Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:33 am  

Dally wrote:

She didn't. just like I explicitly did not say otherwise. Didn't stop you going off on one though, did it!?

I was going to say you can't blame me for failing to realise your network connection between words and their meaning has been severed.

But then I remembered it's you we're talking about.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:30 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I don't. If I had specific reason to suspect this in a specific case then I wouldn't. OTOH such is the sheer weight of numbers of goods which are now manufactured abroad, that you could spend your waking day researching the specific origin and labour conditions of the source of every product you may be interested in, still only get through a small percentage, and still be little the wiser since companies that pay "exploitation wages" wouldn't tend to publicise this. You'd be relying - in such cases as there seemed to be information - often on information of debatable origin and so with a very low confidence in its accuracy.

You'd also be relying on some random person's definition of "exploitation" and you'd be assuming rather rashly that by not buying product X, on the basis of a suspicion that it might be produced by workers who, if I looked into it and made a specific assessment, might be paid less than I may think they should be, I could somehow make a positive difference, as opposed to making one small step to making these workers' lives worse (on the basis that I suspect if sales go down, exploitative producers are more likely to force their workers to take even lower wages, so they can drop the price even further, and regenerate demand).

And I'd be assuming that working in an exploited job was not preferrable, from the perspective of the worker who may be exploited in your terms, to no job at all, often in places where that means starvation rather than any dole.

So no, if I had convincing reason to think particular goods were the product of gross exploitation such as child labour, I personally wouldn't buy. But on levels below blatant and gross exploitation which is well known and information can be relied upon, I'm not sure that I can set myself up as a world's moral authority on the degree to which producers may or may not exploit their workforce.

You don't need to spend half your life investigating the origin of products. There are a variety of well-researched web sites (links to which I can provide if you need them) that go into exhaustive detail about the working conditions under various corporations. Many send undercover investigators and/or publish video footage (often smuggled out at great risk).

Given the facts that much of the global clothing industry has been carved up among a small group of multi-nationals and people tend to stay loyal to a select group of retailers it's possible to answer the various moral questions posed by one's wardrobe reasonably quickly. But even if it did take a lot of time - wouldn't it be worth it? I mean, how much of your time do you think this extremely serious question is worth? An hour? A day? A week?

Take Nike for instance - a clothing manufacturer that many people buy from. There's enough easily accessible evidence to prove its workers are exploited to the point of starvation in many countries. If THAT doesn't put you off buying I don't know what will.

I'm not taking a pop at you specifically, btw. This stands for everyone - including me. I know I don't pay enough attention but at least now I do try.

Which circuitous route takes me back to the point I was trying to make. If village Z was the place in Indonesia where that binman worked, and if my posh house was on his round, then (whatever the residents association going rate was) I personally would slip the man whatever was the decent going rate for the work he did for me. I would try to convince the association, and other residents, to do the same. Hard situation but ATEOTD only his government can ultimately put the situation of him and others like him right, and I'd rather that situation than him being out of any job at all. So the difference being that I would KNOW (not vaguely suspect) that he was being exploited, and wouldn't be prepared to exploit him myself.

It's easy to view some problem outside of its context and think you would make a different choice. I mean, I'm convinced I could never have operated a gas chamber at Auschwitz. But I wasn't born into Hitler's Germany where people were very easily twisted by ideology.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:22 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

You don't need to spend half your life investigating the origin of products. There are a variety of well-researched web sites (links to which I can provide if you need them) that go into exhaustive detail about the working conditions under various corporations. Many send undercover investigators and/or publish video footage (often smuggled out at great risk).

And very laudable work, but just for instance I've seen TV programmes and read about such exposes, often ending with a footnote that "Yes, we put our hands up, that was bad, but now we/they have been found out, we have taken/are taking steps to do A/B/C". So how would I know if the objection remained valid? If an offending supplier had indeed taken steps to improve the position, wouldn't I be being unfair in nonetheless denying them (and thus their workers) my business?

Mugwump wrote:

...But even if it did take a lot of time - wouldn't it be worth it? I mean, how much of your time do you think this extremely serious question is worth? An hour? A day? A week?

It wouldn't be worth it to me, no. I wouldn't have the amount of time it would take, because it would be (at least) a full time job in itself. Keeping myself reasonably well informed is I think fair do's. On which point...

Mugwump wrote:

..Take Nike for instance - a clothing manufacturer that many people buy from. There's enough easily accessible evidence to prove its workers are exploited to the point of starvation in many countries. If THAT doesn't put you off buying I don't know what will.

... I was well informed enough to know that, and wouldn't buy their stuff, but then wouldn't have paid their prices for a pair of bleedin pumps in the first place

Mugwump wrote:

..I'm not taking a pop at you specifically, btw. This stands for everyone - including me. I know I don't pay enough attention but at least now I do try.

I'd say similar about myself.

Mugwump wrote:

..It's easy to view some problem outside of its context and think you would make a different choice. I mean, I'm convinced I could never have operated a gas chamber at Auschwitz. But I wasn't born into Hitler's Germany where people were very easily twisted by ideology.

I'm convinced I, or any of us, would have done the most evil of jobs, though. the more I have learned about it, the more I understand the power of brainwashing, and probably using the right techniques you could get most people to do most things.

Secondly, brainwashing aside, taking the population of the planet as a whole, I am certain you'd find literally millions who would be ready and willing to do (indeed already do) the most unspeakable things to other humans, if they fit a particular category of people that they class as undesirable or have some other problem with. I would love to believe that I personally could never do those sort of things, but now find that frankly naive; the truth is that had I been born and raised in certain different circumstances, I very probably would, and I would reckon the same applies to us all.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:40 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

... I'm convinced I, or any of us, would have done the most evil of jobs, though. the more I have learned about it, the more I understand the power of brainwashing, and probably using the right techniques you could get most people to do most things...

Agreed. But additionally, I also suspect that there'd be countless people who would simply keep their heads below the parapet and just try to 'get through it'.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:48 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: And very laudable work, but just for instance I've seen TV programmes and read about such exposes, often ending with a footnote that "Yes, we put our hands up, that was bad, but now we/they have been found out, we have taken/are taking steps to do A/B/C". So how would I know if the objection remained valid? If an offending supplier had indeed taken steps to improve the position, wouldn't I be being unfair in nonetheless denying them (and thus their workers) my business? C'mon, is this a serious dilemma? I mean, there's more evidence than you could drive through showing that faced with the choice of making (potentially expensive) changes to working conditions or spinning, lying, running a smear campaign against undercover investigators etc. corporations will choose the latter. It's the cheapest, easiest option. And they are very good at it. The important question here is - who should shoulder the burden of proof when substantiated, well-documented claims of exploitation are made - the employees or the corporation? I argue the latter. Does this mean I will always be right? Of course not. But if I'm wrong in denying patronage all that suffers is a fraction of a fraction of that corporation's bottom line. But if I choose to carry on buying because the question of serious exploitation hasn't been proved to scientific standards and I'm wrong I could well play a role in someone's mistreatment or even death. It wouldn't be worth it to me, no. I wouldn't have the amount of time it would take, because it would be (at least) a full time job in itself. Keeping myself reasonably well informed is I think fair do's. On which point... I really don't see why it should be a full-time job. Most people tend to buy the bulk of goods from well-established corporations and there is a wealth of easily accessible evidence for and against each of them - if you choose to look. Of course, it's simply impossible to know everything. But this shouldn't stop us from trying at all. ... I was well informed enough to know that, and wouldn't buy their stuff, but then wouldn't have paid their prices for a pair of bleedin pumps in the first place Not buying from a ruthless corporation such as Nike when there are numerous alternative manufacturers is, I think, a relatively easy decision. But questions of individual morality become far more complex - often revealing the ugly ideological compromises one is willing to make - when you start talking about essential items from highly-uncompetitive markets such as oil or pharmaceuticals. So, take BP for instance. Here is a corporation that is in dirty right up to its neck. Forget about polluting vast tracts of America's coastline because it failed to provide adequate safety precautions (btw, this wasn't the first blowout a BP rig experienced for precisely the same reasons). As heinous BP deeds go this wouldn't even make the top ten. Ditto Royal Dutch Shell whose war against Ken Saro Wiwa's Ogoni tribe in Nigeria (check out the thousands of affidavits - some from people connected to Shell - claiming it is complicit in mass murder) continues to rage. I couldn't even begin to list the evidence against Monsanto (the developers of Agent Orange, a substance it has never been held accountable for which is still killing people today). All of the above provide essential goods that are very, very difficult to live without (petrol, plastics, energy, medicines, fertilisers, pesticides etc.) if we want to maintain our standard of living. There is no doubt they are derived by morally indefensible means and yet we turn a blind eye and buy anyway whilst, paradoxically, congratulating ourselves for not buying, say, Nike shoes because their activities are morally indefensible.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: And very laudable work, but just for instance I've seen TV programmes and read about such exposes, often ending with a footnote that "Yes, we put our hands up, that was bad, but now we/they have been found out, we have taken/are taking steps to do A/B/C". So how would I know if the objection remained valid? If an offending supplier had indeed taken steps to improve the position, wouldn't I be being unfair in nonetheless denying them (and thus their workers) my business? C'mon, is this a serious dilemma? I mean, there's more evidence than you could drive through showing that faced with the choice of making (potentially expensive) changes to working conditions or spinning, lying, running a smear campaign against undercover investigators etc. corporations will choose the latter. It's the cheapest, easiest option. And they are very good at it. The important question here is - who should shoulder the burden of proof when substantiated, well-documented claims of exploitation are made - the employees or the corporation? I argue the latter. Does this mean I will always be right? Of course not. But if I'm wrong in denying patronage all that suffers is a fraction of a fraction of that corporation's bottom line. But if I choose to carry on buying because the question of serious exploitation hasn't been proved to scientific standards and I'm wrong I could well play a role in someone's mistreatment or even death. It wouldn't be worth it to me, no. I wouldn't have the amount of time it would take, because it would be (at least) a full time job in itself. Keeping myself reasonably well informed is I think fair do's. On which point... I really don't see why it should be a full-time job. Most people tend to buy the bulk of goods from well-established corporations and there is a wealth of easily accessible evidence for and against each of them - if you choose to look. Of course, it's simply impossible to know everything. But this shouldn't stop us from trying at all. ... I was well informed enough to know that, and wouldn't buy their stuff, but then wouldn't have paid their prices for a pair of bleedin pumps in the first place Not buying from a ruthless corporation such as Nike when there are numerous alternative manufacturers is, I think, a relatively easy decision. But questions of individual morality become far more complex - often revealing the ugly ideological compromises one is willing to make - when you start talking about essential items from highly-uncompetitive markets such as oil or pharmaceuticals. So, take BP for instance. Here is a corporation that is in dirty right up to its neck. Forget about polluting vast tracts of America's coastline because it failed to provide adequate safety precautions (btw, this wasn't the first blowout a BP rig experienced for precisely the same reasons). As heinous BP deeds go this wouldn't even make the top ten. Ditto Royal Dutch Shell whose war against Ken Saro Wiwa's Ogoni tribe in Nigeria (check out the thousands of affidavits - some from people connected to Shell - claiming it is complicit in mass murder) continues to rage. I couldn't even begin to list the evidence against Monsanto (the developers of Agent Orange, a substance it has never been held accountable for which is still killing people today). All of the above provide essential goods that are very, very difficult to live without (petrol, plastics, energy, medicines, fertilisers, pesticides etc.) if we want to maintain our standard of living. There is no doubt they are derived by morally indefensible means and yet we turn a blind eye and buy anyway whilst, paradoxically, congratulating ourselves for not buying, say, Nike shoes because their activities are morally indefensible.

Re: America's poor resort to tent cities : Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:51 pm  

Mugwump wrote: Not buying from a ruthless corporation such as Nike when there are numerous alternative manufacturers is, I think, a relatively easy decision. But questions of individual morality become far more complex - often revealing the ugly ideological compromises one is willing to make - when you start talking about essential items from highly-uncompetitive markets such as oil or pharmaceuticals. Hands up those who use an iPhone

Mugwump wrote: Not buying from a ruthless corporation such as Nike when there are numerous alternative manufacturers is, I think, a relatively easy decision. But questions of individual morality become far more complex - often revealing the ugly ideological compromises one is willing to make - when you start talking about essential items from highly-uncompetitive markets such as oil or pharmaceuticals. Hands up those who use an iPhone