Do you agree or disagree?

Plus does anyone know any companies (clothing etc.) that for sure do NOT use cheap labour but are very profitable?

You mean lowering the cost of a fundamental part of the production process is not necessary for making a profit? That's news to me.

__________________

So guess im screwed for this debate...

I remember a couple of articles that suggested better pay = better workers and that better workers were more efficient meaning you need less of them.

__________________
Google Chrome: Join the Revolution.
Google Chromium OS: Join the Revolution.
Google Chromium Discussion Thread.

Merci.

There is a whole division of economics dedicated to this. Eventually, that extra hour worth of pay doesn't provide enough marginal benefit to cover the cost of paying you for the additional hour (also, can be done with a pay per hour as a whole). So paying workers better only produces better workers to a certain point. However, in the current market, and for that matter, the current global economy, paying a worker more to produce a better worker is not necessary. One can simply hire a different worker who will work for less and produce the same result. This is especially true with unskilled labor. They are easily replaceable and paying them more is fiscally irresponsible from a corporate perspective.

And then, you get into the basic fact that revenue less costs yields profit. If you increase your costs, you're profit will decrease.

__________________
He said he didn't smoke!

There's a difference between "surviving and being profitable" and achieving the greatest profit possible, mate.

__________________
Have you ever felt so out of place
That the smile on your face
Was to keep from cryin
I dont know why we get so out of touch
But I dont want much
Just to keep on tryin
People say a prayer every day that they end up with more than their nextdoor neighbor
Im not buyin all their ego trips but I'll get my kicks when I find out
What happiness is

I've worked a couple phone jobs which payed about double minimum wage, and at Lowe's, which paid 11 bucks an hour to literally move plants around. Presumably, these places were profitable.

__________________

That only goes so far and definitely not from a global corporate perspective. In general, cutting costs by any means necessary is what corporations should be doing.

The goal of any corporation is to achieve the latter without breaking the law. To do other wise is irresponsible.

__________________

Nah. Irresponsible for the corporation, maybe, but not for the people that comprise it.

Besides, are you really arguing that prior to the ban on, say, child labor, not using it when one could still remain profitable without it would be irresponsible?

__________________
Have you ever felt so out of place
That the smile on your face
Was to keep from cryin
I dont know why we get so out of touch
But I dont want much
Just to keep on tryin
People say a prayer every day that they end up with more than their nextdoor neighbor
Im not buyin all their ego trips but I'll get my kicks when I find out
What happiness is

Part of the reason you make a corporation is to take the human aspect out of the situation.

1. Could they have remained profitable? 2. Again, there is a difference between moral responsibility and corporate responsibility.

__________________

In the sense of allowing the corporation to outlive its original creator/owner, sure, but decoupling it from human fulfillment is A) impossible and B) undesirable. The whole point of a corporation, and indeed any human endeavor, is to further the goals of those involved in it. Any other purpose is illusory.

Given that we've been discussing "maximum profit possible" versus "'surviving and remaining profitable' while treating people as something other than a wallet mounted on the back of an entranced magpie", being profitable is a given.


Sure, but since corporations are run by humans moral responsibility must inevitably be part of the equation, as it should be.

__________________
Have you ever felt so out of place
That the smile on your face
Was to keep from cryin
I dont know why we get so out of touch
But I dont want much
Just to keep on tryin
People say a prayer every day that they end up with more than their nextdoor neighbor
Im not buyin all their ego trips but I'll get my kicks when I find out
What happiness is

expensive labour = less profit, no two ways about it.

__________________
Former Monikers: Foolish_Romantic, Augusts_The_Pidgeon

Companies don't need cheap labour to be successful and make profit. But cheap labour means more money saved for them.

__________________

Guys. Please don't add me unless we're familiar with each other. KayThanks.

Providing the most profit possible can and does fulfill those aims.

And if those goals are the maximization of profit, then that's what they should be doing, within the law.

But not a given in the environment we're talking about. I.E. If a corporation has to choose between questionable moral decisions, that are still legal, and going under, which should they choose?

The numbers of humans involved, however, can diffuse such things.

__________________

GOOGLE DOES PRETTY WELL FOR THEMSELVES...

__________________

minimum wage creates deadweight loss for society

/thread

yeah i was gonna mention google as well
also american apparel

Rather too bold a statement. That would obviously depend on what the aim is. Further, pursuing one goal to the exclusion of other important considerations isn't exactly healthy.

No sensible human being sets goals that are solely related to money.
You've been talking about making the greatest profit possible within the constraints of the law, not simply surviving, and claimed that doing anything less is wrong. Since there's a large gulf between "maximum profit" and "going bankrupt", the above is what we call a "red herring".

I think I've seen this mentality somewhere before.

__________________
Have you ever felt so out of place
That the smile on your face
Was to keep from cryin
I dont know why we get so out of touch
But I dont want much
Just to keep on tryin
People say a prayer every day that they end up with more than their nextdoor neighbor
Im not buyin all their ego trips but I'll get my kicks when I find out
What happiness is

Generally speaking, companies will use the cheapest labour allowed by law and society. Society is a contraint in the sense that, even if child labour was not currently banned under international law, a major western corporation would probably suffer more harm to its image (and hence to its revenue) from open and continued use than it would gain from the reduction in cost of production. The same logic would apply to gang rape if, hypothetically, the use of it would lower costs.

But really, it's not the job of a corporation to have to make such judgements. It is the job of the corporation to maximise profits, and the job of the government to mandate what is socially or morally acceptable and introduce limits on what the corporation can do (minimum wage, child labour laws etc). If child labour was still legal and used widely, I would argue it is more the government that is to blame than the corporations in question.