Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:
Oh, and to actually achieve anything I'd need to join groups full of self-righteous dicks in ponytails and Che Guevara shirts. And there's no fething way I'm doing that.

Dont forget the unwashed and unshaved women screaming at you anytime you want a burger.

sebster wrote:Everybody in this thread needs to stop assuming every factory in the third world is a sweatshop. There are considerable differences in safety and working conditions.

Skinnereal wrote:Just to grab that point, what is really stopping that Vietnamese guy from doing the same as the Australian guy?
Sure, his country's employment structure isn't the same, and industry there isn't necessarily as advanced, but why is that?
If money gets pumped into the country, why does their standard of living not change much, or their prices go up?

The standard of living has gone up. Wages in Vietnam and South East Asia as a whole have shown considerable wages growth.

It's happened with services outsourcing.
For instance, India was once a very cheap place to run a callcentre. With the training the people there gained, and the resources put in place to facilitate that callcentre, wages rise, costs go up, and India moves up in the world-wide rankings. This also means standards are raised, and we hear less of Indian swaetshops than we once did.
Why does this not happen in China, or Vietnam, or wherever?

Or, maybe it's just me, and people who know better can correct me.

It has happened. The increase in wages in China have actually led to many low skill, low value add industries, namely textiles, moving out of China and into other countries in south east asia. Meanwhile China is using that base to move into more sophisticated and higher paying industries.

The complexity of the issue is that yes, working conditions are bad and there's a lot we should do to make sure employees aren't exploited, but foreign companies coming there and using labour is the best way to grow the economy and drive up the standard of living. So the point is not "no foreign factories", but "no foreign factories that exploit labour with dangerous conditions". Which admittedly takes more reading than most people are willing to do.

Oh, and wages in China are around double what they are in India, by the way, and India is only 3 or 4% ahead of Vietnam.

Grot 6 wrote:You lost the conversation by putting GW in with Ethical gaming.


50.00 set of 5 terminators, even though there is the same amount of plastic as any other sprue.
A playboard the cost of over 200 bones.
canvas carrying cases in the same scheme as a 20 dollar book bag- over 100.00...

Profit rules, full stop. GW gives fig about ethics, sweatshops, or fair.

Ethics is the use of power. It is concerned with power relationships where one party is in a much weaker position than the other, such as an employer and employee, and so the more powerful party is under some obligation not to exploit their position and enforce too poor a deal on the weaker party.

The seller and consumer of plastic miniatures are not in a power relationship, because the consumer is free to walk away at any time. As such, there is no unethical price, there is just the price the market is willing to pay.

Life is pain. Looking down your nose at it makes you hypocritical at the lowest level, participant at the highest.

So here you are willing to shrug and get philosophical about economic exploitation in the third world, but ten seconds earlier you were bemoaning how much you had to pay for a terminator. Yeah. Classy.

"Oh, so there's eight year olds forced into dangerous labour conditions but that's just life and they all to toughen up, but won't someone do something about how much I have to pay for a plastic toy?"

And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point. But, HEY thats how it goes to make a ... kinda good argument... change the discussion point of the other guy to make yourself like you have a real point... WHOOOHOOO!!!


YOU just said what i did, yet...

Heres my full quote, but the way. seeing as your flying off half cocked without a clue of what I said.

"Life is pain. Looking down your nose at it makes you hypocritical at the lowest level, participant at the highest.
The countries that these "Sweatshops" are in don't have a serious incentive to shut them down, seeing as the company owners pretty much paid the entery fee, operation cost of the local governments, hush money, gratuity fee, operating costs, and... wages. These extensive incentives of thier own that far outwiegh anything you as the indignant protester are going to fork over.
If you really knew the backstory behind the issue, you'd honestly be suprised.

Money Talks, BS walks. "

Full stop. The point here being that these "Sweatshops" are out in the open. They arn't just in the back ally. WE call them sweatshops, but where they're located, thats how the business practices are being done. They subcontract out the labor to the lowest point they can, then reap in a few more dollars, pounds, yen, euro, etc. in profits.
These business's are $$$ hand over fist. We don't like it, but thats just a part of living in the world of modern society.

Me belaying the costs, yeah, I do. Especially when the product in question costs a fraction of that cost to make, yet YOU/ME are being charged top price on your land raider, pair of jeans, or makeup, or whatever is being produced at the time. ( Adidas, if I remember correctly from the one I saw. They weren't particular, though. There was a jacket shop just down the street.)

"Ethics is the use of power. It is concerned with power relationships where one party is in a much weaker position than the other, such as an employer and employee, and so the more powerful party is under some obligation not to exploit their position and enforce too poor a deal on the weaker party."- You.

Power relationships are the basis on which this form of production revolves around, and These sorts of companies are under no such obligation.
Most of these companies are under no illusion either, they just keep thier hands at arms length to keep plausable deniability, when the meddeling kids roll in to start stomping in rightious indegnation. Latest one I know of is Tysens chicken, which is right down the street. ( In America, by the way.)

There was another one when they had it on TV with the little twenty somethings crying about where they found out where and how thier jeans were being made, then another one with the reality show that followed the dresses off out of the fashion world to where they came from. I don't remember the names.

of course, thats not just in Third world countries...

Why should you care? It has to do with global economics, who's losing jobs, where they go to next. Labor issues, minimum wage, etc.etc.etc.

Long story short, Your Regular Joe type 9 to 5er from Joetown America or other European indistrialized country isn't in the ballpark to compete with a couple of minions who will do the same thing for .25-75 Cents. The company doesn't give a crap about OSHA, minimum wage, OR worker rights. You get a right to work, You don't want it, My other minions go get two more guys to replace you, plus we will make a note so you never work again.

And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point, but, HEY thats how it goes to make a good argument... change the discussion point of the other guy toake yourself like you have a point... WHOOOHOOO!!!

Your point was poorly stated, contradictory, and illogical. YOU misrepresented it if sebster just said what you did.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point, but, HEY thats how it goes to make a good argument... change the discussion point of the other guy toake yourself like you have a point... WHOOOHOOO!!!

Why do I have to keep poking in and copping attitude, when I haven't even discussed the Grotsters first post? I don't even have to wait till he's finished posting!!!! Wheee!!!

Grot 6 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point, but, HEY thats how it goes to make a good argument... change the discussion point of the other guy toake yourself like you have a point... WHOOOHOOO!!!

Why do I have to keep poking in and copping attitude, when I haven't even discussed the Grotsters first post? I don't even have to wait till he's finished posting!!!! Wheee!!!

I am the first person to respond to your first post. I am the post immediately following your first post. Try harder.

Ketara wrote:Hey, I never said that I had an issue with them being sub-par by western standards, or even that I had any interest in changing the status quo in that department. If you read back, my initial comment said simply that most of what I own is produced in some way in 'less than salubrious condition's.' And that I'd accepted that. I'm not quite sure what you're debating with here....

You made the argument that most of the factories in CHina were bad and exploitative, by Western standards. I responded by agreeing that by our standards they are, but assessing them by Western standards isn't practical. Instead we should assess them by the best practical standards in China right now, and only deal with those factories meeting top standards.

Interesting. How precisely did this 'activism' work? Did enough people stop buying Nike their sales showed a direct decline in correlation with the activism? Were Nike officials kidnapped and held hostage until wages were increased? Did a couple of people happen to be outside a Nike store with placards at the same time Panorama did an embarassing documentary?

I don't know if Nike observed an actual drop in sales, or simply feared that they would, or didn't worry about an immediate impact on sales but rather a decline in their brand having a long term impact on sales, or if the executives just didn't want to stand there defending oppressive working conditions. I don't know, point is the activism, being street protests, awareness campaigns, news stories, documentaries, government lobbying and the rest actually led to Nike building a far more substantial set of standards for it's offshore factories.

I would also point out that culture and government vary from place to place, and just because 'activism' worked in one country is no guarantee of it being successful in another.

Just be a thing isn't certain of working, that means there's no point in trying?

Not in the OT zone there isn't!

Yeah, I've noticed that no statement, no matter how reasonable, can escape at least one person coming along to argue it.

I actually made a post a year or so back (in one of those recasting threads), where I argued that insubstantial things like morals could not possibly be objective. However there was a larger system of morals enforced by society, and whilst morals could be subjective to the society as a rule, ultimately they could not be entirely subjective to the person due to them springing from that society, and not being able to change their mental conditioning and upbringing. Morals were ultimately subjective, but a person could only go so far in deviating from the standards they were raised with, and as a result of that, morals are not entirely subjective for the individual, even if they are for society as a whole.

It was a lot more detailed, and complex than that, but those were the basic points. I was actually quite chuffed with it since it was something I'd come up with on my own.

Sounds like moral relativism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grot 6 wrote:And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point.

No, I think I summed up the problem with your argument pretty well.

YOU just said what i did, yet...

No, I didn't. You talked about how the working conditions in sweatshops are absolute, and unavoidable by the conditions of the world. Which is objectively wrong.

Full stop. The point here being that these "Sweatshops" are out in the open. They arn't just in the back ally. WE call them sweatshops, but where they're located, thats how the business practices are being done.

Your point is obvious, and irrelevant. No-one was pretending that these factories are hidden away, or that activism relies on them being hidden away.

They subcontract out the labor to the lowest point they can, then reap in a few more dollars, pounds, yen, euro, etc. in profits.

Yeah, that's how all business operates. It is an important part of improving efficiency, but there is a point where it goes too far and becomes exploitative, which is why we've built protections for workers over time. The same mechanisms can raise working standards in these factories, and the consumer sector can play an important part in making that happen.

Power relationships are the basis on which this form of production revolves around

Power relationships are inherent in every form of productive activity.

These sorts of companies are under no such obligation.

Which is nonsense. The obligation isn't something they or anyone else places on them or takes away, it is present by the basic existance of the power relationship.

Most of these companies are under no illusion either, they just keep thier hands at arms length to keep plausable deniability,

And those sub-contracting arrangements are generally transparent, and successful lobbying has on multiple occasions forced a change in the standards those companies require of their sub-contractors.

Why should you care? It has to do with global economics, who's losing jobs, where they go to next. Labor issues, minimum wage, etc.etc.etc.

Accepting that there is a global economy driven by moving production to the places that most efficiently make products doesn't mean accepting that nothing can be done about exploitative working conditions.

That's just playing at being all tough and cynical, and it's silly.

Long story short, Your Regular Joe type 9 to 5er from Joetown America or other European indistrialized country isn't in the ballpark to compete with a couple of minions who will do the same thing for .25-75 Cents. The company doesn't give a crap about OSHA, minimum wage, OR worker rights. You get a right to work, You don't want it, My other minions go get two more guys to replace you, plus we will make a note so you never work again.

Obviously, that's why the job moved. No-one is talking about whether or not the job should move offshore. I not only think that job will move offshore, I think it should.

The point is that when that job has moved offshore, there's real things that can be done to make sure that conditions and pay in the factory improve.



Oh, you post has convinced me to stop using ellipses so much. I had no idea how annoying those little things are.

_No Logo_ makes a pretty convincing case for Nike getting very, very scared of the protests, particularly once campaigners were able to let some of the poorer teenagers in the US know about Nike's involvment with sweatshops. Huge chunk of Nike's target market shows up at their flagship store and demands justice, Nike's gonna listen.

Grot 6 wrote:
Life is pain. Looking down your nose at it makes you hypocritical at the lowest level, participant at the highest.

That's not what hypocrisy is. You cannot accuse someone of hypocrisy based on a belief that you hold which is unrelated to the beliefs of the other person.

Grot 6 wrote:
Full stop. The point here being that these "Sweatshops" are out in the open. They arn't just in the back ally. WE call them sweatshops, but where they're located, thats how the business practices are being done. They subcontract out the labor to the lowest point they can, then reap in a few more dollars, pounds, yen, euro, etc. in profits.
These business's are $$$ hand over fist. We don't like it, but thats just a part of living in the world of modern society.

The nature of the is-ought problem is such that you cannot determine what ought to be based on what is. You're simply ignoring the issue raised by this thread.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Accepting that there is a global economy driven by moving production to the places that most efficiently make products doesn't mean accepting that nothing can be done about exploitative working conditions.

That's just playing at being all tough and cynical, and it's silly.

I would go further and say that it is foolishly fatalistic (so much so that it forced me to alliterate) given the historical evidence indicating that such a position is absolutely false.

sebster wrote:Yeah, I've noticed that no statement, no matter how reasonable, can escape at least one person coming along to argue it.

Wow, that's incredibly cynical and untrue. There are plenty of reasonable statements that can be made without someone arguing against it.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Yeah, I've noticed that no statement, no matter how reasonable, can escape at least one person coming along to argue it.

Wow, that's incredibly cynical and untrue. There are plenty of reasonable statements that can be made without someone arguing against it.

You're both wrong.

sebster wrote:
Oh, and to actually achieve anything I'd need to join groups full of self-righteous dicks in ponytails and Che Guevara shirts. And there's no fething way I'm doing that.

Hey that sounds exactly like something I would say! In fact, I think ive used the exact same sentence before.. I fething hate people who wear Che tshirts!

What I have found most intersting about this thread is the sweeping statements made by people like Chibi regarding morality. I dont want to sound like some crap philosophy student, but I always thought that most intelligent people accept that morality is extremely subjective dependent on the culture/nation you happen to have been brought up in.

Ahtman hit the nail on the head regarding these sweeping absolutes, but basically, I found it quite bizarre that I pointed out that I have no criminal record, dont steal or rob or rape, pay my taxes and generally get on with my life causing nobody else in society any issue but I am "immoral" because I dont really care where I buy my toy soldiers from!

mattyrm wrote:

sebster wrote:
Oh, and to actually achieve anything I'd need to join groups full of self-righteous dicks in ponytails and Che Guevara shirts. And there's no fething way I'm doing that.

Hey that sounds exactly like something I would say! In fact, I think ive used the exact same sentence before.. I fething hate people who wear Che tshirts!

Aw man....I love my Che t-shirt.

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Yeah, I've noticed that no statement, no matter how reasonable, can escape at least one person coming along to argue it.

Wow, that's incredibly cynical and untrue. There are plenty of reasonable statements that can be made without someone arguing against it.

You're both wrong.

Explain...

AvatarForm wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Yeah, I've noticed that no statement, no matter how reasonable, can escape at least one person coming along to argue it.

Wow, that's incredibly cynical and untrue. There are plenty of reasonable statements that can be made without someone arguing against it.

You're both wrong.

Explain...

NO!

Pacific wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Yeah, I've noticed that no statement, no matter how reasonable, can escape at least one person coming along to argue it.

Wow, that's incredibly cynical and untrue. There are plenty of reasonable statements that can be made without someone arguing against it.

You're both wrong.

Explain...

NO!

I agree wholeheartedly.

biccat wrote:

Pacific wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Yeah, I've noticed that no statement, no matter how reasonable, can escape at least one person coming along to argue it.

Wow, that's incredibly cynical and untrue. There are plenty of reasonable statements that can be made without someone arguing against it.

You're both wrong.

Explain...

NO!

I agree wholeheartedly.

I disagree with this statement.

Your all wrong!

Latest GW financials confirm that GW Shanghai was dropped as part of the restructuring, which would also confirm that FW have been producing resin only in the UK again for some time.

The resin method rumoured to be used by GW in the near future uses the same metal models as previously used therefore the same facilities.

GW paint is made in France (would explain why it has no spine to it - I jest! ).

It doesn't seem as though GW are producing anywhere known to be unethical following the failed Shanghai move.

The only wargames company I know to be produced in China is Wargames Factory. And I am happy to state that I do not buy from them for moral reasons - thinking a their product sucks is moral right?

Now I think of it UK GW staff enjoy better employment and workplace safety rights to US GW staff (certainly from my experience of the US/UK contruction industries). Should we decry this exploitation of these blissfully ignorant serfs or chuckle as once again UK Plc reaps the dividends (i'm semi serious).

Anyone bothered by this sort of comparative exploitation in developed countries. I suspect not, but thought that I would put it out there.

notprop wrote:Your all wrong!

I agree!

Grot 6 wrote:

notprop wrote:Your all wrong!

I agree!

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to do that. It's in the forum rules somewhere.......

Grot 6 wrote:

notprop wrote:Your all wrong!

I agree!

+1

Since it seems fashionable...

Glad to hear GW are out of Shanghai.

notprop wrote:Anyone bothered by this sort of comparative exploitation in developed countries. I suspect not, but thought that I would put it out there.

Not so much. The USA is decades behind the EU in terms of workers' rights (my friends in the US are astonished, and envious, when I talk about our minimum 4.8 weeks annual holiday, enforced by law, and standard 35-hour working week, and right not to be unfairly dismissed), but there are always compensations -- the 1% super-rich in the USA are richer than anyone else in the world, and US culture is all about aspiration.

Grot 6 wrote:

notprop wrote:Your all wrong!

I agree!

I've never been so insulted in all my life!

AvatarForm wrote:

Grot 6 wrote:

notprop wrote:Your all wrong!

I agree!

+1

Since it seems fashionable...

Another one, disgusting!

I need a MOD in here. MOD!

Ian Sturrock wrote:Glad to hear GW are out of Shanghai.

notprop wrote:Anyone bothered by this sort of comparative exploitation in developed countries. I suspect not, but thought that I would put it out there.

Not so much. The USA is decades behind the EU in terms of workers' rights (my friends in the US are astonished, and envious, when I talk about our minimum 4.8 weeks annual holiday, enforced by law, and standard 35-hour working week, and right not to be unfairly dismissed), but there are always compensations -- the 1% super-rich in the USA are richer than anyone else in the world, and US culture is all about aspiration.

Yeah, the benefits thing was one thing, but the health and safety standards that workers were used to on US construction sites were really shocking compared to here. Fortunately for them we operated a global standard based up UK standard. They were both suprised and annoyed by the length and breadth of our H&S and the amount of money they had to spend to comply with it!

As for the super rich. I welcome our new (old) super rich overloards.

And if any of them are here, spare a mill for and old ex lepper?

Mr. Burning wrote:Ethical buying of wargames?

In isolation I really don't give a crap, Even taking a wider view, I want to breathe clean air but I do so need my car.

I want Pedro to go to school and not have to make my clothes, but I need to cover up and look good whilst doing it and at a price I can afford.

I want everyone to have food but, well, there not enough to go round, and I have kids, so, they get first dibs.

Tsobe doesn't have clean drinking water? well, if I don't pay my bills, neither will I.


I think army men made of childrens tears and dreams are the least of my worries.

Well said.

I like many others do care about other humans - but we have to be realistic, and sadly -yes sadly - I agree with the above. This is how the world really works people - and no amount of socialist "in a perfect world" bs will ever change it.

I give to charity and I help where I can, but truthfully, the vast majority of us will always cover our own backs first. Most people call it "common sense" if you like. I'm glad we're all getting past the politically correct stage of our lives, and people can now say this and face up to themselves. I have.


SAD BUT TRUE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ian Sturrock wrote:dogma, I suspect you just enjoy a good argument. Please start a thread in the off-topic forum entitled "Casuistry, Sophistry, Ethics, Rhetoric, And Other Fun Party Games, By dogma". Go play there.

I just love these people who tell those who don't share their P.C. fantasies to "go play elsewhere". IF anything the anti-capitalist sympathisers amongst us seem to err on the side of fascism.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
Its a drop in the ocean. I'm a relatively moral person, I don't rob rape or steal, I don't sponge off the state and I pay my taxes. Let that be enough, and gimme my GW minis, cos I like them. If you want to convince yourself I'm a nonce because it makes you feel better, that's your right too, but don't come on here and try to pretend your a better person because you claim to care where your plastic comes from, cos its boring.

BRAVO SIR!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ian Sturrock wrote:Glad to hear GW are out of Shanghai.

notprop wrote:Anyone bothered by this sort of comparative exploitation in developed countries. I suspect not, but thought that I would put it out there.

Not so much. The USA is decades behind the EU in terms of workers' rights (my friends in the US are astonished, and envious, when I talk about our minimum 4.8 weeks annual holiday, enforced by law, and standard 35-hour working week, and right not to be unfairly dismissed), but there are always compensations -- the 1% super-rich in the USA are richer than anyone else in the world, and US culture is all about aspiration.

Standard 35 working week? LOL! You think this is real?

My wife works 40 hours a week - by law she is considered "part-time" as her hours are not over 5 or more days....

don't belive me - look it up!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ian Sturrock wrote: and US culture is all about aspiration.

So was ours once - and I wish it still was, because it if isn't we end up with no one aspiring to anything. No wonder the UK has problems.....

It's one thing the US have right in my book. Aspire to be bigger, better and bolder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:
Should we decry this exploitation of these blissfully ignorant serfs or chuckle as once again UK Plc reaps the dividends (i'm semi serious).

Yeah ok - let's decry it. And then let's watch as 50% of the "ignorant serfs" are made redundant due to the cost of improving the other 50%'s conditions. Or maybe they should keep everyone on and increase the prices.......while we watch them go out of business due to falling sales (thanks in turn to customer alienation due to high pricing) ultimately resulting in the un-employment of all 100% of those workers.

Health & Safety and Improved working conditions? Kiss my arse.

FMF,

There's a huge body of psychological research, like, dozens of studies, including the ones from people trying to prove that capitalism, aspiration, consumerism and the American dream are natural, and make people happy, that really pretty much proves the reverse -- that all that stuff offers only short-term boosts to happiness, and that a focus on those extrinsic rewards in life only makes people want said extrinsic rewards more and more, without actually making them happy in the long term. Psychologists who study happiness would argue -- from evidence -- that it's not so much that people grow up and accept that the world is all about capitalism and aspiration, but that they get so trapped in their cycle of focusing on extrinsic rewards that they don't realise how wasted and empty their lives are without intrinsic rewards.

Standard 35h working week *is* real. There are exceptions -- deviations from that standard -- which is why I didn't say "universal 35h working week".