To people who are asking in that other thread what's wrong with Old Navy

[sawdust restaurants]

Roofles at Clint:

1. Posting in the first place
2. Trying to debate points that have already been addressed in the thread
3. Getting his ass handed to him by Lee

[PkPhuoko]

Originally posted by DeviousJ

Encouraging such a wide gap in wealth distribution is wrong on so many levels.

But that's the basis of capitalism. Person who works or manipulates or does whatever to get on top gets to be on top. You can't pick and choose when it comes to capitalism. If you're against capitalistic ventures thats fine... but go ahead and log off your computer because without capitalism you and/or your family wouldnt be in the nice house you're in clickin and clackin on the computer. Some underpaid worker with horrible benefits and cheap as fuck pay helped build your computer and its components. The lines you transmit your data on be it telephone or cable were likely run by cheap laborers with no health care. blah blah blah you get the point.

People only care about something cosmetic and as media savy as clothes and fashion. You dont hear anyone bitching about farmers wages in those countries.

[frail_and_bedazzled]

Originally posted by DeviousJ


No no no. They're called multinationals for a reason - they have no allegiance to any particular country. Their profits are growing and the actual amount of resources they own (real estate, equipment, workers) are being reduced. Why own things you can just hire cheaply? There is a much greater level of spending on advertising than there is on actual production. What this all means, is that these companies need not base themselves anywhere, they can draw on the resources of any country with no outlay. No need to sell factories or compensate workers. What this means, is that they're not going to suddenly 'bring employment back to the US' - they'll just go wherever's cheapest. The only employment you're going to see in America is in the service industry, selling the product. It's kinda sad when you see the older generation whose jobs were outsourced to cheap 3rd world countries, who have to satiate their kids' desire for the same brands which screwed them over.

The point is, these companies could easily take an ethical stance - providing good, fairly paid work for people in these countries, and they'd still make astronomical profits. You can argue that it isn't their responsibility to induce positive change in the economy, but when they're having a detrimental effect you know something is very wrong. It's just a modern-day verson of the banana republics (irony before Diesel I guess) of colonial times. Countries are promised a partnership to strengthen their economies, which is quickly turned into a stranglehold - and they end up getting beaten down. And although these companies are multi-national, they are still seen by much of the world as part of the US - and they are one of the reasons there is so much anti-US sentiment at the moment. Encouraging such a wide gap in wealth distribution is wrong on so many levels.

yes yes yes. i'm so proud of this topic! i need to get myself to more NYPIRG meetings