Outdoor Gear /Clothing made in China

[StevenSeagal]

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.

 

Exactly. And being indebted to these two corrupt, human rights abusing, militant societies benefits us in the long run how?

[grtmtnchic]

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.

 

Yeah....after I posted that, I checked some of my other Patagonia stuff....most made in USA, but not everything - I applaud their effort. North Face, REI, Columbia - all made in China, at least what I've got. It's hard to find what you need while purchasing in line with one's beliefs. The power of the consumer to change things is strong, but not when there aren't other options available.

[Doug]

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.

 

I've heard the statement "workers making minimum wage" several times. How or why should we compare our minimum wage to the minimal wages of a third world country? There are lots of arguments on whether a minimum wage law is good for us in the U.S., but if Nike wasn't paying someone in Cambodia or Laos 45 cents an hour to make my next pair of running shoes, that person in Cambodia or Laos wouldn't have a job.

 

Now, whan there has been exploitation occuring to pay that person that wage (i.e. child or other forced labor) I have taken my consumer dollar away from that company. But as far as the wage goes, if its prevailing wage for that region and our multi-national corporations get bigger profits, who am I to judge?

[Hendershot]

Exactly. And being indebted to these two corrupt, human rights abusing, militant societies benefits us in the long run how?

 

That's the pot calling the kettle black. Guantonamo, waterboarding, we have more than our share of dirt.

[StevenSeagal]

Exactly. And being indebted to these two corrupt, human rights abusing, militant societies benefits us in the long run how?

 

That's the pot calling the kettle black. Guantonamo, waterboarding, we have more than our share of dirt.

 

Oh I agree with you 100 % here; but that truth doesn't change the truth implicit in my first statement, either.

[StevenSeagal]

i.e. admonishing China and Saudi Arabia for "human rights abuses" is pretty hypocritical when we are simultaneously in bed with them economically.

[Hendershot]

This is a company we should support. I don't know if the cotton is organic, but the models are.

[tvashtarkatena]

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).

 

Actually, that trend has abated somewhat, partly because of the week dollar, and partly because the goods and services provided by some of these other countries, particularly tech/customer support from India, sucks ass. 'Efficiency' is only one of many success criteria for delivering goods and services. You can 'efficiently' manufacture a turd. You can also 'efficiently' support the manufacture of products in countries that have weak labor and environmental laws, and thus help destroy both human rights and the planet. Increasingly, the American public now demands higher levels of quality, service, environmental stewardship, and human rights than these places can provide.

 

The classic example is buying a cheap shit Chinese power tool. Once you've returned it a couple of times after it's on/off switch fails in the ON position, you'll buy the more expensive, higher quality tool...and never buy that Chinese brand again.

Edited March 14, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Blake]

Economic ignorance displayed in moderately-serious discussions is disconcerting. Japan is America's #1 creditor (IE holder of our foreign debt). China is #2 and the UK is #3. Where did this Saudi Arabia nonsense come from?

[Hugh Conway]

Exactly. And being indebted to these two corrupt, human rights abusing, militant societies benefits us in the long run how?

 

That's the pot calling the kettle black. Guantonamo, waterboarding, we have more than our share of dirt.

 

Uh yeah.....

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Exactly. And being indebted to these two corrupt, human rights abusing, militant societies benefits us in the long run how?

 

That's the pot calling the kettle black. Guantonamo, waterboarding, we have more than our share of dirt.

 

Uh yeah.....

 

Yeah, a few hundred terrorists in prison really compares to thousands and thousands of Chinese citizens, dissidents, thrown to rot in prison.

 

[Hugh Conway]

SARCASM MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

SARCASM MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT?

 

I was just adding to your comment, beyotch!

[Bug]

If you had to hang onto a live hand grenade to get the last word, you'd both die.

[Hendershot]

I stand corrected;

 

"Japan is first with $586 billion, followed by China ($400 billion) and Britain ($244 billion). Saudi Arabia and other oil-exporting countries account for $123 billion, according to the Treasury." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-03-debt_N.htm

[tvashtarkatena]

Exactly. And being indebted to these two corrupt, human rights abusing, militant societies benefits us in the long run how?

 

That's the pot calling the kettle black. Guantonamo, waterboarding, we have more than our share of dirt.

 

Uh yeah.....

 

 

 

Yeah, a few hundred terrorists in prison really compares to thousands and thousands of Chinese citizens, dissidents, thrown to rot in prison.

 

Except for one thing: those prisoners at Guantanamo are OUR prisoners.

[JayB]

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.

 

Are the opportunities and choices available to American citizens less extensive on the whole than they were in, say, the 1950s, when competition was considerably less extensive?

 

Trade = buying something from someone else for less than it costs you to produce it yourself. Every single one of us does this every single day. If you are a programmer, you exchange your ability to write code for money, which you use to pay for gasoline instead of sinking a well and establishing a refinery in your backyard, to buy bread instead of attempting to grow wheat in your backyard, etc. When rational people make these exchanges, or trades, they look for the best deal. Sometimes the best deal involves exchanging with someone who lives in another country, which is how the lesbians get their Subaru station wagons that they festoon with their Free Tibet stickers. What value do they get by being able to buy something produced overseas in competitive marketplace? In this case, they save whatever premium they'd have to spend purchasing a vehicle of equivalent quality in a marketplace fettered by protectionism. They can add this sum to their life savings, spend the money employing someone to remodel their home, buy more groceries - they have more money to use for whatever purpose they see fit. They are materially better off. Ditto for employers, who have more capital to spend on research and development, design, etc here in the US.

 

Assuming for a moment that your exchange transactions were limited to people who produce goods or services in the US, and none of the goods were produced by a monopoly producer - you'd have to choose between more than one company. Unless they were colluding with one another, they'd be competing to offer you the best deal. They'd be exerting pressure on one another to improve productivity, drive down labor costs, etc. As soon as you chose one over the other, your choice would be "taking business away from" one or more of the enterprises just as surely as if you'd purchased the said item from someone making the same thing overseas. The aggregate choices of consumers would still favor the lowest cost producer, and that would invariably be the producer that made the most effective use of the technology and efficiencies at their disposal - all of which would simply be a different means to the same end. The jobs that you are attempting to preserve would be eliminated by technology just as surely as they are eliminated by purchasing them from firms in other countries that can produce the good or service more efficiently than any domestic employer.

 

This would all be perfectly clear if anyone were in a situation where they had to produce everything for their own consumption, like on a plot of land in an incredibly remote area. Anything that enabled you to, say, double the number of potatoes you could harvest, or the fish you could catch, while reducing the total amount of effort you expended would be seen as an absolute good. Any person that came along that was willing to take something that required one hour of effort for you to make in exchange for something that wanted or needed and either couldn't make, or something that would take you thirty hours of effort to produce would seem like a godsend - and the effect on your quality of life would be obvious. Anyone that did anything that made it harder for you to increase your productivity, or make such trades would be imposing an obvious hardship on you.

 

The relationship that we have with trade and productivity is exactly the same today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

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).

 

Actually, that trend has abated somewhat, partly because of the week dollar, and partly because the goods and services provided by some of these other countries, particularly tech/customer support from India, sucks ass. 'Efficiency' is only one of many success criteria for delivering goods and services. You can 'efficiently' manufacture a turd. You can also 'efficiently' support the manufacture of products in countries that have weak labor and environmental laws, and thus help destroy both human rights and the planet. Increasingly, the American public now demands higher levels of quality, service, environmental stewardship, and human rights than these places can provide.

 

The classic example is buying a cheap shit Chinese power tool. Once you've returned it a couple of times after it's on/off switch fails in the ON position, you'll buy the more expensive, higher quality tool...and never buy that Chinese brand again.

 

So the less economic freedom people have, the poorer they'll be, the worse their environment will be, and the more likely they'll be to live under despotic regimes?

 

 

[grtmtnchic]

This would all be perfectly clear if anyone were in a situation where they had to produce everything for their own consumption, like on a plot of land in an incredibly remote area. Anything that enabled you to, say, double the number of potatoes you could harvest, or the fish you could catch, while reducing the total amount of effort you expended would be seen as an absolute good. Any person that came along that was willing to take something that required one hour of effort for you to make in exchange for something that wanted or needed and either couldn't make, or something that would take you thirty hours of effort to produce would seem like a godsend - and the effect on your quality of life would be obvious. Anyone that did anything that made it harder for you to increase your productivity, or make such trades would be imposing an obvious hardship on you.

 

Yes, Mr. Economist, you are right - reminded me of the dream I used to have of running a Permaculture farm - great in theory, but in practice was just a LOT of work! It was a great experience attempting it, but it sure made me appreciate going to the grocery store to buy most of my goods rather than trying to grow everything on my own.

 

[olyclimber]

Isn't Jay dreamy? Its like have Alan Greenspan on our own message board.

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm a little despot

hear me out

tip me over and

the poor

can buy

houses

and

cars and

whatever they want

and shit

[grtmtnchic]

Isn't Jay dreamy? Its like have Alan Greenspan on our own message board.

 

Yeah...at first I thought he was obtuse, but I've become a fan.

[Hugh Conway]

Isn't Jay dreamy? Its like have Alan Greenspan on our own message board.

 

His wife is cuter and smarter than Andrea

[murraysovereign]

This is a company we should support. I don't know if the cotton is organic, but the models are.

 

Ummm... did you take the ad's suggestion and Google "Lauren Phoenix"? That "organic model" is a porn actress. A Canadian porn actress at that. The company you want to support, American Apparel, is using porn stars to promote their product, and foreign porn stars at that. So even your porn is being outsourced now. What's left?

[ZimZam]

This is a company we should support. I don't know if the cotton is organic, but the models are.

 

Ummm... did you take the ad's suggestion and Google "Lauren Phoenix"? That "organic model" is a porn actress. A Canadian porn actress at that. The company you want to support, American Apparel, is using porn stars to promote their product, and foreign porn stars at that. So even your porn is being outsourced now. What's left?