A weird wal-mart policy (or at least the level of this lady's obsession with it)

[Clayton_e]

I was at wal mart last night with my girlfriend and there was a row of magazines, one of the people on the front of one reminded both her and me of herself (not like a twin, but pretty close). No, I'm not bragging, it wasn't a supermodel, was like some sort of just general magazine with a photo of a woman doing something or other to point out the activity, not showing off her boobs or something. I had my camera under my shoulder, as always, and asked her to pose next to it. She picked it up and smiled next to it while I pulled out my camera and played with the settings (took me a moment, was on some manual settings and I was switching it to color from black and white).

An elderly lady, the Wal Mart greater came right up and got between me and my girlfriend and waved her hands.. Apparently to keep me from getting a shot. My girlfriend put the magazine down in the slot that it came from while the lady screamed to me (not an exaggeration, her voice was much louder than talking level) "You can't take pictures in here, its private property, company policy, I can have your camera confiscated, you have to delete any photos you have taken!"..

I cut her off after that, saying "Woah, woah, its ok lady, I didn't take a photo. Don't worry."

She told me to follow her to put my camera at the main desk.. I said no, that I'd carry it with me but take no further pictures. She glared at me as I walked away.

When I walked back through with my whole two bags of items (two shirts, a pair of jeans, some blank CDs and a 2 liter bottle of soda) she pulled me aside and read off each item from my recipt. She also asked me if I had taken any photos of any items for sale in the store. There was a second guy nearby that was either another receipt checker or someone who was moving stuff, not sure.. He was not too far away both times and showed no interest in what the lady did either time.

I laughed it off.. the lady was obviously.. well.. a bit out of her mind. They do chose some elderly people to check the receipts instead of sit at home.. Good for them, some money in their pocket and something to do.. But really.. wtf?

This situation was a little bizarre.

OK Wal Mart, I get it, no cameras in store lest the crazy lady reports me to the authorities.

[susan]

January 19, 2005
Taking Photographs in Wal-Mart

Dan Gillmor, advocate for citizen-journalism, notes that Wal-Mart policy is to require permission for anyone who wants to take photographs inside one of their stores:

http://alp.truckandbarter.com/archives/2005/01/taking_photographs_in_walmart.html

[Clayton_e]

Gotcha. I get their policy (I looked it up after). I also get their policy is to stop people from documenting lots of prices for reasons of setting up lower prices themselves, doing research for lowballing, etc.. Or for doing stuff that might cause disruption (they want people there to shop, not people there to setup some weird flashmob thing).

Got your policy. Fine.

But how hard could it be to use some judgment and see that something poses little threat? And if its still policy and you want to inform them of it.. Jump up in down in front of them screaming? Or how about politely informing them of such policy.

Inspect every item on the way out? How does that relate to my photo taking? (Especially when the context of the photo taking had nothing to do with.. well.. by any stretch of the imagination, shoplifting)

Got their policy. I'm just saying this lady was taking it a bit far and should she somehow never understand the meaning of a judgment call.. Fine, its still the store's policy, but to scream, search every item as if she'd seen me try to sneak items into my bags, demand I turn over my camera? pfft.. right. On edit.. her not getting a security guard to come take my camera or escort me from the store is a sign that she even realized she was over the line. She demanded I give her my camera. I said no and continued shopping. If it were her complete and absolute belief that she was right she would've gotten someone to take it. She didn't, so therefore she realized "I'm going a bit too far on this."

[Exy]

This thread is pretty boring so far. I would like to spice it up my sharing my internet pedophilia theory: you see my theory is that pedophiles hang out on the internet in order to have sexy fun times together.

[Baldwin]

Why would you give a store like that your business? After the lady's announcement, I would have set whatever store items I had on the floor and walked out.

[featherlou]

This is one of those grey area questions. I see what you mean, Clayton - yeah, it's store policy, but no, taking an picture that is obviously a funny shot, not a price-stealing one, is not worthy of calling out the national guard.

[Cluricaun]

Most stores have that policy. There's a small sign on the side of the doors when I go into the grocery store here that says that all taping, video, audio or photography is prohibited without express permission. I take pictures of stuff all the time though with my phone, because hey, fuck them. I use the pictures to prove that they were out of something my girl asked me to get, or to text back to ask if that's what I was sent for if I'm not sure. If someone told me I wasn't allowed I'd just laugh at them. Good luck stopping me.

[SmartAleq]

WallyWorld greeters are insane--I think it's a prerequisite to being hired for the job. At the local store, the designated "in" door is on the wrong side of the entrance to where I generally park and the incredibly long aisle of impulse items forces me to walk way out of my way to get to the stuff I'm usually after, so I tend to go in the out door, cut through the register area and get out of the hellhole a few minutes faster. I was with my grandkid one time and did this and the greeter fucking flipped out--got up in my face and tried to physically prevent me from walking that way. Seriously, I cocked a fist back and told the goddamned moron that if he laid hands on me again I was going to paste his facial features to the rear interior of his skull. Then I had to apologize to my grandson for losing my shit in front of him but he said he totally understood--he's such a nice, polite boy who's been taught well the ways of the little white lie. Nowadays I go to a different store that's laid out more intelligently and doesn't have quite as insane a group of staff. Fucking WallyWorld.

[Baldwin]

WallyWorld greeters are insane--I think it's a prerequisite to being hired for the job. At the local store, the designated "in" door is on the wrong side of the entrance to where I generally park and the incredibly long aisle of impulse items forces me to walk way out of my way to get to the stuff I'm usually after, so I tend to go in the out door, cut through the register area and get out of the hellhole a few minutes faster. I was with my grandkid one time and did this and the greeter fucking flipped out--got up in my face and tried to physically prevent me from walking that way. Seriously, I cocked a fist back and told the goddamned moron that if he laid hands on me again I was going to paste his facial features to the rear interior of his skull. Then I had to apologize to my grandson for losing my shit in front of him but he said he totally understood--he's such a nice, polite boy who's been taught well the ways of the little white lie. Nowadays I go to a different store that's laid out more intelligently and doesn't have quite as insane a group of staff. Fucking WallyWorld.

You're cool in so many ways.

I haven't bought anything from Wal-mart in years, but once when I did, after I'd paid at the checkout, gotten my bag of cheap crap and was walking out the door, an employee tried to stop me to compare my items with my receipt. I think they were doing that to everybody. I just kept walking. Fuck 'em; it's my property at that point, so no, they don't get to take it back out of the bag.

[Raymond Onion]

High-end stores have weird policies too.

I once had to interview a designer, who was doing a trunk show at a high-end place (or what I thought of as a high-end place). I'm interviewing him and taking notes, and my photographer is taking cute pictures of the desigher guy who was about 5'3'' and the girl modeling his outfits who was a foot taller than he was. And suddenly a salesclerk comes over and tells me I can't take notes in the Chanel section. I can interview the guy, no problem, but we have to move someplace else.

If Chanel found out--and I guess they send out spies--they could pull their line from the store!

[Guinastasia]

Yeah, but you'd expect that kind of thing from Chanel. Wal-Mart, not so much.

Our local WallyWord is so freaking creepy -- every time I go there I feel like I'm in the middle of Larry the Cable Guy's family reunion.

[Count Blucher]

This is one of those grey area questions. I see what you mean, Clayton - yeah, it's store policy, but no, taking an picture that is obviously a funny shot, not a price-stealing one, is not worthy of calling out the national guard.

[Little Rascals]"You kids will put down that camera and like it too! Eeehh!"[/Little Rascals]

[sturmhauke]

Why the fuck are you people shopping at Wal-Mart anyway? I only go there as an absolute last resort.

[featherlou]

Because everyone at my local Canadian Tire is an asshole.

[dread pirate jimbo]

Because everyone at my local Canadian Tire is an asshole.

+1

I shop at Wallyworld because it's cheap. Very cheap. And close to our house. I expect piss poor service, long line ups at the two checkout counters out of forty that are actually open, sold out items, mislabelled items, and all that fun stuff, but I really don't think it would require much more agitation before they'd lose themselves another customer.

[susan]

I'm still not understand why, if the OP knows this is their policy, he's annoyed that they're enforcing it. Okay, so the clerk was overzealous. She did not take the camera, she did not call security.

[McNutty]

I shop at Wallyworld because it's cheap. Very cheap.

Not to get too political, but I wish this argument wasn't so prevalent. Not to jump on you personally; not that long ago I would have said the same thing. But you have to think about the impact of demanding that everything be absurdly cheap. Ultimately, it leads towards an environment where nobody local can produce goods at competitive prices unless workers' wages drop to compete with folks in the places where all these manufacturing jobs are moving.

I think of it like this: Imagine you're considering buying a hat for $20 from your neighbor who makes hats for a living. If you tell him you can get the same hat down at Walmart for $3, what you're effectively telling him is that you want him to earn the same living as the people making hats in China. That's what you have to do to be competitive; tough luck.

This is an exaggerated example designed to force you to think about a direct impact on someone you know. It obviously doesn't work like that; it's far more indirect. But I think the trend to constantly demand cheaper and cheaper goods, to the point that it would be impossible for anyone producing the goods you're demanding to maintain your own standard of living, will ultimately pull your standard of living down to the lowest common denominator.

[featherlou]

I agree with you on all points, McNutty. Problem is, I tried to shop at my local Canadian Tire (buy Canadian and all that), but they were all assholes.

[featherlou]

AGH! Double post!

[dread pirate jimbo]

I shop at Wallyworld because it's cheap. Very cheap.

Not to get too political, but I wish this argument wasn't so prevalent. Not to jump on you personally; not that long ago I would have said the same thing. But you have to think about the impact of demanding that everything be absurdly cheap. Ultimately, it leads towards an environment where nobody local can produce goods at competitive prices unless workers' wages drop to compete with folks in the places where all these manufacturing jobs are moving.

I think of it like this: Imagine you're considering buying a hat for $20 from your neighbor who makes hats for a living. If you tell him you can get the same hat down at Walmart for $3, what you're effectively telling him is that you want him to earn the same living as the people making hats in China. That's what you have to do to be competitive; tough luck.

This is an exaggerated example designed to force you to think about a direct impact on someone you know. It obviously doesn't work like that; it's far more indirect. But I think the trend to constantly demand cheaper and cheaper goods, to the point that it would be impossible for anyone producing the goods you're demanding to maintain your own standard of living, will ultimately pull your standard of living down to the lowest common denominator.

I don't disagree with your general argument and I do try to buy local products whenever I can. However, when it comes to mass-produced name-brand products, such as CDs, I'd rather pay $12 at Wal-Mart than $15 at the music store or $6.99 for Frosted Flakes compared to $12.99 at the local grocery.

[Jeff]

Canadian Tire isn't full of assholes, just clueless 18yr old kids who haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, looking for, or where to find it.

[dread pirate jimbo]

Canadian Tire isn't full of assholes, just clueless 18yr old kids who haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about, looking for, or where to find it.

The garage is pretty full of assholes of an age to know better. For example, if you ask them to replace your back tires and instead they replace your front tires, they will then argue with you over what you actually asked for, and then refuse to replace the rear tires, preferring to just move the new tires to the back and the bald, shitty back tires to the front. And this all requires your car to be in the shop for an extra day.

[McNutty]

I don't disagree with your general argument and I do try to buy local products whenever I can. However, when it comes to mass-produced name-brand products, such as CDs, I'd rather pay $12 at Wal-Mart than $15 at the music store or $6.99 for Frosted Flakes compared to $12.99 at the local grocery.

I'm not sure that's any better. This is a very interesting article about Walmart's impact on the companies whose products it sells.

[dread pirate jimbo]

I don't disagree with your general argument and I do try to buy local products whenever I can. However, when it comes to mass-produced name-brand products, such as CDs, I'd rather pay $12 at Wal-Mart than $15 at the music store or $6.99 for Frosted Flakes compared to $12.99 at the local grocery.

I'm not sure that's any better. This is a very interesting article about Walmart's impact on the companies whose products it sells.

Yes, that is interesting. I must cogitate...

[SugarPlum]

[quote=dread pirate jimbo]

I don't disagree with your general argument and I do try to buy local products whenever I can. However, when it comes to mass-produced name-brand products, such as CDs, I'd rather pay $12 at Wal-Mart than $15 at the music store or $6.99 for Frosted Flakes compared to $12.99 at the local grocery.

I'm not sure that's any better. This is a very interesting article about Walmart's impact on the companies whose products it sells.

Yes, that is interesting. I must cogitate...[/quote:11v5jryw]

Not to mention the fact that the local stores are more likely to employ people in full time positions and provide benefits.

People with no employer sponsored healthcare benefits end up driving up healthcare and insurance costs as well as costing additional taxpayer money. People who are underemployed due to working part time at minimum wage are also often supplemented by government welfare programs. So the savings at Walmart can actually end up costing us all money in a different way.

I'm still not understand why, if the OP knows this is their policy, he's annoyed that they're enforcing it. Okay, so the clerk was overzealous. She did not take the camera, she did not call security.

Good point. The company gets to make the rules and enforce the rules, whether or not a customer agrees with the rules or thinks they make sense.

[Clayton_e]

And that's why this goes in the "Thunderdome".

I think its a strange policy, understandable only in the strictest of necessity (say, a guy walking around documenting every price of every item.. a policy Wal Mart does itself with the market against other local stores). Even stranger is the elderly lady flipping out. And whether I agree whether or not with their policy (especially when I was only taking a photo of my girlfriend doing something funny) I do have the right to bitch about it. And also never shop there again. The lady checking every single item off my whole five items was the kicker. Hope her borderline dementia raddled self gets fired for just being crazy. Jumping up and down in front of a customer while waving your arms? Yeah, that's normal.

Heck, the main reason I went there was because it was late and I needed blank CDs for a project the next day. Last time I'm headed into that place.

Oh, and on edit.. I didn't know that was their policy beforehand. An "excuse me, sir" would suffice.

[dread pirate jimbo]

Not to mention the fact that the local stores are more likely to employ people in full time positions and provide benefits.

People with no employer sponsored healthcare benefits end up driving up healthcare and insurance costs as well as costing additional taxpayer money.

From my Canadian perspective, this is irrelevant. We have universal health care, so part time work has no effect on health benefits. So, to be fair to Wal-Mart, they aren't fucking up my health care. Yet.

Getting back to the whole policy thing, I'm not sure it would ever be enforced in our local store. The place is so chronically short-staffed that there is rarely a greeter, much less someone wondering the aisles looking out for rogue picture takers (Wal-Mart managers' bonuses are tied directly to the franchise's profit margin and since there is little wiggle room for price adjustments, the only way they can increase profits is by cutting staff -- I know this because my mom has been working for Wallyworld since they arrived in Canada). I should bring my camera there one of these days and find out...

[Hatshepsut]

I think of it like this: Imagine you're considering buying a hat for $20 from your neighbor who makes hats for a living. If you tell him you can get the same hat down at Walmart for $3, what you're effectively telling him is that you want him to earn the same living as the people making hats in China. That's what you have to do to be competitive; tough luck.

This is an exaggerated example designed to force you to think about a direct impact on someone you know. It obviously doesn't work like that; it's far more indirect. But I think the trend to constantly demand cheaper and cheaper goods, to the point that it would be impossible for anyone producing the goods you're demanding to maintain your own standard of living, will ultimately pull your standard of living down to the lowest common denominator.

From the perspective of global economics, your neighbor should not be making hats then - she is wasting the world's resources by doing so. If the Chinese can do it more cheaply, then give those Chinese the opportunity to earn a living. They get income, and you get a cheap hat. Which leaves you with more disposable income than you would otherwise have had, and perhaps you'll use some of the income to buy special hat-bling that your neighbor decides to make because she can't compete in the hat business, but she can compete by doing something else.

This touches upon the concept of "comparative advantage" which is quite important in trade economics. I have oversimplified, of course, but the overall point is that things are not necessarily as simple as they seem, and the remedies for world poverty, while they certainly don't necessarily mean embracing monolithic corporations, are not all about dumping on them either.

Please note, the above should in no way be construed as a defense of Wal-Mart per se.

[McNutty]

From the perspective of global economics, your neighbor should not be making hats then - she is wasting the world's resources by doing so. If the Chinese can do it more cheaply, then give those Chinese the opportunity to earn a living. They get income, and you get a cheap hat. Which leaves you with more disposable income than you would otherwise have had, and perhaps you'll use some of the income to buy special hat-bling that your neighbor decides to make because she can't compete in the hat business, but she can compete by doing something else.

Yes, that's cut-throat capitalism for you. Note that the hat-bling will eventually be manufactured cheaper by the Chinese as well. If we have to compete with workers willing to earn peanuts, then in the long run, we will earn peanuts too. Eventually, any labor that can be done elsewhere will be done elsewhere (a trend we've seen a lot of lately in the US), because the labor is cheaper where the standard of living is lower. How do we keep those jobs here? Lower our own standard of living to the lowest common denominator so our own labor prices are competitive in the global economy. Not terribly attractive to me.

That's why I think that insisting on buying dirt cheap stuff is just an indirect way of insisting that we all lower our own standards of living.

So I don't say give the Chinese that opportunity. I think it's shooting ourselves in the foot. My attitude is that I should aim to buy products made in places that have the standard of living I want for myself. If something is made by slave labor, only slaves can compete for those jobs. If I buy something that's made by people making a couple bucks a day, I'm indirectly asking for that for myself. If something's made in a country that has a decent minimum wage and good worker safety and advocacy laws, then that's ... great.

It's a tough decision to ask people to make: If a product is so cheap you couldn't make a living making it, don't buy it. It goes against people's nature, and it's also a hard thing to evaluate even if you want to, since we don't all really know how much it might cost to mass-produce hats when economies of scale are taken into consideration (and hats are even a ridiculously simple example).

[Hatshepsut]

Yes, that's cut-throat capitalism for you.

It need not be "cut-throat." Many people who believe that a global economy is essential to poverty alleviation, like me, also believe in a regulatory environment that protects human rights, worker safety standards, and environmental quality. In fact, if US consumers demand that the hats they buy are made in factories that adhere to international standards for health and safety, Chinese factories will conform (I see this daily in Indonesia, it is not mere theory - the impact is real). If no Americans buy their products - well, there goes the incentive to meet first-world standards of social responsibility. They'll sell the hats (a lot fewer of them, so fewer jobs) to Chinese, and the factory workers will make lower wages in a far more abusive environment.

Note that the hat-bling will eventually be manufactured cheaper by the Chinese as well.

No, not if it is made with materials that are cheap to buy near your neighbor (a kind of wood or grass or mineral, perhaps) but hard to obtain in China. Or perhaps the skill level needed to make the bling is beyond what the Chinese, with their lesser education system, can hope to emulate in quantity for many years. This is where "competitive advantage" comes in. The entire WORLD is in better shape if we all produce goods efficiently.

And if the Chinese start making cheaper hat-bling, the argument still applies. Eventually, the neighbor sees that the hat-bling business is less profitable than it used to be, and she innovates into a new product or industry. From such behavior is a healthy, innovative, progressive economy born.

If we have to compete with workers willing to earn peanuts, then in the long run, we will earn peanuts too.

Markets - including the prices of goods for sale - adjust. You aren't going to get to a point where the economy collapses, no one is earning any money, and yet .. some how there are all these expensive goods that no one can afford to buy being produced. A contraction is possible, of course, but it won't be caused by the purchase of efficiently produced goods. Do you think the current crisis was caused because Americans bought too many garments from China?

Eventually, any labor that can be done elsewhere will be done elsewhere (a trend we've seen a lot of lately in the US), because the labor is cheaper where the standard of living is lower.

And by sending those jobs overseas, we are substantially improving the standard of living of those people. Or do you not care about them because they don't carry US passports? (Cheap shot, I know, but I do become annoyed when people act like the only welfare that matters is the welfare of American citizens. Frankly, I want EVERYONE in the world to have a fair shot at a good job, an education, and a decent standard of living, and if that means I can help 10 Indonesians at the temporary expense of one American, that's fine by me.)

It's a tough decision to ask people to make: If a product is so cheap you couldn't make a living making it, don't buy it.

And if buying a product will help people make a living wage in a clean, safe factory that doesn't pollute, then you should buy it.

You may be unaware that there are strong social responsibility standards in place that major economies, notably the US and EU, insist that companies in places like Indonesia conform to before their goods can be exported abroad. This is a growing trend and needs to become stronger. Participating in the global economy is the way to do it. Withdrawing in distaste because of some imagined outcome that has no bearing on reality is not.

The way to help poor people around the world is to learn what the impact is of socially responsible, globally intertwined economic activity really is. Refusing to move past preconceptions and assuming, without any evidence, that "buying Chinese hats = bad, buying American hats = good" sets us all back. Instead, do something that takes a little knowledge and research, like working to harmonize US standards (which are good, but different) with the Global Ecolabelling Network, which covers furniture production in most of the world but not the US. And so forth.

I must go or I'll miss my plane! Sorry if any of this is incoherent or seems snappish. I believe you have good intentions, McNutty, and I suppose we want to achieve the same ends. (Unless you really DON'T care if Chinese factory workers work in bad conditions or lose their jobs - then we are no longer on the same page.) But the road to hell, and all that ....

[McNutty]

Sorry if any of this is incoherent or seems snappish.

Not at all. I do have to get some sleep, though, so I'll put some thought into a reply tomorrow (or maybe not tomorrow; I'm going to try to make an effort to spend less time on the board and get real work done). Maybe we should move this to a Crucible thread and stop bothering these nice folks.

[Exy]

(words)

Hey, just wanted to say that this was a really interesting post, thank you!

[Truth and Beauty]

In fact, if US consumers demand that the hats they buy are made in factories that adhere to international standards for health and safety

That's where the system breaks down. Consumers want the cheapest price; they give nominal service to saying workers should be well-treated, but when it comes down to brass tacks they want to pay less - that's their primary motive. And corporations, of course, are not bound by any consideration of ethics. Have you ever seen pictures of the places in China that recycle old computer parts?
Many of the materials that you speak of, that are cheaper in other countries, are because those other countries are not concerned with the environmental impact of obtaining those materials.

[featherlou]

This discussion has turned very interesting; I think McNutty, Carol, and T&B are all correct.

[Clayton_e]

I've always been interested in their anti-union stance. It just will not be allowed, from what I've heard.

Ah, I found the link, Wal Mart, in 2005, shut down a store that was unionized in Canada. I recall hearing op-ed coverage stating that it'd be an example.. If you unionize we'll simply shut down the store. We've got plenty of them and we won't let that kind of stuff spread.

That tactic wouldn't work in many other businesses... There's so many Wal Marts that one being shut down is like a drop in the bucket.

And this is an interesting discussion.. Though it is far off from the original topic (which, I believe, has been covered enough). Could this be split off into something else?

[SugarPlum]

McNutty and Carol, I thought both of your posts were excellent.

I would like to throw in a post for environmentalism here. One problem with the global economy is that Americans can consume far too many goods, due to the fact that things made overseas are highly affordable. People LOVE consuming!!!! This means Americans are acquiring far more goods than we really need, and many of those things end up in a landfill.

In addition, many of these goods are produced with much lower quality. This is both to conserve manufacturing costs and because companies have figured out the strategy of 'planned obsolescence.' So things break and must be replaced more quickly. Again, more landfill-fillers are created, purchased, and discarded.

Both of these lead to huge waste of resources.

Another problem is that goods produced cheaply overseas and shipped to the US require huge amounts of fuel to transport. This uses oil and contributes to pollution.

So my thought on the ideal situation is:
-hire your neighbor to make a quality hat using things she can obtain locally
-pay your neighbor a decent amount for the hat so that she can survive without selling a huge volume of hats
-buy one hat that lasts for several years instead of several hats in one year

-help fight poverty in other countries by helping them set up similar local economies.

Incidentally, I think this would also allow countries to better preserve their local cultures, but I'm sure you know more about that than I do, Carol.

[Borborygmi]

After reading this thread, I can only conclude that the best course of action for me as an individual is to hire a police sketch artist for a fair and reasonable fee, take him to Wal-Mart, have him sketch one of their hats for me, and staple the sketch to my head.

When the sketch wears out I will recycle it.

[McNutty]

Yes, that's cut-throat capitalism for you.

It need not be "cut-throat." Many people who believe that a global economy is essential to poverty alleviation, like me, also believe in a regulatory environment that protects human rights, worker safety standards, and environmental quality. In fact, if US consumers demand that the hats they buy are made in factories that adhere to international standards for health and safety, Chinese factories will conform (I see this daily in Indonesia, it is not mere theory - the impact is real). If no Americans buy their products - well, there goes the incentive to meet first-world standards of social responsibility.

I don't think we disagree as much on this as you think. To me, the ideal situation would be for all those Chinese factories to adhere to such standards and to pay their workers decent wages, and then I wouldn't have any problem supporting them. We're sort of looking at this from opposite sides of a chicken-vs-egg problem: if I don't give them my money, they have less incentive to meet my standards, but if they don't meet my standards, I don't have incentive to give them my money. Ultimately, they need to have standards because it's simply a good idea for their own people. Me giving them my money isn't going to do it.

Do you think the current crisis was caused because Americans bought too many garments from China?

I don't, but I do think the current crisis is made worse by the fact that we fell into it after already having lost so many manufacturing jobs.

Eventually, any labor that can be done elsewhere will be done elsewhere (a trend we've seen a lot of lately in the US), because the labor is cheaper where the standard of living is lower.

And by sending those jobs overseas, we are substantially improving the standard of living of those people. Or do you not care about them because they don't carry US passports? (Cheap shot, I know, but I do become annoyed when people act like the only welfare that matters is the welfare of American citizens. Frankly, I want EVERYONE in the world to have a fair shot at a good job, an education, and a decent standard of living, and if that means I can help 10 Indonesians at the temporary expense of one American, that's fine by me.)

Sure, I absolutely want the standard of living of people overseas to improve. You'll note my attitude is not "buy American," it's "buy to support a good standard of living." If I'm willing to pay more for a hat because my conscience won't let me demand it be made by someone who earns 40 cents an hour, then everyone making hats can benefit from that, not just Americans. My crazy idealistic idea is that everyone in the entire world can make a good living and enjoy the ridiculously high standard of living I enjoy.

You may be unaware that there are strong social responsibility standards in place that major economies, notably the US and EU, insist that companies in places like Indonesia conform to before their goods can be exported abroad. This is a growing trend and needs to become stronger. Participating in the global economy is the way to do it. Withdrawing in distaste because of some imagined outcome that has no bearing on reality is not.

The way to help poor people around the world is to learn what the impact is of socially responsible, globally intertwined economic activity really is. Refusing to move past preconceptions and assuming, without any evidence, that "buying Chinese hats = bad, buying American hats = good" sets us all back. Instead, do something that takes a little knowledge and research, like working to harmonize US standards (which are good, but different) with the Global Ecolabelling Network, which covers furniture production in most of the world but not the US. And so forth.

Absolutely! I should be able to know whether any product was produced under acceptable conditions, and that is what should guide my purchasing decision. "Buying hats made by people treated like shit = bad, buying hats made by people who aren't = good." Unfortunately, this information is not just readily available. The socially responsible thing for me to do is to inform myself about specific products and companies, and I should do more of that, but really, I could spend the rest of my life researching the background of every product I ever bought. Instead, I'm guilty of generalizing: China has a track record of human rights violations, suppressing free speech, government censorship (do the workers there even know their rights according to these international standards? would we hear about it if they weren't being honored?) and low manufacturing wages. If they want my money, they need to work on that reputation.

Given the country of origin and little else to go on, I'm going to play it safe and either buy local (which, incidentally, is one of my values anyway: don't waste resources shipping widgets halfway around the world if you have a good nearby alternative) or from a country that I think is socially responsible and has a good standard of living. These things are just way more important than price. I will accept the criticism that a simple "country X is/isn't socially responsible" is incredibly imprecise, and I'll even go so far as to say I'm probably grossly misinformed about some of those countries (I'm a good American). But I still think the idea holds water. I'm sure you can and will challenge this, though, and maybe you'll even teach me something in the process.

[By the way, if anyone thinks this hijack has gone too far, feel free to speak up. Maybe we could ask a mod to move this discussion to its own thread.]

[McNutty]

Frankly, I want EVERYONE in the world to have a fair shot at a good job, an education, and a decent standard of living, and if that means I can help 10 Indonesians at the temporary expense of one American, that's fine by me.

My crazy idealistic idea is that everyone in the entire world can make a good living and enjoy the ridiculously high standard of living I enjoy.

I didn't notice until rereading this that I, like a total jackass, just repeated almost exactly what you said and acted like it was somehow new. Duh.

[featherlou]

See, this is what I used to love about the Pit.

[Hatshepsut]

Hey, on a quick skim this is turning out to be fascinating - unfortunately I'm sitting in the airport in LA with a dying computer battery and it is going to be another 48 hours at least before I have the physical and mental resources to give this the attention it deserves. Carry on without me, just try not to give me TOO much backlog to read.

Or if anyone wants to move this to TC, or start a new thread there, just make a note or PM me and we can resume matters later.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

I think of it like this: Imagine you're considering buying a hat for $20 from your neighbor who makes hats for a living. If you tell him you can get the same hat down at Walmart for $3, what you're effectively telling him is that you want him to earn the same living as the people making hats in China. That's what you have to do to be competitive; tough luck.

Well, what you're really telling him is that he shouldn't be in the hat-making business unless he can make better-enough hats than the people in China to be worth paying $20 for.

This is a case of relative economic advantage, and it really does make us all better off (both us and the Chinese) to have the cheaper products (as long as the production of hats doesn't actually harm the Chinese who are making them*). To demonstrate why this is true, imagine that, instead of Chinese hat-makers, we had a magic hat machine. It makes free hats. Now, clearly we're all better off with free hats. All the work that we used to have to put into making hats can be put toward other things (or just taken as leisure time). But, by the argument that you've proposed, we shouldn't use the hat machine. After all, it's telling our friend the hat maker that he shouldn't make any money at all, and we don't want our friend to starve. But that's clearly nonsense. By that argument we shouldn't use computers or automobiles because they put scribes and stablemen out of a living.

*We can argue about whether Chinese sweatshops are harmful to their workers (I think that they are, but not always unreasonably so, and that things are getting better, and that the current state is a necessary part of that process). Certainly any work is harmful to some extent, so we need to come up with a balance. But the argument ought to hinge on whether the Chinese workers are harmed by the work, not whether the westerner who's been displaced has been harmed by the reduced market to sell his inefficiently expensive goods.

[McNutty]

This is a case of relative economic advantage, and it really does make us all better off (both us and the Chinese) to have the cheaper products (as long as the production of hats doesn't actually harm the Chinese who are making them*). To demonstrate why this is true, imagine that, instead of Chinese hat-makers, we had a magic hat machine. It makes free hats. Now, clearly we're all better off with free hats. All the work that we used to have to put into making hats can be put toward other things (or just taken as leisure time). But, by the argument that you've proposed, we shouldn't use the hat machine. After all, it's telling our friend the hat maker that he shouldn't make any money at all, and we don't want our friend to starve. But that's clearly nonsense.

I agree that that's nonsense. That's why I wouldn't go there with my argument. I'm not against automation or eliminating jobs by finding more efficient production methods. I'm against adding "efficiency" by squeezing your workers because they don't have any alternatives. If you've got a magic hat machine, I'll gladly adjust my expectation of what is a fair price to pay for a hat, taking into account that there's no labor involved. You'll make a killing and put my neighbor out of business because you're just plain better at making hats, not because you have the advantage of slave labor. (note: "slave labor" = hyperbole)

*We can argue about whether Chinese sweatshops are harmful to their workers (I think that they are, but not always unreasonably so, and that things are getting better, and that the current state is a necessary part of that process). Certainly any work is harmful to some extent, so we need to come up with a balance. But the argument ought to hinge on whether the Chinese workers are harmed by the work, not whether the westerner who's been displaced has been harmed by the reduced market to sell his inefficiently expensive goods.

The problem with this argument is that a huge component of the "inefficiency" you're citing is due to paying a living wage that can support a higher standard of living. I don't consider that an "inefficiency" so much as a desirable situation.

[Hatshepsut]

Well, now that other posters covered the tangent we veered off on very nicely, 8 days later I'm finally back. I have carefully read everything writen above, and I'm not sure there is a lot more to say - various points of view have been thoughtfully covered already. But I promised to comment so here are a few last remarks.

Truth and Beauty wrote:
Consumers want the cheapest price; they give nominal service to saying workers should be well-treated, but when it comes down to brass tacks they want to pay less - that's their primary motive.

The comments on this board belie that, as do many phenomena in society today, ranging from all the grief companies like Nike have taken for using “sweatshops” to the huge growth in “green” consumerism (and its ugly underside, greenwashing).

And corporations, of course, are not bound by any consideration of ethics.

They are if there is a sound regulatory framework in place. And if the market rewards ethnical behavior, they will act according.

Have you ever seen pictures of the places in China that recycle old computer parts?

FTR, I have visited factories - not in China, as it happens, but in Indonesia. I have personally seen where workers live, I have talked to them in their native language without management or translator present, and I've gotten sick from the glue fumes at a manufacturing plant.

I'm not saying that things are just hunky-dory in the developing world. Obviously, these nations have tons of problems; the field of "international development" would not exist if they didn't. The question is whether making it more difficult for these countries to create economic prosperity for their impoverished citizens by blocking their participation in the global community is the best strategy to help them.

Many of the materials that you speak of, that are cheaper in other countries, are because those other countries are not concerned with the environmental impact of obtaining those materials.

Agreed, although depending on the industry (mining is obviously much different from a labor-intensive business like garments) wages are usually a far more important contributor to lower costs.

SugarPlum wrote:
I would like to throw in a post for environmentalism here. One problem with the global economy is that Americans can consume far too many goods, due to the fact that things made overseas are highly affordable. People LOVE consuming!!!! This means Americans are acquiring far more goods than we really need, and many of those things end up in a landfill.
.

Boy, do I agree with that, although I don't think we need to blame "overseas" for American consumerism run amok. I had not spent any time in the mainland US for several years, and have just spent the last week or so hanging out in upstate New York. The WalMart we grocery-shopped at was sensory overload, and not in a good way. Plastic tubs full of pre-cut apple chunks? The waste of packaging materials alone makes me almost physically ill.

I only quoted part of your post but I think everything you wrote bears thinking about.

McNutty wrote:
I don't think we disagree as much on this as you think. To me, the ideal situation would be for all those Chinese factories to adhere to such standards and to pay their workers decent wages, and then I wouldn't have any problem supporting them. We're sort of looking at this from opposite sides of a chicken-vs-egg problem: if I don't give them my money, they have less incentive to meet my standards, but if they don't meet my standards, I don't have incentive to give them my money. Ultimately, they need to have standards because it's simply a good idea for their own people. Me giving them my money isn't going to do it.

Yes, I see where you are coming from, and before I got out into the world and had the experiences I've had, I might even have agreed with you. The reason I think that engagement is the solution is because I've seen it work - firms that we have worked with here over the past few years have adopted Western-style standards and achieved certifications such as FSC (although that's not an ideal example because it is aimed at making sure logging is done legally and sustainably rather than at worker rights - sorry, my first-hand knowledge runs more to "green" certification even though I know worker safety/human rights are addressed through the same dynamic). The reason they adopted these standards? Because they want to sell to the EU and the US, and they know that the best bet for them to attract consumers is to meet these standards.

I could spend the rest of my life researching the background of every product I ever bought.

Totally impractical, of course. That's what eco-labelling is all about - let independent certification firms go out there and make sure a product is being produced in a sustainable and fair manner and then buy only products that are, for example, FSC certified. The US probably needs more well-known, easy-to-understand, independent certification programs - as I understand it, the EU has their act together from an environmental standpoint thanks to these folks.

I've got one more link for you that gives a very brief overview of the way that US companies are working with firms in places like Indonesia to ensure that they meet Western standards, but I can't access it through Safari so I'm going to have to go away and come back in Firefox ... sorry about that ...

[Hatshepsut]

...well now THAT's silly, our website does not allow me to link to a specific article. If you go to this page:

http://www.senada.or.id/new/index.php?o ... &Itemid=67

you will see that one article is entitled "From Policing to Collaboration" and you can choose to download it. But it will give you the entire journal, which is sort of lame. Anyway, if you care, it's on page 7 of the pdf. It's short and sweet, anyway!

Oh, and if you try to access this website from Safari you may get a malware message (although there is no malware to worry about). Explorer and Firefox are fine.

[Zabigail]

So, take note of the magazine and issue, and go buy one elsewhere, and have your lady pose for the picture?

[Clayton_e]

This thread dropped that topic halfway through page one. And it wasn't even a big enough deal for me to remember the magazine title.. More of a spur of the moment laugh. The lady got to me, though, and I ranted about her behavior.

[Zabigail]

This thread dropped that topic halfway through page one. And it wasn't even a big enough deal for me to remember the magazine title.. More of a spur of the moment laugh. The lady got to me, though, and I ranted about her behavior.

Well... Ok then!

[Raymond Onion]

Well, hell, I had never seen this before, but I went to Macy's and there on the door it says, "No guns or photography."

No guns? Okay, that I understand. But photography?

Anyway I guess this policy is more widespread than I thought.

[SugarPlum]

Well, hell, I had never seen this before, but I went to Macy's and there on the door it says, "No guns or photography."

I feel like this Macy's must be in a pretty roughnpart of town if they actually have to remind customers not to bring guns in the store.