5 ms·

>>>Seems a little greedy. Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is wh

>>>Seems a little greedy. Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company? Greed is what keeps prices low, and competition high.

sixthloginorso 13y ago
If they assured me that the extra price goes to ensure a better standard of living and better working conditions for their third-world workers, then yes.
- elohesra 13y ago
  How nice that you can afford to pay extra to ease liberal guilt. Do you think that the poorest in your country can afford to pay extra too? For the relatively monied -- and software developers usually count among that number -- it's easy to argue that companies are too greedy, and that companies shouldn't use exploitative labour. For the lower class, paying extra so that someone in the third world can enjoy a better quality of life isn't an option.
  - jre 13y ago
    It's funny this comes up in an article about Samsung Electronics. They're not exactly in the business of selling essential goods. They basically try to convince you that each year you should get the N+1 TV or smartphone which has more or less the same capabilities as the one before. If you're buying the last Galaxy S4, paying a little more IS an option.
  - sixthloginorso 13y ago
    So you say that multinational corporations shouldn't compete on ethics? I thought you neoliberals didn't chastise anyone with respect to their choices in commerce. Yes, this is systemic. Are you trying to convince me that the situation isn't fucked? For all the claptrap about how the economy isn't a zero-sum game and that the tide lifts all the boats and so many other platitudes, there's no denying that the quality of life of most people in the world is nothing but a point in a gradient of declining living conditions, everyone benefiting from the labor of people with fewer options who have to work and live worse than them. Anyhow, how much do you think it would raise the cost of the things you use, just to ensure safe working conditions at factories? For jeans, it's a paltry 90 cents. http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/07/10/bangladesh-factory-safety http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/07/10/bangladesh-factory-saf... Yes, the poorest in my country would probably have to think twice before spending even 90 cents, hell tell that to the homeless. The vast majority of the poor here probably wouldn't mind, given that it's a mere drop in the sea of debt they are drowning in, and that's a problem with many facets, on its own. But there's quite a lot of room for diminishing the unfairness of this scheme, even if the solution feels even cosmetic at times given the broader problem of exploitation and inequality.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - icebraining 13y ago
      no denying that the quality of life of most people in the world is nothing but a point in a gradient of declining living conditions I won't deny it, but I find it hard to believe. In any case, the poorest are better off, even if the middle class is declining (700M out of extreme poverty in just 20 years).
- gabriel34 13y ago
  Donate the difference.
rayiner 13y ago
> Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company? Yes? I would definitely prefer an America where there is less disposable crap, but more secure and stable domestic jobs for people, and I think most Americans would agree.
Zingles 13y ago
There are a lot of people who do just that, when possible, me included. I always prefer products made in the U.S., but when it comes to tech your choices are reduced greatly. I'm okay with paying a little more if it's more ethical.
krisdol 13y ago
When a company lowers costs, it doesn't cut prices, it increases profits. Luckily cell phones still have some competition, but the TV/Monitor market is price colluded to hell. Higher wages and better benefits benefit the consumer.
- tveita 13y ago
  > the TV/Monitor market is price colluded to hell. How do you figure? TVs are cheaper and bigger than ever - they're practically giving them away. My understanding was that producers are pumping gimmicks like 3d and huge curved screens because there are absolutely no margins left in the commodity TV/monitor market.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Nah, I'm sure ten square feet of delicate electronics crammed with millions of transistors costs pennies to manufacture....
    - anon1385 13y ago
      This seems to be a post implying that price fixing in the electronics industry is unthinkable because electronics are complex to manufacture. The actual history of the industry would indicate that price fixing is common: the LCD[1], RAM[2], optical drives[3][4], GPU[5] and CPU[6] markets have all faced massive scandals involving price fixing or other anti competitive collusion, often resulting in huge fines. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP1P0CBFZssE http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP1P0... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing [3] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9243591/HP_sues_seven_optical_drive_makers_over_price_fixing http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9243591/HP_sues_seven... [4] http://www.pcworld.com/article/240937/hitachilg_data_storage_to_plead_guilty_on_pricefixing.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/240937/hitachilg_data_storage... [5] http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/28/nvidia-details-settlement-for-price-fixing-fiasco/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/28/nvidia-details-settlement... [6] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete....
sanderjd 13y ago
> Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company? Well, yes actually, if the higher cost of those products buys me something that I believe to be worthwhile. There's a whole bunch of stuff I am willing to pay more for, higher quality, better customer service, local ownership or representation, good labor practices, environmental concern, and on and on. I hate this idea that somehow price is the only thing that companies can compete on.
- seabee 13y ago
  It should only require a small shift in the thinking of armchair economists that companies compete on value, of which price is one aspect of varying importance. The continued existence of branded/premium commodity items and luxury goods is sufficient proof of that.
humanrebar 13y ago
> Greed is what keeps prices low, and competition high. I'd replace "prices low" with "value per dollar high" or "efficiency high". Most of the replies to your comment complain about cheap products or claim higher prices are better if they come with particular outcomes. To be fair, they have a point. However, the average commenter here doesn't have to choose between buying new work clothes and eating meat this month, so you have a point as well. So I'd generalize the sentiment to value per dollar or something similar.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
edwinnathaniel 13y ago
I thought greed is what doomed us according to history is it not? US economic crisis is one glaring example. Wasteland is next. Obesity comes into mind as well which means health budget goes to the moon that force higher tax. In the end, greed will bite you back.

sixthloginorso 13y ago

If they assured me that the extra price goes to ensure a better standard of living and better working conditions for their third-world workers, then yes.

elohesra 13y ago
How nice that you can afford to pay extra to ease liberal guilt. Do you think that the poorest in your country can afford to pay extra too? For the relatively monied -- and software developers usually count among that number -- it's easy to argue that companies are too greedy, and that companies shouldn't use exploitative labour. For the lower class, paying extra so that someone in the third world can enjoy a better quality of life isn't an option.
- jre 13y ago
  It's funny this comes up in an article about Samsung Electronics. They're not exactly in the business of selling essential goods. They basically try to convince you that each year you should get the N+1 TV or smartphone which has more or less the same capabilities as the one before. If you're buying the last Galaxy S4, paying a little more IS an option.
- sixthloginorso 13y ago
  So you say that multinational corporations shouldn't compete on ethics? I thought you neoliberals didn't chastise anyone with respect to their choices in commerce. Yes, this is systemic. Are you trying to convince me that the situation isn't fucked? For all the claptrap about how the economy isn't a zero-sum game and that the tide lifts all the boats and so many other platitudes, there's no denying that the quality of life of most people in the world is nothing but a point in a gradient of declining living conditions, everyone benefiting from the labor of people with fewer options who have to work and live worse than them. Anyhow, how much do you think it would raise the cost of the things you use, just to ensure safe working conditions at factories? For jeans, it's a paltry 90 cents. http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/07/10/bangladesh-factory-safety http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/07/10/bangladesh-factory-saf... Yes, the poorest in my country would probably have to think twice before spending even 90 cents, hell tell that to the homeless. The vast majority of the poor here probably wouldn't mind, given that it's a mere drop in the sea of debt they are drowning in, and that's a problem with many facets, on its own. But there's quite a lot of room for diminishing the unfairness of this scheme, even if the solution feels even cosmetic at times given the broader problem of exploitation and inequality.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 13y ago
    no denying that the quality of life of most people in the world is nothing but a point in a gradient of declining living conditions I won't deny it, but I find it hard to believe. In any case, the poorest are better off, even if the middle class is declining (700M out of extreme poverty in just 20 years).
gabriel34 13y ago
Donate the difference.

rayiner 13y ago

> Which actually benefits us as the consumer. Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company? Yes? I would definitely prefer an America where there is less disposable crap, but more secure and stable domestic jobs for people, and I think most Americans would agree.

Zingles 13y ago

There are a lot of people who do just that, when possible, me included. I always prefer products made in the U.S., but when it comes to tech your choices are reduced greatly. I'm okay with paying a little more if it's more ethical.

krisdol 13y ago

When a company lowers costs, it doesn't cut prices, it increases profits. Luckily cell phones still have some competition, but the TV/Monitor market is price colluded to hell. Higher wages and better benefits benefit the consumer.

tveita 13y ago
> the TV/Monitor market is price colluded to hell. How do you figure? TVs are cheaper and bigger than ever - they're practically giving them away. My understanding was that producers are pumping gimmicks like 3d and huge curved screens because there are absolutely no margins left in the commodity TV/monitor market.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Nah, I'm sure ten square feet of delicate electronics crammed with millions of transistors costs pennies to manufacture....
  - anon1385 13y ago
    This seems to be a post implying that price fixing in the electronics industry is unthinkable because electronics are complex to manufacture. The actual history of the industry would indicate that price fixing is common: the LCD[1], RAM[2], optical drives[3][4], GPU[5] and CPU[6] markets have all faced massive scandals involving price fixing or other anti competitive collusion, often resulting in huge fines. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP1P0CBFZssE http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP1P0... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing [3] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9243591/HP_sues_seven_optical_drive_makers_over_price_fixing http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9243591/HP_sues_seven... [4] http://www.pcworld.com/article/240937/hitachilg_data_storage_to_plead_guilty_on_pricefixing.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/240937/hitachilg_data_storage... [5] http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/28/nvidia-details-settlement-for-price-fixing-fiasco/ http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/28/nvidia-details-settlement... [6] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14compete....

sanderjd 13y ago

> Would you prefer a less greedy corporation that goes where the most expensive labor is which then increases the cost of production which then increases the cost of the products you buy from said company? Well, yes actually, if the higher cost of those products buys me something that I believe to be worthwhile. There's a whole bunch of stuff I am willing to pay more for, higher quality, better customer service, local ownership or representation, good labor practices, environmental concern, and on and on. I hate this idea that somehow price is the only thing that companies can compete on.

seabee 13y ago
It should only require a small shift in the thinking of armchair economists that companies compete on value, of which price is one aspect of varying importance. The continued existence of branded/premium commodity items and luxury goods is sufficient proof of that.

humanrebar 13y ago

> Greed is what keeps prices low, and competition high. I'd replace "prices low" with "value per dollar high" or "efficiency high". Most of the replies to your comment complain about cheap products or claim higher prices are better if they come with particular outcomes. To be fair, they have a point. However, the average commenter here doesn't have to choose between buying new work clothes and eating meat this month, so you have a point as well. So I'd generalize the sentiment to value per dollar or something similar.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

edwinnathaniel 13y ago

I thought greed is what doomed us according to history is it not? US economic crisis is one glaring example. Wasteland is next. Obesity comes into mind as well which means health budget goes to the moon that force higher tax. In the end, greed will bite you back.