17 Comments:

Interesting.

It's hard to compare.

If people spent half as much on shoes, would the person making them then only earn $0.50 a day?

The person earning $1 a day would obviously be earning more working somewhere else if they could.

By  Dan, at 9:08 pm, February 08, 2006  

Well I am not sure, I think it is more reasonable to spend $100 on a pair of shoes rather than $200.

By  Anita, at 11:40 am, February 09, 2006  

my last two pairs of shoes cost me a total of $14, so, you can do it cheaper, but in my previous life i was known to spend up to a $150?

but yeah, people getting paid to build $200 shoes, possibly also build $20 shoes, so there is a huge mark up for the bigger brands.

By  carl, at 3:37 pm, February 09, 2006  

But that mark-up, however exaggerated, still means money in someone's pocket. And to reduce that mark-up may mean that someone has to be made redundant.

What is worse?

A Third-World person receiving a dollar a day, which is just enough to get by on in their culture, or a western marketing-type with a mortgage and a family losing their job and not being able to afford to get by?

(Just so you know, I usually buy my shoes from the Number One Shoe Warehouse)

By  Dan, at 9:38 pm, February 09, 2006  

Reducing the mark-up doesn't mean someone has to be made redundant. It just means less money in the pocket of the shareholders. There would a price point at which all costs are covered and the rest is pure profit. I could be wrong but those shareholders probably live better than the poor lady/man/child on a dollar a day making the shoe.

There is justification for spending money on a decent pair of shoes that will last the distance. An investment of sorts. But where do you draw the line? Will they sit at the back of cupboard when they are no longer cool? You can get really awesome shoes that will last forever but is $200 still to much money to 'invest' in shoes?

By  Anita, at 9:22 am, February 10, 2006  

Is it wrong, as in the case of the shareholder, to make the most of what you have been blessed with?

And if a dollar a day weren't reasonable in the work market of the actual shoemaker, then obviously they'd go and find another job.

Each is making the best with what they've been given.

And does having more money necessarily mean that you live better?

By  Dan, at 9:11 pm, February 12, 2006  

I am not sure if it would be as simple as finding another job. These are poor countries with bad economies.

I am thinking that it would be wrong to 'make the best of what you have been blessed with' if it involves exploiting others?

By  Anita, at 9:49 am, February 14, 2006  

I agree that it is wrong to 'make the best of what you have been blessed with' if it involves exploiting others.

Having said that, do you think that a large American shoe company should pay its employees in other countries an American wage?

By  Dan, at 6:42 am, February 15, 2006  

Well that is a good question. On one hand if they did that it would probably screw up the economy with inflation etc. If the wage they pay is enough to live on then it may be a good enough wage? A dollar a day to us in unliveable but in a cheaper economy it is ok maybe. But then what does ok mean- a one bedroom house and rice three meals a day. We wouldn't live like that so why ask others to?

By  Anita, at 3:16 pm, February 15, 2006  

Well i'll ask you this question...

Who do you think would be more content with life the person on the American Wage... or the person on $1 a day?

By  Jonathan, at 8:39 am, February 16, 2006  

On the American minimum wage or just any American wage? I strangely suspect the person on a dollar a day may be more content. The person in America would always be bombarded with the fact that they don't have the latest TV or whatever whereas the $1 person may not face the same pressure.

By  Anita, at 11:14 am, February 16, 2006  

I suspect you are correct (as a gross generalisation). I remember Carl saying how happy the kids in Cambodia were yet we're shocked by the conditions many of them live in.

I think Money and Happiness are almost inversly proportional. The more money you have the more things you want.

And as an aside... another one of Sue Kedgeley great plans is to make the youth rate the same as the adult minimum wage in some attempt to make things better for young people. Well this is just another example which shows that out green friend doesn't think very far ahead. If you are an employer and you have to pay an unskilled worker the same minimum wage no matter what their age (a small rhyme!) i would suggest you would choose someone older with more life and work experience. So by raising the youth rate you will infact make less jobs for the youth because people will stop employing them as they cost the same per hour as more experienced workers.

This does relate to the topic at hand as you could draw a parallel. If a large shoe company is forced to raise the wages they pay to their workers in a certain country you may find the will find someone else to find cheap workers or even return their manufacturing plant back to America. Then $1 a day man will then be on $0 a day.

By  Jonathan, at 12:11 pm, February 16, 2006  

hmm. if teens aren't being paid because they don't have life experiance, maybe I could have better chances at work :-p

but then, that same process is what created my lack of employment anyway - lack of teenage employment.

(indicently, I'm working online again and earning less than minimum wage in all countrys concerned. lol)

By  Anonymous, at 5:46 pm, February 16, 2006  

But Allan you aren't a teenager?

By  Anita, at 10:54 am, February 17, 2006  

That's what he's saying.

By  Dan, at 12:54 pm, February 17, 2006  

I *was* a teen and as a teen I was unemployed, and as such now as an adult I have... no work experiance.
If life experiance is counting for more then at least I have that as a plus.

By  Anonymous, at 10:58 pm, February 17, 2006  

Righto- I see:)

By  Anita, at 10:32 am, February 18, 2006  

Post a Comment