logo's and brand names on clothing

[MonaVox]

i wouldn't wear that phat farm brand because it would make me feel bad about myself.

my hair looks like this on most days ------------>

I've been lookin fer an excuse to use that smiley

 

[Screaming Flower]

I've been lookin fer an excuse to use that smiley

___
ohmycat it's so humid today.

 

[mug222]

If sweatshops are a neccesity to upstarting an economy, how do you explain the fact that there are sweatshops in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.?
They certainly aren't still trying to get a jump on things...

And just what do you consider to be a sweatchop mug222?
Since you state that you do agree that places with inhumane conditions are wrong, what constitutes a sweatshop in your mind?

(edit: My God I just realized I read the question incorrectly, and answered a different one than she had asked. Anyway, I think I answered a more difficult and interesting question than she had asked, so I'll leave this up...)

I guess she isn't here anymore, but I'll respond nonetheless...

Of course, sweatshops are not a prerequisite for development; that would be insane. The reason why certain countries got rich several hundred years ago while others stagnated in poverty could fill thousands of textbooks. It has nothing to do with sweatshops and all do to with geography, disease burden (malaria, for example, had a very loose foothold in the U.S. south because it was an almost tropical region, while many parts of Asia remain tremendously afflicted by the disease), physical trade access, stable political machinery, agricultural productivity (the U.S. has the midwestern breadbasket, while, say, Western China has to contend with poor soils as a result of its high elevation), neighborly conflict, sea borders, etc. etc. etc.

You must understand that development in the mid-to-late second millenium (when the rich country-poor country gap first became important and, as you say, the U.S., Canada, and the UK became wealthy) is nothing like development today: globalization meant nothing, airplanes and large-scale sea-shipping--and thus international trade--were centuries away, multinational corporations did not exist (and therefore, sweatshops did not exist.) That the U.S., Canada, the UK, and most of western Europe became rich while much of the rest of the world--mostly, and importantly, those in the tropics--still faced 30 year life expectancies and lives of poverty had nothing at all to do with sweatshops.

At the dawn of the 21st century, the situation is completely different. The world is essentially divided between the very rich (1/6 of humanity) and the very poor (essentially, the other 5/6). [It is interesting to note that almost without exception, the rich live in the temperate climates where TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases cannot claim a good foothold, and where soil fertility is better than in the tropical ecozone.] Poor countries cannot expect to become wealthy in the same manner in which the U.S. became wealthy two hundred years ago. True development requires extensive Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The only motivation for a U.S. or European company to invest in a country of poor, largely uneducated individuals is cheap wages. That's the only motivation, essentially (other than seeking new markets.) If wages were not cheaper, they would naturally seek a higher educated workforce. It's that simple. If outside organizations succeed in securing higher wages for, say, Nike workers in a factory outside Jakarta, then it is only natural that Nike will no longer invest in Indonesia but instead in countries where wages remain cheap.

So, how does a country develop if they are paid poorly by international companies? The money from a shoe factory is ten times better than what they formerly made as a rice farmer (why else would they do it?) and this money can be used to buy better education for their children, who therefore find better, higher-paying jobs--for example, in an Intel plant in Penang, Malaysia.

These countries are in a poverty trap, meaning that the adults of the population do not make enough to secure adequate health care and education for their children, who therefore are not sufficiently educated for any job except the farm...and the cycle continues. Many Asian countries have broken free of the poverty-trap, beginning largely sweatshop economies only 30 years ago. FDI is the key, and initially FDI in a poor country will mean low wages.

As for your second question, I define sweatshops as large-scale manufacturing facilities that pay extremely poor wages (that is, relative to U.S. standards) to a large number of employees. That is not in itself inhumane. There is no coercion, and workers choose to be there. And, if they can finally send their children to school, rightfully so.


(I applaud anyone who slogged through that )

 

[Angela Harlem]

Sparkysgrrrl please dont jump to any conclusions. Your replies are fine. It wasn't even yourself who brought the issue up. There is nothing wrong with the way the thread developed. The tack yourself and mug222 were taking meant that this would simply be moved to 'free your mind' if you guys wanted to continue discussing it.
I hope you didnt misunderstand the reactions either. What sometimes happens in threads that have a topic hotly debated, is someone will reply to challenge what someone said. It can get out of hand, not always, but sometimes. I guess people were just saying this might be one of them. Nothing wrong with what you both said, its just the nature of threads around here....or in fym specifically. I noticed you didnt have many posts here and wasn't sure if you were new or not. I know people can be browsing here for ages before they start posting.
Dont know if you have even stuck around to read this, but thats how it works.
Sorry if you felt everyone was jumping on your case based on your opinion. It wasn't what they all meant. I hope your further replies were a reaction to that rather than a genuine belief that U2fans are not bright or ....fyi the word nazi is only tolerated in a discussion about that particular subject....

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[wannabe]

The only name brand i wear is "counter culture" and i wear that in support of the phrase "counter culture". not like the counter culture of the 60s, but counter culture in general and how i believe it's beneficial to question your/one's convictions.

i wear band t-shirts out of support. my aging black achtung baby shirt will eventually become one with my skin and the symbols of the face, star and car will turn permanent. at that point i will no longer need to wear shirts to show support of Achtung Baby and U2.

 

[anitram]

i do like certain clothes, but only because they fit me the way i like it.

Same here. I had not bought a pair of jeans at the Gap until recently, then they fit so well, so I went back and got another pair in a different colour/shade. Otherwise, I don't really care, except when it comes to running shoes or sports supplies like skiing equipment/rollerblades, which I will shell out extra $$ for to get a brand name product that has worked well for me in the past.

 

[oktobergirl]

I see mug's point about sweatshops.

I do however, have issue with
1. them not paying wages for overtime,
2. bathroom "schedules", and
3. no insurance.
4. firing employees for trying to form a union.

I also think it is WRONG to let the label say "made in USA" when they are not made in one of the 50 states. The mariana islands is NOT really the USA. it is a territory owned by us.

These things are happening in Saipan, the mariana islands ( where all your Gap and Banana Republic clothing is made) and they are happening in Burma, and in downtown Los Angeles as well.


I used to shop at all of these places until last week when I read up on it...