The cognitive dissonance of knowing what we know about the working conditions necessary for us to enjoy affordable consumer goods and still continuing to use and purchase those goods is at the heart of the intellectual bankruptcy and general nihilism plaguing our society. The psychological strain is extreme and yet the prospect of opting out of mass culture too terrifying to allow one's self to buckle under the abject horror we only glimpse through the bits of mediated exposure that manage to penetrate our the cacophony of celebrity gossip and partisan bickering that is mainstream news. When we do hear of preventable catastrophe like the recent factory collapse in Dhaka, we stare in shock like rubberneckers passing a high-speed auto accident for the amount of time designated by the 24-hr news cycle, and then ease our psychic pain by directing our only real power to support the very corporations and systems responsible for these tragedies. It is time to live consciously, without externalities and take responsibility for the effects of or choices. Only then can we build a world that will make us feel proud, not ashamed.
Agreed, but I do not believe that the conditions are necessary to enjoy affordable technology. The percentage of the price that reflects labor cost, i can only assume could easily be raised with that cost being absorbed by decreasing the percentage of profits. Or, since that is a tricky thing to try and make happen, they could start by adding the extra cost, specifically outlined for fair pay, to the price of the phone. This quote from a NYT article was the most I could find about the cost breakdown
"It is hard to estimate how much more it would cost to build iPhones in the United States. However, various academics and manufacturing analysts estimate that because labor is such a small part of technology manufacturing, paying American wages would add up to $65 to each iPhone’s expense. Since Apple’s profits are often hundreds of dollars per phone, building domestically, in theory, would still give the company a healthy reward."
The added cost would spell disaster for these more benevolent corporations, so long as the public is not forced to continually bear witness to the suffering caused by their complicity in this inhumanity. The ethical mark-up would require a simultaneous PR campaign to shine a light on these practices, a campaign which their competitors would never allow. The growing awareness, brought about by increased accessibility to information (strangely created by some of these very products), has forced industry leaders to consider their manufacturing practices in a new light. But the nature of the market system means that only demand for ethical goods, and hence increased, not decreased, profit margins can drive this shift. You or I might make the monetary sacrifice for peace of mind, but not only are we better informed but we also have the means to make that sacrifice. Not only that, but I would argue we actually possess a greater capacity for empathy, re-humanizing those with darker complexions and less material wealth, and understanding, of both causality and interconnectedness, in a society with a growing psychopathic streak.
From The Atlantic Monthly:
Better Safety in Bangladesh Could Raise Clothing Prices by About 25 Cents
"...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 a building collapse in Savar, Bangladesh, killed at least 381 people. "They definitely need to improve, but I'll still shop here. It's so cheap."
I think expanded profit share is one way to create incentive for more ethical production, but the appeal and buzz that could be created by including fairer wage manufacturing could also increase value. Another idea would be Worker Self Directed Enterprise's that offered, not higher returns for investors, but a democratic workplace that allowed workers to control the decision making of how/what/where to produce and what to do with the profits, if they choose to even have profits. Another benefit of the WSDE is that because it is owned and run by workers they can sell things at the cost of production and continue to function, actually undercutting what a capitalist could ever charge. As far as the story on the bottom, I am left praying that the interviewer asked a followup question.
Worker Self-Directed Enterprises and cooperatives are the way of the future. But how we make the transition to more democratic workplaces and deprioritized profits is the question. Do to the "recession/downturn/austerity/massive transfer of wealth to the elite" these revolutionary production models are becoming more attractive. However, this movement goes against everything that transnational corporations have been working to achieve. The worker success stories represent a material threat to business as usual and a challenge to corporate-financier dominion over the global population. Empowerment of local communities is antithetical to the exploitative collusion of corporations and governments. Even if these dastardly parties can find a way to cut into this new, more equitable pie, they will still fight tooth and nail against any increment of real change. Building a protected space for these new models to develop is paramount, lest they be devoured in their infancy by soulless predators. As we continue to see just how quickly years and decades of public protections can be dismantled by a system distorted to serve exploitation and itself before the people, I cannot help but feel overwhelmed by the enormity of the task at hand. A lapse in vigilance caused the situation we find ourselves in today, we cannot allow a moment's distraction or we risk backsliding into history. What will it take to make this movement truly massive and forever shift the balance from profit to people? How can the uninformed and unconcerned be convinced to direct their energy and resources away from their corporate overlords and back into their communities? What incentive is stronger than immediate savings for an increasingly cash strapped and overworked populace? I do believe people are interested in supporting each other and the community but not quite enough to offset the added time, effort, and money necessary to act on that interest on a daily basis. The other issue is the all-powerful daily routine of the older generation currently in control of a large portion of the general population's assets. These routines were put in place long before the rise of most problems facing us today, and do not incorporate any of the new data. Therefore, there is no expectation of finding a more sustainable substitute for any daily required goods or services. I do hold some degree of animosity toward this elder generation for failing to incorporate the discovered effects of their living habits into future decision-making, instead leaving already poisoned and disheartened generations to clean up their messes. Oh, they sacrificed to give us the things we enjoy today. You mean like degraded ecosystems, unsustainable farming models, rotting infrastructure, corrupt government, and wars of incalculable cost, not to mention having put us in debt to pay for all of it. Yeah, thanks. Unfortunately, this damage has deeply affected the younger generations, to whom the duties of reclamation now fall, creating an apathetic and nihilistic culture that cares nothing for these causes. Whom can we enlist to our aid if the majority, both young and old, are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices. How do you convince someone who values money above all to now value less quantifiable ideals and more qualitative gains?
5 comments:
The cognitive dissonance of knowing what we know about the working conditions necessary for us to enjoy affordable consumer goods and still continuing to use and purchase those goods is at the heart of the intellectual bankruptcy and general nihilism plaguing our society. The psychological strain is extreme and yet the prospect of opting out of mass culture too terrifying to allow one's self to buckle under the abject horror we only glimpse through the bits of mediated exposure that manage to penetrate our the cacophony of celebrity gossip and partisan bickering that is mainstream news. When we do hear of preventable catastrophe like the recent factory collapse in Dhaka, we stare in shock like rubberneckers passing a high-speed auto accident for the amount of time designated by the 24-hr news cycle, and then ease our psychic pain by directing our only real power to support the very corporations and systems responsible for these tragedies. It is time to live consciously, without externalities and take responsibility for the effects of or choices. Only then can we build a world that will make us feel proud, not ashamed.
Agreed, but I do not believe that the conditions are necessary to enjoy affordable technology. The percentage of the price that reflects labor cost, i can only assume could easily be raised with that cost being absorbed by decreasing the percentage of profits. Or, since that is a tricky thing to try and make happen, they could start by adding the extra cost, specifically outlined for fair pay, to the price of the phone. This quote from a NYT article was the most I could find about the cost breakdown
"It is hard to estimate how much more it would cost to build iPhones in the United States. However, various academics and manufacturing analysts estimate that because labor is such a small part of technology manufacturing, paying American wages would add up to $65 to each iPhone’s expense. Since Apple’s profits are often hundreds of dollars per phone, building domestically, in theory, would still give the company a healthy reward."
The added cost would spell disaster for these more benevolent corporations, so long as the public is not forced to continually bear witness to the suffering caused by their complicity in this inhumanity. The ethical mark-up would require a simultaneous PR campaign to shine a light on these practices, a campaign which their competitors would never allow. The growing awareness, brought about by increased accessibility to information (strangely created by some of these very products), has forced industry leaders to consider their manufacturing practices in a new light. But the nature of the market system means that only demand for ethical goods, and hence increased, not decreased, profit margins can drive this shift. You or I might make the monetary sacrifice for peace of mind, but not only are we better informed but we also have the means to make that sacrifice. Not only that, but I would argue we actually possess a greater capacity for empathy, re-humanizing those with darker complexions and less material wealth, and understanding, of both causality and interconnectedness, in a society with a growing psychopathic streak.
From The Atlantic Monthly:
Better Safety in Bangladesh Could Raise Clothing Prices by About 25 Cents
"...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 a building collapse in Savar, Bangladesh, killed at least 381 people. "They definitely need to improve, but I'll still shop here. It's so cheap."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/05/better-safety-in-bangladesh-could-raise-clothing-prices-by-about-25-cents/275765/
I think expanded profit share is one way to create incentive for more ethical production, but the appeal and buzz that could be created by including fairer wage manufacturing could also increase value. Another idea would be Worker Self Directed Enterprise's that offered, not higher returns for investors, but a democratic workplace that allowed workers to control the decision making of how/what/where to produce and what to do with the profits, if they choose to even have profits. Another benefit of the WSDE is that because it is owned and run by workers they can sell things at the cost of production and continue to function, actually undercutting what a capitalist could ever charge. As far as the story on the bottom, I am left praying that the interviewer asked a followup question.
Worker Self-Directed Enterprises and cooperatives are the way of the future. But how we make the transition to more democratic workplaces and deprioritized profits is the question. Do to the "recession/downturn/austerity/massive transfer of wealth to the elite" these revolutionary production models are becoming more attractive. However, this movement goes against everything that transnational corporations have been working to achieve. The worker success stories represent a material threat to business as usual and a challenge to corporate-financier dominion over the global population. Empowerment of local communities is antithetical to the exploitative collusion of corporations and governments. Even if these dastardly parties can find a way to cut into this new, more equitable pie, they will still fight tooth and nail against any increment of real change. Building a protected space for these new models to develop is paramount, lest they be devoured in their infancy by soulless predators. As we continue to see just how quickly years and decades of public protections can be dismantled by a system distorted to serve exploitation and itself before the people, I cannot help but feel overwhelmed by the enormity of the task at hand. A lapse in vigilance caused the situation we find ourselves in today, we cannot allow a moment's distraction or we risk backsliding into history. What will it take to make this movement truly massive and forever shift the balance from profit to people? How can the uninformed and unconcerned be convinced to direct their energy and resources away from their corporate overlords and back into their communities? What incentive is stronger than immediate savings for an increasingly cash strapped and overworked populace?
I do believe people are interested in supporting each other and the community but not quite enough to offset the added time, effort, and money necessary to act on that interest on a daily basis. The other issue is the all-powerful daily routine of the older generation currently in control of a large portion of the general population's assets. These routines were put in place long before the rise of most problems facing us today, and do not incorporate any of the new data. Therefore, there is no expectation of finding a more sustainable substitute for any daily required goods or services. I do hold some degree of animosity toward this elder generation for failing to incorporate the discovered effects of their living habits into future decision-making, instead leaving already poisoned and disheartened generations to clean up their messes. Oh, they sacrificed to give us the things we enjoy today. You mean like degraded ecosystems, unsustainable farming models, rotting infrastructure, corrupt government, and wars of incalculable cost, not to mention having put us in debt to pay for all of it. Yeah, thanks. Unfortunately, this damage has deeply affected the younger generations, to whom the duties of reclamation now fall, creating an apathetic and nihilistic culture that cares nothing for these causes. Whom can we enlist to our aid if the majority, both young and old, are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices. How do you convince someone who values money above all to now value less quantifiable ideals and more qualitative gains?
Post a Comment