We Have a Robber Baron on the Board!

The BBQ Pit
241

IIRC…its been a while since I was in college, I will look it up but as I remember there are qualifications that you must meet aside from just wanting one. I’ll be back with that.

You altered my quote to change its meaning and then attacked the statement. THat is a viololation of board policy. I will report it to a moderator and if they decide its ok, then I wont lose sleep over it.

Coherent thought? Work on your reading comprehension sparky, instead of trying to guess what I’m trying to say without reading it.

If ever dime you are making is going to feed yourself, put a roof over your head, and gas in your car to get to work (if your lucky enough to have one) you cannot move accross country. It costs a LOT of money to relocate, you put everything in a paper sack and strike out on foot and expect to be able to get that better job when you get there. You have to have a place to live when you get there, which takes a LOT of money. You are clueless.

Barrista is skilled labor. To make a cappuccion right takes a LOT of practice, skill and training. There is a barrista guild, there are schools you can go to, and they have international barrista competitions and there are many who make it their career. It doesnt pay a lot, but better than convience store clerk. My barristas are the best in the area…one of them has been asked to compete in the statewide competion. The girl I talked about is in the process of trying to go to college, btw, and has a scholorship. I think she will do great and do great things. But she couldnt even think about doing that living on a park bench.

242

I was talking about the factories themselves, but about the practice of contracting out manufacturing to foundries.

243

Got it.

244

…I don’t have time to say what I need to say in this thread, but I do need to endorse these comments about Barrista’s. I’ve been in hospitality for fifteen years now, I ran the State Function for HRH the Queen when she visited NZ a couple of years ago, and I still can’t make a decent cappuccino to save my life. Good barristas are worth their weight in gold-and well worth the investment. Congrats on finding a good one, and also with getting to where you are in life at the moment. Claiming that a barrista is unskilled is just one of those things that gets right up my left nostril!

And as a former small business owner and employer, I must say that the best part of the job was taking a gamble on certain people and watching it pay off-it makes the risk involved all the more worthwhile. Kudos bdgr.

245

I have to disagree with Bdgr about being homeless. It’s not as hard to get off the streets as you think. I mean, it’s great you were able to help this girl out, and I am glad she’s working out for you, I don’t want to cheapen that at all.

However, I know a lot of nomads who are homeless by choice, who don’t have mommy and daddy backing them up, who do just fine, and land some place with no money, and get setup once they are there. It’s not an easy life, but I have met people who are homeless and attending college.

Being homeless is not nearly as bad as a lot of people think. If you are homeless and have no support system, are unable to make friends, are drug addictted, crazy etc… then it’s really bad, but simply being homeless is a lot less harsh than most people think it is.

I know kids who sleep on sleeping bags on the beach in Hawaii and pick fruit from the trees. You can hitchhike or hop a boxcar to Florida. Any number of things you can do.

The party kid subcultures have massive support networks for the sometimes homeless.

Erek

246

Knowing that you would rather fail and therefore laying-off your employees is definitely not in the employee’s best interest, which is not right…but wrong itself.

Seems like your employees have more business sense than you do, after reading your statement above.

Heh…Wrong. The union I was in played “Wage Chicken” with our employer twice in my 10 year employment. The union would ask for some outrageous concessions, use threats of strikes which was not good timing (for either side) considering the economic recessions when they did this. The house I had just moved into almost became the house I moved out of within 3 months because of this. Unions only care about bolstering their membership, to collect dues and use it for political clout. California just had an election on this and the unions duped the taxpayers into voting no on it with a smear campaign that was riddled with lies.

…and…

Millions of illegal aliens have done more with far less. Is this the “crap” you are talking about?

247

…you mean that millions of people had to commit an illegal act to get out of poverty? Wow. Colour me surprised.

248

Yes, crossing the border from a country where the unions are not very strong into a country where they are.

249

I didnt say I would rather fail than laying them off. I would rather fail then treat the ones who do work like dirt.

Could be. I’ll tell them, they’ll be flattered.

So since your union did that, all unions do that?

250

I don’t need numbers of my own to demonstrate that yours are based on nothing of merit. You’ve cobbled together several cites that claim, in very imprecise terms, that hundreds of thousands of people work in factories that have some part in making Nike products. That’s all you’ve got. You don’t know that those hundreds of thousands add up to 650,000. You don’t know what percentage of those hundreds of thousands is shoemakers vs working on other products. You don’t know that a significant percentage of those hundreds of thousands even make Nike products at all.

Here’s a question for you: you keep using the 140,000 number, extrapolating it to “over 200,000”, and then saying, “and that’s just shoes!”. Do you have a cite that those 140,000 workers are just making Nike shoes? Doesn’t look like it to me, but I could have missed it.

251

“You could have missed it”. Are you even reading my messages? Those workers may not make Nike shoes AT ALL. The cite is to a company that specializes in manufacturing shoes for customers. They employ 140,000 people, and make 80 million shoes a year.

Screw it. I’m just going to assume that the lot of you arguing with me don’t have a clue what you’re talking about and are just guessing.

252

Sorry, I mixed that one up with your laundry list of sites that claim to have specifics about Nike.

Hey, you’re right. Any numbers I provide would be guesses like yours. That’s why I’m not trying to pass any off as fact.

253

Not once did I claim to have ‘specific numbers about Nike’, other than, you know, THE NUMBERS PROVIDED BY NIKE, AND WHICH ARE ALSO PROVIDED BY NIKE’S OPPONENTS, which you are refuting without a shred of evidence.

Look: When I first posted Nike’s 650,000 number, I took a lot of heat for believing a number so ‘obviously wrong’. I was told that no refutation was required, because the fact that Nike could not possibly employ that number of people is ‘common sense’. Furthermore, I was told that I was naive and silly for even thinking that such a number could be close to the correct one.

So, I decided to find out if the numbers were reasonable. EVERY CITE I CAN FIND says that Nike employs at least half a million people. I quoted a number of them. I then went the extra mile to look up production figures for shoes, to see how many Nike makes. I then found a shoe manufacturing company that makes shoes, to get a cross-check on how many people it would take to make their shoes. The number is in the hundreds of thousands. As a further cross-check, I worked backwards from the published manufacturing cost of a pair of shoes to figure out how many man-hours it takes based on the published wages of workers in asia. That number ALSO comes into the same ballpark.

In the meantime, the ‘common sense’ folks who are ‘sure’ that the number of people making Nike goods isn’t anywhere near that number have not offered a single shred of evidence.

So, in my opinion, y’all are blowing smoke out of your asses, and don’t have the character to admit it. I busted my ass in a good faith effort to discover the truth, which is something we try to do on the SDMB, and all I’ve gotten back is name calling and claims that I don’t know how to do math or research. Without, of course, anyone doing their OWN FUCKING MATH OR RESEARCH to dispute any of it.

I’ll say it again - I could be wrong. Maybe I’m missing something obvious. I’d love to be shown what it is, because this issue is interesting and worth digging into. If you’re not willing to at least make the effort, then shut the hell up and go crawl back under your rock.

254

No, it’s not, because you are using this number to make ridiculously unsupportable arguments, like this:

This argument is based on the supposition that we are talking about 650,000 people whose entire labour is dedicated to producing Nike products. Nike doesn’t have to single-handedly pay 650,000 people a decent salary to make a difference, because most of those people do the bulk of their labour for other clients. You have used this number to attempt to demonstrate that Nike simply can’t assure its contract workers a fair deal.

What we’re talking about is leveraging purchasing power. Currently, Nike (like many other companies) has a policy of going where the labour is cheapest, and actively discouraging anything that will bring up the cost of labour. There is plenty of room in Nike’s business model to account for fair remuneration for labour. Nike has circulated their rough estimate of per unit costs for their product. Let’s take them totally at their word:

The majority of Nike contract workers in Indonesia are taking home the minimum wage, which is 280,000 rupiah per month. This is not enough to get by – it’s less than subsistence wages. Most estimates are that the Indonesian minimum wage is about 80% of the cost of living, so an increase of ten or twenty percent would be significant. So lets say fifty cents added to labour costs per unit. Seventy-five cents, and we’re talking about the sort of earnings that would allow workers to save. It seems possible that there is room for this in Nike’s cost per unit – and if there’s not, I think the market will bear a portion of that being passed on to the consumer.

And this is if we accept Nike’s rough estimate as perfectly accurate. It appears to suggest that it takes five-and-a-half man hours to produce a single pair of shoes. I suppose it’s possible – I don’t know Nike’s production line – but it seems like a slightly longish estimate, to me, for the amount of moulding, cutting, grommeting and stitching in your average pair of trainers.

Anyway, it’s hardly fair to single out Nike when we’re talking about the way that overseas labour is used. It’s the Way Things Are, right now. Most companies thing it’s practical and natural to try to get the cheapest labour possible, no matter where you have to go – and most consumers don’t concern themselves with it too much, either. It’s the way things are, but it sucks rocks for the world economy, and it sure as shit sucks rocks for workers living in factory dorms and not making enough from their labour to have a decent dignified, life for themselves.

Nike, like any other client of this factories, could leverage their considerable purchasing power to the benefit of the labourers. Consuimers will probably have to go first, though.

255

I would take it a step furthur. If you treat your employees fairly and generously, they won’t feel a need to unionize in the first place. Unions are bad because they create an us vs them mentality between employees and management. Ideally, management should not be an elite class. They should be examples of the best and brightest from the employees. That’s easier to do in service jobs like law or accounting. Less so in manufacturing where there are significant diferences in education and background between blue-collar employees and college eduacated management.

256

I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall. Let’s use your numbers, and assume it takes 5.5 hours to make a pair of shoes.

Nike sells somewhere around 150 million pairs of shoes per year. Multiply that by 5.5 hours, and Nike shoes require 825 million man-hours of labor per year. Assuming those workers work 44 hour weeks, and don’t get holidays, then that’s the equivalent of 360,576 full-time employees. Got it?

Nike’s shoe business makes up less than half of their product revenue. So if we double that number, whoa, we’re at 720,000 employees, doing nothing but making stuff for Nike.

Now, some of their products may be more or less labor intensive than shoes, but you can see that Nike’s claim of 650,000 employees likely means people who do nothing but make stuff for Nike.

Is it clear yet?

This is what, the fourth or fifth different way I’ve approached the estimate, and all of them come up with the same kind of numbers, which match what Nike’s own web site says.

257

It doesnt take 5.5 hours to make a car. Why would it take that long to make shoes?

258

Do you really need to have an answer to this question?

Hint: Cars are made on a highly automated assembly line. Shoes are made by people sitting on chairs doing manual labor.

And anyway, it takes more than 5.5 hours to make a car. Much, much more. It may take that many hours to do the final assembly of a car on an assembly line, but you haven’t factored the time it takes to make the seats, the leather, the nuts and bolts, the instruments, yada yada yada. In fact, the average car has thousands of dollars of labor invested in it.

259

Or you can actually train your own competition so that they can also provide for their families too. You can realize that profit is only part of success, and not always the most important part. Quality matters and so does putting human beings first. Customers are loyal to the man who didn’t let their children go without food when there was nothing, or carried their groceries and seed on account until the crops came in.

What goes 'round…

260

Look, Sam, your “cites” aren’t getting a lot of respect because they’re damned silly. There are so many flaws in your starting data that any conclusion you make is utterly meaningless. First, you’re often starting with vague data supplied by suspect sources. Do you really trust that some guy on the internet who hates Nike has accurate data about Nike’s operations in Vietnam? Every number on that page that can be compared with figures from Nike is way off.

Do “A million pairs of shoes a month” and “25,000 workers” sound like an accurate numbers to you? They are fucking meaningless when it comes to trying to calculate anything concrete. Here ya go:

Hey, look at that, we’ve nearly doubled production, and reduced the number of projected worldwide employees by half! Can we do better? Sure!

God-damn, now those are some numbers! Clearly, good management is undervalued. Those same workers can easily be made to produce anywhere between twelve and seventy million pairs of shoes each year, depending on how you handle them.

There has been some math offered, where there’s data that’s reliable enough to bother with.

Like, say, a list of Nike-contracted factories which can easily be shown to produce other goods?

I feel like I’m banging my head on the other side of it. Think we’ll break through?

Is that so? I’m seeing estimates from seventy million to a top end of one-hundred and thirty million. They’re all over the map. You can not begin to pretend to be able to extrapolate how many full time employees they have, based on data of that quality.

Let’s simplify, by taking a look at their main contractor:

Here, looking at more coherant data, we can see that one of Nike’s contractors is able to produce the same total number of shoes annually with about a third of the labour of that that the calculations you value so much would suggest.

What, are you my Uncle Ron now, trying to convince me I have eleven fingers? How do you figure that the 650,000 number refers only to labourers who are working on shoes?

My brother-in-law used to work in a Nike contracted factory in Toronto. They make printed shirts for Nike there. And plenty of stuff for other clients.