It would only add 25 cents to clothing prices to have safer conditions in Bangladesh

[n2doc]

There was some rare happy news out of Bangladesh today as Reshma Akhter, an 18-year-old seamstress, was dug out and rescued after 17 days of being trapped in the wreckage of a collapsed eight-story garment factory building where 1,045 other people have perished. The Rena Plaza incident is officially the worst disaster in the history of the global clothing industry, and it renewed calls for improved safety protections and building code standards in Bangladesh—a country that owes much of its recent economic growth largely to low-wage clothing work.

The dangerous conditions have been partly blamed on price-conscious businesses, some of whom go with the cheapest and often least-safe local suppliers at the expense of protections for workers. After a November fire that killed 112 workers, brands like Wal-Mart, Gap, and H&M refused to sign a new union-proposed safety plan, which would have introduced more rigorous safety inspections, saying it was “not financially feasible.”

That price pressure comes from consumers, too, though. In a story that’s so darkly uncomfortable it reads like it’s from The Onion—but is in fact from Bloomberg—a young British shopper explains how she loves her bargains even though she’s troubled by the plight of workers in developing countries:

“It bothers me, but a lot of retailers are getting their clothes from these places and I can’t see how I can change anything,” 21-year-old university student Elizabeth McNail said, clutching a brown paper bag from clothier Primark the day after the building collapse in Savar, Bangladesh, when the death toll already stood at 381 people. “They definitely need to improve, but I’ll still shop here. It’s so cheap.”

This consumer cognitive dissonance raises the question: just how much more expensive would our clothes get if factories in Bangladesh were safer?

more
http://qz.com/83804/it-would-only-costs-an-extra-25-cents-in-clothing-prices-for-safer-conditions-in-bangladesh/

[1-Old-Man]

1. You know, I'd be just fine with adding a couple of bucks, and make them here

In accord with our laws and regulations, of course. And I'll take it one farther, add whatever it takes to have them made in a Union shop too - I'll still pay.

[another_liberal]

4. Good point!

Many more Americans would also have jobs, and thus be able to buy those American-made garments.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. Clothes shouldn't have to be loaded onto cargo ships to chug across the largest ocean on the planet.

[another_liberal]

10. Exactly.

Americans still know how to make clothing, and they need jobs.

Screw the "One World Economy" philosophy of unrestrained "Free Trade." The only people who are better off with that system are the fatcat, Bain Capital types who sell our jobs to foreign suppliers, and the greedheads who own and manage big outlet stores like Walmart.

[cali]

15. yes indeed

Here are two Vermont based companies. One manufactures their clothing here. the other built a factory in India. The latter says that there isn't the skilled labor here and that's why she manufactures in India.


http://www.salaamclothing.com/

http://www.aprilcornell.com/?gclid=CJbgvabEkLcCFcuh4AodqXkAQg

[bettyellen]

16. the latter one is lying about workers, LOL. she means there isn't skilled labour at a cheap enough

rate- to make her Stepford wives outfits. Yikes. Tasteless and full of shit.

[cali]

17. yep

and I can't stand her stuff either.

[another_liberal]

19. That's what I was going to say too.

They want to employ skilled American labor at Indian labor costs.

[bettyellen]

21. Yup.

[badtoworse]

43. I would do the same

[pacalo]

2. K&R.

[another_liberal]

3. Two percent . . .

It is also estimated that just two percent of one year's salary for Walmart's CEO would provide all the funding needed to make the necessary safety improvements. Two percent of his annual salary (before bonuses) would have saved at least a thousand lives, in the case of this disaster alone.

That is what the slogan, "Greed is good," really means.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

5. Another side of this story is how much does Walmart pay

for a garment that they retail for $60, maybe $2 or less?
Anybody want to guess, or better yet, has any real knowledge.

[RudynJack]

7. You really think

Walmart has that kind of mark-up?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

9. Possibly, I'm always amazed at how inexpensive some items

are at the source. Also the same garments with different labels.

[Posteritatis]

36. The weirdly specific prices they have suggest smaller margins on stuff

You know how most stores will say something costs x.99 or x.49 or x.50 or whatnot, while there's lots of things at Walmarts that are x.02 or x.94 and so on? That they're doing that sort of thing implies that it's worth it for them to work out prices with that kind of absurd specificity, which starts making more sense when you're using colossal economies of scale to have the extra couple of pennies add up.

I wouldn't be surprised if their profit margins on a lot of items weren't terribly huge, considering their prices, but they sell such an overwhelming amount (and screw their staff so much) that they're doing more than okay despite that. The amount of goods Walmart moves is a bigger deal than how much any of them costs.

[another_liberal]

12. Their profits suggest that's the case.

You should also check out what their top management gets in salary. That's coming from somewhere.

[RudynJack]

13. I agree

that their top management makes a lot. I still haven't seen, however, that they sell $2 garments for $60.

[another_liberal]

18. I'm not saying they do.

Since they move such huge volumes of goods, they hardly need to make that kind of profit per unit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Yes

[bettyellen]

20. 2$, LOL... try 25 - 40 dollars. I hate Walmart, but if you buy clothes there - their suppliers are

the worst.

[newmember]

31. I can tell you don't shop at walmart much

[Mr. X]

8. On paper yes, but...

With as much as the price is jacked up from its material and labor costs it's a good bet that the safety costs would be jacked up too.

[another_liberal]

11. Yeah, I guess so.

We just have to settle for having our clothing made by greedy, immoral bastards who lock their underpaid workers into crumbling, firetrap buildings for twelve to sixteen hour shifts six or seven days a week. There just is no alternative possible, right?

[bettyellen]

24. the 25 cents is theoretical. It assumes the factory owners would spend it on upgrades and that this

would happen without any oversight or pressure put on them by local laws to do so. (and it would also translate to 1- 1.25 with markups)

It's not magic, it's going to take grassroots efforts in India to improve things for their workers. Right now it's normal for workers to sleep in the factories and use their alley way as a toilet. It's totally normal for the bosses to submit phony paperwork and send goods to unapproved never inspected facilities. It is very tough to police from thousands of miles away. Not easy to enforce higher standards than their industry already has. Especially when they are selling internationally, and at very competitive prices.
Part of the reason retailers wouldn't sign that agreement mentioned in the OP is it makes them- and not factory owners- liable when there are fires. No one thinks this will make people there safer.

[another_liberal]

25. They are already responsible.

Clothing sold in this country should not be made under those conditions, or by human beings whose employers treat them little better than slave laborers. We once had laws against importation of products manufactured that way. It is time to bring those laws back.

[bettyellen]

26. the way I understand it, it would have the stores buying it responsible for paying for their

contractors fires. A lot of people think that will give the contractors no incentive to be safe.
They already risk losing huge business (in all their factories) after a fire an they take that risk. So it;s hard to say if anyone will act more responsibly if we shift the costs to American businesses. Perhaps it;s the moral thing to do, but will it actually save lives? Not so sure it will.

[another_liberal]

27. Make the clothing here . . .

Problem solved.

Sure your dresses and shirts would cost a little more, but millions of unemployed Americans would have full time jobs. Working Americans with money to spend is truly: "A rising tide that lifts all ships."

[bettyellen]

28. that is so unrealistic, I just don't know how to respond...

they wouldn't be great jobs, they never were. Low paying factory work is just a stepping stone from a farming and foraging sustenance existence.
No one will do this except for very small niche companies. We'd have to ban imports or put heavy tariffs on them to compete. I'm not sure there;s any political will to do that. Consumers here would be very angry.
And the rest of the world would be shopping cotton from India. And these lives would still be at risk. Like it or not, India has disparity of wealth problems as we do, but the results are just more extreme.

[another_liberal]

29. When you, "don't know how to respond . . ."

Maybe it's best not to?

Have you ever been unemployed for a year or more? Many Americans would love to have jobs sewing clothing. Furthermore, most American men and women would happily pay a little more for clothing made by their fellow American workers.

As for the fatcats at Walmart's head office, they can suck on it.

[bettyellen]

30. I couldn't leave such a silly pipe dream out there unchallenged. Sorry. But we're global

as a marketplace and there isn't a shred of hope that we are going back to local production for the bulk of what we consume in quite a few categories. People are broke these days, they'd be in an uproar if their prices increased 20-30%. There is no political will to do it, and it's incredibly hard to match the scale and compete when we have NO infrastructure at all to compete with.
We have to build new kinds of business models to employ Americans.
If we try to compete with India for jobs, everybody loses. Everyone will "suck on it".

[another_liberal]

39. Global marketplace, eh?

Bought into that nonsense, have you? We should just screw the poor workers and get on with the business of making the rich richer still, right?

The wealthiest one percent must be grateful for your support.

[bettyellen]

41. I'm a realist, but am curious to know HOW you think we will ever reduce thecompetition from imports?

can you name a single politician out there with a plan?

[another_liberal]

45. It's pretty simple really.

Two words: Protective Tariffs.

As to the politicians, they will do what we want them to or we will find those who will. The super-wealthy don't own everyone, not by a long shot. Americans are not going to settle for a life sentence of part-time, minimum wage jobs with no benefits. Wait and see, or better yet, join us and help the 99% of your country who want to change the system.

[bettyellen]

47. um.... how'd that work out for our shoe industry? Oh wait- we no longer have one!

[another_liberal]

48. You can blame the Bain Capital types for that fail.

They have yet to meet an industry they didn't want to sell to China or India. Nothing can save a company when investment capitalists are allowed to simply buy it up cheap, loot it and sell the remains to someone with a slave labor work force.

I don't know what emotional or financial ties you have to the "Unrestrained Free Trade/Global Economy/One World Market" crowd, but it's clear we fundamentally disagree on how our country should treat its workers and the wealthy class who exploit them.

I've said about all I care to say on this subject string. If you have other questions, please refer to my earlier comments (above). Better yet, read Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States.

Have a wonderful life.

[bettyellen]

49. We don't fundamentally disagree about how workers should be treated, but it appears you care about

American workers a lot less than those in India. I do not.
That I do not throw out easy and unrealistic solutions as many here do, doesn't mean I don't care. It means I don't believe we'll be restricting trade with India any time soon. In the meantime, I am educating myself as to what manufacturers are working hard to raise the safety standards over seas and which are doing everything they can to avoid any investment that helps workers. Because I think dealing with what is has more impact than sitting around wishing it wasn't.

[another_liberal]

52. Want to learn something?

Read Howard Zinn's A Peoples' History Of The United States.

You owe it to yourself.

[HiPointDem]

32. what bullshit. 1) they were decent jobs at one time. 2) factory work is not one step away

from foraging. 3) companies *will* add safety measures given the right conditions; that's how we got them in the US. The rest of the world is no different. 4) Consumers would not be 'angry' to pay an additional twenty-five cents to $2. 5) Your phrasing makes it sound like you think it's some natural force rather than a state created by human beings that can be changed by human beings.

[bettyellen]

33. your reply has nothing to do with the 21st century marketplace.

Especially if you are floating this 25 cent nonsense. Gosh, you have no idea, do you? Without tariffs, we have no chance of getting those jobs back. None.

[HiPointDem]

35. blahblahblah

[bettyellen]

42. Well reasoned! You have convinced me.....

that you can blather on and say nothing worthwhile, repeatedly.

[HiPointDem]

38. no, it's 8 cents without the markups. read the article. you're wrong about everything.

if walmart wanted to enforce standards, they could.

they don't want to.

they want to subcontract and not be responsible.

[Locut0s]

14. Fuck that, let the kids suffer...

Is what the 1% are saying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Oh com'on, you know how much that s in the aggregate?

Million I tell ya. We can't have that!

Yes, they think like that

[SoCalDem]

34. Let's raise them $1.00 and re-open factories HERE

Let the Bangladeshis make clothes for their people, and we'll make clothes for our people...clothes that provide an income for unemployed people here..

[Revanchist]

37. One dollar?

From what i'm seeing on the made in America clothing websites a pair of blue jeans cost $30-$40 more than what I pay at Costco (Mexican made). I don't know if the difference is due to economy of scale and the amount they produce and sell, but I can't afford to pay close to, if not over three time the amount I'm paying now.

I might be able to pay $5-$10 more but at these prices, I can't find the money in my budget to buy American, and that's a shame.

[Junkdrawer]

40. 25 cents is another game of Donkey Kong....

Nothing to sneeze at....

[KamaAina]

44. No, it would subtract 25 cents from corporate profits.

Which is why I'm not holding my breath.

[redqueen]

46. EXACTLY. This is being spun as about consumers but it is CORPORATE PROFITS

that are the root of the problem.

Nobody is going to choose a different shirt based on a 25 cent difference.

But corporations WILL endanger workers lives (and consumers, too) to make more money.

[bullwinkle428]

50. And totally analogous to the case of the Ford Pinto, where Ford Motor Company

was unwilling to spend an additional $11 per vehicle in order to minimize the chance of the car becoming a giant flaming deathtrap, even in a relatively low-speed rear-end crash.

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/comp601/case2.html

[RC]

51. But, but, but...

That .25 cents would increase the tax on that purchase. Government already wastes too much money.