21 Oct
Book Club: Cheap
This is the discussion thread for Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture. Comment below to join the conversation, no need to “sign up” as part of the book club to do so. If you comment on this post, you are part of the club!
A review at BoingBoing
The High Cost of Buying Cheap on NPR
American’s Pay the Price of Getting Things Cheap on NPR
A roundtable discussion on Cheap (this is really good if you want to take the time to read it and I think it will really influence our own discussion below!)
An Atlantic correspondent uncovers the true cost-in economic, political, and psychic terms-of our penchant for making and buying things as cheaply as possible
From the shuttered factories of the rust belt to the look-alike strip malls of the sun belt-and almost everywhere in between-America has been transformed by its relentless fixation on low price. This pervasive yet little examined obsession is arguably the most powerful and devastating market force of our time-the engine of globalization, outsourcing, planned obsolescence, and economic instability in an increasingly unsettled world.
Low price is so alluring that we may have forgotten how thoroughly we once distrusted it. Ellen Ruppel Shell traces the birth of the bargain as we know it from the Industrial Revolution to the assembly line and beyond, homing in on a number of colorful characters, such as Gene Verkauf (his name is Yiddish for “to sell”), founder of E. J. Korvette, the discount chain that helped wean customers off traditional notions of value. The rise of the chain store in post-Depression America led to the extolling of convenience over quality, and big-box retailers completed the reeducation of the American consumer by making them prize low price in the way they once prized durability and craftsmanship.
The effects of this insidious perceptual shift are vast: a blighted landscape, escalating debt (both personal and national), stagnating incomes, fraying communities, and a host of other socioeconomic ills. That’s a long list of charges, and it runs counter to orthodox economics which argues that low price powers productivity by stimulating a brisk free market. But Shell marshals evidence from a wide range of fields-history, sociology, marketing, psychology, even economics itself-to upend the conventional wisdom. Cheap also unveils the fascinating and unsettling illogic that underpins our bargain-hunting reflex and explains how our deep-rooted need for bargains colors every aspect of our psyches and social lives. In this myth-shattering, closely reasoned, and exhaustively reported investigation, Shell exposes the astronomically high cost of cheap.
I'm a farm-raised almost-crunchy stroller-pushing picture-taking lifestyle-blog-writing gastronomy-obsessed divine-seeking thrift-store-combing cheese-inhaling pavement-pounding laughter-sprinkling lover of individuality and taking chances.
Jenna, though I haven’t read this book (whoops!), I am intrigued to know your thoughts on how this philosophy applies to clothing for TH. I know enough about large consulting firms to know that it’s likely (when he was working) that he wore a suit and tie every day. As my husband dresses similarly for work, I’m wondering: did you purchase a number of reasonably-priced options for him, or spend well on a few high-quality suits to last? If your husband is anything like mine, shirts and ties often need replacing as well. Thoughts?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Dress at Company X is business casual so he needs trousers and button down shirts. He’s been building up a supply over time, mostly from Nordstrom because he wants the slim fit and wrinkle resistant make. He has a large supply of ties from his mission and I don’t see him running out any time soon
We may make some changes in the future, but we haven’t really been avoiding cheap stuff up until this point so it’s not something we’ve had to address until now. I know what changes I want to make in my own life, but I’m not sure what he will do with his. He hasn’t read the book, and what I have read to him hasn’t changed his views in any earth shattering ways. The only change I will be forcing on him is that we won’t be eating shrimp when we go out anymore unless we know where it’s from. The story she told about what large scale shrimp farming has done in Asia made me so sad!
Reply
Just picked up my copy from the library yesterday! Hope I get some time to read this weekend. I’m interested to read and see how much of the discussion not only addresses “consumer goods” and clothes but food.
Reply
2This definitely looks like a book I need to pick up. I to myself get angry at things today because nothing is made to the standard that it should be or once was. We use to build cars to last now we build them to be sold and crushed if involved in a minor fender bender. They are all done with the notion that when it brakes get a new one. But not everyone can afford to do that. When did quality get thrown out the window.
Reply
3This post makes me want to go out and get that book. Living in Europe, I can really appriciate the differneces in views on spending for things such as clothing. I tend to do my shopping while home in the US because clothing and shoes are cheaper there but sometimes so is the quality. How do your Polish family and TH’s friends shop? Is quality or price or brand most important?
@ Allison, as far as the suit thing, my husband is in the same boat - suit and tie daily. It took him some time to build up a work wardrobe. He started with 3 suits, one off the clearance rack from H&M (purchased for interviews) and 2 Ralph Lauren from Macy’s when they had a 2 for $500 deal. 3 years later, he still has those 3 and about 5 more but his shirts are replaced much more frequently. We tend to buy him high quality brand name suits from off price retailers or shop sales and spend about $250 to $400 per suit. He has bought all of his suits but 1 in the US as you can’t touch the same brands (Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Hugo Boss) for those prices here. He breaks ties frequently (the stitching down the back comes out) and often rips shirts which I blame on dry cleaning. He has had a couple of ties fixed at a tailor.
Reply
4For suits, my partner waits til places like Filene’s Basement has their men’s suit sales (once or twice a year) and then gets some expensive suits for around $200. It’s a good way to get the quality without paying the full price.
Reply
5I’m super excited to start this book. I have been drafting a series of blog posts somewhat on this topic and I think it will be a great resource.
Reply
6Page 21, near the bottom, citing Charles McGovern: “Americans ‘came to understand spending as a form of citizenship, an important ritual of national identity in daily life… Americans embraced a material nationalism that placed goods and spending at the center of social life.’”
First, I admit a flash of G.W. Bush in my head, post 9-11.
What are some of the ways “goods and spending [are] at the center of social life” for you? Do you meet girlfriends on shopping dates? Or for a $3 cup of coffee you could make at home for less than half that price? Is date night a shopping trip with your husband/boyfriend/other? (In the last five years, to include before the financial crisis)
Reply
Sophia Reply:
October 22nd, 2010 at 11:38 pm
That’s a good point Andrea- oh how different the expected “citizen’s duty” was after 9/11 and during our two recent wars, as compared to the victory gardens, sacrifice, and volunteerism of WWII. It’s mind boggling how quickly it changed.
Reply
Cristin Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:48 am
On Andrea’s question about “spending at the center of social life” - One of the challenges of urban-living, particularly in the winter, is finding a place to gather with friends that is not bank-breaking. Although not as much about buying “goods,” most of our socializing comes from eating out or meeting for drinks. There’s some going to friends’ homes or having them to our place for meals, but apartments are small and outdoor space scarce.
I’m not a big group shopper though - I prefer to do my shopping alone or at times with my husband.
Reply
Carolyn Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 8:11 am
When I would come home to visit, I usually gain 5 pounds or so, because I go out to eat with a ton of people to ‘catch up’. It’s hard to think things to do that don’t involve spending money and food.
When I first moved back home and didn’t have a job, I tried a bit harder to think of things to do that didn’t require money, because I didn’t have any. I ended up still usually going to lunch or dinner with people, but ordering very little.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I’ve tried really hard, and I can’t think of anything that fits the bill. It sounds so sad to type it out, but in recent years (well, since I got married to TH and he taught me how to budget) I stopped doing any of that extra stuff because I don’t have the money for it, and I don’t like seeing that area next to my name on the spreadsheet go red.
I think that might be in part due to my situation though, that I don’t have a disposable income like women who work? Now that I have a baby the incentive to socialize is even less because I try to split my time between blog/baby/business. Coffee dates really don’t make the cut!
Reply
I thought this book was fabulous, and it definitely relates to my life. For example, the IKEA chairs I purchased have not lasted at all. I’d rather save my money and buy something higher quality. However, I will say that it is difficult to know whether the extra money you’re paying is going to having a brand name item or higher quality.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I bought an Ikea coffee table right before I read the book and I admit I still feel torn. We plan on moving back to Dallas after b-school, and it just seems like it makes more sense for a mobile lifestyle to buy disposable furniture. The desk that I work at all day cost something like $25 with shipping. TH got his for like $40. When you plan on moving around a lot, it just doesn’t seem practical to invest in more expensive pieces because the cost of moving them around is prohibitive.
That said, I am not very interested in shopping at Ikea after finishing the Ikea chapter. I dislike the way they are shrugging their shoulders and saying “Well we are going to sort of give sustainability an effort, and we’re going to do trivial things like eliminate shopping bags (which, hey!, also saves us money!) but when it comes to things that really matter like deforestation we just don’t have the money to take care of it the way we should.”
So I think I’ll be seeking out used pieces or actual craftsman when we move to Dallas and are redecorating again.
Reply
thefirstlady Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Not really related to the book, but I’ve had great luck selling even my cheap furniture when I move, esp in places with lots of students and new grads (like Chicago!). That way at least the items are being reused.
Reply
Carolyn Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
the quality of furniture at IKEA is a real crapshoot. Some of their stuff is actually pretty well made (actual wood, parts that fit together), other stuff seems to fall apart as soon as you get it home.
We bought a dining room table from IKEA a couple of years ago, and it has been absolutely fantastic and sturdy.
When I was in Architecture school, IKEA was our Mecca, because we could actually get interesting furniture there at college student prices. (It also helped that the closest IKEA was about 10 hours away. Sigh, the Midwest.) As I’ve gotten older, I’ve noticed the draw of IKEA has diminished, partly because I’ve lived in cities that have IKEAs and have seen the same IKEA furniture everywhere.
The issue of IKEA’s business practices is a bit hard to take. In America it is so easy to source good quality second-hand furniture from thrift stores, Craigslist and eBay, I find myself turning more to them. However, when we were living in Sydney, Australia, there were very few ways to get second-hand furniture at a reasonable price, we ended up buying more from IKEA.
Reply
I’m only one chapter in this book and disgusted by the “SALE!” emails I get daily from countless clothing companies.
Only days ago I got excited and think that I couldn’t wait for payday so I can buy some cheap stuff. Problem solved! This book reminds me that my thoughts on whole, local, sustainable food should seep into every purchase I make.
Reply
Cristin Reply:
November 8th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Sarah, I’ve also noticed the marketing emails more and more, as well as my own responses. I have historically been enthusiastic about having to buy clothes on sale, therefore the “three day only” sales or even the “one hour only” sales were directing my clothing purchases, rather than my own needs. CHEAP has helped me recognize my responses are exactly what the stores are hoping I will do!
Reply
Carolyn Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 8:12 am
It seems like stores are constantly having sales. I think Macy’s has a sale every other week. Which makes me feel like a chump if I buy things at full price.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
In some ways I’m even more driven to sales, at least at department stores. Why pay so much when I now know they are marking things up like crazy?
So, ideally I would buy everything from craftsman, in a pinch though, I’ll never buy full priced from Macy’s or Nordstrom again!
Reply
What I thought was very interesting about the book was the fact that the discounters buy a lower quality version of a name brand item.
My husband and I wanted to buy Schwinn bikes, but were told Schwinns had really come down in quality. We then went to a bike shop that sold Schwinns, and they told us that Schwinn has two completely different divisions- one that sells to bike shops and one that sells to big box discounters. The bikes sold to the discounters are a much lower quality than the ones sold to the bike shops, to the point that they are entirely different bikes. The problem is, the average consumer just equates a Schwinn is a Schwinn is a Schwinn, not realising that they are very different products depending on where you buy them from. The result is Schwinn has diluted their own brand.
I wonder what other brands have these different divisions and what kind of “deals” I really am getting from discounters, or am I just buying lower quality stuff?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Wow, this is fascinating. An interesting because you would think it would dilute their brand and hurt them in the end? Now you have me wondering what other companies have done this as well.
Reply
Amanda Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 11:15 am
You may not have any need for this particular product
, but I know that Husqvarna chainsaws have done the same thing. The company sells one line of saws to dealers and another line of saws to box stores like Lowes. The model numbers are different and the quality and price are VERY different. I don’t really understand why they would want to bring down the quality of their own brand?
Reply
Sarah for Real Reply:
November 12th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Walmart is famous for selling “name brand” items that are just a lower quality version (crappier items produced specifically to meet that low Walmart standard!).
This practice is literally everywhere. Electronics are another thing to watch. Appliances too. Though I think overall, you only need to worry about more expensive items. Like I think that small OXO kitchen gadgets at Target are the same as the ones in Williams-Sonoma, same as Bed Bath & Beyond.
Reply
Carolyn Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
ooh, there was a website I read a year or so back that exposed how Wal-Mart gets their lower prices- by getting specially packaged goods with less product in them! I think they lady compared diapers she bought at Target and at Wal-Mart, and the Wal-Mart package had LESS diapers in it.
Let’s see if I can find it…
http://swistle.blogspot.com/2009/10/once-again-walmart-charges-me-more.html
Ah, good old gmail (I sent it to someone).
This is just crazy.
Reply
I am about 2/3 through the book and I’m finding it very interesting. However, I’m also feeling a bit hopeless about the whole thing. Especially when it comes to issues like clothing and food. I can avoid buying extra crap I don’t need at Target and Ikea, but what about clothes and food? I’m crossing my fingers that the author will include a section at the end about how to make actual changes.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 11:54 am
I have the same hope.
Reply
Sarah for Real Reply:
November 12th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Me three! I haven’t had time to finish quite yet. Though I can say that Jenna’s (and somewhat my) approach to food is a good example. Buying local is always a great way to avoid Cheap.
I’ve been frustrated with the clothing thing most of all, because I need wearable clothing now. I find “technical” clothing the hardest, like for skiing and running. Those items need to perform. My only answer so far is to choose brands that I know will last forever and then wear them until they are dead or don’t fit (and then donate).
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Yes, after finishing I think this is the way to go. To avoid the attitude that the things I buy are disposable, and to make investments. To realize that I can’t control where the cotton, or needles in the sewing machines, or workers are from and how they are treated. I can do my best to research practices, but I might not be able to find out everything sometimes, you know? Or I might need an item sold from a place that I would rather avoid (although you will see that I commented below on avoiding “sweatshop” countries and how TH still has be feeling torn on that topic)
Did I already tell you about this Sarah? http://www.amazon.com/Better-World-Shopping-Guide-Difference/dp/0865715769
Reply
So what do you all think about the section on cheap food in America? This has become a major focus of my thoughts/attention in the last year or so. Trying to do the best for my child has really led me to analyzing the food we eat and the morals/ethics of eating cheap food. Is it right for me to buy a cheap drug-ridden turkey or it is right for me to buy an expensive drug/hormone free turkey that is locally raised by a real person I’ve met? Aside from any health implications, do morals and ethics count as inputs into your food choices? Is Shrimp-Fest at Red Lobster a moral and ethical choice?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
After reading Eating Animals by Foer, my answer is ABSOLUTELY! I’v stopped eating meat/fish when we go out unless I can be told exactly where it is sourced from.
We are home for Thanksgiving so I can’t control the meal, but when I am in charge of the turkey you can bet I’ll either be going without, or splurging on one of those crazy expensive free-range organic ones (ordered directly from the farmer who raised it).
I am so disgusted by endless shrimp now. I used to work at a restaurant that served endless crab legs and it was disgusting to see how people sutffed themselves with far more cheap, sub-bar, tasteless, frozen crab than should ever be consumed in one sitting.
Reply
A quick comment on the front end: why do these posts go up in the third week of the month previous to the actual book club month, and why are the discussions over by the second week? Is the “month” supposed to be third week to third week?
As to the book - I’m enjoying it, but I’m missing my fiction books. It’s hard to keep reading about all the things that are wrong with our culture. I found the history at the beginning fascinating, and I’m definitely more aware of retail tactics now than I was before, but I wish that there were a section on “What can I do to change things?” Maybe there is, I’m just beginning Chapter 10.
I found the chapters about IKEA and food to be the most compelling — IKEA because I LOVE that store (my husband, MIL, SIL and I all have new Expedit desks) and can wander through the showroom for hours dreaming about how someday, when we’re making more than 10K a year, I’ll decorate my house. Now I’m thinking that I’ll try to draw inspiration from the brilliant “furniture stylists” (is that what you call them?) and source the actual furniture elsewhere.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
I tried to address this is in newest book club post. My goal is to put them up in the beginning so that people can discuss as they read. I often take notes on my iphone and then post all of my questions and thoughts at the end of my reading, but some post as they go through. As long as people don’t uncheck the “notify me” box, you should get people who reply to your comment because they received an email notification! I also put up a reminder post when I finish the book (which will be the end of the month starting in December) and that spurs some discussion as well.
Reply
MrsW Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
I understand, but I think you missed specifically what I asked — the post for the book of November went up in mid October and the discussion was essentially over (until today) by November 15th. Maybe I just don’t have my act together, but I wasn’t even able to pick up the book and start reading it until the 15th!
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
I guess I see it as more of an ongoing discussion than a one-time thing? Though the link isn’t always active on the right side, it’s not difficult to find the post by searching for Cheap in the sidebar or clicking on “book club” in the tags.
It’s pretty unstructured and that’s probably not everyone’s cup of tea. I just like the freedom to have flexible deadlines!
Reply
Professor Schindler points to a woman who got a great deal on a rug and used it to buoy her self-esteem. Do you do this or know anyone that does?
I have felt this pride, and I think it stemmed from my belief that I was “outsmarting” the seller. Now that I’ve read this book I realize that price is so subjective that I wasn’t outsmarting anyone at all!
Reply
14I, Jenna Andersen, will not be what retailers have nicknamed a “destination shopper, wandering aimlessly through the store having lost sight of my original goals.
Who is with me?
Reply
MrsW Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Not me, as long as I can maintain my strict window-shopping-only willpower. I’m very good at looking but not touching, and my husband and I will go on cheap dates to department stores. We wander and leave empty handed, and all we had to spend was the gas to get there! Beats restaurant prices…
Reply
Andrea Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:47 am
I feel like I am with you and with MrsW. The only time I purchase is with an “original goal”. But we do like to go to certain stores and marvel at what is for sale, like The Container Store. I love going just to browse and buy NOTHING! My goal in that case is one of entertainment, not spending money so I am meeting my “goal”.
Reply
I recently listened to a Radio Lab episode that I thought was incredibly relevant to this discussion.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/10/08/130436221/the-friday-podcast-buttons-and-other-connectors
I found it very sad. Either you produce a quality product and go out of business, or you run at this impossible pace trying to out-innovate your competition.
Reply
Carolyn Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I just finished reading ReWork by the guys who started 37 Signals. They have a very different approach to innovation. It’s a very quick read, and very interesting- turns common business knowledge on it’s head a bit.
Reply
I’m curious: After reading the food chapter, is anyone going to change the way they eat? (I of course recommend reading In Defense of Food if you want to know more about this and how to make changes.)
I personally will never, ever, be buying/eating shrimp from Asia again.
Reply
Andrea Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:49 am
This chapter changes nothing for us. However In Defense of Food, The Omnivore’s Dilemma and other research and soul-searching has driven changes in our food consumption that this chapter underlined.
Reply
A common complaint I here for non-fiction is that the author “listed the problems, but didn’t tell me how to change”. I would argue that it isn’t the author’s responsibility to tell you what changes you need to make in your life, that you should use your noggin and take the information presented to you and figure out what changed you need to make.
Join a book club and hash it out with your friends, you know?
Reply
MrsW Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Ok, changes I’m already making:
Make some of my own clothes. And buy/have less clothes. I found out in college that I could go three weeks without having to do laundry and I think that’s reflective of an excessive amount of clothes.
Resist the impulse buy and/or the “But it’s so cheap!” buy. Getting better at this, helped out by the fact that we’re very poor. $2 for this or that cool fun little thing is $2 less that I can be spending on groceries, gas money, or a plane ticket to visit my folks over Christmas.
Recycle/reuse/repair/donate. My FIL is very disposably minded. As in he asked for Chinet for Thanksgiving dinner. In his world, every time you move (which for him is every 5 years) you should just throw all of your stuff away and buy new once you get where you’re going. If something fails on you, curse it, throw it in the corner, and then put it out on the curb. So basically, I try to be the opposite of my FIL in this regard.
Corollary of the above — gift responsibly. This Christmas I’m either making things, buying used, or buying very, very useful things. Bonus points is that this is very cheap.
Growing my own food. So far reliably I have only radishes, basil, and tomatoes, but I’m getting there!
Reply
MrsW Reply:
November 24th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
New comment so I don’t go on forever:
I think the reason in particular here that I wish for guidance on what to do is that economics is one of my slippery subjects. You know, the one discipline/area of study that no matter how hard you try, you never quite understand it?
Also, this is a very big picture type of book. Maybe I am just not very bright, but when it comes to fighting back against global business trends, I have no idea where to start. Then again I am a historian married to a philosopher, so this is not exactly my realm of expertise (see above).
Reply
okay, I’m really curious as to what the book has to say about IKEA-since IKEA is probably in every room of my house!
to the library. hi ho. hi ho.
Reply
19Undoubtedly, this paragraph (it’s long, but I think worth typing up) was the most powerful for me:
Technology, globalization, and deregulation have made competition a death march. Many companies have had no choice but to reduce costs almost continuously. Since payrolls are the single largest expense of most businesses, jobs, benefits, and wages are the obvious places to cut. This manes fewer jobs and even fewer secure, well-paying jobs with benefits, the sort of jobs that Americans once built their lives on and now seems to believe the country can no longer sustain. And there are other places to cut as well: quality, safety, environmental responsibility, and human dignity. As citizens we recognize this “collateral damage”, deplore it, and frequently decry it. But as consumers we habitually downplay and ignore it. We rail against exploitation of low-paid workers in Asia as we drive twenty minutes to the Big Box to save three bucks on tube socks and a dollar on underpants. We fume over the mistreatment of animals by agribusiness but freak out at an uptick in food prices. We lecture our kids on social responsibility and then buy then toys assembled by destitute child works on some far flung foreign shore. Maintaining cognitive dissonance is one way to navigate a world of contradictions, and on an individual basis there’s much to be said for this. But somehow the Age of Cheap has raised cognitive dissonance to a societal norm.
——-
I was hoping that this book would develop a counter argument to TH’s logic when it comes to buying items manufactured in places like China or Vietnam, but no, it didn’t.
In ‘The Double-Headed Dragon’ chapter Shell quotes Ira Kalish, who has the same view as TH. Kalish says “A lot of people crticize the labor standards in places like China as unacceptable, but they have to compare these to the lives migrant workers led before they came to the factories. The point is they are moving one rung up the ladder.”
This has been a really hard pill for me to swallow. Why isn’t it better for us to buy the “fair trade” olive oil where the people from the destitute country were paid more? After finishing the chapter though, TH’s argument (well it is the argument of lots of other smart people too, but I heard it from him first).
Let’s say you have a town in a very, very poor area with an olive oil factory and a tire factory. Everyone gets paid around the same things, with raises coming to those who move up the management chain in each prospective factory of course. The olive oil company gets an offer to sell fair trade products with higher pay. Suddenly working at the olive oil factory means you will have more money than the economy in that area is used to. Those jobs are coveted. Those in charge of hiring can easily become corrupt because everyone is trying to convince them to hire them. This is what TH taught me about why it’s not necessarily better to buy fair trade or to avoid products made in companies like Vietnam or China (where A job is better than NO job). I was hoping that Cheap would have a better argument than TH for this, but no.
Anyone have an argument that will help me have hope again? I get so sad thinking that there isn’t an easy solution. Well, I think the easy solution would be everyone deciding to stop buying cheap products, but that’s never going to happen, and from what TH argues it’s kind of an all or nothing change.
Reply
Grace Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 1:52 am
Actually I think a argument against “fair trade” is that companies are only in the country because it’s cheaper. Having a factory in a marginal country (like Vietnam or China 15 years ago) is hard because 1. good infrastructure is not there (roads are bad, there are frequent power outages, government is corrupt and requires bribing) and 2. the workers aren’t as good. It takes 12 people in sub-Saharan Africa to do the work of one American worker, for instance.
The only reason that Vietnam has factories is that even though it’s harder to run a business there, and the workers are worse, they are cheap enough that the company can still make a profit. If their wages go up significantly, then the company might as well go to a more developed country (like the US) where things are easier.
While this might be good for the US, it would be disastrous for Vietnam, where there would be 1. no jobs and 2. no way for the workers to gain skills, eventually improving themselves to the point where they would actually be worth more. Sweatshops act as a sort of training ground, allowing workers to get better at working in a modern economy and the government to get its infrastructure in better shape. (For example, workers in East Asia have gotten twice as good in the last decade). This is the way that Britain, the US, Japan and now China all got richer.
Requiring poor countries to pay their workers high wages just hurts them (although I suppose if you want to benefit the US worker, this might be a good idea).
Reply
Also, TH and Ira Kalish are right. Conditions in the sweatshops tend to be pretty bad (for instance, the iPhone is made in a massive factory in China where workers are not allowed to leave the factory grounds freely and are forced to work overtime). But living in a peasant village without running water, electricity, medical care or regular meals is way worse. I think most Americans aren’t familiar with what that kind of poverty really means. Remember that 20-40 million Chinese died of famine in the late 1950s.
Reply
Andrea Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:02 am
“Remember that 20-40 million Chinese died of famine in the late 1950s.”
I’m not sure what the starvation of millions due to an abysmally poor government agriculture policy has to do with sweatshops? Is your point that life in peasant China is awful and sweatshops are an “improvement”? I’d be grateful for clarification?? Thanks!
Reply
Carolyn Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
yeah, that’s what I was thinking. China has a long history of a successful agricultural society that was corrupted by the communist influx in the the 1950s (at least that’s my understanding!)
Here’s another point of view:
my sister volunteered for the Peace Corps in a small village in Zambia, and my husband and I went to visit her. While there, we commented on how medieval it seemed. My sister replied that it was, except for there are a ton of 21st century western influences that changes how the things work. For instance, the price of corn, poor Zambians’ primary staple, fluctuates because of western influence, changing their ability to buy seed, etc.
We also asked her if she was ready to come back to America. She really wasn’t. Even though it would be more comfortable, she’d miss the village life. This post from her blog explains it better than I ever could (she’s the writer, not me):
http://keligirl.blogspot.com/2009/07/back-in-usa.html
I think what I am getting at is that we just assume that American life is better, and when it comes to access to food and staying healthy it can be, but there are other ways at looking at what makes a good life.
Reply
Grace Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this: China has a long history of a successful agricultural society that was corrupted by the communist influx in the the 1950s.
It’s true that China was once one of the world’s most prosperous countries, but that was during the 17th century. China in 1949 (Communist takeover) was one of the poorest countries in the world (poorer than sub-Saharan Africa) and had just gone through a devastating 12-year war in which the Japanese killed 7-16 million civilians. China hadn’t had an effective government since the early 19th century. A famine in 1936 killed 5 million Chinese, and one in 1942 killed another 1 million. The Communists were awful, but China’s bad state was not caused by them.
I read your sister’s eloquent post, which was interesting. I understand the appeal of a simpler life. However, she is American and therefore has access to all sorts of resources, which means that her village life is not the village life of a typical Zambian. For example, Zambia has one of the worst rates of death in childbirth in the world (a Zambian woman dies in childbirth every four hours). Women typically don’t have the ability to choose to use contraception, either (husbands decide this), a big problem when 15% of the population has HIV. It’s much easier to appreciate simplicity when you don’t have to suffer its dark side.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
I really enjoyed your sister’s post! It’s funny because the more I read and learn about the world and broaden my viewpoint the more my goals align with the ones she listed at the end of her post.
Reply
Grace Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
The famine in the 1950s (the Great Leap Forward) was actually caused by the Chinese government’s attempt to industrialize their very poor and agricultural country. A huge number of the subsidence peasants were removed from their farms and put into steel factories, where they made unusable and worthless steel (having no training/skills in factory work). Meanwhile, since there was no one to harvest/plant/tend crops, the crops failed, there was a massive food shortage (and they couldn’t trade their worthless steel for food, since no one wanted it), and millions of people starved to death.
But the real reason for the famine was that it took so many people just to grow the bare minimum of food. Today only about 2% of the US population are farmers, yet we have an obesity problem. This is because we have better farming methods and equipment. In a subsidence economy, it is such a struggle to survive at the bare minimum (to make just enough food to eat), that there is no room for anything else (whether that is grand schemes of industrialization or just sending your kids to school).
While sweatshops are horrible, they do mean that poor people have the opportunity to save money for the first time, and hopefully get ahead. There are more resources to go around than there used to be, which means that change can start to happen. Otherwise, you are doomed to a life on the margins, where any sort of minor problem can tip you over into disaster.
Reply
Carolyn Reply:
November 25th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
I readily admit that my knowledge of Chinese history is very patchy, but China DOES have a long history of a successful agricultural society (first patch of history) and DID have major issues with the communist party in the 1950s (second patch of history). My issue is the big gap between those two patches! Sorry if it offended.
Yes, my sister’s own personal experience is different than a Zambian’s. However, I did say that the American way of life can be better because of access to food and healthcare for the very reasons you brought up. While my sister was in Zambia, one of her biggest frustrations was watching her friends and neighbours suffer and/or die from preventable health issues (particularly fistula). It was especially hard for her that as an American volunteer, she would be airlifted to South Africa if she ever had any kind of illness, but her friend in the village with cancer couldn’t even get into the city for treatment. She knew that most of the men in her village had girlfriends in the city, who had several boyfriends, and these men would sometimes bring HIV back to the village and infect their wives. So while she did appreciate the simplicity, it was not without understanding the ‘dark side’ of that society she was in.
What I guess I was trying to get at, though, is that it’s easy to only see the world from my American viewpoint, when there are so many other worldviews as to what is valuable, what is the better good or the lesser evil. I am in agreement with you, then, about industrialisation in emerging countries providing opportunities for people who would not otherwise have any chance.
Reply
Andrea Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Grace, you write so well about the Great Leap Forward taking farming peasants out of the fields and putting them into factory jobs and how no one was farming food, resulting in food shortage and massive starvation. But then you go on to say sweatshops give peasants the opportunity to save money and “hopefully get ahead”. Does it not strike you as a bit of history repeating, but for importation of food from other parts of the world??
Maybe I view it that way because I disagree with what I perceive as the underlying premise of your second paragraph, that the starvation was due to inefficient farming. I’m not sure we have “better farming methods and equipment” so much as we have more efficient farming methods/equipment. Industrial farming in the US is exceptionally efficient, but I would not call it better. The efficient US farming system has lead to recalls of meat, milk, spinach, peanuts and many other foods & food products. I don’t view that is better, especially when people still die from food poisoning.
Absolutely, the efficiency of US farming feeds millions, even to the point of obesity and the host of deadly diseases that result from obesity. And I certainly accept that “in a subsistence economy, it is such a struggle to survive at the bare minimum (to make just enough food to eat), that there is no room for anything else.” However I find it too difficult to accept either extreme as ideal or even acceptable for my family’s support($).
Reply
Grace Reply:
November 26th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
China doesn’t import food but exports it: they grow 26% of the world’s rice, for example. Thanks to modern farming methods, China produces over 3 times as much rice as they did in the late 1950s, even though far fewer people work as farmers (today the majority of Chinese aren’t agricultural workers).
While modern farming methods have problems (as you rightly point out), they produce a huge amount of food with few workers, allowing people to do other tasks on which modern society depends. If we went back to subsidence-type farming, 80-90% of the population would have to farm just to produce enough food: so goodbye to almost all clothes, furniture, houses, medical care, art, roads, etc. since the resources for these things wouldn’t exist.
That is what I don’t like about the premise of Cheap and similar books. Efficiency in production is an amazing achievement, which makes almost everything we all value possible.
Where I think Cheap has a interesting perspective is that you can use the resources created by efficient production in different ways. For example, you can buy fewer, higher-quality goods (instead of lots of cheap, poorly made items), or consume less and give yourself more free time. But both scenarios depend on a modern economy which is great at producing things in the most cost-effective way.
Reply
Andrea Reply:
November 28th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
China may not import yet, but I do think as they continue to industrialize and gain efficiencies in food production, they will actually be driven to import food just like the US does. Check out the attached article from Thursday’s The Globe and Mail about rising food prices, food shortages and the government’s recognition that civil unrest is in the offing if they don’t get food prices under control.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/food-prices-drive-chinas-inflation-rate-to-two-year-high/article1814145/
I agree that Cheap has an interesting perspective. I just do not agree that efficient is always best. I value the meticulous and thoughtful work of a craftsman (including farmers and other deliberate workers) over a product that has a driving value of being efficiently made.
Reply
Grace Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 3:34 am
But you can’t have craftsmen without efficiency.
Making things in a meticulous and thoughtful way takes a lot of resources; that’s why nice, carefully designed things cost so much (or food; heritage turkey costs $8/pound versus $0.40/pound for factory farmed).
Modern production has created considerably more resources, meaning that each person is now much richer than in the past. You can use these new riches to buy heritage turkeys or lots of inexpensive turkey, depending on your values.
Without modern production, these resources wouldn’t exist and you would eat meat a few times a year, if you were lucky (and probably be stunted due to inadequate protein). Craftsmen can’t exist without the resources to pay for them; that’s why really poor places also have very little art and technology (and why all artists used to work for kings or the pope).
The alternative to efficiency is not carefully crafted objects but living in poorly constructed huts on inadequate supplies of carbohydrates. The nice crafts depend on modern technology just as much as cheap turkey does.
Reply
I haven’t read the book as it seems quite US-centric and I’m way behind on my reading list for the year, but I’ve been enjoying the conversation here - and it might get on my list for next year.
Reply
22