Why is a "Fair Profit" no longer good enough? (licensing, financing)

[8 SNAKE]

Originally Posted by mpyne

Well Ill use China as an example. Why does big business send work over there. This country was built on slave labor
They arent going out of business because in many cases credit is used to purchase goods.

That's not an example. I want you to give me a specific example to back up your claims, not some broad generalization that is based on nothing...

[Dbatiste]

Originally Posted by nimmysnv

Hi,

According to me, it is like, in the past decade the people were very happy and with what they are getting with respect in making bigger profit and today is like evry single person wants to have good source of revenue more and more better than other like it become a competition amongst several companies and they are just fighting for it.


So, as far as fair profit concerns than there are some companies that are earning fair profit but there are very less companies that are generating and getting fair profit otherwise there is no source for fair profit.


Thanks!!

8 snake
Can someone translate this into something meaningful for me???


...lol

[mpyne]

Originally Posted by 8 SNAKE

That's not an example. I want you to give me a specific example to back up your claims, not some broad generalization that is based on nothing...

Women and Global Human Rights



U.S. Companies With Ties to Sweatshops

Many corporations use contract manufacturing firms to produce their goods. They separate themselves from the production of their goods and refuse to take responsibility for the conditions under which they are made. However, these companies actually dictate the labor standards of their suppliers. Corporations demand extremely low prices for merchandise. As a result, manufacturers, concerned with making a profit, cut employees' wages and compromise their safety. Foreign governments accomodate corporations, as well, by setting the minimum wage well below what is needed to meet basic needs, in order to boost national economic gain (Given, 1997). American companies get away with these type of business practices because the U.S. Labor Department requires only internal monitoring. Thus, there is no way to determine whether or not companies are honest about the conditions that they find. Unfortunately, even if violations of human rights are discovered, corporations are only held to negligible fines.

Many U.S. retailers have ties to sweatshops, which are usually foreign owned and operated. Nike moved production out of the U.S. to Taiwan and South Korea when workers demanded better wages. When democracy took hold in these regions, Nike moved production to Indonesia, Vietnam, and China (Given, 1997). Nike's Indonesian factories commit numerous violations of human rights and health and safety standards. Workers are paid only $2.00 per day. They are forced to work with toxic glues and chemicals without adequate training, masks, and gloves (Morey, 2000). Nike agrees to pay employees' medical bills only after they have been paid in full by the workers who can't afford to do so. Fear is a common tactic to keep workers in line. Many are afraid to ask to use the bathroom, and women who are menstruating have to wear multiple sanitary pads and black clothing to hide blood stains (Morey, 2000). Workers also have to endure verbal abuse, 60-70 hour work weeks, and humiliation. Nike's internal monitoring does very little to help the employees' situation. Monitors fail to discover many problems in the sweatshops because managers know of visits ahead of time and clean up the facilities, and because monitors rarely talk to the workers. Nike also has facilities in Vietnam and China with similar conditions. Nike denied allegations of abuses in its factories for years, but finally in May of 1998 Nike announced its pledge to follow U.S. occupational health and safety standards, end child labor, and allow external monitoring of its facilities (Corporate Watch, 2000). However, recent attacks against workers at a Korean-owned factory in Mexico that makes Nike clothing raises questions about their commitment (Global Exchange, 2001). Wal-mart also promotes poor working conditions in factories. Facilities in China that produce clothing for the retailer pay their workers as low as $.13 an hour. Unfortunately, it is difficult to discover much about the practices in Wal-mart factories because Wal-mart refuses to disclose the names and locations of their sweatshops (Co-op America, 2001). Thus, neither the U.S. government nor consumers are able to discern how bad the conditions really are. The Gap produces clothing in six factories in Saipan. Although they use "Made in the USA" labels, they refuse to adhere to U.S. labor standards (Global Exchange, 2000). Indentured servitude, physical abuse and threats, and unsafe working conditions are among the violations in Gap factories in Saipan. In Russia, Gap factory workers are paid as little as $.11 per hour, and in Honduras Gap workers are forced to undergo mandatory pregnancy tests, work overtime, do not have access to locked bathrooms, and make $4.00 a day (Global Exchange, 2000). Although Gap claims to follow a "no sweat" code of conduct, it blatantly fails to do so. Disney has a number of suppliers in China who subject their employees to sweatshop conditions. Many of the factories require young women to pay "deposits" upon hire that put them in a situation of indentured servitude. Wages are low, and overtime is required in these factories. Workers do not receive health insurance even though it is required by Chinese law (Hong Kong Christian Industrial Commitee, 1999). Unfortunately, most of the young women who work in Disney's factories are unaware of their rights.

[NYCAnalyst]

Companies were just as greedy as they were before (remember, we had Sweatshops in America in the early 1900s).

The only difference is that before (pre 1980s) you didn't have a bunch of math whiz kids on Wall Street creating derivatives and structured products.

As soon as Nixon took America off the gold standard in 1971, it allowed traders to trade derivatives on currency, interest rates, commodities, etc.

And as they say, the rest is history...

[pinetreecity]

If my memory serves me right, I believe the old utility companies were governed by something vaguely similar to "fair profit". This was before they were deregulated.

I think it used to be that electric utilities were only allowed to earn so much profit, or to have margins of a certain amount. If they earned too much, then the regulators would step in and force rate reductions or something to that effect. I am not certain about the details on how that all worked.

On the other hand, the utilities essentially had the backing of the taxpayers or government, so it was almost impossible for them to go bankrupt. This enabled them to take on lots to debt to build plants and also made them very safe investments, for a stock at least.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

Capitalism has always been about channeling human greed into a constructive outlet. Like Jack Welsh said, profit is not evil. What you're seeing today isn't the result of "profit" but a complete breakdown of ethics, which is something that has been occuring beyond the buisness sector and is a general reflection of the decline of western society in general.

Not just a breakdown in ethics, but a disconnect between cause and effect, and a disconnect of risks from rewards.

Overreaching greed is supposed to carry heavy risks with it. Companies or people that overextend themselves through greed run the risk of losing everything. Today of course, we have 'too big to fail' so if a company is big enough, it can be as greedy as it wants and be backed by the government (taxpayers) when it all collapses.

That being said, if you're being ripped off by a 'greedy' company, it's largely your own fault. The biggest issue today seems to be people who spent a lot of money they couldn't pay back, and borrowed from banks at undefined interest rates in order to do so. That was a very stupid move. The banks have had a deeply flawed business plan that derives profit from charging very high interest rates on loans to people unlikely to be able to pay them back, with the cost of the defaulted loans being passed on to others. But the way the typical American runs his/her finances is also deeply flawed, and involves spending more than they have and running up the difference on credit cards (and then whining and playing victim when the whole thing comes crashing down).

[manu.kumaar26]

In past competition among companies are less camparatively at moment.

Every company want to be in there respectively yes that why "sucking every penny outta you!"

[dazzleman]

The antidote to preventing companies from sucking every dollar out of you is to buy from somebody else if they're charging you too much.

If you've put yourself in a position that you can't go elsewhere -- such as with banks, but owing too much on credit cards to the point where you're not attractive to other lenders -- then you have only yourself to blame, for the most part.

[tallrick]

I have no problem with a private business maximizing their profits. What I have a problem with is a few elite organizations buying Government and using mandates, licensing, environmental laws, drug laws, etc to limit competition and drive up prices. All laws should apply equally to everyone. Why is it OK so steal trillions of dollars while robbing a convenience store for 10.00 is not? Greedy bankers and robber barons have always been around. However, today they have the blessing of Government. If Government was independent these parasites would be facing increased competition from others and never become tycoons.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by tallrick

I have no problem with a private business maximizing their profits. What I have a problem with is a few elite organizations buying Government and using mandates, licensing, environmental laws, drug laws, etc to limit competition and drive up prices. All laws should apply equally to everyone. Why is it OK so steal trillions of dollars while robbing a convenience store for 10.00 is not? Greedy bankers and robber barons have always been around. However, today they have the blessing of Government. If Government was independent these parasites would be facing increased competition from others and never become tycoons.

Yes, government has furthered this problem. Business and government are too closely bound up these days, and it's having the opposite effect of what it should have.