March 26, 2001

11:05 AM

Want to avoid sweatshop shoes? Buy Nike.So says Peter Singer. Same applies to the other favourite targets of the "No Logo" activists. Which raises a curious irony: what happens when a corporation you've habitually demonised starts listening to to its critics? Is it possible to rehabilitate a Big Bad Brand?
posted by holgate (22 comments total)

Hmm. That link is probably not the most impartial summation of Singer's views. This, from the Princeton faculty where he now works, is a little more circumspect, but there's a justifiable controversy over his appointment.

That said, it's not directly relevant to the point of this thread.
posted by holgate at 11:28 AM on March 26, 2001

the point of activism should be CHANGE, not demonizing. So if you can protest and fight against something and change it, you should be happy about it--and then pick a new target.

otherwise all you are doing is spewing out your own propaganda.

With that said...IF nike has made the changes, props to them.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:51 AM on March 26, 2001

IF is a very strange concept btw, changes a string of words into an equation.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:54 AM on March 26, 2001

The fact that Nike is a major brand and a substantial pop-culture icon is reason enough to buy shoes and clothes elsewhere. The sweatshop thing just makes (made?) them evil.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:13 PM on March 26, 2001

What are you wearing on your feet now Mars? Vietnamese old tire sandals? What should we wear? puma, reebok, adidas............?
posted by a3matrix at 2:59 PM on March 26, 2001

I'm not clear on the concept that just because something is used by many people it is therefore a bad thing. If too many people start wearing untreated, rough-woven, unbleached hemp fabrics, are you going to go back to green polyester (which I hear is suffering from low popularity at the moment).

And, when you shut down those sweatshops (and keep in mind that working in a sweatshop is not forced labor) where are you going to employ those people? Or is the dignity begging in the streets preferred to the indignity of hard, low-wage labor?
posted by obfusciatrist at 3:24 PM on March 26, 2001

I haven't bought shoes NEW since 1990. Up until 4 months ago, i hadn't bought brand new pants since 1993. Recently i caved in, because i really like funky cargo/fatigues.

Lots of thrift-store dr. martens and such keep me going just fine--and have for about the last 15 years. Anything you can possibly buy or even trade for is there because someone thought someone else would want it...you can't escape that. Not unless i make my own clothes....with that out of the way...Part of freedom is being able to waste your money on whatever you want i guess, style and fashion aside. That shouldn't really be the point. Because the people protesting Nike probably weren't buying Nike in the first place. If nike has experienced a drop in sales it is because other companies are getting more media-savvy, not due to the activists. So, if Nike thinks improving work conditions will help quiet the activists, and that will make them sell more shoes, that is pretty close to a win-win situation--anyone who ever protested against nike should be happy that the clueless millions are one small fraction more politically correct, even if they don't intend to be.

now get back to work on having pot legalized.
posted by th3ph17 at 3:47 PM on March 26, 2001

obfusciatrist , when you close down a sweatshop, you aren't necessarily dooming people to starvation. You are enabling factories with fair business practices to actually compete in the market place, and pay people a (at least more) decent wage. The more people in these poor countries being paid a fair wage, the better the local economy becomes.
And I don't think that mars is saying that he doesn't wear Nike sneakers because they're popular, so much as Nike is a company that puts too much pressure on popular culture, and spends too much money emphasizing its brand.
posted by Doug at 4:58 PM on March 26, 2001

Sometimes you have to look at the sliding scale. For instance, all cars pollute, but not all cars pollute equally. Change that to corporations|exploit, say.
posted by dhartung at 6:09 PM on March 26, 2001

You are enabling factories with fair business practices to actually compete in the market place, and pay people a (at least more) decent wage.

Well, these companies that pay more and offer better working conditions can already come in and open up shop, and sweatshop workers would flock to them. As would everyone else in the area.

No, the fundamental problem is that there's an oversupply of labor. You can't get rid of that imbalance by boycotting Nike. You have to get more employment going in those areas, and some of the employers won't be so nice. But the better ones will win out once there are enough of them competing for the labor pool. The difficulty is getting enough employers in there quickly enough to avoid suffering on a massive scale. Doing it half-assed only encourages companies to exploit the labor force because they're so desperate for work.
posted by kindall at 6:42 PM on March 26, 2001

Depends on how you define exploitation.

All pollution is bad (though it may be acceptably bad). All exploitation is not bad.

All long as the workers have a choice to end their exploitation then I don't consider it to be bad. (Note: If the workers are intimidated, physically restricted, or abused that is not choice.)

The reason Nike has shops full of people working for peanuts is that those people are willing to work for peanuts. Yes, there may be "socially correct" companies out their paying much higher wages but they cannot employ the entire workforce.

The only way the workforce in general is going to see a real growth in wages overall is to first be employed, second have a manufacturing system reliant on your employment, and finally to have the collective will to exercise the power that gives you.

By making the demands from outside the local economy you are creating a false crutch for increased wages. You aren't lifting the boat, you are creating a tower with only a few entrances. Support unionization; support local industry; support the workers right to sell their exploitability.

If Nike can find workers willing to work for $.03/day, more power to them (again, assuming that Nike does nothing to force that relationship). It is the same cycle that all other industrial nations went through.

And Mars did say that the fact that Nike is a big brand and a pop-culture icon (i.e. popular) is enough reason to avoid it. The feeling that excessive brand promotion is bad would be a slightly more reasonable complaint, but that is not what was said.
posted by obfusciatrist at 6:46 PM on March 26, 2001

I think the argument here is that Nike does nothing to actually protect their workers from human rights abuses in the countries they work in, thus pushing the exploitation button. They have standards, they just have no enforcement of standards.

And, honestly, Singer's pronouncement that "people pick on the big companies" is just wack. Any good activist campaign will tell you that it's important to pick out the big dogs not just because they are high profile but also because they can afford to improve things for their workers without taking a financial hit that they can't recover from.

Nike has no good reason to explain why, even in Indonesia, they were paying their workers sub-minimum wages until they were caught doing it. Increasing profits just because you can get away with it to the point where your workers are harassed and intimidated is lame, and it's not tough to find footwear made by a company that's not quite so greedy.
posted by jessamyn at 7:49 PM on March 26, 2001

Obfus..."By making the demands from outside the local economy you are creating a false crutch..." What we're talking about here ARE demands being made from outside the local economy, namely foreign companies seeking cheap labor. And that is what makes this situation different, in my mind, than when the US went through its industrial revolution.
And as for this point, "If Nike can find workers willing to work for $.03/day, more power to them" I know I'm being crass, but I'm sure I can find a 12 year old peasant girl in an economically depressed country to give me oral sex for about 50 cents, but it doesn't mean I should. And I personally think the situation is similar. People taking advantage of desperate people for their own personal gain.
Kindall, what I'm saying is this: The overall price of goods is lowered by these sweatshops, forcing manufacturers to pay their workers less in order to compete. There will never be a shortage of workers in these poor countries. India has a billion people. There will never be enough employers in these countries, especially considering the workers couldn't even nearly afford the very things they manufacture.
posted by Doug at 9:04 PM on March 26, 2001

the wierd thing is I can buy a nice pair of redwings for $150.00, made in the us, workers being paid maybe $10-$20 dollars and hour. or I can buy nikes who's workers make $1 a day and the price is the same. nike makes billions in profits, they could easily pay living wages to the people who actually make the shoes after all.
posted by chrismc at 9:15 PM on March 26, 2001

Where do you find those $150 Nikes? Last time I was shopping for shoes, two weeks ago, the Nikes I saw were like $50-$75, and other shoes were similarly priced. Maybe Nike prices their per shoe or something. I asked to try a pair on, but they didn't have the ones I was interested in in my size anyway, so I bought a pair made by some other company that probably exploits their third-world workers too, it's just not as widely reported.
posted by kindall at 10:51 PM on March 26, 2001

but I'm sure I can find a 12 year old peasant girl in an economically depressed country to give me oral sex for about 50 cents, but it doesn't mean I should

Of course not. Children, by definition, are not capable of making choices, especially not a choice to be exploited. If you can find an adult willing to give you a blow job for 50 cents, more power to you.

If you can find an adult willing to work for 3 cents/day, more power to you. If the only 3 cent/day employees you can find are children and you use them, then you deserve the wrath of the world.
posted by obfusciatrist at 7:36 AM on March 27, 2001

obfusciatrist, I'm not sure how you were raised, but when I was little I was taught that you don't pick on people weaker than yourself. You help them, and protect them. A person who is poor and wants to feed his family is not in a position to "make decisions," in the same sense that a person with options is. I guess this point is probably lost on you, though. You apparently don't see anything wrong with the rich exploiting desperate people.
posted by Doug at 9:29 AM on March 27, 2001

If you can find an adult willing to work for 3 cents/day, more power to you.

Sorry, but this is the la-la-la-I-don't-hear-you sort of argument that makes me insane. To "employ" people for the figure du jour of 3 cents a day and then become wide-eyed and ingenuous and proclaim that hey, they were willing to work for this wage and what's the problem? is a complete dodge. This is roughly 3 cents above slave wage, and to capitalize on the notion that people will do the work because there is nothing better for them is abominable.
posted by Skot at 9:50 AM on March 27, 2001

" Where do you find those $150 Nikes? Last time I was shopping for shoes, two weeks ago, the Nikes I saw were like $50-$75,"

you might be right that I got the exact price wrong, I haven't ever bought a pair of nikes. but my point is simply that wages are not a determining factor in the final price. Kind of like how the farmer gets like 5 cents out of the $3.00 box of cereal. So there is no real reason not to pay a living wage, it would just cut into the humungous profits a little bit in order to pay the people who make the shoes.
posted by chrismc at 11:08 AM on March 27, 2001

My previous comment was, in retrospect, needlessly cryptic. Let me explain:

It bothers me that a shoe company has the power to determine the standard of living for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people around the planet. I mean, they're just there to make shoes and extract profits - not exactly the best qualifications for an aid organisation.

The only reason they have this power is that millions of people buy their products. Millions of people buy their products because they pour tons of money into setting up a cultural environment in which people will want to buy their products. As has been pointed out already, the actual cost of the shoes is a fraction of the purchase price - when you buy a pair of Nikes, most of your money is going into two things: increasingly ubiquitous advertising, and the pockets of Nike's shareholders.

So, to the extent that "capitalism" has taken over for "democracy", your dollars are votes. Are you in favour of more advertising? Do you want to increase Nike shareholder profits? Do you want Nike to have political power? If not, don't buy their products.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:44 AM on March 27, 2001

obfusciatrist, I'm not sure how you were raised, but when I was little I was taught that you don't pick on people weaker than yourself. You help them, and protect them.

I was raised by a very poor mother who worked in sweatshops until she was able to dig her way out. As for your little peace of mindless do-gooderism, I fail to see how employing people for wages they agree to is picking on them.

This is roughly 3 cents above slave wage, and to capitalize on the notion that people will do the work because there is nothing better for them is abominable.

Sorry, let me rephrase so you won't think I am dodging the issue. If you can find an adult willing to work for free, then more power to you.

The simple-minded equation of cheap labor with slavery is borderline reprehensible. Slavery is force. Most of those people working in sweatshops have choices. They can work there or not. Just because you don't approve of the price at which they sell themselves does not make it wrong. Just because both options suck, does not make it wrong.

Nobody works for others because they want to, but because that employer offers are return that makes it worthwile. Someone working for 3 cents/day has made the choice that this is better than the alternatives. If that is the choice at which Nike can find people making that choice, then why should they pay a penny more? Because poor people offend you? That doesn't make any sense.
posted by obfusciatrist at 12:34 PM on March 27, 2001

Kind of like how the farmer gets like 5 cents out of the $3.00 box of cereal. So there is no real reason not to pay a living wage, it would just cut into the humungous profits a little bit in order to pay the people who make the shoes.

What you say!! To hell with the foreigners making the shoes, I think American farmers deserve more than a nickel for a box of cereal. Why, that's barely above slave wages!
posted by kindall at 1:18 AM on March 28, 2001