Turning away from Bangladesh at this juncture would be even more tragic for their poor. If you want their conditions improved, lean on the clothing manufacturers who in turn lean on their clothing suppliers. Unfortunately, the reality is that foreign clothing companies wield more clout than the very weak Bangladeshi government can through regulation etc.
Depending on who you believe, the Wal-Mart heirs are worth about $120 billion combined. According to the World Bank, that’s MORE than the annual GDP of Bangladesh.
Every time you buy clothing at Wal-Mart (or any other discount store), you’re perpetuating the misery of millions and piling unearned wealth on people who fly private jets to lavish vacation homes, bribe your elected officials and prop up third world dictators.
Boycotts may not stop this from happening—after all, many companies relocated to Bangladesh after the cost of producing goods in China went up—but consumers have to look this in the face and put it up against their own conscience.
Walmarts are less evil than Monsanto. Isn’t that how they want people to see their franchise chains?I would be happier buying fewer clothes than buy lots of clothes at Walmart.I try to avoid that store more than any other store. It has put many thousands of small businesses out of business, treats employees like dirt, and mays billions doing it.
No country has more choice, more brands, more options for buying things. Americans are drowning in consumer choices and I’ll bet that even if you live in a small town there’s someone there that will sell you something that THEY made.
You DO have a choice.
I choose not to shop at Wal-Mart for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest is that they are a giant obstacle to choice. They are a company store which wants to be the only game in town everywhere they go.
I’ve always thought it ironic that many of the defenders of Wal-Mart don’t see the similarities between having one company store run by people in a faraway town and Soviet style commerce where there was one store in town run by people in a faraway town.
More often than not international companies in these poor countries “develop” population from starving, to barely starving before leaving the country the moment it demands to get beyond barely starving.
Unfortunately we live in a world of 7 billion people, about 1.2 billion are in developed countries, this leaves a hearty 5.8 billion to exploit, 100 million employees per year rotated, you have a whopping 58 years before the population can tell you to screw off.
Don’t boycott Bangladesh, boycott any industry that pays its employees less than 1$ an hour. As a bit of extra information, in Bangladesh the cost of labour is often around 20 cents an hour, the expected production per employee is at least 7 shirts. per hour, this would equate to necessary cost adjustment being about 11 cents. That said treating for risk and that a a general rule a company will go up to 30% for value of labour, we can think it would increase cost of goods by a whopping 35 cents
if you find 35 cents to be an unaffordable amount to lift people out of poverty for actually doing work. I find that to be disturbing to my opinions on humanity
For quite a while, Korean “middlemen” ran factories in Viet Nam for American companies, then things went “legit”. Columbia sportswear for one has long used ’Nam as a source of cheaper labor. Now Textron uses Viet Nam to manufacture carbon fiber parts for Huey helicopters, if you choose for “irony”. The conditions in foreign factories are dictated by U.S. corporations, willing or not to influence those foreign “producers” to have any sense of morals, or ethics. Think Bophal and Union Carbide as well.
babka Premium Member almost 11 years ago
if boycotts improve conditions for workers…………only 2% of clothing now made in America.
OmqR-IV.0 almost 11 years ago
Turning away from Bangladesh at this juncture would be even more tragic for their poor. If you want their conditions improved, lean on the clothing manufacturers who in turn lean on their clothing suppliers. Unfortunately, the reality is that foreign clothing companies wield more clout than the very weak Bangladeshi government can through regulation etc.
Chillbilly almost 11 years ago
Depending on who you believe, the Wal-Mart heirs are worth about $120 billion combined. According to the World Bank, that’s MORE than the annual GDP of Bangladesh.
Every time you buy clothing at Wal-Mart (or any other discount store), you’re perpetuating the misery of millions and piling unearned wealth on people who fly private jets to lavish vacation homes, bribe your elected officials and prop up third world dictators.
Boycotts may not stop this from happening—after all, many companies relocated to Bangladesh after the cost of producing goods in China went up—but consumers have to look this in the face and put it up against their own conscience.
AAdoglover Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Pray for gas to be $5 per gallon. That will be the only way to bring jobs back to the USA.
I have not shopped at a Walmart in years. They make millions while treating their employees like cattle. Shop anywhere except Walmart.
pam Miner almost 11 years ago
Walmarts are less evil than Monsanto. Isn’t that how they want people to see their franchise chains?I would be happier buying fewer clothes than buy lots of clothes at Walmart.I try to avoid that store more than any other store. It has put many thousands of small businesses out of business, treats employees like dirt, and mays billions doing it.
Chillbilly almost 11 years ago
No country has more choice, more brands, more options for buying things. Americans are drowning in consumer choices and I’ll bet that even if you live in a small town there’s someone there that will sell you something that THEY made.
You DO have a choice.
I choose not to shop at Wal-Mart for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest is that they are a giant obstacle to choice. They are a company store which wants to be the only game in town everywhere they go.
I’ve always thought it ironic that many of the defenders of Wal-Mart don’t see the similarities between having one company store run by people in a faraway town and Soviet style commerce where there was one store in town run by people in a faraway town.
Quipss almost 11 years ago
More often than not international companies in these poor countries “develop” population from starving, to barely starving before leaving the country the moment it demands to get beyond barely starving.
Unfortunately we live in a world of 7 billion people, about 1.2 billion are in developed countries, this leaves a hearty 5.8 billion to exploit, 100 million employees per year rotated, you have a whopping 58 years before the population can tell you to screw off.
Don’t boycott Bangladesh, boycott any industry that pays its employees less than 1$ an hour. As a bit of extra information, in Bangladesh the cost of labour is often around 20 cents an hour, the expected production per employee is at least 7 shirts. per hour, this would equate to necessary cost adjustment being about 11 cents. That said treating for risk and that a a general rule a company will go up to 30% for value of labour, we can think it would increase cost of goods by a whopping 35 cents
if you find 35 cents to be an unaffordable amount to lift people out of poverty for actually doing work. I find that to be disturbing to my opinions on humanity
Dtroutma almost 11 years ago
For quite a while, Korean “middlemen” ran factories in Viet Nam for American companies, then things went “legit”. Columbia sportswear for one has long used ’Nam as a source of cheaper labor. Now Textron uses Viet Nam to manufacture carbon fiber parts for Huey helicopters, if you choose for “irony”. The conditions in foreign factories are dictated by U.S. corporations, willing or not to influence those foreign “producers” to have any sense of morals, or ethics. Think Bophal and Union Carbide as well.
pirate227 almost 11 years ago
“Almost” is the key word.