amps and ethics?

[lousybassist]

I'm familiar with No Logo, but haven't yet read it. I will, thanks. None of the companies you've mentioned are considered even close to "the best" where I live, although Dell does have a good bit of repect. In fact, I consider Nike to be at the very bottom of the heap, quality-wise. I'm asking a genuine question here though, I would welcome more examples such as yours.

Nike at the very bottom of the heap? That's interresting, 'cause that's not the impression I get over here. Mostly because Nike is a very visible brand, both in advertising, at different sports events and in stores. Their top of the line runners' shoes, f x, are quite expensive, as well.
Adidas on the other seems to be big in the football world, and IIRC, the balls used in the Euro 2004 championships were made by them. Please correct me if Im wrong, though.
And in the case of Dell, they might not have that much respect in the professional world - as I implied above - but they do have a great share of the consumer segment of the market. This does not mean that they make the best product, but maybe the best product at a specific price point, and maybe also the most well known to the general public. And this is often more important for a company's success than sheer greatness.
I also think most cell phone makers - like Nokia and SonyEriksson - use a strategy much like Dell's, where they contract factories to make parts, and/or assemble complete phones for them, rather than starting factories of their own. If this is unethical or not depends on how far you're ready to stretch your ethics.
Still, my examples may not have been the best, so, like passinwind, I welcome more. I'm not quite on target.

 

[Transverz]

It would be hard pressed to find too many mega-large companies (like Nike or Adidas) nowadays that don't look both completely bad and good at the same time. Here is why I think so:

Those big time guys know it's not good for a company to limit their target market and therefore their channel of distribution. In other words, selling it at one place demands a far different product then in another place. So what are they to do?

Build a similar product, but at a price point that satisfies different channels. For example, Adidas can have a $150 shoe that sells fine in a fancy sporting goods store. But that ain't gonna work out at Big-5 or a more common sporting good store that you find in a mall (not as well, at least). So they make a $75-$100 shoe. But that shoe ain't gonna work out well at Wal-Mart or Target. So they make a $25-$50 shoe as well.

Point being is that if you only shop or are exposed to the lower-end, not-so-cool versions of products, you may have a different view if you were only exposed to the high-end of the same companies products. Thus, the difference of opinion on where a company stands.

I guess this could be related to Squier/Fender/MIM/MIA/MIJ thing, but you will typically see these all under one roof to satisfy the different levels of customer budget. What I am referring to is the total separation of product and sometimes even image. Plus this has a lot to do with different levels of quality and materials. For other companies, the quality and materials are EXACTLY the same.

One more additional, sorta related point: Sometimes, a manufacturer will purposely make a model or version SPECIFICALLY for a channel of distribution that they think is important enough to have their own item that is not sold anywhere else. Why not sell it anywhere else? To protect the company against having that worse image attached to it. Notice how you see all these high-priced name brands at discount clothing/electronics/etc outlets? Sometimes it's because yes, they discounted it for close-out or discontinued or old-type stuff. But you will be surprised to find out (if you can find out) that some high-priced brands actually MANUFACTURER and MAKE stuff for these outlet type places because it brings in the bucks! Visit your local Mervyn's or Ross and you'll see what I mean.

In relation to this thread, those lower priced units or alternatives that are made for different channels might be the ones that are coming from places that are less than what your ethics will allow. A sad, but honest statement would be to say that you will more than likely have to avoid bargain-super value priced (and dare I say affordable to the common man) items to guarantee they are being manufactured in the conditions that satisfy the standards of ethical labor practices. I'm not saying that there are NO items that are cheap/affordable AND made by more ethical companies, but I am saying they are more likely farther and fewer between.

Just some thoughts...

-T

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

One more additional, sorta related point: Sometimes, a manufacturer will purposely make a model or version SPECIFICALLY for a channel of distribution that they think is important enough to have their own item that is not sold anywhere else. Why not sell it anywhere else? To protect the company against having that worse image attached to it. Notice how you see all these high-priced name brands at discount clothing/electronics/etc outlets? Sometimes it's because yes, they discounted it for close-out or discontinued or old-type stuff. But you will be surprised to find out (if you can find out) that some high-priced brands actually MANUFACTURER and MAKE stuff for these outlet type places because it brings in the bucks! Visit your local Mervyn's or Ross and you'll see what I mean.

Another reason--a bigger one, probably--for special, exclusive house models is the retailer's price competition. Even if a Laser 9000, sold only at Joe's Emporium, and a Coherent Light 9K at Moe's Retail Heaven and everywhere else are exactly the same under the cosmetics, you can't bring a Moe's ad to Joe's and ask them to beat the price on what on paper are two different models.

Bedding stores know this. That's why they may advertise that they'll beat anyone's prices on mattresses (fine print: printed ads with the identical model), but each chain or store has their own model number system, even on products from the same manufacturers. As a result, a particular store doesn't have to beat anyone's price on a specific model, because that store is the only one that sells it.

 

[WillPlay4Food]

Hartke amps have never been made in the USA (the cabs, yes). They made them in Korea at first, have they started making them in China yet?

I think the GK Backline amps are also made in the Orient as are the low priced amps from Marshall, Vox and Orange.

BTW, I lived in Korea in the 1970s when they were slowly becoming a manufacturing powerhouse and "slave labor" is not too far off the mark for what I saw back then.

I was in Seoul in '99 and I can say that at least in Seoul, "slave labor" isn't what I would call South Korean workers. The people in our branch office had better benefits than I did at the time or do now. They get more vacation time, more holidays (average of 1 per month with a week off for Lunar New Year) and other perks I could only dream of.

Were the dollar amounts the same as a US employee? No. But, in Korea I can get a custom tailored suit in about 3 hours for $250US. I mean, walk into a shop, pick out the fabric, let the guy take my measurements then come back later. I don't even know what this would cost in the US, but the Korean tailor certainly wasn't hurting for business.

Like I said, I didn't spend any time outside of Seoul (except for a trip to Korean Folk Village) so I don't know how people in other cities are treated, but Seoul is a solid first-world city.

 

[WillPlay4Food]

b-ace,

Thanks for creating this thread. I am working toward the same goal myself. I take the bus to & from work now instead of driving to reduce my personal pollution output. It also helps to finally be done with school.

I have also given up shopping at WalMart, period. I have difficulties trying to convince my wife to do the same, but I'm working on her.

I'm a believer in getting the most out of my dollar. This doesn't mean getting the lowest price.

For example, I'd rather buy from the hardware store 4 houses away instead of going to Home Depot or Lowes. Why? Local businesses almost always have better customer service. Remember, 9 times outa 10, you're dealing with the owner, and the owner is going to want you to come back. Also, the money I spend at the local hardware store is going to go back into my local economy.

The money I spend at Home Depot and Lowes get funneled back to corporate headquarters. Millions go to the gifted ones on mahogony row and pennies get sent out to shareholders. What do the workers get? A 3% raise in a good year? This isn't to say that no money spent at Home Depot or Lowes doesn't go into the local economy, but 100% of the profits go back to the home office.

Besides, for most purchases, the difference between the local hardware store and Home Depot is at most $2. But the local hardware store is literally a 2 minute walk away. I don't have to go to the mall and deal with all the crappy drivers and look for a parking spot etc. etc.

 

[Transverz]

I agree WillPay4Food, the the customer service at Mom&Pops is much better and the dollars spent go straight to the owner and their own expenses. Plus less hassle for parking and no one's trying to hit me up for a job or ask to fix the dent in my car! (happens almost every time I go to HD/Lowe's)

I too enjoy the attention and the sometimes even unique items I can get at Mom&Pops of any genre of stores (music stores, hardware stores, record stores, when I used to compete in P-ball, etc). I have said over and over that I am willing to spend TONS more at these places if I keep getting the kind of specialized and personal attention I get at Mom&Pops.

But hmm...don't these bigger places also pay exorbitantly more tax dollars to the city it is in compared to Mom&Pops? To which then the city "supposedly" spends it on things that benefit the people? (disregard of course those oh-so hard working city employees making $100,000 a year and the wonderful condition of the roads and traffic I drive in ) Also, don't these places employ hundreds of people who didn't have jobs before or left their jobs for that one? I believe that no one would leave their present job unless they had a better opportunity elsewhere. And if you could make better money somewhere else, there is no reason to work somewhere for less. Unless you really enjoyed it. But I don't think there are many who would take lower pay for the exchange of absolutely LOVING to working at Wal-Mart, HD, Lowe's, etc. Plus about shareholders, if I were able to make more holding the shares of another public corporation then one that is making me pennies, well...you know the answer to that one.

I find a place in this world for both types of stores. I think everyone, big and small alike, have to be willing to be creative when challenges arise. That is life in it's purest form and I don't think it's different for retailers, animals, and anything else.

 

[RAM]

Sorry I should have made it clear when I mean slave wages I mean wages that can't possibly support workers, and hence exploiting workers. Obviously wages are going to be different country to country but so is the cost of living. it should be relative.

"Retailers choose to manufacture overseas in part to avoid the higher standards and labour costs demanded in developed countries. Companies manufacture in distant low-wage economies while still delivering orders on time. Top of the list of exporters to the UK in 2002 was Hong Kong, followed by India, China, Turkey and Indonesia.

Increasingly, Eastern Europe and ultra-low-wage economies such as Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam are being used for manufacture, while typically, companies move on to new countries when workers become organised and demand higher standards and better pay. When they go they leave jobless workers and often a polluted environment."

that was taken from Invalid Link Removed

All I want to know about is ashdown and their MAG cabs...

Careful about what you read...it's not always very straight-forward. I'm a vegetarian and very much in favor of consumer advocacy and workers' rights, but I'm also conscious that a lot of these "ethics" groups are so far left, they miss the boat.

For example, "leaving a country polluted"? Very few companies are so mallicious as to leave a country polluted. Quite frankly, IMO, it's not unethical to leave a country's manufacturing sector in favor of cheaper labor.

The point is, whereever Ashdown manufactures its amps, buy them based on their sound, reliability, and portability. Don't waste your time on such extremist crap as "polluted environments"!

 

[Munjibunga]

Play it safe. Buy Eden.

 

[HiFi]

Play it safe. Buy Eden.

Or build your own amp from only biodegradable materials...

 

[Marlat]

Or build your own amp from only biodegradable materials...

as opposed to Eden, an amp made from only degradable materials

 

[RAM]

And as we continue to gravitate towards lower priced products, we not only undermine Made in USA, but also enable these countries to build industries, grow their competitive position, retool, build competencies and eventually expertise and squeeze out competition in higher cost countries. So try as you will to buy local, the stuff made abroad should and could become better quality over time while maintaining competitive pricing.

Since when is competition a bad thing in a free market economy?

 

[notanaggie]

b-ace,


I have also given up shopping at WalMart, period. I have difficulties trying to convince my wife to do the same, but I'm working on her.

For example, I'd rather buy from the hardware store 4 houses away instead of going to Home Depot or Lowes. Why? Local businesses almost always have better customer service. .

Word.

Walmart, the new company store, lookin for souls to own.

 

[MacheteJames]

Since when is competition a bad thing in a free market economy?

It's bad when it leads to a global "race to the bottom", where corporations (many of which are given massive federal subsidies, so there goes the idea of a true free market) bully national governments into altering or abolishing regulations that govern the treatment of workers in factories... if the governments refuse, the corporation simply leaves for another country. They play countries against each other in bidding wars, and all of this is, of course, at the expense of the well-being of individual workers.

 

[RAM]

It's bad when it leads to a global "race to the bottom", where corporations (many of which are given massive federal subsidies, so there goes the idea of a true free market) bully national governments into altering or abolishing regulations that govern the treatment of workers in factories... if the governments refuse, the corporation simply leaves for another country. They play countries against each other in bidding wars, and all of this is, of course, at the expense of the well-being of individual workers.

With such grossly sweeping accusations, I'm assuming you've got examples to back this up...

 

[WillPlay4Food]

With such grossly sweeping accusations, I'm assuming you've got examples to back this up...

How about the fact that we give China Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status, yet they are still executing people involved with the uprising at Tienneman Square? The US helped China become a member of WTO.

Both of these were done without forcing international labor standards on China. This of course allows them to continue to treat workers worse then what is considered allowable by many countries.

I'm not saying everywhere in China people get treated badly, I'm just saying that no one told China they had to treat their workers fairly. Mostly because many of the large US corporations (Motorola, IBM, MS, etc.) are crapping themselves to get their products into the biggest (and soon to be fastest growing) consumer market on the planet and they have enough pull with the US government to get these labor concessions to occur.

 

[cetera]

With such grossly sweeping accusations, I'm assuming you've got examples to back this up...

You may find bookshops are a useful source of factual reports on this. The big business control of markets, hijacking of international trading policies and blackmailing of less powerful countries is legendary and undisputable.

 

[robb.]

all this talk of corporations v. government makes me wonder why people go running to the government to protect them from corporations. the governments of the world created the corporation by creating the limited liability individual! with the increased prosperity yielding increased tax revenues (and thus expanded power), what possible incentive do governments have to truly combat corporations? that's one part of the left philosophy that i will never understand. similar to how i will never understand the right's love of corporations.

robb.

 

[bmc]

all this talk of corporations v. government makes me wonder why people go running to the government to protect them from corporations. the governments of the world created the corporation by creating the limited liability individual! with the increased prosperity yielding increased tax revenues (and thus expanded power), what possible incentive do governments have to truly combat corporations? that's one part of the left philosophy that i will never understand. similar to how i will never understand the right's love of corporations.

robb.

Governments are funded/influenced by corporations.

 

[Christopher]

Leaving aside questions of ethics, in view of the quality of many American-made consumer products, I'd happily consider buying an amp that was made in China. The Chinese seem to take pride in their work, whatever their working conditions. I don't have a problem sending my money their way if they build something that doesn't freaking break down or fall apart in 2 months. It's a sad state of affairs when Fender has to market "detailed fretwork" as a "feature" on their high end U.S.-made instruments.

I don't think that Chinese factory workers are "underpaid" insofar as 10-20% of Chinese citizens are unemployed and a majority of Chinese earn bare subsistence wages as farmers. Moreover, I frankly don't care what Chinese people earn, and don't understand why any U.S. citizen should. I'm not a Chinese citizen. I'd rather see higher wages (or at least a minimum wage above $5.15, which is underpaid and inhumane in this country), no unemployment, and fewer to no human rights and worker abuses in U.S. industry.

If the Chinese want higher wages, better conditions, democractically-elected leaders who respect individual rights (wink wink), they have the option of doing what they've been doing for the past 5000 years or so - revolt. But it's not my country, and I have no right to tell them what to do.

Rant over.

 

[robb.]

Governments are funded/influenced by corporations.

that's exactly my point.

the beauty of truly free markets is that they give you the freedom to do whatever you want. so companies can do truly dispicable things, if they so choose, but consumers can also choose to buy from someone else. in the US, i don't think we've grasped the causality of cheap, plastic crap at walmart and cheap chinese labor. at some point the low prices won't be low enough if we're all out of jobs.

my other thought about the state of chinese manufacturing is that much of why it is so popular is that it's so cheap. and much of why it's so cheap is that their currency is fixed to the US dollar, so they'll always be much less prosperous -- in US dollars -- than we in the US. for the chinese to ever be able to buy anything that isn't made in china, they'll have to unfix their currency. at which point they likely won't be able to sustain the economy they've created, manufacturing for the west. but that won't matter, because we won't likely be able to afford the increasing cost of labor due to the increasing value of currency combined with the cost of shipping across the pacific and the associated scrap costs that come with it.

so while i'm not a fan of offshore manufacturing, i'm not particularly alarmed by it, because i don't believe it is sustainable. ultimately, when markets are free, all markets will reach equilibrium and it will be far more cost effective to manufacture as near to the point of sale as possible.

robb.