> I wonder what forer@s' experiences of buying cheap imported clothing are?
> 
> There has been a fierce and continuous price war going on between the major supermarkets in England for the last few years. The supermarkets have expanded into all sorts of lines, including electrical and clothing. The clothing is not bog standard unattractive stuff, but designed by well-respected designers and incredibly cheap. I know that when I buy this stuff, someone is probably suffering the indignity of low wages and poor working conditions. I cannot afford to buy Fair Trade clothing. I often buy secondhand clothing, but not exclusively.
> 
> Is it immoral to buy such clothing and, if so, what can we do about it, apart from stop buying?
> 
> *What is the situation in other countries?*


 
We tend to be veering slightly off-topic with the interesting comparison of capitalism, socialism, communism and other economic "isms." 

With the exception of how this affects the average worker, this is not the topic (although would make for an exceptional topic).


----------



## french4beth

emma42 said:
			
		

> I wonder what forer@s' experiences of buying cheap imported clothing are?
> 
> There has been a fierce and continuous price war going on between the major supermarkets in England for the last few years. The supermarkets have expanded into all sorts of lines, including electrical and clothing. The clothing is not bog standard unattractive stuff, but designed by well-respected designers and incredibly cheap. I know that when I buy this stuff, someone is probably suffering the indignity of low wages and poor working conditions. I cannot afford to buy Fair Trade clothing. I often buy secondhand clothing, but not exclusively.
> 
> Is it immoral to buy such clothing and, if so, what can we do about it, apart from stop buying?
> 
> What is the situation in other countries?


Due to my financial circumstances (which would constitute a whole thread in itself), I buy 'cheap imported clothing'.  I don't feel bad about it; I would love to be able to afford organic, unbleached, environmentally friendly clothing, but can't right now (I don't sew much, either, so that's not an option). I occasionally buy second-hand clothing from a shop that gives all profits to survivors of domestic abuse called "My Sister's Place" (this makes me feel good - I'm recycling used clothing + helping people in need).  

I don't think that it's immoral to buy cheap imports - _illegal sweatshops_ are immoral (just ask Kathie Lee Gifford), and should be stopped, regardless of what country they're in (and they're everywhere!).  

In many cities in the US, people set up portable tables on the sidewalk and sell goods (that may have 'fallen off of the truck' - i.e. are stolen) or bootleg [illegally recorded] videos/cd's/dvd's, cheap & illegal designer knockoffs - I do not buy from such street vendors, as I feel that what _they_ are doing is immoral.


----------



## Papalote

Me again!

Having been hooked on this thread, I have just spent a very agreeable hour pretending I¨m shopping for clothes in downtown Montreal. Okay, okay, I bought myself a blouse, but that´s beside the point.  My intention was to check that the clothes I have been buying were indeed made by _<slave labour>._

I was very agreeably surprised to see that out of the 20-odd pieces of clothing I looked at only one was made in China. The rest were from Perú, Ecuador, Mexico, India, Macao, Greece, Philippines, and the USA. The shoes were made in China, Brazil, Italy and Portugal.

Could the clothing industry have become that global or are there many more slaves than I could´ve ever imagined?

Still, nothing made in Canada. But, I did not look at every piece of clothing or pair of shoes in the store. Shucks! I´ll have to go back  !

P


----------



## Etcetera

Please don't go, I'm sure you won't see anything new.
I'm in a sense luckier, because there is clothes made in Russia here. But still, should I refuse to buy a nice T-shirt only because it was made in Poland or Italy?


----------



## la reine victoria

If I buy clothing labelled "100% British Made" it is no guarantee that the garments were produced by workers enjoying comfrotable work places and earning a decent wage.

"Sweatshops" have always existed in the Whitechapel area of London - a very poor, run-down district populated in the main by Asian immigrants. I'm sure that similar areas exist in most large cities.

With the ever increasing rise of immigration in the UK, and the proposed granting of an amnesty to all illegal immigrants (becuase we simply don't know who or where they are) then "sweatshops" will continue to increase.

The salient point is that many "third world" immigrants to the UK have come to escape a life where earning potential was nil. UK "small" manufacturers have been quick to take advantage of this and have employed immigrants in "Dickensian" conditions, paying them well below the minimum legal wage. The sad thing is that the employers are generally of the same race as their employees.

There can be no guaratee, no matter what the label on your garment says, that it wasn't produced by "slave labour". Some very respected British retailers are known to have stocked their shops with garments produced in this way.

Employer - out to make a fast buck, employee willing to endure anything to earn some much-needed income. This has been the pattern throughout history and, in my opinion, will continue to be so.

I tend not to buy cheap clothes but I still have no idea who made my clothes and in what conditions.



LRV


----------



## Auryn

Jana337 said:
			
		

> A nice reply to a different question.


You asked "What do you think happens when you do not buy the stuff?"

Refusing to buy a certain product because you disapprove of the way it's manufactured is known as a boycott. The idea of a boycott is to put pressure on the manufacturer so they change their manufacturing process, improve their staff's working conditions or take whatever measures the public is asking for. 

Does this answer your question?


----------



## maxiogee

Auryn said:
			
		

> You asked "What do you think happens when you do not buy the stuff?"
> 
> Refusing to buy a certain product because you disapprove of the way it's manufactured is known as a boycott. The idea of a boycott is to put pressure on the manufacturer so they change their manufacturing process, improve their staff's working conditions or take whatever measures the public is asking for.
> 
> Does this answer your question?



But a boycott (lovely Irish invention, that!) only works if the person/group being boycotted knows it is being boycotted.


----------



## GenJen54

I think one of the inherent problems with Fair Trade clothing is its obvious lack of availability. I took a few minutes to research "free trade" clothing, and could not find a definitive lisitng of brands *to avoid.* What I could find were boutique-like online shops that offer Free Trade clothing. Few had any reasonble "work" clothes (suits, pant suits for ladies', etc.) Many had t-shirts and items of that nature. 

Unfortunately, practicality for me, at least, wins out.


----------



## cuchuflete

Auryn said:
			
		

> Refusing to buy a certain product because you disapprove of the way you believe, with or without evidence,  it's manufactured is known as a boycott. The idea of a boycott is to put pressure on the manufacturer so they change their manufacturing process, improve their staff's working conditions or take whatever measures the public is asking for.



And......it generally doesn't work, other than in rare cases in which the workers are dismissed, the capital equipment is moved to another nation, or the company re-opens under a different name.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> And......it generally doesn't work, other than in rare cases in which the workers are dismissed, the capital equipment is moved to another nation, or the company re-opens under a different name.



Some of the workers in the Fruit of the Loom plant I mentioned earlier are being retained pro-tem, to dismantle the equipment and pack it for shipping…


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> And......it generally doesn't work, other than in rare cases in which the workers are dismissed, the capital equipment is moved to another nation, or the company re-opens under a different name.


 
This was what I wanted to say with a loads of text I wrote.... It is cruel but it is reality.


----------



## Etcetera

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> And......it generally doesn't work, other than in rare cases in which the workers are dismissed, the capital equipment is moved to another nation, or the company re-opens under a different name.


It's true. Besides, I can hardly remember any case of boycott which would be a mass action. 
In this case with cheap clothing, there will always be people who are simply too poor to refuse to buy cheap clothing.


----------



## wsitiplaju

It is not always the case that boycotts only flop or backfire.  The 1965 grape strike in the US included a massive boycott.  I understand this strike/boycott to have been of enormous significance in US labor history.  (Of course it is a very different situation from a solitary person on the street deciding to buy this or that blouse, but as the topic has turned to boycotts in general...)
No offense, but y'all write as if labor never won a battle.


----------



## natasha2000

wsitiplaju said:
			
		

> No offense, but y'all write as if labor never won a battle.


 
No, that is not the point.
The point is as Maxiogee said, that if you make a boycott, then at least the one who is boicoted should know that you boycott him, otherwise, it is meaningless.
And even if he knows, usually it is very long and hard fight. And meanwhile, the fired workers must eat something, don't they?

Anyway, if it is decided to boycott, it should be planned and organized on a big scale, if only I in Spain, you in USA and someone in England and other parts of the world individually decide not to buy something this will have no effect at all.


----------



## emma42

It is _a_ point, though, Natasha.  Whilst I agree that boycotting often does not work, for the reasons outlined above and others, people are talking here as if labour never won a battle (not necessarily through boycott)  And they did.  Would that be another thread?  I think so, unless it is related to the clothing industry.


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> It is _a_ point, though, Natasha. Whilst I agree that boycotting often does not work, for the reasons outlined above and others, people are talking here as if labour never won a battle (not necessarily through boycott) And they did. Would that be another thread? I think so, unless it is related to the clothing industry.


 
I just wanted to say that individual non-organized boycotting does not lead anywhere. Maybe one of the best proofs of organized boycott success is Gandhi's fight in India. But we all know that this fight was fierce and it had many victims. Anonther question might be if actual workers in western countries are ready for this kind of fight, because they will be those who suffer, not you or I who don't buy clothes they made.

And yes, labour did won many battles... Let's start from the Russian October Revolution... But, then, I doubt their kind of fight would be accepted nowadays.....


----------



## wsitiplaju

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> No, that is not the point.
> The point is as Maxiogee said, that if you make a boycott, then at least the one who is boicoted should know that you boycott him, otherwise, it is meaningless.
> And even if he knows, usually it is very long and hard fight. And meanwhile, the fired workers must eat something, don't they?
> 
> Anyway, if it is decided to boycott, it should be planned and organized on a big scale, if only I in Spain, you in USA and someone in England and other parts of the world individually decide not to buy something this will have no effect at all.


 
I'm glad to hear this, and I agree that organization is key, as in the example I cited (the grape boycott).  I was simply referring to the resigned tone of the last several posts.  

I wouldn't go so far as to say that not buying this or that is "meaningless" or "has no effect at all."  Producers are very aware of consumer trends, and distaste for sweatshop products is part of that.  Otherwise the Fair Trade movement would have nothing to capitalize on.  If one's friends become aware that one doesn't like to buy X, that's also meaningful and with possible effects.  The fact that you as an individual can't trace those effects, that they seem miniscule and insignificant, doesn't mean that it's all the same what you buy.


----------



## Etcetera

My opinion is that is an individual stops buying something, it would scarcely have any effect. But on the other hand, there should be someone to begin... No mass action was started by many people at once, there always were some people who _organised_ these actions. 
And if there were any spontaneuos actions, they are only exceptions from the general rule.


----------



## natasha2000

wsitiplaju said:
			
		

> I'm glad to hear this, and I agree that organization is key, as in the example I cited (the grape boycott). I was simply referring to the resigned tone of the last several posts.
> 
> I wouldn't go so far as to say that not buying this or that is "meaningless" or "has no effect at all." Producers are very aware of consumer trends, and distaste for sweatshop products is part of that. Otherwise the Fair Trade movement would have nothing to capitalize on. If one's friends become aware that one doesn't like to buy X, that's also meaningful and with possible effects. The fact that you as an individual can't trace those effects, that they seem miniscule and insignificant, doesn't mean that it's all the same what you buy.


 
In order to be ORGANIZED, it should be started by someone who is important or famous. Or some important event must occur that will move the masses. Example.
For a time, there was a boycott of Catalonian champaigne, cava, by the rest of Spain, mainly in Madrid, when Catalonian gouvernment said they wanted a new "Estatut", which is a kind of Catalonian costitution. The boycott was incited by politicians from the Popular Party, with their ferocious attacks and meaningless insults directed to Catalonian people, and NOT to Catalonian gouvernment. People spontaneously stopped buying Catalonian cava, and the sales dropped very fast. It is a negative example, yes, but it is an example.

Other thing is that people must be conscientiated (buff, how's this spelled?). And according to my experience from my oqwn country, and from the history, consciousness comes usually with an empty stomach.
Now, how is one supposed to conscenciate the people when a boicott that is asked from them means to spend more money that they besides, usually do not have? for sure is much easier (not so easy, I admit) to make people to make strike - i.e. NOT to work for the cause, than to spend more money for the cause. Maybe I am wrong, but somehow, with all I have lived to see, I lost that idealistic view of a human being you westerners still have.

I am only trying to say that I consider (and I explained why) that particularly this kind of boycott (stop buying cheap clothes) is almost impossible, I did not mean that EVERY kind of boycott is impossible, but in order to have success, it must be lead and organized.


----------



## Etcetera

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Now, how is one supposed to conscenciate the people when a boicott that is asked from them means to spend more money that they besides, usually do not have? for sure is much easier (not so easy, I admit) to make people to make strike - i.e. NOT to work for the cause, than to spend more money for the cause. Maybe I am wrong, but somehow, with all I have lived to see, I lost that idealistic view of a human being you westerners still have.


That's it! Every person wants to eat, by the way, and if they stops working, then they just won't have anything to eat, right?
In the mid-1990s, there were several miners' strikes in Russia. OK, they succeeded in the end, if I'm not wrong. But... Guess what? People - ordinary citizens - weren't so sympathetic about these miners, and I heard some people saying, what the hell are they doing? who on earth would be happy if they would sit around the House of Government instead of working?
I mean to say, one more condition for a successful boycott is mass support of it. Those who don't participate in the action itself, should at least sympathise those who do.


----------



## la reine victoria

It would seem that the whole of the western world is being flooded with cheap goods from China. I'm sure everyone here is aware of the current economic boom being enjoyed by that country which is producing high-quality merchandise, compared with its somewhat shoddy goods of the past.

From the BBC World Service, this quote on South Africa:




> Mr Gershman, who is vice president of the Textiles Federation of South Africa, is worried about Chinese imports, and says the demise of local industry is imminent. "They can't compete with the garments coming in from China, and *62,000 jobs have been lost in the last two years alone. Each of those workers will have been supporting between five and 10 family members,"* says Mr Gershman.


 
I find it absolutely appalling that 62,000 South African workers, with large families to support, have lost their jobs in this way.

Another highly popular "hobby" among Brits is to jet off to New York with empty suitcases. Since clothing is so much cheaper in the USA, these people go there with the sole intention of filling their suitcases with "bargain price" clothing. Even if they are stopped at Customs on their return to GB, and have to pay import duty, they still claim to "be in pocket". I know people who have done this.

We have to face it - everyone loves a bargain and most don't really care about the conditions in which these goods were produced.

To call for a mass boycott of Chinese imports is well-nigh impossible.



LRV


----------



## emma42

You make some good points, Natasha, and I fully understand why you are less "idealistic", as you put it, being from Eastern Europe.

Your first point, though, caught my eye particularly.  Whatever the other considerations, in order for workers to organise, the impetus must come from below, from the workers themselves.  Yes, I know, very Marxist and all that, but, sorry, it's true.  Please do not think that I am an apologist for Russian and Chinese communism.  I am not.


----------



## french4beth

I hate to play devil's advocate here, but what about the rights of workers (who are not enslaved) to get decent jobs and get ahead in life?  Even if their wages appear to be paltry (to Westerners, any way), what if the wages are decent in the worker's country???  This would have to occur in decent working conditions, etc.


----------



## Etcetera

la reine victoria said:
			
		

> Another highly popular "hobby" among Brits is to jet off to New York with empty suitcases. Since clothing is so much cheaper in the USA, these people go there with the sole intention of filling their suitcases with "bargain price" clothing. Even if they are stopped at Customs on their return to GB, and have to pay import duty, they still claim to "be in pocket". I know people who have done this.


Your Majesty, could you please explain to me what does "to be in pocket" mean? I only found in my dictionary "to be in sb's pocket", and it doesn't seem to be the same...


----------



## la reine victoria

french4beth said:
			
		

> I hate to play devil's advocate here, but what about the rights of workers (who are not enslaved) to get decent jobs and get ahead in life? Even if their wages appear to be paltry (to Westerners, any way), what if the wages are decent in the worker's country??? This would have to occur in decent working conditions, etc.


 

Good point Beth.  However, if I may drift slightly away from clothing I'd like to comment on call centres.  Millions of jobs have been lost in the UK, USA and Australia, by greedy institutions relocating their call centres to India.  Whenever I call my bank, my phone company, my broadband supplier, I find myself chatting with a person in Delhi or Bombay.  The people who are employed there earn around 5,000 GB pounds per annum - a fortune to them.  There are 2,000 applicants for every 200 vacancies.  The institutions who employ them are making a saving of 70% per employee.

Their working conditions are extremly good.  Their 6 week intensive training courses make them "au fait" with western culture.  They are all given English names.  I have to admit I am happy for these people while at the same time feeling deep sympathy for those who have lost their jobs in the three countries I have mentioned.

What a crazy world we live in!  All motivated by PROFIT.




LRV


----------



## french4beth

> Millions of jobs have been lost in the UK, USA and Australia, by greedy institutions relocating their call centres


I hear you, Queen - I am one of those people who lost a job that was outsourced overseas!


----------



## la reine victoria

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Your Majesty, could you please explain to me what does "to be in pocket" mean? I only found in my dictionary "to be in sb's pocket", and it doesn't seem to be the same...


 

Hello dear Etcetera,

"To be in pocket" means that no matter what you have spent (in my context of going to New York to buy cheaper clothing) on air fares, accommodation, etc. you are still "in profit" compared to what you would have paid for clothing in the UK. Some Brits don't even bother to take suitcases - they can buy them more cheaply in the USA.

To sum up - you can estimate what you might spend on clothing in the UK. Then pay for the flight, and accommodation in New York, and fill your suitcases with cheaper clothing. You will come back to the UK having spent less than you would by staying in the UK to buy your clothing. Thus you are "in pocket". It is a popular British idiom for having saved money.

PS:  Many UK airlines lay on special "Shopping Trip to New York Deals", especially around Cristmas time.



LRV


----------



## Etcetera

Thank you for your explanation, Your Majesty!


----------



## la reine victoria

french4beth said:
			
		

> I hear you, Queen - I am one of those people who lost a job that was outsourced overseas!


 


I'm sorry to hear that, Beth.  Several of my UK friends, who were high-fliers in British Telecom, met with the same fate.  Luckily they were all able to find new jobs, albeit less well paid.  It comes as a terrible shock if you have a mortgage to pay and children to support.


Regards,
LRV


----------



## natasha2000

emma42 said:
			
		

> You make some good points, Natasha, and I fully understand why you are less "idealistic", as you put it, being from Eastern Europe.
> 
> Your first point, though, caught my eye particularly. Whatever the other considerations, in order for workers to organise, the impetus must come from below, from the workers themselves. Yes, I know, very Marxist and all that, but, sorry, it's true. Please do not think that I am an apologist for Russian and Chinese communism. I am not.


 
hehehe,.. you are so worried that somebody doesn't misunderstand you and takes you as a Russian/Chinese communist regime apologist.... Don't worry, nobody thinks that. It would be stupid to think this... And one thing more... Marx didn't have so bad ideas.. Really. The thing is how he was interpreted after. The same old problem that comes even from the Bible... the wars were led oer the interpretation of something that was written a long time ago... After all that happened, I do think that communism is nicelly imagined. The thing is that a human being is not ready for it. the stage he is in requieres capitalism. This is the only way he can understand the machanism of the world.


----------



## emma42

I agree with everything you just said Natasha, except that I am not sure when would be the right time to overthrow capitalism (if that is what is to happen to it, rather than something else, because something _will _happen to it).  It might be now.  It might be time to _start.  _Does this mean necessarily armed struggle?  Almost certainly, but not exclusively.  I do not have a blueprint.  Anyone?


----------



## natasha2000

french4beth said:
			
		

> I hate to play devil's advocate here, but what about the rights of workers (who are not enslaved) to get decent jobs and get ahead in life? Even if their wages appear to be paltry (to Westerners, any way), what if the wages are decent in the worker's country??? This would have to occur in decent working conditions, etc.


 
Well, this is another point... In Serbian, we have a saying: One goes down, the other goes up.... (very free translationk though)...

This was pointed out earlier...
Now what is going on is that some EU countries stay without factories of some leading car or technology companies, because of the amplifying of the EU - New member are coming, hungry for work and for prosperity. A Polish or a Czech will work excellent, as well as a German or a Spaniard, but he will be satisfied with a 50 % of a German or Spainish pay. A Polish or Czech is NOT enslaved at all, he will live in his country with this pay much better than he lived before. Now, those who loose are German or Spanish workers...
Is it fair? Yes and no.
This is when I say it should be done less boycott and more prequalification.


----------



## emma42

Yes, I agree as far as that goes. But it does not go far enough. It can't really go significantly further within capitalism. 

Also, Natasha, it's "Czech".


----------



## natasha2000

> Does this mean necessarily armed struggle?


 
No, I think that at least this is one of good things of our time. Armed struggle is somehow.... odfashioned.... At least I hope so... Now I see a lot of socialist gouvernments within the capitalist countries who make real progress, as the first example is Spain. And if I am wrong... Well, at least I see that after all, I have a spot of idealism, too...



> Also, Natasha, it's "Czech".


hehe... Yes, This word gives me a lot of trouble.  Somehow, I am not able to remember where the hell this Z should be put!  
I put it like this, with an intention to look after into diccionary and correct it, in order not to loose tha thought I had in the moment when I was writing the post. Then... I forgot. And I post it. And then I saw my mistake. And then I corrected it.


----------



## cuchuflete

I don't know who first wrote "greedy" to describe businesses that outsource, but it was quoted many times without anyone bothering to question it.

That's painfully shallow on the analytical front.

The gusher of compassion for the workers who loose their jobs, and the casual appreciation for those in poor countries who gain those same jobs, are all very natural and very human.  It's also good for the soul to point at a nameless, faceless somebody, and without adducing the slightest bit of corroborating fact, label that human being "greedy".

Sometimes the charge, when carefully investigated, should stick.  More often it's just a childish howling at the moon.

For anyone who has ever worked in any firm with a purchasing department, or a mom-and-pop store with no employees but the owners, there is a simple notion: buy merchandise and equipment of the requisite quality necessary to run the business.  Do so at the best available price for that particular quality level.  

As consumers, the people participating in this thread probably do the same thing every time they go shopping.  Should we all wear signs calling ourselves "greedy"?  If a firm that pays
a third or a half or 80% of it's direct costs to labor goes shopping for quality and price, how dare we call that greed?
It may well be an economic necessity for survival in a competitive industry, which clothing surely is.  Unless the firm shops for all of its production inputs, including labor, it is likely to cease to exist, eliminating 100% of the jobs it has to offer.

This is not PhD. level economic theory.  It's very simple, basic business reality.  The "greedy" labelling may be a nice cathartic way to place emotional blame, to demonize a faceless enemy, but it's sloppy thinking and a strutting of ignorance that doesn't make for a credible argument, much less an instructive conversation.

Signed,
Outsourced job-seeker
aka cuchuflete


----------



## emma42

Cuchuflete. I agree that no one before you had challenged the "greed" comment. Perhaps that was because there were other things to discuss - this is a broad subject. I doubt very much that it was because nobody could find anything to say about it.

In your post, you used the following words. They are sometimes quoted in isolation and I am not intending to cloud what you meant to say, merely to point out the sort of language you are using to describe people who do not accept that capitalism is as acceptable as you appear to think:

*Gusher /Childish/ all very natural and very human/ childish howling at *

*the moon /nice cathartic way to place emotional blame/*

*sloppythinking and a strutting of ignorance*

This does not show much respect for people who think that capitalism is wrong. Thinking like this does not make people childish and emotional.


----------



## natasha2000

I dare to say you misunderstood something, Chuchu...

I don't know if someone else used the word greedy, but I did, and not in the context you are saying. I was talking about the human being in general, and also referring to communist leaders who abused the communist motto:"Take what you need, give what you can.". Oh, yes, they did take everything they could, and did not give almost anything.
Normal people like us, do the saving not from greed but from the necesity. Because they cannot afford themselves the luxury to buy in Fair Trade shops, and go to buy cheaper.

If I misunderstood your post, I apologize.
Sometimes they're so complex..........


----------

