Slashdot Mirror

If business were a race to the bottom, then why have people been paid more and more and more over the last five hundred years. Think about all the black slaves in America. Think about all the serfs in Russia. Think about the bonded laborers. Ever heard of anybody being "bonded out" these days? Hell no, they stopped doing that 150 years ago.

Most corporations are completely amoral. A select few are arguably evil. They are all in a desperate search for short-term profits to the exclusion of all else. If they ever paid their staff more, it was a matter of necessity not choice.

If you examine corporate behaviour in the economic incentive zones in South-East Asia, it is clear that any statements you might hear about corporate responsibility and ethical behaviour are just bullshit PR.

I would recommend Naomi Klein's book No Logo for a better picture of how we are treating people who have few other options other than starving.

I mean, read your own argument. In your supposed race to the bottom, capital is actually having to flit from here to there because EVERYBODY THEY PAY gets BETTER AND BETTER OFF, and demands higher and higher pay.

And rather than give it to them, we spend resources to search out other people to exploit. That's the problem. Fine, let capital go where it wants, but make sure that labour and environmental standards go with it. If that were the case, we would not be open to charges of exploitation.

As it is, we give illiterate peasants the choice to starve, or work for starvation wages in sweatshops. If the workers complain and try to improve their lot, we shut down the sweatshops and move them somewhere else.

I can see how it works to the advantage of the executives who run the corporations that exploit their workers, and I can see how it works to the advantage of Western consumers, but I don't see how it works for the advantage of the oppressed people at the bottom.

That's not a race to the bottom. It's a desperate search for vanishing cheap labor.

Exploitation by any other name...

The only difference is that we benefit from it at the moment...

It's mentioned in Naomi Klein's much over-rated No Logo

We have lost, almost completely, the concept of pandering as harmful. In the Divine Comedy, Dante put the panders in the sixth circle of Hell, lower (and hence worse than) than the murderers. Someday a lot of DoubleClick guys will join them...

Thanks for passing it along

You're welcome :) Naomi Klein keeps a public archive, most of it quite good imho, at No Logo.

No, in fact, let's not wait. Let's say it like it is. This is imperialism at its ugliest. The flimsy arguments for this war have all been torn to shreds. Yes, they've shifted the focus from WMD to ousting the evil tyranny -- very much unlike, of course, those friendly countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, or in the past South Africa, Rumania, Haiti, etc etc, which are merely democratically challenged.

And it seems a lot of US citizens are buying it. Remember folks, invading a country that has not attacked you or poses a clear and present danger is a warcrime. People were executed for the exact same thing after WW2..

It is clear that Iraq was not in any way connected to 911 (almost all terrorists in those planes were Saudis -- it must be a plot by Hussain!) Nor were Saddam and the islamic fundamentalists even on speaking terms (other than a tiny part of Iraq in the north-east, where he did not effectively have control, Saddam prosecuted and murdered islamists as best he could.) It is also clear that Iraq did not pose a clear and present danger. Hell, now they even gave up pretending to look for WMD altogether!

But the ugly truth was, and remains, this war (oh wait, ex-war) is not about spreading democracy. It's not even about spreading capitalism. It's about securing untold fortunes for US corporations. Don't take my word for it; there's some accurate and detailed accounts by Naomi Klein over at No Logo.

I will never understand how people fail to see the economics here..

(1) Lockheed makes bomb.

(2) Pentagon buys bomb (profit!)

(3) Pentagon deploys bomb (boom!)

(4) Haliburton/Bechtel/etc etc repair the damage (profit!)

Unemployment in Iraq is orders of magnitude higher than it used to be -- for instance, cement factories sitting idle because by contract the interim government is obliged to buy American cement. Paul Bremer managed to push many more "temporary laws" like this -- not to be reviewed for 40 years.. It's all just so painfully obvious! At least, to everyone exposed to anything other than US propaganda. And you wonder, "why do they hate us?". *Sigh*.

Saddam may or may not been a threat, but Bushes actions in Iraq appear to be creating more people liable to kill Americans then any other action previously.

Never mind that Microsoft programmers are some of the most handsomely paid in the business.

Correction: *Fulltime* Microsoft programmers are paid handsomely. The rest of the programmers are getting screwed. Go read No Logo if you don't believe me. So the "Starving Programmers" commercials will be real. Real, as in their actually starving, but not because you won't more for software...

COmpanies used to use child labor util we made laws about it. Companies used to work people round the clock until we made laws about it. From their past track record companies WILL DO whatever they can GET AWAY WITH - until we unite and make a law about it.

They still do.

This is, after all, why the likes of Nike, Reebok, and Levis have exported their labour. Labour laws that apply only to domestic workers and not the products for sale, coupled with fairly efficient global transportation and communication networks ensures that companies continue to use exploitative labour. The countries where manufacturing labour gets exported to generally has few legal restrictions on working conditions.

You can probably find something about this on Naomi Klein's nologo.org web site.

no shit! see naomi klein. news at 11:00.

Read some books...

Good idea. Here's one to start.

Actually the problem is just that corporate-sponsored schools are not really a good idea, because it opens schools for branding and marketing. This concerns MS as well as Apple, Coke, Pepsi, ChannelOne, and more. The problem with this is that kids are being brainwashed early to buy these products, and the brands dictate culture and behavior. (Think not? Consider how some sponsored Universities lose their sponsoring contract if the sponsor's product is criticized too much, or consider the story about a high school student from a Coke-sponsored school turned up in a Pepsi shirt when everyone was supposed to wear a Coke shirt and got expelled for a couple of days)

So yes, anyone writing 'M$ is EEEVILLL' is uttering an uninformed opinion. But the dangers of brands invading education really are a problem, be it Apple, MS or any other brand.

Time to read a good book...

Funny...I've been saying this for years, in not so many words.

I've always seen it as a five to ten year cycle where the next generation of teens bucks the trends of the previous generation, bringing new sounds that are unheard of or at least old sounds repackaged to sound new. Look at everything from the beginnings of rock and roll, the 60's music revolution, the disco era, the new wave era, heavy metal's introduction, the cheesy dance music crazes of the late eighties/early ninties, the "Seattle Music Explosion" which I grew up listening to, the prepackaged pop/dance/rave era we just went through, the dark brooding prepackaged sounds like Slipknot and Staind that were going through today, and whatever the next big trend is.

And I'm sure some of you are now moaning about how I left out the rap/hip hop revolutions. While they were and are big movements in music, I personally see them as being separate from the general crazes. Rap and hip hop are popular on their own accords, mostly from their roots in the inner-city black cultures of the US. Unfortunately, like most things in the US, for the last ten years it's been sucked up by big labels and packaged for sale to middle-class suburban kids. Not a bad deal for inner-city youth looking for a way out, but I think it's sad to see the culture of a group of people being sold bit by bit to big corporations.

Then again, that just might be sentiments from the book about the global corporate branding that's been evolving over the past 10 years or so. I know, shameless plug, but the book is very interesting to read.

You don't support American Multinationals working out of foreign countries because it's colonialism, economic albeit - but the same difference.

Go read No Logo by Naomi Klein.

For the most part, multinationals working out of Economic Protection Zones (EPZ's) attempt to get the highest rate of young girls from the countryside to work for them. This allows them to::: treat their workers like shit, pay them little, threaten them easily if they try to unionize, etc etc. - all leading to poor working conditions wherein the girls feel threatened and scared, wherein the girls feel they _have_ to keep working and sending piddly change home to mom and pop, all the while suffering so we can get Gap shirts and all sorts of consumerist b.s. for as cheap as possible.

So no, you are not supporting the Chinese. You are bringing them into economic slavery... Chinese gov't loves it.. the jobs bring in technology profit - but for the workers it is not an advancement.

Go read Small is Beautiful by E.F. Shumacher to see how I think one should work to bring the Third World to a good standard of living.

And as if they dude in the battery factory in the U.S. is living the large life. Give me a break. At least he may have a proper working environment where he is safe, he doesn't work his ass of for jackshit, and he may even be able to join one of those union thingies.

Too bad sweatshops are on Big Al's T.V.

can you HOLD a brand? eat a brand? pick up a brand? no.

I understand your argument that they have value... but I dont agree. I abhor nationally advertised products. I detest being lied to. I know that a new SUV will not make my relationship with Nature more rewarding (in fact, a new SUV destroys the mythos that it is sold on...). MY relationship to the world is not one where I relate product images with emotions.

Green Party Politics, and the emerging Fair Market ideals (anti-capitalists) revolve around sustainable, local economies (where they make sense (not every town has an auto plant i know - this is not ANTI-efficiency or ANTI-economies of scale) economics must serve the Community-In-Whole and not simply serve a few thousand ULTRA-MEGA-RICH. A DETACHMENT from "manufactured" Brand Realities, a REATTACHMENT to understanding ones place in the world is not defined by Madison Ave.

Please, before you run off about this topic please read a few books and think about it. What im saying about "brands" having no value is true. The "Value" is imagined, it can be Un-Imagined just as easily. Instead of Miller-Lite beer getting so much attention, wouldnt you rather drink a local micro-brew (of likely better quality).. or instead of trucking Tomatoes from California, why not the local Farmer/Greenhouse? This "Local Brand" has social value that Madison Ave. cannot create -- this Social Value is having a more vibrant, resiliant economy. The Ecological benefits come for "free" in most cases... to this end, i purchase virtually NO International (american) brands, skip all franchise stores... my $ goes to the bottom line of those who need it (my neighbours) and not the Walton Family..(for example)

Start with Naomi Klein's No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies a good lively read about "Brand Culture", its place in Globalization and Fair Trade ideas.

case that they were clue-challenged in understanding an entire generation

Have a look at that picture, it just screams "We are cool, hip, "individiuals" (the Marketing Idea -- not the adjective). Please read "No Logo by Naomi Klein

"We wanted things that paralleled our customers' priorities, which was hanging out with your friends and having fun."

This idea makes me sick. If someone's "priorities" are as above, they should please (PLEASE) read: Neil Postmans' 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' -- here is the foreword

There is a lot about M$ treating their temps like s**t in the book No Logo.
Seems it is a very two tear system. They will do things like hire somone on contract for 23 months, get rid of them for a month then rehire them. so that they are not counted as permenant temps.
You know what they are like with EULAs so can you imagine what their work contracts are like.
Unfortunaly the IT work market seems to be becoming more heavily bassed on temps. The pay may be better (but not for long) but conditions as security are much worse.

It is an interesting read, but a bit incomplete. While the author certainly indicated that the people who make these products are exploited, not a lot of space in the article was devoted to that issue. In Naomi Klein's book No Logo, the author describes the working conditions, and wages the workers endure.

You can also check out the website for more info.

"It works" only if you are looking at the equation from the point of view of money. As the book "No Logo" explains well, there are similar economic zones in vvarious developing countries around the world where people are exploited to produce things at extra low prices so we in the West can get our fix of technology/fashion.

China has a terrible record on human rights and so is a popular place to set up sweatshops. The fact that they are owned by Taiwanese immigrants makes no difference - an exploiter is an exploiter no matter what their race!

I just wish there were more examples of companies using these services listed in the article so that we knew who to boycott!

the real value of brand names on all of your clothes is so that middle and lower class people can see how much you spend on your clothing. People with real money wear clothing that can be identified by other people with real money.

check out No Logo

Scared me for a minute. From the headline, it sounded like the incredibly annoying No Logo had won! Thank the Lord that's not the case.

but how do other /.ers feel about a company profiting from data emitted by the cellphone that they paid for?

What we need is corporate transparency, just like the governmental transparency the people of the world have slowly been winning, but in this case we need it from the people who now have the real power; it's not enough for them to tell us that they're trustworthy.

Transparency is great, transparency is one of the things that makes Open Source such a powerful concept. Find out why we now need Open Source corporations here.

Buy a book. No Logo might be a good start.

Fuck the 3rd world, its not our fault the state they're in. We dragged ourselves out of a stone age culture, they didn't. Well thats their damn problem.

On the whole, this post is a troll and should be treated as such.

However, in response to the claim "it's not our fault", I would encourage people to check out this site: nologo.org and get a different perspective.

If you have the time and/or inclination, I would highly recommend Naiomi Klein's book of the same name.

I suppose, then, that this means that NT really does mean Nice Try...
<coca-cola-rant>
Indeed, Coke decided to convince restaurants to stop automatically offering tap water to customers and convince them to push bottled water instead (mention bottled water ahead of tap, or force customer to explicitly ask for tap water).
</coca-cola-rant>
Shows just how silly it is to allow a corporation to brand water. Or, for that matter, CPU cycles. Or, really, anything at all.

The tactics described in this article here are very similar to the ones the large brands use on contract workers in the export zones in SE Asia. Naomi Klein describes it at length in her book NO LOGO.

Strange that these same management techniques which work so well on the poor and uneducated overseas are now being used domestically.

If we are going to have globalization of business profit making, should we not also have globalization of ethical awareness too ?

It is easy to dismiss this because it happens far away in another country, but the events of September 11th should have given us a heads-up that we need to pay close attention to the poorer parts of the world if we are to avoid our own destruction.

There are 34 pages from 'No Logo' available by following the Amazon link I have included above. Read them. You might not agree, but you will be better informed.

Remember, advertising is a legitimate industry. Let's minimize the amount of social control it has over our lives by treating it as such.

This will probably get modded down for being OT, but might I suggest that you read the book No Logo by Naomi Klein? It could change your outlook on this "legitimate" industry and all of the kind-hearted saints who run it...

Kuro5hin.org, another fine community site, has a completely different tone. Ditto for smokedot.org, metamuscle.org, and countless other sites based on the same model.

The fact that Plastic has survived out of the group of three reinforces the strength of the slash-like model.

With the price of publication at near zero dollars, is it any wonder why conventional sites aren't working? The dot-bomb era has reduced commercial interest in web sites that rely on intellectual property for revenue. The pendulum has swung the other way, back towards a volunteer-run website model. The truth of the matter is that intellectual property is essentially free to distribute, but very expensive to produce.

One problem remains: What are Plastic, Slashdot and others going to link to once quality content producers such as Feed, Suck, and Salon dry up and become scarce?

[additional shameless self-promotion follows in .sig]

But Mcdonald's is trademarking idioms and phrases. Maybe the English speaking people of the world can sue Mcdonald's for attemtping to control the literary commons?

NO LOGO

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick (1928-1982)

The submitter's intro is full of misinformation and half cocked conclusions. The Maori are not suing Lego. They are CONSIDERING a suit against Lego.

The basis of the suit is somewaht understandable it is not in my opinoion- ridiculous. Lego is copyrighting and trademarking the Maori's words like McDonalds is doing to the english language. If lego uses and copyrights their words then there is an even greater possibility that Lego will sue the Maori for using their words freely since large corporations are more litigous then any tribe or indigenous people have ever been.

Also if the you are considering this suit without the legal document of the Hague convention ratified it has very little to do with the Hague Convention however odious the Hague Convention may be.

NO LOGO

"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick (1928-1982)

Before a court ruling in 1876 that gave corporations the right of naturalized persons under the 14th amendment, all corporate charters were subject to revocation and they were only meant to last for the duration of their narrowly defined stated purpose and mission. If a company violated
1) Their purpose or mission
or
2) Violated their charter They were subject to the revocation of their charter.

This is still possible in this day and age but many large corporations have been attempting to get laws passed that prevent the revocation of charters or that strike the laws for revocation of charters from the books. Charters are and were meant to limit FINANCIAL risk not as a mask for illegal practices. They were originally social intruments meant to be used for the undertaking of large projects fundamentally for the good of the people. It is my belief that many corporations are or have taken the priviledge of their charters well beyond their intended purpose. In other words corporations are a priviledge but not a right and as such they should be treated that way. One example of how this priviledge has been abused is Union Carbide complicity in the Bhopal incident. Of course there are thousands of examples on a lesser and greater scale than this one. All the way from the cartels represented by the RIAA and the MPAA, to the atrocities in Burma.

The Program on Corporations Law and Democracy has a large array of articles on Corporate charters their history in the United states and the power that citizens have to retain their authority as sovereign agents over corporations.

As a side note also read this and start thinking about the role of banks.

I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
(Letter to Logan, 1816). THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY 138 (S. Padover Ed. 1953).

NO LOGO

The first I heard of this idea was during the FTAA summit in Quebec City a few months ago.. on a televised debate on CBC Naomi Klein shouted out that multinationals that do things like employ children and poison local drinking water should face the 'death penalty'. Imagine what the world would be like w/o Nike and Monsanto. It struck me as odd at the time, but haven't we all called for Microsoft's demise before? and afaik, they don't even employ child laborers. ;-)

Online I've found at best a casual mention of IBM's foreign labour practices.
On a related note, but cursory to my original post are some troublesome studies on miscarriage at hightech factories in Silicon Valley. (IBM is mentioned)

It's possible that the slashcode based nologo website I discovered as result of this search will have more information as it develops it's content.

They have a defence. It is legitimate, but the taste it leaves in your mouth is foul.

The defence is this: they exploiting companies don't actually employ the workers being exploited. What they do is look for contracters who can deliver lots of product cheap. These contractors are unscrupulous and treat the worker like crap. Nike (and others) can just say "we hired them, but have nothing to do directly with the workers". This is true, in its own, twisted way.

The moral arguments raised by this are endless. I'm sure you can guess what they are.

If you haven't read No Logo, do so. It is a great read.

Woz

Read Naomi Klein's No Logo. You probably won't agree with her political views, which is understandable, but she has a lot of information about Nike (and other large labels) who contract with overseas owners of sweatshops in the Free Trade Zones.

The workers are probably are happy to have jobs -- but does that mean contracters should be allowed to pay workers sub-substinence level wages? Should they be allowed to use police to crack down on complaints about unfair treatment, unsafe working conditions, or (god forbid) attempts to unionize?

Nike doesn't hold the baton, but they pay the people who do. The contracters get money, Nike gets cheap labor, and the workers get screwed. Everybody's happy, right?