Outdoor Gear /Clothing made in China

[grtmtnchic]

Have you noticed that a lot of cool companies are now having all or most of their stuff made in China? And the prices to the consumer haven't changed...so those bastard companies are charging us the same thing for a product they are now making a far bigger profit on due to decreased production costs. OR, Kavu, Prana, etc...

 

I know they are in business to make a profit, but I think there has to be some integrity there...especially for the brands that are marketed as "green"...outsourcing labor and shipping products halfway across the world (using fuel to do so) doesn't seem very "green" to me.

 

Rant, rant...

 

 

 

[JayB]

I kind of like the idea that people who are quite a bit poorer, and have far fewer employment options available to them have the opportunities to improve their lot in life that these manufacturing arrangements provide them.

 

The outdoor companies are more profitable and are able to expand their employment in high value-added sectors like design, and dirt poor workers see their standard of living increased.

 

Sounds like a great arrangement to me.

[StevenSeagal]

Yes, think of the pride of accomplishment each Chinese peasant must feel in each $600 jacket that goes out the door that they were paid $0.14/week to construct. Why, I bet they see themselves owning the company some day, driving a Beamer and talking on a cell phone!

[olyclimber]

I like the idea of MADE IN AMERICA PATRIOT clothing and gear. anything less and the terrorists have won.

[Blake]

I agree that having people in another country make my jacket doesn't bother me.

 

Furthermore, if that inherently bothers you, why? How close (geographically) must someone live to your present location in order for it to be ok?

 

From the pictures and write-ups I have seen, the computer technology and skill behind these workers is world class, and no better or worse than if these garments were made in the US, UK, etc.

 

[speculation]

Regarding the increased fuel costs to ship across the ocean: I'd be willing to wager that the average Chinese sewer/designer/etc produces fewer CO2 emissions in his/her commute than would the average US worker. I would further expect that even the additional (trans-pacific) transport emissions are not enough additional pollution to offset the reduction in commute emissions.

 

IE the average jacket made in China and shipped across the pond is still responsible for fewer overall C02 emissions than the same jacket produced domestically. [/speculation]

[jon]

And then the Chinese subsequently took that money to payoff IOC officials to get the summer games there.

[Dechristo]

nefarious

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Yes, think of the pride of accomplishment each Chinese peasant must feel in each $600 jacket that goes out the door that they were paid $0.14/week to construct. Why, I bet they see themselves owning the company some day, driving a Beamer and talking on a cell phone!

 

There was an article in Backpacker magazine a couple of years ago about how most (all?) major backpack manufacturing had moved to Vietnam. The workers had no clue what they were making! (or how much they went for in the US retail). And when the author of the piece told them, they were horrified - apparently city folk in Vietnam are terrified of the forest and would never go hiking/backpacking there. The article was enlightening.

 

I don't care if I have to pay more, I'd rather have gear made in the US, and minimize transportation costs and fuel usage. People in China/Vietnam/etc can manufacture stuff for their own markets. The trade balance is so ridiculously skewed right now.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

And then the Chinese subsequently took that money to payoff IOC officials to get the summer games there.

 

and helped pay for guns and bullets to kill Tibetan pilgrams hiking Himalayan mountain passes.

[olyclimber]

Have you seen how violent those buddhist monks are getting?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23629811/

[Hugh Conway]

And then the Chinese subsequently took that money to payoff IOC officials to get the summer games there.

 

and helped pay for guns and bullets to kill Tibetan pilgrams hiking Himalayan mountain passes.

 

Beijing 2008 = Berlin 1936

[Bug]

Higher pay usually means better education follows. With better education come better working conditions and higher paying jobs.

Look at Japan. When I was little, "made in Japan" meant it was absolute junk. Now they are the manufacturing techology apex.

Figure out a way to get a countryside of peasants to transform into quality factory workers, accountants, managers, etc without any social strife and you will earn a Nobel Peace prize.

Or leave them as peasants and trek through their area on your next vacation.

[gertlush]

And then the Chinese subsequently took that money to payoff IOC officials to get the summer games there.

 

ahem...Salt Lake City...cough cough

[Blake]

It might be an unpleasant reality to face, but everything from cars to jackets and tech support will all continue to be produced wherever it can be done most efficiently. You can't effectively outsource your dentistry, car repairs, or child care. However, easier communication and transportation will continue to allow greater integration of the global economy (ie outsourcing).

[StevenSeagal]

I agree that having people in another country make my jacket doesn't bother me.

 

Furthermore, if that inherently bothers you, why?

 

It's not simply that it's bothersome that stuff is made in another country, it's that it's being made in another country solely so that the manufacturer doesn't have to spend more paying living wages to domestic workers, because it's cheaper to pay people poverty wages in poor countries to do it. The idea that this somehow supports the economy in poor countries is nebulous- yes it provides jobs where there once were none or few, but is it really helping a country much having foreign influences control one's economy? Would we think it was helpful to our overall longterm welfare in the US if we all worked for foreign companies, knowing that the company's profits are being invested elsewhere?

 

To me what this appears to do is to both deprive our own economy of jobs (and of course you can argue that "no one here wants to do many of these jobs") while simultaneously setting up an exploitative serfdom of sorts in other countries, under the guise of "helping them", which is pure hyperbole.

 

I think it's also questionable whether outsourcing all our jobs really keeps our goods that much cheaper. Why is it in the company's interest to save the consumer money when they can pocket the profits themselves? This society has inbred immediate gratification to the point that consumers will pay whatever they have to in order to have something they want, and the vendor knows this.

[Hugh Conway]

You can't effectively outsource your dentistry, car repairs, or child care.

 

You can outsource medical care quite easily. If you don't have dental insurance, for major procedures like crowns, it's cheaper to fly to Thailand, get them done, and fly home, then to do them in the states. Same for cosmetic surgery and a number of other elective procedures.

 

 

Some people like having a direct relationship with the producer of the goods they are consuming - whether it be the food they eat, the jacket they wear or the surfboard they ride.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I agree that having people in another country make my jacket doesn't bother me.

 

Furthermore, if that inherently bothers you, why?

 

It's not simply that it's bothersome that stuff is made in another country, it's that it's being made in another country solely so that the manufacturer doesn't have to spend more paying living wages to domestic workers, because it's cheaper to pay people poverty wages in poor countries to do it. The idea that this somehow supports the economy in poor countries is nebulous- yes it provides jobs where there once were none or few, but is it really helping a country much having foreign influences control one's economy? Would we think it was helpful to our overall longterm welfare in the US if we all worked for foreign companies, knowing that the company's profits are being invested elsewhere?

 

To me what this appears to do is to both deprive our own economy of jobs (and of course you can argue that "no one here wants to do many of these jobs") while simultaneously setting up an exploitative serfdom of sorts in other countries, under the guise of "helping them", which is pure hyperbole.

 

I think it's also questionable whether outsourcing all our jobs really keeps our goods that much cheaper. Why is it in the company's interest to save the consumer money when they can pocket the profits themselves? This society has inbred immediate gratification to the point that consumers will pay whatever they have to in order to have something they want, and the vendor knows this.

 

you forgot the most important part - we get around environmental and safety regulations by outsourcing. do you think China has OSHA or an EPA? it gives NIMBY a whole new meaning.

[jon]

And then the Chinese subsequently took that money to payoff IOC officials to get the summer games there.

 

ahem...Salt Lake City...cough cough

 

Pfft like you guys didn't pay someone off for 2010.

[gertlush]

And then the Chinese subsequently took that money to payoff IOC officials to get the summer games there.

 

ahem...Salt Lake City...cough cough

 

Pfft like you guys didn't pay someone off for 2010.

 

Why the nerve! Don't you listen to the propaganda? BC is "The Most Beautiful place on earth" etc etc, they love us for who we are

[Hendershot]

The US has mostly a service economy, not a manufacturing economy. In order to stay competitive and have continuous improvements/growth companies chose to outsource or face declining sales.

 

Price is a factor in a consumer's decision to buy. Those willing to pay extra for something made in the US are a minority and can't off set the loss of sales from price sensitive customers.

 

Nike doesn't make a single pair of shoes and hasn't for decades. Their core competency isn't manufacturing, it's marketing. The selling of an "image", that's another topic.

 

 

[JayB]

I agree that having people in another country make my jacket doesn't bother me.

 

Furthermore, if that inherently bothers you, why?

 

It's not simply that it's bothersome that stuff is made in another country, it's that it's being made in another country solely so that the manufacturer doesn't have to spend more paying living wages to domestic workers, because it's cheaper to pay people poverty wages in poor countries to do it. The idea that this somehow supports the economy in poor countries is nebulous- yes it provides jobs where there once were none or few, but is it really helping a country much having foreign influences control one's economy? Would we think it was helpful to our overall longterm welfare in the US if we all worked for foreign companies, knowing that the company's profits are being invested elsewhere?

 

To me what this appears to do is to both deprive our own economy of jobs (and of course you can argue that "no one here wants to do many of these jobs") while simultaneously setting up an exploitative serfdom of sorts in other countries, under the guise of "helping them", which is pure hyperbole.

 

I think it's also questionable whether outsourcing all our jobs really keeps our goods that much cheaper. Why is it in the company's interest to save the consumer money when they can pocket the profits themselves? This society has inbred immediate gratification to the point that consumers will pay whatever they have to in order to have something they want, and the vendor knows this.

 

I think that the statistical record in Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, and now China is quite clear. The effect that economic liberization, the investment foreign capital, trade, and the like have on every statistical measure of well-being is unambigous. The population in China alone that's been lifted out of desperate poverty in the past thirty years easily exceeds the population of the US. There is really nothing nebulous about the benefits at all. I'd give that honor to the benefits of economic protectionism.

 

You simply can't make concern for poor people living in other countries the foundation that your critique of trade rests on. Keeping them mired in poverty by preventing them from using the few comparative advantages that they have for the sole purpose of enriching people who are already far better off doesn't seem like much of a moral platform to base anti-trade positions on either.

[grtmtnchic]

Being aware of where/how and by whom things are made is important. I try to be an educated consumer. Patagonia stuff is made in USA by workers paid at least minimum wage, and it's good stuff and is priced about the same as other brands made in China. You know that means Patagonia's profits are less than those other brands, but Patagonia isn't passing that higher cost of production on to consumers like these other bastard companies. In fact Patagonia also donates 1% of their profits for environmental preservation. I'm a capitalist...to a point. When it comes to companies who market themselves in the outdoor recreation industry as "green", they should walk the talk. Or maybe I'm being naive?

 

I think the purpose of participating in outdoor pursuits is to help bring one to a higher level of consciousness (my own personal view and others may not see it that way). I guess I like knowing that the gear/clothing I buy for outdoor pursuits is in alignment with that...and knowing that my backpack was made by some exploited chinese or vietnamese laborer would really fuck with that. My good time at their expense? No thanks.

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

I think that the statistical record in Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, and now China is quite clear. The effect that economic liberization, the investment foreign capital, trade, and the like have on every statistical measure of well-being is unambigous. The population in China alone that's been lifted out of desperate poverty in the past thirty years easily exceeds the population of the US. There is really nothing nebulous about the benefits at all. I'd give that honor to the benefits of economic protectionism.

 

You simply can't make concern for poor people living in other countries the foundation that your critique of trade rests on. Keeping them mired in poverty by preventing them from using the few comparative advantages that they have for the sole purpose of enriching people who are already far better off doesn't seem like much of a moral platform to base anti-trade positions on either.

 

Since when did shipping tens of thousands of American jobs- ranging from manufacturing to IT support to what have you- to other countries because we don't want to pay our own people what they are worth to do it- become synonymous with "Trade"? If it is, then how are we reciprocating this "trade"? A trade implies some sort of exchange. If the exchange is simply that we're "putting their people to work", then see my previous post.

 

I am not anti-trade. I am, however, not supportive of policies being implemented by American companies which reduce opportunities and choices for American citizens.

[Hendershot]

I hate to break it to you, but not everything Patagonia makes is made in the USA. My R1 jacket that I'm wearing now is made in the USA, but my Jetstream jacket is made in Vietnam.

[Hendershot]

Since when did shipping tens of thousands of American jobs- ranging from manufacturing to IT support to what have you- to other countries because we don't want to pay our own people what they are worth to do it- become synonymous with "Trade"? If it is, then how are we reciprocating this "trade"? A trade implies some sort of exchange. If the exchange is simply that we're "putting their people to work", then see my previous post.

 

The trade is debt. For all that we import from China, we borrow from them. China and Saudi Arabia hold most of our National Debt.